Weapon tutorial guides

(Ajax's Spear) #41

Yeah, it would be nice if at least the first couple shots hit dead center of where you’re aiming, and started to deviate more under sustained bursts. That plays a little more into the realism, too.

(iezza) #42

if i dont get PC gamers it will be aroudn january, cos i get my PC then.

(tangoliber) #43

[QUOTE=iezza;384220]Can anyone just get me a 30 sec gameplay footage.

PC users, it is only a 30 second clip, it can have watermark or not, i dont care, PLEASE![/QUOTE]

I can record, but I didn’t catch what the 30 seconds of gameplay was supposed to be of. If you just want a spread test, there is an excel sheet around here with the values after the update.

(Fetter) #44

I honestly don’t understand how you don’t get this. Are you really saying that the tactics and movements you use-- of which ADS are a part-- aren’t predicated on situational awareness and what your team is doing? 1v1s mean very little.

(tangoliber) #45

Head to head battles are very common in Brink. 1v1 situations are a large part of the game. In these situations, ADSing is low level play.

Now, if you have team positions to control an area, and you are using the Bulpdaun or an assault rifle, then you might be ADSing.

However, the Carb is considered the best weapon for competitive play. ADSing with the carb only increases your accuracy by 12 percent over standing hipfire and 19 percent over strafing hipfire. Anytime someone is aiming back at you, you will want to strafe, not ADS. If you are shooting someone in the back, you could ADS, but its really not worth it, especially with the delay in bringing up your sights… I would rather keep mobile as I am shooting.

Personally, the Galactic is my favorite SMG. For that gun, ADSing only has a 6 percent accuracy boost over standing hipfire, and 17% accuracy boost over strafing hipfire. I do not bring up my sights with the Galactic. At closer range I shoot long bursts at the chest, and at long range, I tap fire at the head.

(iezza) #46

Just gameplay with any weapon :wink:

(iezza) #47

see previous message

(Crytiqal) #48

[QUOTE=tangoliber;384313]Head to head battles are very common in Brink. 1v1 situations are a large part of the game. In these situations, ADSing is low level play.

Now, if you have team positions to control an area, and you are using the Bulpdaun or an assault rifle, then you might be ADSing.

However, the Carb is considered the best weapon for competitive play. ADSing with the carb only increases your accuracy by 12 percent over standing hipfire and 19 percent over strafing hipfire. Anytime someone is aiming back at you, you will want to strafe, not ADS. If you are shooting someone in the back, you could ADS, but its really not worth it, especially with the delay in bringing up your sights… I would rather keep mobile as I am shooting.

Personally, the Galactic is my favorite SMG. For that gun, ADSing only has a 6 percent accuracy boost over standing hipfire, and 17% accuracy boost over strafing hipfire. I do not bring up my sights with the Galactic. At closer range I shoot long bursts at the chest, and at long range, I tap fire at the head.[/QUOTE]

+1 so Fetter can grasp it

(tangoliber) #49

Eh, I hadn’t read the first page of this topic in a long time. All I saw was you asking for gameplay. So this video isn’t what you wanted, but I’ll post it anyway. Put it together from old clips because I didn’t feel like playing with fraps on.

[video=youtube_share;nV1265VCnQs]http://youtu.be/nV1265VCnQs[/video]

I always try to avoid hitting my target with the lobster grenade. I usually try to bounce it towards them.

(Fetter) #50

Not necessarily-- this is dependent on cover and other situational factors. In close-quarters open environments, ADSing is obviously a bad idea-- but there are other environments in the game as well.

Certainly true.

Yes, but this is thanks to multiple errors on the part of the “competitive” BRINK scene.

This is certainly the case if you’re dueling someone in the open. However-- at least in my BRINK experience-- this almost never happens.

That seems like a valid playstyle with that gun, though I suspect there are still situations where ADS would be to your advantage. But it’s not the only valid playstyle or the only valid gun. There seems to be a bizarre and unfounded “SMGs only” mentality among many that drastically constrains their gameplay. I’m not sure why this notion continued post-patch, but it certainly did, and I find it something of a pain.

(tangoliber) #51

Well, the main reason for the SMG-only mentality is not for the guns themselves but because most teams will want everyone on the same speed, for purposes of coordination.

But personally, I do think that there is room for using the other bodytypes. The EZ Nade launcher is a very valuable weapon. On PS3, this guy named Seacliffer used it exclusively for a long time…and he sucked for a long time (no offense seanadespammer, lol)… but once he got good with it, it started to have a huge impact on games, and defenses had to adapt and play more Rambo rather than just fortifying the objective with mines and turrets. On Security Tower, it makes the courier objective so much easier…but if you use a heavy, then you will be weaker on the other objectives for the map.

