PDA

View Full Version : What the game should be been from what was seen in Early Development/Pre-Alpha



Nihilthrope
12-16-2017, 03:54 PM
No heroes. Simple as that. Here's why:


If everyone plays the same hero, there would be no balance issues. Only difference between the "one" hero is the visuals and animations based on faction.


Faction pride. One hero means players play on the faction they want to and they are visually the faction they play on. None of this "viking maining a knight" bs. Factions would fight factions. In a dominion game for instance, it would be vikings vs knights, knights vs samurai, or samurai vs vikings. Every faction plays with players of their same faction. None of this "the viking, knight, and samurai all decide to join forces and fight together, only to end up confused because who they **** are they supposed to kill!?"


Without balance issues, Ubisoft could have focused 100% on gameplay issues, such as the defensive meta, instead of being hesitant to change a single thing because they need to take 50 different heroes into account.


With every player having the same attacks/moves, combos would be created solely from the player. An example is a player choosing to throw out 2 heavies, a light, and another heavy for instance.


There would (technically) be many more armors and weapons. Currently, since Ubisoft decided to make heroes a thing, they need to distribute all the new armors and weapons they make between each of the 50 heroes. With just the 3 factions, they could make the same number of weapons and armors, but it would only need to be distributed through 3. This makes it so a player's character feels much more unique since there are actual options to choose from. Currently: Oh nice, a new season. Oh wait, my favorite hero only gets 3 new swords and 1 new armor, and it's basically the same model as season 1, just with spikes.


Directional attacks would be the same speed, making every attack viable. This means that an attack from top will be the same as an attack from sides. None of this "orochi's fastest light is up top, whereas his other 2 sides are COMPLETELY useless. So let's just focus top and we'll never lose"


All guarding is based on reflex guard. Should be obvious why. Hint: more skill.


Stamina would have a REAL purpose. Since combos are infinite and created by the player, then this obviously means that a flurry of chain attacks would be imminent. Stamina's sole reason for existing was to prevent something like this from happening. It would have a REAL back and forth style of gameplay, instead of the whole "let's bash this character to death so I can be the only one to attack and still accomplish nothing!"


Game is much more skillful since there wouldn't be any of this "top tier this, low tier that" bs. Everyone plays the same hero, meaning you can tell who the bad players are vs the good ones. As of now, highly skilled players can struggle simply because they are playing an inferior class against a superior one.


No gimmicky bs or "special" moves


Currently, the game is a complete mess and I believe heroes are the sole cause of this. Make everyone the same and there wouldn't be a plethora of broken and ******ed issues that we currently see today. The game would have been much more fluid and balanced if everyone played the same, and it would have been much more enjoyable with more moves (you choose the combos), more character uniqueness through more visual options, and more faction pride. Sad when PRE-ALPHA footage ends up being better than the released game (if you can even call it released).

Ianoneshot
12-16-2017, 03:57 PM
Oh I like this! I actually suggested that for For Honor 2, if they decide to make it.
https://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1803833-For-Honro-2-Suggestions-I-plead-ubi-to-see-this

Nihilthrope
12-16-2017, 04:11 PM
Oh I like this! I actually suggested that for For Honor 2, if they decide to make it.
https://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1803833-For-Honro-2-Suggestions-I-plead-ubi-to-see-this

Those are some nice ideas. I guess I'm just focusing on the custom variations part because I believe this is where the game falls short and failed miserably.

bob333e
12-16-2017, 04:25 PM
To me, the biggest facepalm failure in For Honor is largely design-based. A lot of engravings/embossings look wrong. A lot of the gear looks wonky and impractical. A lot of the 'legendary' tier armor is just recycled stuff with spikes. A lot of the color patterns seem like lazy varied hues of each other, and some are even real ugly, distasteful color combinations. And a lot of patterns have bad symmetry. And several ornaments just don't fit on specific helmet types.

I might actually do a ranting thread about it.

Vakris_One
12-16-2017, 05:24 PM
The problem with making the game about a single hero with the same moves for everyone is that it would get boring and stale pretty quickly even for die hard fans. Back in the very first alpha the only hero we had access to was the Warden and it could realistically have been a game just about dueling knights right there, essentially a 3rd person Chivalry. While it was a really fun version of the game (where we all had the same exact tool kits to use) I can tell you that long term interest in For Honor would not have remained for this long (10 months and counting). Any online multiplayer game that plans to stick around needs variety in its gameplay otherwise people get bored and move on if there is nothing new being added and/or not enough variety, i.e. if every single fight is the exact same thing then there is no interest in repeating it past a certain amount of times after the novelty has worn off.

In the long term the decision to make For Honor a 3 faction game and adding new heroes each season was the right move by Ubisoft. Because it keeps people coming back for both the sheer variety of encounters possible and to play new character with new moves and mechanics that evolve the gameplay and keep it moving forward.

