PDA

View Full Version : Game is not called Some Honor



yOsHiArTs
02-21-2017, 02:54 AM
People say in 2v2 and 4v4, all honor is out the window, that's what the game mode is for, if that was true, than why did they name the game For Honor, and not Some Honor or 1v1 honor only. If the game is called for honor, shouldn't there be honor in everything we do? Including 4v4 and 2v2? You can't argue my logic, and the makers logic of naming the game for honor if there's only 20% honor

Stubbs-SR1
02-21-2017, 03:00 AM
You're fighting for the honor of your faction. There's honor in winning.

Fuzzybutts
02-21-2017, 03:02 AM
Sorry your a sad little person who is too shocked by the fact that their exact definition of such a broad, self-encompassing term such as 'Honor' Isn't the same as everybody elses. I mean, heaven forbid we think differently than you and actually seem to see some value in playing the game for fun. Maybe some of us see having fun in the game as our goal as being honorable?

What if, now hear me, the people playing the game are free-thinking human beings you should respect the thoughts and actions of? What if, heavens forbid, they all have their own personal definitions of what honor is? Maybe honor is actually helping their teammate fight you in a 2v2 because they are done with their opponent and don't want to risk letting down their teammate? I mean, what if they respect your ability as a combatant so much they feel the need to 2v1 you.

Maybe you should think a little broader than your own personal definitions and stop taking a video game so seriously?

Sirrkas
02-21-2017, 03:03 AM
Do you have played the story mode yet or watched the trailers? For me it seems, the title is supposed to be a joke and many donīt get it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSpAz3h_Gh8

https://youtu.be/wwtjLeUAMcs?t=2h12m6s

Stubbs-SR1
02-21-2017, 03:05 AM
Maybe honor is actually helping their teammate fight you in a 2v2 because they are done with their opponent and don't want to risk letting down their teammate?

Yup. It would be very dishonorable to allow a friend/comrade/shield-brother etc. to die in combat because you stood idly by and allowed it.

StarBricks
02-21-2017, 03:41 AM
I would keep the 1 v 1 to the 1 v 1 mode... 2 v 2 or 4 v 4 are a rumble! I never honor the 1 v 1 rule, it make sense but not in this game! Heads and limbs flying but no, keep it 1 v 1 even if you could impale the enemy into a 2 v 1

Jarnhand
02-21-2017, 08:23 AM
You're fighting for the honor of your faction. There's honor in winning.

This guy is spot on! Seriously, if you want any kind of 'honor' in this game you need to play 1v1, outside of that; forget about it!
This is not some medieval times duel, its a computer game.
Normal players play to win, not pretend its some kind of The Sims expansion about honor.

PrinceOfTea
02-21-2017, 08:39 AM
If I 2v2 and I defeat my opponent early, I like to watch my teamie and the other guy fight while spamming emotes.

Often this ends with me being thrown off a cliff. Too often.

strecs
02-21-2017, 08:42 AM
I don't get it. If you want to dual play 1v1.

The whole point of 2v2 is to fight together!

TatoRezo
02-21-2017, 08:48 AM
Ubi designed bots, Bots team up to thrash lower numbered players. So ubi approves 4v1s

Furholden
02-21-2017, 08:59 AM
You can't argue my logic

lol

PrinceOfTea
02-21-2017, 09:00 AM
I don't get it. If you want to dual play 1v1.

The whole point of 2v2 is to fight together!

It's fun to watch someone duel to the death. Also it's atypical of how events usually play out in games.
It's fun to mix up expectations once in a while - you should try it!

Brave_Thunder
02-21-2017, 09:33 AM
Sadly there is literally no honor in for honor.Memes aside,that's what we got.Before everyone start to suggest that I should try 1v1,I yet do,i play 99% of the time 1v1,what follow are just my 2 cents on the 4v4 situation,as a duel player.

