So what are you expecting?



I have no idea what you are talking about. Some missions are day or night missions but they don't change during the map.

I didn't mean in the middle of a game on one map, the objectives are going to change completely. For example. You're doing Freeplay, and you're on Container City. Capture this objective. You play, you win. You decide (and I don't know why one would) to stop playing for 6 hours. You get back on, do Freeplay on Container City again, but you notice that the objectives are a bit different this time around. Sorry, for not making myself clear the first time.

It's not that way. Atleast that's not how I understood the interviews/vids. I think they mean some objectives will be different because you play the same map, but sometimes you have easy acces to certain blowable sideways, while the other time around you have to put a lot more effort in blowing it up. Other example: Fighting for command posts all the time or not having to fight for them at all.

You summed up what I was trying to say, but that's the point I was trying to get across.

I don't think that was your point. You seem to consider BRINK having a persistent world like MMOs have it. But you're wrong. If you play on Container City, you'll play one part of BRINK's story, but always the same part, either as the main actor or a supporting character (speaking of Cut Scenes here)..


The concept is exactly the same like in Counterstrike or Search&Destroy in Call of Duty:

• Pick up this.
  
• Bring it there.
  
• Do something.
  
• ???
  
• Profit.

It's just presented in a much better way, with a background-story and multiple, more complex objectives plus additional subordinate objectives.

Yes, but each game will be different. Sometimes you have to recap the same command post 15 times while in other games you capture it once and you'll never lose it.

Those are the side objectives though. The main objectives will be the same.

example: In container city, you will always have to blow up a wall, repair a crane, and blow up another wall, as it showed in the video.

Both sides to this argument are right, you are each talking about different things. The story is the same every time you play a certain map, yes. The experience you get will be different every time you play the same map, yes. The dynamic mission system should make sure of that, adjusting to take your teammates actions into consideration.

But it's not all too different than in games we know already. It's just mainly presented in a more complex way.

Especially the K/D-[censored]s will probably never experience a different game much.

Personally I can't stand it when a game becomes "go here via this route, do this because it's the only thing to do, rinse and repeat"

At least Brink will have "Go here any way you want, fulfill XYZ objective, rinse and repeat"

and that my friends is what we call a game seller.

Oh, and death to all campers and bunnyhoppers and all...yeah I kinda got that out of my system a while back, thanks again.

Ok, I don't mean to flame you but first, if you don't like 90% of FPS, then you should probably stay away of Brink or just wait for a demo instead of trying to ask for changes to match your liking, especially considering that you don't like 90% of FPS means your liking don't seem to fit the genre.And this brings us to your "list" :




I don't know about consoles, but on PC, I don't mind bunny hopping. Can be really unfair when playing/aiming on a pad, I suppose, but otherwise it's a fair "hardcoe/fast-paced" FPS close combat tactic. Same for strafing. Sure really fast left-right strafing is a pain, and some inertia can be set, but not too much or it will just slow down the pace of combat. I don't want snails fight, I want jumping around, shooting/nading then sliding to cover, swaping weapons when clip is empty instead of waiting for reload etc. I want action and adrenaline. At least on PC, where it's possible.



This K-walking stuff is the kind of trick that after a while everybody knows, and it's not really a problem in the end. Same for the sniper because of the game mechanics concerning mid-ranged / long-ranged. Hence, these points are half-irrelevant. Source movement seems also completely irrelevant, because it's not the same engine, and there is the SMART movement stuff... I don't see the risk you mention at all.



I believe we can trust Splash damage to take care of these kind of deadlocks/camping issues. I believe main spawns are defended with turrets that attack any enemy coming near. As for capturable command posts, well if it's camped, you can always spawn back at the main spawn, I believe, so it's not a deadlock either. With the SMART move, it should be pretty rare to have choke points with only one way. And still, since it's 8 vs 8, it's probably less a pain to solve than a choke point with 16 vs 16, for example.





