PDA

View Full Version : Locked on and Free Combat?



M.Sword.Y.Face
06-18-2015, 06:58 PM
Dual locked-on is cool. But what about free combat world? Is it feasible with the design mechanism? It looks like so. If they can stump on AIs without engaged in lock mode, they sure can apply it to players.

In order for this game to triumph over Chivalry, it better has a massive multi-player mode, 16 to 32 people battle.

I believe the development must be aware of the current existing games that present challenges. I am just putting this out there and see what you opinion is.

Doctrinaire
06-18-2015, 07:10 PM
well, in order to initiate friendly conversation, I would recommend you not start with all that shouting (large font is also considered shouting, not just CAPS).

erman2626
06-18-2015, 07:53 PM
Stop comparing every medieval game with Chivalry.It's an arcade pile of garbage and deserves nothing.

M.Sword.Y.Face
06-18-2015, 07:59 PM
well, in order to initiate friendly conversation, I would recommend you not start with all that shouting (large font is also considered shouting, not just CAPS).

you should not make assumption based on stereotype. My writing style is not aggressive at all. I only put it large so it is easier to see. With high resolution and small screen, people with laptop can also still see it clear.

Eiddard
06-18-2015, 08:07 PM
you should not make assumption based on stereotype. My writing style is not aggressive at all. I only put it large so it is easier to see. With high resolution and small screen, people with laptop can also still see it clear.

Well, I felt it was aggressive too. It just happens when the text is writen in such oversize font compared to the rest of the website.

About the theme of the post.

I don't think it has to compete with Chyvalry with 16-32 person battles. You forget that this game has more objectives than just kill each other, there is strategy into wining games more than just I am better than you killing people, and it focuses a lot in duels not in high number battles.

I think the game will be great, it adds strategy to a medieval fight by adding objectives more than killing, and the gamepley seems far better than Chivalry gameplay.

The communication in this game with your teammates will be really important. I think 4v4 will be fine, maybe 5v5 or 6v6 would be good too, but 4v4 seems what the devs are going for so yeah, I am fine with it.

Oakmantle
06-18-2015, 08:17 PM
Well, I felt it was aggressive too. It just happens when the text is writen in such oversize font compared to the rest of the website.

About the theme of the post.

I don't think it has to compete with Chyvalry with 16-32 person battles. You forget that this game has more objectives than just kill each other, there is strategy into wining games more than just I am better than you killing people, and it focuses a lot in duels not in high number battles.

I think the game will be great, it adds strategy to a medieval fight by adding objectives more than killing, and the gamepley seems far better than Chivalry gameplay.

The communication in this game with your teammates will be really important. I think 4v4 will be fine, maybe 5v5 or 6v6 would be good too, but 4v4 seems what the devs are going for so yeah, I am fine with it.

Agreed with this. There's also the idea of Quality over Quantity.

Doctrinaire
06-18-2015, 08:36 PM
hello weir...there was no assumption. it's common knowledge that a large font or CAPS is considered shouting.

but no matter, that's over and done with.

I want quantity over quality, but would also enjoy larger matches with more than just 4 vs 4.

with objectives, achieving them would become more and more difficult as the actual player count rose, as then your plans could be foiled or interrupted.

none-the-less, I'm looking forward to watching this progress!

TheS4dNesS
06-19-2015, 04:34 AM
Well, I felt it was aggressive too. It just happens when the text is writen in such oversize font compared to the rest of the website.

About the theme of the post.

I don't think it has to compete with Chyvalry with 16-32 person battles. You forget that this game has more objectives than just kill each other, there is strategy into wining games more than just I am better than you killing people, and it focuses a lot in duels not in high number battles.

I think the game will be great, it adds strategy to a medieval fight by adding objectives more than killing, and the gamepley seems far better than Chivalry gameplay.

The communication in this game with your teammates will be really important. I think 4v4 will be fine, maybe 5v5 or 6v6 would be good too, but 4v4 seems what the devs are going for so yeah, I am fine with it.

agree on this.

Even the devs gets annoyed from those people asking about campaign, huge battlefield medieval game like the guys above says. They can't seems to understand, the devs on the interview already answers over and over again that just think of a shooters game with swords.

They want a game with enough number of players battling out but not over crowded. Maybe we start asking questions that way rather asking in the different direction.

Sixty-nl
06-19-2015, 09:49 AM
maybe when this game does well and they have seen how the game is played by so many players. That for the sequel they upgrade the AoB and then it will be viable for more players. But for now i think its wise to keep it under the 10 players on each team. They could do a Legion vs Chosen vs Warborn gamemode. But then again they need to adjust maps or create new ones especially for that gamemode.

IamCrumbz
06-19-2015, 11:31 AM
"Forhonor is a shooter with sword's" quoted from the Dev's. So I'd assume multiplayer group content will be no bigger than 8v8. Now on the subject of free aim combat, you couldn't of said it better : "Dual locked-on is cool. But what about free combat world? Is it feasible with the design mechanism? It looks like so. If they can stump on AIs without engaged in lock mode, they sure can apply it to player."

Islam_Ahmadiyya
06-19-2015, 12:18 PM
Are you talking about like, the aiming?

If you are, I know so far that there are 3 different types of camera/aim controls.

a) Lock on aiming.
b) Target focus aim.
c) Free aim.

Lock on aiming is what you think it is. It keeps the camera centered on a target, wherever it movies, your camera follows it. Every attack you do will follow that target. Not ideal for skill-based games, but can work.

Then there's target focus aim. If anyone played Monster Hunter 4U for the 3DS, they'll know what I'm talking about. It basically is a single press of a button which makes your camera face the desired target, but the camera does not stay attached to the target. If the target is behind you, pressing the aim button will make your camera turn around so the target is in your screen, but if the target moves again, you have to press the button again. It doesn't aim your attacks for you, you have to still aim all your attacks, but it positions your character for you.

Then there's free aim. No aiming, or camera targeting. All attacks must be aimed by you, and your character must be positioned by you.

So quick recap:

a) Positions character for you, camera stays locked on to target, aims attacks for you, .
b) Positions character for you, camera does NOT stay locked on to target, attacks NOT aimed for you.
c) Opposite of everything for a.

MisterWillow
06-19-2015, 08:09 PM
I think 4v4 will be fine, maybe 5v5 or 6v6 would be good too, but 4v4 seems what the devs are going for so yeah, I am fine with it.

With what we've seen so far (and obviously hasn't been a lot), the most I could see from something like this is 8v8, if there are maps/modes that could accommodate it (say, for instance, a Battlefield Rush-style mode where one team tries to advance on successive points, while the other team defends). Any more than that, I think the combat would lose the intimacy they're trying to achieve.