PDA

View Full Version : Vanilla and DLC Hero Comparisons



Tundra 793
01-23-2018, 08:24 PM
Big shoutout to Reddit user Andur22 for putting this together. I've actually been meaning to do exactly this, minus the clean and well made graphics, for a while now, but Andur beat me to it.
Reposting his thread here in case some forum users don't use Reddit; https://www.reddit.com/r/forhonor/comments/7seakc/comparison_of_vanilla_and_dlc_heros/

The core of this little experiment is something that's concerned me for a while now;

The DLC Heroes, despite there being only 6 of them, has more Unblockables, Stuns and Bleeds than the entire 12 Hero Vanilla Roster.
It's this trend of simply making more powerful heroes that has me worried. The newer heroes, Highlander excluded, all seem to just be amped up versions of the original heroes in terms of types of attacks, and the speed of them.

Overall, I think the effect this is having on the game is fundamentally changing the tone and speed of it. I'm replaying the Story Mode on Realistic at the moment, and while the fights aren't particularly challenging anymore, I appreciate their pace far more. There's less grabs, throws, punches, bleeds. It's a much more grounded type of combat, not a competition to spam the most unblockables.
In contrast to the average Dominion battle I'll get into, almost every fight against the new heroes is just a non-stop assault of attacks. Every time i get thrown down a Centurion comes flying out of the sun to stab me, Shaman's manifest seemingly out of my own nightmares to knock me into walls or off ledges, or to go full Dracula on me. Gladiators dance and stab left and right, their Stamina seemingly fueled by my frustration.

Since we're not getting new heroes for Season 5, I'm hoping now is the golden oppurtunity to really affect the future of For Honor, as players. While I'm glad we're getting reworks for the old roster, I'd still much rather have seen the DLC heroes get taken down a few notches.

Personally, I want to see more tempered attack speeds, less moves in each heroes moveset (Really, you could take away Glad's toe stab and Shaman's bite and they'd still be perfectly viable, even great heroes), and generally just more restraint in hero design.
I have this feeling that the newer heroes were designed to sort of counteract the defensive meta, by employing a lot of attacks designed to open up defenses. But this has only treated the symptoms of the meta, not fixed it. And giving old heroes this same treatment likewise won't cure the meta.

I still want to see the parry changes take effect, but I'd really hoped to have had this in game a while ago, before we got into the reworks so we could see the affect it had on the meta, rather than trying to fix the meta by punching through it.

TL;DR - I'm still hopeful for the future of For Honor, but based on the first year, I am worried about how all our heroes will play in a few months time, and that the game might end up feeling completely different from when It first launched.

bob333e
01-23-2018, 09:11 PM
Thanks for the write-up and for the link. I will help embed it on here:

https://i.redd.it/kjlid3eohtb01.png

I just realized, how doubly effective the DLC heroes are, compared to the OG roster. Holy heck. I never bothered to count individual moves, but this... this is truth-telling on a silver plate.


I'm still hopeful for the future of For Honor, but based on the first year, I am worried about how all our heroes will play in a few months time, and that the game might end up feeling completely different from when It first launched.

Feelings mutual. Should For Honor degrade into a bashfest / bleedfest down the road, I don't think I'll stick around. I'm saving my final say till after dedicated servers are out, reworks are out, parry changes are out, and S6 heroes are out.

UbiInsulin
01-23-2018, 10:31 PM
TL;DR - I'm still hopeful for the future of For Honor, but based on the first year, I am worried about how all our heroes will play in a few months time, and that the game might end up feeling completely different from when It first launched.

Season 5 is going to be a big one in terms of practically all of the concerns you brought up. We'll be going into more details soon, but I'm glad you see Season 5 as an opportunity to refine what's already in the game. That's very much the goal.

The_B0G_
01-23-2018, 10:32 PM
To be fair, the devs are aware of this. That's why the OG cast is getting reworks, motion capped new moves added which are without a doubt unblockables and other types of improvements to bring them up to spec with the new heroes.

Its a new genre, you can see by looking at the DLC characters that they have learned as they went, this game is slowly being polished and I think the upcoming year will be much better than the first in all aspects.

They just need to finish balancing the roster and work on fixing Faction War and ranked Dom.

Alustar.
01-23-2018, 11:09 PM
The problem I have with the vanilla roster is the limited move list and incredible predictability. The reason I prefer shaman over my peacekeeper is simply the ability I have to mix up and keep from being parried and countered.
I'm greatly looking forward to the changes these reworks bring, as I've been saying since season 2 that it's something that should have been done.

bob333e
01-23-2018, 11:30 PM
Season 5 is going to be a big one in terms of practically all of the concerns you brought up. We'll be going into more details soon, but I'm glad you see Season 5 as an opportunity to refine what's already in the game. That's very much the goal.

