so, i am very curious (and worried) about the level of weapon customization this game will have. ever since i played army of two i have been praying that someone would make an mmofps similar to that game in the sense that it would have different types of the same attachment e.g. multiple silencers. from what i have seen brink will be this kind of game. but does anyone know (maybe a guess) on how elaborate this system will be? will there be plenty of parts to choose from? I myself would love to have several different types of silencers and rifles stocks!!

my suggestion would be for this game to have a HUGE selection of attachments each having their own stats. Call of duty: Black Ops promised, and failed, to enable us to make our weapons "our own". If brink employs a HUGE (all about quantity) selection of attachments, they will definitely enable us to make our weapons our own, not through appearance (COD:BO) but through STATS!!!!

i really hope at least one dev or mod reads this post and takes it into account

It also leads to balancing issues though. If you only have a dozen or so attachments, its possible to test most (if not all) combinations for balence. WHen you start having dozens of attachments, the total number of combinations quickly gets redicullous and its hard to balence the attachments for every possible configuration, either making many combinations useless or a certain handful overpowered.

If there are some overpowered combinations, then the whole point of "customization" is lost, half of the players will have the same thing.

The way you deal with balance is by giving evry attachment some type of penalty. Say, your silencer reduces both damage and range. But one silencer reduces more range while the other one reduces more damage. you could also do the same for stocks. two stocks that reduce recoil and movement speed. One reduces recoil by very little hence very little movement penalty, while the other decreases very significantly recoil but has a great movement penalty.

To avoid overpowering, well it is all about numbers. if you have different stats like damage, range, movement, recoil, reload speed etc. Then say for example that each stat ranges from 1 to 100. This comes to a total of 500 points. then you just make it so no combination exceed for example 350 points. (70,70,70,70,70), (90,70,90,50,50), or (52,100, 47, 60, 60) etc. the last one doesnt even reach the 350 cap but has mac range.

Lastly, yes, some SETS might become useless, but because that combination would be useless does not mean that every part of that combination is useless in itself. Each of said pieces might be godly combined with something else.

The gain/loss attachment system is already in place.

And balancing point rules don't work well in this situation, all pistols need to be equal to each other, same goes for smgs, and light rifles, and assault rifles, and grenade launchers, and shotguns, and miniguns. Based on a point system and not actual testing how in the world are you going to balance all those combinations and make decisions somewhat tactical. I think this would make only certain "sets" with high point values "playable", like how juggernaut and stopping power basically became requisites in CoD, I DONT want that in Brink.

I didn't like how BC2 had specs you could choose, that should have either been built into the weapons from the start or left out completely - like mgm ammo.

First, all guns should NOT be equal. Honestly when was the last time any fps had all weapons have the same stats? not halo, not CoD, not BF:BC, not any. Second, I never said anything about removing field testing, but if every thing has a numerical value you should be able to calculate the how much damage you deal when you are at 'x' distance with 'y' rate of fire with 'z' damage factor. And based on those simple calculation you determine whether those values are overpowered or not. test them just to double check. Lastly, like i said, there should NOT be balance. Some weapons are modified to be used closed quarters while others open spaces, and this is where you make tactical decisions. For example, a close quarter weapon has high RoF and damage but poor accuracy. Long range has high accuracy and low RoF. Each are 'overpowered' in a specific situation.

honestly i dont understand why people r disagreeing with my opinions. The system has already been implemented, im only suggesting that it should be very (more) versatile.

Being equal in power/strength/appeal does not equate being identical. Tho pistols with different stats might have different situational applications; one has a bigger punch, but lower RoF and lower ammo cap, for example, yet they both, overall, are as good as the other, and the decision of going with one over the other is one of style/playstyle/personal preference.

This.


I think that's technically the definition of "balance"; some weapons excel in one area and have an Achilles' heel in another.

equal and identical are synonyms (they have equal or identical meanings xp). also, i said that guns should not be equal. you say that guns can have different stats but still be just a good. so really you r just proving my point that guns can be NOT equals and still be balanced.

This I can agree with. But I would only say that following this logic proves that you can make brink have several attachments and still balance the game using pros and cons for each, which is what the second poster disagreed with me on.

