PDA

View Full Version : Do all ubisoft multiplayer titles get watered down?



Shadow.A07
04-07-2017, 09:26 AM
Hi all

I'm asking everyone to please keep thing's mature in this thread, I know what im about to ask and say has room the trolls to add their spice to it. In summary for the quick readers I make a point of how early on in the division you could solo people who ganked you and the ability to do so was nerfed too the point where fights turned into who could chicken run in circles the most. And are we seeing the same thing happening to 'for honor' here? I feel if people gank you then you should be able to fight back through revenge and own all of them for doing it 70% of the time and that 70% are the people that spam the same move while ganking you too cheaply kill you. Do all ubisoft multiplayer titles remain unstable and become watered down too the point the playerbase dies? Will we see 'for honor' begging for people to come back with free trails like we see in 'the division' doing right now?

Tom clancy the division during the 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 patch times had room for a single players to be able to kill a squad of 4 solo it gave the people who put the most time into the game to have the best stuff and perform the best. Ofcourse this was not fair to weekend players who would get owned in the darkzone had they not stripped the game down and applied all that extra content and gear drop generosity at the start maybe the billion complaints from people getting owned in the darkzone would of not happened. My housemate plays it still and its turned into a run like a chicken in circles shootfest. What im saying is they watered it down to the point that people walked away from the game and everything requires 200 rounds to kill.

So is the same thing happening to FOR HONOR? I can understand nerfing revenge gain in 1vs1 fights but if a group of friends run around the map ganking everything should there not be a way for the solo player to fight back? Hence my point about the solo warrior days in the division and that aspect/ability was killed so are seeing the same thing here with FOR HONOR? At the least, I feel with revenge you should be able to handle 1vs3 at best and with the new nerfs it will be tougher do so. Right now I will go and learn how to survive under the new mechanics as will other players and then the cycle will repeat itself. Yes the nerf will force players too play with more skill in terms of blocking all those back attacks while in revenge mode and once that happens I feel people will complain again and we will see more nerfs to revenge. Does anyone else feel this way?

I personally find no enjoyment in finding a clan or getting a bunch of friends together for a gank fest then emoting away like we are skilled for ganking people cheaply. My thrill comes from killing 2 or more people at once or maybe im just bad at the game? In my 208 hours of gameplay at 'REP 18' I have only seen one player who 100% blocked all attacks and took damage from 4 people like it was nothing and could killing you in 5 or so hits maybe he was cheating I dont know but I have not seen that again since then.

Mark my words players will adapt to the new revenge mechanics too the point they become extremly skilled at the new revenge system then it will be nerfed again. I play to be ganked and win under those conditions maybe because i do it through revenge I suck at the game but like I said Ive only seen one person in my 200hours of gameplay who beat 4vs1 without revenge and that person was standing on a defence power up 90% of the time.

CoyoteXStarrk
04-07-2017, 09:31 AM
its almost as if all MP games continually evolve and adapt to whatever the players do and use.



Shocking lol

Shadow.A07
04-07-2017, 09:41 AM
its almost as if all MP games continually evolve and adapt to whatever the players do and use.



Shocking lol

Yes i play a lof different multiplayer games but I have never seen changes get done in such a way they kill the player base, Ive only played two ubisoft multiplayer games and personally I disagree with what Ive seen been changed in both, Im wondering if other ubisoft games are the same way?

As ghost recon wildlands i played the whole thing solo as my friends didnt like it. And im not interested in finding other people to play it with I prefer too play with people I know, meeting strangers means they message you and wanna play with you when you get home exhausted from a long day and just wanna play solo.

CoyoteXStarrk
04-07-2017, 09:45 AM
Yes i play a lof different multiplayer games but I have never seen changes get done in such a way they kill the player base, Ive only played two ubisoft multiplayer games and personally I disagree with what Ive seen been changed in both, Im wondering if other ubisoft games are the same way?

