PDA

View Full Version : Warfield mode...!!!



DarkstarQc
01-29-2017, 12:23 PM
Well after playing the beta for 16 hours now i like it to be honest but this game if it want to succeed needs a bigger game mode like 12vs12 or 20vs20 or 32vs32 because without that its not going to appeal to a lot of people. And to all those who say that there will be to many ganking and that fighting a 2vs1 is already hard enough well this is a war game if your on a battlefield and to guy fight you there is a good chance that you will lose. So good mechanic, but it need bigger maps and a bigger game mode with no ai in it, just multiplayers. Do that ubi and this game will be a success. And to all those who say ''no this is a duel game bla,bla,bla if you want to duel go play 1vs1 there problem solve and let those who want to have fun on big maps with lots of other players do it!! And make that big game mode faction base so that its Viking vs samrai or samurai vs knight or knight vs Viking. Or you can make a game mode faction base but 3 way, 3 faction against each others that would be nice.

TR2W.Ilgoth
01-29-2017, 12:30 PM
Why you try to engage discussion, when clearly you are not looking for differentiating opinions. Hell you are even blocking other opinions directly in your OP.

It wont happen unless they dedicate resources into a new map.

DarkstarQc
01-29-2017, 12:52 PM
It wont happen unless they dedicate resources into a new map.

then let's hope they do that!

SaltRock1985
01-29-2017, 03:01 PM
Since the split of console gamers and the PC [players] there have been subtle differences in the number of players allowed on a server of many games. Where consoles are limited by out of date hardware most pc gamers have the resources to run more demanding games and environments.

This Idea may not be possible for console, however it would be nice if they bumped up the allowed players per team on PC... Or is this just a console to PC port :(

SpazzMaticuz
01-29-2017, 10:56 PM
No, no, no, no, no, people complaing about getting ganked (fighting 1vs2) and imagine how many people would they have to take on. Also revenge system would implode from that much damage blocked and recieved from that many people, I think you don't get what this game is about.

Patros1983
01-30-2017, 12:34 AM
More than a 10v10 constellation is not possible for ps4/xbox consoles in my point of view, but the idea of an open pvp / pve area like the "Darkzone" in the "The Division" is very good.
I want to explain the reason for this:
The biggest problem at the moment is the long-term motivation of the game, because the game modes are very boring. Taking points and battling on a relatively small surface does not provide a permanent game incentive.
Here UBI should think about other game modes, eg "real" castle wars. I mean, for example, that you have to fight with a 6 person team (gladly even more) from the castle gate to the throne room, in order then to meet a kind of final boss who has to be defeated. The gate from the throne room, however, only opens when all four main bosses have been turned off. Then you have to resist several attack waves, which try to recapture the castle.

What is also missing is a kind of guild system, so you could collect conquest points for your guild.

Draco_Nightstar
01-30-2017, 03:50 AM
Very bad idea unless you had a way to control zerging. Can you imagine how frustrating and dumb gameplay would be with a huge ball of death running around chopping everyone to death? Why not just take your whole team and stand at the spawn points and one-chop everyone who comes out? Lots of games have tried this idea with RVR lakes and it's been very difficult to implement correctly because of how players exploit this idea.

DarkstarQc
01-30-2017, 03:54 AM
No, no, no, no, no, people complaing about getting ganked (fighting 1vs2) and imagine how many people would they have to take on. Also revenge system would implode from that much damage blocked and recieved from that many people, I think you don't get what this game is about.

every multiplayer game as ganking!! lived with it. The way this game is made is going to get boring and nobody is forcing you to play in a big game mode if you don't like it just stick with the 1 vs 1lol

DarkstarQc
01-30-2017, 06:14 AM
It will NEVER happen. Did you actually think about what kind of PC you will need for a 12vs12?? Console will never be able to handle the game.

why??? battlefield as 32 vs 32, chivalery 12 vs 12, battlefront, call of duty etc... why would console not be able to handle that?? lol

DarkstarQc
01-30-2017, 10:49 AM
can somebody at ubi delete these thread that are flooding the forum about pills and other non-sense??

AKDagriZ
01-30-2017, 06:17 PM
i would start with 8 vs 8 before ..maybe we would find that 8 vs is already more than enough on these type of maps

DarkstarQc
01-30-2017, 09:22 PM
i would start with 8 vs 8 before ..maybe we would find that 8 vs is already more than enough on these type of maps

no the idea is a 2 way faction based 12 vs 12 OR a 3 way faction based 8 vs 8 vs 8 on bigger maps...

DarkstarQc
01-31-2017, 02:12 AM
looks like 12 vs 12 or 8 vs 8 vs 8 is something people would like to have

DBLxxShotz
01-31-2017, 06:44 AM
I have a good idea for For Honor mp. You do a 32v32 rush mode. You have 4 zones. The first zone being an open field. The second being in and around a small military outpost. The third in and around a village just outside the castle walls. The fourth is the castle itself. The attacking team has to scale the walls,use catapults or battle rams to knock down the entrance. This would be awesome.

DarkstarQc
01-31-2017, 09:10 AM
I have a good idea for For Honor mp. You do a 32v32 rush mode. You have 4 zones. The first zone being an open field. The second being in and around a small military outpost. The third in and around a village just outside the castle walls. The fourth is the castle itself. The attacking team has to scale the walls,use catapults or battle rams to knock down the entrance. This would be awesome.

good idea but lets hope they put a 12vs12 mode or 8 vs 8 vs 8 mode first

O2357
01-31-2017, 12:38 PM
The whole game architecture and combat system is made for 1:1. 2:2 is ok, 4:4 (with more or less 1:1 or 1:2 at a time) is the limit. Mass battles would be a chaotic, headless and stupid hack'n'slay.

However, three factions at the same time could be interesting (2:2:2 or 3:3:3). With quickly changing roles of allies and enemies.

S8Canadian
01-31-2017, 06:41 PM
If they could add something like that and see how it works. I'm not sure if this game is going to be able to switch out game modes to try what works or not.

Be interesting if it locked you into classes for your faction.

S8Canadian
01-31-2017, 06:44 PM
if they increased friendly fire damage the ganking wouldn't be as horrid ?

Palewhale21
01-31-2017, 07:31 PM
I have a good idea for For Honor mp. You do a 32v32 rush mode. You have 4 zones. The first zone being an open field. The second being in and around a small military outpost. The third in and around a village just outside the castle walls. The fourth is the castle itself. The attacking team has to scale the walls,use catapults or battle rams to knock down the entrance. This would be awesome.

I completely agree with this!!! I want WAR!

Palewhale21
01-31-2017, 07:32 PM
if they increased friendly fire damage the ganking wouldn't be as horrid ?

EXACTLY, which is why people must fight WITH HONOR! if your boy is about to die, obviously go in and help. but if both guys are full health, shoot, let them duke it out and go steal a base.

DBLxxShotz
01-31-2017, 07:45 PM
if they increased friendly fire damage the ganking wouldn't be as horrid ?

Id like to see this. It would make people think twice before just running in there slashing all over the place.

droper66
01-31-2017, 08:54 PM
This would suck, 4v4 is fine as long as the maps are the right size. I can get into a fight any timee. In larger matches with larger numbers of player you will spend a lot more time roaming around and getting ganked by multiple players at a time helplessly.

iTzBigRed1
01-31-2017, 09:19 PM
If anything there should be like an attack and defend mode for 8v8 and up. Capturing zones back and forth doesn't really fullfil the faction war part of the game.

iTzBigRed1
01-31-2017, 09:25 PM
It will NEVER happen. Did you actually think about what kind of PC you will need for a 12vs12?? Console will never be able to handle the game.

The lack of knowledge from this post annoyed me. You must not know about shooter games.

iTzBigRed1
01-31-2017, 09:27 PM
I have a good idea for For Honor mp. You do a 32v32 rush mode. You have 4 zones. The first zone being an open field. The second being in and around a small military outpost. The third in and around a village just outside the castle walls. The fourth is the castle itself. The attacking team has to scale the walls,use catapults or battle rams to knock down the entrance. This would be awesome.

