PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on Multiplayer Gamemodes?



TheRealMZ23
06-17-2016, 09:14 PM
I think that a straightforward multiplayer experience with just a single mode would be okay for a game such as For Honor however I do believe that another mode (Siege) could be considered. Much like the gameplay trailer from E3, members of one faction will try to reach a certain point in the defending faction's fortress. More details and thoughts?

*EDIT*
As you can see I have just joined this forum after watching the Ubisoft E3 Press Conference. I immediately fell in love with this game and my inferior knowledge is showcased by the fact that I didn't know it was announced on the previous E3. So please, if I seem naive or silly do be quick to correct me. The dominion mode to me seems like a pretty good idea but I'm kinda worried about how you control the AI units. Can you order them around to specific zones? Will they attack heroes?

V4nClief
06-17-2016, 09:22 PM
Only thing I have heard so far is a domination type map where teams compete to obtain and hold certain sections of the map. I'd like to see a free for all. maybe a defend the castle mode too that i think would be a cool idea and definitely doable.

StandardAce
06-17-2016, 09:32 PM
I think one would be fine as long as it didn't get too repetitive - but I would PERSONALLY want more than one game mode with a load of different maps too! Also, you could check out my video where I discuss some possible game modes!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T48AORa4Efs

:p

Sir_Beefing
06-17-2016, 09:34 PM
I think it would be nice to see a faction vs faction game mode.

Fatal-Feit
06-17-2016, 09:39 PM
Dominion is already a siege mode, but I'm thinking of another siege mode that takes place on one long stretching map where the invader team is trying to protect their siege tower as it slowly tries to reach the defending team's walls. If it reaches the wall, defending team loses. However, if the defending team can protect the wall for long enough (delay it for 10 mins?) or sabotage the siege tower (imagine setting it on fire), they win. Imagine something like Walker Assault in Star Wars Battlefront.

Willaguy2010
06-17-2016, 09:46 PM
I think it would be nice to see a faction vs faction game mode.

A lot of us already assume that most game modes for MP will have opposing factions against each other, I mean that makes sense. I know the Alpha was mixed faction but that may just have been for testing purposes, I think it would be better to have each team locked to one faction.

Sir_Beefing
06-17-2016, 09:53 PM
The only thing wrong that i can see with locking game modes to factions vs faction it the matching making and queue time. Based on the Knights, Vikings or Samurai post it looks like most of the community want to play Vikings :p

TheRealMZ23
06-17-2016, 10:11 PM
I think one would be fine as long as it didn't get too repetitive - but I would PERSONALLY want more than one game mode with a load of different maps too! Also, you could check out my video where I discuss some possible game modes!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T48AORa4Efs

:p

I watched your video and subscribed. I really liked the idea of the Arena type game mode and the HVT game mode. This inspired me and I got an idea for tournaments. These can be both online and local. The online tournaments could really kickstart a competitive eSports league or something and the local tournaments for when you have friends over, since the game does support local co-op.

Sir_Beefing
06-17-2016, 10:27 PM
I didn't noticed the video, great job with that StandardAce.(+1 sup) In response the the previous post i think the idea of tournaments would be great and would love to see something like that in the game. If not then its always something that the community could organise.

MisterWillow
06-18-2016, 05:39 AM
Dominion is already a siege mode,

Is it, though?

I think by 'Siege Mode' MZ meant something more akin to Battlefield's Rush mode with one team attacking a point and another defending---the comparison to the Viking mission where you're storming a castle makes me think so. If so, then it has been discussed multiple times in various forms (here (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1195723-What-Game-Modes-Would-You-Like-To-See), here (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1374097-Game-Mode-Kill-The-King?) (kind-of), and here (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1189945-Suggestion-for-game-modes)), and I haven't seen anyone down on the idea.


but I'm thinking of another siege mode that takes place on one long stretching map where the invader team is trying to protect their siege tower as it slowly tries to reach the defending team's walls. If it reaches the wall, defending team loses. However, if the defending team can protect the wall for long enough (delay it for 10 mins?) or sabotage the siege tower (imagine setting it on fire), they win. Imagine something like Walker Assault in Star Wars Battlefront.

See, I'd prefer if that was the first section in the above example. So, after the siege tower reaches the wall, the defending side has to fall back to an inner courtyard (or something) and defend that from being overrun (or maybe there are inner gates that need to be raised or broken), and then to the keep to actually take the fortress, kill the king, ransack the treasury, or whatever.


