Beside, what bugs me is what SD did between E3 in 2009 and release in 2011. Some visuals were different, but come one, why on earth did they need all that time for 8 maps and two handful of outfits? Seriously, there was such a huge amount of time to develop simple things like demo function, what is so hard at adding spectator options like first person spec? I just donât get it. I kinda like the game, no question, and I am looking forward to what will still come (and there will be much) but come on, other games are developed in half the time and offer more options from the start.
Sure⌠you old school âscan hitâ lovers are the main demographic cough
1.Zumba Fitness (505 Games)
2.The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time: 3D Edition (Nintendo)
3.Duke Nukem Forever (2K Games)
4.LA Noire (Rockstar Games)
5.Brink (Bethesda Softworks)
6.LEGO Pirates of the Caribbean (Warner Bros)
7.DiRT 3 (Codemasters)
8.inFamous 2 (Sony)
9.Dungeon Siege III (Square Enix)
10.FIFA 11 (EA Sports)
cough :rolleyes:
Thatâs last weeks chart. This is not an issue, unless it is because you are being killed by someone and you are all raging because your quazillion DPI, razr exact mat-using, ultra low graphics settings, 24" ultra low latency monitor, âscan hitâ advantage over other players is now gone and you join the rest of the REAL gamers who deal with these variables! (you know, with it being all users have the same spread!!!)
[QUOTE=NIDCLXVI;346458]Sure⌠you old school âscan hitâ lovers are the main demographic cough
cough :rolleyes:
Thatâs last weeks chart. This is not an issue, unless it is because you are being killed by someone and you are all raging because your quazillion DPI, razr exact mat-using, ultra low graphics settings, 24" ultra low latency monitor, âscan hitâ advantage over other players is now gone and you join the rest of the REAL gamers who deal with these variables! (you know, with it being all users have the same spread!!!)[/QUOTE]
Nice chart.
I was hoping for some Brink yesterday, a bit before midnight euro time.
there were 3 servers full, 2 at 15/16, then 3 11/16, and then it dropped to 8 players
I never expected such a low figure, tbh. and it speaks more than your charts : I played 1 game, then quit, by lack of possible place to play. There were more people on ET:QW servers âŚ
honestly, if you cannot stand movement & fighting, what are you doing in a SD / ID tech game in the first place? There are TONS, and I mean TONS of more generic FPS out there rewarding you for your crouched ADS usage. There you will find your other REAL players.
Thank you for supporting more clones of always the same game, and killing anything that, for once, could change generic FPS
i do sometimes get a little annoyed when the shots totally disregard where u am aiming. its a matter of ads and burst fire, which helps even with smgs. or maybe you could make them god aim.
anyone mod the game and find which is better for me? im sure it would help.
[QUOTE=Kalbuth;346470]Nice chart.
I was hoping for some Brink yesterday, a bit before midnight euro time.
there were 3 servers full, 2 at 15/16, then 3 11/16, and then it dropped to 8 players
I never expected such a low figure, tbh. and it speaks more than your charts : I played 1 game, then quit, by lack of possible place to play. There were more people on ET:QW servers âŚ
honestly, if you cannot stand movement & fighting, what are you doing in a SD / ID tech game in the first place? There are TONS, and I mean TONS of more generic FPS out there rewarding you for your crouched ADS usage. There you will find your other REAL players.
Thank you for supporting more clones of always the same game, and killing anything that, for once, could change generic FPS[/QUOTE]
Incorrect! This style of FPS is âTeamwork Based Objective Focused Gameplayâ not âTeam Death Match. Lone Wolf. Elitist Gameplayâ. This game is very different from COD, Battlefeld, Unreal and Quake games. Who are you trying to kid?!
This gameâs closest cousin is Team Fortress 2. I bet you hate that too, blaming some âaiming mechanicâ, not the inability to cope with dying more often as you have to sacrifice K : D to do objectives/support the team! :eek:
Thereâs absolutely, absolutely no contradiction between âtight spreadâ and âobjective teamplayâ. These 2 parts go along completely nicely. I donât know where you get this from, but from a design perspective, you are wrong. The shooting part is irrelevant to the class-based, objective-based part.
