I think you only regenerate your main health bar (the biggest). You regen untill you reach your initial spawn health (Depends on bodytype and certain abilities). You gain additional health by getting buffed by medics and they're the only ones who can restore that part of your health.

Edit: looks like Mr. Awesome was sooner and better than me

Well, i'm wondering what would happen in a bottleneck/corridor with a skilled team who are leaning with medics and engineer turrets behind, plus nading-job, will we be able to take them down and get past them quickly enough to get an objective if you need half a clip to take only one player down?

I like the idea of a hardcoe mode but let's call it realism instead. I'm a long time playing online gamer, played from i.e BF1942 to BFBC2 Vietnam, Borderlands, l4d2... and what i like in hardcoe/realism mode is the fact that the HUD is gone, no killcam, and above all no crosshair and friendly fire. You deal more damage of course but you are also less accurate since you don't have the crosshair anymore when you're hipfiring and you can't use the ironsight in close combat, you can't see enemies on your map so you have to be more carefull of the sounds around you, so having a realistic mode is not a bad thing if it is counterbalanced with some good features. I'm interested in Brink cause it is genuine with a new gameplay and the smart, no problem if i need more bullets to take sby down in this game, it is not really the point, but too many bullets to take sby down makes it too unrealistic (remind me of metro 2033) and "may be" the return of bunny hoping if there is no stopping power in the weapons' features, so it is not to oneshot people because it would change the game too much related with the will of the devellopers, not at all, but there must be an extra mode like this where the game would seem more realistic, excuse my double dutch i'm non english native speaker, thank you.

The maps are designed in a way that there's always a way around. If they stand there and all defend that certain point, you'll easily break through their flank.
You normally don't see people on the compass, only when an operative interrogates a downed enemy, then you have a "UAV" for 10 seconds.
There are no killcams.
Friendly fire is included, but I don't know if it's standard or not.
Extra bullet damage would ruin the gameplay. It's about helping your team, doing the objective. I told you already in the other topic: How is a medic supposed to do his job and heal others while he dies before he can blink his eyes. How can an soldier plant the explosives? He needs about 4 seconds to do so and can't shoot during this time.
To give you a comparison: If you die as fast as in COD standard mode, this game will fail. (Yes, I used COD, but as a bad example )

Due to the SMART system, SD had to put proper movement physics into the game, so Bunnyhopping isn't likely to be effective. (chain-sliding might be common though)

There is an "Advanced" mode in game, but all it does is turn on VOIP and FF.

Hipfiring vs ADS is something SD has worked very hard to balance. You may not like it, but they want both to be viable options. Taking out a part of the games strategy for the sake of "realism" would be like saying "picking up a disguise in 5 seconds isn't very realistic, I want a realistic mode where the ability is removed." You may personally be able to turn off your crosshair if you want, but don't expect your enemy to be at the same disadvantage.

You are right, "realism mode" isn't bad on its own, but you are basically saying "these ideas worked in BFBC2, use them in Brink". In BFBC2, the game was already focused on using ADS 90% of the time, killing people, and dropping the enemy in a few shots. "Realism" mode works there because it just exaggerates what the game already is. Brink is attempting to break away from those ideas, so "Realism" mode would be a step in the wrong direction.

