Personally, I like my PvPs to be balanced and fair. This means:

• Few or Zero Variables
  
• Variables be tolerable (within balance spectrum)
  
• Everything be balanced.

Today in recent MMO shooters or any particular competative multiplayers I hear balance wailing every forum out there. PvP is meant to be fair and balanced because, if most of you have not realized, there are endless balance topics out there.
I praise that Brink does not have too many variables in its core multiplayer PvP and that everything is balanced.

Player versus Player

• Balanced and;
  
• Few or Zero Variables

Player versus Environment

• Allows flexibility (additional Variables) and;
  
• Balanced

If you understand you will very likely agree with me.

Brink is still being balanced, and all the strong skills are available at lvl 1.
so what's the link with Brink?

As Nikto said the game is still be worked on and balanced do you have an specific concerns so far?

My concern is they could do it wrongly and the purpose of this thread is to rouse an understanding of what balanced and fair PvP is, which in turn could somehow help the game before release.

From my understanding the difference between the factions is largely one of aesthetics so at the very least the two sides should be balanced. It's certainly possible that a specific class or body type could turn out to have unforeseen advantages or disadvantages compared to the rest but I don't think we're in a position to make that call - most of us haven't played it and those who have had the opportunity haven't had much time with it.

I don't think anyone likes unbalanced gameplay so I'm sure Splash Damage is putting a lot of effort in to this. Unless there is something from their previous games that stands out I don't see what we can really discuss here.

oh, Donner, how na?ve, believe me, there are a lot of people who like unbalanced gameplay.
they are the scum of the gamersociety, and they always use whatever tactic or gun is overpowered

but since splash damage doesn't want that kind of players, i doubt the game will turn out to be unbalanced

As Donner said there are no differences between sides. Balance is what I hope to see, there is no such thing as "fair" in games.

Also you talk about few variables but this game is about customization and choice. If we all used the same weapons and classes it would be fair but not fun. Variables like maps, class, body type, weapons and abilities. Plenty of variable which is a good thing and I trust SD to balance it out.

It is why I say tolerable variables. Some things in-game could just stick out and you question yourself "What the hell is that [censored] doing here?".

• Acceptable Variables (tolerable. cool beans...)
  
• Unacceptable Variables (intolerable)
  
• Excessive Variables (confusion and discouragement)

I understand there's already variables in the game and I accept them assuming they work good from launch (and, yes, I know they're working on balance). It's the game - the way it is.
You and I understand that these variables you mention alters the game experience making it more interesting, somewhat, and whatever... You also understand that variables inbalance a multiplyer game. Excessive inbalance leads to troublesome unbalance-like (theoretical) or literally unbalance (factual) perceptions from our players, and we don't want this scaling-up.

You understand a bit better now?

Well, if all the strong abilities come out in the beginning, then would it be safe to say the weaker abilities might throw the game off?

That's a good point, I wasn't thinking broad enough

Then again, some are SMART scum.
If you can detect a weapon that is surprisingly more effective then another weapon, your going to use it aren't you -_-?

nope, i'd take the gun that is somewhat more effective than the others, not the one that is clearly overpowered, and i like to use every gun once in a while, even the weak ones no-one wants to use. how fun is it when your clearly owning the battlefield, while no-one can complain because your using the weakest gun around?

A bit more yes. The thing is most FPS are unbalanced since there is usually certain weapons or abilities that allows people to get easy or cheap kills, Brink is about objectives not kills. All abilities can be purchased from level 1 and weapons are pretty much the same in strength. SD has had well balanced games in the past and I see no reason for them to drop the ball now. I too want everything balanced for example one of my primary concerns is for the light (surprise I know :spotted owl:) They are supposed to be quicker and more agile but have less HP. If the speed and freedom of movement isn't worth the trade off in HP I will play medium. Everything needs to have strengths and weaknesses in order to have balance.

Like of like my love/hate relationship with the Scout from TF2, Speed is the key to survival but one wrong step and you are dead.




Nope all abilities are availble.


Well not all gamers are as free thinking as this forum is.



True enough. The only time I tend to use those overpowered weapons is when everyone else is and I feel the need to beat them at their own game.

Besides what everyone else has discussed your point is very vague to me. What part don't you believe will be balanced? You're worried that someone will find a perfect combination of size, skills, weapons, mods to use and that will become the end all choice? There are so many permutations that it will be awhile before something like that is found. At that point Brink is at the mercy of patches for fair play. I can see why you'd think there would be a weak and underpowered gun no one would want to use. They're making 24 weapons in the game which seems like a lot. Why not just have one of each type and let the mods determine the variety? Why did they do about 5 of each type plus mods? I don't know what they've figured but generally the higher DPS gun just has to be less accurate or require a heavy.

Consider there is more to Brink than just stats and skills. There is also the human player's ability and experience with shooters. Everyone will be on a different level of skill, no one is perfectly matched. Then with all the options you can customize your play style and practice a particular combination. It will get to be like chess where every player has their own preferences and some counter better than others. (1) A good team mate can adapt to as well as play any combination. (2) A skilled player can also deliver the talent and effectively use their choice with superiority. Only after the game has been out awhile will people start to refine both of those. Superior combinations might be found, but then when others try it out maybe it doesn't work for them at all. They get no advantage from this internet recipe maybe because they're used to just playing light characters and doing lots of parkour maneuvers as their play style.

There's an old MMO saying that Raph Koster told me a long time ago: "The game is balanced when everybody is complaining equally."

Not in the slightest I'm afraid. You're being very abstract with these concepts of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" variables. You haven't actually explained them you've just provided us with synonyms for acceptable and unacceptable. By variables do you mean the element of randomness in any multiplayer FPS? Or do you mean randomness that comes built into the game like weapon spreads or the infamous TF2 "Critical Hits"?

Or do you mean variables as in changes players can make to their character and loadout that will effect how the game plays?

If you mean the latter option then I disagree with your statement that variables inherently "inbalance" a game, which I assume to be "unbalance" because inbalance isn't a word I've come across. (I don't know if you mean something special by inbalance). Variables as a concept are neither balanced nor unbalanced, it's only if a specific variable is badly done (Like a gun mod that lets you get 1 hit KOs with no drawbacks) that it could be unbalanced.
You could be talking about the sheer amount of variables (I think this is what you meant) which would result in players having little hope of understanding what it was that killed them. I too share the concern that if players can tweak the minutiae of their weapons like the fire rate, what scope's attached, damage levels or clip size then it may become a confusing battlefield which while not necessarily being unbalanced, would certainly appear so to all but the most discerning of players.

Well, in attack/defend gamemodes, it is almost impossible to get a proper balance. The defenders will most likely have an easier life, depending on how much the environment suits a defence. If it does not at all, though, the attackers are heavily favoured.


My main concern is, that there could be some P90/UMP alike weapons which take the best part of Assault Rifle and Submachine Gun and are quite overpowered because of this (just like in every single game they exist in).