PDA

View Full Version : For Honor - Specify your (Dis-)Honor



ShuyinVardiz
01-10-2017, 07:42 PM
Hi guys!

Just remembered a fight from a previous alpha and a 'discussion' I had in that one.
Now I am curious how you define "honorable" or "dishonorable" acts in matches and different gamemodes.
Please specify each of them for Duell, Brawl, Dominion, Elimination and Skirmish. If you are still unsure of one of these thoughts you can mark it with () to show thats your current thought but not totally sure yet.

/Edit:
I didnt expect so many (detailled) answers, so I thought I'd 'provide' a way to keep your answer short.
Feel free to answer in your own words, I appreciate every comment on this topic!

Which environmental exploits do you consider honorable?
A: Everything is honorable, death is death.
B: Fire or water fountains (damaging effects) are honorable; instant kill effects aint.

X: Exploiting environmental effects is always (dis-)honorable, related to choise of A/B.
Y: Exploiting environmental effects is only honorable if used by passive pushes, like the forced backpushes from heavy hits. The explicit use of guardbreaks to throw an enemy into them is cheap and thus unhonorable.

P: If choosen Y, its also still honorable if forcefully pushed into damaging effects (B) with pushing attacks like shield-/shoulderbashs or the likes as these are no grabs.
Q: If choosen Y, its also still honorable if forcefully pushed into any environmental effects, including spikes and ledges, using pushing attacks like shield-/shoulderbashes.

M: Outnumbering an enemy is honorable and legit, in any case and situation (including interfering in execution animations).
N: Outnumbering an enemy is unhonorable and thus not legit. Interfering in execution animations (for example in Brawl) is also unhonorable.
O: Outnumbering an enemy is unhonorable and thus not legit. Interfering in execution animations meanwhile is fair and legit.

Following are my opinions:
Duell: B-Y |
I want a duell based on combat skills and only acknowledge death by ledges or any other map effects if driven into them by my own faulty movement and positioning.
Brawl: B-Y-(P)-N |
I like Brawls as duells with the chance of facing two enemys in a row. Thats not how they are meant, but I like to use them that way.
Dominion: A-X-M |
Its dominion. Neither I nor my team have time to watch you finish 1v1's. Hurry or get overwhelmed.
Elimination: (A)-X-M |
Unlike Brawl, Elimination is a tactical 4v4 team deathmatch. I dont like the huge impact feats have, but beside that I support everything.
Skirmish: A-X-M |
Skirmish is the stupid little brother of Dominion. I dont like it and thus accept everything that happens in this gamemode.


So, how are your thoughts about this?
Feel free to leave an as detaillled answer as you like, or just keep it short with the lettercode. I'm curious!


PS:
I forgott to mention. Option 'Y' includes throwing people off from ledges by positioning them with their back towards a ledge or whatever and countering their guardbreak. So when choosing Y it may be unhonorable to throw people with guardbreaks off a cliff, but it would STILL be honorable to throw them off a cliff by countering their guardbreak intentionally and thus forcing them backwards off a ledge or whatever.

PPS:
Judging by some comments I think I should clarify one thing:
Dont misunderstand me; considering something as unhonorable doesnt mean I complain or dont acknowledge my lose. This is purely for the sake of which way of fighting you usually 'accept' and which you wouldnt use as long as your opponent doesnt do so.
Calling specific actions "unhonorable" thus doesnt mean your opponent is cheap or a bad player, it will only mark them as "preferably not rely'd on" in your opinion, saying you'll usually only do so if your enemy does. Neither you nor anyone else trying to play "honorable" is thus in any way better, its just another way of playing this game and judging its opportunitys differently.

iHunny
01-10-2017, 08:02 PM
As long its within the game and not exploiting a perhaps design or programing flaw, everything go. Its not honorable seeing your comrade die in a one vs one if you could help and save him. If I finnished my opponent in the 2vs2 brawl befor my companion did, I did wait and see who would win :P. So for me it depends on the mode played.

TCTF_SWAT
01-10-2017, 08:13 PM
Can you even fall of ledges that kill you in duels by yourself? If you can I've never seen it. I thought barriers protected you from killing yourself while in duels or brawls.

But it would be pretty funny watching zerks, raiders and warden's and even orchis charge at you near a ledge dodge it and watch them fall. I'd get a kick out of that.

SournoisFox
01-10-2017, 08:17 PM
The way I personally see it from the footage I watched so far:

Environmental kills are honorable except if you are spamming guardbreak, trying to throw someone off the ledge. Exquisite one-push environmental kills are honorable, though.

Overwhelming an opponent is legit, you have Revenge at your disposal if you are capable of blocking attacks. It may, however, seem a bit annoying in Brawl, but it is a legit tactic, and you have Revenge, so you can deal with it.

