Well said. I wasn't trying to convince him, merely trying to correct what I perceived to be a miscommunication. I'm very excited about the game, but I haven't played it yet; it's not my place to convince anyone to buy it. As you say, if it's not for him, it's not for him. That's his choice. If he doesn't want to play a shooter with no hardcoe mode, well, so be it. Hell, I can understand it, too. As someone else said, Brink is not a military shooter, and that's not for everyone. So, yeah, I'm not trying to convince him, I'm merely trying to clarify.

Well it's really hard to clarify with someone who isn't convinced to get the game. So I see no point in trying to clarify either. Sorry if that sounded rude in anyway, just speaking my mind.

No problem, speak your mind! However, I disagree with you on that. If someone isn't convinced about the game because of a misconception wouldn't clarification be a good thing? Sure, maybe the game will turn out not to be his cup of tea (as I said, it's not my place to try and sell a product I've never played), but what if it is his cup of tea? Wouldn't clarification help? I was also just clarifying in general, although I can see how that could be considered redundant considering this is a Brink board.

Well it's hard to clarify balance and the weapon damage in a game that's not out yet. So I guess your right and wrong in a way, I'm not sure. Still see no point in clarifying anything, he should just cancel his pre-order and wait till after the game comes out.

Well, I agree with you on some of that. If he (or anyone) isn't confident that Brink is for them and they don't feel like pre-ordering...don't. No harm done. Still, isn't it just better if everyone has all the facts so they can decide what they want? It beats making up your mind for the wrong reasons. Thus: Clarification.

Oh, whatever. I was just trying to say that the game probably isn't for him, so there was no point in convincing him. You're right if everyone has there facts right to make a decision, but it's hard to know the facts, especially on balancing, since we haven't played the game.

I absolutely disagree with you on CoD:MW2. It takes 1 shotgun blast to kill someone, 1 sniper shot, and about 3 bullets to the anywhere with an AR to kill. I much prefer the Quake/007 way of strafing around one another and using clever avoids to catch your enemy off guard while you shoot away each others health bar. In CoD, especially easy mode "hardcoe" mode, it's whoever sees the other guy first wins.

I'll make this brief, both since I have to go for a bit, and because this is getting off topic. What I meant earlier by a miscommunication is that no one seemed to be saying that Brink would let people who had been ambushed turn around and kill their attacker "Halo-style," but that's what Anarchyy read into it. I'm not trying to argue balancing because, as you say, we can't know. I'm merely trying to make my opinion known on the whole 'ambush' situation, and what some others seemed to be saying. Anyway, gotta go.

yeah hc mode is pretty cheap but in cod4 it was the best, most ppl didnt camp. it was pretty much whoever had the best shot won and everyone jus ran around goin rambo style. i jus hope with brinks focus on the smart system will have ppl playin rambo style its so much fun.

Ok, you clarified that with me.

Sort of the point of many concerns, it's so much fun, for you. Not everybody enjoys rambo warfare (a term that's seriously been undermined by the most recent Rambo flick, he's gotten much more stealthy with age). Some players like stealth, some like range, some like blowing stuff up, some like trapping, etc. and Brink has something for everyone so in order for everybody to have fun there's got to be a change in how we all have "fun".

tru. thats one of the main things i like about brink since sometimes play styles get boring to me and i lik to try others out. brink seems to have the most options out of any shooter ive seen lately.

“just wanted to clear up some of the misconceptions about how lethal guns are. when you saw him using a whole clip to drop a guy, it was because he was using a submachine gun on guys who were very far away, and firing not stop instead of in bursts, so the shots were going wide and missing (plus, paul is terrible with a controller, since he's long been a hardcoe PC mouse & keyboard guy). when using the right gun for the right distance, guys generally go down in around 5 bullets or so, depending on how big they are (the bigger they are, the more hitpoints they have).
also, for the shotgun followed by pistol thing, that's a common gameplay element for all Enemy Territory games, and it's not in Brink too. enemies don't 'die' when killed, they become incapacitated (so medics can revive them, operatives can interrogate them, etc.). and to finish someone off, you have to put a lot more lead into them (or melee them while they're down) as a game balancing mechanic. so the shotgun did finish the guy off from close range with one shot. but basically, death isn't the end of the gameplay in Brink (which is all about teamplay and interacting with your squadmates.”

- Richard Ham

Quake, Unreal Tournament and Counter Strike would like to have a word with you.

Also games are beyond logic.

I'm not sure if its a balancing mechanic or simply stacking everything on a singular point again. I'm just not much for Chance in games. You look at gambling for instance, Chance is the bane of Skill. While chance still exists in a game and always will it is usually skill that overrides chance to the umteenth degree. Look at the card game War. Not every card has a Chance to beat another, the chance lies in the draw but theres also not one card that beats them all. This is what I would call an extremely good example of balance. Its not that everything has the capability to beat everything else but certain cards have the ability to beat other cards, course theres littel skill in War.

I go back to the Tank scenerio in BC2. Not everyone has the means to beat a tank always, but with planning and skill, it can be done. The sniper has a very powerful weapon but is hindered at close range. The engineer is great against tanks but without ammo, can't do much. Look at it like a balancing table. Its spreading these elements out that create diversity but ultimately it still balances. Its not however standing them all over the center point so everything can beat everything, simply cus thats not "fun".

