TDM/CTF/FFA a must Have!

(DarkangelUK) #61

As much as I respect your view, please don’t do that… it’s annoying and a little self centred. You have an opinion that differs from mine, and nothing has been proven (even tangentially) except for the fact that we both have an opinion that differs :slight_smile:

(Oschino1907) #62

I guess my idea sucked then, lol everyone is too busy argueing to just try and find a good common ground where everyone can be happy. thought i put out a decent concept to work from in above post.

(SphereCow) #63

Adding two things to composite a whole is by definition change. I never claimed you were changing the objective mode by adding CTF/TDM and FFA to it. From the start, I said you were changing Brink.. And by consequence, you change any sequel to Brink, or W:ET, or ET:QW, because once SD draws in that market the money will rule it.

Uh, no. It’s not against “morals”, just a step in the direction of every other shooter ever, when the game was clearly designed to do something different. You seem to think that the only way to improve the game and draw in more players is to do the things that everyone else does, rather than improving on the focus or delivery of the idea. What I would have done to reign in more players is create, like a said, dynamic objectives, and a non-linear campaign, rather than including something like highly customizable characters, that would inevitably encounter the female/male issue.

I never had the illusion that it was singleplayer or multiplayer. It’s not a contrived SP story, and it’s not CTF/TDM/FFA. It’s a combination of the necessary elements of both, because that is what was advertised.

Also, never said new gametypes are a lost cause, just a waste of time.

I’ll put an effort behind it, but you’re going to have to put an effort behind explaining how adding two things that are entirely different, and how trying to cater to a larger audience does not render your original idea corrupt.

(Bakercompany) #64

To respond to one previous post, I very much want PC guys to have the SDK. Sometimes really brilliant player-made goodies make there way to the consoles =D

To respond to another post about how generic game modes would work in Brink.

TDM - Could either be based on lives, or an XP race (more likely). I for one think the version of TDM for Brink would be an XP race as damage xp is calculated on a point for point basis. Given the correct set of maps it could actually be a lot of fun with the various classes working overtime to do their jobs.

CTF - Hack or Engineer open a safe to retrieve random object. Maps would be symmetrical offering similar base setups. If the objective drops its returned to the base. Usually scores to 3, first one to return it 3 times wins. Or it could be broken up into rounds and each round the safe is relocked.

KOTH - Could use command post(s) for the hill. Or maybe some kind of object? Could use many ideas for the point to control, including something that has to be hacked to secure.

It might not feel right for some. But for me I think Brinks shooter mechanics are nicely fine tuned for this type of combat. I hear people complain about weapon inaccuracy but I’ve never had a problem. The Drognav is a fine instrument of destruction as is my Rokstedi.

(DarkangelUK) #65

They’ve done enough already to ‘stray’ from their vision as far as I’m concerned to a point where a new gametype isn’t that much of a stretch. We already have ranks, perks, unlocks, customisation, 1-button does all… it certainly wasn’t the loyal ET and ETQW fans that asked for that, it was stuff added to try and attract new people to the game that enjoy those features in other games. IMO RtCW is king and got it right, it didn’t need to use fancy frills borrowed from other games. It had a standard rails SP campaign and a solid and addictive MP portion (which also included CTF, but more in a domination style play).

I’ll go back to my original statement, what good is an original idea if no one plays it? You also didn’t answer how you would draw in random CoD player and convince them to buy this game without a demo. You think it’ll change how Brink 2 has to be made… at this rate there won’t be a Brink 2, and possibly at the price of saving their ‘vision’.

I never had the illusion that it was singleplayer or multiplayer. It’s not a contrived SP story, and it’s not CTF/TDM/FFA. It’s a combination of the necessary elements of both, because that is what was advertised.

It’s an MP game with bots and cut scenes… pure and simple. The only difference it has with ETQW is a fleshed out story and scenes at the start and end.

I’ll put an effort behind it, but you’re going to have to put an effort behind explaining how adding two things that are entirely different, and how trying to cater to a larger audience does not render your original idea corrupt

There is no effort here, there’s a skewed belief that somehow Brink is going magically attract a market that ETQW failed to grab by not changing anything that matters. They say madness is repeating the same task over and over and expecting different results.