This is literally battlefield...but I also said the same thing

Helnekromancer
01-31-2017, 09:30 PM
I would prefer an 8v8 then a 12v12. The maps are already at max hold 4v4. Once people stop panicking and realize if their are getting outnumbered, block 3-4 hits and your get free revenge mode, pop it knock someone down and kill them. Keep blocking and get revenge mode again. I've played games where its me vs 3 and throughout the fight I got revenge mode 2 times. But this depends on the players reaction time so you never know if you have the advantage or not when ganking someone. :)

DarkstarQc
01-31-2017, 09:55 PM
I would prefer an 8v8 then a 12v12. The maps are already at max hold 4v4. Once people stop panicking and realize if their are getting outnumbered, block 3-4 hits and your get free revenge mode, pop it knock someone down and kill them. Keep blocking and get revenge mode again. I've played games where its me vs 3 and throughout the fight I got revenge mode 2 times. But this depends on the players reaction time so you never know if you have the advantage or not when ganking someone. :)

yes but it could also be a faction based 8vs8vs8(Viking vs samurai vs knight) on bigger maps of course and ganking is part of a multiplayer mode it happens in ALL multiplayer game even shooter ex: 3 tanks against 1 tanks, 4 guy with rpg against 1 tank and so on) so I don't see what the problem is .

S8Canadian
01-31-2017, 09:59 PM
Even if it was 4 vs 4 vs 4 it would be cool. With very few minutes if any if game can't handle it.

DarkstarQc
01-31-2017, 11:40 PM
Even if it was 4 vs 4 vs 4 it would be cool. With very few minutes if any if game can't handle it.

yes 4 vs 4 vs 4 would be nice be faction based ( Viking vs samurai vs knight)

DBLxxShotz
02-01-2017, 02:06 AM
This would suck, 4v4 is fine as long as the maps are the right size. I can get into a fight any timee. In larger matches with larger numbers of player you will spend a lot more time roaming around and getting ganked by multiple players at a time helplessly.

Actually you could still do my rush mode idea pretty easily with 4v4 also. Youd just have to change the rules a bit and simply use minions like in dominion.

DarkstarQc
02-01-2017, 06:42 AM
This would suck, 4v4 is fine as long as the maps are the right size. I can get into a fight any timee. In larger matches with larger numbers of player you will spend a lot more time roaming around and getting ganked by multiple players at a time helplessly.

Ganking as I said before is part of EVERY multiplayer game so deal with it. Besides with bigger maps you would have less chance of running into 2 or 3 players at once but the key would be to follow your teammates at least always be in pair of 3 to 4.

DarkstarQc
02-01-2017, 10:52 AM
definitely 12 vs 12 faction based or 8 vs 8 vs 8 is something people would like to have ubi...

SpazzMaticuz
02-01-2017, 03:41 PM
every multiplayer game as ganking!! lived with it. The way this game is made is going to get boring and nobody is forcing you to play in a big game mode if you don't like it just stick with the 1 vs 1lol

Alright, you're looking to totaly rebuild For Honor from scratch and then optimise it soo it looks like Chivarly? Imagine them doing that in two weeks ;)

SpazzMaticuz
02-01-2017, 03:43 PM
EXACTLY, which is why people must fight WITH HONOR! if your boy is about to die, obviously go in and help. but if both guys are full health, shoot, let them duke it out and go steal a base.

Spam top attacks and guard breaks and you covered up issue with your honor :D

Solid----B
02-01-2017, 05:26 PM
Or an 8+ player everyone for themselves last man standing fight on a full size Dominion map... Hmm

DarkstarQc
02-02-2017, 03:52 AM
there is another thread about bigger game mode! lol

DarkstarQc
02-02-2017, 09:58 AM
Alright, you're looking to totaly rebuild For Honor from scratch and then optimise it soo it looks like Chivarly? Imagine them doing that in two weeks ;)

what they just have to make a bigger mode that's it...

xLeapingLizardx
02-02-2017, 10:33 AM
If you don't understand that the current For Honor mechanics would not work with larger scale battles after playing 16 hours of the beta, then there really is no reason to even try to discuss this with you lol.
But hey, if enough of you petition for it, it really you could happen! You just never know. not :p
Also please stop making comparisons of this game with other games, especially shooters... If you don't understand the blatant and crystal clear difference between For Honor and a shooter then tsk tsk..

DarkstarQc
02-02-2017, 11:09 AM
If you don't understand that the current For Honor mechanics would not work with larger scale battles after playing 16 hours of the beta, then there really is no reason to even try to discuss this with you lol.
But hey, if enough of you petition for it, it really you could happen! You just never know. not :p
Also please stop making comparisons of this game with other games, especially shooters... If you don't understand the blatant and crystal clear difference between For Honor and a shooter then tsk tsk..

oh look a mister smartmouth!!! a multiplayer is a multiplayer and ganking is part of any multiplayer that doesn't mean you cant have bigger game mode just because of the mechanics of the game if you have ever played chivalry you know what I mean this game is no different then chivalry except its in 3 person instead of first person which makes it even more easy to play then chivalry dude!!! lol ubi ignore those of them who are afraid of being gank and make a bigger game mode for those of us who would like it ! oh and by the way in chivalry when you gank someone if you strike your teammate they die real fast maybe they should look into that too...

Bolahenk35
02-02-2017, 11:43 AM
There was this game called Rome total war, in which you could have fights between THOUSANDS of soldiers! 32v32? Pfft, gimme 1000v1000! Those total war guys managed it, so it is possible, right?

On a serious note though, "Capture the Flag"... Think about it... just... think...

DarkstarQc
02-02-2017, 12:14 PM
There was this game called Rome total war, in which you could have fights between THOUSANDS of soldiers! 32v32? Pfft, gimme 1000v1000! Those total war guys managed it, so it is possible, right?

On a serious note though, "Capture the Flag"... Think about it... just... think...

anything I don't care as long as its more then 4 vs 4 it as to be at least based faction 4 vs 4 vs 4 but ideally 8 vs 8 vs 8

DarkstarQc
02-02-2017, 08:01 PM
continue to vote!!!

xLeapingLizardx
02-03-2017, 06:13 AM
oh look a mister smartmouth!!! a multiplayer is a multiplayer and ganking is part of any multiplayer that doesn't mean you cant have bigger game mode just because of the mechanics of the game if you have ever played chivalry you know what I mean this game is no different then chivalry except its in 3 person instead of first person which makes it even more easy to play then chivalry dude!!! lol ubi ignore those of them who are afraid of being gank and make a bigger game mode for those of us who would like it ! oh and by the way in chivalry when you gank someone if you strike your teammate they die real fast maybe they should look into that too...

I'm not really trying to be a smartmouth (Okay except for maybe the "not" comment lol). I think it stems from the amount of posts advocating for these modes, my apologies.

What I am getting from you is that you generalize things too much. Chivalry is like For Honor? Why? Because it has knights and a fairly complex battle system?
And you can make comparisons of For Honor to Shooters just because they are multiplayer?? Remember when Assassin's Creed had the PvP multiplayer? Shall I make comparisons of that to Call of Duty? Because they are definitely multiplayer so I can right? Shall I go start the thread of making comparisons, examples, etc. of Forza and Need for Speed to For Honor? lol

To compare For Honor to multiplayer shooters (in certain regards) is really just senseless. You are talking about ganking and I am sure ganking in For Honor goes a lot different than in Battlefield or Call of Duty. 1 game you die really easily and another it takes quite a bit longer to die...

Like I said in the countless other threads about this: with the current For Honor fighting mechanics large scale battles just wouldn't work. You are better off asking for this in a different game or advise this for For Honor 2.

Also the developers are the ones who playtest this stuff, we don't. Just because something sounds "sweet or amazing or awesome" in our fantasies, it doesn't mean it works for a certain game.
I understand that this also goes for me: what may not sound like a fit to me could actually work in their game. But from just playing the game, I can tell that large scale isn't what they envisioned and the fighting mechanics don't mesh well with fighting a bunch of people at once.

We just think about what sounds cool or what may have worked in other games instead of really thinking about what works for the game we are discussing.

DarkstarQc
02-03-2017, 07:53 AM
I'm not really trying to be a smartmouth (Okay except for maybe the "not" comment lol). I think it stems from the amount of posts advocating for these modes, my apologies.

What I am getting from you is that you generalize things too much. Chivalry is like For Honor? Why? Because it has knights and a fairly complex battle system?
And you can make comparisons of For Honor to Shooters just because they are multiplayer?? Remember when Assassin's Creed had the PvP multiplayer? Shall I make comparisons of that to Call of Duty? Because they are definitely multiplayer so I can right? Shall I go start the thread of making comparisons, examples, etc. of Forza and Need for Speed to For Honor? lol

To compare For Honor to multiplayer shooters (in certain regards) is really just senseless. You are talking about ganking and I am sure ganking in For Honor goes a lot different than in Battlefield or Call of Duty. 1 game you die really easily and another it takes quite a bit longer to die...

Like I said in the countless other threads about this: with the current For Honor fighting mechanics large scale battles just wouldn't work. You are better off asking for this in a different game or advise this for For Honor 2.

