PDA

View Full Version : Final release game modes ... any thoughts?



Patient_Fodder
08-17-2016, 06:13 PM
- Dominion is a 4v4 objective-based mode in which two teams of four players fight for control of the battlefield. It’s a mode that relies upon skill, communication and teamwork.

- Brawl 2v2: Each team of two players need to kill the two enemy Heroes to win a round. Skill, awareness, cooperation and the capacity to use the environment to the player’s advantage are key components.

- Duel 1v1 puts two Heroes face-to-face in a fight to the death. Skill is fundamental in Duel of course, but as in Brawl, players have the possibility to use the environment to their advantage.

- Skirmish is a 4v4 Team Death Match like mode. Combat skills are key in this mode as players score points for their team by killing enemy Heroes.

- Elimination In this 4v4 mode, the last surviving player on the battlefield wins the round for their team.


I .... i am looking forward into creating more bloodshed once more. I just which they added a bigger mode then Dominion with a lot more Soldiers. Maybe just a mode called Blood Rush or something an it be based off Moral. So theres constant fighting. But who knows, we will have to wait and see.

I would like to see more battle, and not duel (does that make sense?), oriented gamemodes.

Any other thoughts?

Edit: Source: http://www.polygon.com/2016/8/17/12515178/for-honor-news-alpha-date-pc-version-collector-s-edition-modes

WYRDB0Y
08-17-2016, 06:26 PM
TBH I was expecting something more creative modes, objective based which are not just point captures or the progressive mode many people would like to see on the forums.
With these modes they need 20 maps at launch to satisfy people imo.

Patient_Fodder
08-17-2016, 06:44 PM
I am not sure but maybe it would be enough for consoles originally (not a bash on them), but for PC it may require some more "bulk" to become really successful.
So I'd have to agree with you.

Edit: Just trying to say I find it a bit Duels/TDM heavy, nothing else

ZenBearV13
08-17-2016, 07:01 PM
I'm okay with this. I would have liked to see an Assault Mode like has been discussed, but Objective Capture, TDM, Hardcore TDM, 2v2 and 1v1 are plenty satisfying for release. Maybe we'll get more in DLC!

MisterWillow
08-17-2016, 07:08 PM
Honestly? A little disappointed. They're all pretty standard, slightly boring, a little dull. I know that the gameplay makes them unique and exciting (Duels and Dominion especially), but I was hoping for something more creative like the Siege mode that's been talked about here for a long time, a King of the Hill mode, possibly with three teams together, or that Kill the King (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1374097-Game-Mode-Kill-The-King?) mode that was proposed a while ago, or Capture the Flag.

Also was not expecting to see a straight team-deathmatch. I expect Skirmish is going to be a huge fustercluck.

Eidard
08-17-2016, 07:31 PM
Honestly? A little disappointed.

More like extremely disappointed.

Elimination sounds like 4v4 brawl, just make brawl 2v2 and 4v4, it is stupid to rename it like it is a new game mode.

Skirmish shouldn't even be a thing in this game, I don't know what the devs were thinking, it just seems like a bad decision. The art of battle is amazing but I don't see it working in a TDM.

Duel and Dominion, ok, dominion is still extremely simple and even though probably the most fun of the game modes still lacks depth strategy.

I would expect a more complex game mode, I can see the game last long, people will play it 3-4 months and stop, I don't see how the game can last with this game modes.

We have a lot of examples in the market with decent game modes to copy from, Overwatch, HoTS, LoL, Dota, Paladins, (just to name some), just make a pseudo-MOBA game mode adapted to the particularities of For Honor.

They even have tons of ideas from the forum, they could use some of those.

I already gave my feedback about game modes in the survey they sent after the alpha, hope I wasn't the only one and they listen.

Personally, it is a ****ty list of game modes.

yote224
08-17-2016, 10:24 PM
So we have:
1.Domination
2.Team Deathmatch
3A.Duel
3B. Duel with 2 players on a team
3C.Duel with 4 players on a team
That's kind of disappointing having heard so many great ideas from the community.

Not to mention the lack of "ranked" anywhere in there so the questions about matchmaking are somewhat indirectly answered with a negative response.

Fatal-Feit
08-17-2016, 11:53 PM
Hopefully it's not too late to improve the game modes.

I think the main issue is that they designed all of the maps around the main game mode, Dominion. That is probably why Duel and Brawl are just using portions of the maps, and the rest of the game modes are basically Dominion without the objectives. They can't have CTF because the maps are too small.

Still, that's no excuse for the lack of inspiring game modes. There's plenty of ideas from the fans they could implement. I haven't really read up on what's been suggested, so I'm just going to toss in some of my own ideas that may or may not have already been suggested.

1. Survival: Players are locked into the middle of the map and must work together to survive huge waves of AI enemies that are a mix between fodder enemies and heroes (each game has only one enemy faction) from both sides. The only ways to heal are by performing finishers, being revived, or surviving a round.

2. Faction vs Faction: Willow's wet dream

3. Free-for-All: No team; every man for himself.

4. Warrior Hunt: One player on each team is marked and the enemy team must kill the marked player to score a point.

Voidrek
08-18-2016, 12:28 AM
That League of Legends inspired game mode that the one dude posted on the Tech Forums sounded like it could have been quite amazing.

Being able to play a longer game mode where you slowly build up your character's gear and abilities sounds like fun.

And while Dominion is pretty cool, it still seems quite simple and could get old after a while.

I don't know, I just feel like we are missing a game mode that is a bit more involved rather than these 10 minutes or less game types that we currently have. Something MOBA inspired could literally make this game the next big thing, whereas the current offering looks like it could potentially dry out in a few months.