The assault rifles can be used effectively as well. One of the most effective offensive tactics for Shipyard seems to be to have assault rifles stationed at several angles keeping the defense from staying inside the crane, while suicide engineers continuously run up and get whatever percent they can. But then, mediums are sort of difficult to use for the hacking part of the map, so you sacrifice one objective for another.

Personally, I would still go with an all light-plus-SMG team because I prefer a very aggressive strategy.

(Baumbo) #52

Competitive players tend to like the most reliable weapon for all situations. The design failure was that there isn’t a reliable weapon for all situations. The inaccuracy of the SMGs put in stupid jockeying for position, where instead of shooting you have to try and close the distance before you can shoot. In reality, if I see a player I want to be able to shoot them without ADS or spread or random chance. Players think kick is okay, but only because they can try and reduce the random missing.

Fetter, I think that what tangoliber and Crysiqal are trying to tell you, is that positioning and complexity should not be required for a basic firefight. A firefight should be point and click, with as little random chance as possible. ADS is unnecessary fluff that wastes time.

(tangoliber) #53

While I don’t like ADS in anything other than a military sim game…I do think that firefights should have an element of movement to be interesting. I would say movement plus accuracy plus recoil control (as in recognizing recoil patterns and adjusting to them, or learning the right burst rhythm for each gun). But yes, random chance should be minimized.
ADS is in Brink, and so I have to recognize that it has uses with some guns… but hipfiring is not low-level play. It is usually ideal, and I’m glad for that.

(Baumbo) #54

[QUOTE=tangoliber;384396]While I don’t like ADS in anything other than a military sim game…I do think that firefights should have an element of movement to be interesting. I would say movement plus accuracy plus recoil control (as in recognizing recoil patterns and adjusting to them, or learning the right burst rhythm for each gun). But yes, random chance should be minimized.
ADS is in Brink, and so I have to recognize that it has uses with some guns… but hipfiring is not low-level play. It is usually ideal, and I’m glad for that.[/QUOTE]

I’m not saying movement isn’t good. I’m saying that two men enter a room, whoever points and clicks better should win. Strafing and movement will be a part of that. Let me phrase it another way. Maybe more clear.

Competitive players want to be able to shoot people fast. They want to move fast, think fast, react fast, and shoot people while doing all of these.
ADS and Sprint mechanics slow down gameplay. Not only can you not shoot people while moving fast (sprinting with your gun down), You cant shoot people while moving kind of fast (high spread while strafing/jogging), you have to be moving really slow to shoot people well (crouching and ADS).

So even if I can think fast, react fast, and move fast, I have to play on the same level of a player who moves slow and thinks slow. (Reaction time still matters.) The game is not as fun because I am forced to play a way I don’t want to.

However, Brink did a decent job catering to players of all types with the different body types and weapon categories. I just feel as though I am being held back by the current system.

I was a console player who switched to PC for SC2 (Which I suck at), and I got Brink as my first new PC shooter. (I had BF1942). So in the beginning I played just like it was CoD, asing ARs and ADS and playing medium. But, I graduated from slow paced gaming and now I play light. Even that feels kind of slow to me now. I think I was who SD was trying to bring into the field of competitive play when they made Brink. Now, I am considering playing wolf:et and older games because Brink isn’t up to kind of play I want. They gave me a taste of what an FPS should be, but didn’t follow all the way through. Just my two cents.

(Fetter) #55

The weird thing about this is that the more coordinated you are, the more effective other bodytypes are, thanks to the way that the speed buff works when distributing ammo/health/gun buffs/armor…

Agreed. There are many situations where some of the stuff that other bodytypes can bring to the table can really excel.

Really? Having a reliable weapon for all situations strikes me as a design error, since it would constitute and effective best weapon or type of weapons. I like the current paradigm, where different weapons are ideal in different situations and range bands. When using an AR, I know that if I engage an SMG up close I will probably lose (unless I’m ambushing or otherwise catching my opponent unawares), but if I ADS and start shooting before my opponent gets into close range, engage from behind cover, etc. the advantage will be mine.

That’s a very untactical and simplistic point of view. I enjoy games that have more depth to their combat than just “point and click.”

(Crytiqal) #56

[QUOTE=Fetter;384480]
That’s a very untactical and simplistic point of view. I enjoy games that have more depth to their combat than just “point and click.”[/QUOTE]

You actually do have to aim, well, in BRINK you don’t but that’s why it sucks.

