A team game yes. You don’t have to STICK with your teammates for it to be a team game. You have to be coordinated. You can all spread out and flank, have an operative do cause chaos and the team moves one and pushses forward. You don’t have to superglue everyone to each other for this to be a teamgame, that’s no fun.
Like really, why is this debated
[QUOTE=nick1021;346766]A team game yes. You don’t have to STICK with your teammates for it to be a team game. You have to be coordinated. You can all spread out and flank, have an operative do cause chaos and the team moves one and pushses forward. You don’t have to superglue everyone to each other for this to be a teamgame, that’s no fun.
Like really, why is this debated[/QUOTE]
Because a soldier giving me ammo, while I wail on the enemy with 200 rounds of gotlung, while I dole out syringes to the unlucky few who went down, while the engineer behind me buffs my gun and places a mine at my back and a turret at my flank is the gameplay that wins objectives. This combination of “style” of teamwork is the nuclear bomb to the paper scissor rock gameplay of dividing up. :oppressor:
It has already been pointed out to you that for example in Quake TDM there is much more teamplay required than you might see if you look at it superficially. And now look at the shooting mechanics of Quake. There is no freakin randomness.
Ok but i miss the point why a coop game cant be also rewarding the skill of players, as was for rtcw and et/qw before.
Limiting this aspect produced the effect you can see browins the servers…its so hard to understand?!
[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;346759]How is random luck being placed above skill even being considered a viable option for some people? I’m confused. I can pinpoint my crosshair on an opponents head like a demon because I practice my head tracking, but only 20% of my bullets will hit due to the spread. My opponent can’t aim for ****, and rarely gets his crosshair on my head, but due to the random spread 20% of his bullets hit… what?
(pretty sure i’ll regret joining in on this one… but bloody hell why is this even being debated?).[/QUOTE]
Same reason the MG nest the Engy builds in Brink scatters the bullets all to the wind when you are trying to gun down enemy. Its by design. It balances out all the team aspects, abilities, varied classes, buffs, everything in a way that smashes individualized tactics.
I am gonna be honest here…when you are getting smashed by the other team and nobody on your team is working together and you are getting frustrated because of this, there is an irresistible urge that builds up where you want to just say **** this and run off and freelance, parkour all over the place and dream of being able to say at the end of the match, “Well I killed more than I got killed.” This game stops you from doing that and just smashes you even more for thinking about it.
The MG nests are totally and utterlly useless, they surve no purpose as of now, there is no reason why you should build them at all.
So lets look at this scenario. You have one team that sticks together forever but it is really good with aim. Now you have another team which also stick together forever but has horrible aim. Who should win? Well ofc the first team. But thanks to this mechanic it’s luck. And any team could win.
I agree with the tighter spreads and reduce damage, the weapons atm have a really strange spread but ofcurse if the spread is less then you would kill enemys faster so thats why i also agree with the reduce damage.
[QUOTE=wolfnemesis75;346776]
I am gonna be honest here…when you are getting smashed by the other team and nobody on your team is working together and you are getting frustrated because of this…[/QUOTE]
I usually get close to opposite spawn and take care of them all while they stop to buff each other so we can win the round! 
this is simply (and demonstrably) not true - you are undermining whatever point you might be making with hyperbolic exaggerations.
to the rest of you/(us)
this whole argument/thread/discussion is treating relatively small variable shifts as monumental/seismic/drastic. I’m sorry that 100% of your shots dont hit exactly where you click them. I’m all for suspension of disbelief in VG (one reason i dont play no-respawn tactical shooters), but that seems too far…although calling it “too far” might be a bit much, since I think this whole discussion is splitting hairs and calling it the grand canyon.
Oh so someone having the skill to aim at the head has the same chance as killing someone who aims to the side of the body ISN’T drastic?
Probably the team that was all of that, the correct class, the right flanks, the better tactics would win. When aim is minimized and the playing field is leveled, you probably must have to use clever tactics to win, I’d imagine. Or when one strategy fails, be able to adjust on the fly and formulate one that out smarts your opponent. You are only as strong as your weakest player in many ways.
The consoleros should understand that the PC players who are disappointed with the game arent saying that the console version is bad. They dont care.
Yes, it sounds like Brink is a great console game which isnt surprising as it’s designed from the ground up as a console game.
But with the more precise input devices on the PC, the expectations are different. Movement speed and spread that makes a gunfight appropriate with a controller makes it about as challenging as clicking on a “OK” button without missing for mouse users.
You can aim more precisely and track movement better with the mouse so PC gamers have different needs for the shooting and movement mechanisms.
Noone wants to change your console version. And when posters refer to the Steam player count, they arent trying to say that noone on XBox plays the game anymore - they dont care about XBox. And even if SD makes Brink turn-based on the consoles, the PC players wont care.
The numbers from Steam show that the game has failed incredibly on the PC. Nothing more, nothing less. No need to howl about your XBox version. Lets just all agree that Brink is a good console game. And has tanked on a rarely seen magnitude on PC.
The problem is the goal to have parity between console and PC gameplay. With the differences in input devices, the gameplay has to be different too to be fun on both platforms.
Speed up movement and tighten spread for the PC version. I really dont see a point for consoleros to resist this, it doesnt affect your version.
@ wolf
I think you are just disagreeing all the time for the sake of disagreeing, aren’t ya? It looks to me you are just blindly accepting anything SD throws at you and saying ‘It is by design’. Well hell yeah they designed the game but I can question the design can’t I? Maybe sou should just try the stuff we are suggesting become changed and maybe you will see that it is actually not such a bad idea.
Agreed, Im getting tirsome of arguing as well. So Im just gonna say PC != Console. I don’t give a damn how the game is designed or plays on the console. All I wanted from the start was a great PC game. That is not to say that the console version should be bad or anything.