MathiasCB
08-18-2016, 03:14 AM
Honestly? A little disappointed. They're all pretty standard, slightly boring, a little dull. I know that the gameplay makes them unique and exciting (Duels and Dominion especially), but I was hoping for something more creative like the Siege mode that's been talked about here for a long time, a King of the Hill mode, possibly with three teams together, or that Kill the King (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1374097-Game-Mode-Kill-The-King?) mode that was proposed a while ago, or Capture the Flag.

Also was not expecting to see a straight team-deathmatch. I expect Skirmish is going to be a huge fustercluck.

As usual, I totally agree to what Willow is saying. Pretty much everything.



2. Faction vs Faction: Willow's wet dream

Not only Willows wet dream... Oh yummy yummy... please :o




Even though I expected more. If they were to add faction vs Faction... I'm totally okay with these modes as a start.

MisterWillow
08-18-2016, 04:07 AM
They can't have CTF because the maps are too small.

Maybe.

I think the smaller size would make CTF more exciting, since you're never that far away from an enemy, not really, especially if the enemy flag were actually in their spawn, or very close to it. Or, if we look at the castle map everyone's seen a thousand times, if one flag were at A and another at C, you could make it there fairly easily, but making it back could be tricky, since it is one of the longest jogs you can take across it.

The mode could also be a bit more fun in this game specifically if the flag carrier used it like a pole-arm. Every character already puts their weapon on their back when climbing ladders, so you simply stow your weapon, pick up the flag, move to your capture point, and if anyone gets in your way, you beat them to death with it. It would also mean the flag carrier wouldn't be able to use ladders, just to add that extra bit of peril. You could also surround the flag with minions you'd have to chop through first that could hurt you both on the way in and on the way out.


1. Survival: Players are locked into the middle of the map and must work together to survive huge waves of AI enemies that are a mix between fodder enemies and heroes (each game has only one enemy faction) from both sides. The only ways to heal are by performing finishers, being revived, or surviving a round.

Don't remember if I ever saw someone mention this or not, but that sounds like a great idea.


2. Faction vs Faction: Willow's wet dream

I'd rather that be the case for every mode, honestly, except for something like Duel, and maybe Brawl. I do think the latter would be made more interesting if you were faction locked, but had every faction represented---2 Knights, 2 Vikings, 2 Samurai---in one large area, though.


3. Free-for-All: No team; every man for himself.

I feel like that would be a bigger fustercluck than Skirmish.


4. Warrior Hunt: One player on each team is marked and the enemy team must kill the marked player to score a point.

That was the basis of Kill the King mentioned above; or, at least a version of it.

The other version is basically Free-for-All, you have one person designated as the King, who gets buffed health and attack power, and they get points passively like in Dominion until someone kills them, and then said Kingslayer would be King. That could borrow the mechanic of breaking from Dominion, where, after any King reaches let's say 500 points or so---the previous King's points wouldn't go away---they would then need to kill all the other players to ultimately win.

Imagine the tension of having a couple (or more) people who are really good passing the crown around, and just when one is breaking, he gets killed by someone else who is close to breaking, or even someone who wasn't doing that well earlier in the match and only has 100 points.

Sectric Fox
08-18-2016, 06:21 AM
I think most of the games modes are fine as they are, aside from team death match. If there isn't an incentive on the map or game mode to split up, teams could end up just grouping as 4 and it would be a bunch of silly swinging around. Then again, we haven't seen gameplay of it so it might be fine too.

I dont really like the MOBA style game mode someone proposed because it would be such a huge clash of ideas. For Honor is a game about beating your opponents through skillful combat, implementing a moba style mode would implement giving someone an advantage in stats, and ruin the point of the Art of Battle (a combat system that pretty much purely relies on skill). If you say that everyone would progress equally, then theres no point to the progression and would end up being just a long match.

Personally, some modes I think would be fairly creative and fitting are the following:
Tournament mode: series of one round duels among 8 players. No environmental advantages available. Top 2 players go for a best of 3. Losers have the option to spectate but may leave.
Capture the ____: classic game mode that I think would work very well. Im leaving the spot open to add some creativity. _____ bearers need to be defended as their attack capabilities would be lowered while holding the ____. The _____ should probably be a heavy item, heavily slowing the bearer/bearers to give the chance for enemy teams to catch up and not just let the bearer run past his allies while they delay the enemy.
Head hunter: Team death match style, 3v3 or 4v4, where once the enemy is slain, you need to take his/her helmet as a trophy and return it to a certain point/points (perhaps the points could change a few times during the match to incite different battle locations. Characters would have a carrying limit to incite team play and you could collect fallen allies' helmets and cash them in to deny the enemy team. Point spawn should be around the 50-50 or 60-40 yard line to let teams contest to points and not turn the mode into a foot race back and forth from your side of the map.

Edit: Just saw Willow's response to the faction lock and it gave me an idea. I don't think faction v faction should be a thing at all times, and that having a full diverse cast of 12 heroes in any match is a lot better and would make matches more diverse and fun. But I think a 2v2v2 or 3v3v3 mode would be really cool. It embraces the idea of the three warring factions and would be a mode that would be hugely different from all the other modes. It's always fun to jump into a different mode and have a much different experience than the one from another game mode.

AvarusTyrannus
08-18-2016, 08:10 AM
These are the game modes I expected. Never for a moment thought the game would launch with a mode that had more than 4 per team or more than two teams per match. I am however a little disappointed that there is no mention of ranked modes. I'd like to see these same modes have casual and ranked servers, with the ranked ones not counting stat gear, only cosmetics.

coma987
08-18-2016, 08:12 AM
These are the game modes I expected. Never for a moment thought the game would launch with a mode that had more than 4 per team or more than two teams per match. I am however a little disappointed that there is no mention of ranked modes. I'd like to see these same modes have casual and ranked servers, with the ranked ones not counting stat gear, only cosmetics.

