Competitive Brink : Othor Games

» Sat May 28, 2011 2:26 pm

so do i

» Sat May 28, 2011 1:51 pm

First of all I want to make a few remarks all of you should take into account before :flamethrower: this topic :

1) If you do NOT intend to play Brink in competition or in a team / clan , you better want to skip this topic
2) As the topic description states , this is a WIP (Work in progress) thread . So it'll be editted regularly
3) Be polite and have respect for everybody's ideas and creativity

What's the purpose of this project ?

The purpose of thic topic is to create some sort of group or organisation of people that want to play Brink in competition in a proper way.
Furthermore we want to promote Brink as much as possible to attract gamers from all kinds of games to let them get a taste of this unique game.
In the end I would like to come up with a universal ruleset ( and maybe later a mod ?) for leagues and competitions to use .

Think of it as some sort of promod , a mod that nearly every online game that is played in competition has . Before I started this topic I searched and browsed the forums a bit regarding playing Brink in competition. Doing that , I came across a lot of topics where people are hoping Brink will become the next competitive shooter, because over the last couple of years most of the most promising games didn't reach that goal ( not to say , completely failed at that point).

Over the last couple of years a lot of games suffered from this , think of left4dead , bfbc2 , codwaw , mw2 , wolfenstein 2009 , farcry2 (which actually had A LOT of potential), + a bunch of other games I'm forgetting right now. However some games did manage to prevent the competitive scene from dying a silent death . Think about the pam mod for cod2 , the promod for css and cod4 , the confogl for left4dead2 , etc etc. Those mods , rulesets and tools were created by the community for the community. That's what I aim to do with this , get all our faces pointing in the same direction right from the start !

With quite some experience in competitions for different games at all levels , I can honestly say that we (the competitive players) will need something like this

Things that need to be done

I cannot emphasize enough that we still have to wait and see what the game is like , vanilla . In the first couple of weeks after release we'll have to play and play and play (think nobody will find that a bad thing

) to get to know the game better and see where we can improve or what we need to change to make it as attractive as possible while still providing some sort of challenge for the player in se.

The above being said , I think we probably won't have to change anything gameplay related when it comes to balancing weapons and abilities. Bethesda and SD have more expertise and they surely took their time , so I'm expecting it to be very well balanced right from the start.

Things I think we do need to think about :

As most probably stopwatch will be the preferred gametype for competitions , we have to think about limits to set a time on each map ( given the fact that not all map will be as easy to complete)
Team format ; will we adapt competition to 5v5 ( css , cod4 , w:et ) , 6v6 ( rtcw , tf2 , dod:s) or the chubby 8v8
Class limitations ; not as in completely forbidding a class , but just limited to number of players on a team that can pick that class in order to put the focus on teamwork.
Scoring system : how will we count scores?
Settings that should be forced on or off
(to be completed)

Little note on the side : when it comes to settings for a config , we still don't know the full possibilities of that e.g: what settings can be changed etc.

Things to be done in the meanwhile :

Contacting admins from different leagues ( in EU the main ones are ESL and Clanbase, don't really know if CEVO and CAL are still that active in NA ?)
As it is likely that an SDK will be released at some point , try and get motivated modders on board.
Share your ideas ( keep in mind that they should be realistic and won't ruin the balance of the game)
(to be completed)

What you can do in the meantime :

If you feel like helping out a little , you can ! Just post some of your ideas or remarks here
[snip]

Ongoing discussions

* Max number of players from one class in a team setup
* Restrictions ( personally I wouldn't restrict too much guns right from the start)
* Ready-up system
* Implementation on ALL platforms ( as long as it's just settings , it's possible for all platforms. )
* Hit sounds ( I assume when hitting one in the head ?)
* ...

Let's make this work !

Hope I didn't tl;dr too much of you guys

Last edit : January 12

If there isn't an SDK that is released at some point you are SOL.

» Sat May 28, 2011 7:59 am

Competition sounds interesting. It reminds me a bit of killzone, as long as it doesn't become an LMG fest. Clan support could possibly give this game a competitive scene HC games are looking for.