Well, basically you want to restrict a bunch of gameplay possibilities because they are are breakers for you. But most of your points aren't, for most FPS players, AFAIK. Brink seems to be medium / close combat, action packed with SMART climbing all over the place and adrenaline-fuelled short encounters. If you start taking out strafing, hopping, and everything that makes it fast-spaced and adrenaline-fuelled, you're just going to kill it.

I'm sorry if I seem rude, but lots of you're demands are just wow. Unless if it's for console / pad FPS, then indeed they might help for balance, but on PC ? Out of question. Instead, make some options on servers if really some things should be toggleable ON/OFF.

Anyway, this thread is a good opportunity to renew my concerns about a "consolised" gameplay that would tune the combat rythm down to console levels. I am used and I enjoy FPS on PC more (I also play FPS on consoles but it's like eating a macdonalds compared to your homemade burger), and it is because the pace is usually fast, the aim is fast and precise with the mouse, reflexes play a lot (it's immersive), and there usually are more possible players at the same time, and more server parameters.

EDIT : ok I answered to OP a bit quickly, it seems you can be more moderated. Sorry about the seemingly aggressive tone, then.

Oh, another point of worry for me is, alas, the mixing of solo and multiplayer. Meaning mixing of bots and players, with one replacing the other seamlessly ingame etc... Because I want to play against humans only. But this shouldn't be a problem with proper server settings, I hope...

How does SMART change spawn camping.

Something that will keep me playing for a while. I made the mistake of saying it was my biggest concern, when it's just a minor one. I'm just slightly worried about the variety in objectives. All we've really seen is stuff like escort bot/NPC, destory/create a pathway, or gather a command post. Some of which the objectives are light secondary objectives that can be completed very quickly.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea and I will more than likely love it, like I said it's just a minor concern .

There is also a capture the intel and take it for extraction. There will likely be more. Much better than TDM.

Yeah very true. There's plenty they haven't shown us. Also what about objectives on both teams? If escorting a bot is the Security's main objective is the Resistance's main objective to defend it? I haven't seen much discussion about this since they tell it from one sided.

i can't see how you can be against bots tbh, but you can turn bots off so you'll have to stick with the no-bot-servers:)

as for bunnyhopping and dropshooting, those are not tactics, those are just things people do to avoid being killed.
tactics, those are things that are meant to take people by surprise, i've never seen a soldier throw himself at the ground while starting to fire just to kill a guy, probably because it'd knock his breath away and his accuracy would be so terrible he could end up shooting civvies. and i don't want to hear blabber about how it shouldn't be so realistic, otherwise you could suggest everyone jumping 5000miles in the air...
i don't mind people taking more bullets than realisticly possible, but the no-realism should stay inside what's fun, and i DO NOT like to shoot at people who are prone at one second and are flying through the air the next after wich they keep jumping up and down all the time. it messes up my accuracy while theirs seems unaffected. well, relatively speaking ofcourse, someone jumping up and down all the time should have a hard time hitting an elephant at a few yards distance yet they can take you down fast......

someone going prone at the sight of the enemy(aka dropshooting), i can't see how this speeds up gameplay, i mean, he's taking a nap, it made you miss him, you need to aim at him again.. seems like something that makes the game slower to me...
bunnyhopping? oh yes, he's moving a lot, but the accuracy of both players has dropped so the gunfight takes longer, speeding up gameplay? i think not...

now you might think that bunnyhopping isn't too much of a bother, but i find it extremely annoying, it's unrealistic, i don't mind non-realism, but i want it to keep some logical thinking(you fall on the ground, your probably out of breath, you lose a LOT of accuracy for at least 2-3seconds)(you jump in the air all the time, your out of breath, your accuracy was close to zero while jumping up and down)

non-realism is meant to be fun, i can't see what fun bunnyhopping or dropshooting is, it's just annoying, and when done 5times in a row it starts driving you mad. especially since in (most) games jumping and dropping on the ground is done in an instant, making it impossible to follow them down or up, you have to move your aim in bits, often aiming at the spot he used to be. while strafing is easily tracked and spamming left+right just means you have to get out of ADS and decrease your accuracy slightly