Well there is a few months before release, maybe that is what they are working on right now, the ranked system, if you really think about it, this will be the first ever AAA medieval game that will have a big focus on ranked. So maybe they didn't talk about it as it is not ready yet.

Patient_Fodder
08-18-2016, 08:26 AM
I could not care less about ranked, I'd rather see them put all effort in gamemodes and maps.
I am going to play this one just for fun (with m/kb).
: o)

AvarusTyrannus
08-18-2016, 08:55 AM
Well there is a few months before release, maybe that is what they are working on right now, the ranked system, if you really think about it, this will be the first ever AAA medieval game that will have a big focus on ranked. So maybe they didn't talk about it as it is not ready yet.

I don't think it is uncommon for games to launch without ranked mode, but include it later, at least I know Titanfall did that. Hopefully it doesn't take too long after launch if it isn't available to begin with, but like you I don't think casual play will be enough to keep the game competitive and populated.


I could not care less about ranked, I'd rather see them put all effort in gamemodes and maps.
I am going to play this one just for fun (with m/kb).
: o)
My hope is that in ranked games gear stats wouldn't apply and skill of the player could be the dominant factor, but yes I do hope for a lot of maps...given that there is a season pass I wonder if the maps will be paid or if the season pass just gives some people early access to...something.

Patient_Fodder
08-18-2016, 09:16 AM
My hope is that in ranked games gear stats wouldn't apply and skill of the player could be the dominant factor, but yes I do hope for a lot of maps...given that there is a season pass I wonder if the maps will be paid or if the season pass just gives some people early access to...something.

I have to agree with you that anything but cosmetics should be brought into ranked and to have skill be the dominant factor.

My problem with ranked is that, quite often, most co-op is out of the window (in any game mode). Where I enjoyed Siege with many players/friends, in ranked most become overhyped screamers looking for their points and all tactics were gone. Don't get me wrong, this is their good right, all should play a game their own way, but for me the fun went straight out of the window with that. More so as people do not seem to be able to take a loss. Those poor egos you know .....

I don't want this game to be ruined for me this way, so I predict that, besides challenges or similar things, I will stay in my casual happy corner.

yote224
08-19-2016, 03:12 AM
For anyone who played Starfox 64, if you recall bogey hunt? I think it was called.

Have a 3-for-all but the objective is to score points. Points are earned by slaying minions, captains (I think they called them for the single player campaign), and bot or player controlled heroes. All are worth different amounts of points. Should you fight a player and they die, their points will be halved and they'll respawn. This match continues until someone reaches a point limit or a time limit is over and whoever has the most points wins.

Sectric Fox
08-24-2016, 09:36 PM
I have to agree with you that anything but cosmetics should be brought into ranked and to have skill be the dominant factor.

Stat changes from gear have been confirmed to be to fit different players' playstyles, and not make someone necessarily stronger. No gear will give a player a clear cut advantage over other players, so I disagree that stat changes from gear should be excluded from ranked, as that will simply limit playstyles and reduce diversity of the games.

TheBearJew411
08-24-2016, 10:11 PM
I am fine with 4v4 being the biggest it gets in terms of players....But why not a king of the hill style mode where there is a single capture point on the map and it is a four man free for all to hold the point......and I do feel a faction wars playlist should have been there even tough it would probably have been very unbalanced and a pain to matchmake.Still people wanted that mode and I do think there should have been one mode that swaped between the two 4v4 game modes for it......hopefully they do like the first titanfall did and add loads of modes for free as the game progresses......I personally wanted an assault mode where you like start outside the castle then lead a battering ram to the gate fighting as you do then it breaks down into a point control section as you fight to control the courtyard and at the end transitions into a team deathmatch scenario where you have to finally kill everyone inside the keep to win.....It would be a lot on the attacking team so make it turn based and whoever does the best on attack wins the game.....Just my idea.

Pallbearer7
08-24-2016, 10:17 PM
Stat changes from gear have been confirmed to be to fit different players' playstyles, and not make someone necessarily stronger. No gear will give a player a clear cut advantage over other players, so I disagree that stat changes from gear should be excluded from ranked, as that will simply limit playstyles and reduce diversity of the games.

Tons of games come out with that same mantra. It's always a huge problem to balance things so exactly that there is no small imbalance. The problem is that perfect balance is nigh impossible, so just to prevent tons of petty squabbles between pros over little gear advantages, it's better for there to be absolutely no advantage possible. I am sure they will attempt to make the game as balanced as possible, but different stats will always end up with tiny little imbalances, there's nothing we can do.

Also in terms of game types I'm absolutely stoked they have a duel mode. I really really hope it's like Chivalry's duel where everyone ends up in a lobby with up to 20 or so other players, and you can chill in the lobby and ask certain people to duel, or duel someone random. After each match you end up back in the lobby and can ask someone else to duel or you can watch anyone else's duel that's also in the lobby. That way we can get some good ol' spectating in.

TheBearJew411
08-24-2016, 10:30 PM
Also in terms of game types I'm absolutely stoked they have a duel mode. I really really hope it's like Chivalry's duel where everyone ends up in a lobby with up to 20 or so other players, and you can chill in the lobby and ask certain people to duel, or duel someone random. After each match you end up back in the lobby and can ask someone else to duel or you can watch anyone else's duel that's also in the lobby. That way we can get some good ol' spectating in.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if you have ever played the Mortal Kombat style king of the hill mode where you spectate and wait in a line to play and winner stays on and you can rank the matches you watch.

Patient_Fodder
08-24-2016, 10:32 PM
Stat changes from gear have been confirmed to be to fit different players' playstyles, and not make someone necessarily stronger. No gear will give a player a clear cut advantage over other players, so I disagree that stat changes from gear should be excluded from ranked, as that will simply limit playstyles and reduce diversity of the games.

Well as I said earlier, I'd prefer no ranked whatsoever.

I can however understand why people who would like to see ranked would rather not have any influences from any stats, and keep it bare bones.