Not sure what interfering with execution animations are, so I can't give my opinion on that one.


These apply to every gamemode.

ShuyinVardiz
01-10-2017, 08:28 PM
Can you even fall of ledges that kill you in duels by yourself?

You cant kill yourself, but you can be pushed by beeing hit from a heavy attack and thus stepping off a cliff. If, for example, the raider hits you with his unblockable attack your character will take a few steps back from taking heavy damage. During these automatic steps from beeing heavily injured you can move over the edge of a cliff or whatever and thus die. It also works with wallspikes or fire, as if you where thrown in but just walked into it by yourself in cause of taking heavy damage.



Not sure what interfering with execution animations are, so I can't give my opinion on that one.

It means that, for example in brawl, you kill your opponent and take of his last piece of health with a heavy attack, granting you a chance to perform an execution to prevent enemys ressurection and also healing yourself for a bit. During this animation you cant defend yourself and you also cant cancel it - you can only ignore the opportunity to do it entirely and thus not regain health and prevent enemy ressurection. In Brawl some players play "honorable" by not interfering until you kill your opponent, but they instantly step in if you start an execution, entering the killing animation.

GewaltSam
01-10-2017, 09:14 PM
I'd like to write this up freer than you expect, because I don't want to generalize such situations.
In general, I see myself as an "honorable" player, e.g. someone who doesn't go for cheap shots or cheesy wins, but who outplays his opponent. While that is the case, I in no way need other players to play in any specific way, or share my opinion about this. BUT, I really liked the honorable brawl or elimination where your opponents go for fair 1on1, once in a while. I had some matches that went well over 10 rounds, where one team was winning constantly, while the other team was staying to learn, and because the fights where really awesome. This can be a game where you shout "Nice!" in front of your monitor while an enemy counters your every move and kicks your *** down the castle wall.

Bottom line: I don't mind "dishonorable" (the quotes are there for a reason) players or play styles all too much, but I personally like to play a fair game, and I love it when I meet others of my kind. (I also love to kick that one cheesy Mofo down the cliff after he did some bad guard break failures. We're all just human, eh?)

xLeapingLizardx
01-10-2017, 11:12 PM
Developers put certain mechanics in a game to be used, no matter what your opinion on the matter is. How can I fault someone for playing a game and utilizing mechanics in said game.

I personally prefer the "honorable" style of play: waiting for the other 2 to duke it out in brawl or let the last person alive in dominion have a fighting chance by 1v1ing each person. I however do use the fall offs or spike walls to my advantage because they are just a part of the battle and strategic positioning. But in a 1v1 duel I don't mind if someone walks to a different area free of map hazards. I usually play this way until someone of the opposite team beings to play "dishonorably". If they want to 2v1 me on brawl, I'll do the same thing to them when I get the chance and so on.

The problem though is that people like to complain when these things happen. I learn to adapt to whoever I'm playing against. If they play "dishonorably" or "honorably" I'll play the way they do. People tend to complain about viable things put in the game by the developer. EXAMPLE: in Call of Duty people like to complain about "hard scoping" or using a certain gun... The developers put it in the game so you are better off adapting to it then complaining (unless it's literally game-breaking). Another EXAMPLE just from this game alone: People looooved to complain that the Orochi was cheap and overpowered.. Instead of complaining, I learned how to fight against and counter the Orochi and began to love playing against them so I could best them. Even in this upcoming beta I hope to be double teamed more often so I can learn to be able to survive consistently in those situations.

So honestly I just believe that if it is put into the game by the developers, it's apart of the challenge of a game. If you don't want to use an overpowered character or overpowered move/mechanic, more power to you, but you can't really get mad at someone for simply using a provided mechanic. It would be a huge difference if we were talking about someone glitching, but that's not the case.

Anyways those are just my thoughts about this whole "honorable" and "dishonorable" thing.

LiveKiller7x
01-10-2017, 11:36 PM
I think everything is allowed (if it's not some kind of exploiting or else) and is honorable because it's about life and death, win or lose.
When I was doing 2on2 tho I sometimes waited for the other 2 to finish their fight when I was already done. (But only because it's a Game, if this would happen in some way in real life I wouldnt wait a second and help my friend because here death is permanent :P)

But in Game that also depends on the Situation, If I am on low health already because of my battle before I must admit I usually ganged up on the last enemy, of course I want to win ^^.

Fatal-Feit
01-10-2017, 11:49 PM
Anything is fair game, in my book. If the mechanic is there (and advocated--like 2v1'ing in Brawl), then players should be allowed to do it without being ridiculed.

