More than just 24 guns!!!!!

"More" doesn't equal "better".

24 is a good number of weapons. It doesn't steamroll average hardware with tons of models (weapons + attachments) it has to load (and/or store) in the game and - more importantly - it allows each weapon to be different to others.

If you take 100 weapons, you will have 4x10 ARs which all feel the same, 4x10 SMGs which all feel the same and so forth. And then people start complaining again.

theres only 24 guns!

Most fps these days have different iron sights on each weapon, except for maybe pistols. I don't see any reason Brink wouldn't.

But you can't change them.

I hate the FAL-Ironsights in Modern Warfare 2, for example. But I can't use different ones.

I just want decent teammates while playing. I have gathered good people but I am hope randoms can up their game and not be useless.

Dual wield attachment to select weapons - Pistols, Revolvers, and small Machine Pistols only.

Pros: Doubled clip size, Doubled rate of fire.
Cons: Aiming down the sights is useless, Accuracy halved, Doubled equip speed, Doubled reload speed.


Also wish that the weapons vary greatly between stats. The three or so SMG's, for example, look like they function pretty much the same.

From what I got out of the PAX videos, the MP9 has a terrible spread when being fired from the hip. Unlike the Super V, which remains fairly accurate.

A selection of more traditional multiplayer modes. CTF, Deathmatch, Conquest, etc.

More shotguns. Ideally one modeled after my favorite VG shotgun ever, Half Life 2's

Eyepatches

Oh please, no.

I mean, it wouldn't really work in BRINK anyway, because the maps are designed in a completely different way than "traditional" maps. But one thing that makes BRINK stand out is that it's always proper objective based gameplay.
Of course these will include "traditional" objectives most of the time, but at least you have several of them in one game.

Conquest and CTF are also "proper objective based gameplay". You've played it right, what about these maps make these game types impossible. Except for smaller size maybe necessitating King of the Hill instead of fullblown Conquest I fail to see why they wouldn't work.

Deathmatch can work on almost any map.

One mode, even with varied objectives, gets boring eventually. Killzone 2's warzone for instance. It was awesome, (proabably my favorite multiplayer type ever), mostly objective based, and varied, but I couldn't play it exclusively.

Yeah, I'd love traditional multiplayer modes like CTF, KotH, and DM. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting that and having it in the game. The Battlefield games are team and objective based games and they still have deathmatch modes in them and it doesn't really effect gameplay that much.

It seems like some people are just so intent on Brink NOT being like any other multiplayer games out there and being as different as possible that they're forgetting why so many multiplayer shooters have those core gametypes in them: Because they're fun and simple and people enjoy them.

The maps in BRINK are set up as pipes, basicly.
Once you complete an objective, you advance to the next stage where there is another objective. The previous part of the map becomes obsolete.

In a conquest mode you could easily capture to locations and seal the whole rear part of the map off, making it very unfair to the opposing team.

For Team Deathmatch, that'd mean one team could easily barricade themselves in one end of the map.
For Deathmatch you'd have to limit the map to a small segment so people would not spread out too far.


That's how BRINK works.

Well in those kind of modes the maps would simply be completely opened (including optional routes) from the start and not seal off. Extra routes could be added/removed as necessary. Why wouldn't that work? Plus KotH can take place in one relatively confined area pretty easily.



Everyone talks about how small these maps are, now they're too big :glare:


regardless this was one of my Unreasonable Wishes, they can make completely new maps for all I care.

You ever play Left 4 Dead? You got these big long maps to play on in normal mode. Point A to point B. Now there's another game type called Survival where you have to, well, survive hordes of zombies one after another. But instead of having one long map to play that on, Valve only used parts of the map, modifying them so you couldn't go any further and so there really was no place you could hold up.

See, all SD would have to do is pick sizable sections of a map and edit it a bit so you were contained in that one part. Lock a door here and there, block off a hallway, etc. Set up spawn points, name the map, then you're done. It's really not that hard.

Of course another way to keep people from holding up on one end of the map is to put something in the center of the map that could help whatever team gets it or something like that. Bad Company 2 usually puts a tank in the middle of the map. This is also why in some online FPS games they put the biggest gun somewhere in the middle. People are always fighting over it. It gives them a reason to be out in the open and fighting.

Now why you say a game mode like Conquest wouldn't work confuses me. The Conquest I'm familiar with (from BC2) you got three points you're fighting for control over and whoever holds the most points the longest wins. Now you could hold up on one end of the map at one point for the entire game but that would just cause you to lose the game.