[QUOTE=Mustang;346287]Hmm, whatâs a good way to explain thisâŚ
Letâs try some hypothetical situations with made-up numbers
As the game plays at the moment consider aiming at center body mass, a player with bad aim has an average kill time of 5 seconds and a player with good aim has an average kill time of 4 seconds
Considering aiming at the head the bad player has an average kill time of 7 seconds and the good player an average kill time of 6 seconds
Why does aiming at the head result in slower kills for both players?
The reason, the spread is so great that most bullets go wide of the target, this makes aiming for the head nonsensical (as it results in slower kills)
Now lets look at what happens when we reduce spread
For center mass, bad player kills in 2.5 seconds, good player kills in 2 seconds
For headshots, bad player kills in 2 seconds, good player kills in 1.5 second
But wait, this isnât CoD, we like to have time to react when being shot at, how to fix this?
The best two options (in my opinion) are to increase player health or reduce weapon damage
Changing player health probably has more knock-on effects requiring balancing elsewhere, so lets consider reduced weapon damage
For center mass, bad player kills in 5 seconds, good player kills in 4 seconds
For headshots, bad player kills in 4 seconds, good player kills in 3 second
Ah fantastic, center mass kill times are back where they started, headshots are worth going for again as they result in faster kills, a lot more bullets are actually going where you aim making people feel like they are back in control of their game, players that bother to aim are rewarded with faster kills so now everyone has something to work on etc.
So this raising the skill level thing can basically be summarised as rewarding good aim and making headshots worth going for[/QUOTE]
Awesome post, thanks Mustang! There were so many great threads about this topic both in the competitive Brink forum and in this forum yet the changes of the SMGâS read like this:
Sub Machineguns
Kross max spread slightly increased
Tampa max spread slightly decreased
Tampa slightly more jittery when fired
Tampa SMG damage slightly increased
Carb-9 SMG damage slightly reduced
Carb-9 has even spread, instead of clustering towards the centre
Carb-9 recoil slightly increased
Carb-9 slightly less accurate
Instead of working with recoil and the ârange valueâ making the SMGâs shoot where the crosshair/AS is they increased the spread on some guns they wanted to balance and made the guns less accurate.
In my opinion a more elegant way to achieve a simuluar result,especially for PC gamers, without taking the control out of the players hands(Which is a huge factor and why so many threads were made) would be to increase recoil instead of max spread and make SMG less effective on distance with the ârangeâ value.So it doesnât matter if a SMG has almost no spread and is very accurate for long distance shooting as it doesnât deal as much damage any longer on distance.
By making SMGâS still very accurate on distance (almost no spread) but reduce their damage via the âRangeâ value = less damage on distance and making it harder to hold down fire because of an increased recoil we would have an even better result in my opinion.
Now think about this, this could even help to make shotguns more predictable and add a difference between body and head shots to shotguns.If you didnât knew, shotguns donât have headshots at the moment.
If you reduce the spread heavily of the shotguns so all bullets are very close to the center of the crosshair/ADS so it is actually skill to do a headshots but reduce damage on distance via the ârange valueâ instead of a crazy bullet spread.This would result in more comprehensible shotgun behavior,would make shotguns effective and skillfull to use at close range because headshots make more damage and they would still be weak on long range because of the ârangeâ value.
This is a PC patch which i give SD mad respect for as this shows they understood that a PC shooter and a console shooter needs different shooting mechanics to be really satisfying for both crowds.
In my opinion there is a more elegant approach, without working with bullet spread at all!
Here is my suggestion:
[ul]
[li]Instead of increasing max spread - Increase recoil[/li][li]Instead of increasing spread - use the ârange valueâ [/li][li]If the SMG/weapon is still too powerful ,instead of increasing spread - reduce damage[/li][/ul]
Another point is the âmax spreadâ value.If a gun has stronger recoil the longer you shoot it, max spread becomes almost unneccesary and can be very low as an value.