The only thing I find dishonorable are players who constantly complain and especially those who can't back up their claims. I had one instance where a player kept complaining about me using Revenge and challenged me to a duel to try and prove I'm nothing without it. He never showed up and I made sure his clan/group knew about it. :)

THEGODLYNESS
01-10-2017, 11:59 PM
I forget the term people are called for making their own rules and handicaps for an aspect of a game they don't like.

Is it part of the game. Check.
Is/are the opponent(s) cheating nope.
Then i see nothing wrong with being tossed off a cliff, 4v1ed, guard broke 1000 times. Will i grow frustrated sometimes absolutely. And will i let my opponent fight my friend in a brawl cause I killed mine already sure will. Unless ofc they start out with a 2v1 then game on.

But at the end of the day if they used some "cheesy" trick to beat you idk adapt and overcome. Or complain. Free world after all.

iHunny
01-11-2017, 12:12 AM
In the Second Alpha the first 2 days I called people dishonored for ganking. I regret this cos one person on the forum asked "would you let you friend die if you could prevent it?". Since then I no longer think thats dishonoring and as one of my favorit quote from a fiction character said "On the battlefield, all actions are honorable." ~Akodo.

Eirmund
01-11-2017, 02:31 AM
Something people seem to fail to understand that Honor is an abstract concept that differs between person to person. Forcing your idea of honor on someone else is the same as forcing your idea of happiness on someone else. But what really bothers me about it is that a lot of times itís used as an excuse for a loss. Itís not an excuse. How can you consider yourself good if youíre only able to win when conditions are in your favor? Makes no sense.

That being said, I enjoy fair fights and besting an opponent via skill and not cheap tactics. Iíll take you one 1v1 if the situation allows for it. But if youíre by a hazard, I wonít spam it, but I will try to throw you into it. Iíll punish you for your mistakes if Ií m able. If itís clear that I havenít chance to beat you because youíre vastly more skilled than I, Iím not just gonna hand you a free kill. Iíll use my inferior skill to lead you into an ambush or push you off a cliff. I find it more dishonorable to fight a fight you know youíre gonna lose and be a liability than to use your head and use tactics to defeat your superior and be an asset to the team.

ShuyinVardiz
01-11-2017, 04:06 AM
Recieving way more answers here then I expected, great!
(probably because the beta date has been announcend and ppl get more active 'cause of that again)

Really interesting to see different opinions regarding that or the reasons for these opinions.

ShuyinVardiz
01-11-2017, 04:30 AM
"would you let you friend die if you could prevent it?"

If I know he'd be revived, sure I would as long as it suffers no consequenses (like pain, penality, whatever).
I personally see it the way that its, on one side, unhonorable as outnumbered fights cant be won if you know that guardbreaking an enemy reduces their defence to 0 for a short time even if countered as blocking during beeing guardbreaked AND the animation of countering a guardbreak is technically not possible and barely - if at all - provides rage gain if compared to beeing attack by multiple sources, while I also take the chance for my teammate to improve during this fight - might even through beeing beaten itself.

But if my enemy doesnt step in I NEVER hesitate to ressurect my teammate and force him to continue until I either cant revive him anymore or my enemy forces me to kill him (Brawl only, during 4v4 I kill my opponent and ressurect them afterwards).


/edit:
Whops, too early in the morning. Intended to edit my previous post and add this...

Aarpian
01-11-2017, 09:40 AM
To quote Bron of the blackwater when accused of fighting without honour:

*Pointing to the guy he just killed* "Nope - he did"

The only thing I find dishonourable is when it's 3-4v1 at the end of elimination or dominion and there's no way for the other guy to win and instead of duelling everyone just dogpiles the guy. Seems a shame to ruin the fun for the guys fighting.

DrExtrem
01-11-2017, 09:55 AM
I think everything is allowed (if it's not some kind of exploiting or else) and is honorable because it's about life and death, win or lose.
When I was doing 2on2 tho I sometimes waited for the other 2 to finish their fight when I was already done. (But only because it's a Game, if this would happen in some way in real life I wouldnt wait a second and help my friend because here death is permanent :P)

But in Game that also depends on the Situation, If I am on low health already because of my battle before I must admit I usually ganged up on the last enemy, of course I want to win ^^.

This is true to some extent. Sure everybody wants to win a game but at any cost? To me, wins taste stale, if I either totally outmatch my opponent or only win, because I spam an unblockable op-move, the win is worth nothing.

If players of the same skill meet on the battlefield on eye level, most things should be allowed. Although in this case, it is unlikely, that those players are going to be the victim of an environmental death in the first place. If two players meet but they have a far different skill level, it starts to get complicated. The lower skilled player could mitigate the disadvantage by trying to utilise the environment but might not be able to do it.
In a good game, a big skill difference should not be possible - the matchmaking should make sure of that.

