PDA

View Full Version : Online teams, not forced by a faction.



Chaf--
06-24-2016, 05:35 PM
I'm making this thread to follow a discussion we started in this thread about team colors. (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1464158-Can-we-talk-again-about-the-color-of-armors-please) Basically, that could mean than in an online Domination match, you don't have to pick characters for only one faction. You could pick the class/hero you want and have a team with, let's say, 2 Wardens, 1 Raider and 1 Kensei.

It's important, because it will change the game balance. If players are forced to choose a faction before each Domination matches, they are also forced to know one hero from each faction, if you play random ranked matches. If you could choose your faction and be only in teams of people that choose the same faction that you, it will be less random and will forces you to play with the same people, if they don't change factions. It could also makes the 3 factions unbalanced, because different.

This could also help strategy/gameplan part more flexible. To throw off a position or make them move. Like if we wanna be more on the defense, so players starts picking a Kabuki or other classes. It could be great.


See, and I'm hoping against it, as I feel it undermines the major thematic element and unique flavour the game has going for it---three factions warring against one another. That is destroyed if all the factions are suddenly mix-matched on random teams.

But we talk about multiplayer and balance. Not themes and logic. Don't forget, we're in a video game. A multiplayer-based one. What you've lost on autenticity, you'ill gain it in battle strategy and game viability. I really think we should go for that. That and let the players choose another class after a respawn, if they wants.

Willaguy2010
06-24-2016, 05:49 PM
Give different game modes the ability to play with mixed teams, but have other game modes lock factions. I find that to be the easiest solution because everyone gets want they want, but it might split the community a bit.

Chaf--
06-24-2016, 05:54 PM
Maybe an option in the settings, to lock factions on matchmaking/unranked matches?
But the ranked Domination matches should be faction-free.

waraidako
06-24-2016, 05:54 PM
If you pick your hero before you queue up you wouldn't have to know one from every faction. You'd pick what you want to play, and be put into an appropriate game based on that.
I personally don't want mixed battles. What kind of viking would fight against his brothers and sisters, on the side of some pansy in a tin can? His ancestors would laugh at him!

Also asymmetric =/= unbalanced

Just take any fighting game on the market, if you play against someone else who is playing a different character it's asymmetric, but no one would claim it's unbalanced.

Number_06
06-24-2016, 05:57 PM
Anyway they are or they already did the work about matchmaking, and ubisoft already did games with multiplayer and matchmaking i saw a lot a thread on this topic im not worrying about that. Ubisoft knows how to make games and they do it well, trust them trust Jason Vandenberghe and trust the art of battle.

Willaguy2010
06-24-2016, 06:07 PM
Maybe an option in the settings, to lock factions on matchmaking/unranked matches?
But the ranked Domination matches should be faction-free.

I think the ranked matches should represent the purest form of the game and it's combat, that is locked faction vs faction battles. We'll have to wait for at the very least the alpha or beta to know which direction they went, but I personally don't like mixed factions.

Chaf--
06-24-2016, 06:21 PM
If you pick your hero before you queue up you wouldn't have to know one from every faction. You'd pick what you want to play, and be put into an appropriate game based on that.
It'll down the random factor on Ranked battles. Especially when people generally tend to play a few classes.


I personally don't want mixed battles. What kind of viking would fight against his brothers and sisters, on the side of some pansy in a tin can? His ancestors would laugh at him!
Again, this is a video game. Lore accuracy over balancing logic makes more problems than solves it.


Also asymmetric =/= unbalanced
Just take any fighting game on the market, if you play against someone else who is playing a different character it's asymmetric, but no one would claim it's unbalanced.
That's the thing. In fighitng games, we can play mirror matches. Outside some really special and explained lores, this shouldn't be possible. Fighting games have also heroes and weaker characters. That would make the game's balance just like Anime games like DBZ Budokai Tenkaichi, when character's power is based off his power in the lore. Which makes the game naturally unbalanced. There is also team-based fighting games, like Marvel VS Capcom or King of Fighters. KoF is a good example, since the characters have a lore team. But you're not forced to pick the entire team, just like a character.

I was talking about lack of balance, because For Honor have 2 layers of complexity: one on the characters and the 1v1 situations and one based on the team composition and strategy. Forcing a faction is also forcing a specific strategy, rather than letting every one having their way on the classes they wants. I'm really not talking about the game's lore, universe, context and logic. I totally put aside that part to only focus on balance between real people. That's why I'm here.


I think the ranked matches should represent the purest form of the game and it's combat, that is locked faction vs faction battles. We'll have to wait for at the very least the alpha or beta to know which direction they went, but I personally don't like mixed factions.
We both have different definitions about the meaning of "purest form of the game". For me, "pure", in a context of competition, means "fair". If factions are locked, that means specific classes will never be in the same strategy and team balance will be forced into a small circle of classes. That will also means that, to make it more fair, Ubisoft Montreal will need to make 3 classes with the same playstyle. One for each faction. With different weapons, yes, but maybe with the same logics and chains, to make every factions viable against another. Either way, this doesn't sound "fair" and this doesn't sound "pure".

My "purest" idea is just Domination mode with free choice of class for every body. To focus on skill and team strats.

MisterWillow
06-24-2016, 09:17 PM
It's important, because it will change the game balance. If players are forced to choose a faction before each Domination matches, they are also forced to know one hero from each faction, if you play random ranked matches. If you could choose your faction and be only in teams of people that choose the same faction that you, it will be less random and will forces you to play with the same people, if they don't change factions. It could also makes the 3 factions unbalanced, because different.

I'll echo waraidako in saying that just because the factions are different does not make them unbalanced.

We don't know all the Heroes for every faction, and if they are how I think they will be (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1341664-Hero-class-shadows), every faction will have Heroes analogous to the other Heroes in other factions---that is, every faction will have a glass cannon (Oni/Orochi), every faction will have a tank (Shugoki), every faction will have a relatively balanced character (Raider/Warden/Kensei)---so the overall balance is retained.

As far as differences, they would just be defining features to further gel with your overall play-style. Want to be slightly faster than everyone else? Go Samurai. Or slightly more powerful? Go Viking. There also seem to be some things that each faction gets that others might not---so, the Vikings appear (if the linked thread above is right) to be the only faction with a dual wielding Hero (but unless that's the Tank class, the Raider might be their closest analogue), and the Samurai might be without a shield Hero (but might make up for it with a Hero more distance oriented).

It's the same in the faction decision one makes in Planetside---the Terran Republic has hard-hitting weapons that are less accurate and fire slower, the New Conglomerate has faster firing weapons that do less damage, and the Vanu Sovereignty has extremely accurate weapons with almost no recoil (since they're all lasers) that do less damage---it's all about how you want to play, and what you feel comfortable with.


This could also help strategy/gameplan part more flexible. To throw off a position or make them move. Like if we wanna be more on the defense, so players starts picking a Kabuki or other classes. It could be great.

It could be done within the confines of the factions, though. One side is picking all fast people, meet them with speed, or pick tanks and soak up damage. Again, assuming I'm right, you won't need to switch factions, since all the tools you need are at your disposal already.


But we talk about multiplayer and balance. Not themes and logic. Don't forget, we're in a video game. A multiplayer-based one. What you've lost on autenticity, you'ill gain it in battle strategy and game viability. I really think we should go for that. That and let the players choose another class after a respawn, if they wants.

I would argue that the authenticity, as you put it, is a major selling point. It also lends itself to people roleplaying (see some of the interactions between Mathias, myself, and some of the Samurai) and having more fun within the game, and the wider community, than if you're just a person on a team with a weapon fighting another team of people with weapons.

Maybe it's just us wanting different things out of this, but I really think you can keep the theme strong and restrict people to a faction (for the length of a match, or a session, at least) while having the strong strategic elements, and balancing, and everything else you're wanting.

P.S. - the quote in you original post is mis-attributed to coma, when I said that [click (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1464158-Can-we-talk-again-about-the-color-of-armors-please?p=11791905&viewfull=1#post11791905)]

Willaguy2010
06-24-2016, 10:02 PM
It's the same in the faction decision one makes in Planetside---the Terran Republic has hard-hitting weapons that are less accurate and fire slower, the New Conglomerate has faster firing weapons that do less damage, and the Vanu Sovereignty has extremely accurate weapons with almost no recoil (since they're all lasers) that do less damage---it's all about how you want to play, and what you feel comfortable with.





You got the New Conglomerate and Terran Republic switched up btw. I agree that asymmetry does not equal unbalanced.

MisterWillow
06-24-2016, 10:16 PM
You got the New Conglomerate and Terran Republic switched up btw.

...well, that's embarrassing.

FLYINGvDUTCHMAN
06-25-2016, 02:40 AM
I want each team to be restricted to one faction. But to let each team be the same faction. I also want each player in his/her team to have a unique hero (i.e. Not two Raiders on one team), like the operator selection for Rainbow Six Siege.

Willaguy2010
06-25-2016, 05:51 AM
I want each team to be restricted to one faction. But to let each team be the same faction. I also want each player in his/her team to have a unique hero (i.e. Not two Raiders on one team), like the operator selection for Rainbow Six Siege.

Interesting, in Rainbow Six Siege there are more than 10 operators for attacking or defending (I think). So no one team can have all of the operators filled out, meaning players still have a wide breadth of choice. While assuming that there's still 4 classes for each faction, someone somewhere is almost always not going to get who they want. I'm not sure about this idea, it's not like two raiders will look the same, there's a bunch of customization according to the devs at this year's E3. Also, this could only work if we assume that all MP modes will be 8 players or less, as you can't have 5 players on one team be restricted to 4 unique classes.

MisterWillow
06-25-2016, 06:15 AM
I want each team to be restricted to one faction. But to let each team be the same faction. I also want each player in his/her team to have a unique hero (i.e. Not two Raiders on one team), like the operator selection for Rainbow Six Siege.

I don't think I'd want it restricted that much.

If people want to roll all Raiders, I think they should be able to.

There's also the strong possibility that it will frustrate players, who, say want to play Kensei, because they're best with Kensei, but are unable to because someone else already selected that class, and are, perhaps, less helpful to their team overall, because they aren't as good with Shugoki or Orochi, and are more likely to die, less likely to hold points, etc. etc.

ZenBearV13
06-25-2016, 08:43 AM
I am about 99% sure that the normal game mode will be free choice, and that's how it should be. If you want to fight faction against faction, you don't need a restrictive game mode. We have forums (like this one!) where you can organize clans/communities/fight clubs and coordinate those fights. In a free choice game mode, you can choose to stick to the same Faction.