This means again more skill is needed to handle the gun under sustained fire and it is actually skill if you can handle the gun with heavier recoil instead of a max spread value which forces you to stop shooting because bullets are magically going all over the place.
If SD makes their weakness to a strength and really starts to focus on shooting mechanics to be more rewarding it will make their games more succesfull, in my opinion!
I hope they read the forums and listen to the competitive players as they tend to know what a game needs, to have depth in gameplay as they really know the game to itâs core gameplay mechanics.
[QUOTE=NIDCLXVI;346477]Incorrect! This style of FPS is âTeamwork Based Objective Focused Gameplayâ not âTeam Death Match. Lone Wolf. Elitist Gameplayâ. This game is very different from COD, Battlefeld, Unreal and Quake games. Who are you trying to kid?!
This gameâs closest cousin is Team Fortress 2. I bet you hate that too, blaming some âaiming mechanicâ, not the inability to cope with dying more often as you have to sacrifice K : D to do objectives/support the team! :eek:[/QUOTE]
A higher skill cap and tighter shooting mechanics does not mean Teamwork is not important. Look at the ESL torunament for example. The winning Team is goona go home with 15k ⏠do you want to let that decide by chance to a certain amount? It is not just the team with the best shooters that is gonna win even if you change the shooting mechanic, teamwork will still be the most important aspect. They all have some people on their team who can aim really good and they maybe want to have them take strategic posisition where he can do some damage. Now someone who isnt as good as that guy comes around and kills him althoug he might not have won that fight were the head shots not so random. There is 15k in the pot for those teams, donât you think they are going to get pisssed if they would loose even if they were the better players? In competition you need guns that you can rely on, that you know how they will behave.
[QUOTE=NIDCLXVI;346477]Incorrect! This style of FPS is âTeamwork Based Objective Focused Gameplayâ not âTeam Death Match. Lone Wolf. Elitist Gameplayâ. This game is very different from COD, Battlefeld, Unreal and Quake games. Who are you trying to kid?!
This gameâs closest cousin is Team Fortress 2. I bet you hate that too, blaming some âaiming mechanicâ, not the inability to cope with dying more often as you have to sacrifice K : D to do objectives/support the team! :eek:[/QUOTE]
Oh, I love TF2, want to know why? You can switch off all (yes ALL) randomness in that game which makes it great for competitive gaming. But even if you leave randomness on (random shotgun spread, critz) you donât have such a bad bullet deviation model as in BRINK. The Heavyâs minigun in TF2 has less spread than the SMGs in BRINK!
So in TF2 skill decides the outcome of a 1on1, but teamplay decides if you win a map or lose it. Thatâs why itâs still the best comp game (imo). BRINK just doesnât offer the satisfaction you could get with comp TF2.
First of all, different discussions are needed for different platforms. What applies on consoles does not apply on the PC. I donât hear many console players complain about the mechanics and I must say I enjoy how Brink feels on the 360.
For the pc however itâs totally different. Itâs supposed to be played in a different way and players want a higher fidelity in their shooting. Movement spread is good. But thereâs not enough difference between the movement spread and stand still / crouch, ironsight spread(/recoil). In other words, players canât get enough advantage out of standing still in a good position.
The difference between headshot and body damage is also way too much for a spread this high. But now Iâm sounding like a broken record.
Iâm pretty sure that the vast majority of PC players would be really happy if Brink felt more like ETQW.
I do not care about the winning team getting some dosh for playing a video game. I want to pay a game for fun not competition!
What makes you guys playing competitively whine so much is tweaking the game to help you play the game we want to play for fun easier for you to play for money. It is a selfish, make the game play the way I play, attitude.
This is the truth of it! Personal gain, not âgameplay improvementâ but âgameplay unimprovement to help you in winning moneyâ :rolleyes:
The game already supports a number of different sets of rules. Why not use that feature and make one set with lower spread and let server admins decide what they want?
