[hannah sillery]

To better clarify, it's necessary in an SD-style objective game. In an objective-based game like BC2, or any number of objective modes in COD, having a lower amount of bullets to kill is doable, since any player can complete the objective - anybody can arm the crate, anybody can capture the point or flag, anybody can plant the bomb, so if you kill one player attempting an objective, anyone of his teammates can take his spot - this isn't the case in Brink.

yeah, the generic "every objective is a crate you inexplicably must blow" approach lol. Pretty weakly qualified as objective, the only qualification being, you must do it to progress.

[Shannon Marie Jones]

That's why the best strategy is not getting shot in the first place.

I usually try to live by that strategy in general.

[Sam Parker]

Spraying will get you killed.

It's already been stated by devs and some people who played Brink, that hip shooting and not burst firing is a viable tactic. However, this may have changed and may differ by weapon.

[lucile davignon]

I usually try to live by that strategy in general.

Pretty important, especially in real life.

[IM NOT EASY]

Pretty important, especially in real life.

That's exactly what I meant there. Where I live, it helps to really try and live by that...

[Alexis Estrada]

yeah, the generic "every objective is a crate you inexplicably must blow" approach lol. Pretty weakly qualified as objective, the only qualification being, you must do it to progress.

Back in BC1 they were gold crates. Made you feel like you were doing some good.

[Louise Lowe]

Blowing up gold?

[Kaley X]

Blowing up gold?

Better steal them like in W:ET

[Robert Jackson]

Exactly, all that Nazi gold for the takin'

[Jeff Tingler]

It could be included in a custom game type deal similar to the Halo series (change spawn times, increase/decrease weapon damage, ect.), otherwise just mod it into a private server, I would imagine it's a simple process to apply a blanket damage buff.

[Avril Louise]

Uhm, periscopes? That's used in a submarine, to view above the water.

Small ones were also used by soldiers to look around corners without getting their heads blown off, especially in urban warfare and buildings, theye were also used in WW1 to look above the trench for same reason, nowadays very small cameras are used instead, my point about counter strike is that if you got shot at, you didn't get any chance to take cover to defend yourself, which was realistic, but you should only bother putting problems in a game if you add reasonable solutions, (buying 7 flashbangs and throwing one round every corner you go round is not reasonable.

Talking of CS, is it true they've got the guy who made dm_dust working on Brink?

[Brentleah Jeffs]

Small ones were also used by soldiers to look around corners without getting their heads blown off, especially in urban warfare and buildings, theye were also used in WW1 to look above the trench for same reason, nowadays very small cameras are used instead, my point about counter strike is that if you got shot at, you didn't get any chance to take cover to defend yourself, which was realistic, but you should only bother putting problems in a game if you add reasonable solutions, (buying 7 flashbangs and throwing one round every corner you go round is not reasonable.

Talking of CS, is it true they've got the guy who made dm_dust working on Brink?

Also known as a mirror on a stick

And yes, container city was made by the same guy, thus the linear aspect of the map.

[Kari Depp]

It's already been stated by devs and some people who played Brink, that hip shooting and not burst firing is a viable tactic. However, this may have changed and may differ by weapon.

Spraying from the hip will work with the SMGs in close quarters' 1v1 situations, I'm quite sure. But that should work in every game, anyway.

But as we're talking about one vs many scenarios here, spraying is not a viable tactic if you're not wielding a minigun and have yourself pratly covered.

[kiss my weasel]

Spraying from the hip will work with the SMGs in close quarters' 1v1 situations, I'm quite sure. But that should work in every game, anyway.

But as we're talking about one vs many scenarios here, spraying is not a viable tactic if you're not wielding a minigun and have yourself pratly covered.

I beg to differ:

taken from the compendium:

Good news for players who hate ironsights (like me) below is a snippet of an irc chat between 2 SD forum members – One of which (sponge) played Brink at QuakeCon:
{sponge} hip shooting is plenty effective
{DarkangelUK} sponge, did you find you were out-gunned against ironsight when you were hip shooting, or did it feel quite accurate like ET?
{sponge} DarkangelUK: i was never outgunned. in any scenario. ever.
{sponge} unless it was like 5 on 1
{sponge} but also close range you don’t need ironsights



The "5 on 1" comment is irrelvant, since even with aiming up your shots, you're likely to wind up dead in a 5v1 scenario.
And he wasn't using a minigun, because everyone who got to play Brink was a Medium.
Notice he says - "but also close range you don’t need ironsights," implying that he was originally talking about mid-far range.

[Leanne Molloy]

And he didn't say he was spraying either. :rolleyes:

[Max Van Morrison]

And he didn't say he was spraying either. :rolleyes:

Whatever dude, you can keep clinging to that logic.