» Sat May 28, 2011 1:04 pm

Competition sounds interesting. It reminds me a bit of killzone, as long as it doesn't become an LMG fest. Clan support could possibly give this game a competitive scene HC games are looking for.

Well an LMG fest would require a lot of heavies. Anyway SD has been balancing this for months on end.

» Sat May 28, 2011 9:21 am

I would say limiting medics and operatives would be the best way to go about it. Operatives will have some sort of backstab and stealth. You could face a team with 5 operatives who just go behind enemy lines and backstab everyone. If you've ever played a game with a stealthy class it's so annoying when an entire team uses that class. You just end up getting killed repeatedly out of nowhere over...and over...and over.

Or you may have an inverse ninja rule where nothing gets done because I think ~all classes are required to be able to progress as has been demonstrated by Soldiers planting charges and Engineers repairing (leaving out Operatives hacking because duh).
You can't just have Operatives dogpile everyone because eventually the enemy will get something done and you won't have enough MANPOWER (buffed health and weapons + ammo) to deal with it when they do (and enemies wise up and get paranoid after ~ the sixth time you backstab them)

(in this case ~ == "about")
(woops looked like only three pages bu I'm not going to leaf through the discussion to see if this topic has ceased or the case in point has been mentioned already)

» Sat May 28, 2011 4:32 pm

Well if it came down to a team of heavy's playing a team of lights(At the same skill level) then the heavy's have the upper hand.

How so? Splamage has balanced the crap out of it. Lights can outflank and outrun the heavies with ease. While heavies have superior firepower, it won't make a difference if you can't hit your target.

» Sat May 28, 2011 10:45 pm

they spent so long evening it out to where the team with better skill wins

» Sat May 28, 2011 11:32 pm

How so? Splamage has balanced the crap out of it. Lights can outflank and outrun the heavies with ease. While heavies have superior firepower, it won't make a difference if you can't hit your target.

Jep, it would be really hard to defend and hit and run tactics.

» Sat May 28, 2011 6:33 pm

Jep, it would be really hard to defend and hit and run tactics.

Nah only hard to defend hit and run strategy in games like CSS (without Re-spawns) Cause yeah you can get a pick but then your running into someone that has more health, They have built this game to be played with balanced teams that's why i think we should (If where to make a pro league) force a particular build. (This is just an idea, cannot do anything till the games out)

» Sat May 28, 2011 10:25 pm

Nah only hard to defend hit and run strategy in games like CSS (without Re-spawns) Cause yeah you can get a pick but then your running into someone that has more health, They have built this game to be played with balanced teams that's why i think we should (If where to make a pro league) force a particular build. (This is just an idea, cannot do anything till the games out)

The thing I don't understand about the competitive community, is ow they always want to strip away an/or change aspects of the game, for the sake of balance. I can understand things like bugs or exploits, changing HUD elements and more technical things like that, but your above statement emphasizes where it starts to not make sense to me.

You are suggesting they force a particular build (or body type) in pro leagues, for the sake of balance - where is the competitiveness in that? Take one of the most competitive events out now - professional sports. Do sports organizations like the NFL or MLB restrict specific players from playing? I don't see fottball teams being forced to reassign their roster, because their defensive line has too many "heavy" players on it, and it wasn't fair to the other team.

Competition is all about one teams skill vs another team's, regardless if there are some uphill battles or not. If you're good, you're good, and you'll win anyway.

» Sat May 28, 2011 8:48 pm

The thing I don't understand about the competitive community, is ow they always want to strip away an/or change aspects of the game, for the sake of balance. I can understand things like bugs or exploits, changing HUD elements and more technical things like that, but your above statement emphasizes where it starts to not make sense to me.

You are suggesting they force a particular build (or body type) in pro leagues, for the sake of balance - where is the competitiveness in that? Take one of the most competitive events out now - professional sports. Do sports organizations like the NFL or MLB restrict specific players from playing? I don't see fottball teams being forced to reassign their roster, because their defensive line has too many "heavy" players on it, and it wasn't fair to the other team.

Competition is all about one teams skill vs another team's, regardless if there are some uphill battles or not. If you're good, you're good, and you'll win anyway.

True.

