The only way, I still have one with 6 stock maps at

195.4.17.142:27960

bullets do kill yes... let me know how that goes for you guys.

works for me, with the size of the combat areas, give me an AR w/drum magazine and I'm a happy guy

There are no servers to join, the consoles are going to be peer to peer hosting, the person with the lowest average ping will host. So basically, there's no way to mod for the consoles that I'm aware of, and if you tried it would breech the rules of XBL and PSN.

At the very most, you may see a DLC of the most popular user made content, but I would be more surprised if that actually happened than if it didn't.

Well, someone's apparently done. Or hacked into the game, or something. My brother played in a hacked MW2 game. And people hack in black ops, even though they get banned for it permanently. Most people do it in private matches where they won't get reported or aren't being monitored.

I'm afraid neither MicroSoft nor Sony online systems are adequate for multiplayer shooters, they really require dedicated servers, with peer to peer, you're always dealing with the whims of the host. Not acceptable imho

Sure, you can hack the game to change things about yourself, but I thought we were talking about server mods. I've never seen anyone hack a console game and change things for everyone, or alter the game type.

the bullets to kill and sniper topics merge into one here for me.


way back when halo 2 was new and shiny. i used to play big team battle almost primarily. but it had one HUGE problem and that was the ease you can kill someone with a sniper rifle. one shot was fatal two bad shots on target were also fatal. and coagulation was a huge empty expanse of getting shot at with sniper rifles.

nine times out of ten the matches ended as draws or extra time because no-one scored, all because a bunch of snipers decided the objectives were counterintuitive to their kill counts. it was poor level design for a 16 player match to be in such a large space with sniper rifles.

if brink runs 8v8 matches based on objectives then boosted health and removal of OHOK weapons are both excellent ways of bypassing this nuisance problem.

When I see these people who complain about the amount of shots it takes to kill in Brink, I just sigh and move on. If these people are concerned as much as the TC makes them out to be, where the amount of bullets to kill is so high, that it is the prime factor in keeping them from buying the game, then obviously we know (with a fair amount of certainty) what their main focus and concern is in FPS games - killing people.

The fact that the game is a team objective shooter, probably means little to nothing to them, since their prime focus will simply be on killing other players. The classes and bodytypes in the game, will be experimented with to find the best mix of damage, mobility and survivability, and same goes for abilities and weapon loadouts. As for any "team friendly" abilities, like ammo, health and turrets, they will boosted, just to better serve themselves.

Nice example, just need to work on a bit of grammar to make it more easily readable.

I agree with you there completely. However, if you boost the health too much, it completely discourages sniping and aimed shots. If everyone takes 50 headshots to kill or 100 bodyshots (Extreme example), you'll find more people spamming bodyshots than aiming for accurate headshots.

If people take one shot to kill, nobody does headshots because they're worthless.


As much as you may hate me for saying this, COD did something right. If you kill someone with a headshot, you get a (very) small XP bonus. If you kill them with a single shot, you get another. It's possible to get double XP from a kill by sniping them in the head. I'm not saying that Brink should do it, but it was a good incentive to go for accurate shots. Unless you had a OHK sniper.

+1



This I both agree and disagree. Everyone including me will be doing this. It's just a matter of how you use the 'team friendly abilites'. If you boost them to serve yourself, fine (And is usually what people, including me do).
But If you do not help your team 'as well' then i agree that they are solely serving themselves.

A good incentive for accurate shots is they die instead of you, just saying. Like ET probably 2-3 headshots to a kill was very good. Like Ninjat said enough to discourage blind spray and pray but little enough that it's not boring.

If you are familiar with BC2, I compare my above statements with players that chose medic, just so they could get the M60.

The problem with your "extreme example" is that its not very extreme. I don't think I've ever played an FPS where headshots are only double damage. In most games, they do around triple (or even more). So in your example, I would expect it to be 100 bodyshots vs 25-35 headshots, or more realistically 7-10 bodyshots vs 2-4 headshots. I know what I'll be aiming for.

