Supply and Health command posts...why not Damage and speed ones aswell?

(dell) #1

Title says it all

(Dragnerok X) #2

I’m guessing that it’s due to the fact that people have more than enough objectives to deal with as it is and adding two more would detract too much from the primary objective (with the possible exception of operatives devoted to this role).

(VG_JUNKY) #3

What he said :rolleyes:

(BioSnark) #4

Imagine how crazy Brink would be if all the cp’s were capturable spawns for both teams :slight_smile:

/off topic

(Stormchild) #5

[QUOTE=BioSnark;378043]Imagine how crazy Brink would be if all the cp’s were capturable spawns for both teams :slight_smile:

/off topic[/QUOTE]

Would probably mean maps to be reworked, and also a way to select spawn site (since there is no level ‘map’ like in ETQW)

As for op, I think damage is already enough (+engies). Speed on the other hand, would be nice !

(Exedore) #6

We originally had damage, but it got a bit crazy with that and level 2 Engineer damage buffs.

(L00fah) #7

Which makes sense… But why not capturable spawn points? I always wondered that, myself.

(jazevec) #8

Speed/damage command posts sound like they would matter. Teamplay would also be important, protecting command post etc. Instead there’s engineer buff which is used by engineer on himself 90% of the cases.

(.Chris.) #9

Too complicated, I guess they didn’t want people fiddling around with selecting between spawns in the limbo menu and such.

(NotARelevantTarget) #10

How about CPs that increase your team’s supply recharge rate? I’d like that, more so if it was implemented as a potential flavour (alongside health & supply) for existing CPs rather than adding new CPs.

(.Chris.) #11

I agree. +chars

(tokamak) #12

It would also completely destroy the already tiny maps.

(.Chris.) #13

Well yeah, but I think the decision to not have forward spawns came before the maps were planned.

(montheponies) #14

hmm, not really - there are some that would work without any modifications - shipyard comes to mind…basically either of the two posts would make the attack a much more realistic prospect - but you make maybe only one of them spawnable. on the secondary objective, you would again cut downon the ‘spawn to objective’ time significantly - balancing the map into the bargain…other maps it might not work as well, but then not every map has to have it as feature.

as for too complicated, you could readily have two boxes for selecting spawn, the default and the forward spawn - not like we’re talking about a raft of choices - as you had with Beach on rtcw :slight_smile:

(INF3RN0) #15

Offensively capturable spawns would have worked in Brink if placed in the middle-ground areas of the map you would have to run through to get to the action. Offensive spawns make the battle less stagnant as the defense is actually motivated to push out more often rather than camp the 2 tiny door ways that lead into the objective room. I still think that the majority of map designs in Brink are much too cramped and lack where the past games got it right. I always felt that the first two objectives on ETQW Volcano are the best demonstration of how an essentially enclosed objective can take the smaller spaces and deal with them perfectly in terms of map design;lots of doors/windows/halls that encourage wide spread crossfire teamwork, as well as a variety of different strategies regarding the “best” defensive locations.

(Exedore) #16

I’m surprised I’ve not said this before… but yes, you’re right, capturable spawn points ended up making the levels much bigger than we wanted. An early version of Shipyard featured one. It also would’ve meant a spawn selection interface, and UI was already one of our most overtaxed areas.

We thought about Supply recharge, but one of the problem is that the buffs the CPs give aren’t clear as-is, and that would muddy the waters even more.

(wolfnemesis75) #17

Interesting idea. I can also see why it’s not in the game.

(INF3RN0) #18

I think they weren’t put in because for some reason a handful of people liked to complain about forward spawn campers ruining the game (selfishly and not at all in any coherent manner), even though it added a huge strategical element to the game as well as many other pros. Most of the cons leading to a lot of the changes in Brink are really catered to the ‘wants’ of selfish cry babies that had a sub-standard understanding/ability to handle a complex challenging game. If there was a more complicated reason behind the removal of forward spawns though, I would like the SD explanation if it hasn’t already been given.

(VG_JUNKY) #19

@INF3RNO
trust me ur not gonna get it…
*sigh how sad :frowning:
/on topic
i like the idea of speed cp, but extra damage would be overwhelmingly OP alongside the engie buffs