In 4vs4 player modes, duelling situations should be encouraged by the system (friendly fire) and respected by all players. If lemming trains and zerg-tactics dominate the game, it will lose players. Or at least more players will migrate to private sessions.

People like to say "its war! Everything goes!" That it wrong. Its a game and games follow certain rules and an etiquette or code of honor. Even in the real world, a lot of things are not allowed in war. In ww1, jagged bayonets were not forbidden but the soldiers who used them were not treated well (even after death) by their enemies.

Just because something is allowed, it should not necessarily be used. In many cases, the welfare of the game and its community is more important than the e-peen and a stale victory.


Look at how the "pvp" and the "anything goes" attitude in the division killed the community and what little pvp there was.

GewaltSam
01-13-2017, 02:14 AM
@DrExtrem Couldn't have said it better. Very nice argument!


Some people here wrote an argument which sounded something like "Of course I'll help my friend, I won't let him die against an enemy if I could help it!" I want to give another perspective on this.

In For Honor, we're mighty and battle-proven warriors. I *know* that I am the greatest fighter alive, or at least close. I didn't die so far, but I sent many others on the way to meet their gods. By my side stands my kind, the proud vikings/knights/samurai, and the greatest fighters that have ever been. I stood side by side with them in many battles. Some of them match my skill, few even outclass me.
Now, if I or one of my companions clash with a worthy opponent on the battlefield, only one thing is for sure: that the one fighting would be affronted, even insulted if another would take a well deserved, but barely earned victory from them. And, so far, I've never seen them fall! And, sure as Valhalla is our final resting place, I will earn my place there, and I need neither Bjarne nor Sigritte to fight my battles for me!

Get it? This is also a totally valid argument why not to join a running duel as the third wheel. But, before anyone gets offended: You do what you like to do best, play the way you want to play, and you won't hear me complain about it.

CaptainPwnet
01-13-2017, 03:43 AM
Its simple, there is no honor in defeat. The victors get to tell the story of how the battle went. Do whatever it takes to win on the battlefield.

To DrExtrem's point, that's just silly to think that way. Claiming that the welfare of the game hangs on the fact of whether players will fight in the image of his perspective of honor is nothing more than hearsay. Gank situations are completely doable if you learn the game, especially with the revenge mechanics. If you are being consistently beaten by tactics like this and failing to cap points while your team gets 4v1'd all the time then that is your teams fault, not the game.

If you want honorable fights in the fashion he talks of there is 2 game modes more suited to your tastes in duel and brawl. Dominion is battle, Honor comes in victory. So far I have seen no tactic that is abusive in Dominion as he seems to think.

You seem to neglect the fact that being the one who comes out on top in outnumbered and unfavorable situations would bring the greatest honor. Why would you want to tune these exceptional moments out because you can't handle yourself or due to some ill-conceived notion of honor?

Also, dueling situations are encouraged in dominion. You gain more renown for honorable fights such as 1v1's and 2v2's. It's even indicated in the combat feed when you partake in such a situation. Assassins also gain even more renown for honorable kills. More renown means more points for the team and also means you unlock feats faster.

DrExtrem
01-13-2017, 06:51 AM
@Captain

First: I am not trying to forbid anything. If you want to build four player gank-squads to bash other players, its your decision - but you better be ready to pay the price. Nowadays, people do not rely on a hand full of online games, they can play. Since the market exploded a few years ago, people can act in games like crap, squeeze the last drop of tears out of a community and go on. On the other side, people, who are fed up, are not forced to stay for long.

Look @ what happened to the division. Especially the four player gank squads killed what little fun was left (and all players they saw). This divided the community and turned it into the most toxic gaming community to date. The dev team is not shipping in players to the usa, to help them fix pvp, after players left (pvp) in troves.

Both the division and for honor share certain characteristics like relatively high time to kill and powerful abilities, who stack. Safety in numbers works very well. In rb6 siege, it is very counterproductive, to form a 5 player zerg, to mow down isolated enemies. The single player can utilise narrow points, low time to kill and area damage to counter the zerg. Additionally, friendly fire limits the zerging players. In for honor, narrow points are rare, area dmg has cooldowns and the enemies are tough. Friendly fire in neglectable and even if you kill a team mate, you can revive him.

One thing is certain: If players develops a db-attitude in this games pvp, people will stop playing it.


One personal thing. You are trying to compare a game with war and claim, that war has no rules. war has no equal in the world and it can not be compared with anything else in the world. Pathetic chest pounding - especially, because war does have certain rules ( Geneva conventions). in real war, people will do anything to survive but this is not war. We are not even playing war. We are playing a sophisticated form of tennis tournament.