Even an incredibly fun fighting experience like Jedi Outcast/Academy, which essentially granted everyone the same moves, remained fun primarily because there were 3 single lightsaber fighting styles which were later joined by 1 dual Saber style and 1 Saber Staff style. If the game had been intended to further develope their online PvP they most probably would have continued adding lightsaber styles such as 2 more dual styles and 2 more saber staff styles - one with more acrobatic kicks and shoves and one with slower but more powerful strikes.

Variety is the spice of life and that is also true of multiplayer games.

Ianoneshot
12-16-2017, 08:29 PM
To me, the biggest facepalm failure in For Honor is largely design-based. A lot of engravings/embossings look wrong. A lot of the gear looks wonky and impractical. A lot of the 'legendary' tier armor is just recycled stuff with spikes. A lot of the color patterns seem like lazy varied hues of each other, and some are even real ugly, distasteful color combinations. And a lot of patterns have bad symmetry. And several ornaments just don't fit on specific helmet types.

I might actually do a ranting thread about it.

We all need to team up on one super rant-thread thing.

Vakris_One
12-16-2017, 11:19 PM
Okay. For some reason I'm having to quote myself for my posts to appear today. Wierd.


The problem with making the game about a single hero with the same moves for everyone is that it would get boring and stale pretty quickly even for die hard fans. Back in the very first alpha the only hero we had access to was the Warden and it could realistically have been a game just about dueling knights right there, essentially a 3rd person Chivalry. While it was a really fun version of the game (where we all had the same exact tool kits to use) I can tell you that long term interest in For Honor would not have remained for this long (10 months and counting). Any online multiplayer game that plans to stick around needs variety in its gameplay otherwise people get bored and move on if there is nothing new being added and/or not enough variety, i.e. if every single fight is the exact same thing then there is no interest in repeating it past a certain amount of times after the novelty has worn off.

In the long term the decision to make For Honor a 3 faction game and adding new heroes each season was the right move by Ubisoft. Because it keeps people coming back for both the sheer variety of encounters possible and to play new character with new moves and mechanics that evolve the gameplay and keep it moving forward.

Even an incredibly fun fighting experience like Jedi Outcast/Academy, which essentially granted everyone the same moves, remained fun primarily because there were 3 single lightsaber fighting styles which were later joined by 1 dual Saber style and 1 Saber Staff style. If the game had been intended to further develope their online PvP they most probably would have continued adding lightsaber styles such as 2 more dual styles and 2 more saber staff styles - one with more acrobatic kicks and shoves and one with slower but more powerful strikes.

Variety is the spice of life and that is also true of multiplayer games.

bob333e
12-16-2017, 11:48 PM
We all need to team up on one super rant-thread thing.

Oh heck yeah. Perhaps by then we actually stand a chance at making them listen.

Illyrian_King
12-17-2017, 12:01 AM
I like the idea of having a knight, a samurai and a viking, where you just choose the weapon and have the whole armour pool of the depnding faction to choose from,

BUT

You can't treat a halberd the same way like two daggers and let them all have the same combos, attack speed and no special attacks like unblockables, bleed, etc.
It would simply be no fun! Too monotone ....

Also the way it is now is poor, because you have these pre-made heroes and can just pick one, that "fits most to what you would pick in real life"

I would prefere, to have that hero with the weaponry of your choice and armour of the whole faction pool,

BUT

This would need even more balance and mo-cap, then what we have now :rolleyes:

Alustar.
12-17-2017, 12:17 AM
Honestly, that sounds rather dull and tedious. Part of the thing that draws so many players in is the diversity of the cast. Secondly, the player base can argue about who is top to bottom in the tiered listing of characters, but there is no actual metric used to make these heroes, nor would that list actually be helpful a this game is less about what hero is the strongest and more about do you sync with personally as a player. So if three is no tangible standard of measures, then that boils the tier lists down to an opinion based poll on how you perform in match ups. It is actually very telling about a person and how they play based on who they have favorable match ups with.
Take myself for instance, the only bad match ups I have are berserker and aramusha, currently. Those are the only heroes that stand out as making me respond differently, and where I find I have to work harder than usual just to stay alive.

Lastly, Having everyone the same isn't achieving balance, that's stasis. Balance in a varied multiplayer game isn't achieved through equalizing your roster, it's achieved through a clever and subtle means of checks and balances within a diverse roster.

Knight_Raime
12-17-2017, 06:56 AM
Honestly it doesn't really sound like you know jack about design, balance, or skill if you seriously believe all problems can be solved by this.
If we are going to be 100% real the only issue for honor had balance wise from the beginning was 4v4 feats/gear.

