In some games, some symetric maps are built in a way that gives the losing team a small advantage. Forcing the winners to really win by a decent margin, and not a two second fluke.

Have you heard any mention to such (or other) rubber-banding mechanics in Brink?

I'm afraid I can't really help with your actual question but I know what you're on about and I love it.

Back when I used to play GW and do some PVP there, they had it really well done.

I dont think so, most objectives are like escorting a robot or hostage, blowing up a objecrive with an explosive charge, etc. I dont see how "rubber banding would" work here but im sure SD has it figured out.

Well, about the payload maps: In TF2 they included rubber-banding on those by cutting the escort path into several maps that became harder as they went on. So if a team wins and pushes the payload, they have to then push it through a harder map, and so on. That way, the stronger team wins often, but the weaker team has a chance to win from time to time in the last (the hardest) map.

BRINK doesn't have symmetrical maps.

Rubber-banding can be implemented in asymmetrical maps.

Also, maps are not the only way of adding rubber-banding: dynamic respawn times or dynamic spawn positions can se used to create the same effect.

If they make it so an Escort mission gradually progresses through more and more difficult-to-defend areas as it goes, that would be rubber-banding - the team keeping the VIP alive longer has a gradually more difficult time defending them, while a team who's constantly wounding the VIP and slowing them down will make sure they stay in easily-defended areas.

Things like that would be possible.

Unfortunately, we haven't seen enough to know for sure whether this will be the case or not - Wish I could help.

All we can confirm is that there definitely WON'T be any symmetrical maps. At least not when the game ships. Mods and new maps haven't been 100% ruled out, and SD have said they intend full support for Brink after release.

If we're talking about this, then it's already in.


The Prisoner-escape mission for the Resistance is said to be totally favouring the Security. Intended.

That would make sense.

Not exactly what I (or the OP) meant.

Does it start out favouring the Resistance, and tip the scales as the match progresses? That would be rubber-banding. If it's consistently favouring Security throughout the whole match, then not so much.

Defending team might have to wait a small time extra on certain maps.
Other than that, (generally) the further the attacking team pushes, the closer they get to the defending team's spawn. In other words: The travel distance to core objectives is (mostly) shorter for the defending team than the attacking.

What everyone also has to consider is the time a team gets for the objective. Whether it be 1 team vs time or both. Time is also a dominant factor when considering balancing maps.

I;'m not sure if it will be in every map, but it certainly will be in some maps. For example, in container city, you are moving towards the resistance spawn while escorting the bomb disposal robot, which makes it harder as you move forward.

Container city, incidentally, was said to be designed by the same guy who did DE Dust for CS

bringing up dust gets me all nostalgic...

It starts with the Resistance having to escort the Prisoner across a large open field/area. But later it becomes easier than that.

So I guess it's pretty much what you guys ment.

I wouldn't consider it becoming more difficult for the attackers as they get closer to the target as rubberbanding, that's simply an increasing difficulty.

Rubber banding is when the game compensates for one teams failure by actively handicapping the other. If the losing team's spawn timer got reduced to allow them onto the battlefield more quickly that would be rubber banding.

Honestly, I don't care for it in games, particularly multiplayer games. If one team is losing then let them lose and end the game, don't try and keep them in something they're failing.