CaptainPwnet
01-13-2017, 07:10 AM
@DrExtrem

I hinted at the fact that forming a roving gank squad with your whole team is not a good strategy in the first place. Again if you are losing to this that is no fault of the game but yourself and the players on your team. You claim that people will whine and leave, but that is th efate of every game no matter how good it is. No matter how good the game, it will never be to every single persons taste. Some will play it for a short duration and be satisfied, and some will dislike it. Others will play longer, this is not a new thing in online gaming. Gank squads will have little to no effect on this outcome. Not to mention look at games like LoL or DOTA 2. Probably the biggest non mobile games on the market and ganking is literally a viable stratgey that is employed every game. See how popular they are? Not to mention in those games outnumbered situations are actually almost impossible to do anything but escape most of the time. But in For Honor you have all the tools you need to fight back in such situations.

Using The Division is a poor example to because there is actual loot incentive to killing other players so of course people will maximize their efficiency to do so. For Honor does not have such a system, the fun of the game comes from the gameplay not the carrot on a stick method of progression with gear. Not to mention I would argue from my perspective that The Division failed due to a poor mix of gameplay mechanics being RPG and shooter that many people just weren't interested in or quickly lost interest in.

Also the war talk was more for flavor in spirit of the OPs post. But if you're gonna read into it like that then I would argue that the wars and organizations you speak of are much more modern affaris than what this game tries to emulate. You honestly think vikings or samurai would care about such a convention or any kinds of treaties or agreements? Vikings hell no, samurai may oblige such things so long as it benefitted them but as soon as they see a better opportunity they would seize it. Knights may be more likely to adhere to such things since they were more religously inclined. But probably only in battles amongst themselves, they wouldn't give a flying **** about massacring a pagan and heretical viking horde. Or Bringing the word of god to the Japanese heathens through force.

And tennis? Really? The only rules in this game are those of the gameplay mechanics(what you can do with the controller and the capture points). You could only compare this to tennis if you could jump the net and knock your opponent out with your racket. But I guess that would be too dishonorable lol. This game is much closer to rugby if you're going to compare it to a modern sport.

DrExtrem
01-13-2017, 09:01 AM
I deliberately chooses tennis as an example, because it is still closer than war.

Dota2 and lol are bad examples as well and there is no loot incentive in the division. Loot is a bonus, because people get their loot elsewhere.


By reducing people to being whiners, you torpedoed your own statement. People don't play pvp, if it is dominated by one sided metas like gank squads. The division proves this. Another example. Mordheim city of the damned. Because of this games very nature, players have to use any advantage and every cheese possible to win and more importantly, to keep their own war and alive. Death of your war and members is permanent. Just like injuries and dismemberments. Loosing a high level war and leader is practically the end of the warbands hunt for wyrdstone. Guess what ... The vast majority does not play pvp in this game. They stick to pve, because the ai does not stick to cheese, while being strong.

For honor is a game with a strong focus on pvp - its the games big selling point. If its big selling point fails, the game looses players and will die. The online articles and reviews will be fun to read, if the games name turned into a contradiction.

CaptainPwnet
01-13-2017, 09:06 AM
You obviously did not read anything, or at least decided to ignore key points. . . Your supposed one-sided meta of gank squads does not exist as I have said three times now. I'm not sure what you are not understanding. Also you are wrong about people not playing pvp with one supposed one sided metas. People who really care about pvp thrive on it and adapt, formulate new strategies and further improve their own individual gameplay. They will do this even with the lack of your supposed meta.

As I have also said three times now, you as a single player on your own have all the tools required to hold your own against uneven odds. I know this because myself and many others have accomplished this. 4v1 you can kite and drag their team along while your team caps points and meets up with you later, 3v1 you can focus up on defense and hold out long enough for allies to arrive, or take at least one of them down with you so your team has less enemies to deal with. Or again kite them and let your team cap the other points. 2v1 is completely winnable, is it easy? No, but it shouldn't be easy, you have the choice to run and fight another battle elsewhere or stall for allies to arrive or face them outright and reap the honor and glory of winning with he odds stacked against you.(I would actually argue that unless the 2 are fairly well coordinated the solo player has the advantage in 2v1 situations thx to revenge mechanics).

Yes the games focus is definitely on pvp, but what you don't seem to understand is that in dominion the focus is on TEAM PLAY. Otherwise why would there be teams? Also if it loses players it won't die outright, you act like as soon as one person decides he doesn't like the game anymore for X reason then all of a sudden there will be a mass exodus leaving the game desolate. Anybody who enjoys the game will play the game regardless of what you seem to think the meta will evolve into. Because as I said anyone who really is passionate about pvp will work to better their skills and their teamplay and find ways to derail any supposed meta's that form. The rest of the players that may or may not leave probably don't enjoy the game that much anyways. So unless you actually think this game is **** then your points hold no weight and I am unsure why you are spending so much time on a forum talking about a game you obviously don't enjoy in it's current state.