I dont understand the stuff about tactical depth and whatever people talk about in BRINK cause I can go without that nonsense and still get most kills / do most objectives / win most maps.

Seriously, who the hell uses “tactics” in pubgames anyway, how would that work with a bunch of randoms?

(Apoc) #57

In a comp game you will not be able to ads. You will get raped by grenades or crossfire if you stay still.

In pub games, im pretty sure any competent player could get most kills using knife only, since the player level is so low.

(tokamak) #58

Removing the accuracy component from the game in the way Brink did does encroach on it’s tactical value. People no longer need to put in effort to have an edge in combat. Effort is a resource just like any other resource in the game and it requires strategic insight to determine where your effort is best spent.

In other words, if accuracy mattered more (especially with better calibrated dynamic spread) you can incorporate this in your tactics and give yourself advantages by getting the drop on people and all that. Now because accuracy doesn’t matter as much, getting the drop on people isn’t really significant. The only thing that really matters is the number of people you’re fighting with.

Brink has turned into a numbers game. A fast version of RISK. Where there are two guys, the single opponent won’t stand a change, three guys easily beat two guys etc etc. ETQW and W:ET had no such certainties and rewarded players that came up with creative plans in order to beat enemies that outnumbered them by far.

That’s what I miss in Brink. And note that all the lobbying for ridiculously low ‘pro’ spread does the same thing to the game.

(zenstar) #59

Randomness detracts from tactics. The more extreme the randomness the more the game invites “button mashing” and “spray and pray” and the less a player can plan an attack properly since he cannot predict the outcome of his actions very well at all.

(Baumbo) #60

[QUOTE=Fetter;384480]The weird thing about this is that the more coordinated you are, the more effective other bodytypes are, thanks to the way that the speed buff works when distributing ammo/health/gun buffs/armor…

Agreed. There are many situations where some of the stuff that other bodytypes can bring to the table can really excel.

Really? Having a reliable weapon for all situations strikes me as a design error, since it would constitute and effective best weapon or type of weapons. I like the current paradigm, where different weapons are ideal in different situations and range bands. When using an AR, I know that if I engage an SMG up close I will probably lose (unless I’m ambushing or otherwise catching my opponent unawares), but if I ADS and start shooting before my opponent gets into close range, engage from behind cover, etc. the advantage will be mine.

That’s a very untactical and simplistic point of view. I enjoy games that have more depth to their combat than just “point and click.”[/QUOTE]

Reliability =/= Best Weapon for all situations.

Reliability means bullets go where I point at any range. Having an SMG that can shoot where it is pointed DOES NOT mean it will be better than a shotgun at close range, better than an AR at midrange, or better than a sniper at long range. You’re for having a rock-paper-scissors style of play into a game that is supposed to be based on skill. SMG beats AR/Sniper at close range, AR beats SMG/Sniper at midrange, Sniper beats SMG/AR at long range.

You would argue I should prepare for the situations I am in by bringing the right gun. A tool that should be available is the jack of all trades gun. Usable in all situations, master of none.

Let me explain.

As of right now a light either is good at short range (SMG), or long (Sniper). This is bad. I should not HAVE to play a specific body type in order to be effective at any range. I shouldn’t be forced to play at only a specific range based on my body type. SMGs should be able to be used at any range.

Well then, whats the point of playing as a medium?
As a medium, you can bring a shotgun to beat me at close range, an AR to beat me at midrange, and a Sniper to beat me at long range. You can keep your advantage based on what gun you bring. (Beat = more effective. Theoretically I can still out shoot you, because my gun will actually hit you when I point it at you.) Also you can bring a reliable SMG as a secondary weapon. So neither a light, nor a medium, nor a heavy, would be at a disadvantage at any range. Mediums stand to gain from this proposal too.

Wait! If a light gets an all around good gun then he doesn’t have to make tactical decisions on what gun he brings?
No. I could still opt for a sniper and play from long range.

What about pistols aren’t they good at medium range?
No. Fast paced guns are good for fast paced gameplay. Mossberg is worse because it is pump, Hjammerdiem is better because it is burst. Barnett is worse because it is bolt, Dragunov is better because it is semi. Pistols are bad because they are semi, machine pistols are better because they are auto.

So even if the sea eagle and revolvers can be used at midrange they are horribly outclassed by ARs or even by SMGs at midrange.

TLDR: SMGs too much spread, Pistols suck, no body type/weapon balance disturbed by SMG spread reduction.