For the sake of discussion, let's look at it from the other side. If everyone has equal or almost equal builds, individual player skill will start to play a bigger factor. (Obviously not as important in a teambased game.)

» Sat May 28, 2011 11:26 am

True.

For the sake of discussion, let's look at it from the other side. If everyone has equal or almost equal builds, individual player skill will start to play a bigger factor. (Obviously not as important in a teambased game.)

So just because some teams are less apt tactically you have to take the whole tactics aspect out of the game? Because seriously, especially in Brink, being able to change one's class IS part of the balance and a team that can make good use of that possibility shows in a way better tactical flexibility than the team too stubord to deviate from their initial plan...

But overall, I guess it all depends on the kind of competition you're looking at... American Football is all about adapting one's lineup to the current situation, whereas Rest-of-the-world Football has rosters pretty much set in ~~store~~ stone for the whole game. Food for thought, maybe?

+ Edit : Damned typos

» Sat May 28, 2011 11:19 am

It's more the gear than the player issue, why can't I bring a X item into a Football match?

Edit: And would people already stop using freaking CoD as a standard example of competitive community?
It's the most restrictive game out there when it comes to comp gaming, and with a good reason.

» Sat May 28, 2011 7:34 pm

Just to make some things clear as some people tend to lose track concerning the class limit suggestion.

The thing is not to forbid a certain body type or class , but just the number of people having the same class in a team setup.
I think it's been mentioned enough that the devs are /have been spending a sh*tload of time in balancing the game. So it would be pretty dumb and rude at the same time to not take advantage of their work.

I think it's best for people to take games like RTCW/ET , ETQW and TF2 as an example for this

Let's say your team consists of 5 or 6 people.

If your opponent chooses to have 5 medics , there wouldn't be that much fun after a while ( remember bfbc2

).
The whole philosophy behind this is that teams will have to find a team setup that suits their style of playing best and to create a mix of all classes in order to complete their objectives.

Argh , it's hard to explain it properly without confusing people. I'd say it would be best to watch some movies or maybe even download the game or demo for you to see it for yourself.

» Sat May 28, 2011 5:16 pm

If your opponent chooses to have 5 medics , there wouldn't be that much fun after a while ( remember bfbc2

).
The whole philosophy behind this is that teams will have to find a team setup that suits their style of playing best and to create a mix of all classes in order to complete their objectives.

My one problem with this thinking is that I doubt a team consisting only of medics (or any other heavily imbalanced setup) would end up being really all that competitive. Sure enough the 8 medics would be hard to keep down, but they'd soon run out of ammo...

As I said, I think limiting class load out would also greatly impact teams' ability to show leadership, tactics and teamwork, which should NOT be ignored for the sake of keeping a supposedly fair environment.

After all, if you can't adapt to your enemy's class makeup, shouldn't they be rewarded for being better tacticians than you?

» Sat May 28, 2011 10:39 am

Just to make some things clear as some people tend to lose track concerning the class limit suggestion.

The thing is not to forbid a certain body type or class , but just the number of people having the same class in a team setup.
I think it's been mentioned enough that the devs are /have been spending a sh*tload of time in balancing the game. So it would be pretty dumb and rude at the same time to not take advantage of their work.

I think it's best for people to take games like RTCW/ET , ETQW and TF2 as an example for this

Let's say your team consists of 5 or 6 people.

If your opponent chooses to have 5 medics , there wouldn't be that much fun after a while ( remember bfbc2

).
The whole philosophy behind this is that teams will have to find a team setup that suits their style of playing best and to create a mix of all classes in order to complete their objectives.

Argh , it's hard to explain it properly without confusing people. I'd say it would be best to watch some movies or maybe even download the game or demo for you to see it for yourself.

Your very right, there. We are not restricting but limiting. Cause if you make it so a team can change during a game there will be about 100 changes a game, every spawn you do you'll change class just to make it harder for your opponent to understand and know what your doing, therefor that would end up taking away from the in-game tactics.

I look at it this way, there are two things to a games tactics. We have the main one witch is in-game that's where pushing with 4 guys in one places and having the 5th run around and put a bomb down(for lac of a better example). Then you have post-game tactics, where you have to think up a build(weapons, class, body build and grenades). Now if you are to limit this so you cannot do it in-game that's only taking out about %20 of the tactics. But you don't have to take it out. Cause you can simple make it so you only once/can't change class/build in-game.