[quote=Spendlove;346411]PC player here. Keep it as it is.
I like the new patch. It works for me.
Use your iron sights, thats what they are there for.
SMGs are not accurate⌠rifles and assualt rifles are⌠use those instead. Its no point crying that Splash took your noob tube smg Carb 9 away. You should have learned to use a variety of weapons until you found the one that suited your character best.
Simply repeating the new complainers buzzword âlotteryâ shows a sheep mentality. Lotteries sometimes drop you big prizes. Remember that.
I didnât want to be a L2P troll poster but I am afraid in this poll it is entirely accurate.
Actually, some of you posting here donât even own the game or have not even played this patch on the PC! How can you possibly complain about something you utterly know nothing about?
L2P (that means you have to buy the game first and THEN learn to play it).[/quote]
No one here needs to l2p, including myself, and if you want evidence as you seem a little elitist i hope thisshows i have played the game and do know what im talking about.
People who use the carb 9 arent noobs, they are people looking for the weapon that gives the best damage and accuracy they can find.
When smgs are broken, the answer shouldnt be, just use a AR or rifle, i mean the ARs are very innefective at close range, you dont get the strafing speed of a light and you get the added disadvantage of even bigger spread firing from the hip.
People go for the smgs as they are the weapons with the highest skill ceiling at the moment, and ill tell you why.
Medium and heavy body type move too slowly for strafing to be very effective and makes it very easy to aim at players while you move, yet makes it very easy for them to aim at you. The smgs are the most accurate (saddening to say as they arent very accurate at all) close to medium range, thereby requiring the most accuracy, also the light bodytype means you can strafe and move faster, making you harder to hit, yet meaning its harder to track enemies while strafing faster.
You say to l2p and use assault rifles, but assault rifles require minimal skill, as you are ironsighted so cannot strafe effectively and its easy to aim with, also you are usually aiming at players over range, and it just becomes a battle for who saw who first.
Essentially in a game of small maps, the smg is the logical choice, an AR shouldnt be the answer to everything, and smgs should at least have good accuracy close range. I played etqw last night and almost fell over with joy at how nice the spread is on that game in comparisonâŚ
I would phrase it a little differently. I remember the constant cries about rambo medics in especially W:ET, less so ET:QW. ET:QW, even excluding vehicles, had more balanced infantry, there were ways to cut self-healing medics to pieces. Hyperblaster was one, but of course it was a situational weapon. Remember in W:ET you could get ammo by killing the opposing team, so medics were barely dependent on Field Ops. But in ET:QW, it was impossible and they actually had to resupply once in a while.
They may have interpreted that as a problem with skilled players, not medics, but I disagree. Except medic, all good players would eventually succumb to hordes of average ones. Attrition. A bullet here, two there and you are dead. I think I and Splash Damage agree there was a problem, but disagree about the solution. A group of average players working together shouldnât fall to a single great aimer.
I think they cared more about pleasing console players than pleasing âsoftcoreâ players. Otherwise they would release at least one k+m gameplay video, all the while blabbering about how easy to pickup the game is.
I was happier with ET:QW than I was with W:ET, even though firefights were less intense and felt like they were happening on a soccer field. The thing that stopped me from enjoying ET:QW was technical issues, authentication errors, FPS all over the place on a brand new computerâŚ
Some things should be learned from Brink though. A steep aim skill curve is NEVER a problem, but in fact brings a huge motive for players to continue playing a game in the hope of improvement. Better players will always make things feel less fun for some,
Your second sentence is semi-contradictory to the first. Of course better players can make the game more enjoyable to worse players. First, (this depends on your character) you may have motivation to get better. This is the case in many fields of life, for example in sports on playing on instrument. You play better in the company of people better than yourself. Second, you can learn interesting stuff you havenât thought about. Valley is one of my favorite maps, sometimes GDF was stuck at the bridge. A fun (but time-consuming) trick I invented is taking a Husky and climbing the tunnel mountain from the back. Suddenly you were overlooking the entire enemy team (backstab the sniper if necessary), and in perfect position to call airstrikes on multiple Strogg deployables. Third, sometimes an average player could achieve much more in a team with great player. If youâre a medic and the guy you follow and keep reviving makes a dent in enemy team, your actions are relatively much more important too. Or you are able to consider tactics you wouldnât otherwise - if thereâs a very good player covering Oasis tunnel, you can safely deploy a MG facing the other entrance and you wonât be flanked.