Not taking away abilities, mr Tyrannus was talking gear stats, so how that would influence gamestyles I do not know. If it would influence gamestyles, I agree with your point made.

Pallbearer7
08-24-2016, 10:50 PM
I'm not sure if you have ever played the Mortal Kombat style king of the hill mode where you spectate and wait in a line to play and winner stays on and you can rank the matches you watch.

That sounds really awesome and in the same vein as Chivalry's duel mode. It's got the whole kinda casual, sit back and fight when it's your turn/you choose. And you can watch whilst you're not fighting. Just a really great idea. I hope they implement it in that way.

Patient_Fodder
08-25-2016, 09:38 AM
...... that are a mix between fodder, enemies and heroes ........

Wait I just spotted that, well, see you on the battlefield!

(okok, I conveniently added a comma)

Echo_Magnus
08-25-2016, 11:19 AM
I'd imagine there will be more in time. I have a feeling they want to let the game release and make sure eveything is steady before they begin introducing more game modes. There is after all, a season pass that is/will be available with the game.

Trying to anticipate or declare what modes would be "fun" now isn't such a great idea. With a more narrowed list, this gives the Devs the opportunity to flesh out any issues in the gameplay. It also allows for the players to naturally produce desired game modes AFTER the game has been released, and players have had a chance to play the game.

We can sit around a table of ideas, but without having extensive play time in the game -- we can only speculate.

Patient_Fodder
08-25-2016, 11:59 AM
I'd imagine there will be more in time. I have a feeling they want to let the game release and make sure eveything is steady before they begin introducing more game modes. There is after all, a season pass that is/will be available with the game.

Trying to anticipate or declare what modes would be "fun" now isn't such a great idea. With a more narrowed list, this gives the Devs the opportunity to flesh out any issues in the gameplay. It also allows for the players to naturally produce desired game modes AFTER the game has been released, and players have had a chance to play the game.

We can sit around a table of ideas, but without having extensive play time in the game -- we can only speculate.

Are people willing to pay (again) for future unknown releases? The question was if people were satisfied with the final release game modes, to which the answer seems to be no for the majority who responded. Everybody then of course adds what they would have preferred to see, which is fine.

The more debate there is on what people like, the more possible useful information there may be for the Devs.

I assume that there are 1000s of hours worth of gameplay in games on this forum, I guess the forum population does have an idea on what they would like to see based on their experience of game modes in other games.

What this has to do with speculation of any kind is something I fail to see.

IGotNothing111
08-25-2016, 03:08 PM
While the modes may get boring after a while, i think that i will still enjoy at least half of them. I hope they would add more as the game goes on

topeira1980
08-25-2016, 08:16 PM
For Honor will have a strong start and will die really quickly.
EVOLVE became obsolete really quickly (what was it? two months) and that game was a heck of a lot deeper than For Honor.

For Honor is very .... shallow. simplistic. The combat system and graphics look all really impressive, but the Game modes look super simplistic and mundane and nothing to hold interest for long.
I bet the rationality behind this is paid DLC. :(


A mod I would love to see is a mode where each team has a leader. if a team member kills enemy players these players respawn. if a leader kills an enemy than that enemy remains dead. if the leader dies than his team stops respawning.
other members in this forum suggested few mods they would want to see but when small indie devs and their games (like chivalry and War of the roses) can produce far more interesting game modes with way more players than UBI seems just greedy (because more game modes will be plaid DLC) or amateurish.

AvarusTyrannus
08-25-2016, 08:55 PM
For Honor will have a strong start and will die really quickly.
EVOLVE became obsolete really quickly (what was it? two months) and that game was a heck of a lot deeper than For Honor.

For Honor is very .... shallow. simplistic. The combat system and graphics look all really impressive, but the Game modes look super simplistic and mundane and nothing to hold interest for long.
I bet the rationality behind this is paid DLC. :(


A mod I would love to see is a mode where each team has a leader. if a team member kills enemy players these players respawn. if a leader kills an enemy than that enemy remains dead. if the leader dies than his team stops respawning.
other members in this forum suggested few mods they would want to see but when small indie devs and their games (like chivalry and War of the roses) can produce far more interesting game modes with way more players than UBI seems just greedy (because more game modes will be plaid DLC) or amateurish.

Evolve had a lot of problems leading to it's demise, poor balance and the most anti-consumer DLC plan to date were likely leading factors. I don't really find it valid to compare this game to things like M&B or Chiv when they are so clearly going to different things, I suppose being melee mulitplayer the connection will always be made, but I think For Honor is something else. I sure hope it doesn't die out quickly.

topeira1980
08-25-2016, 09:14 PM
Evolve had a lot of problems leading to it's demise, poor balance and the most anti-consumer DLC plan to date were likely leading factors. I don't really find it valid to compare this game to things like M&B or Chiv when they are so clearly going to different things, I suppose being melee mulitplayer the connection will always be made, but I think For Honor is something else. I sure hope it doesn't die out quickly.

i dont see a ton of difference between chivaly and WOTR. (I never used M&B as an example because M&B is completely different).
AS a melee fighter there are a LOT of things that shallow shooters have but FH doesnt - shooters use the environment a lot for cover, different engagement ranges, sniping positions, flanking positions etc. Shooters have weapons that vary sgreatly, as apposed to difference in FH's weapons that are all, pretty much, alike. Because shooters have greater veriety in mechanic an in how different the engagements are thanks to the terrain and map design (while a melee fight will be 90% the same everywhere, bar a few locations with traps and pits) than shooters can get away with simplistic modes.

For Honor can't. and even without Evolves abusive DLC plan and imbalances i fear FH will disappear really Quickly for lack of variety. i dont know if balance will be a problem since i feel like most classes are going to be so much alike that they wont matter so much.
in any case - the game seems really bare boned from all im seeing, even if the two extra classes will be cool.

