Reasoning behind leveling up in Brink

(SockDog) #21

I don’t to see where grind and predictability makes for fun and depth. Nor do I see where playing a map with intentionally incomplete weapons/upgrades/tools just so you can earn them later is giving me more game, seems more like I miss out on a map due to grind.

The system you’re defending encourages reliance on XP generation rather than objective completion. It also takes zero consideration into account for team balance and so generally makes a strong team stronger.

I’ll admit I’m kinda plucking here from the ETQW style of upgrading based on XP. As you say Brink may be totally different.

And randomness is evil! If I remember correctly unlockable items like hats in TF2 dropped randomly as well in the beginning. It got quickly changed as too many kittens were killed.

Well Tok is saying it’s random not me. I just said that the in game drops should be overseen by the game not some arbitrary number to reach. It would also mean the whole team can benefit not just a single player (although I know it’s been mentioned you can buff other players). If your team is working well, you have less need for say extra armour so it’ll be harder to earn. In L4D the system works well and evens out the spikes and troughs of difficulty.

(darthmob) #22

Upgrades in L4D are obviously meant to help the survivors. So which team gets them in Brink? When it comes to these things it doesn’t matter if it works randomly or not; if the player can’t predict how it works it’s a touchy subject. Take the Quad Damage in Quake games as an example. It can be devastatingly powerful but everyone not completely new to the game knows when it spawns which makes it fair and even again. If you give an advantage to one team based on a number of conditions it’s likely to result in a lot of whine.

There have been some hints at what bonuses commandposts can give the team. Something like shorter respawn times or more time added to the map. That sounds a lot more reasonable. You can predict what will happen when you construct the CP and the enemy team can counter it by destroying it or keeping you away from it.

I do agree though that grinding is awful. I hope the progression in Brink comes naturally while playing it. The more you play the more stuff you get to try out without feeling the need to waste hours just to get a specific unlock because it is no fun without it. “Just 5000 xp more until I get rid of that useless gun that doesn’t do any damage and because of which I lose every 1on1” definitely is the wrong approach to character progression (yet it gets used in games like CoD :/).

(tokamak) #23

You know it damn well you’re just being a drama queen.
Unlocking weapons through earning xp means the being an effective asset to the team will give you rewards faster. The maps can be played with the starter kit so nothing is being incomplete. That bullshit argument would be even better for your simpleton system of scouring the maps for power ups as chances are you never find what you need.

Oh right a superconciousness AI scans your behaviour and reads your mind to see what you want and then drops it at your feed “TADA”.

(SockDog) #24

Well I’d say both teams get them, the degree would depend on how they are performing.

When it comes to these things it doesn’t matter if it works randomly or not; if the player can’t predict how it works it’s a touchy subject. Take the Quad Damage in Quake games as an example. It can be devastatingly powerful but everyone not completely new to the game knows when it spawns which makes it fair and even again. If you give an advantage to one team based on a number of conditions it’s likely to result in a lot of whine.

Sure I can accept it’s a touchy subject but then changes from the norm usually are, granted the whine brigade will be at full tilt either way “wahh nothing new here” and “wahh this isn’t like <insert game>”.

Fair point on the predictability but that isn’t really my intention to remove that, it’s more to remove the necessity to grind and rewarding stronger teams, who can grind more, by making them even stronger.

Also on the subject of predictability, the existing earning XP to upgrade system isn’t predictable for the other team, it isn’t even something they can necessarily counter directly. If you wanted something predictable you’d do it like quake and upgrade everyone at a set time on the map. Regardless, if you want that element of predictability couldn’t you just have a dynamic scale and pass that information back to the user.

There have been some hints at what bonuses commandposts can give the team. Something like shorter respawn times or more time added to the map. That sounds a lot more reasonable. You can predict what will happen when you construct the CP and the enemy team can counter it by destroying it or keeping you away from it.

But again this rewards the stronger teams. I’m not saying swing the balance totally the other way but making a 5 minute game into 10-15 by buffing the weaker team sound like more fun to me.

Perhaps a combination of all these systems would work better than just one alone.

(SockDog) #25

[quote=tokamak;214292]You know it damn well you’re just being a drama queen.
Unlocking weapons through earning xp means the being an effective asset to the team will give you rewards faster. The maps can be played with the starter kit so nothing is being incomplete. That bullshit argument would be even better for your simpleton system of scouring the maps for power ups as chances are you never find what you need.[/quote]

Dude you’re the one dropping sulky, incorrect and trite one liners because as usual, if the system suits you just fine, anyone who suggests something different must be wrong.

Your argument contradicts itself. If you don’t NEED anything why do you NEED the rewards faster? Oh yeah, because they give you an advantage, which means the starter kit IS incomplete.

And again, your effectiveness is reliant upon the entire XP system not being exploitable in a non effective asset way.

Oh right a superconciousness AI scans your behaviour and reads your mind to see what you want and then drops it at your feed “TADA”.

Along with the location randomness please note I’ve never said the system would define exactly what you got only when or if you got it depending on how the whole team’s performance.