One of the biggest selling points for this game, in my mind, is that it's the first legit split-screen game that isn't an FPS in a LONG time. Outside of Smash Bros and the like, there aren't a ton of games you can sit down on the couch with a friend/SO and play together. My GF has been complaining about this very fact for a while, and we're both stoked for For Honor. The only problem is, I like Knights and she likes Samurai. My brother likes Samurai as well, and my best friend likes Vikings. If I want to play with any of them, we need a free choice game mode so we can all play our favorite class/faction on the same team.

Ideally, we will have a separate game mode for Faction vs Faction. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't though.

BoldAlphawolf
06-26-2016, 12:48 AM
Anyway they are or they already did the work about matchmaking, and ubisoft already did games with multiplayer and matchmaking i saw a lot a thread on this topic im not worrying about that. Ubisoft knows how to make games and they do it well, trust them trust Jason Vandenberghe and trust the art of battle.

yes lol

waraidako
06-26-2016, 07:41 AM
I am about 99% sure that the normal game mode will be free choice, and that's how it should be. If you want to fight faction against faction, you don't need a restrictive game mode. We have forums (like this one!) where you can organize clans/communities/fight clubs and coordinate those fights. In a free choice game mode, you can choose to stick to the same Faction.

One of the biggest selling points for this game, in my mind, is that it's the first legit split-screen game that isn't an FPS in a LONG time. Outside of Smash Bros and the like, there aren't a ton of games you can sit down on the couch with a friend/SO and play together. My GF has been complaining about this very fact for a while, and we're both stoked for For Honor. The only problem is, I like Knights and she likes Samurai. My brother likes Samurai as well, and my best friend likes Vikings. If I want to play with any of them, we need a free choice game mode so we can all play our favorite class/faction on the same team.

Ideally, we will have a separate game mode for Faction vs Faction. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't though.

What are you basing this on? Because every single piece of footage we've seen, multiplayer or singleplayer, you've never had anyone from one faction fighting alongside people from a different faction. Everything we've seen points to it being faction vs faction, which is the most natural fit.

I think they'll do it sort of like War Thunder. In that game you pick both faction (or nation, rather) and vehicle, and then you get matchmaking based on that. In this game I see no reason why you'd have to pick your particular class before the game starts, but you will probably pick your faction in the starting menu, and then queue up for a game with that faction. That way, someone who wants to play Vikings will never be forced to pick between Knights and Samurai. They will always be Vikings, every game.

Chaf--
06-26-2016, 01:24 PM
The more people answers me that saying "Eh, asymmetry != unbalance, dude.", the less I think people read and get what I'm trying to say. Guys, I come from the fighting game community. Pretty much the genre that invented asymmetric opposition gameplay in video game, with Street Fighter II. Believe it or not, I get it.

I don't know how feats will work, but we already saw an Arrow Storm and a Heal. So, based on that, I'm pretty sure feats would be free to choose and the same for every factions, no matter the class. Feats will be good on team-strategy, rather than only be good for the player using it. At least, if it's like that, we will be safe.

But classes will all have their own weapon, their own abilities, their own speed, etc. Even if 2 classes from 2 different factions have both the same purpose, they will never be the same and will never be used like the same. Team play will be safe for it, but 1v1 will be harder for people who have, let's say, a main character in the Legions and is forced to pick Chosen, because his 3 other friends wanna be glorious Samurai. This is the part that forces players to either not choose correctly their own characters if they choose their own teammates or not choosing their teammates if they choose their favorite faction.

A class should be treated just like a character in a fighting game. With his own strength, weaknesses, abilities. In a real competitive setting, players should never be locked by anything, except the coreplay.


Want to be slightly faster than everyone else? Go Samurai. Or slightly more powerful? Go Viking.
"Slighty" differencies are multiplied, the more competitive the scene is and the more we know the game. Accepting that a whole team will be forced to be "slighty" powerful, without letting the chance to let players make their own balance is anti-competitive. Again, respecting the lore shouldn't be the main focus of default online ranked Domination mode rules, a single mode in the entire game. For Honor have all of the rest of the games, other multi-player and single-player, with an entire campaign, to be authentic and confirming it's selling point.


In this game I see no reason why you'd have to pick your particular class before the game starts, but you will probably pick your faction in the starting menu, and then queue up for a game with that faction. That way, someone who wants to play Vikings will never be forced to pick between Knights and Samurai. They will always be Vikings, every game.
You just totally dodged ZenBearV13's point.

My GF has been complaining about this very fact for a while, and we're both stoked for For Honor. The only problem is, I like Knights and she likes Samurai. My brother likes Samurai as well, and my best friend likes Vikings. If I want to play with any of them, we need a free choice game mode so we can all play our favorite class/faction on the same team.
Forcing factions is either forcing ZenBear and his viking friend to pick Chosen or forcing ZenBear, his GF, his bro and his best friend to not play together.

DerHerbman
06-26-2016, 01:52 PM
looks like 50/50 to me, so there is only one solution!
Make it optional.
And there is nothing against it. Different gamemodes, simple as that.

Eidard
06-26-2016, 02:09 PM
looks like 50/50 to me, so there is only one solution!
Make it optional.
And there is nothing against it. Different gamemodes, simple as that.

Actually, there is an important point against making it optional.

When you try to make a competitive game, splitting the playerbase through different gamemodes is one of the worst thing you can do, you need to keep everyone in the same queue.

Having 3-5 queues including ranked might work with a decent playerbase, but if you start adding options and options, you will end up splitting the playerbase too much.

DerHerbman
06-26-2016, 03:28 PM
Actually, there is an important point against making it optional.

When you try to make a competitive game, splitting the playerbase through different gamemodes is one of the worst thing you can do, you need to keep everyone in the same queue.

Having 3-5 queues including ranked might work with a decent playerbase, but if you start adding options and options, you will end up splitting the playerbase too much.

You have a point, but when the player base is big enough and when you can chose to search for different team modes at once, like it´s done in most games today, you don´t have that problem. Whats the alternative? To chose one side and piss of the other side?

Willaguy2010
06-26-2016, 04:39 PM
I don't know how feats will work, but we already saw an Arrow Storm and a Heal. So, based on that, I'm pretty sure feats would be free to choose and the same for every factions, no matter the class. Feats will be good on team-strategy, rather than only be good for the player using it. At least, if it's like that, we will be safe.


Feats are faction and classed based. Knights have a catapult, and Samurai have the arrow storm and a shuriken-like throwing star for the Orochi. The Orochi also gets a feat called "poison blade" which makes his attacks do increased damage for a limited time. This info was from an informational video from the devs last year so stuff could've changed.

MisterWillow
06-26-2016, 07:51 PM
I don't know how feats will work, but we already saw an Arrow Storm and a Heal. So, based on that, I'm pretty sure feats would be free to choose and the same for every factions, no matter the class. Feats will be good on team-strategy, rather than only be good for the player using it. At least, if it's like that, we will be safe.

Unless something has changed from last year, it won't be. The Arrow Storm is a feat exclusive to the Oni (they also have a shuriken and poison blade), an the Heal is only available to the Warden (along with the Catapult Strike), the Raider in the campaign mission has a Blood Rage feat, something quintessentially Viking, that I doubt very much will be available to other factions.


But classes will all have their own weapon, their own abilities, their own speed, etc. Even if 2 classes from 2 different factions have both the same purpose, they will never be the same and will never be used like the same. Team play will be safe for it, but 1v1 will be harder for people who have, let's say, a main character in the Legions and is forced to pick Chosen, because his 3 other friends wanna be glorious Samurai. This is the part that forces players to either not choose correctly their own characters if they choose their own teammates or not choosing their teammates if they choose their favorite faction.

So you play a few games as Samurai and then switch to Knights?

I know you're coming at this strictly from a competitive/E-Sport 'I wanna be the best I can be no matter the circumstance' sort of mentality, but the vast majority of players will not be playing from that perspective. I suspect most people are going to be playing from the perspective of 'my Viking brethren will trounce your Samaurai hordes' and are answered 'Yeah? prove it' because that's been the major element of every pitch I've seen Jason make since the announcement.

What warrior are you inside? What battle philosophy speaks to you? Why are you fighting?

So, you settle the argument, and then one person says to the other 'Wanna be Knights and beat back some Vikings?' and they say 'Sure' and then they team up and play a few games and call it a day.

Not to make this sound more casual than it has the potential to be---because it can obviously be extremely competitive and if you went just by the opinion around here, it would be an E-Sport tomorrow---but that's going to be the average experience.


A class should be treated just like a character in a fighting game. With his own strength, weaknesses, abilities. In a real competitive setting, players should never be locked by anything, except the coreplay.

The coreplay is the Art of Battle.

Can you attack where your opponent isn't blocking?

All the subtle faction variations, feats, and whatnot are the differences between Cammy and Akuma.


"Slighty" differencies are multiplied, the more competitive the scene is and the more we know the game. Accepting that a whole team will be forced to be "slighty" powerful, without letting the chance to let players make their own balance is anti-competitive.

The balance is still intact regardless of the faction chosen, because although certain factions have certain advantages they also have certain weaknesses.

Going back to my last post, the Vikings, overall, seem to be slightly more sturdy, slightly heartier, than the other factions, and as such are able to sustain a bit more damage and do a bit more damage than the others, but if the classes are what I think they are (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1341664-Hero-class-shadows?), the faction lacks a proper tank.

The Raider that was shown appears to be the Viking powerhouse---I doubt very much the dual wielder is going to do any more damage or be any more of a damage sponge---but the Raider's real analogue is the Warden, not the Shugouki, so even if you pick the Raider in multiplayer, you might still be at a disadvantage if you run up against an actual tank.


Forcing factions is either forcing ZenBear and his viking friend to pick Chosen or forcing ZenBear, his GF, his bro and his best friend to not play together.

Or, again, they play a few games as Vikings, then a few as Knights, then a few as Samurai, like reasonable adults.

premiumart
06-26-2016, 08:25 PM
Well nobody cares that you literally can play a 6v6 in overwatch and just use 2 different characters which doesnt really make any sense so........

There could just be like different playlist one that locks factions and one that doesnt.

waraidako
06-26-2016, 09:29 PM
You just totally dodged ZenBearV13's point.

Forcing factions is either forcing ZenBear and his viking friend to pick Chosen or forcing ZenBear, his GF, his bro and his best friend to not play together.

Yes. That is exactly how I think it's going to turn out.

There are tons of games like that. If he wants to play terran in Planetside 2 and his friend wants to play vanu, or if he wants to fly japanese planes in War Thunder and his friend wants to fly german planes. He might as well have said he wants to play Streetfighter, his girlfriend and brother want to play Tekken, and his best friend wants to play Persona 4 Arena. There's no way to consolidate these different things. You're going to have to find some sort of compromise in order to make that work. That's how it goes when people want different things in team based games.