My only realy big question is what kind of Co-op will be there. Because if the co-op will look like something i can replay over and over again i might change my mind.

AvarusTyrannus
08-25-2016, 09:28 PM
i dont see a ton of difference between chivaly and WOTR. (I never used M&B as an example because M&B is completely different).
AS a melee fighter there are a LOT of things that shallow shooters have but FH doesnt - shooters use the environment a lot for cover, different engagement ranges, sniping positions, flanking positions etc. Shooters have weapons that vary sgreatly, as apposed to difference in FH's weapons that are all, pretty much, alike. Because shooters have greater veriety in mechanic an in how different the engagements are thanks to the terrain and map design (while a melee fight will be 90% the same everywhere, bar a few locations with traps and pits) than shooters can get away with simplistic modes.

For Honor can't. and even without Evolves abusive DLC plan and imbalances i fear FH will disappear really Quickly for lack of variety. i dont know if balance will be a problem since i feel like most classes are going to be so much alike that they wont matter so much.
in any case - the game seems really bare boned from all im seeing, even if the two extra classes will be cool.

My only realy big question is what kind of Co-op will be there. Because if the co-op will look like something i can replay over and over again i might change my mind.

Why are we talking about shooters now? Pick a lane, I was saying games like WOTR, Chiv, and M&B handle similarly, lots of sliding around the target high player/target count madness. For Honor is going for more of a focused arcade kind of duel. I find that preferable, which isn't to say that I don't enjoy M&B or Chiv crazy gamemodes, but I think the goal here is something different. In my experience playing, the characters handle quite differently and are best played in a different manner.

Just seems rather uninformed to say For Honor looks bare bones and compare it to something like Chiv where the lion's share of content is added post release by mods and player designed gamemodes.

There will be Co-Op singleplayer campaign.

MisterWillow
08-25-2016, 09:58 PM
For Honor is very .... shallow. simplistic. The combat system and graphics look all really impressive, but the Game modes look super simplistic and mundane and nothing to hold interest for long.

While I don't think the modes themselves are all that imaginative, to say that makes the game shallow is unwarranted. I could play Dominion for hours and hours and hours, and if I ever do get bored, I can hop in Duels and have a fighting-game experience, because the game is entirely reliant on its mechanics, and the fighting system---both in regard to 1v1 and group fights---makes every single engagement unique.

T_Sesh
08-25-2016, 10:11 PM
i dont see a ton of difference between chivaly and WOTR. (I never used M&B as an example because M&B is completely different).
AS a melee fighter there are a LOT of things that shallow shooters have but FH doesnt - shooters use the environment a lot for cover, different engagement ranges, sniping positions, flanking positions etc. Shooters have weapons that vary sgreatly, as apposed to difference in FH's weapons that are all, pretty much, alike. Because shooters have greater veriety in mechanic an in how different the engagements are thanks to the terrain and map design (while a melee fight will be 90% the same everywhere, bar a few locations with traps and pits) than shooters can get away with simplistic modes.

For Honor can't. and even without Evolves abusive DLC plan and imbalances i fear FH will disappear really Quickly for lack of variety. i dont know if balance will be a problem since i feel like most classes are going to be so much alike that they wont matter so much.
in any case - the game seems really bare boned from all im seeing, even if the two extra classes will be cool.

My only realy big question is what kind of Co-op will be there. Because if the co-op will look like something i can replay over and over again i might change my mind.

I have to disagree with your arguments regarding the use of environments in this game and the weapon play styles. If anything, you make very direct use of the environments in this game, more so than most shooters do even. Positioning matters more in this game, not just because of the environmental hazards that you can toss people onto/into/over, but also when you are outnumbered for instance, you are not going to want to be in an open space where you can be flanked, you are going to want to flee to a space where your attackers can only really attack you one at a time, such as a narrow hallway for instance. There are also ambushing spots to take into account, such as high ground where you might be attacked from above in killed in one shot. In regards to weapons, sure there are different types in shooters - assault rifles, shotguns etc, but I think the different classes in this game are supposed to largely fill that role. Even with just the vanguard types that we've seen so far, plays have said that each character feels and plays much different than the other characters from the other factions in that same archetype.

ir0cklee
08-25-2016, 11:10 PM
I think they are really banking on how fun n' complex the combat is. Because all these modes, except dominion, are basically the same tdm-esque gameplay with different numbers of players.

Given that most of us play Overwatch and do the same basic 3 gamemodes over and over, I can't really bash these guys too hard.

I am sure they are going to come out with more innovative ones post-release.

Echo_Magnus
08-26-2016, 05:32 AM
If TL;DR, just read this: Let the mass of the players decide when they actually get their hands on the product. Until then, we're just spit-balling ideas, and not any one of us has enough experience with this game to even ponder what we think might be a good game mode. What works for one game may not for this. Spending Development hours on other modes before anyone knows for certain that those modes will work is literally a waste of time and money.

As per paying for additional content in the future... I'm not going to assume they'll make us pay for a new game mode. The season pass just signifies that the Devs have committed themselves to not just launching the game, but further enhancing it in the future. These enhancements may or may not come behind a pay wall. Alpha/Beta = Appetizers, Release = Main course, DLC/etc.= Dessert. I fully expect to pay for dessert.

Below I elaborate.


Are people willing to pay (again) for future unknown releases? The question was if people were satisfied with the final release game modes, to which the answer seems to be no for the majority who responded. Everybody then of course adds what they would have preferred to see, which is fine.

This is a valid point, and I can understand people being communally dissatisfied with the options that will be available day one. But we can speak to our dissatisfaction all day -- it is merely speculation. For all we know, the game will launch, and a third of the game modes listed will barely see use.