The whole idea of characters getting reworked along with base mechanics is because the COMMUNITY came up with it being a problem. The devs from the very beginning were not aiming at a competitive game with a high skill ceiling. It was purely meant to be a fantasy game played in a casual sense. But what happened was the community wanted more from it. They wanted different. And that's exactly why these "problems" exist. The devs are literally creating a different game using the assets from their original game.

Tundra 793
12-17-2017, 09:28 AM
Like others have said, cutting the entire game down to its most basic form, essentially reverting it to a pre-alpha state, would make it dull, tedious and toss into a very niche genre without much prospect for sustainability.

It'd be like if Battlefield 1 only featured bolt action rifles.

The three different faction (essentially 3 different stereotypes) with their variety of heroes provides longevity and appeal to a much wider audience.


None of this "viking maining a knight" bs.

Why is that bs? I'm a Viking and have only mained Viking heroes so far, but lately I have toyed with the idea of trying Warden for a bit. Why shouldn't I be allowed to diversify my gaming experience?

Nihilthrope
12-19-2017, 12:24 AM
The problem with making the game about a single hero with the same moves for everyone is that it would get boring and stale pretty quickly even for die hard fans. Back in the very first alpha the only hero we had access to was the Warden and it could realistically have been a game just about dueling knights right there, essentially a 3rd person Chivalry. While it was a really fun version of the game (where we all had the same exact tool kits to use) I can tell you that long term interest in For Honor would not have remained for this long (10 months and counting). Any online multiplayer game that plans to stick around needs variety in its gameplay otherwise people get bored and move on if there is nothing new being added and/or not enough variety, i.e. if every single fight is the exact same thing then there is no interest in repeating it past a certain amount of times after the novelty has worn off.

In the long term the decision to make For Honor a 3 faction game and adding new heroes each season was the right move by Ubisoft. Because it keeps people coming back for both the sheer variety of encounters possible and to play new character with new moves and mechanics that evolve the gameplay and keep it moving forward.

Even an incredibly fun fighting experience like Jedi Outcast/Academy, which essentially granted everyone the same moves, remained fun primarily because there were 3 single lightsaber fighting styles which were later joined by 1 dual Saber style and 1 Saber Staff style. If the game had been intended to further develope their online PvP they most probably would have continued adding lightsaber styles such as 2 more dual styles and 2 more saber staff styles - one with more acrobatic kicks and shoves and one with slower but more powerful strikes.

Variety is the spice of life and that is also true of multiplayer games.

Really? Is that why For Honor is actually a bit of a failure and isn't really a full game? Reason is balance and how poorly the game was executed. Yeah, different heroes adds diversity, but who in the actual **** cares about diversity if the game is broken. The whole "getting old" thing is a load of **** and you know it. There are MANY players who literally play one hero and you really think they are bored with that? What keeps the game interesting is new maps and new changes to the game, NOT new ****ty heroes. Movesets and combos add variety because with unlimited amounts, every player would play differently. Currently, while the game does have "variety," each hero is extremely repetitive and boring because they use the same moves over and over and OVER.

Nihilthrope
12-19-2017, 12:28 AM
Honestly, that sounds rather dull and tedious. Part of the thing that draws so many players in is the diversity of the cast. Secondly, the player base can argue about who is top to bottom in the tiered listing of characters, but there is no actual metric used to make these heroes, nor would that list actually be helpful a this game is less about what hero is the strongest and more about do you sync with personally as a player. So if three is no tangible standard of measures, then that boils the tier lists down to an opinion based poll on how you perform in match ups. It is actually very telling about a person and how they play based on who they have favorable match ups with.
Take myself for instance, the only bad match ups I have are berserker and aramusha, currently. Those are the only heroes that stand out as making me respond differently, and where I find I have to work harder than usual just to stay alive.

Lastly, Having everyone the same isn't achieving balance, that's stasis. Balance in a varied multiplayer game isn't achieved through equalizing your roster, it's achieved through a clever and subtle means of checks and balances within a diverse roster.

Like I said with the last joker. Diversity of heroes did not make this game successful or fun in any way. The game is a piece of **** mess and most of that has to do with poor balance issues, which wouldn't have been a problem with "same hero" mechanics. Unfortunately, Ubisoft is unable or competent enough to balance their roster, so the game will continue to be a failure. They can't even fix the ****ing defensive meta, which is largely because they will **** up many of the classes while making some hugely overpowered. Keeping the game interesting is through constant map, game types and armor varieties, which would be much more focused on if they weren't constantly trying to fix their heroes and failing miserably.

Heroes might have diversity, but they also have no moves as well. Take Orochi for example. He LITERALLY has only two viable moves, so that hero is a complete piece of trash. Same hero mechanics would allow Ubisoft to create unlimited combos and different movesets, which makes the game interesting and different for each player. The game is about mind games for gods sake, and again, that's partly to do with the lack of movesets and different attacks, which again, wouldn't be a problem with what I said in the last sentence.