PDA

View Full Version : Super creeps or whatever you want to call them



SP_sonny
06-19-2015, 03:05 PM
So as for now killing the soldiers or creeps will give you points to build up to your 'feat' or 'skills' that you can activate with your d-pad. Ofcourse killing a 'Hero' will give you the most points etc.

But what if there is a 'super' soldier running in the battle that will give you a temporary boost, bring back your health or completly turn the fight at a captured battlepoint.

For example;

When the opposing side controls 2 of the 3 battle points in the game, there will be a bigger soldier, or a captain with a big flag on his back running and fighting around at one of these points. By focusing on the captain with the big flag and making sure he's killed first the whole battlepoint will be captured by you immideatly. Causing the opposing soldiers morale to drop and make them flee and giving you the battle point. By giving the captain with the big flag some more health and damage it is a risk to take but doing so will turn the tide of the battle. The opposing team can try and protect the point and the captain, gaining some extra defense points for doing so or staying around the captain wil increase your stats (or morale to keep it more realistic). Having a captain spawned with your normal soldiers will increase the speed of reaching the breaking point.

I think exploring into this idea will give the dynamic and tactical aspect of the game a huge boost. that is something everyone want I suppose.

Do you want to go out and kill the hero's? losing your battlepoints on the map or you go out and control the battlefield? If Ubisoft can find a balance between killing hero's and the battle field and the rewards that go with it. It will definitly give that skill edge and working together as a team a bigger impact.

Any ideas? Whats your take on this?

spaff_meister
06-19-2015, 05:48 PM
I think it's quite convoluted, doesn't add much to the gameplay and subtracts from the central basis of the game's multiplayer mechanic (duelling opponents).

Basically, I think more attention to the minions and the background aspects of the battle will feel like more of a tedium than a player-driven objective. At some point in some interview (i forget), one dev mentions that the army fighting below/around you is meant to be a supplement to the PvP core game mechanic.

Now, it's great to see the community suggesting ideas like this. The thing is, there could be countless new mechanics that would add depth, variety, and strategy to the game, but those aren't intrinsically beneficial things. A game which's mechanics are well realised, defined and balanced is better (imo) than a game with a jumble of different mechanics and themes, the more of which you add, the more you subtract from the core gameplay mechanic/themes/feel etc and the more likely you are to create an unblanced system which gets abused (see Game Theory), and one which feels empirically disjointed and confused.

Though even the principle I mentioned above gets phased in certain genres such as Strategy, I think that in For Honour, the more that is focussed on player-based decision making and intuition, the better. If some noob gets a lucky pick on some NPC that spawned cause I and my team are WINNING - and we're deserving of that - it's gona feel cheap. And then in the future i'm going to be looking over at my troops all the time and micromanaging capture points and giving up on chases because I feel like I need to run back to the centre battlefield and grind some more etc. and that's not good.

I'm ranting now; i'm talking about ideas similar to yours as well as yours in the hope that people with similar ideas will read this and understand too. Reaching a broader audience, yo'

But no, good suggestion and all, good to get people talking about this stuff :)

Viking Goblin
06-19-2015, 07:26 PM
Your idea is thought out and could have its place in a different game, however I get the strong feeling on the design side that at some point, there were no soldiers at all. After all the game is about dueling, not massive battles. The addition of them was mostly an aesthetic choice to give it more of a battlefield vibe. So I think any more detail put into the soldiers would simply detract from the games overall unique vision.

As a disclaimer I just want to say that everything I just mentioned is speculation, I do not know anyone on the development team, and I may be wrong. That was simply the impression I got.

TrikRisk
06-20-2015, 10:14 AM
Yes, the game is focused on duels but also on strategy so i think it would be nice to have that captain with a banner/flag but in a different way like:

it would appear at the same time in the battlefield 2 banner commanders (or with another thing other than a banner or flag, something that identifies them) giving morelae to BOTH teams. the first team to eliminate the banner commander would keep its morale while the other team would no longer have morale which would be a disadvantage for that team and an advantage for the team with the commander.

BUT, the thing is YOU can be that banner commander. imagine, 1 player from each team goes to the minions/creeps and there you have, the banner commander: a bigger soldier with more power, then a duel could start from there, etc.

its a good idea but i think it is already implemented in the game as a consequence of actions, not something thought out.

Doctrinaire
06-21-2015, 01:01 AM
I hope for 2 things from the creeps...a) there will be creeps that are bigger/stronger and harder to kill and b) that you can rally and call them to your aid should you be overwhelmed by the opposition.

a) would probably just need to have some decent AI.

b) would likely come from feets you can draw upon during battle.

MathiasCB
06-21-2015, 01:20 AM
I'd actually be quite satisfied with letting the minions perhaps do a occasional block at times, maybe more than one block. Wouldn't make them harder but it would make sense to me. Even if you are bigger and stronger doesn't mean that everyone can just be cut down in one strike.