Thank you for answering Dysfunction, I understand your point of view and it is very interesting for some points, like the UAV or friendly fire but I can't agree with everything but I suppose you are not playing on PC. You tell about helping your team, assault teammates are supposed to kill frontline opponents (just one planting) to allow the medics (which are supposed to stay behind) to follow and deal the heal, while, if you are down, can choose to revive yourself or not, engineer have turrets as suppressing fire, if you can't blink your eyes doing an objective/healing/repairing or so as you say, meaning taking heavy fire doing it, that suppose the team in which you are playing is failing, not the game, and so it is quite normal if you don't manage. You must know you need 4 sec to arm a crate in BFBC2, an objective which is most often in wide open space, 3 sec in hardcoe mode, under heavy explosion/burning/fire and I (like many others) do it every day with random teams preventing enemies to kill me while I'm arming a crate, covering at the same time while I can be oneshot with a shotgun/nade/rpg/40mm/missiles or so many others, and i would say happily that I can be prevented from doing and objective if we don't do it in a proper way, that's the way you can win, playing as a team or fail. What is the point if you can get objectives staying under fire? So I would eventually just need to use teammates as a shield to arm and win? I don't think so, taking cover is natural, leaning is reintroduced in the game for this purpose, otherwise it's called Bulletstorm and you can stay under fire as long as you like. And in the purpose to get some kind of hardcoe/realistic mode, I repeat we would deal some more damage (I don't tell how much cause I sincerely don't know) but it would be balanced with the fact that we wouldn't have the crosshair anymore so that we loose some accuracy in close combat which keep a good balance. I'm playing on PC btw, so I don't speak about consoles cause it is not the same thing because of the controls and the cooperative more difficult on them. There always have been hardcoe gamers on PC and we are used to playing like this for years and some kind of more realistic mode would be so great !
That's true xShadowcat, BF is my reference for years but i really want something different, but there are something i'd like to see or rather not to see like HUD and crosshair, just if i can switch off my crosshair and HUD in options I would be happy, it is not about realism you know, BF is already not so realistic after all, there is arma 2 and it is so boring, I never played COD online either, I'm not interested in realism in Brink otherwise I would not be here, just a way I like to play as i switch off crosshair in l4d2 because i prefer playing that way, realistic or not, and I hope that's not a big deal to get that option .

Maybe.. Taking fire while doing a objective will make the ''capturing/whatever'' go slower? I have no idea :l

Neither of us are right or wrong, they are two different approaches to a game. Also, for the record, I'm purely a PC gamer.

This last sentence of your post seems rather presumptuous to me though. There are plenty of "hardcoe gamers on PC" who are used to playing games where it sometimes takes a bucket of ammo to bring someone down, and gameplay where you can basically do nothing without a team backing you up. Even if you just count the people who play SD's other games, its not like all hardcoe PC gamers want the game to have easier kills. There are still W:ET tournaments that have hundreds of participating teams, and that is a 7 year old game with high health.

Especially for competitive play, having more health is a LOT more fun. In games with OHK headshots, i have played clans that can kill you with one bullet before you have a chance to react, just because they camp and move slowly. Sure, i could play the same way, but its boring. With higher health, you can beat such teams just by out-maneuvering them. Aim is still a big factor, but strategy becomes more important.

I give up. I gave a lot of good arguments throughout this thread and many others, but can't seem to convince people why it's necessary to have a higher amount of bullets to kill someone. Imho, you can kill enemies fast, just aim for the damn head instead of the body like in most other shooters of nowadays.

*commercial screen*
Call of Duty: Modern South Africa Ops

*kids*
Whaat, this [censored] aint Call of Duty

*zooms in on the Call of Duty sign on the TV*

*kids*
This sure as hell aint Call of Duty

*Call of Duty*

*kids*
Not ca..

TACTICAL NUKE! INCOMING!

*BWOOP BWOOP* *BWOOP BWOOP*

I'm in the same boat. No matter how much people try to give a valid, reasonable explanation, those who support less bullets to kill, just look for loopholes in their story. Ironically, it's the people who have no experience playing SD games, telling us how the game won't work.

