An element of Brink's multiplayer which I was really fascinated with and excited for was the potential for a "tide-turning" objective -- if one side was dominating the other, the losing side would be offered a chance to capture intel from the enemy for a huge score boost. This would even the odds and add another exciting wild card element to the game.

However, in Horse's second update to the Brink Bible, he mentions that the devs have cut this feature out.

I trust in SD's reasons for cutting it, and I'm not going to rant and rail against them for their decision. However, I would like to start a dialogue with the community about how this same concept could be better implemented.

What kind of "even the odds" opportunity can you come up with in order to put an otherwise hopelessly outmatched team back on equal terms? Would you vary this type of mission according to the map, or restrict it to certain classes?

I was never aware of this feature?

Also a score boost doesn't even anything but the final amount of score gained. You win by time, not by score.

I think it's here, halfway down the section titled "Objectives" : http://www.fragworld.org/frag/community-blogs/brink-info-pt-2-classes-abilites-and-objectives.html

True, I probably used the wrong terminology. Somehow, it would make the playing field level again.

Last I heard it was called gathering intel. It gave the team some unspecificed boost if they were losing and could capture it.
Didn't particularly care for it. Kind of like the super weapons in Tom Clancey's Endwar. I am doing well so I get punished? No thanks.

I don't understand this whole "even the odds" movement. I mentioned it in my bullet damage thread but I just don't understand this agenda that we have to put more chance, fairness and balance in games. I've been spawned camped innumerous amounts of times...I've joined games without any hope of winning and faced odds that would make the 300 spartans feel easy in their sandals. Its svcks sure bu that doesn't mean I deserve a handicap. It means I have to get better, put myself in better odds and out do my enemy.

I got out of the nerf years when I discovered paintball, I guess is a great anology. I guess theres the casual pillow fights and the hardcoe bottle rocket battles. :glare: I don't need a handicap til my legs don't work.

I don't think I would've cared much for it, even if I was on the losing team. I know Brink is all about team play and balance, but that kind of feature would almost make it TOO balanced. The team that is ahead is ahead for a reason, and it would only piss people of if the losing team got the score boosting intel and won purely from a reward for their deficit.

The turn the tide moment is going to be wiping out the enemy team and forcing them all to respawn, giving you a chance to reset your defenses. What more could you want?

The basic idea behind the "tide-turning" thing was that if your team is getting totally steamrolled, EVERYBODY on your team will be frustrated, and most players on the enemy team will be bored.

When the point of a game is to have fun, 8 frustrated players and 6 bored players with only 2 who are actively enjoying the fact that they're winning doesn't seem fair.

I think there should be some kind of "balancing" mechanism when a team is losing that badly - I DON'T think it should be something that will let an inferior team win, but give them the opportunity to earn some bonus XP with "special" objectives - they won't turn the tide, as such, they won't critically impair the enemy, but let them tip the balance enough that the frustrated players don't feel like total losers, and the winners have a "where did THAT come from?" experience to liven up the game.

I had mixed feeling about that feature. it aloud the losing team to collect intel and if they captured it, it cut their spawn time in half. to me it would be hard to balance a feature lik that, and like others have said it kinda sux for those who are dominatin.

I think they should do something with the spawn times...if a team is getting absolutely dominated, shorten their spawn times by a few seconds. Nothing big, maybe 3 seconds, just enough to avoid complete domination.

It's called finishing the objective and ending the game. They're timed battles and teams are going to push to finish them and move on if they get bored.

If you put in a feature that actively allows a team that is "losing" to suddenly win you open up another avenue for victory other than actually participating the whole time. Clans will learn tactics to complete the turn around objective and it will simply become a matter of letting the enemy through and then turning the tables on them.

Any "turn the tide" moment should be based on the players playing, not the game otherwise you open the door to a whole new set of frustrating behaviors.

EDIT: NOt all of that was specifically at you, just making the point about "turning the tide".

This.