The only thing wrong that i can see with locking game modes to factions vs faction it the matching making and queue time. Based on the Knights, Vikings or Samurai post it looks like most of the community want to play Vikings :p

That's only one poll, and it's the first one with Vikings being on top. It was also made on the heels of Viking gameplay being shown, so everyone's hyped on Vikings.

As for teams of mixed factions, I stand by what I said over here (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1351587-Playing-as-different-factions-in-a-team), for the same reasons.

Dead1y-Derri
06-19-2016, 12:42 AM
Okay so in terms of potential game modes. I think this would be a cool idea:

Has anyone ever played Plants vs Zombies - Garden Warfare 1 or 2?

So you've got a mode called Gardens and Graveyards and the basic objective is the zombies attack the plants garden and have to stay in a circle to capture the garden and turn it into a graveyard. Plants have to defend. A timer is set for each capture and if the plants defend long enough then they win the match. If all 6-8 bases are captured the zombies win.

I think this could work really well in For Honor. It is similar to dominion mode but more of a capture these points while the other team defends.

MisterWillow
06-19-2016, 06:22 AM
Okay so in terms of potential game modes. I think this would be a cool idea:

Has anyone ever played Plants vs Zombies - Garden Warfare 1 or 2?

So you've got a mode called Gardens and Graveyards and the basic objective is the zombies attack the plants garden and have to stay in a circle to capture the garden and turn it into a graveyard. Plants have to defend. A timer is set for each capture and if the plants defend long enough then they win the match. If all 6-8 bases are captured the zombies win.

I think this could work really well in For Honor. It is similar to dominion mode but more of a capture these points while the other team defends.

Could be interesting.

Like the attacking side has to capture a tower or camp, raise a flag, or something, and once it's captured, a bunch of that team's minions spawn and overrun the space to allow you to (start to) move on to the next point.

Dead1y-Derri
06-19-2016, 10:53 AM
Could be interesting.

Like the attacking side has to capture a tower or camp, raise a flag, or something, and once it's captured, a bunch of that team's minions spawn and overrun the space to allow you to (start to) move on to the next point.

Basically yeah :)

I think this style of game lends itself well to this kind of mode.

Eidard
06-19-2016, 11:24 AM
Personally I dislike the game modes in competitive games where the teams have different objectives (one defending and one attacking), I like the two teams to have the same objective, I like dominion in For Honor because of that, even though I think it was maybe too simple and lacked strategy.

The problem I have with defending/attacking game modes is that one of the teams usually has the advantage, it is really hard to make a really good map where it is as hard as attack as it is to defend, which means that for the game mode to be competitive you need to go the Counter Strike route and play several games to decide which team is the winner.

There is the option that there is in Competitive Overwatch right now (the system is called Stopwatch I think), the attack team that gets to the farthest objective wins, if both teams get to the same objective, the faster team wins, the problem here is that you would have to end games without actually finishing them (if there are 3 objectives, first team gets only to objective 1, if the second team gets to objective 2 the match would end regardless if they would be able to get to objective 3).

In a gamemode where both teams have the same objective you can have a winner in just one match, but if you have assymetrical objectives then, as I said, you need more matches to decide the winner because one of the objectives(attacking or defending) could be far easier, so you would need to compare both teams attacking and defending to decide the winner.

I would like to see a gamemode a bit more complex than dominion, for me it feels like I might get bored of playing dominion all the time, I would like a gamemode with a bit more strategy, but keeping the symmetrical objective idea.

Dead1y-Derri
06-19-2016, 02:24 PM
Personally I dislike the game modes in competitive games where the teams have different objectives (one defending and one attacking), I like the two teams to have the same objective, I like dominion in For Honor because of that, even though I think it was maybe too simple and lacked strategy.

The problem I have with defending/attacking game modes is that one of the teams usually has the advantage, it is really hard to make a really good map where it is as hard as attack as it is to defend, which means that for the game mode to be competitive you need to go the Counter Strike route and play several games to decide which team is the winner.

I suppose with the type of mode I am suggesting, map design would play a big part in this and I think they could get it right, especially if we look at how they're designing the single player campaign. We're seeing multi tier stages of capturing a fort and I think they could get this mode right.

waraidako
06-19-2016, 11:05 PM
Siege mode could work. But it would be less about winning and pushing back the enemy for one team, and more about just stalling for time and fighting a war of attrition.

