There needs to be a way to change things mid-match.

(DarkangelUK) #81

When you say gimped, you seem to be in the mindset that they’re useless… also you seem to have made up some extreme ability (50% more HP, really?). What are the abilities? How much of an advantage do they give over someone that doesn’t have it? If the advantage is high, SD have failed and haven’t balanced the game properly. You’re putting far too much emphasis on abilities, and perceiving to be powerful add-ons that make a player unstoppable against someone else without them. Again, if that’s the case, then SD has failed to balance the game… but you’re saying they’ve failed already.

(tokamak) #82

The potency of abilities wouldn’t matter, you always have the choice to balance your build and divide your points neatly over each class. It’s only when you want to have stronger classes you will have to accept ‘gimped’ classes as well.

(Weeohhweeohh) #83

Playing as a right out of the box class (non specialized or gimped) for 1-2 minutes to cap an objective (if your other teammates are being to stubborn to do so) doesn’t mean you have to spend the rest of your time in the game as said class.

If there is a need on the battle field that isn’t being filled, change class, do the objective and switch back to the class you invested in. Sure you wont have the ability to buff your teammates with ammo/gun upgrades/throw down a turret/bells and whistles, but you would have done the objective. Now you can get back to playing how you intended your character to play.

Chances are, with 7 other people, someone will either be playing that class (and have invested skill points into it) or is willing to change quickly and scoop up extra XP by completing the objective.

(Bridger) #84

No.

also you seem to have made up some extreme ability (50% more HP, really?).

Wrong again.

What are the abilities? How much of an advantage do they give over someone that doesn’t have it? If the advantage is high, SD have failed and haven’t balanced the game properly. You’re putting far too much emphasis on abilities, and perceiving to be powerful add-ons that make a player unstoppable against someone else without them. Again, if that’s the case, then SD has failed to balance the game… but you’re saying they’ve failed already.

Nicely dodging every point I made there. You must have a high mental dex score! I guess I’ll try again, but try to answer my questions this time please?

Lets ask a different question: Do the abilities affect the outcome? If they DO affect the outcome, then we can agree that a team with sub-par abilities (or no abilities) is going to be at a disadvantage yes? If they do NOT affect the outcome, then their choice is meaningless (terrible game design).

So: Do the abilities affect the outcome?

(Linsolv) #85

[QUOTE=Mustkunstn1k;273535]You would always be fit if you would have the ability to change every ability in the middle of the game. And you have to work for each character, people should get rewarded for that…

Like you said - a deck. Right now you can make a deck, but you can still only choose one card before each match. I can’t I take more cards with me and decide mid-match.

It’s not like I am prepared for anything… because like I said - abilities.[/QUOTE]

They have games like that. Look at UFS (Ultimate Fighting System). It’s a TCG where you build a deck around one character, who you buff and modify. It’s still strategy. It’s not like there is a list of who the “best” character is and if you pick wrong you lose. Heck, even if you pick a character who is weak against your opponent’s, the game’s not lost.

(Weeohhweeohh) #86

It depends on if revive syringes/bomb planting/com hacking/rebuilding abilities are ones you have to invest skill points in. I have a feeling they aren’t. I have a feeling SD has given the classes the tools they need to complete objectives right out of the box (no skill point investment).

The skill points are used to add flavor to your class and you can tweak them to fit your personal play style.

If, for some reason, no one on your team has buff life and an objective calls for it…that is a bad designing. It is my belief that SD is on top of things and has provided tools we need regardless of how we build our class.

(Maawdawg) #87

Note: doing a few things at once so this was ninja’d by like 5 posts…

The un-spec’d classes are not “gimped” or “useless” by any means and outside of assumption noone has any reason to think they would be. Noone has any idea what the balance difference between a 5 skill soldier and a base soldier will be at this point, and instantly assuming it turns into an unwinnable situation is a bit dramatic. Do you think that SD isn’t going to balance and tune the systems they implement into the game?

I played an entire round with no skills used at all (and no passives) when I played at PAX and came in 2nd on the leaderboard on my second demo. It isn’t like you become a cripple with no gun because you don’t have a few skill points that someone else might when you swap to a different class to help out the team. You do not need fully spec’d out versions of every class to play them properly, or well. If you want to be fully spec’d to one class because it gives you the advantage of knowing you will be equal or better spec’d than everyone you meet, then only stick to it then go for it but your team may suffer because you won’t give up some skill points to play what is needed at the time. I don’t understand why it is such a big issue that at some point you may get in a firefight with someone who has a couple more skill points in his active class than you do?

(Bridger) #88

Guess I need to use different vocabulary then. When I said “gimped” i didn’t mean ‘useless’ or “almost useless” i meant “disadvantaged.” This ties into my question above. If un-spec’d vanilla classes are as good as classes with full abilities, then the choices you make are meaningless. If they are not as good as the full classes, then they are at a disadvantage.