In your opinion it kills the player base***



Most of the changes you see were directly requested by the majority of the community.

Shadow.A07
04-07-2017, 09:50 AM
In your opinion it kills the player base***



Most of the changes you see were directly requested by the majority of the community.

Most of the changes you saw in the divsion were also apparently requested by the community and it still died. And here comes the hot sauce maybe just maybe the sore losers plague the forums im sorry to put it that way I dont know how else to put it. Shouldnt improvements increase or mantain a playerbase? Thats why im also asking people if they have seen this happen in other ubisoft multiplayer titles?

kweassa1917
04-07-2017, 10:09 AM
Most of the changes you saw in the divsion were also apparently requested by the community and it still died. And here comes the hot sauce maybe just maybe the sore losers plague the forums im sorry to put it that way I dont know how else to put it. Shouldnt improvements increase or mantain a playerbase? Thats why im also asking people if they have seen this happen in other ubisoft multiplayer titles?

So what assurances do we have that you're not just the same 'sore loser' as those you have mentioned?

Shadow.A07
04-07-2017, 10:25 AM
So what assurances do we have that you're not just the same 'sore loser' as those you have mentioned?

Forum history

Specialkha
04-07-2017, 10:56 AM
What is the big deal? You can't carry alone your team as you are not able to kill the entire DZ by yourself? Biggest players still have an advantage, but not as big as before, so we can now really see who is good and who is not.

Shadow.A07
04-07-2017, 10:59 AM
This thread will swing everywhere as its open to personal views all i wanna know is whether ubisoft does this with their multiplayer games. As someone who buys two of every game for my household and has influence in whether three other close friends will buy a game I really wanna know if they do this with their games a lot nothing more annoying then looking like a fool to my friends for a game that flopped in the end. Hence 'The Division' that started off great excluding the cheaters and then ended up a watered down mess which seemed to have something over powered every patch/update and had issues that are still not fixed till today like healing glitches.

Shadow.A07
04-07-2017, 11:06 AM
What is the big deal? You can't carry alone your team as you are not able to kill the entire DZ by yourself? Biggest players still have an advantage, but not as big as before, so we can now really see who is good and who is not.

Im not claiming to be great at fighting games Im just seeing the solo warrior get nerfed in ubisoft titles, I assuming your talking about the division they killed the ability to end fights quickly and they also supported the ability to end them too quickly with something overpowered each patch like the former aug then mp7 then sentry etc. Instead of buffing the lesser they seem to nerf the better and so everything ends up boring and the same why not give everything a reason for it to be used in a certain way with versatility. Cater for all players not nerf everything and make it the same hence killing your player base.

ArlianDeBias
04-07-2017, 11:09 AM
In your opinion it kills the player base***



Most of the changes you see were directly requested by the majority of the community.

The reason direct democracies don't work in practice is because the majority of any given number of people is usually made up of stupid people who don't understand the logistics behind what they're asking for.

Specialkha
04-07-2017, 11:13 AM
Every game company usually nerf the op stuff, instead of buffing the up stuff, even Blizzard, not only Ubisoft.

CoyoteXStarrk
04-07-2017, 11:16 AM
The reason direct democracies don't work in practice is because the majority of any given number of people is usually made up of stupid people who don't understand the logistics behind what they're asking for.

And I thank god everyday that Devs don't take this route.


Because just like in real life the average everyday would be SCREWED by those who have the most coverage or the most weight to throw around.



Thank god the majority matters in games and not the vocal minority.



Every game company usually nerf the op stuff, instead of buffing the up stuff, even Blizzard, not only Ubisoft.

That would be because things are not meant to be OP lol

Shadow.A07
04-07-2017, 12:04 PM
The reason direct democracies don't work in practice is because the majority of any given number of people is usually made up of stupid people who don't understand the logistics behind what they're asking for.

You made my day right on the money.

Gray360UK
04-07-2017, 12:27 PM
Nothing to do with Ubisoft games, all games companies do this.