Having every game be a mix of vikings, samurai, and knights, against a team of the same vikings, samurai, and knight mix, makes the game less interesting in my opinion. That would make it more like a MOBA or a hero shooter like Overwatch, and less like a game about different factions fighting for the survival of their people. It would honestly kill the immersion.

Chaf--
06-26-2016, 09:53 PM
When you try to make a competitive game, splitting the playerbase through different gamemodes is one of the worst thing you can do, you need to keep everyone in the same queue.

The competitive scene will focus on a single mode on its own. But it's kinda like saying that the game will drastically change, because of the faction being locked or not. It will change, but this will never be another game.

That's what I said. Make default ranked battles with faction-free class picking, make it the main tournament/competition mode and allow an option to toggle in the options to lock it or not in friendly matchmakings.


Feats are faction and classed based. Knights have a catapult, and Samurai have the arrow storm and a shuriken-like throwing star for the Orochi. The Orochi also gets a feat called "poison blade" which makes his attacks do increased damage for a limited time. This info was from an informational video from the devs last year so stuff could've changed.

Yeah, that's logicall. That's silly, but I doubted of that because of the E3 2015 trailer. Because we saw the arrow storm in the free setting showed. Even with one that was suposed to be Warborn VS Legion. And it's not like feats like Heal and Poisonous Blade could look "weird" on Warborns and Legions. We'll see how Ubi will figure it out.


I know you're coming at this strictly from a competitive/E-Sport 'I wanna be the best I can be no matter the circumstance' sort of mentality, but the vast majority of players will not be playing from that perspective. I suspect most people are going to be playing from the perspective of 'my Viking brethren will trounce your Samaurai hordes' and are answered 'Yeah? prove it' because that's been the major element of every pitch I've seen Jason make since the announcement.

It's my mentality to ask for the best environnment this scene can have. On any game, any eSport, only a really small of the buyers are into competition and only a small part of this competitive guys actually goes to competition. In all the Street Fighter buyers, I estimate only 2% of them are into competition or knows vaguely what's all about. You don't know how many guys I've played Tekken with that still put 2 rounds; 150% handicap, no time limite when the tourney standard is 3 rounds, 100% handicap, 60s time limit since 2 decades, almost. Sometimes, that percent is higher, like LoL and lower, like Smash Bros. But make a game viable should considerate the 98%. Because those players will never saw the balances changes anyway.


What warrior are you inside? What battle philosophy speaks to you? Why are you fighting?

That's the keyword. "YOU". You, as an individual, as a person. But me, as a person, (Legion) I wanna teammate with this really talented guy I know. (Warborn) ME, as an individual, is forced to be an "ennemy" of this talented guy, because of what WE both are.
Now, if we step aside the philosophical layer out of this, Jason is the CREATIVE director of the game. Not the lead designer. He will have everything he need to say about a lot of things. The lore, the arts... But the balance? It will be the lead designer's job, Geoff Ellenor, to make sure that the game will be balanced. Jason is the concept guy. The idea guy. The real thing is done by other guys on the team.


The coreplay is the Art of Battle.
Can you attack where your opponent isn't blocking?
All the subtle faction variations, feats, and whatnot are the differences between Cammy and Akuma.

You dangerously underestimate how deep the 1v1 matchup will be against 2 different classes. The AoB isn't magical. It will not put every classes into the same abilities. Each classes will have different combo strings, light attacks, heavy attacks. Like I saw the warden, hitting the left, then immediatly the right as soon as he touches his opponent. Maybe the Kensei will act differently. And I'm not even talking about throws, shoulder bashes, shield plays... This will be the differences that you can compare, between Chun-Li and Zangief.


Going back to my last post, the Vikings, overall, seem to be slightly more sturdy, slightly heartier, than the other factions, and as such are able to sustain a bit more damage and do a bit more damage than the others, but if the classes are what I think they are (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1341664-Hero-class-shadows?), the faction lacks a proper tank.

The Chosen's Shugoki? (https://youtu.be/YuuJZ2m2x0k?t=3m7s)
Also, thanks for linking that thread. I'm gonna read it and answer to it.


Or, again, they play a few games as Vikings, then a few as Knights, then a few as Samurai, like reasonable adults.

"And there it is! We're in the final of Guilty Gear Xrd! The famous Zato player, Marlin Pie, will not pick Zato, to pick another character because Ogawa, another Zato player, is his opponent. So, he'll pick Venom. " "Wow, what an incredible act of sportsmanship, Steve. They really are reasonable adults."


Well nobody cares that you literally can play a 6v6 in overwatch and just use 2 different characters which doesnt really make any sense so...

"If you're in my team, you can't play Reaper."
"What? Why? He's my main."
"You can't. I've just picked Wilson."
"So?"
"They're ennemies. They can't be together."
"..."
"And don't take Windowaker, too. Someone already picked Tracer."

TrikRisk
06-26-2016, 11:16 PM
TL;DR: Yes, I aggree with you Chaf. Also this and that would be nice to have.

Assuming you have your "Heroes" as your loadouts, this should be easy and, as much as I didn't want, it should be the way propused and I was making a little of a fuss about it because I wanted all samurai in a team, but in ranked, it shouldn't be like that and now I agree with you, Chaf.

If people are "locked by factions" when playing, a lot of the strategy would be taken off, and its simple why: the less the variety of a team composition, the less combos you can have to play around; the less variety of strategy play would happen. So being able to have more to choose from will enable us to make more of what we are given. I know I'm saying almost the same thing over and over but I'm trying to make the most sense out of this; the best argument per say.

Rankeds should or have to be like this. It would be like if League(4 years on it, have to give the example of League) just let us play all from a place: all Freljordian team, all Noxian, etc.
There could be casual modes where Faction vs Faction would happen and it should start like this IMO, let me explain:

People should have a certain level to reach before playing the Ranked games, which would be the ones where people play the mixed-matched team compositions. So, 3 different stages of matchmaking: Faction.VS.Faction(Normal/Casual);
Mix-Matched Teams(MMT).VS.MMT(Normal/Casual);
and then the Ranked MMT.VS.MMT.
This would prepare people in a nice pace until they reach the more complex MMTs and IMO in a challenging/objective system where you have to reach certain goals(for example win 20/30/40[example numbers] matches of F.VS.F, but not only 1 goal but various goals) before being able to advance in the next type of matches. Off course this would be only to reach the ranked system, other more casual match types, for example Free For All(dunno if there will be this mode but its an example).

As for the Loadouts, and I'm talking for Rankeds here, people will have their Chosens, Vikings and what not prepared their own way to fight before battle. This I think should be a fixed thing before entering the match; you should your character to fight in THAT match and can not switch Heroes/Loadouts during the match. If we do, it will be a mess of switching characters and will not be as challenging.

This way, I think the Multiplayer would be settled, at least in the Domination mode/the road for ranked matches.

MisterWillow
06-26-2016, 11:48 PM
It's my mentality to ask for the best environnment this scene can have. On any game, any eSport, only a really small of the buyers are into competition and only a small part of this competitive guys actually goes to competition. In all the Street Fighter buyers, I estimate only 2% of them are into competition or knows vaguely what's all about. You don't know how many guys I've played Tekken with that still put 2 rounds; 150% handicap, no time limite when the tourney standard is 3 rounds, 100% handicap, 60s time limit since 2 decades, almost. Sometimes, that percent is higher, like LoL and lower, like Smash Bros. But make a game viable should considerate the 98%. Because those players will never saw the balances changes anyway.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

My entire argument was that 98% of people are going to be interested in, buy, and play the game for the strong thematic elements, and those 98% aren't concerned with the minute balance issues you're concerned with. That's the environment that the scene will experience.


That's the keyword. "YOU". You, as an individual, as a person. But me, as a person, (Legion) I wanna teammate with this really talented guy I know. (Warborn) ME, as an individual, is forced to be an "ennemy" of this talented guy, because of what WE both are.

It's more about you picking a side to fight on.

The Legion think of the Warborn are smelly, uncouth, barbarians that are invading their lands. The Warborn think of the Legion as usurpers of their ancestors' home. Tell me why they would team up.


Now, if we step aside the philosophical layer out of this, Jason is the CREATIVE director of the game. Not the lead designer. He will have everything he need to say about a lot of things. The lore, the arts... But the balance? It will be the lead designer's job, Geoff Ellenor, to make sure that the game will be balanced. Jason is the concept guy. The idea guy. The real thing is done by other guys on the team.

The 'real thing' is driven by the concept. Every aspect of every project conforms to the vision of the initial idea, unless and until something is proven to not work, and retaining the balance within the confines of the thematic elements the game presents works, as far as I can imagine.


You dangerously underestimate how deep the 1v1 matchup will be against 2 different classes. The AoB isn't magical. It will not put every classes into the same abilities. Each classes will have different combo strings, light attacks, heavy attacks. Like I saw the warden, hitting the left, then immediatly the right as soon as he touches his opponent. Maybe the Kensei will act differently. And I'm not even talking about throws, shoulder bashes, shield plays... This will be the differences that you can compare, between Chun-Li and Zangief.

And yet Chun-Li can fight Zangief and nobody complains about balancing issues, even though they have different combo strings, light attacks, heavy attacks, special moves, grabs, throws, and everything else. Nobody complains about Cammy fighting Ryu when he can spam Hadoukens while she lacks any projectile attacks.

You were talking about the coreplay, but the coreplay of Street Fighter (and all fighting games, really) is spacing, blocking, cornering, etc. It has little to do with character's special moves and disparate abilities. They play a role, to be sure, but that's not the 'core' of the game mechanically.

As far as what you saw the Warden do, you can switch your attack direction mid-string with anyone, it's a basic part of the battle system, since it's a basic part of sword-play.

If you want to get into real differences between the factions, take their guard-breaks. Samurai seem to reposition themselves---I'm not sure about the Kensei or Shugouki, because we haven't seen them, but the Oni/Orochi flips over their opponent---Knights knock you around---shoulder bashes, and they can push you a bit---and Vikings pick you up---the charge shown in the campaign mission, and the ability to throw you further than the Knights. Of course, that could be Hero specific and not faction specific---so, the Vikings could have a Hero that also flips over their opponent (unlikely, but still).


The Chosen's Shugoki? (https://youtu.be/YuuJZ2m2x0k?t=3m7s)

Yes, that would be a Samurai tank, but again, if the factions' Heroes are how I think, the Vikings won't have a Hero that powerful---the trade-off being that the Raider can pick him up and toss him off a cliff.


"And there it is! We're in the final of Guilty Gear Xrd! The famous Zato player, Marlin Pie, will not pick Zato, to pick another character because Ogawa, another Zato player, is his opponent. So, he'll pick Venom. " "Wow, what an incredible act of sportsmanship, Steve. They really are reasonable adults."