They sure hyped us all during the last Den. All the good things that have been meant for For Honor for far too long, are finally happening in Season 5. It's like the stellar, godsend Season.

I, for one, remain however skeptical. For various reasons, with the icing on the cake being the 'reworked' Frost Wind Viking Mask, and that they were actively avoiding the word 'rework' and saying 'updates' is a fitter term; for lack of a better guess, I'd say they don't want to use rework because rework indeed means 75% redone from scratch, whereas update is much less than that. Which also leads me to believe, the character 'reworks' will be some updated animations, and maybe some unblockable bashes from neutral, for a wrap. Instead of in-depth systematic changes. But my guess is only as good as anyone else's.

That said, I remain faithful in Ubisoft improving this game because, despite everything that's been happening, For Honor has improved much overall. Only, I hope they now have a much clearer vision of what goal to set firmly in stone for this game on the long run. With Ariadne leaving and no replacement writer yet, and with several design caveats and no mention whatsoever of expansion packs for Story Mode, I sure hope development of For Honor doesn't become restrained to multiplayer balancing only; which would effectively turn it into another CS:GO.

Patiently waiting for what news the next Den will bring.

Tundra 793
01-23-2018, 11:34 PM
Season 5 is going to be a big one in terms of practically all of the concerns you brought up. We'll be going into more details soon, but I'm glad you see Season 5 as an opportunity to refine what's already in the game. That's very much the goal.

You're givin' me hope, and I'm very stoked to be recapping the next Den.


To be fair, the devs are aware of this. That's why the OG cast is getting reworks, motion capped new moves added which are without a doubt unblockables and other types of improvements to bring them up to spec with the new heroes.

Its a new genre, you can see by looking at the DLC characters that they have learned as they went, this game is slowly being polished and I think the upcoming year will be much better than the first in all aspects.

They just need to finish balancing the roster and work on fixing Faction War and ranked Dom.

But that's not the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with my wording, but; I don't want the vanilla roster to be brought up to par with the DLC heroes, as I see them as full of excess moves, and needlessly fast attacks. Compared to the original heroes, they're in a league of their own, and not a better one in my opinion.


The problem I have with the vanilla roster is the limited move list and incredible predictability. The reason I prefer shaman over my peacekeeper is simply the ability I have to mix up and keep from being parried and countered.

I agree to an extent. It's a very fine line between the two categories (Vanilla and DLC heroes), so sorry if I sound a bit contradictory.
The Gladiator for example, I feel has too much mixup, which is aggrevated by his large Stamina pool. But I just don't think the solution to this is to keep buffing heroes, but rather to bring some newer heroes down a tad, or with the upcoming reworks, provided they aren't too excessive.
I'll reserve judgement until we see the reworks in action, the point of the thread was just to point out how the newer heroes are designed, and that going forward, I don't want to see all the heroes keep getting newer, faster more unblockable moves, but a more tempered approach to the hero design overall.

Basically, I want less "Faster! More intense!" in the heroes.

bob333e
01-23-2018, 11:46 PM
Basically, I want less "Faster! More intense!" in the heroes.

Yeah, this too. I'd like a pure melee tactical combat. By tactical, it means the near-absence, or complete absence, of free (and fast) hits, free damage, and/or guaranteed 1-shots. I don't have a problem with fast 400ms and 500ms attacks per-se, I have a problem with how, ultimately, as it stands, combat in For Honor revolves around landing guaranteed hits. And this is only aggravated 10 times worse with the DLC heroes. Because the DLC heroes are twice as fast and doubly efficient.

Alustar.
01-24-2018, 12:16 AM
That seems to be the main issue right now, is is either top show and predictable which propped up and enforced the defensive meta which led to heavy starting contests. And that's something the bulk of the player base wanted to avoid.

mrmistark
01-24-2018, 01:47 AM
I agree with the OP. Iíd like to see the new roster a little toned down. The game is honestly slowly being tarnished by CC. Many people say each character needs their own CC opener to be viable. It may be unpopular of me to say, but I highly disagree. Opener? Yes, but the amount of CC and their spamability especially in 4v4 is honestly slowly destroying the fundamentals of the game.

Donít get me wrong, certain characters could significantly benefit from a CC like orochi, but no CC except for the already implemented CC should guarantee damage. I would argue what the game truly needs to make characters viable are viable UB attacks in either chain or neutral like raiders zone, and shaman and glads chain finishers.