(PSG_Mud) #26

Pretty sure the Brink team already said somewhere stock weapons will always be superior. Tools are just tools, they may help you win, but they’re just gimmicks and easily counterable.

(tokamak) #27

[QUOTE=SockDog;214303]Dude you’re the one dropping sulky, incorrect and trite one liners because as usual, if the system suits you just fine, anyone who suggests something different must be wrong.

Your argument contradicts itself. If you don’t NEED anything why do you NEED the rewards faster? Oh yeah, because they give you an advantage, which means the starter kit IS incomplete.[/QUOTE]

Right in that way, you just want all players to be bland clones of each other.

And again, your effectiveness is reliant upon the entire XP system not being exploitable in a non effective asset way.

Yes definitely. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

Along with the location randomness please note I’ve never said the system would define exactly what you got only when or if you got it depending on how the whole team’s performance.

You clearly haven’t thought a second about the sheer complexity of such a system, mind you you’re not allowed to judge the performance by people’s xp, because that’s what you want to get rid off.

(darthmob) #28

[QUOTE=SockDog;214301]Fair point on the predictability but that isn’t really my intention to remove that, it’s more to remove the necessity to grind and rewarding stronger teams, who can grind more, by making them even stronger.

Also on the subject of predictability, the existing earning XP to upgrade system isn’t predictable for the other team, it isn’t even something they can necessarily counter directly. If you wanted something predictable you’d do it like quake and upgrade everyone at a set time on the map. Regardless, if you want that element of predictability couldn’t you just have a dynamic scale and pass that information back to the user. [/QUOTE]I don’t really get what you mean with grinding teams. Matchmaking is supposed to put players of the same level together. Do you mean that on regular servers you’ll have one team consisting only of newbs and the other being only veterans? A shuffle may help with that. Buffing the weaker team most likely won’t help as the skilled player will always defeat the newb.

The existing upgrade system doesn’t have that much of an influence on balance in my opinion. The dynamic scale reminds me a bit of Army of Two. There’s a meter on top of the screen showing how much attention one of the two players has got by the enemies. Having something like that in Brink would basically show who sucks more. Doesn’t sound right to me. :slight_smile:

(SockDog) #29

Nobody wants to remove your ability to play dress up. In fact I’ve not suggested to remove anything. I’ve talking about the method of distribution.

Yes definitely. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

Well you wouldn’t because you think the XP system should function flawlessly. I guess SD will be blamed for screwing it up when people find the path of least resistance isn’t necessarily the one with the most contribution to the team.

You clearly haven’t thought a second about the sheer complexity of such a system, mind you you’re not allowed to judge the performance by people’s xp, because that’s what you want to get rid off.

On a simplistic scale the team’s success or failure to hold objectives against a timescale would be a quick measure. Yes you could get a lot more complicated but it’s hardly like L4D doesn’t do it already.

(SockDog) #30

I don’t really have much faith in matchmaking but if it works you’re right we’ll see some more balanced matches there. I’m all for that.

But how often did shuffles work in ETQW? Even after a 5 minute match people would F2 shuffle votes and refuse to move teams.

True it might not have a great impact but then looking at it from the other angle, what does it hurt if you try anyway? I certainly wonder how it would play to give the weaker team an airstrike ability to aid a weak defense compared to given the already strong team extra armour.

The existing upgrade system doesn’t have that much of an influence on balance in my opinion. The dynamic scale reminds me a bit of Army of Two. There’s a meter on top of the screen showing how much attention one of the two players has got by the enemies. Having something like that in Brink would basically show who sucks more. Doesn’t sound right to me. :slight_smile:

You’re probably right. I’m just throwing out some ideas, mix things up a little, see if there can be a change to the norm that the peons won’t flip out about. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss it.

Regarding the scale though, flip it on its head and we just know which individuals don’t suck. :slight_smile:

(Apples) #31

I’ll be clear and concise here:

  • Shiny permanent upgrades = ad depth to the game and will bring more ppl into it --> good
  • Unlockable weapon thru campaign = reward good player/team player --> an obligation
  • Unlockable permanent weapons or usefull gadget (ala BField) = reward time played and not good/team player = ultra bad

Peace

(DarkangelUK) #32

Kinda pointless debate when we know for a fact progressive XP and unlocks are 100% confirmed? I very much doubt any amount of ‘debate’ will make them remove it so far into development. They’ve done the no XP, the XP per campaign thing, now they’re trying the accumulative XP thing. Let them do what they want, if they get it wrong, fine, they’ll know that for next game, if they get it right… fantastic for us! At the end of the day, i’d rather they tried and mixed things up rather be the boring same ole same ole’s that do the same thing over and over… how bland.

(tokamak) #33

Sure but in that way there are many rearguard fights on this forum. I hope nobody is under the illusion that these kind of talks will change the developer’s plan, certainly not what’s one of the core principles of the game.

But don’t let us stop that from discussing it. It’s always interesting to hear what people think is their perfect shooter.
http://splashdamage.com/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=214339

I wasn’t talking cosmetics. I was talking about the in-game effects of varied players. Hussling ‘perks’ up like that turns both team into a bland mix of whatevers instead of a team of specialists who play the role they’ve chosen to work on in the long term.