Having the ability to pick something and refusing is different than not having the ability to pick something and desiring to do so.


"If you're in my team, you can't play Reaper."
"What? Why? He's my main."
"You can't. I've just picked Wilson."
"So?"
"They're ennemies. They can't be together."
"..."
"And don't take Windowaker, too. Someone already picked Tracer."

Overwatch has taken a completely different tact in presenting its lore and implementing that lore into the game, and by that I mean they presented the game first, and are then filling you in on who the characters are, and they haven't really enforced the lore within the game. The game is entirely objective focused and not lore focused.

I should also point out that there are plenty of people who find it odd that Widowmaker and Tracer can be on the same team.

BoldAlphawolf
06-27-2016, 02:39 AM
Actually, there is an important point against making it optional.

When you try to make a competitive game, splitting the playerbase through different gamemodes is one of the worst thing you can do, you need to keep everyone in the same queue.

Having 3-5 queues including ranked might work with a decent playerbase, but if you start adding options and options, you will end up splitting the playerbase too much.


i totally disagree with that i cant think of any online game ive played besides world of war craft where the que's arent fast, different game mode's keep thing's interesting, are you suggesting they mix ranked an inranked matches together? cause that would not work at all

Altair_Snake
06-27-2016, 05:53 AM
Welcome, Chaf--. It's nice to have other Balance-Whiners around here. *fist bump*

And if they don't make it free, I suppose the Plan B should be about the player picking a faction before the matchmaking, or rather, checking boxed of which factions he is willing to use. The more factions you check, the quicker the matchmaking. But it also means you have to be proficient with more classes. They could even have some XP bonus for people who check all the boxes, though this could have the side effect of breeding more noobness, which is particularly bad in team games.

Anyways, the Plan A should be free factions. And Unraked player-created matches should have the option of locking factions.

All this talk got me thinking of how boring Smite would be if the civilations were locked.

As for picking one specific class before the matchmaking, I'm pretty sure that won't be necessary. I think in the masterclass theys aid you could swap classes when you respawn.


i totally disagree with that i cant think of any online game ive played besides world of war craft where the que's arent fast, different game mode's keep thing's interesting, are you suggesting they mix ranked an inranked matches together? cause that would not work at all
Nah, bro. This is a real concern. Devs commonly talk about this. Splitting the player base is really bad. So you should do it only when it really really pays off, like when you have an awesome mode to add. Otherwise, you'll be matched with worse connectivity, greater difference in player skill, etc.

ZenBearV13
06-27-2016, 08:22 AM
My entire argument was that 98% of people are going to be interested in, buy, and play the game for the strong thematic elements, and those 98% aren't concerned with the minute balance issues you're concerned with. That's the environment that the scene will experience.

This is where you are making an unsupported claim, and I think a poll would be a perfect first step in deciphering the veracity of it.

I am in love with this game. It is everything I have ever dreamed of since the first time I ever conceived of a video game idea. I mean that literally. I have loved video games since the first time I ever played Starcraft on N64 and from that moment I began envisioning my own video game ideas. The first one I ever dreamed of and the one that I always thought about and worked on in my mind was a sword fighting game that put the sword in your hand and made it feel real. For Honor is that game.

I'm in it for the gameplay. The lore is just fluff to me. It's an excuse to put three great warrior traditions in the arena against one another. I love the lore, but I don't care enough about it to let that get in the way of any kind of fun I can have with this setting. I want to make up my own stories. I want my Knight of the Legion to be fighting alongside his forbidden love the Samurai of the Chosen and his best friend the Viking of the Warborn. I want freedom to play this game any way I see fit.

I believe there are more people who will be in it for the gameplay than the lore, and those will be the people to keep this game going in the long run.


It's more about you picking a side to fight on.

The Legion think of the Warborn are smelly, uncouth, barbarians that are invading their lands. The Warborn think of the Legion as usurpers of their ancestors' home. Tell me why they would team up.

Apollyon. I forsee the ending of the Campaign ending one of two ways; your faction decimated the other two and go on to defeat Apollyon's forces, or the three nations finally achieve peace through a common foe and after the War of Three Nations is over the tattered remnants will band together to fight Apollyon. Option number two is your answer.


Overwatch has taken a completely different tact in presenting its lore and implementing that lore into the game, and by that I mean they presented the game first, and are then filling you in on who the characters are, and they haven't really enforced the lore within the game. The game is entirely objective focused and not lore focused.

I should also point out that there are plenty of people who find it odd that Widowmaker and Tracer can be on the same team.

Overwatch has taken cue from the wild success of Dark Souls and decided to let the players suss out the story for themselves. It's nowhere near as convoluted/obscure as DS, but the idea is there. The fact that For Honor is taking a more traditional approach doesn't mean the threshold of the suspension of disbelief will be any lower. Yes, people will complain about immersion breaking scenarios no matter what, but immersion is not what's going to keep people around.

I see a lot of people hating on MOBAs lately. It's perfectly natural and expected. People hate successful things. They will find a way to nitpick anything. They will find it lame to be mainstream. Some grievances will be legitimate, but others often not. MOBAs are successful for a reason, and any game developer that wants to succeed will try to find the quality that works, the golden goose that will birth success (ie money) for them, and put it in their game. The gameplay of MOBAs draws people in and keeps them there. For Honor devs deciding to inform their gameplay with a structure of success is a good thing.

Eidard
06-27-2016, 08:40 AM
i totally disagree with that i cant think of any online game ive played besides world of war craft where the que's arent fast, different game mode's keep thing's interesting, are you suggesting they mix ranked an inranked matches together? cause that would not work at all

No, of course I am not considering mixing ranked and unraked, I am considered mixing Domion and whatever other gamemodes they add to the multiplayer in the same queue.

The way Overwatch does it basicly.

What I don't want is:

ˇ Normal Dominion
ˇ Ranked Dominion
ˇ Normal Siegue
ˇ Ranked Siege
ˇ Normal TDM
ˇ Ranked TDM
ˇ Normal Duel
ˇ Ranked Duel
ˇ etc

I don't want to have so many queues, I want 1 Ranked Queue which would be either Dominion or whatever gamemode they are planning to be the most competitive in the game (which can be a mix of gamemodes, a queue where you could randomly play dominion, siege(if it exist), etc) and maybe 1 Ranked queueu for a 1v1/king of the hill gamemode.

I would want something like this:

ˇ Normal/Quick play queue
. Ranked based on the quick play gamemodes
ˇ Normal 1v1 mode
ˇ Ranked 1v1 mode
ˇ Custom matches.

And here even the ranked 1v1 could be deleted, I just want a 1v1 gamemode to improve my duel skills, but I don't think I will spend a lot of time on it. I just want the less fragmentation possible in the playerbase for the integrity of competitiveness.

Altair_Snake
06-27-2016, 10:14 AM
BTW, Uncharted 4 has Ranked for only one mode. The other modes have randomized quees, too, but the only mode considered more competitive is TDM. Maybe they did that more for the player pool, than for actually thinking TDM is more hardcore.

I'd also like to add that I don't see much need for separating ranked from unranked, in matchmaking. Just have the damn modes (all ranked) for random matchmaking; along with custom matches for the unranked stuff. I think splitting the players on party vs party and randoms vs randoms is way more important than ranked and ranked.

And I disagree with having all ranked modes in one queue. I think we should be able to choose the modes. I sometimes don't like some modes (hate Survivor, on TLOU, for instance), or get moody about them.

BoldAlphawolf
06-27-2016, 08:12 PM
Welcome, Chaf--. It's nice to have other Balance-Whiners around here. *fist bump*

And if they don't make it free, I suppose the Plan B should be about the player picking a faction before the matchmaking, or rather, checking boxed of which factions he is willing to use. The more factions you check, the quicker the matchmaking. But it also means you have to be proficient with more classes. They could even have some XP bonus for people who check all the boxes, though this could have the side effect of breeding more noobness, which is particularly bad in team games.

Anyways, the Plan A should be free factions. And Unraked player-created matches should have the option of locking factions.

All this talk got me thinking of how boring Smite would be if the civilations were locked.

As for picking one specific class before the matchmaking, I'm pretty sure that won't be necessary. I think in the masterclass theys aid you could swap classes when you respawn.


Nah, bro. This is a real concern. Devs commonly talk about this. Splitting the player base is really bad. So you should do it only when it really really pays off, like when you have an awesome mode to add. Otherwise, you'll be matched with worse connectivity, greater difference in player skill, etc.


i think your creating your own fear's, you'll be able to play whatever faction you want but if you and a friend pick a different faction then you'll have to deal with that its all about what you value as a warrior rather then what you and your friend value as a warrior. you aren't locked to a faction jason vanderberge stated this many times you can play all the faction's,

there will be a rank system now if its structured like a prestige thing like in call or duty where you rank up just from leveling an when you max out you go prestige,

or you rank up from winning lets say five matches in a row then your faced with a promotion match like in tekken.

we dont know but at masterclass e3 2015 during the Q an A they stated it will be something for the more competetive player's.

me personally id play ranked because that where all the challenge is in multiplayer, but some people just wanna play for fun an thats fine too

MisterWillow
06-27-2016, 08:22 PM
This is where you are making an unsupported claim, and I think a poll would be a perfect first step in deciphering the veracity of it.

A poll here would only show what people here think, which I have little doubt will result in gameplay winning over theme, but that's also the 2% (or less) of people who will eventually buy and play the game.


I'm in it for the gameplay. The lore is just fluff to me. It's an excuse to put three great warrior traditions in the arena against one another. I love the lore, but I don't care enough about it to let that get in the way of any kind of fun I can have with this setting. I want to make up my own stories. I want my Knight of the Legion to be fighting alongside his forbidden love the Samurai of the Chosen and his best friend the Viking of the Warborn. I want freedom to play this game any way I see fit.

I believe there are more people who will be in it for the gameplay than the lore, and those will be the people to keep this game going in the long run.

If I had to choose between one of the two---lore or gameplay---then of course I'd pick gameplay as being what I'm more interested in, and what will keep people playing. Seeing the gameplay is what compelled me to sign up for the forums last year, and gameplay is what has fueled the vast majority of the discussion on here.

It's a false choice, though, because both the gameplay combined with the theme are what makes the game interesting to me, they are equally important. Downplaying the lore, or negating it altogether because you can't handle a choice between Knights or Samurai for the duration of a match or play-session does nothing but make the game less interesting overall.


Apollyon. I forsee the ending of the Campaign ending one of two ways; your faction decimated the other two and go on to defeat Apollyon's forces, or the three nations finally achieve peace through a common foe and after the War of Three Nations is over the tattered remnants will band together to fight Apollyon. Option number two is your answer.