/fullstop rant

if the security is escorting a bot, the resistance's main objective is to make sure that bot doesn't get where the security wants it, if the resistance wants to plant a bomb it's the securities main objective to stop them from doing that.
i suppose in every map it's the same thing, one group wants to do something, the other group has to stop them:)


sorry for double post(again), i wanted to keep the answers seperate, this would have looked silly amidst that rant of mine

Like I said, I prefer to play against humans. Mesure their reflexes, tactics and aiming against mine, and then learn from their moving tricks, their hiding spots, their build types etc...
I play multiplayer to play against humans, not bots, that's all. If on PC there are servers with bots "off", than it's fine by me. I am just a tad worried because it's only 8 vs 8, so 2 ou 3 people leaving (without bot replacing in this case) can completely screw the game. But then this is also tied to the choice of a less big environment, to manage SMART properly. So less players, meaning player turnover affects games greatly, hence bot replacing etc... I need to test that whole new "logic" to be sure, but somehow I am not convinced, because it starts from a good point (SMART), only to end in a less good point (bots mixed with humans), imho.



these kinds of considerations depend heavily on past experiences on previous games, which had their own way of balancing and allowing such moves. If you can dropshoot but when prone you have a lesser cone of fire, or other limitations, then it becomes totally useable in a fight, but can bring your ruin, hence the thinking, hence the "tactic" in the way I meant it. Let's say "technique" instead, I agree it's probably better suited than "tactics".

for example, last games I played where players got prone in fights ? easy : rush on them while jumping (because usually, when prone, they can't aim with an angle as high), or flank them (lower turning rate when prone), while focus your shooting on their head (like always, anyway). Finish him at point blank if necessary. Never caused me trouble once you figure out a counter (which can be fleeing and then ambush back).



Your overreaction is a bit sad. This argument can be turned around and you know that very well.



Sounds like someone got pwned and didn't like it. Welcome to the club. Next lesson is : learn from defeat, improve yourself, and take revenge. Seriously, the whole "he jumps around and yet his accuracy is so good while I can't hit him at all etc etc" is worth NOTHING, because it is just a difference in skill. It doesn't mean you're gonna end up against aim-experts all the time. Also, learn to move and shoot. strafe a bit, then do a little jump on opposite direction... no need to bunnyhop or zigzagstrafe, but try to move the most randomly possible while shooting. Writing like you are, I almost expect to read something like "xx u damn cheater" or some rant like that. These personnal frustration are strong short-timed emotions when losing against skilled players, you can't take that in account, because it will always happen.
But of course, I agree that there should be a price (like head bobbing, or a little animation when going prone) to pay when using these moves, but still, don't ban them from a firefight, otherwise you'll just end up firing each other, immobile, until the first one drops. How boring can that be ? That's not how Splash damage FPS on PC usually are, and I don't see why they should be like this. There is already battlefield and the like, for that. But yet again, these move should be tuned so that using them requires a proper timing, and spamming them (I also agree that prone then jump in 1 sec is bad) should make you more vulnerable, if allowed. On this, I agree.



Well I said a speedy gameplay, not a speedy combat resolution. You play on console maybe ? Because of how you talk about "if you miss him, you need to aim at him again" etc... just as if aiming is a complex operation in itself. With a mouse on PC, I think that aiming (at least in midrange / closerange) is very fast, and "aim again" is not really an issue. the real difficulty is aiming at a moving target while moving yourself, but then again it's like piano, you just need training, not downgrading the whole game too much.



Same stuff as before. I take it you're more of a "Operation Flashpoint" player than a "Quake" player. But Brink would bend a bit more on the "Quake" side IMO, isntead of a "battlefield" style where you run, stop and crouch, aim & shoot, hide and reload, rinse and repeat. I want to see some death dance in the fight, jumping around, switching weapons, reflex melee if too close, prepare grenade if you feel you're gonna loose, etc... adrenaline rush style. Because for the more calm aim & shoot style, we already have the cod/battledield/etc... kind. And this fits better close/mid rage fights IMO.