(Apples) #34

We have all rights to express our opinions, even if it wont change anything, the point of a forum is to get ppl discuss about things, not just to read what stuffs developers tell us.

Peace

(Xerxes52) #35

[QUOTE=darthmob;214232]Unlocks can be a good thing and I do hope it will be done right in Brink.

Things to do wrong (apply to Battlefield or Call of Duty):
- unlockable weapons and gear are ridiculously better than the stock ones

  • you have to play a certain weapon / class to get a specific unlock
  • it takes a million hours of gameplay to unlock something[/QUOTE]

I agree 100% with the bolded points.

(SockDog) #36

[quote=DarkangelUK;214333]Kinda pointless debate when we know for a fact progressive XP and unlocks are 100% confirmed?

…

At the end of the day, i’d rather they tried and mixed things up rather be the boring same ole same ole’s that do the same thing over and over… how bland.[/quote]

You’re right I doubt they’re making any dramatic changes about anything but that doesn’t hurt kicking around some ideas. It might ignite some ideas on smaller issues they have and it’s always nice to do a little brainstorming even if it’s a bit one sided at times.

That’s all I’m trying to say, approach the whole thing from a different angle rather than just take the XP system and build more and more on top of it.

And I haven’t said anything that would make everyone the same, just like I didn’t say random drop locations. You’d still have the choices they’d just be presented more or less frequently so as not to be the sole focus of the game.

(DarkangelUK) #37

[QUOTE=Apples;214349]being an ass on purpose is kinda bland too, but it doesnt stop you does it?

We have all rights to express our opinions, even if it wont change anything, the point of a forum is to get ppl discuss about things, not just to read what stuffs developers tell us.

Peace[/QUOTE]

Sure, coming from the blatant nonce (on here and on IRC) that has the depth of thought process of a 2" deep swimming pool with a highdive board. Discuss is fine, argue about nonsensical stuff that won’t get changed and has only been seen in text form is pointless… unless you haven’t seen the other 10+ page threads that repeat the same stuff back and forward without getting anywhere.

Oh and DIAF pls

(Salteh) #38

Let’s be civil now gents :slight_smile:

(INF3RN0) #39

I think the bigger picture is to take what works and what people like and to improve on it. Adding in new ideas, story lines, game play elements, etc helps to keep things fresh, but there are good reasons behind giving feedback so that a company doesn’t completely bomb a game because they are confused about what people want or what needs to be changed (ie dumping much of the most popular parts). If a good game is approached in that way, you get the end of the Wolfenstein franchise. Regarding Brink thus far, and I think many would agree (just due to the lack of solid info atm), is that SD looked at every recently successful gaming title and combined elements from them in order to guarantee interest from all the fans of those games. A smart move on their part, and an indirect form of marketing as well (bigger initial player base hopefully). What has many people concerned is that they might be trying to mimic these games to a point where certain elements may prove to be incompatible and have the potential to cause more harm than good. I know that SD is in a situation to deliver something good and that they have a solid plan for this game; I don’t mind if its got a lot of new concepts (as long as they work). In regards to the inclusion of ideas from previous franchises such as QW, I hope that they did not only focus on feedback from the long-term fans, but also took into consideration the reasons why people didn’t buy the game in the first place or simply stopped playing. Wolf ET–> QW obviously gave some insight to things that worked and did not, and SD has acknowledged much of this. A lot of the time gamers give attention to the least important areas of a game when giving feedback or ideas, which tend to result in feel good/look good perks. If you want something that will be a winner, make sure its fun, challenging, and has a system that works over the long-term (I don’t care how it looks, how many cool awards I can get, how easy it is, etc… as long as it WORKS). I am just hoping that by the time the game comes out, it won’t just be another temporary thrill for the casual console gamer (think COD), but rather something that will hold interest and last for more than a year; communities that only experience constant player base replacements go no where.

(Qhullu) #40

that sounds better than the system in bfbc2. but i’m not completely sold on that idea either, i mean there’s not that much difference in how people aim, move the mouse to put/keep the crosshair over the enemy while moving in a way to make them doing the same to you as hard as possible. i love it when the player models are designed in a way that makes it easy to see subtle differences in where your enemy is aiming. anyways, for machineguns, things boil down to accuracy, damage per second (rate of fire, damage per bullet, how fast/wide spread grows when you shoot) and reload speed (but if you need to reload mid fight you’re doing something wrong and should just switch to another gun(autoreload=0 plz btw), so unless it’s something ridiculous, reload speed doesn’t really matter, same goes for clip size unless they are ridiculously small). and if you’re good at aiming, accuracy is what you want over dps, but unless the difference between the guns are minute enough to be neglible, there is the danger of making the accurate gun feel powerless, and the powerful gun feel inaccurate. which might make it feel like there’s something wrong with both of them as opposed to make it feel like they are both awesome in their own way.

but i still don’t understand what makes giving people stuff over time a better choice than giving all the stuff to everyone from the beginning, other than some people might get confused when given too many choices at once. unless the time it takes to unlock everything is so short that it makes no real difference anyway. (like in et, most of the time you max out a class in a few maps so it’s not really something that matters)