Hopefully in a sequel, I don't really want this cause of what happened in MAG, SVER started getting more wins and everyone switched to that side. So if the Resistance starts winning online, then alot of people are gonna stop playing Security cause they want more wins.

Why can't it be like RED and BLU in Team Fortress 2?

I could see this leading to lots of people switching sides to the "winning" faction each week. Would make it harder to find squads on the losing side. Cool idea but kind of complicated if you ask me.

How about working it the other way...

"Security has been winning a lot more consistently over the past week. In their desperation, the Resistance are resorting to underhanded tactics" - for the following week, Security players who are knocked down by melee attacks will have an additional 0.5 second delay before they can get up.

Or "Resistance are overrunning Security. In these troubled times, Security have resorted to suicide bombings" - for the following week, cooking a grenade until it explodes in your hand will result in double the normal radius and damage when you're playing as Security.

Anything like this could work - a little something extra, more for "WTF?" value than actually being game-changing.

so hes asking if there will be the thing they had it mag. in mag the SVER always were on top (havent played in awhile)

Thats actually a brilliant idea, that would probably still lead to the same team changing though, gamers will take any advantage they can get over their enemies. I want a suicide bomber perk now though. :laugh:

Security are BLU, Resistance are RED. Duh? ^_^

Operatve.

Cortex Bomb.

There's your suicide bomber.

Back to the team changing - it will, but it will lead to people swapping onto the WEAKER team - isn't that a good thing?

Make it so it only happens when one side is getting steamrolled, not when they're close, but one side's just managed to pull ahead.

Kills aren't important. Maybe the top 10 of each class.



Yea I don't think this kind of addition would work well for Brink.

I was just making a comment on things. I didn't have a deep rooted idea for everything. Swapping wouldn't have to be a problem. Just don't post the win/loss of the factions. There will be plenty of switching either way.

I just thought it was a cool insentive for yourself since u don't know how every other match is going. May also take more pride in the side you choose.

What is the biggest problems is that Many games are played with bots. Which I think is the main reason that it wouldn't work

It would be pretty sweet to see which side is doing better. And it would work well in a game like this if there was some way to ensure that nobody would switch to the winning side just to say "I'm winning"*. But sadly that's just wishful thinking.






*Mr. Sheen can say that regardless of team =D

The environments should change on whose winning online.

For example: the environments should have graffiti about the resistance on how good they are if they are winning or if the security are winning they should have some posters saying that the resistance has no place here.

Being able to switch sides so easily makes it hard to implement anything that could effect actual gameplay, but I wouldn't mind just seeing some info on which side is winning more across the game types and maps.

The only thing is that any info of that sort could easily lead to heavy criticisms that maps are unbalanced, not unlike what happened in MAG.

I like this idea.

Would be awesome.

This is a FPS, NOT a MMO! Each faction gets a campagin each, and every map has one side defending and another attacking, each map has has a preset attacker and defending team, for example, in container city the reisitance is on defence and security is only on offense.

The only diffrence of each faction is the clothing, their looks, and if they arr attackers or defnders on certin maps. Guns are exactly the same except reistance guns look used, worn out, stolen, and security is clean and new.

You are NOT stuck on one side , you make a character for BOTH factions, it is one character that can play on both sides.

THIS IS NOT MAG!

geez, so much for open talk and discussion, wrong wrong wrong! everyone wrong!

edit: oh by the way that is why I said weapon, its a useless really other then a fun side game, I can't imagine people would switch the side they prefer at the time to overbalance one side fore the same reskined gun or something, not only that if everyone but 8 people switched, those 8 might win every match so the 8 would rack up wins. Everyone else was would just play bots, which is why I said it could never work. It is just something to talk about they way it has, rather civilly. So what if this isn't mag and it might not work, maybe a new idea will spring from this that is appealing and balanced and whatever.

also i thought that graffiti idea was cool

For your first question about the 'winning side' feature; don't know squat, though it would probably be exclusively in multiplayer, e.g. Resistance teams have had a good week, so the Resistance has the upper hand at the moment.
As for the second, I may know exactly what you mean. Basically, one of the developer diaries video series focused on gameplay, and ended with the Security team capturing some glowing object that the Resistance were planning to use. Whether it's a power source or a devastating weapon remains to be seen.

This is not a persistant game! This is not MAG! People are not "winning" the war, the story is exclusive to single player and coop, multiplayer is just playing matchs.

I will say this again.


THIS IS NOT MAG!

EDIT: stats are not shown in brink, and getting kills gives you very little exp, and geting wins does not give you exp neither is it shown in a stats menu, even if you lose a match you could have made more exp then the other team, Brink is about teamwork and objectives not stats and kills.

maybe some people think it would be a cool idea, it's not part of the game, we understand your point, thank you kind sir

Just because this isn't MAG/COD/MOH/Whatever other TLA another FPS might come up with, doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun to see overall faction wins/losses for multiplayer.

Also, they could avoid the "play against bots for advantage" problem by only counting public matchmaking games, where you're going to have equal chance of players joining your side or the opposition.

Teams are always even, because any spot that is not taken by a player online is filled by a bot.

The bots are very human like, and flank and do objectives, they are as good or even better then some players.

And stats are not in brink so it does not matter, players will not be at a disatvantage.

Btw can someone link everyone here to the brink bible please? (Im using my phone right now)

i don't think it is a matter of knowing how brink works, i will link the bible here http://www.fragworld.org/frag/brink/the-fragworld-brink-compendium.html

I just think this is brainstorming on cool ideas people have, it's true it's not like planetside, but that didn't have any end game stuff really either. You are right, as I said all a long. Brink has no such contests or land grabs. Maybe this is just idea of the future or things that are interesting

Not the point I was making.

You can create matches with players on one side and bots on the other. People are saying it would be unfair if you have the game effectively "rigged" because the bots won't be as good as players.

I'm working with the premise people are posting before me for my post, and running with the idea that it could be interesting to have the game track which side is winning.

You may be talking about me, I wasn't saying bots stink or are less effective, was saying nobody wants to have some contest, relevant or not decided by bots rather then the community

You were making that point, other people also argue that bots can never be as skilled as players. it's worth keeping that point in there as well. Thanks for clarifying your reasoning though - it's another good point to keep in mind.

Yes, that is called co-op, other then that, you can only do it in private matchs.