Also the developers are the ones who playtest this stuff, we don't. Just because something sounds "sweet or amazing or awesome" in our fantasies, it doesn't mean it works for a certain game.
I understand that this also goes for me: what may not sound like a fit to me could actually work in their game. But from just playing the game, I can tell that large scale isn't what they envisioned and the fighting mechanics don't mesh well with fighting a bunch of people at once.

We just think about what sounds cool or what may have worked in other games instead of really thinking about what works for the game we are discussing.
maybe you don't think it would be good but I do and judging by the amount of people asking for it lots of people do and if they do do ti if you don't like it all you have to do is not play in this kind of game mode...its really simple!!!

xLeapingLizardx
02-03-2017, 09:18 AM
maybe you don't think it would be good but I do and judging by the amount of people asking for it lots of people do and if they do do ti if you don't like it all you have to do is not play in this kind of game mode...its really simple!!!

Just because a lot of people ask for something doesn't make it a good idea, just saying..
Example: If all the kids in a school continually asked to have pizza and ice cream everyday for lunch, doesn't mean that it is a good idea :p
It may sound like an absolutely amazing and awesome idea to the kids, but the school staff and parents know exactly why it isn't a good idea... Even if the kids don't.

But hey I guess we will just have to see.
I am just trying to give you an idea of why it wouldn't work in this game and let you think more along the lines of how applicable is it instead of "sounds cool".
I would love large scale battles! Just not for this game, it doesn't seem like a good fit mechanically wise.

DarkstarQc
02-03-2017, 11:57 AM
Just because a lot of people ask for something doesn't make it a good idea, just saying..
Example: If all the kids in a school continually asked to have pizza and ice cream everyday for lunch, doesn't mean that it is a good idea :p
It may sound like an absolutely amazing and awesome idea to the kids, but the school staff and parents know exactly why it isn't a good idea... Even if the kids don't.

But hey I guess we will just have to see.
I am just trying to give you an idea of why it wouldn't work in this game and let you think more along the lines of how applicable is it instead of "sounds cool".
I would love large scale battles! Just not for this game, it doesn't seem like a good fit mechanically wise.

Like I said before just because YOU say it would not be great because of the game mechanics does not means it would not. You see what I did there im saying the exact opposite of what you say you know why because I would love it and you would not but what I don't understand is why you keep trying to convince me that it would not work. Again as I said before if you don't like it don't play in it its really simple.. And again maybe im repeating myself but chivalry is a more difficult game then this one way more difficult because its in 1st person and you have 12 vs 12 mode but that doesn't mean its not fun so yeah I would like a bigger game mode in bigger maps and I would play that game mode all the time and so would all the other who wants it but again if YOU don't like it then you don't have to play in it.

LC_Knxwledge
02-03-2017, 12:54 PM
I feel like this thread has a bunch of minors in it after the entertaining read. Regardless i think we can all agree that more game modes = a good thing. What those modes are, are completely up to the devs.

Lei_Date
02-03-2017, 04:11 PM
I would like to see some form of triple threat between the 3 groups like 4v4v4 and to add to it it faction lock so if I log in it as an Orochi mine team mate be 3 other samurai classes and I fight Viking and knights I think something like that would bring an true scent of the faction wars.

S8Canadian
02-03-2017, 04:47 PM
I would like to see some form of triple threat between the 3 groups like 4v4v4 and to add to it it faction lock so if I log in it as an Orochi mine team mate be 3 other samurai classes and I fight Viking and knights I think something like that would bring an true scent of the faction wars. Yep that would be good and likely doable

Dez_troi_aR
02-03-2017, 05:33 PM
No.

Look, i know you are really into the *read in Donald Trump voice* "Huuuuuuuuuuuge battle" idea but For Honors mechanics just arent made for them.

They always tried to base their advertisement on spectacular scenes from Dominion but it has always been clear that dominion is at its best when important 1v1 duels happen where the victor takes the zone. What was happing during the closed beta was that players didnt even bother to focus on guarding their zones (even if it would have been the reasonable choice) but just captured it and then ran right into the minion line, ganging up on enemy players --> gankfest was the result.

And the game isnt, isnt and isnt enjoyable when fighting 1vs2+ . Its just not. Not even for me and i loved every second of the beta and am a die hard fan. 1vs2+ is a phase you can try to survive but even a pro will need to trigger revenge, which is basically just a tool to make ganging-up less efficient, essentially trying to prevent the situation alltogether.

And when i say "isnt fun" i am not saying "i dont like it" i am saying it does not work because the games mechanics are not designed for it. And btw, noone has yet designed a fighting mechanic which makes melee based pvp mass battles really work and i personally cant think of one. And no, chivalry did not, too (but if you think differently and prever it to the lock on based mechanics of for honor: Congratulations we have solved the debate you are free to play chivalry now).

I would say the game is most enjoyable at the moment if you hop into 1v1 or 2v2 right away.

But Dominion can still be great. If the players of both teams play tactically, play for the zones, then more 1v1 situations take place. A duel in Dominion is very cool, because a lot can depend on it for your team etc.

So i say : Dominion will be a success ONLY if they manage to separate the players ! (slightly bigger maps could be an option)

But more players will work into the opposite direction. I would even argue that 3v3 in dominion would be better than 4v4 so every heroe would have its zone to fight for and ganing up would be less common.


Maybe you need to give me a better idea about how you imagine the players to interact so i can agree with you.

At the moment i am totally happy about the introduction of ranked and about the tourney mode. The game shines when its warrior against warrior in skillfull combat and not when 8 players-wildly-swing-their-sword-not-sure-on-which-enemy-they-are-actually-locked-on-atm-but-hopin the-next-heavy-will-connect-with-someone-AAAARGH

That is plain to see. So yes, i still dont want 8v8 or something, and people who buy the game because they think its a gritty version of dynasty warriors will after exactly 1 hour and 17 minutes ingame
1. : Flame ubisoft
2. : Say the game is **** and unresponsive and imba and too slow and needs dragons
3. : Will never be seen again
4. : Go back to playing Dynasty warriors somewhere in a deep dark cave under a Rock


Also one last bitter, salty comment: I cant believe how many people think that this is a viable idea.... Are we talking about the same game ????

Nina_Flowers
02-03-2017, 06:08 PM
12 vs 12 vs 12 chaos 3 factions war mode !!!
A mode with places to conquest and keep.
And a mode for just anhilation.

The Way It's Meant to be Played

LC_Knxwledge
02-03-2017, 06:17 PM
Also one last bitter, salty comment: I cant believe how many people think that this is a viable idea.... Are we talking about the same game ????

Can ask you the samething. Also want to point out that just because YOU may not like something doesnt make your opinions right. I for one love dominion, im a team player kind of guy who is more then willing to sacrifice personal glory for the succes of the team. For your little example how ppl run off to cap a and c then 'gank' mid. Its so easy to force ur beloved 1v1 battles by doing simple stuff like keep ur team tank at mid and the opp team commits to 4 or even 3 man B have ur other three members push to cap A and C and if your tank is good enough he will survive long enough for ur team to come back up mid or survive long enough for the opps to fall back and try to retake their zone closest to their spawn.

This is just one example of team play and map manipulation that i loved in group play and larger scale or other modes will provide more tactics. Your opinion is urs and i respect that but just because you dont enjoy it, doesnt make it wrong for the game. You always have the choice to simply not do those game modes

xLeapingLizardx
02-03-2017, 07:00 PM
1 side see's that that large scale battles would not fit into For Honor. Another side thinks "it's my opinion and in my opinion just because this game has knights it should have large scale castle storming mega battles".....
We aren't saying that our opinion is it wouldn't be cool. We are saying that with playing the game and understanding it's mechanics and vision, loads of players and large scale does not work for this game..
We are trying to let you guys know the likely reason why this won't happen.. But you guys are so caught up in your fantasies that you don't see past the "cool" factor.

I know full well that if I don't like a game mode that I don't have to play it.
But if I think that it would be cool for Vikings, knights, and samurais to fight with laser guns that doesn't mean it fits into the game just because my personal opinion says it's cool.
Obviously there would be all sorts of people telling me that it does not work with the game. Instead of saying "it's my opinion and it should be in the game and you don't have to play it if you don't want to", maybe I should think more about what people are saying about how it does not fit the game.

Again keep requesting it if you guys soooooo desire. All's I'm saying is don't hold your breath.

