Going prone is also very very annoying.

Dropshot, in the top 3 of "Most annoying way to kill/get killed"; together with bunny-hopping and dolphin-diving. ... in fact, there is a top 4, with quickscoping. But that's mainly a CoD-Issue, I believe.

I voted NO. There is only one game where OHK are fun: Quake 3 in InstaGIB mode

CoD, nailed that one right one the head good sir.

I really think it should all depend on the gun.

Sniper rifles - should probably be one shots to the head (depending on bolt action versus semi-automatic).

Assault rifles and SMG's - I'm thinking these definitely shouldn't be. I really can't think of any games that have it this way.

I really think it's all about the weapon's fire rate IMO.

There are no one hit kills, at all. Sorry to disappoint you.

I'd be disappointed if there were OHKO's. Multiple headshots before killing someone = win.

Ideally it should take enough shoots to kill, so we can enjoy the duel. Not just bang, and come back from spawn for another one, fired from who knows where... But on the other hand it becomes irritating when you put 2-3 headshots and enemy still happily jumps over something and disappears. In game with fast moving enemies, with more directions player can move at - we need to kill with less shots. 2 headshots in really close combat, and 3-4 in usual range, I'd say. But - it depends on rate of fire and accuracy of the weapon. There is much to do about balance, so i am talking about normal, like MP40/Thompson/Lancerator/AR, weapon. There should be also more and less lethal weapons of course.

So, I'd like to have fun, no matter how many bullets it takes to kill, I just want it to be possible without irritation nor lack of chance to defend yourself against poorly camped enemy around the corner.

I've thought a bit more about this, and I will be extremely interested in how this thing plays out. I don't want the lack of head shots to mean that if I totally get the drop on someone, I can't finish them off without putting myself at risk. I want position and map knowledge to matter.

It's all falling back to balancing, I have faith that Splash Damage will get it right (though it doesn't mean I'm not curious).

Map knowledge always matters If you know a good escape route if you encounter multiple enemies at once. Staying behind cover with a lot of your body while shooting is always good. And knowing where to hide while reloading ...

I think cover matters more on consoles than on PC (not trying to start a console war). I, personally, find it easier to kill someone behind cover on the PC than on the PS3 (or Xbox)

I can see where you're coming from here, I think the leaning/peeking mechanic will be a life saver in cover based combat. Combine that with the knowledge that you can run and mantle the wall, effectively putting some distance between yourself and your pursers, and I think there will be a lot more confident players on the battlefield.

True, very true. Still, I know the reason I stopped playing Battlefield 2 was when I was ~10 ft behind a guy, fired my weapon, and he had time to turn around and kill me with his superior weapon. If I get behind someone and totally surprise them, I need to kill them. If the lack of head shots makes that a problem, I will be dissatisfied.

Yes, but as you say, he had a superior weapon. If you are equally equipped, the one from behind should be able to always kill the other person, unless he is way superior in every aspect (like a complete noob, shooting a 'pro' in the back). I think you should be able to turn around and atleast get a chance to fire back.

Enemies will be moving swiftly, but they are also going for objective completions(they will stopping at some point). There will be some good spots for sniping I'm sure, but there will also be routes to these spots that allow backstabs, and furthur increasing the need for balanced teams. Most of the detonation places I've seen are in rather open areas, making snipers a part of team combat. Preventing an objective completion is helping your team. I really dislike the idea of laying prone in this game, as it is focused on moving and shooting. The one sniper shot it shows in the videos, the scope doesn't have much, if any, of a zoom(gives you a nice crosshair though), and he is moving when he shoots, but it appears he slows down when scoped(not positive). I don't know if you can adjust the scopes range or have other scopes for certain ranges.

Oh and if you are sneaking up behind people, you should either have 1 shot backstab, or you aren't in the right place given the class you picked.

But can we even trust the cinematic trailer at this point?

The open areas around some of the objectives will make for interesting tactics, a team that doesn't work well together could really do badly when faced with a team that has everything down pat.

I enjoy sniping, it's the waiting for the perfect opportunity that makes it so much fun. I think different scopes would fit in with Brink's customization, though even if they don't have sniping in the traditional sense I'm sure they'll have something similar in some aspect.

No, we can't. It's a cinematic, it's just for promotional purposes.


True, in general, main objectives are in open areas while side objectives are in smaller areas, making it easier for smaller squads or individuals to complete it. With the main objectives in more open areas, you'll need a bigger part of your team to complete it.


That's not true. If you can get in the back, playing as any class, you can pick off enemies before they reinforce the important places or you can just distract them. By killing 2 people in the back, before they can reach the main battlefield, you will get a lot of attention and they will not be focusing on the important things.

The one sniper shot im referring to was in actual gameplay. Watch the Minds of Brink, its during the Lead Sound Designers part, when they talk about firing a .50cal sniper shot and it sounding like God coughing.

My bad there, I had actually forgotten that part

The key word there is sneaking up behind people. Running behind enemies lines and trying to cause a diversion is something very different.

Okay, you're right on this one. If you want to stay under the radar you obviously try to sneak as an op.

In the dawn of smart video, there is a very short clip featuring the short rifle, where a guy jumps on top of some barrels and starts shooting at a group of guys. It doesn't have a scope, but it may answer some questions.

The first thing that I noticed was how fast he was able to fire it, so the Drognav appears to be truly semi-auto.

That is a fast firing speed for the gun I agree, I think it would benefit greatly from some type of dot scope.

That was a snipers weapon? I thought it was some kind of heavy weapon from the sound/no scope/fire rate, lol. *BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM*. I personally hate aiming down iron sights in video games, but that pulls snipers into core combat roles as well. So I guess there will be different rifles for different situations, which is awesome.

Finally someone who agrees with me I know a lot of people hate it, but most don't complain about it, because "all mainstream shooters" have it.

The superior weapon should not win in every engagement. If this game comes down to simply superior weapons, that's not balance. If you've totally lost the battle for position (or your team isn't covering itself), and someone gets behind you, you need to die. I'm not into games that are so forgiving that coming up behind someone is a bad strategy.

Look, in my perfect FPS world, everyone has a chance to kill anyone else based on skill, no matter weapon the other guy has. It doesn't have to be a big chance (and in many cases, it should be a small chance), but it should still exist. This may sound like I'm agreeing with you, but I'm not. In my world, map positioning matters. That is a huge part of being skilled (or perhaps more correctly experienced). I just don't think there's any skill involved in turning around and wasting someone that shot you from behind.