Excluding W:ET as it’s a free game, out of RtCW, ETQW and Brink I’d say RtCW was the best of them all… and that had proper SP, fantastic MP and CTF. They expanded on the RtCW gameplay with W:ET which was a nice change, bloated it with ETQW… and now its just bursting with Brink. If you ask me they’re trying too hard to sell a single gametype and think throwing needless stuff at it will help.

(The-Crow) #66

[QUOTE=Nefarious;314764]Now Im not bashing Brink. I love it. But it could be so much more. These Objective game types show alot of what the classes can do but dont really let them shine all the way imo.

A TDM game with these big intricate levels would be awesome. It wouldint be just charging the front lines anymore. Teams would hold up in buidlings, Opertives could scout around in disguse. Sniper Rifles would have more of a use. Ambushes. I can go on with the day dream thing all day. End story Brink TDM would be awesome.

CTF modes would be cool to. CTF Defense, Duel CTF where both teams have flags up. And Bring the Flag to the enemy base where the flag holder or whatever cant shoot and has to be guarded.

Free for All would let the S.M.A.R.T show its stuff. Imagine AirPort Level in a FFA setting. Players would be Parkoring everywhere. It would be intense.

This game is purely MultiPlayer, so why wernt these basic game types sold with the package? They are the Bread and Bones of FPS games and are a Standered. A Must Have![/QUOTE]

The bad news is I think you bought the wrong game.

The good news for you is there will be no less than 3 of the “finest” games mikling the COD name released this year.

(Kingcole225) #67

[QUOTE=Nefarious;314839]Luddens, there is nothing to answer. More game types means more options and more fun.

Ppl love options right?..No? I guess not most of you guys!

Regardless of how I think these Standerd gametypes will play out (hence Daydreaming like I said) or how you think they will play out because of some fancy mumbo jumbo crap. It dont matter. We dont know bc these things in the game are nonexistent. Its a wishlist.

And whats the harm if more game types came out…none!..Play your objective types all you want. I wouldint mind messing around in a frantic FFA or playing a TDM where you would have to tread carfully because of all the trinkets this game has. Or maybe not. Mabey TDM would be a sloppy mess where everyone just grenades themselves and laughs![/QUOTE]

The problem is that they could be working on new unique gametypes or new maps instead.

(Aristotle) #68

I feel sorry for you if when you play online it’s mostly with bots, that would suck. I have yet to play online with a server that had bots. But then again, I tend to join off of friends to servers that are either full, or very near full.

Also, you say that competition sucks because small teams suck. I’m not sure if they’re doing 5v5 or 6v6 for leagues, but I think I read 6v6, which is only 2 players per team off of the normal online play of 8v8. It’s not really that much of a difference.

(Bakercompany) #69

Bumped to prevent duplicate threads. Might as well make this the on going one.

(shadyadi) #70

In agreement that TDM/FFA are not suited to this game, I totally get the objective based gameplay and I thoroughly enjoy the mode. But an extra playlist would not go amiss.

How about a CP style mode? 5 points with 1 and 5 being the home bases. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
Base 3, the center is an Soldier charge plant, with 2 and 4 being hacks and 1 and 5 being engineer objectives.
Making a tug of war that could be easily implemented on to quite a few of the maps.
Obviously, even if an engineer was capturing the home base an operative could still cap 2 or 4 and then move the battle back, but keep engineer repair status persistent so that there would be an end in sight to the battle.
Command posts could double up as capturable(sic) deployments, meaning organised teams could keep on the frontlines.

Viable?

I’d suggest a mode based solely around escorts, but I can play TF2 for that.

(vbl) #71

TDM and DM are not needed, but CTF and CP modes (ala Battlefield games) would be a major improvement over the unbalanced and overwrought objective modes.

(SphereCow) #72

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;315158]I’ll go back to my original statement, what good is an original idea if no one plays it? You also didn’t answer how you would draw in random CoD player and convince them to buy this game without a demo. You think it’ll change how Brink 2 has to be made… at this rate there won’t be a Brink 2, and possibly at the price of saving their ‘vision’.[/QUOTE] If I were directing this game, or were in the position of authority to release a demo, why would I not? How I would have marketed the game was as what the core elements coalesced into. I wouldn’t have hyped up anything peripheral that would distract people and give a foggy message. I would have also spent far more time on the improvement of features that emphasize interactions between players.