(Also, this just now came to my mind: The agitation I get from this constant suggestion may also stem from how everyone always thinks that every single game has to have open-world or it will fail. That is kind of what I feel like is going on here. "This game needs large scale mega battles to be great" "Large scale battles are how this game is meant to be played". Let the game be what it's supposed to be instead of what you expect it to be again just because it has knights and swords. This game already has its direction and mechanics down, you guys' suggestion doesn't really flow with the design of the game, there would have to be major over hauls to pull of what you guys want... Can you really not see that??)

Nina_Flowers
02-03-2017, 07:05 PM
12 vs 12 vs 12 chaos 3 factions war mode !!!
A mode with places to conquest and keep.
And a mode for just anhilation.

The Way It's Meant to be Played

LC_Knxwledge
02-03-2017, 07:18 PM
Im not getting how you can come to the conclusion that a larger scale mode (im not talking 30v30 but something like 5v5 or even up to 8v8) wouldnt work when modes like dominion already exist and are very enjoyable. The mechanics in place (yes including revenge mode) does not diminish the type of game for honor is at all. Is your issue revenge mode would trigger to much with larger scale? Simple solutions like reducing the gains the larger the scale is.

Again, i understand some people want to be duel king. Go for it, que 1v1 till your heart desires, you have the option to do so. Just don't try to limit the game itself as thats all it can be. Far more to it.

Avlaen
02-04-2017, 01:30 AM
No the combat system dosent really do well against a large scale of targets, with allready alot of people complaining the moment they have to fight 2 people.

more than 5 a side would just be a cluster**** where skill means nothing because of the amount of people your fighting at once.

Dez_troi_aR
02-04-2017, 01:50 AM
Im not getting how you can come to the conclusion that a larger scale mode (im not talking 30v30 but something like 5v5 or even up to 8v8) wouldnt work when modes like dominion already exist and are very enjoyable. The mechanics in place (yes including revenge mode) does not diminish the type of game for honor is at all. Is your issue revenge mode would trigger to much with larger scale? Simple solutions like reducing the gains the larger the scale is.

Again, i understand some people want to be duel king. Go for it, que 1v1 till your heart desires, you have the option to do so. Just don't try to limit the game itself as thats all it can be. Far more to it.

Hey LC_Kxwledge !
I think it is great that you work on good strategies in Dominion! Stuff like that makes the game interesting and i hope that i'll find a dominion team with people like you to be successfull there. But you are right, i am definately more focused on the 1vs1 mode. Both modes hold great potential ! :)

However, i still think that anything that frequently clumps up players is not a good basis for new gamemodes and i still think that the depth of the fighting suffers immensly in everything above 1vs1.
I will copy and paste an answer i gave in another thread:

The fighting system is build around a lock on mechanic which does a great job in enabling complex duels based on tactical decisions, calculating your enemies options, and good reaction. Once you fight multiple opponents it looses much of its depth for various reasons. First, a lot of your apm (actions per minute, rts guy here) is covered by switching your lock on between the two players your fighting against ( i am not even theorizing more than two), which becomes very difficult once the enemies just position themselves in a line so is facing your back. Second, you have no realistic chance to now realistically predict, counter and punish the moves of two enemies if they are anywhere near your skill level, because it is supposed to already be a challenge in 1vs1. I know at the moment players have a tendency to mindlessly spam heavy attacks once they have outnumered which makes it kind of predictable but once we leave the total-noob-average one will just guardbreak you and the other place a heavy attack no matter if you cgb or not.
All that is realistically possible for the average player is trying to block incoming attacks. And what happens once you blocked two or three and took a hit ? REVENGEMODE - congratulations. 100% the "glorious 2vs1 battle won by me, the greatest hero ever" -videos i watched were only won because revenge mode was used to throw at least one enemy to the ground by triggering it the moment the attack connects, which isnt hard to do, and then landing a free heavy with damage boost. Is that your idea of "skillbased" ?
Nope, revenge isnt a skillbased tool. It is solely designed to make ganging up less viable by giving you the almost guaranteed chance to chop away half of a health bar.
Making Revenge bar less easy to fill up is not a solution. The direct result would be that ganging up is a more viable strategie.

The point is: In the big battles you envision, where group fights would be more common then duelling, the nicely designed core mechanics of the game (everything around the art of battle mode exept simple blocking) loose all of their viability while the games "emergency solution" ragemode, which is essentially included to prevent situations where it is needed, would become the most common thing!

Expl: There are four guys stabbing at you, you manage to block twice, eat a hit, then activate rage mode knonk one of them to the ground, smash in a heavy, and the whole procedure begins anew. That is neither skillbased nor is it fun...

Now go ahead, the typical replies to that argument are:
- But that is how it IS on the battlefield, bro. Its not all nice and even its chaotic and anarchic!!!!!!1111
- Lol, you just need to use your imagination more.
- Just because you think it doesnt work doesnt mean it doesnt work.
- But chivalry does it, too
- But big battles are cool so it must work.

DarkstarQc
02-04-2017, 06:11 AM
Hey LC_Kxwledge !
I think it is great that you work on good strategies in Dominion! Stuff like that makes the game interesting and i hope that i'll find a dominion team with people like you to be successfull there. But you are right, i am definately more focused on the 1vs1 mode. Both modes hold great potential ! :)

However, i still think that anything that frequently clumps up players is not a good basis for new gamemodes and i still think that the depth of the fighting suffers immensly in everything above 1vs1.
I will copy and paste an answer i gave in another thread:

The fighting system is build around a lock on mechanic which does a great job in enabling complex duels based on tactical decisions, calculating your enemies options, and good reaction. Once you fight multiple opponents it looses much of its depth for various reasons. First, a lot of your apm (actions per minute, rts guy here) is covered by switching your lock on between the two players your fighting against ( i am not even theorizing more than two), which becomes very difficult once the enemies just position themselves in a line so is facing your back. Second, you have no realistic chance to now realistically predict, counter and punish the moves of two enemies if they are anywhere near your skill level, because it is supposed to already be a challenge in 1vs1. I know at the moment players have a tendency to mindlessly spam heavy attacks once they have outnumered which makes it kind of predictable but once we leave the total-noob-average one will just guardbreak you and the other place a heavy attack no matter if you cgb or not.
All that is realistically possible for the average player is trying to block incoming attacks. And what happens once you blocked two or three and took a hit ? REVENGEMODE - congratulations. 100% the "glorious 2vs1 battle won by me, the greatest hero ever" -videos i watched were only won because revenge mode was used to throw at least one enemy to the ground by triggering it the moment the attack connects, which isnt hard to do, and then landing a free heavy with damage boost. Is that your idea of "skillbased" ?
Nope, revenge isnt a skillbased tool. It is solely designed to make ganging up less viable by giving you the almost guaranteed chance to chop away half of a health bar.
Making Revenge bar less easy to fill up is not a solution. The direct result would be that ganging up is a more viable strategie.

The point is: In the big battles you envision, where group fights would be more common then duelling, the nicely designed core mechanics of the game (everything around the art of battle mode exept simple blocking) loose all of their viability while the games "emergency solution" ragemode, which is essentially included to prevent situations where it is needed, would become the most common thing!

Expl: There are four guys stabbing at you, you manage to block twice, eat a hit, then activate rage mode knonk one of them to the ground, smash in a heavy, and the whole procedure begins anew. That is neither skillbased nor is it fun...

Now go ahead, the typical replies to that argument are:
- But that is how it IS on the battlefield, bro. Its not all nice and even its chaotic and anarchic!!!!!!1111
- Lol, you just need to use your imagination more.
- Just because you think it doesnt work doesnt mean it doesnt work.
- But chivalry does it, too
- But big battles are cool so it must work.

If they do put into the game a faction based game mode 8vs 8vs 8 or 12 vs 12 and you don't like it there is a simple solution to your problem, don't play in it, its really simple.

Avlaen
02-04-2017, 06:14 AM
If they do put into the game a faction based game mode 8vs 8vs 8 or 12 vs 12 and you don't like it there is a simple solution to your problem, don't play in it, its really simple.

Except it would take a large degree of dev time which would be better spent else where.

Large scale battles with for honors combat system WOULD NOT BE GOOD

DarkstarQc
02-04-2017, 11:54 AM
Except it would take a large degree of dev time which would be better spent else where.

Large scale battles with for honors combat system WOULD NOT BE GOOD

I don't understand this obsession with the for honor combat system would not be good in large scales battle the only difference with chivalry is that you can lock on to an enemy but who cares its not like your going to ran into 12 other guy and be alone against them and again if you don't like it nobody is forcing you to play in it!!! And on another note in chivalry when you get gank for exemple if im ganking you with two other teammate but I strike my teammates in the process my teammates is most likely to die because of me. this should be implemented in the game so it would discourage ganking or at least do lots of damage to player who travel in pack and gank people and strike each other in the process because right now its does almost nothing to your teammates and that is the problem not the combat system!!!...