The players in that IRC chat are veteran ET players. ET players do not burst fire, since there are no ironsights and spread is negligible. On top of that, how many people burst fire when firing from the hip? hip-firing usually incorporates full auto fire.

[Captian Caveman]

In Counterstrike players wouldn't spray from the hip if they fought on a distance.

And if people, who want to use assault rifles on a distance, don't spray, they can be pretty effective with hip fire, I guess. But not when just spraying it away.

[He got the]

How is it spraying if you are hitting what you are aiming for?

[N3T4]

why is this even a arguement anymore? look, splash damage has made great games for a long time, they have always had well balenced games... so yes it may take half a magizine to floor a medium guy, but that probably because A) you cant aim work a flip B)because he's flyin around you like a bird pelting you and C) this game or masterpiece should not be compaired to other games let alone of the shooters for sure... what other shooter can you do this level of parkour and shoot at the same time..?

[Jonathan Braz]

I think ADS should be an option for when you want lower aim sensitivity and possibly some zoom, but shouldn't affect recoil or character accuracy,

I wonder if it was invented for that reason, or if it was purely to enhance realism?

[Dean Brown]

I still say 10-15 chest shots and everything else balanced with it ftw.

[GLOW...]

I still say 10-15 chest shots and everything else balanced with it ftw.

10-15 hits to kill is too much. You've gotta consider at least one third of your bullets to miss.

[Charlie Ramsden]

Thought I'd dig this thread up rather than post a new topic as it's an issue I feel strongly about.

Nearly all the recent FPS's are emphasising realism over action. While there are some very good fps's, high realistic damage ultimately leads to cautious tactics, sniping from distance to clear the objective, very slowly advancing, intensive camping, etc, as they are the most effective tactics to win for the team.

The thing I most loved about RtCW, W:ET and ETQW was the reduced weapon damage and action orientated, which emphasise much more teamwork, concentrated fire, accuracy and movement over twitch alone, that ever death was due to a mistake rather than unavoidable etc. It also greatly reduces the one man rambo killing half of the enemy team and winning the objective solo, which is an even greater concern in a 8v8 game than 16v16.

IMO, high TtK (time to kill) levels (which is the main important factor, it makes little practical difference outside of reloading with tight cones / controlled burst if it takes 10 bullets to kill in 0.1 seconds or 1 bullet) are perfect for the ultimate teamplay experience. Personally out of all the online FPS shooters I've ever played (a lot of them over the years) RtCW was by far the most enjoyable and memorable (CQB storming the documents room and trying to reach the transmitter on the sea invasion map with a whole server of teamplayers was just a pure joy!). W:ET had many similar moments, though I always felt that the panzer and especially the mortar were mistakes. Given the choice between tactical realistic slow paced fps or adrenaline fueled fast and hectic teambased shooters where movement really matters I'd choose the hectic one everytime.

While I have no problem with a hardcoe mode for people who prefer those styles, so many fps's nowadays only have hardcoe and hardcoe lite, with little gameplay difference (and weapon damage completely changes the dynamics of how best to play fps's, high dmg emphasises caution, low damage speed and a more reckless teamplay style to win). I'd hate to see the same thing happen to the few developers out there who actually cater to people who prefer a more arcade style, with the associated teamplay orientated benefits it provides.

I am wondering whether the damage amounts are being customised between PC and consoles though. A worrying trend I've noticed in more recent games is that the damage models are the same. While it works for consoles, given the vastly increased accuracy and player control given by using a mouse / keyboard combo it leads to a different gaming experience, with instant death scenario's being much more common, encouraging the more realistic style of gameplay that I personally find becomes rather boring over time, and losing those insanely fun moments in rtcw / et / etqw where your team has to storm in to a heavily guarded defensive position by force with speed and the hectic CQB action / last gasp memorable wins / saves that follows (which with high dmg just turns into a slaughter for the attackers, again creating a much more slower paced cautious game style for the attacking side in objective based games).

It all boils down to personal preference, high damage = a paranoia style of game, low damage = an adrenaline style, each to their own and all that. As for which is best, neither are, they both require different tactics and skill sets to be a good teamplayer.

[Matt Bee]

Nearly all the recent FPS's are emphasising realism over action. While there are some very good fps's, high realistic damage ultimately leads to cautious tactics, sniping from distance to clear the objective, very slowly advancing, intensive camping, etc, as they are the most effective tactics to win for the team.

OR the exact opposite: Run&Gun Spray&Pray style, which is very effective, too.

[Amelia Pritchard]

I would have been pushing a HC mode in this game but i have since realized that 3-5 headshots per kill is not to bad with a AR/SMG, 2-3 with a Light rifle isn't as bad as i originally thought, i only would worry if you are using a bolt-action as it takes time to retract and chamber a new round. though the thought of an emphasis on DMRs (Designated Marksman Rifleman) is going to be a good thing, less idiots camping near their own spawn.