Doing this would allow teams to have 3 or 5 different builds and have them all work for the team. Cause if the games balanced then every good team will go with a mixed build up, 1 heavy medic, 1 heavy soldier, 1 medium soldier, 1 light engineer and 1 medium operative or 1 heavy medic, 2 heavy soldier's, 1 light engineer and 1 light operative, the list goes on, there would be hundreds of different ways to have 5v5 build.

Now so you don't get the wrong idea, you'd still need command positions and spawn points cause you change change your gun build at anytime and grenades cause that wouldn't impacted the game overly.

Now before you go and right something to fight me on(Cause i'm going to miss something, i know) try going with me on this. Look at it like i em. Just trying to have 2 teams play each other on in-game tactics at %80 and post game tactics at %20.

» Sat May 28, 2011 3:15 pm

Now before you go and right something to fight me on(Cause i'm going to miss something, i know) try going with me on this. Look at it like i em. Just trying to have 2 teams play each other on in-game tactics at %80 and post game tactics at %20.

The one thing I don't understand is why in the first place do you think limiting class buildup would make the game more competitive. What exactly does restricting class choices add to the game?

My problem is not that I don't want you to limit any choices or to take any feature away; it's just that so far you haven't been able to find any argument that seemed to remotely say how that would make the game better.

Why would it be more competitive if teams' class makeup is set in stone and cannot be modified?
In which way would limiting body sizes help prevent abuse? What kind of abuse anyway?
Why would prohibiting class change during play make the game more competitive?

» Sat May 28, 2011 8:58 pm

Why would it be more competitive if teams' class makeup is set in stone and cannot be modified?
In which way would limiting body sizes help prevent abuse? What kind of abuse anyway?
Why would prohibiting class change during play make the game more competitive?

If anything, I see restricting aspects of the game, like the one's listed above, makes the game less competitive, since it would force players to conform to certain rules and parameters, even more so than set by the retail version of the game.

It's like a guy saying "I can beat anyone in a fight....as long as this list of parameters are met."

» Sat May 28, 2011 6:54 pm

I don't like the idea of being able to switch classes mid-game in a competitive league. I think that if you pick that class and character your stuck with it. Not in the the actual game just in a competitive environment.

That make sense but I guess the Devos see it as like..."Pick a Gun and deal with it for 20min" Maybe it will be more balance than we think even though you can change mid game you need to go to a station if your worried about the opposite team changing like to all solider you can block it so they cant.

» Sat May 28, 2011 1:20 pm

If you haven't seen or played a SD game in competition I would highly recommend you watch some other SD games being played competitivly for some additional context (here's a good source of VODs from ETQW matches):

http://www.bravehardt.com/TAW/Quake_Wars/DukeNukeM/Videos/

Will probably help put statements like "you shouldn't be allowed to change classes in a match" into some kind of perspective

I know the OP said at the beginning of the post you will have to wait and see how the game plays before you can figure any of this out, so yeah.

» Sat May 28, 2011 4:17 pm

I may be wrong on this but didn't SD just make the maps for ET:QW?

» Sat May 28, 2011 2:39 pm

I may be wrong on this but didn't SD just make the maps for ET:QW?

The developed the game, not just the maps.

» Sun May 29, 2011 12:09 am

Why would it be more competitive if teams' class makeup is set in stone and cannot be modified? It's not a specific class setup , it's just the number of players having the same class in a team
In which way would limiting body sizes help prevent abuse? What kind of abuse anyway? I won't recommend limitations on bodytypes eitherWhy would prohibiting class change during play make the game more competitive? It doesn't

Best would be to be able to switch classes when you're dead. I'm not a fan of being able to change class at a cp when you're still alive. Would only result in buttsechs anyway

» Sat May 28, 2011 8:01 pm

Ok, so for the sake of a poor, lowly noob...is the purpose of this thread/idea to establish a League similar in style to the NFL where teams will compete competitively for a title, or to adopt rules that would be generally accepted to make the game more fun/balanced?