Well to start off, there is not going to be any leaderboards in the game, as well as not k/d spread. They did this so people would not try to go off on their own ridiculous agendas of just getting kills for their k/d spread, andd actually help out the team, and that nobody has to worry about leaderboards.
Secondly, the objective wheel solves lone wolfing problems in a big way because people can go lone wolf and complete objectives, helping their team.

I just meant not showing the number of kills you got for the round. The points will be there, but they will be lower than those who focused on things other than killing. It would help a lot with the campers, spammers, ect.


Krytt... no matter how hard they try, there will always be some jack@$$ keeping score of his k/d and telling everyone he is a "1337 ninja" or whatnot. Someone will always focus on having the most kills, even if there is no scoreboard to look at.

especially if they have personal stats, which a lot of people want.

Great suggestions so far guys. Obviously by the look of it people want KDR off the scoreboard and use a PDR (point death ratio) instead. I think Brink could pull this off very well and hopefully the outcome will be better than *coughMW2cough* stat padding. :goodjob:

I get the impression that a lot of guys on this forum, dont really understand the importance of kills regarding objective gameplay.
I can assure you, if you are playing on a team with great aimers - you are more inclined to actually win than lose. I know, big call. I havent even played the game yet.

It only takes one person to complete the main objectives You just need to make it easy for him / her to complete them, by eliminating their threats and yours

You might opt to complete the 'sidequests' stuff to tilt the match in your favor, BUT that's provided that you're alive to complete the sidequests Meaning, the other team isn't simply
going to allow you to, there will be resistance that you need to take care of.

The idea that massing kills isn't helping the team is inaccurate.

High value target, or "key" kills are important in objective gameplay, not "kill anyone and everyone you see," which I'm sure a lot of people will be doing.

In comp - every kill is a key kill, because no one is doing what they aren't supposed to.
On a pub - sure, there might be kills in the middle of no where that hold no value. But do you think someone who has massed a ridiculous amount of kills, got them via that approach.
Or do you think they would have massed a ridiculous amount of kills, because they defended the objective?

From experience - its the latter.

and from experience, I have been "MVP material" with fewer than 5 kills. - completing objectives wins matches, NOT kills. Perhaps on defense, kills can "win" the match, but on offense, all the kills in the world will not win a match. At the same time, a team can have no kills at all and still win.

Thats nice dear.

But thats predicated on whether your self proclamation of MVP material is accurate.
Which I highly doubt given your responses on this forum AND on the SD forum.

No offense.

edit: Oh and good luck winning a game with no kills playing comp level.

well, seeing as my comp days are years behind me now, the details of the matches are a bit hazy, but what I excelled at in RTCW and ET was fast, accurate revives, and avoiding enemy fire. a 100% revive rate was not uncommon for me. I relyed on others doing the shooting, since keeping teammates alive and healthy was what I did best. I may not have completed the objectives, but whoever did, chances are I kept them alive.



who's talking about comp level? This isn't a comp site, and I'm sure a majority of the people on this forum will be playing public matches, not comp battles with league rules....my comp/clan days are way behind me, I just play for fun now - that doesn't mean I don't understand teamplay mechanics, and it doesn't mean I'm talking out of my ass.

edit: also I didn't say winning a match with no kills was practical, but that it was possible.

Again, thats nice dear.




I dont mean to sound rude, but I dont care whether you have played in comps or not MVP boy. My post was pointing out that kills play a primary role in winning matches, and the idea that massing kills is a selfish act, that it doesnt assist the team in winning - borders on delusional. It couldnt be more wrong. The points regarding comp play, was mitigating the point of "key kills". In any respectable comp, every kill is a key kill. On pubs youre going to get a random here and there doing the wrong thing. But no one massing great amount of kills will be running off in the middle of no where to kill them because most of the traffic is around the objective. And your point that you can win matches without killing anyone, is predicated on your level of competition. So sure - you can win without shooting a bullet, if you're playing against kids with intellectual disabilities. In other words - its highly unlikely, well maybe not for you

And as I have stated, when attacking, all the kills in the world amount to nothing if the objectives are not completed. Kills CAN assist the team - CAN not necessarily WILL.