Dez_troi_aR
02-04-2017, 12:44 PM
Ok so..... i just wrote two long answers about WHY the Art-of-Battle system is great for fighting one enemy but falls apart when fighting +2..... and your next question is :


I don't understand this obsession with the for honor combat system would not be good in large scales battle the only difference with chivalry is that you can lock on to an enemy but who cares its not like your going to ran into 12 other guy and be alone against them and again if you don't like it nobody is forcing you to play in it!!!..

Maybe you should reread my posts and actually try to talk about the arguments i brought up instead of just saying "LOL, dont play it if you dont like it" and then move on as if nothing happened...

And for honor is not ******* chivalry, people should stop to make that comparision.

Chivalry is much more shooter-like and "floaty", which means you can run around freely and swinging widly, hitting people left and right. That gives it a totally different feeling then for honor, not as tactical, not as much mindgame and out-thinking going on and the reactions dont need to be as on-point as in for honor, but it increases mobility .
That makes it possible to fight more guys at once because you are not locked on and can roam around freely, swinging left and right

Check the vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4we9-QEjDU

I agree with you that friendly fire should be 100%.

Avlaen
02-04-2017, 06:40 PM
Ok so..... i just wrote two long answers about WHY the Art-of-Battle system is great for fighting one enemy but falls apart when fighting +2..... and your next question is :



Maybe you should reread my posts and actually try to talk about the arguments i brought up instead of just saying "LOL, dont play it if you dont like it" and then move on as if nothing happened...

And for honor is not ******* chivalry, people should stop to make that comparision.

Chivalry is much more shooter-like and "floaty", which means you can run around freely and swinging widly, hitting people left and right. That gives it a totally different feeling then for honor, not as tactical, not as much mindgame and out-thinking going on and the reactions dont need to be as on-point as in for honor, but it increases mobility .
That makes it possible to fight more guys at once because you are not locked on and can roam around freely, swinging left and right

Check the vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4we9-QEjDU

I agree with you that friendly fire should be 100%.

+1

RabidUrko
02-04-2017, 08:32 PM
Without dedicated servers , no teams bigger than are already in place. (4v4)
It would be technically ****.

12 v 12 with P2P now that would be technically rubbish, and 32 would be LOL.

FF would stop a lot of the group beatings.

D_cover
02-04-2017, 09:03 PM
The problem is the game is not designed to be played like that. 1 v 1 even fight based on skill, 2 v 1 still possible, 3 v 1 near impossible but I've seen someone pull it off 4 v 1 you have a chance of getting away.

The fighting mechanics simply won't work because for a game mode that big they will feel clunky in comparison.

Who is to say the engine can even be capable of loading a map and dealing with all that on screen?

The lead designer knows what he is doing.

You haven't even described a game mode? Yeah two factions go head to head and then what? Who ever racks up the most kills wins?

Personally I think it will burn a lot of players out and put most people off the game then actually want to play it.

I think 6 v 6 would be my limit.

DarkstarQc
02-05-2017, 04:07 AM
Without dedicated servers , no teams bigger than are already in place. (4v4)
It would be technically ****.

12 v 12 with P2P now that would be technically rubbish, and 32 would be LOL.

FF would stop a lot of the group beatings.
it could be 4 vs 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8 vs 8 as long as its faction based!!!

DarkstarQc
02-05-2017, 05:57 AM
Ok so..... i just wrote two long answers about WHY the Art-of-Battle system is great for fighting one enemy but falls apart when fighting +2..... and your next question is :



Maybe you should reread my posts and actually try to talk about the arguments i brought up instead of just saying "LOL, dont play it if you dont like it" and then move on as if nothing happened...

Why would I reply when everything as been said again I repeat, if they do put a 4 vs 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8 vs 8 or 12 vs 12 vs 12 faction base mode and you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to play in it, even if you think the combat system would not fit in these kind of mode I think different of you and so does 56 other people so just move on. And all those who would like it, continue to vote for it!!!

CaptainPwnet
02-05-2017, 06:32 AM
Pretty sure people just don't understand that even aside from the fact that gameplay wise it would just be a clustered mess. The fact of th ematter is that it is beyond feasible from a technical standpoint. Anyone see the reddit post on the P2P? Well they designed their networking system around trying to find something that would work for dominion with 4v4 and some AI minions. But guess what, they can't even get it to work in an anywhere near stable fashion in dominion so far. So how would you expect a mode with even more players would work? Well the short of it is that it wouldn't.

I don't care much for so called "epic" or "massive" battles as they are always just a massive unfun mess. But considering how much difficulty they have been having trying to get Dominion to work in a stable fashion(it's been a long time and anyone who's been playing since at least the september test can tell you that it really hasn't gotten better. In fact you could easily argue it's gotten worse). Then I think they would be wasting a lot of time and resources if they were to pursue something like this. That time and resources could be put towards legitimate new content like characters, maps, balance tweaks, new customization options and so on and so forth. But instead you want them to struggle endlessly with a mode that just won't work from a technical standpoint.

So you say that if you don't like it then you don't have to play it why deny us our desired game mode? Well the thing is, the rest of the game and it's progression would suffer. So at the end of the day your game mode you are asking for is not in the game and you're trying to deny myself and others new content by demanding it. So if you aren't happy with dominion or whatever other mode that is actually in the game then maybe For Honor is not for you.

DarkstarQc
02-05-2017, 11:18 AM
Pretty sure people just don't understand that even aside from the fact that gameplay wise it would just be a clustered mess. The fact of th ematter is that it is beyond feasible from a technical standpoint. Anyone see the reddit post on the P2P? Well they designed their networking system around trying to find something that would work for dominion with 4v4 and some AI minions. But guess what, they can't even get it to work in an anywhere near stable fashion in dominion so far. So how would you expect a mode with even more players would work? Well the short of it is that it wouldn't.

I don't care much for so called "epic" or "massive" battles as they are always just a massive unfun mess. But considering how much difficulty they have been having trying to get Dominion to work in a stable fashion(it's been a long time and anyone who's been playing since at least the september test can tell you that it really hasn't gotten better. In fact you could easily argue it's gotten worse). Then I think they would be wasting a lot of time and resources if they were to pursue something like this. That time and resources could be put towards legitimate new content like characters, maps, balance tweaks, new customization options and so on and so forth. But instead you want them to struggle endlessly with a mode that just won't work from a technical standpoint.

So you say that if you don't like it then you don't have to play it why deny us our desired game mode? Well the thing is, the rest of the game and it's progression would suffer. So at the end of the day your game mode you are asking for is not in the game and you're trying to deny myself and others new content by demanding it. So if you aren't happy with dominion or whatever other mode that is actually in the game then maybe For Honor is not for you.

the 4 vs 4 p2p is designed to accommodate 8 players and 100 ai minion but if they make a bigger game mode I suggest to get rid of the 100 ai minion and probably it would solve the problem, and I didn't say I don't like it, im simply asking if we could have a bigger game mode faction based with no AI minion. take out the ai minion and a 8 sv 8 vs 8 or 4 vs 4 vs 4 or even 12 vs 12 vs 12 is not something that is impossible. And as I understand it in the statement of one of the developer they are open to all suggestion to improved the game longevity.

CaptainPwnet
02-05-2017, 11:25 AM
the 4 vs 4 p2p is designed to accommodate 8 players and 100 ai minion but if they make a bigger game mode I suggest to get rid of the 100 ai minion and probably it would solve the problem, and I didn't say I don't like it, im simply asking if we could have a bigger game mode faction based with no AI minion. take out the ai minion and a 8 sv 8 vs 8 or 4 vs 4 vs 4 or even 12 vs 12 vs 12 is not something that is impossible. And as I understand it in the statement of one of the developer they are open to all suggestion to improved the game longevity.

I hardly think the very basic AI minions impact the stability of the network too much. Its the fact that it has 8 players of varying connection qualities and has to transmit a lot of information due to the depth of this games mechanics. It also tries to eliminate host advantage and disparities in connections and response time by using a delayed packet system liekly in addition to some sort of prediction system that has to account for 8 players all moving and interacting at the same time with so much information to gather and send out again due to the games depth of mechanics. You start adding more players and this will break down, we already see it in Dominion and its easy to imagine how bad it would be at the 12 player mark not to mention any more than that.