Perhaps.

However, they've said the campaign is the setup for the multiplayer---that it explains why the multiplayer world is the way it is.

If that's true, and your supposition is true, then there would be no multiplayer, because Apollyon is what's keeping the factions fighting. It has been heavily implied that without her around, the three civilisations would have found peace a long time ago. If the campaign ends with Apollyon's defeat, or at least the factions' realisation of her scheme and allying against her, why would they still be fighting?


Overwatch has taken cue from the wild success of Dark Souls and decided to let the players suss out the story for themselves. It's nowhere near as convoluted/obscure as DS, but the idea is there. The fact that For Honor is taking a more traditional approach doesn't mean the threshold of the suspension of disbelief will be any lower. Yes, people will complain about immersion breaking scenarios no matter what, but immersion is not what's going to keep people around.

It will if the devs have spent a year and a half telling people to pick a faction to identify with against a backdrop of three armies locked in perpetual war with one another.

TrikRisk
06-27-2016, 09:20 PM
I don't want to have so many queues, I want 1 Ranked Queue which would be either Dominion or whatever gamemode they are planning to be the most competitive in the game (which can be a mix of gamemodes, a queue where you could randomly play dominion, siege(if it exist), etc) and maybe 1 Ranked queueu for a 1v1/king of the hill gamemode.

I would want something like this:

ˇ Normal/Quick play queue
. Ranked based on the quick play gamemodes
ˇ Normal 1v1 mode
ˇ Ranked 1v1 mode
ˇ Custom matches.

Have you seen what I propused? the MMTs and what not? Here:


(...)People should have a certain level to reach before playing the Ranked games, which would be the ones where people play the mixed-matched team compositions. So, 3 different stages of matchmaking: Faction.VS.Faction(Normal/Casual);
Mix-Matched Teams(MMT).VS.MMT(Normal/Casual);
and then the Ranked MMT.VS.MMT.
This would prepare people in a nice pace until they reach the more complex MMTs and IMO in a challenging/objective system where you have to reach certain goals(for example win 20/30/40[example numbers] matches of F.VS.F, but not only 1 goal but various goals) before being able to advance in the next type of matches. Off course this would be only to reach the ranked system, other more casual match types, for example Free For All(dunno if there will be this mode but its an example)(...).

ZenBearV13
06-27-2016, 09:33 PM
A poll here would only show what people here think, which I have little doubt will result in gameplay winning over theme, but that's also the 2% (or less) of people who will eventually buy and play the game.

Indeed, which is why I said the poll is a good first step. I honestly expected most people here to say Lore, because the people on the forums before release are the ones most devoted to the ideas about the game than the actual gameplay, which so few of us have had a chance to try.


If I had to choose between one of the two---lore or gameplay---then of course I'd pick gameplay as being what I'm more interested in, and what will keep people playing. Seeing the gameplay is what compelled me to sign up for the forums last year, and gameplay is what has fueled the vast majority of the discussion on here.

It's a false choice, though, because both the gameplay combined with the theme are what makes the game interesting to me, they are equally important. Downplaying the lore, or negating it altogether because you can't handle a choice between Knights or Samurai for the duration of a match or play-session does nothing but make the game less interesting overall.

Downplaying the gameplay by negating a ton of variety therein because you can't handle seeing Knights, Samurai and Vikings on the same team does nothing but make the game less interesting overall. A difference of opinion.


Perhaps.

However, they've said the campaign is the setup for the multiplayer---that it explains why the multiplayer world is the way it is.

If that's true, and your supposition is true, then there would be no multiplayer, because Apollyon is what's keeping the factions fighting. It has been heavily implied that without her around, the three civilisations would have found peace a long time ago. If the campaign ends with Apollyon's defeat, or at least the factions' realisation of her scheme and allying against her, why would they still be fighting?

Just like we see in the Legion campaign gameplay video, not everyone of a given faction is on the same side. Some extremist factions within the Legion, Warborn and Chosen will adamantly refuse to ally with their ancient enemies, no matter the circumstances. Just look at Starcraft for a perfect example of three warring factions fighting together and against one another with a flexible multiplayer allowing for any combination of teams.


It will if the devs have spent a year and a half telling people to pick a faction to identify with against a backdrop of three armies locked in perpetual war with one another.

I love personality tests. I love horoscopes. I love psychological profiles. All of these things serve to define who you are, what qualities define you and set you apart from your peers. Picking a warrior tradition that speaks to you is like picking which Ninja Turtle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtsmluPK7Ug) is your favorite; they're all cool, but the one you pick says something about you. When you align yourself with your innate qualities, when you play to your own strengths, you flourish. Just because the devs want you to discover your inner warrior doesn't mean they intend for you to only play that faction, or for that faction to exclusively fight against the other factions.. They're just providing a fun question to ponder.

Altair_Snake
06-27-2016, 10:07 PM
i think your creating your own fear's, you'll be able to play whatever faction you want but if you and a friend pick a different faction then you'll have to deal with that its all about what you value as a warrior rather then what you and your friend value as a warrior. you aren't locked to a faction jason vanderberge stated this many times you can play all the faction's,

there will be a rank system now if its structured like a prestige thing like in call or duty where you rank up just from leveling an when you max out you go prestige,

or you rank up from winning lets say five matches in a row then your faced with a promotion match like in tekken.

we dont know but at masterclass e3 2015 during the Q an A they stated it will be something for the more competetive player's.

me personally id play ranked because that where all the challenge is in multiplayer, but some people just wanna play for fun an thats fine too
We were taling about a team having members of only one faction, bro; not about a player being able to use only one faction in all games.

MisterWillow
06-27-2016, 11:03 PM
Downplaying the gameplay by negating a ton of variety therein because you can't handle seeing Knights, Samurai and Vikings on the same team does nothing but make the game less interesting overall. A difference of opinion.

Locking factions is not downplaying the gameplay, and what I meant by 'interesting' is that you as a player are participating in an ongoing conflict, pledging allegiance to the cause r philosophy of one of three armies (for the duration of a match/session anyway), which is a feeling you don't get in other games.

Turning it from a three-sided war into a bunch of people slaughtering one another without much reason for it destroys one of the game's defining features.


Just like we see in the Legion campaign gameplay video, not everyone of a given faction is on the same side. Some extremist factions within the Legion, Warborn and Chosen will adamantly refuse to ally with their ancient enemies, no matter the circumstances. Just look at Starcraft for a perfect example of three warring factions fighting together and against one another with a flexible multiplayer allowing for any combination of teams.

Division in the ranks doesn't mean a splinter group is going to join an opposing army. It only gives reason for faction vs faction matches.


I love personality tests. I love horoscopes. I love psychological profiles. All of these things serve to define who you are, what qualities define you and set you apart from your peers. Picking a warrior tradition that speaks to you is like picking which Ninja Turtle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtsmluPK7Ug) is your favorite; they're all cool, but the one you pick says something about you. When you align yourself with your innate qualities, when you play to your own strengths, you flourish. Just because the devs want you to discover your inner warrior doesn't mean they intend for you to only play that faction, or for that faction to exclusively fight against the other factions.. They're just providing a fun question to ponder.

Completely disagree (at least on the second count).

Everything I've ever seen, read, or heard concerning the game since the day it was announced is 'Who are you? A Knight? A Viking? A Samurai? And once you know, who would win between you? Well, in For Honor, you get to choose a side and find out!'

It's much more than the question, it's the answering that's being presented. If I'm a Knight fighting in a team of Samurai against a Samurai and a group of Vikings, that question isn't answered. The side that won was 'team B'. And that's bloody boring.

BoldAlphawolf
06-27-2016, 11:35 PM
We were taling about a team having members of only one faction, bro; not about a player being able to use only one faction in all games.

An multiplayer team's will have member's of just that faction, we dont know if you can blend team's it wouldnt make sense though, because that would take away from the whole the three factions being at war atmosphere the game is based around?

Sir_Beefing
06-28-2016, 12:55 AM
An multiplayer team's will have member's of just that faction, we dont know if you can blend team's it wouldnt make sense though, because that would take away from the whole the three factions being at war atmosphere the game is based around?

It's always hard for games to blend multiplayer that follows the lore of the game. Most people will just want to have fun and play with friends and what if they want to play different factions? do they just not play together? I for one would prefer to play the factions i want with friends even if they not the same faction.

BoldAlphawolf
06-28-2016, 01:04 AM
It's always hard for games to blend multiplayer that follows the lore of the game. Most people will just want to have fun and play with friends and what if they want to play different factions? do they just not play together? I for one would prefer to play the factions i want with friends even if they not the same faction.

Thats like alliance an horde playing together in wow im not saying that if they did make team's blended i wouldnt buy this awesome game because i pre ordered the gold edition but if it turn's out that teams were blended it definitley would take away some of the shine that drew me to the game, if me an my friends wanted to play together then just play the same faction. but friends can still play together like versus, or play through the campaign with them in split screen, your still going to be able experience For Honor with them.

Chaf--
06-28-2016, 10:10 AM
Welcome, Chaf--. It's nice to have other Balance-Whiners around here. *fist bump*
WOOO *answering the fist bump*
Yeah, we're annoying, but this community kinda needs us, too.
It's cool to sharing the same views on this. FH has a potential to be a great competitive game and this is a concern I have to tell and argue.


Apollyon. I forsee the ending of the Campaign ending one of two ways; your faction decimated the other two and go on to defeat Apollyon's forces, or the three nations finally achieve peace through a common foe and after the War of Three Nations is over the tattered remnants will band together to fight Apollyon. Option number two is your answer.
One of my headcannons. She will probably be the final boss and they will probably need to kill her, if those 3 civilisations wanna peace, again.
But even without that and without logical explanations, multiplayers shouldn't be like "part" of the lore. It's its own thing, focused on us, real people.


No, of course I am not considering mixing ranked and unraked |...]
I like the idea, but we could be simplier.

Online mode:
- Ranked
- Matchmaking

Choices on both modes:
- Quick Play
- Join a Room
- Create a Room
- Qulick Play Options
- - Toggle/Untoggle this and that
- - Region
- - Voice
- - Ranks
- - ....
- Invite friends (to make ranked with them or to create a lobby on unranked)

The Create a Room option let you choose your modes (Domination, Duel...) and your settings. On Ranked, some of them would be locked and on Matchmaking, everything is allowed.
The Join a Room option lists every rooms that are made by people and are waiting people to start or if they are already playing (so, you could join to spectate).
This is basically what fighting games makes, for most of them.