Does that make more sense?

(DarkangelUK) #89

[QUOTE=Bridger;273629]
Wrong again.[/quote]
You didn’t make the 50% extra HP up?

Lets ask a different question: Do the abilities affect the outcome? If they DO affect the outcome, then we can agree that a team with sub-par abilities (or no abilities) is going to be at a disadvantage yes? If they do NOT affect the outcome, then their choice is meaningless (terrible game design).

So: Do the abilities affect the outcome?

Everything affects the outcome, the gun used, the attachments, the bodytype. I didn’t say they didn’t affect the outcome (where exactly?), I asked to which degree… any sort of basic comprehension of what I said would deduce that I am suggesting abilities do affect gameplay, and I wan’t to know how much. If it is to a large degree, then SD have failed to balance them.

The biggest affect is how you choose to play the character. If you’ve chosen to beef your medic with “50% extra HP” (got a link for that one?), then you’re going to be less careful going into gun fights and meeting people head on. If not, then your role as medic will be played more cautiously during firefights, more self buffs etc.

(H0RSE) #90

[QUOTE=Bridger;273637]Guess I need to use different vocabulary then. When I said “gimped” i didn’t mean ‘useless’ or “almost useless” i meant “disadvantaged.” This ties into my question above. If un-spec’d vanilla classes are as good as classes with full abilities, then the choices you make are meaningless. If they are not as good as the full classes, then they are at a disadvantage.

Does that make more sense?[/QUOTE]

I think you are approaching to much form a competitive standpoint, seeing abilities as a way to be a better combatant or gain an advantage over the competition. From what I have gathered, abilities are more of a way to fine tune a character - to build them in a way that caters to a players playstyle, rather than a way to turn a basic player into a super soldier.

Abilities add flavor and options. They don’t necessarily make a character more (or less) powerful, but offer them more choices in how they want to play, so having none or all of them isn’t going to determine the winner.

(Ragoo) #91

[QUOTE=H0RSE;273640]I think you are approaching to much form a competitive standpoint, seeing abilities as a way to be a better combatant or gain an advantage over the competition. From what I have gathered, abilities are more of a way to fine tune a character - to build them in a way that caters to a players playstyle, rather than a way to turn a basic player into a super soldier.

Abilities add flavor and options. They don’t necessarily make a character more (or less) powerful, but offer them more choices in how they want to play, so having none or all of them isn’t going to determine the winner.[/QUOTE]

Not so important but an Engineer with level 1 turret is definitely weaker than an Engineer with level 2 turret.

(H0RSE) #92

No he isn’t.

The turret may be stronger, the player is the same. For instance, what is the point of having a stronger turret if a player can simply bypass/avoid it? The player still needs to know where to place the turret for it to be effective, and every level of turret can be countered by things like EMP’s, hacking, gunfire or by simply not coming into contact with it.

He may have better toys at his disposable, but the player himself in unchanged - skill is still the determining factor between a useful and “gimped” player.

Something else that some of seem to be missing also, is that a lot of the abilities are intertwined, meaning abilities of one class can interact with another (like EMP’s on HE Chargers and turrets) No one player is going to be able to have every ability for every occasion at his disposal, at the same time. This is where the team aspect comes in - abilities of teammates working together. To keep it balanced however, certain abilities are never mandatory - An Operative’s EMP may be helpful in a certain situation, but it isn’t going to make or break the game if a teammate has them or not.

I don’t think it will be too common for a player (or team) to be perfectly equipped, with abilities, weapons and class distribution all of the time. You win some, you lose some - sometimes you “pwn” sometimes you get spanked. The important thing is that player skill is the most important factor on who wins and loses, not what toys they ave.

(Maawdawg) #93

[QUOTE=Bridger;273637]Guess I need to use different vocabulary then. When I said “gimped” i didn’t mean ‘useless’ or “almost useless” i meant “disadvantaged.” This ties into my question above. If un-spec’d vanilla classes are as good as classes with full abilities, then the choices you make are meaningless. If they are not as good as the full classes, then they are at a disadvantage.

Does that make more sense?[/QUOTE]

It does. I just don’t see the difference of the disadvantage of a few skills or skill points being enough to outweigh actual game skill, tactics, or teamwork. I didn’t feel weak against anyone with an unspec’d light character so if I didn’t feel it then I have a hard time believing it will turn into a giant imbalance. Granted, I played in a group of beginners (as I was playing for the first time too) but even given higher power skills later the divide may widen a bit but I don’t think it will ever reach an unbridgeable gap or even a large disadvantage. Most people will play their preferred/spec’d classes most of the time and only change out for short periods when they have to or want to for the benefit of the team. I have no problem taking a few minutes of a minor disadvantage at all if the team needs something and it helps the end goal. I like the possibilities and rewards of the challenge of it personally, and the possibility for advantages if you build properly for the type of game you are entering, be it random or premade teams. I prefer decisions that matter in my characters, and also the thought of having risk/reward apply to skill choices, so this system makes a lot sense to me.