DrExtrem
01-13-2017, 11:13 AM
"like gank squads" the word "like" implies, that "gank squad" was meant to be an example.

We do not know if gank squads were, are or will be an effective meta, because the game is in alpha stage (almost beta). I read comment like yours en masse ... and most of the time, it went even worse. "whiners" predicted the massive dominance of 4 player squads and griefplay in the division and they were dismissed. After launch, the crap hit the fan. Players left and now, the darkzone and pvp in general are almost dead.

Sure a few players will play with strongly one sided metas - but player numbers in those environments are very low. If a game wants wants to be successful after month one, you need players and a non-toxic community. That's the key to survival.

I am only saying, that extreme competitive thinking in a mixed environment kills the game for most people, because mist people can't and don't want to play in a very competitive environment. That's the reason, rb6 siege offers a competitive and casual mode.

The community and devs need to see, that it is far more difficult to salvage a game as opposed to doing it right before it gets ugly. Lost players don't return very often.


Your personal attacks on my person and guesses what I might or might bot enjoy are immature at best. The game looks great but focussing only on the bright side is problematic. That's why I like to bring possible problems into the discussion. If we discuss a possible problem before it might become one, we all win. If I would not like the game, I would not waste energy on the forum. I want thus game to be a long term success for a lot of players and not just an elite minority, who dances on the grave on the game after it crashed.

CaptainPwnet
01-13-2017, 01:52 PM
You see this is also where you are again mistaken. This problem you speak of DOES NOT EXIST. The division has gank squads because you can go into the dark zone alone, and if you get ganked while alone or outnumbered then that is your fault not the games. Otherwise if you have a team of equal numbers then there is no problem. For Honors Dominion mode is always 4v4, you are never outnumbered unless you have an afk player on your team. With equal numbers on each side you are at the mercy of yours teams and your enemy teams tactics. You can always adapt and change your strategy no matter what. If One team starts performing an as yet unforeseen abusive metagame tactic that you allude to then what stops your team from doing the same to counter? Or better yet formulate a strategy to effectively counter it. Then once the strategies have been laid out then the game boils down to individual player skill and the ability of those individuals to work together.

They are not personal attacks at all, they are merely observations. You seem to make mostly baseless claims on knowing how the games health will fare in the long run and make suggestions to brute force the game into a state you are more happy with. But the fact is the game is amazing just as it is with maybe some minor character balance/mechanic tweaks that would be nice but not particularly necessary. So why should changes be made when I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels the way I do, just to appease you in particular? Granted there may be some people who feel the same as you do, but the next fact remains that the game is the way it is and release is soon upon us. The Ubi devs have made their game and I'm sorry if it's not completely to your tatses, but I love it and so do many others.

But anyways, sorry to the OP for derailing their thread. Promise this will be the last post haha.

DrExtrem
01-13-2017, 02:27 PM
Well. I have not played it yet but I see flawes in systems. If the game only matches teams against teams (especially in extra competitive modes), everything will go well. If coordinated team are matched against 4 single players, it will become a bloodbath.

Again, you are claiming, that I am not satisfied with the game. A flawed observation. From what I have seen, the game is great - but it has the (very small) potential to screw up certain aspects. If we don't discuss it, the devs cant look into it. ATM, the only thing you do is praising the games alpha status. The same thing happened in the division. The loudest advocates of the darkzone were the first to abandon the game.

The game will have problems at start - that us totally normal. Every game suffers from certain problems. Teams vs. Single players, class/ability stacking, imbalanced abilities, matchmaking problems, latency issues.
If we ignore possible problems, we are unprepared. If we are unprepared, solutions will take longer and if it takes too long, frustration will take its toll. This is the way gaming communities work.


There are several ways to counter a gank squad - especially in dominion. But that is not the question. The question is: "are those tactics fun to play?" If we go Bach to this threads core question, there is a simple solution. Competitive modes, for players, who really want to utilize every aspect of the game and a separate, mire casual matchmaking for people who like mire relaxed gaming.

CaptainPwnet
01-13-2017, 02:35 PM
Sorry I had to break my promise, so wait you haven't actually played the game? Why are we even discussing this then? I'm sorry but I assumed you had played in at least one of the tests. I suggest you play a game before criticizing it in the future. Most of the footage available is not exactly indicative of how the game really plays out. Also of course there is and will be a matchmaking system that at least attempts to match players against similar skill lvls and group sizes. It won't always be perfect and yes in the tests it was an issue now and then but only because the player base is so much smaller in these tests compared to how it will be on launch. Not to mention the tests are made up of players varying in experience lvl and time with the game in general. Like many players have played in tests prior while some players are new to the game in the same test. Just trust me, the game works fine as it is. How that may change in the future one can only speculate, but the game is good, real good.