People were hyped about the game because of what it was, not because of what it lacked, so I would fix the bugs, and release new maps. You’re stuck on the idea that you can only pull facets from something that is radically different in order to compete with it rather than being what you are, and letting the people who enjoy that type of game come to you. We remember why so many people are playing realistic shooters, and when the transition started happening, but so many people people that play them today, never played shooters that were different from the standard noname hero soldier drivel. On the other hand, I like both CoDMW2(hate when people scapegoat it), and Brink, so who’s not to say many could enjoy both?

The ranks, perks, unlocks and the like aren’t really straying from the fundamentals of the series. They existed in ET, but disappeared at the end of a campaign. To me, the purpose of them in this game is to get people to understand how to play the game properly, and dynamically, rather than for gaining an advantage. Weapons buff your stats in certain ways, but deplete them in others, so it’s about customizing specific advantag, rather than over all advantages.

Character customization and hitting F to do everything? Yeah, I’ll pass on that. On the other hand, you probably bound what used to be the needle, medkits, etc to the current unlockable class specific abilities. I don’t mind these things at all, as they do not change the core elements of the game. In any case, perpetual repetition and schizophrenic expectations is madness.

Yes. The point is, however, that one could theoretically take a level from games like Perfect Dark/CoD’s SP, and RTCW, and turn it into a level in Brink, ETQW, or ET. I would have designed levels like that. Non-linear SP maps with Mp player interactions. It’s what ET essentially was. Cold you take any of the Q3A or MW2 MP maps, place scripted AI, and custcenes in them, and expect them to work out as a good map? You could with ET, ETQW, and Brink, but not with either of those two. So while it is multiplayer with bots, it’s not simply that.

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;315158]There is no effort here, there’s a skewed belief that somehow Brink is going magically attract a market that ETQW failed to grab by not changing anything that matters. They say madness is repeating the same task over and over and expecting different results.

Excluding W:ET as it’s a free game, out of RtCW, ETQW and Brink I’d say RtCW was the best of them all… and that had proper SP, fantastic MP and CTF. They expanded on the RtCW gameplay with W:ET which was a nice change, bloated it with ETQW… and now its just bursting with Brink. If you ask me they’re trying too hard to sell a single gametype and think throwing needless stuff at it will help.[/QUOTE]

ETQW and Brink’s objectives were far more linear than ET, or RTCW had. That’s one if their major flaws. When you played Oaisis, you could still plant both anti-tank guns, if either

1: you jumped over the wall on purpose, because a teammate pushed you, or because of knockback
2: got a covert ops to open the doors, or tricked an axis player into opening the door for you
3: you repaired the water pump
4: you began swimming through the tunnel at high enough speed to get to the other side without drowning.

And essentially every map was like that. You had better player interactions, a variety of ways to traverse a map, multiple ways to conquer an opposing team, and honestly, a better set of weapons, despite being a vastly smaller selection.

One could have sold this game far better with a simpler scope, and gameplay based upon non-linear levels and campaigns where objectives completed in prior maps led to different situations in other maps, or a completely different route of maps. Layer a well written story and characters you would really give a **** about, on top, and you have an amazing game.

Trying to reach out to so many people lead to such an odd variety of expectations, no wonder there are people around begging for gametypes, and peripheral, pointless things that were intentionally avoided.

“Oh, I can customize my shirts, but why can’t I be a woman? Splash Damage should spend time creating females, add more than 20 levels, and CTF/TDM/FFA. Oh. Add killstreaks.” Yeah, that will solve their problems. Granted, they probably can’t improve the story, but making the levels less linear seems like far less work to me.

(Aristotle) #73

I always just trick jumped over the wall, or had a medic with adrenaline follow me through the tunnels. I’d drown, but he could make it if he used the addy at the right time, then come back and revive me.

To mix things up on the destroy objectives with QW, I would always do some kind of trick plant. My favorite was on slipgate’s final objective. If you get a teammate to stand on, you can plant it inside the top of the “whatever the hell that thing you were blowing up is” and nobody ever found it because there was a bit that shielded the flashing light :stuck_out_tongue:

(Lokalen) #74

I can’t believe all the negative remarks about complimenting the game with a few other gamemodes. Why the hell not? Black Ops doesn’t cut it because of all the darn issues with the game and the servers. TDM, CTF (it is already in the game pretty much, just that it is part of an objective) and FFA would just cater a different kind of gamer. It won’t force anyone to play that perticular type, just provide an option to choose what type of game you play.