So I understand your rage, but it's only similar to ingame rage after being shot by a more skilled acrobat / player. Don't let this drag you to the dark side of the force. At least on PC, we have mouse and keyboard, for fast action and aiming, and we should use them to their extent ! You can't blame the "unrealistic side" of the game everytime you get killed, because you can do the same, but only you don't because you impose yourself your own limits.

I don't know if I'm clear, but bottom line is, don't be so radical, don't let your instant emotion and fight frustrations dictate the way the game should be for everyone... And also, each game has it's way to play and we need to adapt, to some extent. My first games at BFBC2 were horrible (I still have tons of negative things to say on it), coming from ETQW. But after a while, I adaptated my gameplay and now I rox on BFBC2 just like I roxxed on ETQW before. And with Brink, I'd like the style to bend once again a bit more on the ETQW-side. Fast paced, reflex-based, (and most of all team objective oriented, but that's a given here). this shouldn't be a "simulation"-like game, the setting and design calls for something less realistic (and SMART too !), more dynamic, and more fun altogether !

Brink has inertia, people cant go prone and then stand up and jump in an instant, so the argument is mostly mute. People will still be able to jump around, but due to inertia will have a predictable path, rather than being able to move in any direction they want at any given moment. To me its a compromise that's better than either extreme.

To Nikto I will say that a game that tries to remove as much real time dodging as you seem to want would be quite boring.

To storm, Brink is a close quarters game. Making movement in such a way that people could move in any direction they want at any time they want, not to mention standing up one frame then being on the ground the next, would turn the game into a battle of reflexes rather than a battle of skill. Whoever could react to their opponent faster would win.

Also, while its true that you cant try to figure out each opponents strengths and flaws when playing bots, the bots will attempt to balance themselves to be at your skill level. That will allow you to better develop your own skill, since you will always have to struggle to win.

Then it's perfect. To be honest, I don't want it to be too much relfex based anyway (Im getting old, after all), so this compromise look good. Like, you can jump in the fight, but you'll probably do it only once, not hop all the time. But you can do it, you don't have to just stand behind and obstacle and crouch/standup ad vitam eternam.

So this is good news. As for bots, well I don't enjoy playing them as much as humans, but I have to admit that SD has a nice expertise in bots AI. Also, there has to be a way to counter the players turnover with reduced 8vs8 teams anyway, and that's probably the best solution.

All in all, I am not worried about this game. And even if it doesn't fit perfectly my expectations, I can adapt. I will also probably be in awe when discovering features I didn't know before...

it's always the same, i go for realism on those parts wich should be realistic, and people think i want to feel like i'm on a battlefield...
and why do people always think just because you dissaprove of a technique or weapon that you can't play?

i read "real" in that sentence and my heart stopped for a second.
ducking, strafing, going behind cover, jumping down a building, it's all okay for me. but no dropshooting and bunnyhopping. is that too much to ask? that people would remain on their feet in a firefight? or at the least jump down instead of upanddownupanddown? would it be so boring if your target didn't go from standing position either to airborne or floorlevel in the first second?

Realism does not belong in games. Fun + Balance > Realism.

this is what i mean... exactly what i mean...

I meant "real-time" in the sense that its done moment by moment, rather than a plan. Not "real" in the sense that its realistic. There are two main thought processes used in games, real-time tactics and strategy. Strategy is a thought out plan, where you think about what the enemy will do and think about the best plan of action. Real-time tactics happen way too fast to actually think about the best plan of action, you are usually just responding to what the enemy does.

I don't abuse movement mechanics in games by doing drop shots or the like, but in Brink, it wont be abuse. SD talks about how you can shoot while doing any of the smart movement, so they clearly want to let you to shoot while wall-hopping or jumping or sliding. I'm not going to stop myself from using such tactics out of some sense of honor, its part of how they balanced the game. Like I said before, the addition of inertia should balance it quite well.

Also, you should probably learn how to use multi-quote. Or just hit reply, copy the quote, and then paste it into your older post.