I put “strategy” in quotes, because this is pretty basic stuff. But there was a lot of stuff that I wanted to try, that I never got a chance to, due to Brink’s short life. I would have liked to see what would have happened if there was still some sort of organized clan play. Anyway, these are just my thoughts, from a combination of playing on PC and PS3. I’d like to hear your thoughts as well.
In the first couple of months of Brink, medics and engineers pretty much dominated. But later on, it seemed to become more of a soldier’s game, thanks to the grenades, which made engineers less important. All of the popular spots for mines get automatically molotov’ed…and the objective location is always naded.
Personally, in the few times I played engineer, I would usually only plant mines to cover some lesser-used flank, because 1) I didn’t want to be re-planting mines over and over…I felt that it is more important in Brink to be ready for a gunfight, and 2) Not having to worry about certain flanks allows me to be stronger when facing them head on.
I feel that since most people are good about nading and avoiding obvious mine spots (and limiting extraneous movement), I think that engineer is best played as an combatant and damage buffer…and is actually only required in missions that call for defusal or repairing.
Here are some things that I changed my views of over time…
- Operatives started to seem more useful. I, myself, wrote them off too early. Now, they are my favorite class for any sort of courier objective…both for playing the “Disruptor” role, in trying to clear the delivery spot before the carrier gets there (such as on Refuel)…as well as for carrying the package and avoiding mines. Also, on Container City, you can neutralize all of the mines and turrets people put in the pickup container in one throw of an EMP grenade…run in and run out.
Also, about the operative: Early on, I over-valued caltrops and sticky-bombs. Now, I really only think they are effective when you have multiple operatives deploying them. But I under-valued the Hack Turret ability, which I assumed was too inefficient. Overtime, I’ve begun to feel that hacking turrets is really fast and efficient.
Outside of courier objectives, and of course hacking objectives, I still don’t use operatives that much. Being able to slow down bomb charges with EMP is very powerful…but I would still rather have an extra engineer to raise the percentage of being able to defuse instead.
2)Soldiers on defense. I prefer soldiers for defense on a bot escort mission. Napalm grenades to eat away at the bot’s life… other grenades to keep engineers off of it. Bot escort missions were hard early on, but became the most offensively biased missions once people learned to just dance around the bot, avoid confrontation, and stay alive as long as possible while it is moving. When the bot is down, I felt that the most effective tactic was for everyone to go engineer and suicide rush - repair the bot.
As this sort of thing caught on, we needed a less conservative defense, and opted for one that just tries to slow the bot down and keep it destroyed, rather than trying to control the territory. So, for instance, I found that having the defense go all-soldier on Container City was the most effective at slowing down, and in some cases, stopping the bot escort missions.
The same thing applies to the crane repair objective on shipyard. If you watch the old Brink TV matches from the early days, the offense was very patient and tried to gain control of the territory. I think that later on in the ESL tournament, offense became more aggressive, but at that point, they weren’t playing Shipyard anymore. At some point in Brink’s life… the first objective of Shipyard became very difficult to defend (though the 2nd hacking objective remained defensively-biased, in my opinion.) Most people started to create chaos with grenades, suicide-rush engineers and get a few percent at a time, rather than try to gain full control of the area and do it all in 1-2 tries. As a result, I think that the best defense is to be heavy on soldiers, so that they can quickly clear the crane, though turrets on the Defense’s right side are still helpful.
-
The hacking mission on Resort. This mission always frustrates me more than anything when playing a solid team. I’ve tried a lot of different combinations, but I always felt that this objective was very hard. The one thing that I’ve seen the most consistent success in, is going 100% operatives. Not only do you have caltrops and sticky bombs laying everywhere…but the most important is that with each extra operative, your ability to hack increases so much that it outweighs the loss of not having revives or key buffs. All you need is for 1 guy to be alive and have a window of opportunity in order to hack…as opposed to needing 1 guy, and then the 20% chance that he was the single operative. I find that when you go all operatives, the mission becomes more of a tug of war, with operatives trying to pull the percent one way, and engineers trying to pull it the other way. Operative have a longer distance to run, but they hack faster…so in theory, it sort of balances out.
This same concept applies to going all engineer when defending a blast objective. Having 5 engineers means that if you have one guy alive, then there is a 100% chance he can defuse…but if you only have 2 engineers out of 5 players, then you only have a 40% chance. Furthermore, with 5 engineers, you can suicide defuse, only get half of it, and chances are that someone else can get the other half. It allows you to be able to go for the defuse when time is getting low, rather than having to make absolutely sure that there isn’t someone around the corner waiting to kill you. -
Courier objectives are probably have the most interesting gameplay, because they are one objective where I don’t feel that the most effective tactic is for everyone to go a single class… There is role for the operative (disrupt and carry), soldier (disrupt), and the engineer (fortify the pickup area…which can be helpful on Resort. You can give yourself more chances of delivering if you don’t let them challenge yourself too much at your pickup spot.) Courier objectives can be quite difficult… (And Security Tower courier mission is one of the hardest objectives to pull off in the game, against a solid team.)