Ganking other people it's surely beneficial to your team,but sayng "it's wrong to let your teammate die" is honestly bs.In real life sure,go help him.In a game?Learn from your mistakes buddy,you won't have always a teammate helping you.

The thing that makes me sad is that people are tryharding to win now,with ganks,environment kills and all the cheap tactics,when we do not have a ranked mode yet.I could fully understand a gank in a ranked mode,no one likes to drop in his personal MMR because of bad teammates....but those are normals yet.This behaviour is exactly why cheaters cheat:people want to win,regardless of their skill.What a shame.

Knight_Raime
02-21-2017, 09:38 AM
Game is called for honor. not with honor.
simple as that.

rcwd
02-21-2017, 10:42 AM
It's just a title, however the worst part about no honor is when you're fighting a guy and clearly have the advantage, but a team mate comes out of no where and starts attacking him. Builds the enemy revenge up quick then dies to the enemy and leaves you to clean up. Extends the fight way longer than needed, just let me kill the guy by myself if im clearly going to win, I dont mind people helping each other, but you dont need to help everyone.

Eddeh07
02-21-2017, 10:59 AM
Literally wrote a post about this earlier. Have no qualms with people ganking/being ganked upon in 4v4, except that it's just a dumb team tactic if your buddy is doing well and your initiation into their 1v1 causes the opponent to revenge.

I love the revenge tactic, has saved me so many times, but it's also bit my in the arse when a teammate has unnecessarily engaged.

Not an issue with honor, it's just an issue with bad team play! There are times for "helpful team kill" swings, as much as there are times for helpful "not going to engage because my mate clearly has that" no swings!

TheCadian_
02-21-2017, 11:02 AM
I can argue that logic and I will argue it.

The title is 'For Honour' and one might suggest that the focus of the title should not actually be on the word honour but instead on 'For'. Now I would interpret this, rather than to suggest honour be present in every action taken by the player base, the concept at play here is 'in the pursuit of honour'.

Or more simply put what one does in order to attain honour or keep it.

Now honour doesn't necessarily refer to a specific code of morals per se, however we know there were such codes like Bushido, Chivalry, and being Viking were all walks and ways of life for these warriors. Honour also refers to great respect and esteem among fellows and the fulfillment of an obligation. I prefer to think of the game as a process within which the warriors (the player base and yourself) strive to keep honour.

That might mean you only fight one on one duels. Other meanings might see your character obligated to win no matter the cost and that would be a fair interpretation of honour.

Kylar.Z
02-21-2017, 11:12 AM
So fighting FOR PEACE cannot be done WITH weapons according to your fantastic logic.

TheCadian_
02-21-2017, 12:00 PM
So fighting FOR PEACE cannot be done WITH weapons according to your fantastic logic.

My logic? Are you familiar with the concept of de-escalation (you might well be for all I know)?

I fundamentally believe you cannot achieve peace through the use of weapons. Weapons are a threat, threats are escalations, and when a person is escalated they are not in a fit state to listen, process, or learn. They are no longer in control; it is not that they lack control of the situation but control of themselves. Their decision making processes are compromised by demand characteristics.

Forcing a conflict to stop does not make it stop. The behavior that led to it is suppressed and will resurface later. To end a conflict the mediating party needs to step back, identify where the needs of both groups are, and then address those needs. Once needs are met then there is no reason to fight.

Though is that not one of the draws of video games? That we are not expected to be reasonable?

TheCadian_
02-21-2017, 12:16 PM
You are right, but on the other hand we have only peace because all big nations have enough nuclear warheads to ensure mutual destruction. So there some form of peace through superior fire power.

That's not pretty but the cold war was not called that without reason.

Not sure I agree with that but then this is a video game forum... why are we getting so serious about solving world issues when we should be bashing each others brain in with pointy sticks and metal clubs?

