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

(DarkangelUK) #121

[QUOTE=Bridger;273669]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)?[/QUOTE]

Pointless questions are pointless. Basically you want it easy, you don’t want to have to fight for something. Rather than adjust to a situation, you want the game to adjust to you to make it easier on yourself. This isn’t lazy game design, this is lazy playing. This attitude is exactly the reason why some single player games allow you to switch difficulty during play. God forbid you may actually have to adapt, up your game and increase your skill.

(Theomachy) #122

[QUOTE=Mustkunstn1k;273388]1. That examples make no sense and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
2. I will be here waiting. [/QUOTE]

Actually, his analogy makes perfect sense. It’s your fallacious, unfocused reasoning that makes no sense.

If you only want one type of build for each class, well, that’s your thing. I plan on having three soldier builds, three medic builds, etc.

(JeP) #123

There’s only 10 characters :slight_smile:

(Theomachy) #124

I know. I haven’t played the game yet, so, I can’t say exactly what the ratio will be for my builds.

(Ragoo) #125

If this was a Single Player game you would make sense. Whether you are on an advantage or disadvantage only depends on your own choice (game difficulty) and what you make of the game.

But in multiplayer I just get frustrated if one team has a random advantage just because their team randomly has the better composition for the given circumstances (best composition overall that works good together, best composition for the map, best composition in regards to what your enemy’s team composition is).

If I have no information about what my team and the enemy team is choosing, the by far best choice I can make is to focus heavily on very universal abilities like more health. Cause when I choose something very specific, chances are my abilities aren’t needed in the game (for example because many others in my team chose the same thing and it’s not worth having more than one person do that).

One more thing: You as an individual can adapt rather easily (as far as adapting goes without changing bodytype/abilities) but if we have a really weird and unpractical composition of bodytypes/abilties (like all heavies who have high level Operative abilities that fill a very specific niche) I don’t see any chance to effectively coordinate some random pub team to make the best of the situation.

Btw, I just realized. Now that you can’t share XP from one character to another; on level 20 XP isn’t really worth anything anymore.
I expect a lot of guys on pub not changing their class cause they only have high level abilities for one or two classes, but not for the one that is needed in the game. Like you didn’t really want to change to Soldier in ET:QW on map 3 when you have full health revive.
Kinda contradicts what SD is trying to do here with bribing people with XP to get them to work together.

(tokamak) #126

[QUOTE=Ragoo;273792]I expect a lot of guys on pub not changing their class cause they only have high level abilities for one or two classes, but not for the one that is needed in the game. Like you didn’t really want to change to Soldier in ET:QW on map 3 when you have full health revive.
Kinda contradicts what SD is trying to do here with bribing people with XP to get them to work together.[/QUOTE]

I will be one of these guys yeah. That’s the risk you take of putting your eggs in one basket. Most people will likely go for a balanced build anyway. In ETQW the problem wasn’t with people not wanting to change, the problem was with people constantly changing classes making it to keep a coherent team.

(Herandar) #127

If it bothers you that much, don’t play random public games.

[QUOTE=Ragoo;273792]I expect a lot of guys on pub not changing their class cause they only have high level abilities for one or two classes, but not for the one that is needed in the game. Like you didn’t really want to change to Soldier in ET:QW on map 3 when you have full health revive.
Kinda contradicts what SD is trying to do here with bribing people with XP to get them to work together.[/QUOTE]

First off, I’m fairly sure that all revives in Brink are full health revives. The game allows players to decide what they think is best for the team. Just because some players may not always make the correct choice (and sometimes, they may be making the right choice. These things can not be quantitatively measured always) is not a flaw of the game design.

Would you rather the game forced every player on the team to a certain class based on some algorithm? If that was the case (“You’re a medic now! Go heal, brother!”) then you could blame Splash Damage.

(Linsolv) #128

Okay. Let’s try to make clear your argument:

Postulate 1: Artificial, random advantages due to team composition are bad.

This is the problem.

Postulate 2: Public games (the only place where a team would be random) require the optimum or nearly-optimum team composition.

This is why the problem matters.

Postulate 3: Any game in which an inherently bad situation is actively encouraged has been designed poorly.

This is why the problem matters here.

Is that essentially what I’m hearing?

—————

By that logic, just to ask, would you consider Poker a poorly designed game?

(Senethro) #129

[QUOTE=Linsolv;273845]Okay. Let’s try to make clear your argument:

Postulate 1: Artificial, random advantages due to team composition are bad.

This is the problem.

Postulate 2: Public games (the only place where a team would be random) require the optimum or nearly-optimum team composition.