DarkstarQc
02-05-2017, 11:39 AM
I hardly think the very basic AI minions impact the stability of the network too much.
yeah they do, its a 100 minion per dominion match.I will put you a link to go check out.

http://www.techradar.com/news/meet-for-honor-the-game-with-a-life-of-its-own-that-its-creator-had-to-relearn-how-to-play

Dez_troi_aR
02-05-2017, 01:18 PM
Why would I reply when everything has been said? again I repeat, if they do put a 4 vs 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8 vs 8 or 12 vs 12 vs 12 faction base mode and you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to play in it, even if you think the combat system would not fit in these kind of mode I think different of you and so does 56 other people so just move on. And all those who would like it, continue to vote for it!!!

Are you serious? When i say "talk about the arguments i brought up instead of just saying "LOL, dont play it if you dont like it"" you answer by saying "Lol, dont play it if you dont like it" ? Really ?

And neither "has everything been said", because you never actually adressed my points of why the mechanics dont really work in 1vs+2 but just "make it possible", nor does the fact that you found 59 people, who havent had any arguments either, change anything.

And by the way: Have you ever played a competitive multiplayer game with 3 parties fighting simultaniously? I havent because there is a inherit problem in a 4vs4vs4 gamemode: Whoever engages first is ****ed. I played SC a lot, where this option existed but it was obviously just a fun mode: If player A attacks player B and inflicts damage to him, but loosing some of his ressources in the proces because of used APM and player Bs defense. Of course player C is now automatically the winner because he can pick which one of the two weakened combatants he can overcome without problem. So in a competitive cenario, noone would attack.

LC_Knxwledge
02-05-2017, 05:09 PM
Just want to point out, combat in this game is and isnt locked on target based. Without going into to much details, animations of any skill rather it be light/heavy attacks or gaurd/gaurdbreaks is not locked onto what ever target you first targeted.

Dez_troi_aR
02-05-2017, 06:21 PM
Just want to point out, combat in this game is and isnt locked on target based. Without going into to much details, animations of any skill rather it be light/heavy attacks or gaurd/gaurdbreaks is not locked onto what ever target you first targeted.

Are you talking about your attacks beeing able to hit someone you are not locked on ? Or are you adressing the possibility to change targets mid-swing?

Technically that is right but it doesnt affect the argument.

LordJownz
02-05-2017, 06:31 PM
Anybody even think that the combat system in this game would be terrible for large scale fighting ? Like give your heads a shake. 12vs12 ? Could you imaging trying to use this combat system for that ? This is a fighting game 4vs4 is pushing it. You want large scale open world fighting this isn't the game for you. It's not going to happen.

LC_Knxwledge
02-05-2017, 08:27 PM
Or are you adressing the possibility to change targets mid-swing?

Technically that is right but it doesnt affect the argument.

You CAN do this. Target someone, swing at them, switch target and the animation carries over to that new target. Its doesnt stay locked. It does affect the arguments because most from what I read states that the mechanics are only made for 1v1 because of locked on targets. Not having ur strikes/guards/guard breaks locked to one target kinda nulls that argument.

DarkstarQc
02-06-2017, 04:41 AM
Are you serious? When i say "talk about the arguments i brought up instead of just saying "LOL, dont play it if you dont like it"" you answer by saying "Lol, dont play it if you dont like it" ? Really ?

And neither "has everything been said", because you never actually adressed my points of why the mechanics dont really work in 1vs+2 but just "make it possible", nor does the fact that you found 59 people, who havent had any arguments either, change anything.

And by the way: Have you ever played a competitive multiplayer game with 3 parties fighting simultaniously? I havent because there is a inherit problem in a 4vs4vs4 gamemode: Whoever engages first is ****ed. I played SC a lot, where this option existed but it was obviously just a fun mode: If player A attacks player B and inflicts damage to him, but loosing some of his ressources in the proces because of used APM and player Bs defense. Of course player C is now automatically the winner because he can pick which one of the two weakened combatants he can overcome without problem. So in a competitive cenario, noone would attack.

I don't know what your problem is but I don't think the combat system would be an obstacle to a 4 vs 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8 vs 8 or 12 vs 12 vs 12 you do, find by me, that's your opinion. But anyway would you play in a bigger game mode?? probably not, so I don't see why you care so much ??? I would love it other to, let us be happy. lol

DarkstarQc
02-06-2017, 05:59 AM
Ok guys there is no point in talking about this topic until they add dedicated server.

12 v 12 -- 24 v 24 ---- 32 v 32 with P2P server? Lmao

they are not real p2p server lol

http://www.techradar.com/news/meet-for-honor-the-game-with-a-life-of-its-own-that-its-creator-had-to-relearn-how-to-play

LC_Knxwledge
02-06-2017, 02:09 PM
they are not real p2p server lol

http://www.techradar.com/news/meet-for-honor-the-game-with-a-life-of-its-own-that-its-creator-had-to-relearn-how-to-play

Oh yea, aparently its such a ground breaking p2p tech that they dont know what to call it. Nor can he explain it other then "its based off p2p but trust us its not p2p"

Dez_troi_aR
02-06-2017, 02:56 PM
Basically nothing is "just p2p".

P2P is a buzzword pseudo-knowledgeable gamers like us use to make it look like the whole matter is totally simple. Here is a mental snapshot : " p2p is bad and bad companies use it. Dedicated servers are good and cool companies use them". That is obviously ******** and we as a community make a joke out of us for having adopted that as our common consensus.

That beeing said, the online design at the moment does a good job to let everything happen in the total sync which this game requires. But it struggles to keep that good performance constant when there are 8 players fighting simultaniously, if one or more of them have a bad connection. While i trust them to improve that as far as it is possible, it is just totally unrealistic to close your eyes and ears and pretend that 32vs32 is possible. Why are we even discussing this?

YOGZULA
02-06-2017, 07:29 PM
We are never going to see anything more than 4v4 without dedicated servers. No way around that.

I'd love a larger scale 'war' type of mode with tons of NPCs and more enemy players, but that might just not be feasible, especially not on p2p.

xLeapingLizardx
02-07-2017, 07:33 AM
I don't know what your problem is but I don't think the combat system would be an obstacle to a 4 vs 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8 vs 8 or 12 vs 12 vs 12 you do, find by me, that's your opinion. But anyway would you play in a bigger game mode?? probably not, so I don't see why you care so much ??? I would love it other to, let us be happy. lol

Games can't please everyone...
If a whole group of people wanted to add zombies to For Honor and a whole other group of people wanted to add Aliens to For Honor that still wouldn't make those viable for the game. You would likely be giving plenty of reasons on why those features wouldn't work or why it shouldn't be added to the game. Maybe they'll, like you, just keep saying "well it'll be a mode you don't have to play". That doesn't help the argument. So then you would have to sit by while the developers waste time, resources, and testing on something as stupid as aliens because a large group of the community wanted it.
What they should do, like you, is request these ideas on a game where adding this would make more sense....

We are giving you sound, solid reasons why large scale battles would not work in For Honor. You aren't even trying to see our side of it. We are, we understand that large scale battles would be cool but we have played the game and understand it enough to realize that large scale battles aren't for this game and is not in the vision of the game....

Also, Our outlook is not exactly an opinion.... It's an education synopsis on why large scale would not work on For Honor.. It's not based on "oh this would be cool" things or fantasies that we have in our minds...

DarkstarQc
02-07-2017, 12:13 PM
Also, Our outlook is not exactly an opinion.... It's an education synopsis on why large scale would not work on For Honor.. It's not based on "oh this would be cool" things or fantasies that we have in our minds...
I have played the game I know what it is, I know how it work, I know there is a lock on system to fight one on one but there is also the option to just slash at everything in front of you any way ,again I don't think the combat system is an obstacle to a bigger game mode if it were they would not have done a 4 vs 4 get it and by the way this is a video game so the sky's the limit in the link they clearly say that they are open to suggestion and I hope they try some simulation of a bigger game mode I would even be satisfied with a 4 vs 4 vs 4 as long as its faction based but a 8 vs 8 vs 8 or 12 vs 12 vs 12 or 12 vs 12 would be nice and if you don't like it just move along to another thread.

Warp_11
02-07-2017, 05:17 PM
this can work if they will turn down the environment detail of that particular map

Oni-Nikuya
02-07-2017, 06:17 PM
Excedrin/10, would read thread again.

Flatlander57
02-07-2017, 06:46 PM
why??? battlefield as 32 vs 32, chivalery 12 vs 12, battlefront, call of duty etc... why would console not be able to handle that?? lol

This is not Chivalry or Battlefront.

That's like saying "HEY! There are 2000 players online on one server on Planetside 2. Why can't we have a 1000 vs 1000 Battlefront Match?
Well sorry, they use a different game engine, netcode, and have a completely different style of gameplay.