This is just baseless, biased insults and practically flaming, not just to me, but to many gamers in general. Tell me something Oh Grand Poobah, what is "my level of competition?" Since you have no idea, and base all your apparent "knowledge" about me on speculation and nothing more, I would suggest you quit while your ahead - well actually, you're not ahead, but quit regardless.

From the game play video that I saw the guy got some xp for kills like 25 or so per. So its not to say killing is frowned upon but if you complete the objectives quickly and get the game over with quick you can easily do it with out firing a single bullet.

And how does that point mitigate that kills aren't important to winning a match?
You CAN win games of basketball without playing defense. Doesnt mean defense isnt an important part to winning a game of basketball.




If you play against a team that cant shoot or has no idea about the game - then yes you'll be able to complete the objectives without killing anyone. How exactly is that insulting, MVP boy?
It isn't insulting. Its logical. Oh and btw I was always ahead, champ. You're out of your depth.

If you can accomplish a goal without doing something, than that something really isn't all that 'important'...if it was such an integral part of the process, than it would be a mandatory step in achieving the goal. Granted, it is an FPS and there will be lots of killing, but the reason I love these types of games so much is because a player can contribute to his team winning, without firing a single shot. and save me the, "good luck winning a game with no kills playing comp level," speech. A player doesn't need to focus on killing, if the rest of the team is - he can pull his weight in other ways, I have seen it and done it myself plenty of times, both in comp and pub matches. - This isn't Team Deathmatch - kills are not the focal point.


I like how you insist that you are not insulting, and yet slip in that "MVP boy," comment - you're a sneaky devil....


well apparently, the devs are "out of their depth" as well, since they are placing these "all important kills" of yours, at the bottom of the xp spectrum, along with adding such mechanics as no one-hit knife kills and no one-hit headshots. Your arguments seem to be centered around competition play, which although I respect, really holds no merit here. The opinions expressed in this thread, seem to be for the game in general, not sub-groups like comp and leagues.

I think the focus should be on the community as a whole. And with system that they are working with now I believe that after a few games everyone who already doesnt know will understand its about objectives. Not kills not deaths. Although obviously if your dead the whole game you cant help much. There will always be a few people who run around trying to get kills to show off or feel good or what ever. But its about what the majority of people do.

Evidently English is your second language, so allow me to reiterate. You CAN complete objectives without killing anyone. You CAN take your meds and still play computer games. You CAN be a virgin, living with your mother, while getting upset over posts on the internet. I dont really care. What is possible is irrelevant. What is LIKELY however isn't.




Perception is reality for some. And for others reality is reality. Read the original post again, without identifying with it and you'll see what I mean.



My arguments are centered around the fact that kills are a fundamental part of a shooter called Brink. And based on your awesome logic about headshots and knife kills. There wouldn't be any weapons in the game, if kills weren't........ important.

I know, that last point seemed so, whats the word - OBVIOUS? But then sometimes things need to be spelt out for people.

Its an FPS. Shooting wins games. Doing objectives is a case of looking at the thing and press F after judiciously applied shooting has secured the area.

Gosh, this conversation is heating up, isn't it?

A couple of things I think it's important to remember:

PKB: This thread, at its core, isn't about whether we'll need to kill people in Brink. It's about whether stats should be tracked on K/D ratio, which is a vastly different question. Rewarding players for kills, without regard to the context, leads to players ignoring objectives to find people to kill and places to camp, and thus to teamplay falling apart. This is a game designed to promote cooperation, because the developers think that kind of gameplay is more fun. Killing the enemy is still very important--and it will still be rewarded, because players without the skill to somehow avoid dying (hint: if the enemy is dead, he won't shoot you) in hotly contested areas long enough to complete an objective won't get that objective XP.