Anyway, off my thought from the above quote..as for that, I fear the hidden medic. I dealt with them in killzone and while manageable they can get extremely annoying. Is there any rule like one revive per life or can someone just continue to stand up time after time?

There is a very long cool down, so chances are they will not have it the second time they are incapped. But if they survive the cooldown, they would be able to use it again.

Self Resurrection has a long (as-yet-uncofirmed) cooldown before it can be re-used. And it takes 3 seconds, so you have to hope nobody's close enough to melee you to death while you fumble with your syringe.

Both reasons mean it'll take skill and timing to use effectively.

And really, what you're describing sounds... wrong... in some ways. But right in others.

In FPS games, EVERY player needs to be able to stand up and make a difference. In a small squad-based FPS (your example NOT being one of these, where Brink is), that means balance needs to be retained between individuals in a 1vs1 encounter as well as the large-scale "big picture" balance of the interaction of different elements.

Assuming equal skill, a Heavy character with a Minigun will always beat the SMG-wielding Light who tries to attack head-on. If the Light uses his agility and the right stealth abilities (or a distraction) to flank the Heavy, then he'll be able to tear a chunk out of his enemy's health, and get out of the line of fire before he takes any damage himself. A couple of bursts from well-concealed and unexpected angles, or a quick dash in from behind to knockdown then melee finish, and the Heavy goes down.

It's all about HOW you engage as to who has the advantage. A Heavy will trump any non-Heavy in a straight-up firefight. A Light will have the best chance of flanking and avoiding taking damage. Mediums strike a balance between the two, able to out-tank Lights in direct combat, and out-manoeuvre Heavies when they have good cover and flanking options.

Yeah, but I suppose that's an issue with gaming. Most people don't see that as balancing because it requires them to bring skills and understanding of their own to the table. Knowledge and personal skills should be what get you your "fair chance", but the meaning of fair is changing. The move to mainstream gaming means a lot of players don't have the right knowledge or skills and instead of learning (or in the case of the game teaching) that stuff they just ask for every weapon to do everything so they don't have to. Tactics become unfair or cheap.

Knowing is half the battle.

And there are limits to how often you can do things as medics (any class) divided up by number of supplies and ability cooldowns.

@Obliviondoll: Great example.

The slow moving but hard hitting heavy with a mini gun has to actually hit the light character who can (let's not forget) pull off parkour moves and get to places the heavy can only dream of going.

Every character combination can take on any other character combination depending on who is behind the controller and the situation they find themselves in.

This is the simplest and easyily the best remark I've heard so far.

And I'm going to say it again, even if wasn't the intent of oblivion but....POSITION...is a key factor in how you will engage someone.

Not its entirerty but certainly a large portion.

Well, AnarchyyFox...

I'm pretty sure, from the information we have, and assuming the game lives up to the dev's plans and our expectations, that you will enjoy Brink greatly.

The way you've described some things, and the reasons for them, don't really go hand-in-hand with how I'd explain them, but working off what you've said so far, I'd personally recommend the game to you at this stage.

GET IT!

That's actually very much part of what he's trying to saying. But it's about the game balancing out the game mechanics, not balancing out player ability which seems to be the counter.

The game manufacturer should balance the weapons within their sets -- all ARs should add up to the same grade, but Rifle A should work better in situation A and B should work better in Situation B, whether it be DMG/ROF/ACC that makes the difference.

They should balance each Weapon set further by situation -- Shotguns should have serious ability and power at close range and should be able to beat (assuming equally skilled players) rifles within that range. Having an outlier (a shotgun with better range or a rifle that works better in close) is fine, but on the whole weapons are chosen for situation.

They also need to balance abilities (my heal vs. your turret build) and maps (have the areas and required movements to force all different weapon usage).

It is then the player's responsibility to bring their skills and understanding to the game to give themselves the edge with their choice of "balanced" gear.

A little off topic, but you said you wanted to create a clan? If you are a PC Gamer, there is no point in loads of people having loads of clans, we might aswell make a big community of brink PC gamers, in our clan everyone will have their say etc, come and look at www.silk-gaming.com you'll be most welcome, we have twitter, facebook, flickr and a steam page, looking forward to having you aboard

Moderator - don't advertise your clan on the forum, there is a pinned topic for it.

And unforetunately this is becoming all too true with games like Halo. Skill is what should tip the scales of a game to the advantage of one player versus another not nerfing everything so everyone one has a "chance" to have fun. Knowing the map, your weapon and your "kit's" ability is what should when you the day.

I mean, isn't the basic definition of skill as an ability that has been honed through trial and experience? Games should be balanced so that knowledge, skill and technique win the day. Not giving every"card" an ability to beat everything else, I.E. Halo's small arms taking out a tank.

This isn't necessarily true. Yes shorter kill times do encourage players to better position themselves, but they also encourage a high degree of accuracy. The faster an opposing player can kill you, the faster you have to be able to aim. Of course in games like that, you don't need the maintained accuracy as much, but the snap to target accuracy is much higher.

To be perfectly honesty twitch based shooters aren't usually causal player friendly. The more casual player games are usually games like Halo which gives a lot of leniency on bad play styles. By bad play styles, I'm not really referring to players' accuracy, but rather just running and gunning with no regard to other players positions or tactics.