(Mad Hatter) #94

Very well put, dawg. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

(Maawdawg) #95
  • Not if the engineer with the lvl 1 turret spec into EMP grenades instead with that point he didn’t use on his lvl 2 engineer turret. Next spawn he can come back with his Operatives and EMPs and have an advantage you can’t counter.
  • Not if the Engineer put the extra point into a better damage buff on his gun instead and takes down the Engineer with the better turret quicker with some headshots.
  • Not if he spent a point on the general skill so he knows when he is being aimed at and the engineer with the lvl 2 turret didn’t so he can’t take advantage of the warning and loses the jump in the battle and is stuck reacting to damage rather than initiating or dodging before it.
  • Not if the engineer grabbed the upgrade ability and has an extra health pip due to a control point going into the fight, or just the general skill for some extra health.

There are plenty of other places that point could be spent to give you an advantage, be it in the engineer tree or not. Those are just going off some of the few skills we know. It is never as simple as that since with equal points you can build in variety and more strategy for yourself. :slight_smile:

(Wraith) #96

[QUOTE=Maawdawg;273656]- Not if the engineer with the lvl 1 turret spec into EMP grenades instead with that point he didn’t use on his lvl 2 engineer turret. Next spawn he can come back with his Operatives and EMPs and have an advantage you can’t counter.

  • Not if the Engineer put the extra point into a better damage buff on his gun instead and takes down the Engineer with the better turret quicker with some headshots.
  • Not if he spent a point on the general skill so he knows when he is being aimed at and the engineer with the lvl 2 turret didn’t so he can’t take advantage of the warning and loses the jump in the battle and is stuck reacting to damage rather than initiating or dodging before it.
  • Not if the engineer grabbed the upgrade ability and has an extra health pip due to a control point going into the fight, or just the general skill for some extra health.

There are plenty of other places that point could be spent to give you an advantage, be it in the engineer tree or not. Those are just going off some of the few skills we know. It is never as simple as that since with equal points you can build in variety and more strategy for yourself. :)[/QUOTE]

Well said and I hear Foamy’s voice when I read your text.

(Ragoo) #97

[QUOTE=H0RSE;273650]No he isn’t.

The turret may be stronger, the player is the same. For instance, what is the point of having a stronger turret if a player can simply bypass/avoid it? The player still needs to know where to place the turret for it to be effective, and every level of turret can be countered by things like EMP’s, hacking, gunfire or by simply not coming into contact with it.

He may have better toys at his disposable, but the player himself in unchanged - skill is still the determining factor between a useful and “gimped” player.
[/QUOTE]

You know as well as I do that I didn’t mean whoever has the higher level turret is the more skilled player so please stop acting like I said that.

I simply said that level 2 turret> level 1 turret.

Like a having 110 health > having 100 health.

I don’t even understand how one could misunderstand that.

edit: @ Maawdawg I was assuming that both players have the same abilities on their Engineer, just that the one Engi has level 2 turrets (therefore the other Engineer invested his skill points somewhere else). And changing to Operative and taking out the turret doesn’t have to do anything with Engi1>Engi2.
Maybe I should have made that clear.

Then again as I said this is not so important so please stop writing so much about it.

(Bridger) #98

Excellent! We’ve established some common ground. So we agree that the abilities do affect the outcome.

Do some abilities work better depending on the game situation (map/enemy team composition/friendly team composition)?

(Bridger) #99

This is the only viable standpoint to view game design by if you want a robust and balanced game at the end.

Abilities add flavor and options. They don’t necessarily make a character more (or less) powerful, but offer them more choices in how they want to play, so having none or all of them isn’t going to determine the winner.

This is demonstrably false. If one player can reload while sprinting away and know the instant someone spots him in their crosshairs, he has an advantage over someone who doesn’t have these mechanics working for him.

(JeP) #100

Most of online FPS are like that, you begin, you fight against people who have a better rank, more perks or properks, you are a medic and are meeting a soldier, you’re a sniper but some enemy jump to you at close range, etc. It’s all about knowing your load-out, most of the time, adaptability, and playing with your team, cause Brink is strong on that.

You never meet someone on even ground, with same class/bodytype/abilities, etc… there is no perfect balance, stop looking for it. You’re right, but that doesn’t mean the game is wrong.

Brinks abilities doesn’t make someone really overpowered, if you are carefull, use your load-out well, aim better, you will have the upper hand even on higher rank enemies.

Knowing that, I don’t see in what the game will provide you from becoming an operative, if your team needs one.