As for paying for them... Well I don't like the idea of paying for a game more than once anymore then the next player... I don't know what to say here other than that is just the direction the industry is moving in. And despite the opinions of most players on the forums stating how much they hate paying for DLC's, etc. -- this just doesn't show in the market as most players will flesh out the cash when the time comes (especially if they enjoy the game).

As players I believe that we need to adapt to the changing market and recognize that there are costs associated with big budget games. We get the quality of games that we do today because of the size and experience of the Devs teams available .As a result of these ever expanding Development companies, the cost of the game and subsidiary products will reflect that. In return we get a better game.


The more debate there is on what people like, the more possible useful information there may be for the Devs.

Certainly if people unanimously agree on a specific game mode that is currently absent, the Devs should consider adding this. However I wouldn't put it past the Devs that their reasoning for this may or may not be due to inherent limitations in the current Engine they're using for the game. Moreover, it appears there is some pseudo-story wrapped up in the multiplayer maps, and maybe some of the game modes being suggested are "outside" of the direction they're trying to go with the games multiplayer. But having not played the game myself, my opinion carries very little weight here.


I assume that there are 1000s of hours’ worth of gameplay in games on this forum, I guess the forum population does have an idea on what they would like to see based on their experience of game modes in other games.

I hear you, but this pales in comparison to the tens of thousands of hours that players will log within the first week of the game. As it stands, it is a very small, focused group that would/is be speculating what may be interesting to the rest of the players. I've just seen too many instances where a game launched with more game modes then were actually utilized. What was thought to be a good idea, turned out to not draw a very large crowd.

Put plainly, we can't assume that based on our experiences with other games, that we will enjoy those same modes in this game. I mean we can literally look at these other games and see the modes that don't/didn't get used. In the end I believe the majority of the player base will settle on 2-3 games modes that are already available, and the rest will only see the occasional visit.


What this has to do with speculation of any kind is something I fail to see.

Speculation in this case is players speculating what they think would be a good game mode when, without trial, could lead to an unused game mode that the Devs would/will have spent time on -- only for the players to abandon those modes for whatever their reasons.

I'm more suggesting that we give the game a chance, and see if we are in fact not satisfied with the available games modes, instead of assuming we aren't based on a list. I'm not sure how many maps there will be available, so we haven't even factored in that variation. For that matter we'll have to wait and see how many players actually show up for the game. If there isn't a large draw to the game, then the game runs the risk of having too many options, and not enough players to fill out those options.

Patient_Fodder
08-26-2016, 09:54 AM
Can't do the step by step as the text becomes too long.
So I'll try it this way.

I am sorry Mr Echo_Magnus,

But I think you are dead wrong in many ways. You underestimate the player knowledge, and you overestimate corporate wisdom. If you had read the various posts around, there are a load of proven gamemodes people suggest, it has nothing to do with money (I worked for corporates for the past 18 years, including software development).

I have been gaming for 37 years (and no I did not start playing at birth), you doubt that experience? How about people who already took part in last year's Alpha, or the recent TT? Do they not have valid hands on experience and did they not give their individual , not community, feedback to Ubisoft based on their experience with the game in the then current state?

On paying for unknown future releases. I am not dissatisfied, yet, I am speaking from experience from a game Ubi published. That is why I put the question forward. I bought the gold edition for Siege, I have not played as much as I would have for various reasons, but I still sit on a load of earnings ingame which I cannot use. I do not want to have undisclosed content in a game, not talking dlcs. The question was not "will you be satisfied with dlcs and their content", the question still is, "do you feel the release game modes are enough?" The season pass has unknown content, on that topic, but one is already expected to pay 40 euros in advance (no discount price) without knowing what will be in it? Have you played Siege? I fell for that season pass and am now sitting on 384000+ renown. A waste of real money.

Alphas and Betas are test phases, not the appetiser. An appetiser is a finished product by itself.
I do not believe that we have to accept this moving market as players. However, the more people do accept it as you do, the less likely it is to change again for the better (although Ubisoft did take a turn by not splitting the community in siege, or making it pay to win, all credits there).

On your ideas on cost I have to disagree again.
The company has a fixed amount of fte-s, they will need to provide for the needs of the company, and will do so in virtual teams. The resources are shared from Support to higher Management. This is to make products more profitable. I as a consumer care not about if, and how much money they make, I care about the money I am about to spend and the quality/quantity of the product. They have planned their titles way in advance and the cost model is relatively fixed, that is where the Project or Programme Manager (ok they call it Director) comes in. There is a predefined budget to develop a product. This will not grow all of the sudden, it may merely be rechanneled if required and will be at the expense of those developments where the budget was pulled from.

On the players debating what they like.
What I was trying to say is that the more debate there is, the more novelties may come up, or errors can be avoided. This may not be nessecary, true, but then why have feedback closed forums on tests? The same on selected testgroups? If the idea is not feasible they will discard it. What you are saying basically is, do not voice your individual opinion, but that is exactly what is asked for. Nowhere have I seen a request to come up with a community suggestion. I brought up thousands of hours as I did not want to go into rediculous numbers, but I alone have over 25000 hours in games, I own (from C64 onward) about 1800 games at least I guess on various platforms. Any data they require should be obtained from tests prior to the release date.

I can therefore easily "assume" what I will or will not play. This is not a speculation, based on the release list, Dominion is the only mode that appeals to me, that is a fact.
I cannot speak for others however.

But I am not trying to convince you. I like the debate and your effort put into this. Hell I even encourage you to voice your opinion as much as possible for reasons I already stated. Your individual voice matters, never give up that freedom or right.
: o)

I think we will have to agree to disagree for now and see where we stand coming Februari.

So back to the original question of the topic, I can conclude that you are satisfied with the announced modes?

topeira1980
08-26-2016, 10:40 AM
I think they are really banking on how fun n' complex the combat is. Because all these modes, except dominion, are basically the same tdm-esque gameplay with different numbers of players.