I would welcome at least TDM and CTF, but I still love Objective. It’s just that on public server not choosing your team mates Objective can be really frustrating and maybe then having all the mindless drones playing TDM/CTF would make the Objective servers better.

(Kalbuth) #75

It’s a question of work power. They don’t have, seeing the time they pass to build a map (and why would it be different for a TDM map?), this would be done at the expense of making additional content for their current gamemode.
The center of their gameplay is that it is class based, ie any class can’t complete everything. CTF could certainly be done, but with this in mind. Ie, the “flag” would require multiple class to be “completed” (a soldier to plant and free the flag, someone to transport, an engi to repair/patch the “flag” at friendly position, something like that), imho

What worry me with these “we NEED TDM” threads is that I’m under the impression these people are throwing the current gameplay as being repetitive a bit too fast.
If SD takes that much time to build no so many map, it’s because they have put more than what is easily visible, and we haven’t yet used all they offer to us. If the map is already getting repetitive, try something else, new route, new tacs, well, that’s exactly this metagaming which made QW (I’m not a W:ET guy :wink: ) fun and evolving, and this is where we’ll see if Brink is a worthy successor (I myself am doubtfull about Brink having has much possibilities as QW had)

(howie) #76

Move along people. This is a bad idea.

Because we’d rather a focus on what made RTCW and ET the best teambased shooters to grace the PC. Time spent adding gametypes and creating maps for them could be better spent streamlining the game and creating stopwatch maps.

Teamplay is what makes this type of game stand out - it’s the reason I own Brink - and attack/defend maps lend themselves better to teamplay.

(tokamak) #77

Sans the unnecessary insults I agree. One-objective gameplay is the whole point.

(Bakercompany) #78

[QUOTE=howie;317275]Move along people. This is a bad idea.

Because we’d rather a focus on what made RTCW and ET the best teambased shooters to grace the PC. Time spent adding gametypes and creating maps for them could be better spent streamlining the game and creating stopwatch maps.

Teamplay is what makes this type of game stand out - it’s the reason I own Brink - and attack/defend maps lend themselves better to teamplay.[/QUOTE]

“Because we’d rather have a bland, repetitive, uninteresting game where 16 people crowd over one objective and throw uninteresting grenades at each other and so many bullets are flying around nobody knows who’s shooting them.”

Your idea sucks bud. So CTF doesn’t encourage team play? Or KOTH? Because its a great idea to return the flag alone?

I’m tired of these SD fanboys defending the games one game mode that isn’t that good to begin with.

Your objective based gameplay visions aren’t being realized. Its either a mass glob of players in one area, or spawn camping, or I have to find a different way to entertain myself and antagonize people at command posts.

Or in competitive I wax my team mates for being stupid. Thats fun. Like the guy who kept standing in front of me while I was sniping, so I shot him in the back of his head.

(Kalbuth) #79

Looked, it worked perfectly in W:ET, it worked perfectly in ET:QW. That’s why all of them (we) were loving these games. Simple, really. Saying it sucks… well, no not true.

(Bakercompany) #80

Yeah, but its not working in Brink. Every-single-match is the same thing, and ends up being a disorganized form of TDM with some yellow thing on your map in the corner.

So, how many people are playing Brink online right now? Because it looks like the game is dieing pretty fast. I’m debating on trading it in today for something else, because i’ve already done EVERYTHING THERE IS TO DO in Brink. Half of the matches can’t be played from lag. The other half end up unbalanced with 6v2 humans which = spawn camping.

Nobody does the objectives (hardly anyway). And when you try to talk to your team about coordinating nobody pays attention and does there own thing anyway. I might as well be playing MW2 Team Deathmatch, its the same thing minus the annoying objective to worry about.

I’d rally my friends to play, but all 10 that had it have traded it in already. Your objective game mode isn’t very well thought out, i’m sorry. The whole “lets fling 16 people at one spot” isn’t a good idea and isn’t fun. Its a chaotic mess, and since the graphics of this game look nothing like the videos we’ve been shown for years, its an uninteresting, somewhat blurry, chaotic mess filled with character that all have one animation for each action.