True? I never did that lol,
I used to love killing enemies with the defibrillator. Revive, Revive, KILL :shocking:

I generally agree, certainly dedicated servers are wondrous things. However.

This is not COD, critically it takes more than 2/3 bullets to down someone, with host advantage in a COD game everyone else has an obscene handicap against said host, as he (often, me) can down someone before they pull the trigger, the advantage is huge.

In Brink, hopefully, since the onus is on team play and skill (it takes more bullets to kill, requires more skill) the advantage is drastically lessened since they lose the split second advantage being cut from their reaction time.

It's still there and the horrors of a terrible connection will still exist but it isn't as terrible as it would be (and is) for other games, like Black Ops.

I think that the fact that it requires more than 2 , 3 bullets to kill a person , it encourages the players to move around more. Some people are too scared to run around and instead just sit in a safe corner waiting for someone to run past.
With Brink you can run around and don't have to worry of being killed before you know where the shots are coming from.
Backraqers will also be countered as they need roughly half a magazine to kill someone .

It just makes the game better since more bullets are required to kill. How is a better game a bad thing?

Indeed.
I love turning around with a disadvantage and still get the kill

I think it's funny that the main complaints from people always have to do with the core game mechanics like moving and shooting.
It's even funnier because the game is focused around objectives and not killing.

"Well that's just like your ... eh ... opinion, man."

But as a matter of fact some people think games which allow you to kill people in 2 or 3 hits are the better games. Or games without health-regeneration. Or games with medikits which have to be run over in order to be "picked up" and to "heal".

Seriously. I have been killed by medics since I needed health and apparently was in their line of fire.



Trust me it won't save you,


:spotted owl:

Bunny-hopping in Brink won't happen. Inertia is in affect.

Killing someone with two bullets takes about as much tactics and skills as ADS, click, move, duck, reload.

The more bullets, the more fights, the more subtle differences in each fight won (or loss due to your bad), tactics, the requirement of possible back up, and straight up testosterone filled gun-slinging fun. This is why the majority of COD's game-base are usually immature adolescents. No patience for a good gun battle, and the enjoyment of a 3-5.5 second snap shot 'duel'.

Why is there obscene hate for ADS? (P.S. It's been answered before I just want another opinion).

Anyways I don't feel like being sarcastically so if the OP still reads this, if you think it takes too many bullets, then stop whining and play CoD.

Eventually there's just going to be about a thousand people that are so twitchy and cracked out that they can beat everyone at these games where you die from one bullet. And everyone else will just be sick of playing them. And these people will get online and play together. And they will see each other at the exact same time and shoot each other in the eye at the exact same time and spawn at the exact same time over and over and over.

And the rest of us can go to the promised lands that is brink.

People who are fans of previous SD games (and RTCW) and for the most part PC players in general, don't really care for ADS, becuase it slows down gameplay. RTCW and W:ET were all about quick, frantic gunfights. It was like combining the aiming mechanics of a twitch shooter like Quake 3, with class-based team objective gameplay. Imagine playing Quake 3, but you had to ADS to accurately hit your target - see what I mean....

ADS works well on console, (where many players praise it) because it helps alleviate the frustrations of trying to aim with the anolog sticks, but on PC, with the accuracy of a mouse, ADS serves little purpose in assisting accuracy, and it tends to seem more "gimmicky." Also, for many PC players and "older" gamers, ADS just feels out of place, when you grew up playing games that didn't have them.

They way I think ADS should work in games, is that it should be an option. Other than long distances, it shouldn't really have a huge advantage over hipfiring. But the trend in many of today's shooters, is that in order to hit anything outside of mid-range, you need to use ADS, making hipfiring utterly useless. I'm pretty oldschool when it comes to FPS games. If I could have my ideal shooter, it would be an SD-style, class based team objective shooter, with no melee, no snipers (or long range rifles) and no ADS.