You will get as much out of the game as you are willing to put in to improve your skills and it feels highly rewarding. I will even admit before I had played it I had similar concerns as you about ganking and outnumbered situations and was quite wary. Even when I first got my hands on it I was met with frustration and difficulties, but I pushed on cause I thought the game had so much potential. But now I have almost only good things to say about it.

I apologize in advance if any of that sounded condescending, it was not my intention if so.

DrExtrem
01-13-2017, 04:01 PM
The problem is, that you perceived my concerns, who are based on my observations, conclusions and experience with gaming and gaming communities, as criticism.

I want the game to be great and flourish - especially, because it is a fresh ip.

Sadly, even after thousands of imbalanced and heavily flawed mp-games, developers tend to make the same mistakes over and over and over again. Player decline because of cheesy stuff, no separate modes for competitive play, horrible balance etc., are the most obvious yet most often made mistakes.

I simply wanted to point out, that the devs need to make sure, that everybody gets a fair share of fun out of the game and the community needs to okay its part as well. Week - the community - decide the fate of the game, because we play it.

DraxeI
01-13-2017, 05:02 PM
I prefer to keep a fight fair-and-square and a more drawn out contest of skill between two players.
Because of that, one-hit KO'ing someone by throwing them off a ledge is dishonorable in my opinion. Using damaging effects such as the fire is OK for the most part as a successful guardbreak will in most cases reward the player with some sort of damage.
It feels super cheap to be outplaying another player but going from full health to zero just because he got in a guardbreak.

And I am fully aware that these are mechanics in the game intended for use, so these arguments are of course "unwritten rules" - however, that is sort of what honor is about is it not?
It's there for everyone to use, but many players will see them as "morally wrong".

Everyone is totally allowed to play the game as they want, but I'll reserve the right to ridicule anyone who plays "dishonorably" :rolleyes:

THEGODLYNESS
01-13-2017, 05:30 PM
How doth one ridicule when one is laying shattered on the cliff face below?

ShuyinVardiz
01-13-2017, 05:46 PM
How doth one ridicule when one is laying shattered on the cliff face below?

I currently main the Raider to death and as most ppl know a duel consists of three to five fights, with the one reaching 3 wins first winning the duel. And the Raider has....well, lets say, really good chances of simply just "removing" you from an arena fight. Why throwing someone into a hole, gap or spikes if you can carry them into these? So usually the second you kill me for once with one of these effects in duel or brawl, the entire match is reduced to one or two minutes until everything is over since there is only one class wth greater capabilitys regarding this in my opinion.

Eirmund
01-13-2017, 05:57 PM
I prefer to keep a fight fair-and-square and a more drawn out contest of skill between two players.
Because of that, one-hit KO'ing someone by throwing them off a ledge is dishonorable in my opinion. Using damaging effects such as the fire is OK for the most part as a successful guardbreak will in most cases reward the player with some sort of damage.
It feels super cheap to be outplaying another player but going from full health to zero just because he got in a guardbreak.

And I am fully aware that these are mechanics in the game intended for use, so these arguments are of course "unwritten rules" - however, that is sort of what honor is about is it not?
It's there for everyone to use, but many players will see them as "morally wrong".

Everyone is totally allowed to play the game as they want, but I'll reserve the right to ridicule anyone who plays "dishonorably" :rolleyes:

Except that having the presence of mind and knowing where you are on the battlefield is a part of skill. A skilled opponent won't fight near an edge for that exact reason. If you do fight near the edge, you're either trying to knock them down yourself, or you've made a poor choice in where to wage your battle. You won't be going from full to zero because of a guardbreak, but because you made a poor decision.

I feel what's truly dishonorable is when someone leads you to the edge and does nothing but try to knock you off. It's one thing to attempt it, it's another thing to spam it.

ShuyinVardiz
01-13-2017, 06:12 PM
A skilled opponent won't fight near an edge for that exact reason.

I had more then one match where my opponent (either duell or brawl) ran obiously to a ledge and waited there until I came over. They'd happily outwait the clock if I wont come towards them. And that is stupid, I dont intend to wait 5 minutes or however a match lasts.

THEGODLYNESS
01-13-2017, 06:13 PM
Sure but getting carried away is the players fault. Its an easy thing to dodge the charge or guard break. Many new players will get carried off. And they will throw their hands up and say this is ******** and cry a lot. Of they can adapt and overcome. Its not something I go after all the time but if the opportunity is there why would I not take it?

DrExtrem
01-13-2017, 06:31 PM
I had more then one match where my opponent (either duell or brawl) ran obiously to a ledge and waited there until I came over. They'd happily outwait the clock if I wont come towards them. And that is stupid, I dont intend to wait 5 minutes or however a match lasts.

This really is a ****-move.