2+2 = 1+3 = 4

They all are equal. They all are not exactly the same. Note that the usage you refer to is one of many possible meanings for the word equal. Sure, equal can mean identical, but it also can mean of same value, which is not exactly the same.

lol.

(2+2) * 4 = 4 * 4

2*4 + 2*4 = 4*4

8+8 = 4*4

16 =16

Needless to say the end result will always be the same no matter how you write it. saying that the sum of the halves of four is not identical to four is ridiculous. hence, why any mathematical operation that you do to it will yield the same result.
dude do you realize that you literally just said that 2+2 is not exactly the same as 4? what an ass whooping i would get from my professors if i said that out loud.

Right. You're just avoiding the point. What matters is that both [guns] have the same "total" value. That one pistol might be better at short range whereas another will shine at a distance doesn't mean they can't be fairly evenly matched and end up being equally attractive.

Taken out of a mathematical context, equal means fait, similar, of same value. For two people to have equal rights does not mean identical treatment...

Just chiming in here to say: I doubt the actual number of attachments will not be greater than in any other shooter (or Call of Duty, because I think it's currently the leading one).

HOWEVER, you'll be able to combine a lot mroe, because you're allowed to have one attachment for each of the weapon's slots (usually four).

Well.. What will we see?

- Multiple Scopes
- Multiple Ammo/Clip attachments
- Grip
- Sling
- Silencer
- Muzzlebreak(?)
- Skins!

And then I think that's all we know

These I'm aware of:

• 4 + 1 - Standard scopes (Red Dot, EOTech, ACOG, 6x Zoom Scope) + Greeneye (which is essentially a green EOTech-ACOG Hybrid, I guess)
  
• 1 - Silencer
  
• 1 - Grip
  
• 3 - Standard magazines (taped, extended and drum)
  
• 1 - sling/strap

11 in total.
And I think there are 2 muzzlebreaks.

I don't take weapon skins into consideration, though. These are just gimmicks.

Oy, what about the ''SNOOP-R Scope''? The one that will make the rifles into snipers

If you add the GreenEye, why not the soda can?

Ugh, forgot about that one. Fix'd.

I am pleased

The number of attachments slots will probably change for different weapons.

Damn. This is exactly what I was hoping would NOT be the case. I really wanted it to be something more like army of two. In AoT you can modify your gun with several different barrels, stocks, grips, silencers, mags, etc. My main point is to have more than one choice for each of what i mentioned. In AoT you even had the option to mount a 'shield' en the tip of your gun. not like i ever used it but the fact that it was there was pretty cool.
oh well, i guess the game wont have as much customization for guns as i would have liked but i am still buying the game regardless.

oh and i hope we get golden camo! (without f******* 15th prestige)

There is absolutely no way they could implement that kind of system without ending up with a few extremely overpowered combinations slipping through the cracks during testing, which is exactly why they limited the total to around 11 or 12.

Oh, and I would hate to see golden camo in the game. I like the concept behind Brink because it seems so unique, and I personally feel like adding a gimmick from CoD would just diminish its special feel.

You are aware that Brink is a team based competitive shooter, right? Having all the options you hoped for would make it practically impossible to test and balance all the different weapon combinations. Even if the options were purely for appearance and had no stats, having to design, model and texture them all requires time and resources. This is exactly what I expected would happen with Brink - people over-inflating their expectations. They hear "weapon customization," and they expect to be able to create a pistol that looks like a shotgun and shoots rockets.

If people would apply practical and rational thought to their ideas, mixed with a little common sense, it would do wonders.

I'm expecting there to be a few skins for silencers and grips, but nothing like stocks. Changeable stocks would be cool only if they were just aesthetic, otherwise you'd have guns that would be too accurate.

I believe Resistance will have customizable weapon camouflages (not so for Security, unfortunately), but I don't want to see another golden gun camo. Call of Duty wasn't the first game (or piece of media for that matter) to use a golden gun, but everybody loves it just because Call of Duty had it.

I'm still hoping to see adjusted iron sights.

They wouldn't change the stats at all... so, still hoping. Anyone know for sure?

Also, in regards to the original post. That's exactly what SD is trying to avoid. They want balance, not overpowered guns and reasons not to use attachments.