Rankeds should or have to be like this. It would be like if League(4 years on it, have to give the example of League) just let us play all from a place: all Freljordian team, all Noxian, etc.
There could be casual modes where Faction vs Faction would happen and it should start like this IMO, let me explain:

People should have a certain level to reach before playing the Ranked games, which would be the ones where people play the mixed-matched team compositions. So, 3 different stages of matchmaking: Faction.VS.Faction(Normal/Casual);
Mix-Matched Teams(MMT).VS.MMT(Normal/Casual);
and then the Ranked MMT.VS.MMT.
This would prepare people in a nice pace until they reach the more complex MMTs and IMO in a challenging/objective system where you have to reach certain goals(for example win 20/30/40[example numbers] matches of F.VS.F, but not only 1 goal but various goals) before being able to advance in the next type of matches. Off course this would be only to reach the ranked system, other more casual match types, for example Free For All(dunno if there will be this mode but its an example).

As for the Loadouts, and I'm talking for Rankeds here, people will have their Chosens, Vikings and what not prepared their own way to fight before battle. This I think should be a fixed thing before entering the match; you should your character to fight in THAT match and can not switch Heroes/Loadouts during the match. If we do, it will be a mess of switching characters and will not be as challenging.

This way, I think the Multiplayer would be settled, at least in the Domination mode/the road for ranked matches.

I'm not that pumped up on it. Especially the "you have to be ranked a certain level to have access to ranked" part. LoL makes that to let the players learn the game at their paces. FH doesn't need to do that, because players will have single-campaign and solo with bots to learn it. (I also hope to see some sort of small training mode for letting us studying the AoB)

The 3 choices sounds really dividing for nothing. Only a separation between Matchmaking and Ranked is necessary, but if the game let you pick your own friends as a partner, you could all concert to play seriously on 1 faction, no matter the opponents. Only one mode for matchmaking should exist. The MMT/Faction difference could just be a toggle in the host's matchmaking settings.

I see where you're going with it, but we can keep the community/online player base united and make good ranked matches.


Thats like alliance an horde playing together in wow
I know almost nothing about MMORPGs, but doesn't WoW have an Arena, when people can fight against other people without caring about factions, just to make pure PVP settings?

TrikRisk
06-28-2016, 11:11 AM
I like the idea, but we could be simplier.

Online mode:
- Ranked
- Matchmaking

Choices on both modes:
- Quick Play
- Join a Room
- Create a Room
- Qulick Play Options
- - Toggle/Untoggle this and that
- - Region
- - Voice
- - Ranks
- - ....
- Invite friends (to make ranked with them or to create a lobby on unranked)

The Create a Room option let you choose your modes (Domination, Duel...) and your settings. On Ranked, some of them would be locked and on Matchmaking, everything is allowed.
The Join a Room option lists every rooms that are made by people and are waiting people to start or if they are already playing (so, you could join to spectate).
This is basically what fighting games makes, for most of them.


This is more simple than what I propused but the "Quick Play" would be more simple if that when you click it, there then appears the modes than you want to quickly play, instead of going to the options, choose which you want, go back and press quick play.

waraidako
06-28-2016, 12:40 PM
The pure PVP tournament style e-sports mode would be the 1v1 arena though, surely. Not the regular game.

ZenBearV13
06-28-2016, 03:58 PM
Locking factions is not downplaying the gameplay, and what I meant by 'interesting' is that you as a player are participating in an ongoing conflict, pledging allegiance to the cause r philosophy of one of three armies (for the duration of a match/session anyway), which is a feeling you don't get in other games.

Turning it from a three-sided war into a bunch of people slaughtering one another without much reason for it destroys one of the game's defining features.

Locking factions is downplaying gameplay because it reduces the amount of variety in the game. What I mean by "interesting" is fun. Variety is fun. That's what gives a game "replay value," which is very important for the long term success of a game.


Division in the ranks doesn't mean a splinter group is going to join an opposing army. It only gives reason for faction vs faction matches.

It absolutely can mean a splinter group joins with an "opposing" army. Just like in Starcraft when Rainer and Zeratul join forces to fight Kerrigan, or when all three join forces to fight the Hybrids, "opposing" armies join with each other for greater strength against a common foe, and sometimes that means a combined force of Terrans, Protoss and Zerg fighting against another combined force of Terrans, Protoss and Zerg. Starcraft would not have been as successful as it is in the online gaming world if players were restricted to one faction in a team.


Everything I've ever seen, read, or heard concerning the game since the day it was announced is 'Who are you? A Knight? A Viking? A Samurai? And once you know, who would win between you? Well, in For Honor, you get to choose a side and find out!'

It's much more than the question, it's the answering that's being presented. If I'm a Knight fighting in a team of Samurai against a Samurai and a group of Vikings, that question isn't answered. The side that won was 'team B'. And that's bloody boring.

Allowing free choice team composition does not remove that question. You can still play Faction v Faction and answer that question if that's really the most important part of this to you. Faction locking everything means that is the ONLY question that gets answered. I'm also interested in asking, "If these three Factions set aside their differences and fought together, how powerful would they become?" If I get my way, we both get to play the game how we want to play it. If you get your way, I and others like me are SOL. That kind of exclusionary decision making will only hurt the game, long and short term.

BoldAlphawolf
06-28-2016, 04:43 PM
This is more simple than what I proposed but the "Quick Play" would be more simple if that when you click it, there then appears the modes than you want to quickly play, instead of going to the options, choose which you want, go back and press quick play.

i dont think we should be able to create lobby's that causes alot of problems with the que times cause everyone will just be in a lobby grinding what game mode they wanna. i dont know if anyone here has played Dragon ballz burst limit but when that game fell off it was pure hell finding online games because when you went online you had to create a lobby or join one, if one wasnt made you had to create one then wait for hour's for a game there should be ranked an unranked match making thats it.


when you start the game it should ask you, your region, an language, you adjust the screen then it takes you to a campaign tab, a ranked, unranked tab , you choose which one you want then you come to a screen where you choose your faction ( It was confirmed at masterclass 2016 that the campaign is linear an youll have to play the factions in order) then class then wait. you dont know which of the three factions your going to face until the game que's up, i would like to see something that simple

Eidard
06-28-2016, 06:21 PM
I like the idea, but we could be simplier.

Online mode:
- Ranked
- Matchmaking

Choices on both modes:
- Quick Play
- Join a Room
- Create a Room
- Qulick Play Options
- - Toggle/Untoggle this and that
- - Region
- - Voice
- - Ranks
- - ....
- Invite friends (to make ranked with them or to create a lobby on unranked)

The Create a Room option let you choose your modes (Domination, Duel...) and your settings. On Ranked, some of them would be locked and on Matchmaking, everything is allowed.
The Join a Room option lists every rooms that are made by people and are waiting people to start or if they are already playing (so, you could join to spectate).
This is basically what fighting games makes, for most of them.


You can NOT have custom games for Ranked, your oppenents have to be random, the moment you can choose your opponents the ranked system loses all its value.

There is already the problem in high elo League of Legends where people trade wins, it only can be done in high rankings because the player base is smaller meaning there is more chance of playing against one of your friends, and this friend could lose in purporse just to boost you, but it would be easily doable in custom matches.

Not only that but having different "gamemodes" "made" by players will have the problem of having a lot of different queues and spliting the playerbase all over them.

We can talk a lot here, but there is probably a developed system, and until we get to try that system I feel our input now might be useless, I am pretty sure the devs have some decisions that are probably set in stone but we are discussing here as is they could be changed, once we know more about it I might get deeper in the discussion on how ranked works, or if mix-faction is good or not.

But until we have more information I think this discussion is kind of useless, it was usefull the first pages for me, I learnt about some people's ideas and why they prefer mixed vs not-mixed factions,etc.

MisterWillow
06-29-2016, 02:38 AM
Locking factions is downplaying gameplay because it reduces the amount of variety in the game. What I mean by "interesting" is fun. Variety is fun. That's what gives a game "replay value," which is very important for the long term success of a game.

We have a disagreement on what is fun, then. Your fun is entirely mechanical. The theme is a large part of the what makes it fun for me.

Mechanically, the replay value is entirely inherent in the Art of Battle system and core gameplay mechanics, which are largely independent of Hero choice (not entirely, I'll grant you, but largely). From my perspective, deciding on a faction is fun because you are deciding on your general playstyle---defense, offense, speed (again, generally)---while at the same time acknowledging that you will be forgoing certain traits (like the lack-of-a-proper-tank example I used in a previous post). You are choosing your strength and weakness all at once. If the factions were to mix and blend in the way proposed, you could mix and match every strength and every weakness---because you know someone would find that perfect combination---and that, to me is less fun.

It could also lean on the theme to extend player involvement. For example, if they have a worldwide stat counter of how many matches were won by which factions, they could make it appear like the grand war is raging at all times. Not quite the same as Planetside, since that's literally people trundling all over continents instead of engaging in matches, but that same feeling could be approximated, if, say, when you log into multiplayer, there's a world map displayed, divided into the territories of each faction, and when, for example, a team of Knights wins a match, the borders highlighted alter to show encroachment onto Viking and Samurai lands. Then, players could watch the map change---the Vikings are coming, then the Samurai; oh no, the Samurai and Knights have won so much, the Vikings are close to losing their home---and even if you're away for months, you can come back and find the entire landscape has changed, and if your (main) faction is on the proverbial ropes, it could make players want to jump back in and push back their enemies.


It absolutely can mean a splinter group joins with an "opposing" army. Just like in Starcraft when Rainer and Zeratul join forces to fight Kerrigan, or when all three join forces to fight the Hybrids, "opposing" armies join with each other for greater strength against a common foe, and sometimes that means a combined force of Terrans, Protoss and Zerg fighting against another combined force of Terrans, Protoss and Zerg. Starcraft would not have been as successful as it is in the online gaming world if players were restricted to one faction in a team.

Sorry, should have said 'necessarily'.

I don't know anything about Starcraft lore, so I can't comment of whatever nuances present therein led to all the circumstances you've mentioned. In regard to the factions in For Honor though---and granted I don't know much---I don't see it happening.

Apollyon is the head of the Iron Legion, which seems to be, from the limited amount of information we have, the major army of the Knights. Daubeny, in the campaign mission, isn't a fan of the way Apollyon is handling her affairs, so he refuses to join her. That doesn't mean that he will befriend the Samurai or Vikings, or strike some sort of easy alliance with them, and it doesn't mean the leaders of those factions would agree to fight alongside one another. All it means, at this point, is that Apollyon has potential traitors in her midst, and that if she's to die, it will most likely be at the hands of another Knight.


Allowing free choice team composition does not remove that question. You can still play Faction v Faction and answer that question if that's really the most important part of this to you. Faction locking everything means that is the ONLY question that gets answered. I'm also interested in asking, "If these three Factions set aside their differences and fought together, how powerful would they become?"

