Yes, another thread about team deathmatch.

(xBluntxForce) #21

[QUOTE=Luddens Desir;330031]This is so subjective, I’m not even sure which condition would be tdm and which would be non-linear campaigns.

It’s not impossible. It’s just the idea of dedicating resources to doing something you avoided.

Splash Damage would be better off improving the type of gameplay they created by making non-linear maps/campaings and dynamic objectives, as they would already have the foundation for improving on that concept even further in games they create in the future.

Creating contrived gametypes to appeal to the people who want them is a waste of time, because they specifically went out of their way to avoid them. That is why TDM/CTF did not exist in W:ET/ET:QW.

They’ve been trying to combine the single player experience of good narrative and battling through a map with the multiplayer experience of interacting with other players in order to complete an objective.

Creating the regular game modes would just return to the paradigm of simply completing the objective, which is the interaction with your opponent, rather than the interactions with your environment and opponent.[/QUOTE]

Repetitiveness is not subjective, you are literally doing the same thing over and over. Weather or not you find it boring is subjective.

I understand what you were getting at with the dedicating resources. But my point was, you are assuming it would take significantly less resources to make the game less repetitive and that one would suffer for the sake of the other, when you nor I do not know if that would be the case.

Im saying they could have done all that you have said they were better off doing, and still have enough man power for more than one game mode. Once again, objective play and TDM are not mutually exclusive.

And creating “regular game modes” (as if objectives are any different) would not shift the paradigm at all. As they could easily tie in the TDM mode into the story line. Im assuming that “interactions with your environment and opponent?” is referring Brinks story/objective play style. In that case, Brinks skimpy loading screen storyline prompts could easily be tailored for TDM settings.

(Jak Swift) #22

[QUOTE=wolfnemesis75;329998]Wanting TDM added to Brink is like Blake Griffin wanting to be in Rage.

“Does Blake know that Rage is a FPS?”[/QUOTE]

Ha. I like these metophores.

Having TDM in BRINK is like adding a cheap tacky ass spoiler to a new classy car.

(Je T´aime) #23

Guys when and if SDK is released someone will make some TDM maps for sure, not from devs but from people from the community. So don´t worry about it.

(SphereCow) #24

I felt almost inclined to stop reading your reply after this.

In team death match you are only doing one thing over and over.

It’s a matter of how much man hours they can donate to certain tasks. If you’re doing one thing, you cannot be doing the other at the same time in most cases. It is 100 percent true in this case because the game is not structured for TDM.

Except, that they totally are. In one the objective is removed from the player, and stand alone. In TDM the objectives are the other players.

No, interactions with your environment describes the interactions you perform with your environment.

And yes, Brinks game modes are similar to others, but the fact that they can be parallel and non-linear is what sets them apart. You are asking SD to waste their time doing this when they could be better of releasing an SDK. The community would make TDM/CTF maps on its own if that’s what really interested it.

(xBluntxForce) #25

[QUOTE=Luddens Desir;330130]I felt almost inclined to stop reading your reply after this.

In team death match you are only doing one thing over and over.

It’s a matter of how much man hours they can donate to certain tasks. If you’re doing one thing, you cannot be doing the other at the same time in most cases. It is 100 percent true in this case because the game is not structured for TDM.

Except, that they totally are. In one the objective is removed from the player, and stand alone. In TDM the objectives are the other players.

No, interactions with your environment describes the interactions you perform with your environment.

And yes, Brinks game modes are similar to others, but the fact that they can be parallel and non-linear is what sets them apart. You are asking SD to waste their time doing this when they could be better of releasing an SDK. The community would make TDM/CTF maps on its own if that’s what really interested it.[/QUOTE]

  1. If you would have stopped reading you would have felt stupid. Because instead of straight objective mode, you have two modes to choose from. TDM and objective. Two choices instead of one = less repetitiveness.

  2. Once again, your asserting that a mode where the game counts kills would suddenly upset the balance of the game when it simply wont. “Not structured for TDM”? How so? Because they call it an objective based game? Its only a name.

  3. You stated why they were different, and I don’t argue with you there. But by no means are they both incompatible with one another in this game.

  4. Im simply done arguing this point with you, as its a non argument. “They could make x when they could make y” Yea of course they could. They can also make Y then x. Or They could make Z then Q. What is your point? So they can never make a TDM mode because they should always be doing something else? What kind of sense does that make? If it improves the quality, and longevity of a game then WHERE IS THE WASTE?

(SphereCow) #26

I’m bored.

(Kurnuttaja) #27

I am not against TDM at all, I think that Brinks gameplay would fit very well for open map deathmatch (like CoD).

SMART could be more viable in TDM.

(tokamak) #28

If you’re going to make the third thread in a week on the same subject then at least add something to the discussion.

(xBluntxForce) #29

If your going to post in the thread at least add something to the discussion.