They are like this :brokencomputer:

And we are like this :banghead: :shakehead: :flamethrower:

I don't say the game needs to be like this or like that, I've come to tell in the appropriate thread what I would like to see in the game, and was talking about an eventual possibility to get a harcore "mode" or some options if it is possible. At no time I said fewer bullets to kill in the normal mode, so I think my expectations are differents, i.e there is a so called "Realism" mode in l4d2. Do you have to play it? No you don't have to, but the fact that it is available is a good thing and harm nobody. You and I haven't play to this game yet althought we can't stand playing it, but you are quite right may be after playing Brink I'm going to say ok the right way to play it with much fun is with more health or less damage I don't know, but neither do you at the moment.Ok I said hardcoe gamer... so I'm only a battlefield hardcoe gamer as I play Battlefield from BF1942 and I would also be if I still played Street Fighter all day long from the start but we are not here to deem this. I don't think I'm presomptuous otherwise I wouldn't choose a nick with noob inside in games and I don't care K/D ratio but fun and good gameplay with others. I played Borderlands and I can say you needed as much health as possible and dealing a lot of damage because enemies had the same amount of life/damage and I suppose I would have not enjoyed the game so much with less health or damage needed to take down enemies, wait and see :foodndrink:

No, then you will tear the group of players apart. People who dislike, and look down on people playing 'softcoe'. like BC2

SD already has to worry about possibly having a small community, their last game (Quake Wars) was great, but the community never got anywhere. Splitting the community in two would just exaggerate the issue.

Yea, but they really screwed up with the ranked server system. Community created content was not nearly used as much as in W:ET even though there were plenty of maps and mods.

let the developers decide how to balance the game

Bullets take about 6-8 to kill someone... Maybe more or less depending on the gun and the enemies body build. So It takes about a quarter of the clip/magazine to kill. But I think it's good that it takes that many bullets because as playing Call of Duty, I find it very complicated and frustrated to climb and run somewhere without having to get shot in the back.
It would take the fun out of the game not being able to run anywhere because 3 bullets instantly kill you. If you were killed instantly everybody would stop running around like the game is meant for, and start camping because of the fact that they will die a lot faster If they did run out in the open. So when you're taking things like bullet damage into consideration you have to make sure you look at the pros as well as the cons.

I do 10% agree, it had originally turned me off a small amount, but REALLY?!?! PLEASE. How many of those people play CoD and run around with OP Assault Rifles and noob toobsh, quickscoping and killing people with literally 7 shots??? Really, please answer. But in the new video, it actually made it look extremely easy to kill someone. So stop complaining until you buy the game, rage, return it, troll on the forums and go back to playing CoD BO.

Splash Damage games are very similar, aim for head and shoot in bursts, it's the only way to play

:rock:

Coming from someone who was a hardcoe Team Fortress Classic player, I'm definitely welcoming the change of pace in shooters. Taking many bullets to kill is just fine. There will be many other ways to take out people. I'm hoping this game really fills the void and captures the sheer awesomeness of class based team objective type multiplayer games that we had... oh so many years ago. Should be fun.

A question here is would you be splitting a comunity in two or would you be just creating two (maybe seperate but interchangeable) comunities within the same game... How many people will not play brink at all just because they don`t like the sound of how many bullets it will take to kill people ??
And how many of these people who might buy the game with a "hardcoe" mode for want of a better label, and will give normal moe a go then realise that normal mode is what the game should be ??

You all seem to think that having more damage would cataclismically damage objective game play but in my opinion and experience it actually just makes the "different". For the sake of one extra menu option and different bullet damage why not sell another million copies of a game ?

just my ￡1.36 worth

It would require a lot of rebalancing. Medics will need to heal more, because you die faster, so you would need more ability pips. Turret damage should be tweaked, heavy weapons should be rebalanced. And now I'm only talking about pure gameplay aspects. What most people fail to see is that you are vulnerable while doing objectives, and to win the map, you need to do more than one main objective. The factor luck will start to determine a lot more. In this game they would have to do more than just increasing bullet damage to get a hardcoe mode.


I think the community won't be too big and I don't want to split it even more.

Currently, I'm tired so I'm gonna make this short and sweet. Look at BFBC2, there's a rift due to hardcoe mode.

your opinion and experience only counts if it includes developing a couple of AAA titles, until then you're just another gamer

Someone should really make a summary and post it as a part 2. We're reaching the post limit and I think this discussion will heat up again pretty soon.