Alamil
02-21-2017, 01:32 PM
Guys on 4 vs 4 there is a reward for be "honourable" and an archivement related. So if you like play that way just play it, but anyway enemy cant care about it. After all in war the victory is the only thing whit a mean (you die and i live no metter what how). Just play as you want.

GungZA
02-21-2017, 02:02 PM
losing in a 4v1 is an honorable defeat, atleast you tried eventhough the odds were against you.

Wasting everyone's time, forcing them to stand in a que and fight you 1v1 because they don't want to read you crying about 'honor' in chat eventhough you have none because you cry like a girl, and then still being defeated by the first person you fight is embarrasing and not a honorable defeat.

Don't speak of honor just play the freaking game and qq.

Alamil
02-21-2017, 02:19 PM
Give a medal!

Brave_Thunder
02-21-2017, 02:19 PM
losing in a 4v1 is an honorable defeat, atleast you tried eventhough the odds were against you.

Wasting everyone's time, forcing them to stand in a que and fight you 1v1 because they don't want to read you crying about 'honor' in chat eventhough you have none because you cry like a girl, and then still being defeated by the first person you fight is embarrasing and not a honorable defeat.

Don't speak of honor just play the freaking game and qq.

While I agree on the cry part...dyng 4v1 would only help the gankers to win faster.In the (few) games of elimination that I played,if I was the last of the team and I saw 2-3 enemys running toward me,I just ran.Free to gank me,I don't cry about it:have fun chasing me for 3 mins tho.

Einherjar25
02-21-2017, 02:20 PM
You throw somebody into a hole and people go NO HONOR! and freak out. To them I say, NO MERCY. I wasn't like that before. I use to think this game was going to be played by 2 type of players, honorable fighters or dishonorable fighters. So I would start fighting honorable at first and if the enemy would start showing signs of being dishonorable., I would just swictc accordingly without complaining and give him a taste of is own medicine. BUT, and that's a big but. I realised there is a third type of player which let me to adopt a "**** it" mentality. Meaning, being disnoraable 90% of time and ganging up on playerin duels,etc. These players are the player that are playing honorable and then when the game is 2-2 they start ganging up and throwing people into spikes and into holes. These are the worst type of players and I consider that player who always play dishonorably pales in comparison to these players. These players are the real *ssholes. :)

Einherjar25
02-21-2017, 02:45 PM
Doesn't really make sense to blame the player or judge them though.
You know the player didn't put those spikes on that wall, or put that hole in the ground there, or that ledge.
You know Ubisoft did.
You know why they did, it's not an accident.
These guys are just playing the game.
If the game didn't have HONOR in the title we wouldn't being having all this bizarre debates.
Would be hilarious to apply the same logic to any other video game :D

The player is responsable for is actions too you know. I don't care what you say, if you act "honorable" the entire game but then do this at the very end, in my book, you're an *sshole. I'd rather have the player do this from the start then wait until the end to throw the game in his favor. That's just being a snake.

gssholly
02-21-2017, 02:58 PM
In a 1v1 fight this is dueling weapons at dawn. In any mass fight, Starbuck from BSG said it best. "this isn't dueling pistols at dawn. You want to sneak up behind the enemy and club him over the head." Sorry the honor and glory is winning for my faction. Can't handle that, stick to 1v1 duels.

Kylar.Z
02-21-2017, 03:33 PM
My logic? Are you familiar with the concept of de-escalation (you might well be for all I know)?

I fundamentally believe you cannot achieve peace through the use of weapons. Weapons are a threat, threats are escalations, and when a person is escalated they are not in a fit state to listen, process, or learn. They are no longer in control; it is not that they lack control of the situation but control of themselves. Their decision making processes are compromised by demand characteristics.

Forcing a conflict to stop does not make it stop. The behavior that led to it is suppressed and will resurface later. To end a conflict the mediating party needs to step back, identify where the needs of both groups are, and then address those needs. Once needs are met then there is no reason to fight.

Though is that not one of the draws of video games? That we are not expected to be reasonable?

facepalm