It could work two ways, either the attackers should have the advantage with it being easier to take points than to hold them, but they get less, for lack of a better term, tickets than the defenders. That way the defenders don't need to win a straight up fight, they just need to hold them back for long enough that they can whittle down their tickets and win. The attackers would need to push through each point to the end and capture the castle/fort/town/wherever you're fighting before they run out of tickets.

Or, it could be easier defending than attacking, but in this case the attackers have far more tickets than the defenders, allowing them to throw themselves against the walls with reckless abandon until they push through, since they know they have plenty of reinforcements, whereas the defenders are more limited. This would be more similar to how a siege worked in real life, with the defenders usually being massively outnumbered. Doing it this way the job of the defenders is again to hold back the attackers with siege weapons and fortifications, and whenever a position is overrun they need to fall back to conserve tickets. The attackers would need to push over the walls, through the barricades, and kill as many defenders as possible, either until they're all dead, or they reach whatever serves as the citadel for the map, where they just straight up win.

Personally I like asymmetric gameplay, so I think it sounds like fun.

RaveGodX
06-24-2016, 06:51 PM
I would love sieges, with siege engines as well...

It would be a fun map to play and I believe it would be popular as well!

BoldAlphawolf
06-27-2016, 02:58 AM
i like to see a siege mode as well , something like you an your friends need to drive the siege engine along, maybe defend while the minons push your siege engine? until you get to the castle door, and once its there you have to defend it till the door break's, and break it down into three phases each pathway to the "Castle Door" longer then the last if the defender's can hold you off for 30min then your minons morale breaks an they will no long push the massive siege engine along

yote224
06-27-2016, 06:39 AM
Personally I dislike the game modes in competitive games where the teams have different objectives (one defending and one attacking), I like the two teams to have the same objective
.

I'd like to echo this and not only in games but sports as well, for me. Many modes that require you to play more than one round are often plagued with players who drop and then the new craze is to punish those players for doing so by increasing their queue times and we shouldn't even get started on that whole other topic here.
I enjoy and feel that both the easiest to comprehend in strategy and also most competitive and ultimately more fun styles of play are where game modes are equal and opposing. Be that CTF, TDM, DOM, what have you; those are what interest me the most.

As for For Honor's game modes I enjoy Dominion and think that may very well be the meat of their game seeing as that's what they had to show us first, that's what they've had us test first, so I feel it is safe to say that the game has been based firstly on this Art of Battle system and that system was then accompanied by their pilot idea of Dominion and would (I assume) have received the most attention thus far.

As for ideas that would follow in my own personal taste of gameplay that I figure could work and provide my previously mentioned objectives of being both equal and opposing objectives:
1. I draw inspiration from an old classic of Starfox64 for those who have played, allow me to explain. There's a multiplayer game of hunting down enemy aircraft and scoring points per kill within the time limit. Whoever has the most wins at the end of the time limit wins. You lose all points should your opponent shoot you out of the sky. I think a game could be ran with any number of players between 2-6 with even a buddy system on games of 4 and 6 being a possibility where teams or individuals would engage minions and heroes of the Black Stone Legion and earn points for each kill. They'd also have the opportunity to engage the other players to reduce their points but would also be risking their own should they fall in that gamble. I think in team variations of this game the points of all teammates could also be compiled together to encourage choosing smart battles, sticking together for opportunistic times to squash your opponents, etc.

2.I draw inspiration from stock-oriented fighting games for those of you familiar, allow me to explain. This style of play would involve an ongoing 1v1 scenario that would require a fair bit of down-time for a few players so I'd imagine the maximum number of players would be 3, possibly 4.
At the beginning of the match the 2 active players start fighting within a ring and the inactive players will spectate from without the ring. The objective for any active player is easy to understand and that's to kill your opponent or make him/her "ring out". Upon either of those conditions being met the inactive player who is next in line will enter the ring and the cycle repeats. Each player will have 2 chances to hold their ground in the ring. Scoring could consist of enemies defeated, last man standing, and a small "MMA-math"of who beat which player could be displayed at the end of the match's entirety.

Altair_Snake
06-27-2016, 10:34 AM
Dominion is already a siege mode, but I'm thinking of another siege mode that takes place on one long stretching map where the invader team is trying to protect their siege tower as it slowly tries to reach the defending team's walls. If it reaches the wall, defending team loses. However, if the defending team can protect the wall for long enough (delay it for 10 mins?) or sabotage the siege tower (imagine setting it on fire), they win. Imagine something like Walker Assault in Star Wars Battlefront.
I like that.