-
Hacking mission on Reactor. Okay, this is a little crazy, but hear me out. I can’t remember the exact times, but when I timed it before, I believe that Security gets to their right side pillar at about 12 seconds, and Resistance gets there in about 15. However, on the left side pillar, Resistance gets there in about 17 or something like that. (I can’t remember the exact times anymore.) If you open the bridge, then the time is about the same to Security’s left side, though the Resistance gets higher ground…and I think they lose time getting Security’s right side. (I don’t think opening the bridge is worth it.)
What I’m suggesting is that teams should directly attack the Security’s left side non-stop, because that is where the time’s are most favorable. (Security has a few seconds advantage, but Resistance can hack faster than Security can defuse. Also, if you hit it fast, and never let up the pressure, they don’t actually have time to secure much of a position, unless they just outkill you.) Also, until Security catches on, Resistance will have a numbers advantage, because Security will never want to start the match by leaving their left side completely open.
Resistance is never going to flank, even though Security still has to consider that (which should weaken their position somewhat). Resistance is going to try and make it a head-to-head tug of war, and I believe that based on the numbers, they can win it. Security’s advantage here, though, is that they can get almost the same time from spawn if they come from the left side…so Resistance does have to worry about two directions. -
Consoles vs PC. Here is the huge difference between the two. ADS weapons are 10x more effective on PC due to mouse aim. Sniper rifles, assault rifles…the Rokstedi in particular. All usable on PC. Much less effective on consoles. (Yes, there are people who use them and win with them…but if they tried them out on PC, then they would probably agree that its much easier.) On PC, I would personally still prefer a team with all lights and SMGs…but I’m convinced that after the weapon updates, its very possible to use an assault rifle in a competitive game. I wouldn’t use more than 1 on a 5 person team…but assault rifles can shut down important lines of sight on PC. It is an option. Would I put money on a team that uses a medium? No, I’d still bet on the team with all light bodytypes…but I wouldn’t write off the medium bodytype player.
-
The EZ-Nade is interesting to me. It is one of two weapons in the game that forces a team to adapt to it on certain objectives. (The other one is the sniper rifle, which you can see used by the defense on Resort bridge mission in the ESL championship finals. By using it in that spot, you force the other team come after the sniper, or counter-snipe.) However, the sacrifice of having a heavy body-type for an entire match is so steep that I wouldn’t want to use one in a competitive game. (If we could switch out bodytypes mid-match, as in Tribes, I think you would see the heavy with EZ-Nade popping up occasionally.)
Here is the interesting part: The courier objective on Security Tower is one of the hardest objectives in the game against a solid team, because there is basically an open field of defensive fortifications rather than just one nadeable spot. The offense can breeze through the gate and the hack mission, but then get stuck at the courier objective for 20 minutes. However, if you have an EZ-Nade to constantly bombard the fortifications in the courtyard, it isn’t nearly as hard. So, for Security Tower, if you go in with a heavy, you might feel a lot more comfortable on that mission. He can even help on defense on the first objective, by nading the gate area (If you can stop the initial plant, since it takes a while for him to get into position.) However, the problem is that he would be a huge liability on offense and defense for the rest of the game.
So, do you go in with a heavy to make sure you get past the courier objective? In this case, you are probably hoping that you can hold the other team at that point. Or do you go in thinking about the escort objective, and just hope that you can get past the courier objective without him? -
Last thing. Downed Fire was something that I underestimated early on, because I used to think that medic revives were very important. I didn’t like downed fire, because it will hardly ever get a kill against a solid team, and its very easy to recognize the animation early on. So, I thought it was more important to have the extra health instead. Early on, I really valued the medic, but over time I started to feel that the delay in reviving people with a syringe was too risky to deal with…and that it detracted too much from a team’s ability to be aggressive. (Lazarus grenades are more effective, but of course they revive people with practically no health, and you only get one before the cooldown.) There are medics who make very good decisions, but I feel as though the impact of an extra player who is more focused on combat outweighs the use of a good medic.
So, I changed my view somewhat, and I started to respect the effectiveness of Downed Fire, not because it could get kills (though it does in absolute chaos), but because it forces the other team to deal with you. By forcing them to deal with you, they are not able to deal with the next guy as quickly…(or if they deal with him first, you may be able to use your downed fire.) Downed Fire isn’t for getting kills in itself, but in helping your teammate who is still alive get the kill while the enemy is still occupied.
It also creates a delay in defusing and things like that…and these sorts of games, delays are the main currency. Mines, turrets, downed fire, etc… their roles are really more about delaying the enemy from completing the objective or fortifying so that you can respawn and get back to the objective before it is too late.