Given that most of us play Overwatch and do the same basic 3 gamemodes over and over, I can't really bash these guys too hard.

I am sure they are going to come out with more innovative ones post-release.


I think they are really banking on how fun n' complex the combat is. Because all these modes, except dominion, are basically the same tdm-esque gameplay with different numbers of players.

Given that most of us play Overwatch and do the same basic 3 gamemodes over and over, I can't really bash these guys too hard.

I am sure they are going to come out with more innovative ones post-release.

i share the worry.
the thing that makes the difference between MP game modes in FH is the logic, reasoning and strategy that governs your decisions. the decision behind "where should i go on the map now" is what makes the difference in MP games, mostly. in dominion there is a constant desire to balance the CPs (capture points) to your teams favor. so it's different than the other 3, but the other 3 are all very much the same.
The dynamics the govern where you go are identical. all the mode that only have a purpose of killing other players are going to contain the EXACT same thing dominion has minus the CP strategy.
Duel is 1v1, but 1v1 exists all the time in dominion so it's nothing new.
I think i will enjoy the no-respawn mode more since THAT is different than the combat in dominion because dominion has only a brief moment of that.

i think that FH has a little problem - the combat is meant for 1v1 mostly. 1v2 is a done deal 90% of the time, unlike in shooters. because of that the balance of the map, the game modes and the SP campaign is so that players would most likely fight 1 other opponent. not more, because that's not much fun nor fair. this greatly limits the variety of the game modes and it definitely limits the possibilities of the campaign.
This is why im pretty positive the campaign will be a flop. a big one.

About overwatch - i dont play that game so my assumptions are just assumption but in a game like this, or in counter strike and such there is variety because of the fire arms. the difference between a long range engagement is far greater than in melee combat. you can snipe form above, shoot from below, use windows as cover, run up close to use your shotgun or stay far away to use your carbine. you can kill an enemy quickly from behind or have a longer fire fight from the front and afar. Not to mention that overwatch has characters that are vastly different. all these things are not present in FH or any other melee game. in these games it's all combat form 6 feet away, face to face. that's it.
There is no real stealth, no archery, no magic or medium range combat.... every two characters fight the same - block in 3 directions, bash and break the opponents guard. it's all very much the same. while i really like how the combat mechanics sound and look, im just saying its far more limiting than other games.

@Tnigz - now, i agree with what you said that there is indeed significance in map layout in the fights in FH, but the layout isnt nearly as important as in shooters. i just think that eventually people will grow tired of the game much faster than in most other MP games out there.

Sure, it looks like a lot of fun now, but no man sky seems like fun before you play it... and even when you do play it its fun... for a few hours. than you understand there is nothing else to it besides the initial excitement. there's not much room to grow and more to see. if 3 of the 4 modes in FH are oil boiling down to "run around, see a player - run to him and kill him" than that'll be shallow and boring quickly. Dominion has slightly more depth as you need to judge where to run, who to fight, when to retreat, but having just ONE mode like this is... disappointing. and on such small maps too. the smaller the map - the less possibilities it has for variety.

While i get why 4vs4 requires small maps - i also think that in this case this game needs to have more than 15 maps at lauch included in the 60$ price tag.... and i highly doubt UBI will be so understanding.

i hope im wrong and FH will hold on stronger than what im thinking, but the writing on the wall is foreboding, sadly.
at least that's how I read it.


@Patient_Fodder - that was a very nice and interesting post. well said.

Patient_Fodder
08-26-2016, 11:05 AM
Thank you kindly mr Topeira!
: o)

Echo_Magnus
08-26-2016, 09:21 PM
But I am not trying to convince you. I like the debate and your effort put into this. Hell I even encourage you to voice your opinion as much as possible for reasons I already stated. Your individual voice matters, never give up that freedom or right.

Thank you, and you as well.


I think we will have to agree to disagree for now and see where we stand coming Februari.

Agreed, and I would have mentioned the same. But I'd like you to know that you were heard, and I'm reconsidering my opinion.


So back to the original question of the topic, I can conclude that you are satisfied with the announced modes?

I'm thirsty for game time more then anything. But I'll post that seperately so our conversation and what is on topic are not too closely tied together.

It was good meeting you PF.

Echo_Magnus
08-26-2016, 09:32 PM
If I am being comepletely honest, I am satisfied. But after speaking with Patient_Fodder, I understand where players are coming from.

The way I see it though is I can combat players 1v1 to settle any disagreements. I can pair up with a friend in 2v2 to kill time while I'm waiting for others to get online. Then I can turn into 1 of 3, 4v4 game modes when all my peers are ready to rock out.

Though I may like to see something similar to what the OP posted; a larger map maybe including 8v8+. But this would have to be done right, otherwise they just turn into a Gankfest/Cluster F.

Patient_Fodder
08-26-2016, 10:41 PM
If I am being comepletely honest, I am satisfied. But after speaking with Patient_Fodder, I understand where players are coming from.

The way I see it though is I can combat players 1v1 to settle any disagreements. I can pair up with a friend in 2v2 to kill time while I'm waiting for others to get online. Then I can turn into 1 of 3, 4v4 game modes when all my peers are ready to rock out.

Though I may like to see something similar to what the OP posted; a larger map maybe including 8v8+. But this would have to be done right, otherwise they just turn into a Gankfest/Cluster F.

All for the better if you are satisfied. : o)
Let's hope for the best with the final product and the season pass.

I am looking forward to our next conversation, it was a very good exchange and I really appreciate that, thank you.

Mr.Riot
08-27-2016, 11:22 PM
I think one more unique game mode wouldn't hurt. I mean I'm just afraid that dominion can just go stale at anytime. With Dominion being the core game mode, if it happens to go stale I don't think the other 4 team deathmatch modes are gonna be able to hold people over.