You canât force teamwork no matter how hard you try (nerfing gungame, adding buffs, giving XP, etc).
Forcing - no, but you can encourage to a degree. For instance I think it was great that in ET:QW you were no longer able to pick up enemy weapons. Medics became more reliant. Also there were good weapons medics had no access to. Not just hyperblaster or GPMG. Machine pistol was amazing, 0.5-1.5 spread, compare to 1-4 of AR.
In Brink they made teamplay less important by making medic healing less important. If you can take health regeneration for granted, you can play an engineer with weapon buff instead.
I wonder if itâs legal to do it, but I would give a discount to players who already won a teamwork-oriented FPS. Like ET:QW. Not just try to sell as many copies as possible, but sell to the right people.
It is a requirement to play the game and people will learn on their own if they want to win games. There is a massive amount of enjoyment when you attempt to coordinate with your team (VOIP???)
Maybe SD failed at marketing here. In their gameplay videos and developer walkthroughs, they typically explain teamplay as âyou can buff this guyâs health and he may give you ammo in returnâ.
Is this how teamplay looks like ? You and your buddy ? Hell, even clan players play 6x6. Why not show a multiplayer match and explain how a team used abilities to support each other, crossfire etc ? Why not switch view from one person to another, show how their actions add up ?
even in a pub, and players donât hesitate to change classes, as well as having the ability to do it with ease (Brink=BUT I CANT CHANGE DIS IS MY HEAVY OPERATIVE CHAR).
I agree with body types up to a point, although it would be less of an issue if mediums and heavies were worth their weight in meat. There should be areas Light players avoid, because theyâre at a disadvantage to heavies. At the moment lights seem to beat heavies even at their own game (unsophisticated frontal assault).
But yes, ability limits are not very smart. I blame SD for allowing to create âverticalâ chars, that is chars limited to a single class. If they made limits like â6 abilities from each classâ, players would be more flexible.
The reason for this is because with all the ânewâ the roots of the âoldâ are forgotten. Take the aspects that made the original games great, and build on top of it.
The new thinking is that demanding something from players is bad, because players donât like to learn, donât like to get better. But if you make a game for idiots, mostly idiots will play it. âDifficultâ has become almost a swearword. Yes, there were times where difficulty was sometimes pushed to the point of being ridiculous, but they were times of arcade machines. Arcade machines were built to be coin magnets :-).
I donât want Brink to be the end of ET games, but I donât want it to be the new standard either.
Itâs understandable to a point - there were much more hardcore computer users back then, because computers were harder to use. But itâs as if theyâre assuming that youâre born a hardcore or casual players, and a casual player canât cross the line. To be fair, ET:QW tried that (turn casuals into hardcore; using stuff like mission system) and failed.
[QUOTE=NIDCLXVI;346537]I do not care about the winning team getting some dosh for playing a video game. I want to pay a game for fun not competition!
What makes you guys playing competitively whine so much is tweaking the game to help you play the game we want to play for fun easier for you to play for money. It is a selfish, make the game play the way I play, attitude.
This is the truth of it! Personal gain, not âgameplay improvementâ but âgameplay unimprovement to help you in winning moneyâ :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Instead of having a go at comp people (FYI, Iâm not comp player, just casual), could you explain to me the relation you see between accurate weapons and teamplay, objective based gameplay?
I have to admit by making guns more accurate you give the better players more power over the not so good ones. If there are good players on both sides it doesnt really matter though. I see some new players in Quake Live from time to time as well who donât even seem to have heard about strafe jumping and they just play the game at their skill level which seems to work. So why it shouldnât it work in Brink?