If they set aside their differences they wouldn't be fighting.

Again, Apollyon is a leader of an army within the Knight faction (as far as we know), and if there's a splinter group there, it divides her forces either to the extent that she'd be decimated or the Knights that potentially join with the other factions would be Daubeny and whatever forces were left in his castle.


That kind of exclusionary decision making will only hurt the game, long and short term.

Tell that to Planetside players who just want the Terran and Vanu to get along.

Chaf--
06-29-2016, 08:20 AM
The pure PVP tournament style e-sports mode would be the 1v1 arena though, surely. Not the regular game.

1v1 arena means no Feats, small stage, full AoB mode. It removes a lot of what FH is all about. Domination, however, have that teamplay strategy layer that covers the 1v1. It's the best mode to show the purpose of the game. It's also the most pushed mode by Ubisoft. The first showed at E3 2015, the only mode in alphas and betas... The main eSport mode will probably be Domination.
But I still think (and hope) that a good Duel mode would be presented and relevant. Especially on split-screen. Maybe also make it tourney relevant. Kinda like the Pokkén scene.


You can NOT have custom games for Ranked, your oppenents have to be random, the moment you can choose your opponents the ranked system loses all its value.
I didn't wrote it, I'm sorry. Of course, the invitation on Ranked is only for your teammates. You should NEVER be able to choose easily your opponents on Ranked modes in any games.


There is already the problem in high elo League of Legends where people trade wins, it only can be done in high rankings because the player base is smaller meaning there is more chance of playing against one of your friends, and this friend could lose in purporse just to boost you, but it would be easily doable in custom matches.

Not only that but having different "gamemodes" "made" by players will have the problem of having a lot of different queues and spliting the playerbase all over them.

Yeah, this is the thing. Ranked shouldn't have a very very high ceiling like LoL. It is in LoL, because online and Rankings are linked to a pro-scene that actually leads to a draft. You can't expect FH to have that kind of pro-scene. Not a lot games have. Ranks should only be like an indicator to say that someone knows how to play the game. That's it. Like it shouldn't take more than one year to max out and it shouldn't be a way to "classify" players.


We can talk a lot here, but there is probably a developed system, and until we get to try that system I feel our input now might be useless, I am pretty sure the devs have some decisions that are probably set in stone but we are discussing here as is they could be changed, once we know more about it I might get deeper in the discussion on how ranked works, or if mix-faction is good or not.

But until we have more information I think this discussion is kind of useless, it was usefull the first pages for me, I learnt about some people's ideas and why they prefer mixed vs not-mixed factions,etc.

I kinda agree. This isn't that important. But this is nerd talk. People here really likes that game and wanna talk about every possible things to make it cooler.

ZenBearV13
06-29-2016, 10:14 AM
Apollyon is the head of the Iron Legion, which seems to be, from the limited amount of information we have, the major army of the Knights. Daubeny, in the campaign mission, isn't a fan of the way Apollyon is handling her affairs, so he refuses to join her. That doesn't mean that he will befriend the Samurai or Vikings, or strike some sort of easy alliance with them, and it doesn't mean the leaders of those factions would agree to fight alongside one another. All it means, at this point, is that Apollyon has potential traitors in her midst, and that if she's to die, it will most likely be at the hands of another Knight.

If they set aside their differences they wouldn't be fighting.

Again, Apollyon is a leader of an army within the Knight faction (as far as we know), and if there's a splinter group there, it divides her forces either to the extent that she'd be decimated or the Knights that potentially join with the other factions would be Daubeny and whatever forces were left in his castle.

You're showing a marked lack of imagination.

We don't know for certain that Apollyon is the head of the Iron Legion, all we know is she is the warlord of the Blackstone Legion, one of many (though probably the most powerful). She might be "head of the Iron Legion," that's one path the designers could take, but we don't know.

Think about politics. People always disagree, and often those disagreements get violent. We know that the Legion is an alliance of many Warlords under a nationalist banner. We already see how the Legions can turn on one another from the Knight campaign footage. The Warborn are a bunch of hot-headed brutes, likely with a lot of Clans/Families that hold independence from their peers and would turn on one another over any number of practical or philosophical differences. The Chosen campaign revolves around an exiled commander who had "an unfortunate habit of speaking truthfully." Perhaps you rise back to prestige through the help of loyalists, and one day overthrow a corrupt Emperor who is so lost in tradition that he cannot see the true enemy, Apollyon, and the necessity of alliance. Or perhaps it could go a different direction entirely.

There are so many ways the story can be written. There are so many different stories that can be told. I would hate to see this game shackled to such a small world of three and only three factions eternally at war, never growing or changing, always exclusive and perfectly loyal to themselves. It lacks drama. It lacks purpose. It's boring.


Tell that to Planetside players who just want the Terran and Vanu to get along.
...
It could also lean on the theme to extend player involvement. For example, if they have a worldwide stat counter of how many matches were won by which factions, they could make it appear like the grand war is raging at all times. Not quite the same as Planetside, since that's literally people trundling all over continents instead of engaging in matches, but that same feeling could be approximated, if, say, when you log into multiplayer, there's a world map displayed, divided into the territories of each faction, and when, for example, a team of Knights wins a match, the borders highlighted alter to show encroachment onto Viking and Samurai lands. Then, players could watch the map change---the Vikings are coming, then the Samurai; oh no, the Samurai and Knights have won so much, the Vikings are close to losing their home---and even if you're away for months, you can come back and find the entire landscape has changed, and if your (main) faction is on the proverbial ropes, it could make players want to jump back in and push back their enemies.

Planetside's persistent world makes the concept work. A score card stating how many matches the different faction have won, no matter how you doll it up like a map, wouldn't have the same effect, IMO.


We have a disagreement on what is fun, then. Your fun is entirely mechanical. The theme is a large part of the what makes it fun for me.

Mechanically, the replay value is entirely inherent in the Art of Battle system and core gameplay mechanics, which are largely independent of Hero choice (not entirely, I'll grant you, but largely). From my perspective, deciding on a faction is fun because you are deciding on your general playstyle---defense, offense, speed (again, generally)---while at the same time acknowledging that you will be forgoing certain traits (like the lack-of-a-proper-tank example I used in a previous post). You are choosing your strength and weakness all at once. If the factions were to mix and blend in the way proposed, you could mix and match every strength and every weakness---because you know someone would find that perfect combination---and that, to me is less fun.

We do have a fundamental disagreement here. In the end, our debate here is not going to decide the fate of the game, so there's little point in debating it further.

I have a much broader vision for this game than you, it seems. I see the Art of Battle as a genre defining innovation. I see an ever expanding roster of classes that strains the limits of the system as the developers polish it to a mirror shine. I see competitive multiplayer with teams coordinating their best champions from every faction in interesting and creative strategies. I see fans creating YouTube videos with gameplay commentary and creating their own stories with Gary's Mod style machinima. I don't know what copyright laws allow, but I want to see sequels and competitor games that expand and surpass the setting, and expand and surpass the mechanics, Perhaps I will have to wait until the next For Honor to get what I want. I hope not.

You can have the last word if you want, but I'm satisfied with agreeing to disagree.

Chaf--
06-29-2016, 11:41 AM
I see the Art of Battle as a genre defining innovation.

No offense, because I'm agree with what you've wrote and I think the same way. But we really need to stop saying this. This is a nice marketting catch by Ubisoft and a good way to sell the game, but nowhere near a truth.
Melee-focused games with third persons camera aren't new. Anarchy Reigns, DBZ Budokai Tenkaichi, Gundam EXVS... The AoB's Guard system is kinda the same as some combat sports simulation like the Fight Night series or the EA UFC series. The AoB's button layout reminds people of Dark Souls'. The Feats and the 4v4 + minions aspect of the Domination mode looks like LoL or DotA.
This is bits and pieces of games and mechanics we already know, but put in a single game. The concept is clever, not ground breaking.

Friguscorde
06-29-2016, 04:29 PM
I dont know, it would be kind of dishonorable to fight against a fellows......but id be okay with it as long as none of you dishonor yourselves by retreating....nobody will retreat, you either die by their sword or mine, your choice vikings and knights


hehe

ZenBearV13
06-29-2016, 05:04 PM
No offense, because I'm agree with what you've wrote and I think the same way. But we really need to stop saying this. This is a nice marketting catch by Ubisoft and a good way to sell the game, but nowhere near a truth.
Melee-focused games with third persons camera aren't new. Anarchy Reigns, DBZ Budokai Tenkaichi, Gundam EXVS... The AoB's Guard system is kinda the same as some combat sports simulation like the Fight Night series or the EA UFC series. The AoB's button layout reminds people of Dark Souls'. The Feats and the 4v4 + minions aspect of the Domination mode looks like LoL or DotA.
This is bits and pieces of games and mechanics we already know, but put in a single game. The concept is clever, not ground breaking.

Dark Souls is a genre defining game. They didn't do anything new either; third person hack and slash in a fantasy setting with a high difficulty. How they did it is what distinguishes the game. Dark Souls set the bar because they did it so well. Now For Honor has set the bar for melee combat, and I expect/hope to see as many For Honor copies as there are Dark Souls copies.

MisterWillow
07-01-2016, 11:14 PM
We don't know for certain that Apollyon is the head of the Iron Legion, all we know is she is the warlord of the Blackstone Legion, one of many (though probably the most powerful). She might be "head of the Iron Legion," that's one path the designers could take, but we don't know.

Sorry, I meant Blackstone.


Think about politics. People always disagree, and often those disagreements get violent. We know that the Legion is an alliance of many Warlords under a nationalist banner. We already see how the Legions can turn on one another from the Knight campaign footage. The Warborn are a bunch of hot-headed brutes, likely with a lot of Clans/Families that hold independence from their peers and would turn on one another over any number of practical or philosophical differences. The Chosen campaign revolves around an exiled commander who had "an unfortunate habit of speaking truthfully." Perhaps you rise back to prestige through the help of loyalists, and one day overthrow a corrupt Emperor who is so lost in tradition that he cannot see the true enemy, Apollyon, and the necessity of alliance. Or perhaps it could go a different direction entirely.

Sure, it could be nuanced, and I'm expecting it to be a little bit. However, the devs have said the campaign sets up the multiplayer, and with Apollyon defeated, the factions would conceivably have no reason to continue the war---since it's been heavily implied that she is who's pulling strings and keeping the conflict going---and even less if there are inter-faction alliances that have united to fight her.


There are so many ways the story can be written. There are so many different stories that can be told. I would hate to see this game shackled to such a small world of three and only three factions eternally at war, never growing or changing, always exclusive and perfectly loyal to themselves. It lacks drama. It lacks purpose. It's boring.