This is why the problem matters.

Postulate 3: Any game in which an inherently bad situation is actively encouraged has been designed poorly.

This is why the problem matters here.

Is that essentially what I’m hearing?
[/QUOTE]

Heres my attempt to make the postulates more accurate/precise/whatever.

Postulate 1: Artificial, random advantages due to team composition lead to an additional source of variance in addition to and sometimes multiplicative with player skill.

Postulate 2: Public games which have (semi)random teams turn into pushovers if one team is very much closer to an optimal composition than the other

Postulate 3: If this effect leads to common complaints about pubstomps in matchmaking and reasonable testing of the game should have revealed this (oh, so subjective!), the iterative process of design may be incomplete or distant from a satisfactory state.

(Linsolv) #130

My above question still stands. Poker is a game where I can randomly (IE no skill) draw a straight flush, while you randomly draw a 6-high hand.

Yet it’s been played for hundreds of years.

EDIT: Yes. There is some skill. But no amount of skill is going to overcome the kind of bad luck that would cause pubstomps in Brink due to bad class/size choice (I think we should get a team of 8 heavy operatives who only use pistols! THEY’LL NEVER KNOW WHAT HIT EM.)

(Ragoo) #131

No, that’s total bull**** and you know it.

I’d rather join a game, look what’s up there and what role I should optimally play and according to that information choose class+abilities+bodytype+weapons. And if that what my team or I am doing is not working for whatever reason I don’t only want to be able to change my playstyle but also if necessary my class and/or abilities and/or bodytype and/or weapons in the game so I can try and adapt to the situation.

And that’s basically what you did in W:ET, ET:QW or TF2 and I don’t see a reason to take some of those choices away from us while in the game, just so we make “meaningful choices” before the game starts that essentially are totally random.

(Senethro) #132

[QUOTE=Linsolv;273861]My above question still stands. Poker is a game where I can randomly (IE no skill) draw a straight flush, while you randomly draw a 6-high hand.

Yet it’s been played for hundreds of years.[/quote]

People have also gambled where they knew the odds were against them for hundreds of years.

EDIT: Yes. There is some skill. But no amount of skill is going to overcome the kind of bad luck that would cause pubstomps in Brink due to bad class/size choice (I think we should get a team of 8 heavy operatives who only use pistols! THEY’LL NEVER KNOW WHAT HIT EM.)

Perhaps the heavy operatives should adapt? Stop crying and use real skill? Overcoming bad odds makes you the better player?

(Linsolv) #133

Yes. They should. They should get appropriate weapons, and change classes. That’s kinda the point.

(JeP) #134

What would be the point on making the exact same game over and over again ? I mean, yeah, people buy a lot of CoD, that don’t make it a good game, nor an example to follow.

(Mustkunstn1k) #135

Brink wouldn’t be the same game. :confused: I mean… SMART, the setting, customization etc.

(Ragoo) #136

So when it does it the way the other games handled it it’s exactly the same?

Damn, I heard there is shooting and running in BRINK, it’s exactly like ET:QW, W:ET and TF2 then isn’t it? Maybe SD should consider changing this , too.

Changing something should always have a good reason. I see a good reason to add SMART, to have more emphasis on this multiplayer=singleplayer stuff, more emphasis on the objective wheel thingy, adding customization etc
But I don’t see a good reason to change this specific thing I’m complaining about.

(Herandar) #137

Brink is not Enemy Territory 3.

(Herandar) #138

RPG-style persistent characters are RPG-style persistent characters.

(tokamak) #139

@Ragoo, there’s no challenge in picking the set-up that suits the situation the best, it’s a completely trivial skill which you can look up on the internet if you want to. The real challenge is using a given set-up in any situation good or bad.

Everyone will meet situations where the odds are against them, and that’s where the true skill of a player is shown, that’s where creativity and improvisation start to shine. And if you’re that insecure about your own resourcefulness, then tough.

(Beermachine) #140

Love that article, my favourite part being: But before that shows up, Brink seems destined to satisfy fans of team-based shooters, especially those with some Enemy Territory experience. “We didn’t really change our formula very much,” Ham said. “We really think it’s pretty good. It was more just about making it accessible.”

Given that I and many others consider RtCW/W:ET and to a lesser extent QW to be the best team-based shooters ever made for sheer fun and longevity, adding innovation to that base formula and accessibility to the masses seems the best way to go, no point in trying to reinvent the wheel when (for me) they got it to be a perfect circle the first time!

As for this topic, I’m definitely taking the 5th.