(Paris.) #30

I ardently agree with most points against adding a TDM and i love that brink is a fresh change from aimlessly running around shooting other players, but there is an obvious want for other game modes.

Perhaps there is a compromise. Couldn’t a control point like game mode be easily implemented? These were always very successful in games like battlefield and DOD. This would have a slightly higher focus on outright killing, but would retain the objective based and team based concepts behind the game. The control points could even be a mixture of health and supply command posts that would benefit the team that held them. There could still even be side objectives like building MG nests and creating shortcuts. I’m pretty sure all four classes could be equally emphasized in it also.

This is just an idea. I’m not sure how well it could be implemented. Most of the maps wouldnt contribute well to a game type like this because they are very asymmetrical, but perhaps a few could be edited to do so once an SDK is released. Furthermore, In the next DLC release perhaps SD could create a few more symmetrical maps that would lend themselves to a game type like this.

(radiogenicsky) #31

I agree with xBluntxForce on these points

[QUOTE=xBluntxForce;329921]
Exactly how will TDM push current Brink fans away the game? Its not like your FORCED to play it, its just another available mode. [/QUOTE]

I love brink the way it is but I see no reason not to have team death match you don’t have to play it but it will get more people to buy brink for this mode. More people buying the game can result in more money being spent on DLCs for this game, and more people online means you get to play ageist instead of most players being AIs. Also if people who felt this way went to go play other games (such as COD) they would not have the features unique to Brink.

[QUOTE=xBluntxForce;329921]
Why do you feel the need to make people who want TDM feel inferior for their opinions?[/QUOTE]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you have yours they have their’s I have mine In a situation like this its a matter of personal preference. If the game did have a TDM mode it would allow more people to play Brink the way they want to whether its objective based gameplay or team death match the game will allow them to choose what they want to play.:stroggflag:

(radiogenicsky) #32

[QUOTE=Luddens Desir;330011]I don’t need to know what they do with their time to know that when they’re working on one thing, they’re not putting that manpower towards something else. You never answered the question, either.

Why would they work on something that was specifically avoided, when they could make what they worked on better?[/QUOTE]

There is a simple 3 step solution

  1. Fix major problems/glitches

  2. Develop TDM mode which if you read my previous post will end in more money which is always useful for development interests

  3. Shift focus to whatever you were doing prior to creating a team death match mode.

That also answers your question.:riflenade:

(Kurushi) #33

[QUOTE=wolfnemesis75;329953]I’d rather have the Devs focus on optimizing and adding interesting DLC, Customization, and Weapons to keep the game fresh rather than add modes that are counter to the design and goal of Brink being a Objective Team Based Shooter. Exactly as I stated on the Bethesda Forum. TDM just devolves in to kill streaks and camping.

Why not try to get better at what Brink is all about? Plus TDM been done to death in other games.[/QUOTE]

this
players get spread

(radiogenicsky) #34

It also adds new players so it evens out. :riflenade:

(Ero-Sennin) #35

And you act like multi tasking is impossible, or simply taking more time on the game isn’t an option.

just saying, a human brain ISNT made for multi tasking. Many psychologists studies point out how badly so-called multitakers fare on their work. Working on too many things at the same time will only make you botch your job and make it sloppy. Studies made on multitaskers demonstrated that it made bad employes. “Unique-tasking” people fared way better than multitaskers. If you had a computer processor instead of a brain, now that would be possible to multitask, hence the need for computers in modern society to compile and process huge amount of information and completion of intellectual task that cant be made by a human mind. Just saying. Sorry for being a bit off-topic… but pride into multitasking makes me sick…

(radiogenicsky) #36

[QUOTE=Ero-Sennin;331925]And you act like multi tasking is impossible, or simply taking more time on the game isn’t an option.

just saying, a human brain ISNT made for multi tasking. Many psychologists studies point out how badly so-called multitakers fare on their work. Working on too many things at the same time will only make you botch your job and make it sloppy. Studies made on multitaskers demonstrated that it made bad employes. “Unique-tasking” people fared way better than multitaskers. If you had a computer processor instead of a brain, now that would be possible to multitask, hence the need for computers in modern society to compile and process huge amount of information and completion of intellectual task that cant be made by a human mind. Just saying. Sorry for being a bit off-topic… but pride into multitasking makes me sick…[/QUOTE]

Check my previous posts they say to do it in 3 separate steps instead of multitasking.

before anyone posts a response to this check my previous posts to see if I already answered your question.:orbital:

(Ero-Sennin) #37

Hey hey hey! Im not flaming you, just sharing hard won knowledge out of my psy degree. Didnt said you are wrong. Peace. :wink:

(radiogenicsky) #38

sorry i posted before i read the end of your post I kept mine on the thread in case anyone got the wrong idea. :smiley: