beardawnwood
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- Messages
- 314
Has anyone heard anything about mod tools, dedicated servers, a demo feature, spectator mode, etc? They seem to be exceedingly vague in their answers towards the PC market.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Brink, thoughts?
- Thread starter soulesschild
- Start date
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
Well they've said a bit about dedicated servers here - http://bethblog.com/index.php/2011/04/28/brink-dedicated-server-faq/
Basically the game will have public dedicated server files like the old days.
I remember they mentioned in an interview that they would release mod tools but I'm having trouble finding it. I wouldn't take it as confirmation at this point that they will release them. No idea about demo recording or spectator mode but apparently the game has been picked up by some e-sports leagues in Europe or something, so I guess there must be some features supporting competitive play.
edit - ok this was the exact quote - “Both Splash Damage and Bethesda have a history of providing an SDK and support to go along with it; it’s hard for us to forget our roots. We can’t give specifics on an SDK at this stage as we’re fully focused on getting Brink finished, but it’s something we’ll be talking about more once the game’s production is close to done.” Vague.
Soon you'll be talking about revoking your pre-order because they don't show kill/deaths either. The focus is team play and with so many people in a server it will mean defense always wins. There is no TDM or snipers for people who care about KDR, thank god. It is not a replacement for bc2 or cod... it's a different game. Obviously you don't quite understand that.
But yes you will unfortunately be able to edit player count..
Soon you'll be talking about revoking your pre-order because they don't show kill/deaths either. The focus is team play and with so many people in a server it will mean defense always wins. There is no TDM or snipers for people who care about KDR, thank god. It is not a replacement for bc2 or cod... it's a different game. Obviously you don't quite understand that.
But yes you will unfortunately be able to edit player count..
This is a good point. If the game is designed to work well with the default player count and is balanced for that then I can't see any reason to increase it. You're right about games getting ruined by too many people; seems the way the game's been designed is to allow for the SMART system to provide avenues of attack to circumvent bottlenecks or positions where people are holed up. With twice the number of people defending you'd have twice the number of routes fortified, and more games ending up like Rush in BC2 with stalemates making everything boring.
Good call on no display of KDR, too. I know I have far more fun in games when I manage to stop caring about that and just go bananas.
Odds against it? Have you read any of the info on it? It sounds great. That's not to say that it will be great, but I wouldn't say that odds are against it being any good if it turns out exactly as described.
If anything odds are in its favor. A true team based multiplayer game is not easy to find and what's been shown about Brink, represents everything a team based multiplayer should be.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
I go both ways on this. On one hand its tedious and annoying on the other it gives people something to work for.
Nobody is lecturing anyone and he has a point. This nonsense that you MUST have a ton of players on a single map is plain stupid. It makes sense in shooters like BC2 and COD to want lots of players and big maps but that dont mean it should apply to the whole fucking genre. Having 16 people after the same objective is much more intense than having 32 going after 3 objectives.
Like others have said before its all about the game design. Pissing and moaning about a MP cap without seeing the design is just silly.
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
You mean you were giving us your opinion on what you thought was okay, despite the fact that the original CS allowed up to 32 players per server. Lets not forget all the other games back in and round 2000 like Quake 3, DoD, MoH and CoD all of which supported up to if not more than 32 players. But I guess acknowledging these truths would be inconsistent with absurd arguments which are really just based on your subjective opinions.
Ah how you do like to distort reality to suit your arguments, either that or you were only born in the last decade. Back then PC games were specifically made for PC gamers in mind, no shitty ass ports, plenty of demos, acceptable DRM that allowed users to sell or giveaway games they no longer wanted, no blatant attempts to monetise every aspect of a given game, etc.
People had fewer reasons to complain back then, as compared to these days where we are surrounded by mindless sheep more than happy to throw money out hand over fist in return for the mediocrity shoveled out by developers.
But that is all really beside the point, and ultimately in terms of the issue at hand I don't really care what you think is optimal for a given game because I PREFER [being my own subjective opinion] having the option to play MP with more than 16 players. You want to play with less then be my guest, most games provide the option of playing on smaller servers.
Not really a concern for me, I will express my discontent by simply not buying the game. Either the dev's take notice if not enough people follow suit or they don't. I have plenty of other games to keep me occupied until something better comes along.
Last edited:
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Oh noes....how dare I express discontent!!?? Quick, point me to the sheeple queue so I can start lining up in anticipation of a game that I no longer have interest in.
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
No he doesn't have a fucking point, because his entire argument is based upon his own personal preferences for a given game. Effectively the entire issue comes down to accommodating user choice and preferences. Having a hard 16 player cap significantly limits that choice as people who might prefer to play with more than 16 players, regardless of how intense or stupid that may be, are deprived of that opportunity.
It really is quite simple. Some people may think playing 64 players on small CoD4 maps is ridiculous, but the option is at least open for people to do so. People who want to play with less players can just as easily join CoD4 servers with 2, 6, 10, 18, whatever player limits.
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
And of course, endlessly whining and moaning and complaining like you just did. Let's not forget that eh?
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
You mean cogent arguments designed to refute your idiotic derisive comments aimed at anyone not agreeing with your personal opinions. Trolololololololol.
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
Yes very well thought out arguments. Not at all whiny in any way.
Have fun complaining about games. The rest of us will be having fun actually playing them
How are you hoping for the best when saying "odds are against it" ? Hope for the best means optimism. "Odds are against it" is pessimism. You realize that optimism and pessimism are antonyms right ?
High expectations are always a problem for those that let them grow so much. However, if you're pessimistic to a point where you almost dismiss a game entirely, based on a single thing you don't particularly like, then that game will never appeal to you, no matter how good it is and everyone raves about it.
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Yes very well thought out arguments. Not at all whiny in any way.
Have fun complaining about games. The rest of us will be having fun actually playing them
So your only response is that you think the arguments are whiney. Good god, now I know that I am debating a juvenile. At least you haven't pulled out the "I am the rubber you are the glue" retort.....yet.
Gee wow, now you are insinuating that I don't have fun playing games because I am too busy complaining. What sort of masterful child prodigy am I dealing with here!?!
Yes very well thought out arguments. Not at all whiny in any way.
Have fun complaining about games. The rest of us will be having fun actually playing them
Defiant's right. I agree with hime 100%. The rest of you guys may be happy to scoop up every single console port/DLC bullshit that comes out, and thats fine. Some of us are not cool with it, and have been slowly watching our hobby turn to shit. So yeah, we're fucking mad!
Last edited:
mathewmatics
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2011
- Messages
- 208
Wow...I'm looking the looks of this game!
Sorry if repost but both of the egg vids look awesome!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832136016&cm_re=Brink-_-32-136-016-_-Product
Sorry if repost but both of the egg vids look awesome!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832136016&cm_re=Brink-_-32-136-016-_-Product
How about realism? Not being an ass. Just basing my opinion on experience. It is a weird mix I agree.
I want the game to be great. Don't get that wrong. I will wait and see first is all.
Maybe the player count thing won't matter, on the PC, at least:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...-+Featured+Content)&utm_content=Google+Reader
This makes the game way more appealing.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...-+Featured+Content)&utm_content=Google+Reader
This makes the game way more appealing.
Valshistixol
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,809
Xthree
It's amusing that you'll contend that someone is juvenile and attack their intellectual capability because they've disregarded your points, whilst you rail and ad hominem all over the place. Kind of ironic.
No game has looked awesome to me since CoD4 other than Mass Effect/ Dragon Age which didn't interest me enough to play either. This is the first game in years that I'm looking forward to. It is very easy to see a game will be bad or avg when you look at the developer and their past accomplishments and contrast that with new game play footage. No matter what like Brink or hate it, it will definitely effect the fps genre. Just for that it's worth it to me to purchase just so I can see how it feels to play single player and multiplayer at the same time.
Oh noes....how dare I express discontent!!?? Quick, point me to the sheeple queue so I can start lining up in anticipation of a game that I no longer have interest in.
I hope you don't play it tbh.. the more people playing on 8v8 servers the better for me and the majority of people interested in this game.(but yes i'm selfish about this) You would contribute to another community in this game that may very well enjoy the game and would play in the smaller servers if they got over the bigger is always better.. Oh and please address the rest of my post that completely discredits any desire for wanting a 32v32 server. Well it does unless you are a masochist.
The best thing about all of this is all these people complain that we have a lack of variety in games and everything is the same.. On the flip side most are asking for the game play to be exactly what they want(read played before) before they try anything new. In this particular case this game is nothing like anything else. It blends elements from many titles that we have all loved and hated and adds to that their own spin. Quit trying to change something somewhat innovative. If you don't like it that's fine but don't act like the developers owe you anything. In this case they would lose more sales than gain by appealing to some of the requests I see... This is supposedly the first hardcore shooter ever made that is easily accessible to all level of play. There's depth to the game play so they cater to the hardcore/competitive crowd yet it allows even the newbie to be effective and contribute to his team. This is probably the biggest seller for me... bringing more players to a competitive game.