I also think they should try something in the lines of Rush, from Battlefield.

And I kinda disagree Dominion is siege mode. The siege aspect of it is only as a skin. I would like them to try to have a mode with a meta game more closely related to storming a castle. Your siege tower idea is very much like that, btw. :) I suppose they could even have two siege towers at once (or a tower and a ram)... and even a catapult hanging back, which the defenders could also destroy, to better their situation. Two or three objectives are better than one, or you'll end up witha King of the Hill situation, where the hill doesn't really change much, as the siege machines would move slowly; and that would be boring - might as well just have an arena.

The key with any mode is having a sense of territory. I hope they don't try to simply have a TDM in a big map, as it'd probably be exploited easily, with the team that has the lead simply avoiding fights, by running and hiding. The modes must force people to fight for territories, even moving territories (CTF).

MoonManJD
07-27-2016, 08:06 PM
Will there be a "deathmatch" mode???

That would definitely sell me on this game. 1v1, 2v2, etc. I think that would be way better than game modes that are of the FPS genre. I am a huge fan of the Souls series so that is a big influence on me.

coma987
07-27-2016, 11:47 PM
For those who dislike certain ideas because of their impact on competitive, look at SF5 Launch, it was meant for competitive players and all the casual ones got ****ed up the ***. So we should have some gamemodes that are ******ed in the competitive aspect but for example make them unplayable on Ranked. Let's say a siege mode is there, maybe it will be 16v16, a complete cluster****, can be really fun if well organised, can be fun for those who like ridiculous ****, people that like competitive hate it, and don't have to play it.

handheld brando
07-28-2016, 08:04 PM
Will there be a "deathmatch" mode???

That would definitely sell me on this game. 1v1, 2v2, etc. I think that would be way better than game modes that are of the FPS genre. I am a huge fan of the Souls series so that is a big influence on me.

So far as far as I am aware the only modes that have been confirmed 100 percent is dominion mode. Although I honestly believe that with Battle system that 1v1 and 2v2's are a must!

StormWolf92
08-02-2016, 10:17 PM
When in doubt, For Honor should draw from its predecessors. I would be surprised if no one playing this game also played Chivalry, but "Kingslayer" would be a fun game mode. Defending faction has a player who is dubbed "king", attacking faction must storm the castle and slay the king. Defenders gain victory by keeping their king alive for the time duration of the match.

SearingShrapnel
08-02-2016, 10:50 PM
Honestly I'm thinking of something bigger than only capture the flag or siege. (<would be great of course though) But what I'm thinking is an empires or conquest mode where you and the other factions fight over territories on the map of this world, each battle could be a game mode, selected or random. The idea of course being control the whole map, the factions could all have a full team of players to vote and decide what to do with their territory like who to invade, ally with, etc. Either deciding as a whole team or each individual owns land to delegate it could be made either way. This mode could even have elements from Civilization to increase defense on captured land or unlock faction skills. The map part would have to be turn based and there could be more factions owning land but they would be AI, like barbarians from Civ, I can't think of a great solution to what does the 3rd faction do when the other 2 are in combat. Maybe the fighting teams miss a turn and in turn give the 3rd team room to plan, invade the AI, etc?

I understand this is a pipe dream but I wanted to share and indulge in the fantasy for a bit. In no way am I saying this game needs this to be good or anything.

Edit: Just an after thought it would generate less problems if it was limited to 2 playable factions and the unpicked 3rd would be AI.

V4nClief
08-03-2016, 04:12 PM
I would like to see kind of a form of search and destroy from Call of Duty adapted to For Honor. For instance maybe the samurai has a sacred golden chalice. It is 8v8 one side samurai has to defend and stop the knights from retrieving the chalice while the other side the knights have to strategically get pass by either sneaking or killing their way through to the chalice, but now that they have it they have to return it back to their castle to win the match. The chalice can be picked up and returned by samurai to base or a knight can pick it up after the fallen knight carrying it originally died en route and continue on towards returning back to their castle. If the knight get it back to their castle they win automatically, but the defense the samurais will have to either kill all invading knights or wait out the times match to gain victory. Of course each round they will switch sides in a best of 3 or 5 rounds. Just a thought of adaptation.