No skill, no honor, no nothing.

Eirmund
01-13-2017, 06:32 PM
I had more then one match where my opponent (either duell or brawl) ran obiously to a ledge and waited there until I came over. They'd happily outwait the clock if I wont come towards them. And that is stupid, I dont intend to wait 5 minutes or however a match lasts.

A duel is different for that exact reason. You can either wait it out and not fall for the obvious ploy, leading to a boring match. Or you can go over, hope they don't successfully push you over, also leading to a boring match. Honestly, that's a sucky situation, but that's more so having a boring opponent than anything.

But here's the thing, stop being afraid of the edge. You can use it to your advantage as well. If you can take advantage of your opponent thinking you're not paying attention, you can turn their tactic into your tactic. It's not cheap, it's punishing a cheap tactic.

DraxeI
01-13-2017, 06:32 PM
Except that having the presence of mind and knowing where you are on the battlefield is a part of skill. A skilled opponent won't fight near an edge for that exact reason. If you do fight near the edge, you're either trying to knock them down yourself, or you've made a poor choice in where to wage your battle. You won't be going from full to zero because of a guardbreak, but because you made a poor decision.

I feel what's truly dishonorable is when someone leads you to the edge and does nothing but try to knock you off. It's one thing to attempt it, it's another thing to spam it.

Much like Shuyin Vardiz described, you will not always choose your battles. Sometimes you're going to be forced to fight near a ledge - it's simply going to happen.
And then when you're there you've got a choice, fight honorably or not. In the Alpha I preferred not to throw people off a ledge even if I got in a guardbreak near the ledge simply because I think it takes out most the challenge of defeating someone (not saying I've never thrown anyone off the ledge - I've had "accidents" :rolleyes:).
The skill of correct position is still very much in play even if you don't use the ledges. Getting pushed against a wall, or into a wall via. guardbreak is going to stagger you harder - and that's fine!

Eirmund
01-13-2017, 06:36 PM
Much like Shuyin Vardiz described, you will not always choose your battles. Sometimes you're going to be forced to fight near a ledge - it's simply going to happen.
And then when you're there you've got a choice, fight honorably or not. In the Alpha I preferred not to throw people off a ledge even if I got in a guardbreak near the ledge simply because I think it takes out most the challenge of defeating someone (not saying I've never thrown anyone off the ledge - I've had "accidents" :rolleyes:).
The skill of correct position is still very much in play even if you don't use the ledges. Getting pushed against a wall, or into a wall via. guardbreak is going to stagger you harder - and that's fine!

I have to disagree. In most modes, you can pick your battles. Duel and sometimes 2v2 Duel are the only modes where you can be put into a situation where you have to fight them if they camp the ledge. In all other modes, if they camp the ledge, you can either take a base or assist an ally in a fight, while that guy likes stupid, standing there, hoping someone will come to him. Or when you go to take the base, he HAS to move away and fight you and now it's on your terms. Patience seems to be a very important virtue in this game.

DraxeI
01-13-2017, 06:47 PM
I have to disagree. In most modes, you can pick your battles. Duel and sometimes 2v2 Duel are the only modes where you can be put into a situation where you have to fight them if they camp the ledge. In all other modes, if they camp the ledge, you can either take a base or assist an ally in a fight, while that guy likes stupid, standing there, hoping someone will come to him. Or when you go to take the base, he HAS to move away and fight you and now it's on your terms. Patience seems to be a very important virtue in this game.

I think you have a very reasonable argument and all, and if you're in a normal match and wish to live then you should definitely take such precautions - but this all it's describing is how to work around someone who wishes to play "dishonorably". Everyone has a different take on what is right and wrong, and in For Honor a lot of people feel the ledge kills are ... wrong.

It's completely fine to agree to disagree on this topic! Now I have to ask - what do you feel is "cheap" or wrong in For Honor, besides spamming guard breaks near ledges?

Eirmund
01-13-2017, 07:04 PM
I think you have a very reasonable argument and all, and if you're in a normal match and wish to live then you should definitely take such precautions - but this all it's describing is how to work around someone who wishes to play "dishonorably". Everyone has a different take on what is right and wrong, and in For Honor a lot of people feel the ledge kills are ... wrong.

It's completely fine to agree to disagree on this topic! Now I have to ask - what do you feel is "cheap" or wrong in For Honor, besides spamming guard breaks near ledges?

Tbh, I haven't been able to play yet, here's to hoping I get into the Beta, so beyond Edging, i'm not sure what I feel is cheap yet.

I do, however, have respect for someone's sense of honor. If i'm fighting someone 1v1 and you come up and don't double team me. I will respect you. I'll make note of who you are and if I ever come upon you in a 1v1 situations, i'll do my best to ensure it stays that way.