Last edited:
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
I agree. Whether or not it turns out to be good, they are definitely trying a few new ideas in this game.
I certainly agree that it doesn´t have to be always 32 ppl or something. There´s games with maps that work for that amount of people but there´s other games with smaller maps that work just fine for 6vs.6 or 8vs.8 and they play like shit with more than that. I remember Day of Defeat and CS servers with 12vs12 or even higher than that and it´s making the game retarded and not more fun.
Let´s wait and see before we cry foul.
Let´s wait and see before we cry foul.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
So wait, his opinion that you should wait and see before just judging based on MP cap and your opinion that it should have high cap regardless are different HOW?
Its both fucking opinions, the difference is you are arguing his as though yours is fact.
spindoctor
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 820
5v5 for Counter Strike is not a number I pulled out of thin air. It has been the competitive standard for Counter Strike for over a decade. Smart people and the best gamers in the world have played 5v5 tournaments because that is the optimal server size for those games. Same goes for Wolf at 6v6 and ET at 8v8. Apparently though, all those pro-gamers were console hugging, mouth breathing, shit eating retards for not recognizing the fact that 'true PC gamers' only acknowledge the existence of 32+ player servers. The same 'true PC gamers' would fill a 1v1 deathmatch map with 64 players because that's just how it's meant to be. Fuck map design. Fuck game balance. If your game doesn't support so many players, it's a piece of shit no matter what.
rampantandroid
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
Whoa, that makes me WANT to buy...I don't enjoy the Battlefield style clusterfuck so common today....
And AA was 8v8 or something usually....I mean...I PREFER smaller games! Can we have a 16p UT GOTY server please?
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
I think the irony is how you fail to recognize the nuisances in the arguments or the fact that his response to anyone who disagrees with him is to characterize any valid expression of dissent as whiny.
Don't worry I wont.
No....his opinion is "Guys not every game needs to have massive player numbers to be good. It all depends on the game design. Counter Strike is optimally played in 5v5, RTCW used to be 6v6 and Enemy Territory was best with 8v8 if I remember correctly.", something completely different to the way you characterize it.
There is a significant difference between that and what I say, which is that I am not interested in MP with small player numbers and that really Splash Damage could appeal to both ends of the spectrum by allowing server admins to set player caps.
Tell you what, you can go play on CS and ET servers with 10 player and 16 player level caps, and I will continue to play on servers with 32 player caps. Wow...how easily was that solved.
The only person descending into this quagmire of animosity is you, but I guess hyperbole and absurd analogies are the only way for you to support your position. I don't recall ever saying that Brink was going to be a piece of shit or that true PC games support a minimum of 32 players online, only that a max player cap of 16 users does not interest me. But of course how dare anyone express any altering opinion which may shed light on your cognitive dissonance.
Or.....you could simply join BF servers with 16 player caps.
In any event I see no point in continuing to debate people in this thread who continually misconstrue what effectively is my preference. Am more than happy for you to enjoy playing Brink, but I am going to spend my time working through my backlog of PC and console games until BF3 is released.
rampantandroid
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
Or.....you could simply join BF servers with 16 player caps.
Playing a game meant for 32 players with half that isn't what I call fun. Same goes for playing a game meant for 16 players with 32 players. Just doesn't work.
BF is a clusterfuck whichever way you spin it around, I've found.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
Hey defiant are you about fucking finished trying to force your opinions on everyone? All he has said is it works when the games designed for it and all you have said is FUCK EVERYONE I WANT MOAR PLAYERS.
You guys are threadcrapping with the stupidest argument, there will be dedicated server files so I'm sure there will be servers with whatever player caps they desire. You will all be satisfied.
Now let's talk about how awesome this game will be. mmmmonster kill awesome or godlike awesome?
Now let's talk about how awesome this game will be. mmmmonster kill awesome or godlike awesome?
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Good job further misconstruing what I was saying Disposed....reading comprehension FTW.
The only poster I see trying to force their opinions and preferences on everyone else is spindoctor. No one else is allowed to breathe outside his dictated scope for this yet unreleased game otherwise fear the wrath of his hyperbolic arguments.