Then you might say "BUT! Planetside 2 is on the PS4! If it can handle that game with 2000 players on one server, why not Battlefront?!?"
And the answer is simply. "They are different games, made in different ways, with different engines, and different netcode, all games aren't made to support 2000 players, just like all games are not made to support 12v12."

D_cover
02-07-2017, 07:43 PM
I'm sure the For Honor team will raise the player count for new modes but I strongly doubt with the mechanics large scale battles will be enjoyable.

With the current count it is easier to communicate tell what needs to be done, revive who needs to be revived and cap zones that aren't ours.

Imagine trying to do that with 12, 24 or 32 players all on the same match.

Let alone you won't get the actual epic battle you will probably get minutes if not seconds before being killed and needing to respawn.

DarkstarQc
02-08-2017, 11:19 AM
I'm sure the For Honor team will raise the player count for new modes but I strongly doubt with the mechanics large scale battles will be enjoyable.

With the current count it is easier to communicate tell what needs to be done, revive who needs to be revived and cap zones that aren't ours.

Imagine trying to do that with 12, 24 or 32 players all on the same match.

Let alone you won't get the actual epic battle you will probably get minutes if not seconds before being killed and needing to respawn.

I would be happy with a faction base 4 vs 4 vs 4 or a faction base 8 vs 8 vs 8 but it must be faction base...

DarkstarQc
02-10-2017, 12:12 PM
yeah this game definitely needs a bigger game mode or tis going to get boring real fast.

DarkstarQc
02-23-2017, 11:53 AM
As I said it is getting boring real fast so to spice things up ubi make a bigger game mode for those of us who don't mind it and would love to play in bigger maps with more people and objective to take.And of course it as to be faction based so that you have to switch your hero after each match. So not everubody will play orichi anymore 11 lol

hydroshubong
02-23-2017, 12:16 PM
I would prefer (4 vs 4 vs 4) or (4 vs 4 vs 4 vs 4) than 12vs12!
Now it's always 2 guys on 1 or 3 guys on 1, like this it would be more balanced!

DarkstarQc
02-24-2017, 05:53 AM
I would prefer (4 vs 4 vs 4) or (4 vs 4 vs 4 vs 4) than 12vs12!
Now it's always 2 guys on 1 or 3 guys on 1, like this it would be more balanced!

or it could be a 8 vs 8 vs 8 But it as to be faction based no everybody is an orichie crap!!!

Gubermensch
02-24-2017, 05:54 AM
I'm all for 32v32 but only if it's p2p.

DarkstarQc
02-24-2017, 01:28 PM
I'm all for 32v32 but only if it's p2p.

yeah that's the spirit. But frankly I doubt that ubi is going to use dedicated server for this game at this point1

DarkstarQc
02-24-2017, 01:30 PM
but 32 vs 32 faction based!

Patros1983
02-24-2017, 01:48 PM
but 32 vs 32 faction based!

A 8vs8 or 10vs10 faction based new game mode would be nice. Something like a "real" castle war. I mean, for example, that you have to fight with a 6 person team (gladly even more) from the castle gate to the throne room, in order then to meet a kind of final boss who has to be defeated. The gate of the throne room, however, only opens when all 6 (or more) main enemies have been turned off. Then you have to resist several attack waves, which try to recapture the castle.

DarkstarQc
02-25-2017, 06:04 AM
A 8vs8 or 10vs10 faction based new game mode would be nice. Something like a "real" castle war. I mean, for example, that you have to fight with a 6 person team (gladly even more) from the castle gate to the throne room, in order then to meet a kind of final boss who has to be defeated. The gate of the throne room, however, only opens when all 6 (or more) main enemies have been turned off. Then you have to resist several attack waves, which try to recapture the castle.

im up for anything that's bigger as long as it is faction based or faction locked if you preferred ex: vicking vs samurai or samurai vs knight... or samurai vs knight vs vicking on a big battlefield 1!!

SiewcaRaka
02-25-2017, 06:51 AM
No more Honor whiners, simple bloodbath. Place where I can collect skulls!

DarkstarQc
02-25-2017, 12:17 PM
No more Honor whiners, simple bloodbath. Place where I can collect skulls!

yeah!!! A big battlefield 12 vs 12 vs 12 ....

Beneathar
02-25-2017, 03:44 PM
Clould we maybe first fix the network issues before implementing a mode wich would stress the network code even more?

After the Network code is stable and working for everyone (even for those who dont life directly beside an internet knot like Frankfurt...) Ubi should surely consider to implement bigger battles, but until then it would be a waste of ressources, as 90% of the players wont be able to play such a mode (many, many players aren't even capable of playing 4v4 right now!)

That is, BTW, why the knights had a comeback this night: The Duel mode was along their entire front, so they got a lot of Bonus ressources from playing the mode on their own front. I preict the knights will lose the current round, because Duel modes are now again at the long border between Samurai and Vikings.

I'd suggest to get rid of the System where playing a certain Game mode creates Bonus ressources.

DarkstarQc
02-26-2017, 12:55 PM
Clould we maybe first fix the network issues before implementing a mode wich would stress the network code even more?

After the Network code is stable and working for everyone (even for those who dont life directly beside an internet knot like Frankfurt...) Ubi should surely consider to implement bigger battles, but until then it would be a waste of ressources, as 90% of the players wont be able to play such a mode (many, many players aren't even capable of playing 4v4 right now!)

That is, BTW, why the knights had a comeback this night: The Duel mode was along their entire front, so they got a lot of Bonus ressources from playing the mode on their own front. I preict the knights will lose the current round, because Duel modes are now again at the long border between Samurai and Vikings.

I'd suggest to get rid of the System where playing a certain Game mode creates Bonus ressources.

as of right now I have had practically no conection problem and I played at night when almost no player from my region are awake!! big battle now!!

gringojay
02-26-2017, 01:47 PM
why hasn't one of the forum mods deleted this ******ed thread....

DarkstarQc
02-27-2017, 01:10 PM
why hasn't one of the forum mods deleted this ******ed thread....

why would they do that??? because your afraid to get gank in a bigger game mode little boy...

DarkstarQc
02-27-2017, 01:11 PM
why hasn't one of the forum mods deleted this ******ed thread....

why would they do that??? because your afraid to get gank in a bigger game mode little boy...

big-fishy-bob
02-27-2017, 07:20 PM
With current server issues this would be a nightmare, would you really want a game with 64 players when the game shudders to a halt every time a person leaves? If you're lucky enough that it doesn't crash all together.

I know this seems appealing, I really can see why you think it would be cool and I completely agree but not in this game. Something like this would need the game to be designed specifically around it and this game just isn't. It was designed with a focus on fighting one to very few opponents at the same time, not large scale battles. The whole reason ganking works is because the combat is designed in such a way that one person will struggle greatly against multiple enemies. I really hope the game you're talking about does get made some day but it's not this one.

Drekle
02-27-2017, 07:26 PM
You guys know this game is p2p right? 24 players p2p? 24x bandwidth utilization? You know these packets aren't Multicast too right? Open up wireshark while running this game. This game already hits your NIC hard and will never be able to support this. Already done an analysis of some of the networking aspects that fail this game here...

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1589465-Breakdown-of-the-poor-aspects-of-this-game

DarkstarQc
03-11-2017, 12:19 PM
You guys know this game is p2p right? 24 players p2p? 24x bandwidth utilization? You know these packets aren't Multicast too right? Open up wireshark while running this game. This game already hits your NIC hard and will never be able to support this. Already done an analysis of some of the networking aspects that fail this game here...

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1589465-Breakdown-of-the-poor-aspects-of-this-game

they just have to put dedicated server up and running for that other game mode that's it they can even rent server and make money out of it if they allow people to form clan like in battlefield(or at least they used to have clan in other battlefield but that went down the toilet with bf1 which went down the toilet to because of it)

Gray360UK
03-11-2017, 02:15 PM
I was wandering around in story mode last night, in the Samurai campaign where you have to take out the Knight patrols on the way to Apollyons castle, and it just struck me how that environment was perfect for a larger scale map with actual players running around in instead of just NPCs.

There's also a mission where you have to secure a castle, and it goes white neutral coloured until you have cleared all the enemies within, and then you capture it, just like a Dominion Zone, and I thought, why can't we capture castles like this in multiplayer? There is so much potential, and the environments and mechanics are all in place already in the story mode.

Never going to happen with the P2P system, but I can't help wondering why they are thinking so small. I wish they would think big with For Honor. The game is crying out for being able to roam in an open world as a bunch of Samurai, coming across a Knights castle and fighting to capture it. Shame there's no Division / Ghost Recon Wilidlands sized maps for us to crusade around in. Would absolutely love that.