If you get bored of Dominion, how is any the team death match mode suppose to be more fun? Your taking away objectives and team play. The 4 of you are just gonna charge into the other 4. Same with the 2v2. How else would you play? What situation would have you separate as viable strategy. Perhaps having a guy trying to go for jump kills from a ledge but i cant see any other strategy to team death match other than just grouping the whole time.

I can at least see the 1v1 being a decent mode just because for what it is. If you want a 1v1 someone with no interruptions and to have a fight that proves your skill, then there you go.

The game looks really good and no doubt I am excited. But I still have dreadful feeling that the game can possibly get too repetitive. In the end haven't played the game so I don't know how I would feel about it. Hope I get into the beta.

Great_Gundyr
08-28-2016, 06:13 AM
Hopefully it's not too late to improve the game modes.

I think the main issue is that they designed all of the maps around the main game mode, Dominion. That is probably why Duel and Brawl are just using portions of the maps, and the rest of the game modes are basically Dominion without the objectives. They can't have CTF because the maps are too small.

Still, that's no excuse for the lack of inspiring game modes. There's plenty of ideas from the fans they could implement. I haven't really read up on what's been suggested, so I'm just going to toss in some of my own ideas that may or may not have already been suggested.

1. Survival: Players are locked into the middle of the map and must work together to survive huge waves of AI enemies that are a mix between fodder enemies and heroes (each game has only one enemy faction) from both sides. The only ways to heal are by performing finishers, being revived, or surviving a round.

2. Faction vs Faction: Willow's wet dream

3. Free-for-All: No team; every man for himself.

4. Warrior Hunt: One player on each team is marked and the enemy team must kill the marked player to score a point.

Some of these are very good but before I give my opinion on them I just want to say the gamemode "Skirmish" which is already in the alpha I feel is very redundant. Elimination is better because no respawns is very intense and fun, and if players want a 4v4 gamemode with respawns they can play Dominion. The 2v2, and 1v1 gamemodes are fantastic and intense and should be kept.

Now for the post I quoted, DEVELOPERS! Less isn't always more, repetition is a big problem in today's industry. I understand you don't want to divide the player base up with many gamemodes, but with the initial release of this game I believe it's best to implement a good handful of gamemodes to choose from, all unique in their own way to keep the community hooked. Don't be Overwatch with only three gamemodes, albeit solid ones the game is already losing it's fun juices for me and many others.

The gamemodes quoted above:

1. Survival: This is Genius! Sort of like Gears of Wars' survival mode, banding players together to face waves of increasingly difficult enemies is always fun and a refreshing break from straight up PvP oriented gamemodes and can even keep players hooked into the game's lore through these somewhat made-up scenarios. Survival would be great for ranked/leaderboards. I love the idea you came up with heals in this mode as well, I hope the developers do this.

2. Faction vs Faction: I actually thought this was what the game was going to be before seeing gameplay footage! This would be great for immersion/lore. Unranked only since same class heroes with different abilities and other reasons. I don't have the alpha but I can assume.

3. Free for All: Yes. No exception. Ranked/leaderboards. If this isn't implemented (the gamemode atleast) in the final version I will be extremely disappointed. There needs to be a Free for All.

4. Warrior Hunt: I'm not too sure about these Protect the "VIP" gamemodes. Like I said above, I feel the developers when they don't want to divide the player base up into too many gamemodes and I feel this would be one of the less populated/empty ones. Although it does spark the idea of two gamemodes which come to mind: A Siege based Offense/Defense gamemode in which the defensive team must protect several capture points from the offensive team, increasing difficulty in capturing each point for the offensive team the further they get, before flipping sides. And another in which an offensive team escorts a payload/trojan/chariot to its destination stopping at several checkpoints while the defensive team tries to stop them as early as possible before switching sides. Both of these gamemodes are highly competitive and fun and would be great for ranked/leaderboards. They're in Overwatch known as "Payload" and "Assualt".

Sylentmana
08-31-2016, 04:51 AM
These all seem fine for a basic game, but I'd like to see more modes that require strategic planning and maneuvering.

SliceOBread
08-31-2016, 12:49 PM
I'm interested if in future there would be some kind of huge battle game mode. Like dominion but with more players and points, like 10v10 with 5 points to take over. But not with maps so small, but spread a little more as to make it more tactical since getting from point A to C would mean less manpower in that part of the map. I mean some mode which would "simulate" large size battle.

About having 20 different maps. I think even at pc 6-8 maps but polished would be fine. Of course soon someone will flame war since counter strike has so many maps, but speaking the truth at start there were many maps but only few were played. When new maps were added and their hype went down from each 10 maps people most likely have played 1.

Niightsz
08-31-2016, 06:41 PM
Hey guys - long time lurker I figure now is as good a time as any to join in the discussion


I agree that most of the game modes could dry up quite easily, I don't like the suggestion of 5v5 or any more Game modes that mess with the original formula that the developers created.

Although through this thread I have seen some very good suggestions

1. Survival Ala gears of war for obvious reasons that have already been stated

2. A kill or capture the king mode where the king gets double points for kills and opposing team can only score points by killing the king (aka 1 VIP on each team)

3. A siege mode (what the people want the people should get nuff said)

Finally

I see some complaints about skirmish (saying it will be a giant cluster F) . I believe this could be mitigated via the addition of ai controlled soldiers and a Moral based system similar to dynasty warriors . So as you score more points the map becomes increasingly controlled by your teams forces

Any feedback appreciated and I really hope the develops are reading this I'm not sure how active they are on the boards

This game has so much potential to be great given the formula and potential for cross platform play that could blur the lines of gaming as we know it ;)

Patient_Fodder
08-31-2016, 09:19 PM
Hey guys - long time lurker I figure now is as good a time as any to join in the discussion


Welcome to the forum, thread and debate!
: o)