The war lasted a thousand years... what's a thousand more?


Planetside's persistent world makes the concept work. A score card stating how many matches the different faction have won, no matter how you doll it up like a map, wouldn't have the same effect, IMO.

First, that was something off the top of my head. They could sell the atmosphere by having that map subdivided into different areas, and you can pick a section that's currently 'at conflict'. Presuming the maps in multiplayer will be sections of places you fight through during campaign, they could easily have the maps correspond to those regions, with the centre area of the larger map including maps for all three. So, when playing as Knights, you select an area in conflict on the border between Knights and Samurai, you'll get a castle map one match, and a pagoda map another match. If the Knights push the conflict deep into the Samurai region, though, you could be fighting in all samurai themed levels. You would still be able to fight Vikings, though, since it's understood that the Vikings are fighting the Samurai as well, and so it's not inconceivable that you would encounter them in the region.

I know this could present some problems, in that, if the Vikings ges pushed all the way back to their home region on the larger map, Viking players (and people attacking them) might get tired of fighting on the same handful of maps, but that could also help with the immersion---so, players would be more likely to accept the faux-persistence if they're deep the Knight region, and only fight in stone cities, than if they fight in a castle and then fight in a bamboo forest with a Shinto shrine.

Second, the persistence in Planetside isn't noticeable to me most of the time, since most conflicts are centred around capturing the large bases or outposts spread throughout the continents, some of which are exactly the same, so it feels more like a very large multiplayer map, rather than a huge war---which is compounded by the spawn trucks that people park just outside base turrets' line of sight. I admit that might be a personal thing, though, since I tend to spend a couple hours capturing/defending an outpost and then logging out once I get bored.


I have a much broader vision for this game than you, it seems. I see the Art of Battle as a genre defining innovation. I see an ever expanding roster of classes that strains the limits of the system as the developers polish it to a mirror shine. I see competitive multiplayer with teams coordinating their best champions from every faction in interesting and creative strategies. I see fans creating YouTube videos with gameplay commentary and creating their own stories with Gary's Mod style machinima. I don't know what copyright laws allow, but I want to see sequels and competitor games that expand and surpass the setting, and expand and surpass the mechanics, Perhaps I will have to wait until the next For Honor to get what I want. I hope not.

I would argue it's the opposite.

I see players invested in the theme. I see people role-playing. I see players forming rivalries, so when they encounter this person or that person it becomes a 'well, we meet again' type moment. I see people bonding over the experience of charging into battle with other members of their faction. I also see people coordinating their best warriors in interesting and creative strategies, but because they're fighting for their brethren, their homeland, their ideology, not simply to win the match. If there are machinimas created, the thematic elements will drive them. I see people making their own stories, their own memories, besting their foes, driving back an enemy army, being saved by a fellow soldier, being defeated and having to retreat.

BoldAlphawolf
07-01-2016, 11:41 PM
No offense, because I'm agree with what you've wrote and I think the same way. But we really need to stop saying this. This is a nice marketting catch by Ubisoft and a good way to sell the game, but nowhere near a truth.
Melee-focused games with third persons camera aren't new. Anarchy Reigns, DBZ Budokai Tenkaichi, Gundam EXVS... The AoB's Guard system is kinda the same as some combat sports simulation like the Fight Night series or the EA UFC series. The AoB's button layout reminds people of Dark Souls'. The Feats and the 4v4 + minions aspect of the Domination mode looks like LoL or DotA.
This is bits and pieces of games and mechanics we already know, but put in a single game. The concept is clever, not ground breaking.

I gotta say that is so wrong, ive played all those games this is something entirely different the art of battle is in its own league hands down, i agree with re inventing the wheel on domination, we havent seen all their game mode's but i bet there is going to be something fresh and new

Chaf--
07-02-2016, 07:35 PM
Dark Souls is a genre defining game. They didn't do anything new either; third person hack and slash in a fantasy setting with a high difficulty. How they did it is what distinguishes the game. Dark Souls set the bar because they did it so well.
This isn't what makes a genre. The Souls games are WRPGs. Yeah, a lot of games like Dragon's Dogma decided to take some inspiration from the series, but the WRPG genre existed before the Souls. The Elder Scrolls, Monster Hunter...
It's like saying WoW invented MMORPGs. Yeah, the game heavily modified the genre, but it didn't invented it. EverQuest existed before WoW.

We already saw some inspirations to FH from here and there. Look at Absolver. But it doesn't invent a genre. A sub-genre, tho? Totally. I already call FH a MOBA-fighter, for what it's worth.

ZenBearV13
07-03-2016, 05:18 AM
This isn't what makes a genre. The Souls games are WRPGs. Yeah, a lot of games like Dragon's Dogma decided to take some inspiration from the series, but the WRPG genre existed before the Souls. The Elder Scrolls, Monster Hunter...
It's like saying WoW invented MMORPGs. Yeah, the game heavily modified the genre, but it didn't invented it. EverQuest existed before WoW.

We already saw some inspirations to FH from here and there. Look at Absolver. But it doesn't invent a genre. A sub-genre, tho? Totally. I already call FH a MOBA-fighter, for what it's worth.

When I say genre defining, I don't mean genre inventing. I mean, from this point on the genre will be defined by this game. When you talk to people about WRPGs, Dark Souls will be your go-to example. If that makes sense.

MisterWillow
07-03-2016, 07:02 AM
When I say genre defining, I don't mean genre inventing. I mean, from this point on the genre will be defined by this game. When you talk to people about WRPGs, Dark Souls will be your go-to example. If that makes sense.

I'm completely behind you on this.

The combat system has already been compared to Mount and Blade and War of the Roses, but the Art of Battle seems to have refined that concept into something by which every other game that uses similar mechanics that comes after it will be compared to. People will say 'oh, it's a For Honor-esque game' the same way people say 'it's a Souls-esque game'.

Chaf--
07-04-2016, 01:30 AM
I don't ask everybody to learn more about this, but if someone need to compare a new gameplay with only one or 2 games... I already don't take that seriously the guys that put the Souls into the pinacle of the WRPG genre. Especially after series like the Witcher, the Elder Scrolls, Ultima, for the really old games...

Nah. Popular games != ground-breaking / genre-defining games.

waraidako
07-04-2016, 10:36 AM
Dark Souls is a JRPG though. FromSoftware is a Japanese developer.

Chaf--
07-04-2016, 06:18 PM
Dark Souls is a JRPG though. FromSoftware is a Japanese developer.

This is a common mistake than people usually do. It's expected, because it's confusing.

The Role-Playing genre is very old. Pretty much at the begining of video-games industry and usually made by text video games on micro-computers. Roughly at the same time, in Japan, the Famicom came and changed the console landscape world-wide. Companies like Square Soft and Enix, back when they were 2 companies instead of 1, began their Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy series. When in America or Europe, you had games like King's Quest, Wizardry...

They started to be really different from each other. The Japanese created more and more RPG series with a cast of characters in a colored universe while the western devs kept the fantasy aspect and let create their own hero, with an universe, more than a fleshed out quest. When it gets confusing is when western people makes Japanese-like RPG games (Child of Light) and japanese devs makes Western-like RPG games. (the Souls) They respects the codes and gameplays created by the other side of the world, but are different.

That's why the J and W doesn't explain the nationality of the devteams, but their gameplay style and ways to explain their stories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_rvM6hubs8

waraidako
07-04-2016, 10:09 PM
It stands for Japanese RPG and Western RPG. An RPG made in Japan is a JRPG, and an RPG made in the west is a WRPG. It's that simple. The term you're explaining is CRPG. Classic RPG.

There are plenty of WRPGs with linear stories and a specific cast of characters (Mass Effect) and plenty of JRPGs that let you make your own character in a great big world to explore (Dragon's Dogma)

BoldAlphawolf
07-04-2016, 11:10 PM
people are getting off topic the thread is about. I think this is going to be a really good game, we should jus let it be what it is, i seen a interview with jason vanderge an he said if your a knight you'll fight along side another group of knights ( i think it was the e3 2015 Q&A ill see if i can find the link) , now im not saying that means there wont be a game mode were factions could blend an fight on the same team i dont know, but i think we need to just let it be if factions arent blended then we need to just acccept that for what it is if you wanna play together play the same faction if you cant get beside yourself to enjoy the game with them cause you wanna play samurai 100% of the time thats on you, if teams can be blended I think that would take away from the three warrior legacies at war the game is based on, but if that was the case id still buy this game.

FLYINGvDUTCHMAN
07-05-2016, 12:16 AM
people are getting off topic the thread is about. I think this is going to be a really good game, we should jus let it be what it is, i seen a interview with jason vanderge an he said if your a knight you'll fight along side another group of knights ( i think it was the e3 2015 Q&A ill see if i can find the link) , now im not saying that means there wont be a game mode were factions could blend an fight on the same team i dont know, but i think we need to just let it be if factions arent blended then we need to just acccept that for what it is if you wanna play together play the same faction if you cant get beside yourself to enjoy the game with them cause you wanna play samurai 100% of the time thats on you, if teams can be blended I think that would take away from the three warrior legacies at war the game is based on, but if that was the case id still buy this game.

Of course we will all still buy the game regardless of whether the factions are mixed or not, but I don't think we should just accept whatever they decide to do, and not put in our own 2 cents worth, because that is what this whole forum system is set up for. So that we can make our desires heard, although I do agree with you, better to not blend the teams :)

waraidako
07-05-2016, 01:10 AM
Yeah, sorry. 7 pages, need to make course corrections to account for drift. xD

I still haven't seen any argument that sways me towards mixed teams. And from everything we've seen so far, the war between the factions is the focus of the game. I doubt they'd simply invalidate that whole premise by having the game itself be mixed battles. Even if the factions unite at some point during the story, the multiplayer will likely be set before that specifically to allow for the faction vs faction vs faction combat.

BoldAlphawolf
07-05-2016, 01:16 AM
i understand why the threads are here dont misunderstand me, I think that they should take our opinions on some stuff like on the cosmetic customization's an stuff like that, but not the core mechanics of gameplay, when i say that im not talking about the changes they make to balance the gameplay with the alpha's an beta's

Willaguy2010
07-05-2016, 02:17 AM
Yeah, sorry. 7 pages, need to make course corrections to account for drift. xD

I still haven't seen any argument that sways me towards mixed teams. And from everything we've seen so far, the war between the factions is the focus of the game. I doubt they'd simply invalidate that whole premise by having the game itself be mixed battles. Even if the factions unite at some point during the story, the multiplayer will likely be set before that specifically to allow for the faction vs faction vs faction combat.

It was stated at E3 that the MP is after the campaign and the campaign explains the state of the world and why it is the way it is when you get to MP.