I would be all for something that gives the losing team a boost, but without such an advantage that they would win. As long as it spices up a somewhat boring game without being unfair to the winning team, I think it'd be a plus.

What if the better team is on defense? Then they just have to wait out the timer...not very exciting.

I think an objective that turns the game completely around punishes the dominating side by doing what they were supposed to do well.

I could see MAYBE giving the steamrolled side a buff of some sort. Increased bullet damage or something but even that seems unfair to the winning side.

If you do that you might as well switch out the losing sides bullets with grenade rounds... Which I find that idea appealing.

There are something like 5 minute timers between each objective, by the time the losing team realizes they're losing that baddly the timer will be pretty much up. Beyond that there's nothing that the developer can do.

The game is as fair as it's going to get in prinicple, everybody has a chance to win and everybody has a chance to lose. There is no way to balance a game between good and bad players, the players have to learn and adapt and get better.

They're going to earn tons of XP win or lose, the games aren't going to take long, and even less time if one team is getting blown out, Any change to the mechanics will still be an advantage to a skilled player that can figure out how to use it.

I agree that any side objectives like this should be small, limited bonuses - NOT a "turn the tide" moment.

I don't think it should be "you're losing horribly, your team now has a NUKE to play with."

"You're losing horribly, the other team has ALREADY BEATEN YOU. But go down fighting, and make them work for their victory" would be nice though.

Not on stopwatch mode...which is what I plan on primarily playing.

Badman has said that stopwatch mode will just give one time limit; say 25 minutes, and each team has a shot on offense and defense. If one team is dominating the other, that's quite a long time to wait.

But then again, many people on this forum seem like they will play for one side or another, and will not play stopwatch mode.

This might just be a personal problem

Well I would think it's only a problem 50 % of the time there, since if you go over the time set by the team that goes first it would make sense if the game just ended. But I think that Stopwatch mode is intended more for "teams" as opposed to a collection of randoms, so I guess the best way to deal with it would be to bring a team that just wants to win that baddly. What system?

I think in Halo 2 you had the option to turn a Handicap on just for you to make your bullets do less damage and less damage resistance. I often turned it on when I was bored when playing against easier people and it did offer me a challange. It also had varying levels of handicap.

What if brink had something like this. If the dominating team gets bored and want a challange they can turn handicap on, but the game wouldnt force them to do it. Just if they felt like they wanted to give the other team a chance/make the game more interesting.

I also used handicap to get better as with less health and damage than the other guy I had to play a lot smarter than him and make less mistakes.

If you're asking what system I'll be on, it'll be Xbox, although I won't have access to internet until July or August. Until then I'll be doing some LANs.

If you aren't asking what my game platform is...could you please clarify?

IDEA:

"Damage control" objectives - when one team has already secured the victory, and it's basically just a matter of time, the weaker team will be advised of "damage control" objectives.

If you're on a team where the final objective has been reached, and you're meant to be guarding a fortified building - but the enemy team have already blasted their way into your secure compound, and it's only a matter of time before they bring your facility down around you, the "damage control objective could be to stop the other team from getting out, Operatives seal certain doors by hacking them, Soldiers set explosives at some exits to the building, Engineers build barricades to block escape routes - there could be several different options for which exits need to be secured, and how, and by which class - your team would be able to spread out, and every team member who works on an objective gains XP over time, then every objective earns a bonus for the whole team.

The end of the mission will show the building come down, and everyone inside, on both sides, goes down in a blaze of glory - The winners became martyrs, but they still struck a heavy blow against the weaker team.

Sort of like a "If I'm going down, I'm bringing you with me" kind of thing? I like it.

Yes, that was what I was asking. Unfortunately I can't help you out then.

---------

What's the obsession of trying to make everyone feel like a winner? You get loads of XP and you accomplish personal goals, why do you need to feel like you didn't lose the round too?

Games have winners and losers and it's the players that make the most of the situation, not the game. The winners get the moment of glory and the losers look back and see why they lost.