Oh well, can only dream.

Dark.Knights
03-11-2017, 08:37 PM
This Mode gonna be "Ultra Low Activity" lol

We are lucky because you are not For Honor games director. lol

Gray360UK
03-11-2017, 08:40 PM
This Mode gonna be "Ultra Low Activity" lol

We are lucky because you are not For Honor games director. lol

Looking at the voting results was too much trouble for your little brain I take it?

DarkstarQc
03-12-2017, 05:24 AM
This Mode gonna be "Ultra Low Activity" lol

We are lucky because you are not For Honor games director. lol

why would it be ultra low activity???

Dark.Knights
03-12-2017, 09:30 AM
why would it be ultra low activity???

Because lack of people to play this mode, this mode gonna mess up the game mechanic.

ArchDukeInstinct
03-12-2017, 10:10 AM
why would it be ultra low activity???

Your idea fails on so many levels and it's completely nonviable technically. For Honor uses a peer to peer model instead of the more typical client to server model for networking which is a huge factor as to why all your comparisons to other multiplayer games are irrelevant. Peer to peer has its benefits but is inherently unequipped to handle many players in a real time game, because each player has to send and receive packets updating game state/actions/etc from every other player in the game. The more there are the more work it is. It's perfect for duel and brawl but easily starts to somewhat struggle with only 8 when in skirmish, dominion, or elimination.

But really, anything more than 4v4 sounds awful given the mechanics of this game even if it was doable. Sorry.

MatlaenStrider
03-12-2017, 11:03 AM
I think 32v32 would bring back some people because EVERYONE wants to siege a castle. Two thumbs way up!

DarkstarQc
03-12-2017, 11:24 AM
Your idea fails on so many levels and it's completely nonviable technically. For Honor uses a peer to peer model instead of the more typical client to server model for networking which is a huge factor as to why all your comparisons to other multiplayer games are irrelevant. Peer to peer has its benefits but is inherently unequipped to handle many players in a real time game, because each player has to send and receive packets updating game state/actions/etc from every other player in the game. The more there are the more work it is. It's perfect for duel and brawl but easily starts to somewhat struggle with only 8 when in skirmish, dominion, or elimination.

But really, anything more than 4v4 sounds awful given the mechanics of this game even if it was doable. Sorry.

I know how peer to peer work lol as for the game mechanics I don't see a problem with it if you have bigger maps you have less chance of running into 4 to 5 players at the same time and lets not forget people that even if you all don't like it ganking will always be part of this game and all multiplayer games unless you stick with the duel and as for that other dude who think it would be less populated look at the result of the pool genius. I would loved it and obviously a lots of people would love it too. As for the peer to peer problem well we wont know if it works until they try it and if it doesn't with peer to peer the just have to put up some dedicated server for that game mode that's it. Hope they do it.

DarkstarQc
03-12-2017, 11:25 AM
I think 32v32 would bring back some people because EVERYONE wants to siege a castle. Two thumbs way up!

Yeah it would be really fun!!! and those who don't,like it just don't have to play it and stick with to duel with ai sti!.

ArchDukeInstinct
03-12-2017, 12:19 PM
As for the peer to peer problem well we wont know if it works until they try it and if it doesn't with peer to peer the just have to put up some dedicated server for that game mode that's it. Hope they do it.

One of the biggest if not the biggest complaint on these forums is constant disconnects and networking issues compared to other games and you think the development team should spend an enormous amount of time, effort, and resources into creating 12v12, 24v24, and 32v32 game modes because "they won't know until they try it out"? Hello? It's struggling with 4v4 for many people. These issues largely don't exist in duel, brawl. But just adding 4 additional players is having a dramatic impact for these people and now you want to at least triple the count now? Of course it isn't going to work with peer to peer and switching to dedicated servers is likely going to take a complete overhaul of the networking code, not to mention setting up these servers and paying for them, likely with no plan to do such a thing prior. It would be a disaster.


I know how peer to peer work lol as for the game mechanics I don't see a problem with it if you have bigger maps you have less chance of running into 4 to 5 players at the same time

Okay so let me get this straight, you want 12v12 and up modes just so, for a typical engagement, you see 4-5 other players... Uhh you can see that in the regular 4v4 modes right now. So why do we need new modes for this? The only real meaningful difference are bigger maps which means it takes a lot longer to get anywhere of importance on the map. Wow I'm glad we overhauled the entire networking to get that.


and lets not forget people that even if you all don't like it ganking will always be part of this game and all multiplayer games unless you stick with the duel

Well maybe so but it doesn't change that it might be a good idea to avoid making it worse, right? Maybe you could say to just not play the game mode okay but what about orders specific to it?


and as for that other dude who think it would be less populated look at the result of the pool genius. I would loved it and obviously a lots of people would love it too.

What about it? You have 139 total voters at the moment of writing this. Hardly enough to be representative and even if it was, both 24v24 and 32v32 have more no votes than yes, genius. So more than half the people don't want it but it's going to do well? You better hope the other half are diehard fans apparently. 12v12 did win by a significant amount and it is the most reasonable too. Nearly a 1/4th still don't want it, which is pretty bad still.

For Honor plays just fine with the amount of players in the game modes, adding more players, even if not a massive amount of work, is not going to make it better or really add anything in my opinion. The fact is that it's not going to work without a ridiculous amount of effort that could be spent somewhere else that is much more likely to yield positive results.

Captain-Courage
03-12-2017, 12:39 PM
I'ts not Chivalry Nor Mount and Blade alas.

No dedicated server, nothing more than little tiny 4 vs 4 (talk about epic, lol, more like a schoolyard fight)
I guess they favored small scales because they thought that it was the right format for Esports (and it makes sense)

But just a tip Ubi : don't bother guys, you wil not succeed in Esports, except at making everybody laugh.

So go for the fun.

DarkstarQc
03-13-2017, 03:10 AM
One of the biggest if not the biggest complaint on these forums is constant disconnects and networking issues compared to other games and you think the development team should spend an enormous amount of time, effort, and resources into creating 12v12, 24v24, and 32v32 game modes because "they won't know until they try it out"? Hello? It's struggling with 4v4 for many people. These issues largely don't exist in duel, brawl. But just adding 4 additional players is having a dramatic impact for these people and now you want to at least triple the count now? Of course it isn't going to work with peer to peer and switching to dedicated servers is likely going to take a complete overhaul of the networking code, not to mention setting up these servers and paying for them, likely with no plan to do such a thing prior. It would be a disaster.



Okay so let me get this straight, you want 12v12 and up modes just so, for a typical engagement, you see 4-5 other players... Uhh you can see that in the regular 4v4 modes right now. So why do we need new modes for this? The only real meaningful difference are bigger maps which means it takes a lot longer to get anywhere of importance on the map. Wow I'm glad we overhauled the entire networking to get that.



Well maybe so but it doesn't change that it might be a good idea to avoid making it worse, right? Maybe you could say to just not play the game mode okay but what about orders specific to it?



What about it? You have 139 total voters at the moment of writing this. Hardly enough to be representative and even if it was, both 24v24 and 32v32 have more no votes than yes, genius. So more than half the people don't want it but it's going to do well? You better hope the other half are diehard fans apparently. 12v12 did win by a significant amount and it is the most reasonable too. Nearly a 1/4th still don't want it, which is pretty bad still.

For Honor plays just fine with the amount of players in the game modes, adding more players, even if not a massive amount of work, is not going to make it better or really add anything in my opinion. The fact is that it's not going to work without a ridiculous amount of effort that could be spent somewhere else that is much more likely to yield positive results.

I don't see why if you would not like a bigger game mode because your afraid of getting gank you make a point of explaining why if they do put a bigger game mode and you don't like it just don't play in it. it's really simple.

gringojay
03-27-2017, 01:39 AM
why would they do that??? because your afraid to get gank in a bigger game mode little boy...

no BIG boy ;), for all the reasons that other people have already given you. You are asking for a new game lol. Games cost a lot of money and take a long time to make, just because it's virtual doesn't mean that anything is possible. Or rather with finite resources. What you aren't understanding is this isn't a gaming issue, it's an economic issue.

gringojay
03-27-2017, 01:45 AM
No one can really argue that it would or wouldn't be fun since that's subjective. But what people have been arguing (and you've been ignoring [you dum fuccca]) is the technical feasability of it. Mate how can you struggle to take on new information so much? go home, let the adults talk....

Aibjorn
03-29-2017, 04:25 AM
It would be really nice. But For Honors p2p system is **** and it would be un-playable.