H0RSE: You know all those interviews where the developers are asked about SMART? They always say they put it in because they want players to focus on shooter skills rather than on platformer skills. The objective-based gameplay system itself is in place because it serves to focus the action in certain places, forcing players to adapt to changing conditions on a static map, forcing defenders into areas that are difficult to defend, forcing attackers into areas full of defenders. Everyone gets a gun, and everyone is expected to use it; this is a first-person shooter, and someone needs to kill the enemy, so PKB is right in saying that, all other things equal, a player who is good at killing the enemy is more valuable than one who isn't. I don't mean to denigrate your ninja medic skills; from your description, resuscitation was what your team needed most, and a player who can recognise that his greatest possible contribution to the team sometimes isn't shooting at the enemy is more valuable than one who can't--all other things equal.

Yeah it is and I need to look through it, so I am closing it for a short while.

OK, there is some flaming and flamebaiting creeping into this topic, as well as condescending remarks. Cut it out, if I have to return here there will be some PMs sent that will keep you out of the forums for a while. I suggest reading the rules would be a good idea before some of you post again.

*Gah* I don't need this, I just want to enjoy my cup of tea.

I beg to differ. I have played several games where my friends and I would win against enemies who had two to three times as many kills. Unless its a team deathmatch kinda deal objective based games can be won with far less kills. So a player who knows how to get the objective done is more valuable than a player who doesn't.

I absolutely agree. In fact, I said that in the same post you're quoting. You left out the italicised "all other things equal", which meant that a player who is good at killing players and knows how to do objectives is more valuable than a player who isn't good at killing players but knows how to do objectives. Likewise, a player who ignores objectives is more valuable if he can at least kill some enemy combatants. All I'm saying is that it's a shooter, and being good at shooting is valuable. Not that it's more valuable than cooperative mentality or focus on objectives, just that it's valuable.

I don't fear the people camping and hiding just to get kills and avoiding objectives because they endanger their precious K/D ration, I fear the pages and pages of complaint threads when they realise this tactic gets them pittance XP.

So Rohugh is right it started to drift a little off topic but that's alright not the end of the world. Look, I love to get kills in games. I rarely go for the objective. I have great aim on M&K and that's just how I like to play fps. I'm just saying the reason why me (and many others for that matter) don't tend to go for the objective is that, well, it kills you! BC2 for example, if somebody set the bomb, and you rush the comm point to deactivate it, I'm guessing the chances of you dying are about 5x greater then if you were just roaming around. So why would I go for the objective, when I can stay killing people where I am, and protect my beautiful 2.0 kdr? Don't get me wrong, kills from me or my teammates have saved matches, but actually going for the objective does too. Im just worrying this will end up like a kill fest, and nobody will go for the objective. Thats why I think taking out leaderboards or KDR on the scoreboard might me a good idea.

:twirl:

I'm not sure exactly what all SD is going to do, but I do know that they've said that they want this game to not be like the other current shooters. They're doing all they can to make the game fun for as many people as possible, and they're also trying to encourage teamwork. I guess my point is that if they think that something would detract from that goal, then they'll probably not include it. That's why they've already decided not to have leaderboards, anyway. The same thing could apply to personal stats as well. Instead of showing you your kills and deaths, they might have personal stats that reflect how good of a team player you are. I have no idea how that could all work, but I don't want to see people focusing on their K/D at the expense of everything else.

As for kills being important, that's pretty much a given. However, if that's all you're doing, you are most likely not being as good of a teammate as you could be. The simple truth is that kills are just not the most important thing in Brink. Obviously you don't want to die, but I hope people aren't afraid to risk their lives to complete an objective. I would hate to see Brink turn into another CoD. Luckily, I just don't see that happening. Campers will consistently lose and gain very little XP, so I doubt the trend will catch on in Brink