Splash Damage - You better not do this!

(brbrbr) #41

investments of gamers will/can balance each others.
its like saying “you buying MW2 will unbalance my BF2 gaming experience”.
keeping in mind, that Brink have little different gaming concept, than other online shooters, including [other]team/gameplay-based, ones, i see no problem here.
because Brink is already closer to MMO RPG, than others.

p.s.
concerns about impact on gameplay or other things are important, of course.
but i keep faith that SD team keep things in reasonable borders.
just croff fingers before Brink release/sales.

(Apples) #42

I dont see how having a lvl 8 gun from the beginning should imbalance the stuffs as they clearly stated that the weapon wont be more powerfull in the late stages :wink: (I hope they didnt lie there tho…)

Anyway I may be a bit extreme but to me everything regarding shooting should be open to everyone from the beginning, including red dots, scope and ofc all guns. I know its not BC2 but the 12X scope in this game or the red dot were ridiculously overpowered (12X makes you a godlike longrange bushwookie, red dot void the fact that some weapons were harder to aim with, I think the M60 here), not to talk about some guns like the M16, M60 or AN94, oh and of course the infamous Carl gustav alone which were ridiculously OP and needed a nerf (which happened to late as many people already padded like hell with these weapons).

The upgrade should be limited to fancy stuff only IMO, even if they are good at balancing I’m sure there will be one overpowered weapon, even slightly, and people will whore this weapon till a patch. Hope I’m wrong tho…

Peace

(tokamak) #43

[QUOTE=Sir Undead;243877]Regardless, I think extra stuff should be limited to vanity. Or, at most, a jump on other people.

“You bought the special one, now you can use this before everyone who didn’t buy the special one.”, or, like Battlefield Bad Company 2 I think it was, pre-ordering meant that you didn’t have to rank up for a couple items. I think that’s acceptable.

But it should never be like “You didn’t buy the special one, YOU WILL NEVER SEE THIS ITEM WITHIN YOUR GRASP.”[/QUOTE]

Yeah not much of a problem with giving them a headstart. No big deal.

(DouglasDanger) #44

I’ve heard the pre-order weapons are skins, with stats identical to weapons already in the game. The huge revolver that comes with the Amazon pre-order (which I am doing, because I pre-ordered Fallout NV from Amazon for the $10 games only giftcard) is supposed to just be a different skin, last I heard. So it probably has stats identical to the revolver in the trailer, it just looks different.

(tokamak) #45

That’s what I expect it to be.

(light_sh4v0r) #46

source?

+chars

(H0RSE) #47

From what I gathered, they are offering new weapons AND skins - not necessarily one in the same. Of course, it’s not actually the new weapons that are the problem, it’s that we don’t know what the stats of them are. Even if they are are completely new, stats and all, I really don’t see a concern to complain about “unbalance” or “advantage.”

(SockDog) #48

Prefer the long game Valve plays with it’s DLC. Keep people playing, keep the community alive and sales trickling in. Better in their eyes I expect to sell a new copy of L4D2 than fragment the existing community with a paid for DLC.

As users if you feel the need to reward developers/publishers for their DLC the answer is very simple. You encourage your friends to buy the game or you gift a copy of the game to someone. That way money in the pocket of the dev/pub without rewarding a charge for DLC.

RE: Exclusive content for preorders/collectors editions/dlc. Anything beyond cosmetics is too far and will make me seriously reconsider my support for a company in the future.

(KAS--Will) #49

Aside from the preorder packages, you shouldn’t be to concerned about any of that. :stuck_out_tongue:

(General_Zod) #50

As others say, if they are actually different weapons then that can potentially skew game balance, but the other thing that bothers me are permanent unlockables (a la TF2).

I think SD xp system used in ET and ETQW is perfect. Each and every time I play it’s a level playing field.

It shouldn’t matter if I have time to play every day or don’t have time to play for a month. I don’t want to come back to a game and feel everyone has more ‘toys’ than I do. And I say toys as I really can’t stand this crap (ruined TF2 but that was always a spam fest), but if I’m busy and then launch a game and the dedicated players have things I don’t have not by necessarily being better than me, but by simply putting in more time, well this leads to skewed gameplay balance.

I really hope it doesn’t turn out this way.

(BioSnark) #51

Solidifies the position of leading team and players over a campaign. Not a fan.

(General_Zod) #52

“Solidifies the position of leading team and players over a campaign. Not a fan.”

eh? So how doesn’t permanent upgrades not exacerbate the situation further?

(potkettleblack) #53

[QUOTE=General Zod;244512]“Solidifies the position of leading team and players over a campaign. Not a fan.”

eh? So how doesn’t permanent upgrades not exacerbate the situation further?[/QUOTE]

Well in Brink you get the choice in playing people who are of similar rank.
They will have the same toys as you. :wink:

However you can also opt to play against higher ranked players if you so choose to.

(brbrbr) #54

yep, its kinda like what Blizzard does with SC2 ranking systems but with [partially]manual control.

p.s.
some armies invest [ridiculously]MORE[than others] in equipment.
WHY should rest armies complain “thats UNFAIR!!” in battle ?
they should do that BEFORE or better - Evade this situation. and/or war[in such case].
thats why i don’t get why anyone should care about someone else investments in game. otherwise than investing too.

(BioSnark) #55

You said it was perfect. I said it wasn’t. I did not claim permanence was better.

However, it may well be better (by which I am referring to balance) if the level cap is easily reached (guild wars/whatever pkb said). The problem with SD’s campaign upgrades was that they were hugely unbalanced.

(Mad Hatter) #56

Well, starting every match as default soldier #4 would take away a ton of customization options, which is one of Brink’s biggest selling points. Not only with the guns, but with the abilities as well. The only thing we’d get to customize would be our appearance.

Besides, as long as the guns and abilities are balanced, then it won’t matter if people have more toys than you, as long as they don’t have better toys, see? Your toys will be just as good as all the other toys.

(tokamak) #57

That’s not true, there’s value in having more options than others, even if the other options aren’t more powerful on their own.

(H0RSE) #58

So player 1, who didn’t pre-order, can choose between the pistol, the shotgun and the assault rifle. But player 2, who did pre-order, can choose from the pistol, the shotgun, the assault rifle and a dried turd on a stick, which has the lowest stats overall.

Yes, I can see where player 2 has a distinct advantage…

(tokamak) #59

I’m talking about equal choices. If the rifle has actually lower stats than anything else then I’m fine with it.

(LyndonL) #60

Guys are getting hung up on this stuff again. Harden up! It’s been said that you won’t unlock everything on one playthrough, but you will unlock a hell of a lot. That means a few days play and you should have pretty much all you need if you don’t play regularly.