If I were to fix the vanilla roster, I would do the following:

Warden: Ub top heavy
Conq: Iíll just say good thing heís getting full rework as heís fundamentally out of place
PK: a Stun CC as a chain finisher into follow up heavy
LB: UB wider zone
Raider: honestly fine, no changes
Warlord: UB finisher to his double heavy chain
Berserker: After a heavy in chain, same side heavy UB
Valkyrie: sweep fientable
Kensei: UB moderate speed zone (current zone is trash)
Shugoki: without armor no debuff, viable follow up to headbutt (why even have stun with a move that creates too much space?)
Orochi: CC opener, UB chain finisher after successful hit
Nobushi: fientable kick, hidden stance cost significantly reduced

For the new roster, I think glads toe stab should be parryable, cent and Shinobi are fine now, HL could use a buff in OS stamina and superior light input timing, shaman needs to have her bite taken out completely and a smaller throw, aramusha is fine for the most part too.

Again, maybe this is an unpopular opinion but it would bring the whole roster up and with small yet viable changes to each.

Sauronbaine
01-24-2018, 02:08 AM
Here is where I have to disagree.


While yes, in general, the DLC roster is superior, you are forgetting that the Raider AND the Peacekeeper remain A tier which is below S tier.

Most of the DLC resides in the B tier category along with most of the original roster.

I dont want to see the DLC cast toned down... I want them to be buffed and turned up. Nerfing is bad. Always bad.

Linnix1
01-24-2018, 02:25 AM
If they buff the cast anymore the games just gonna become either one shots or touch of death. Pick your poison

Mia.Nora
01-24-2018, 02:36 AM
Problem is not just the number of unblockables, but also their speed and utility is far superior in DLC characters.

Look at Shugoki unblockables;
- Headbutt can only be used after a hit; leads to..... nothing. Doesn't even ledge opponent right at the edge of cliff
- Charged Unblockable Heavy. Slowest attack that can not be soft feinted into anything that also drains Shugoki's pretty much whole stamina bar. If parried he is OOS.

And now compare this to Shaman unblockables.

But it is not just the attacks itself either, the tracking simply makes positioning and tactical step back attacks (like Oroichi back heavy) also obsolete. This behaviour was introduced with Centurion simply heat seeking to his target, and they managed to make it worse with shaman leap attacks. Her distance and tracking feels like Supergirl teleport attacks in Injustice 2.

If they just buff OG heroes to Shaman lvls game will just turn into a clusterfak, more so than already it is.

brashtralas
01-24-2018, 02:42 AM
The problem I have with the vanilla roster is the limited move list and incredible predictability. The reason I prefer shaman over my peacekeeper is simply the ability I have to mix up and keep from being parried and countered.
I'm greatly looking forward to the changes these reworks bring, as I've been saying since season 2 that it's something that should have been done.

Mixups and avoiding being partied or countered are the exact reasons people say sheís overpowered. Iíd almost say thatís the definition.

I think thatís the whole point of this reddit post.

brashtralas
01-24-2018, 02:45 AM
Problem is not just the number of unblockables, but also their speed and utility is far superior in DLC characters.

Look at Shugoki unblockables;
- Headbutt can only be used after a hit; leads to..... nothing. Doesn't even ledge opponent right at the edge of cliff
- Charged Unblockable Heavy. Slowest attack that can not be soft feinted into anything that also drains Shugoki's pretty much whole stamina bar. If parried he is OOS.

And now compare this to Shaman unblockables.

But it is not just the attacks itself either, the tracking simply makes positioning and tactical step back attacks (like Oroichi back heavy) also obsolete. This behaviour was introduced with Centurion simply heat seeking to his target, and they managed to make it worse with shaman leap attacks. Her distance and tracking feels like Supergirl teleport attacks in Injustice 2.

If they just buff OG heroes to Shaman lvls game will just turn into a clusterfak, more so than already it is.

Exactly. Then add in insane dodge recovery and she never has to stop moving while killing you.

ChampionRuby50g
01-24-2018, 02:58 AM
Thanks for sharing this Tundra. Never realised how big the discrepancies where between the OGs and the DLCs until now. When you see those hard numbers, itís hard to argue. I used to be saying we need to buff the other heroes to the level of Shaman and Glad, but with these stats in front of me and your arguments against it I start to side with you. I suppose we should wait and see what the reworks bring to the table, and how these heroes start to perform.

mrmistark
01-24-2018, 04:22 AM
Nerfing is bad. Always bad.

With how unbalanced the roster is, I think thatís rather a ballsy thing to say. Please give insight to how you think Shamans bite is balanced and shouldnít be nerfed? Pre need Shinobi/ warden/ shugoki/ PK? Those were horrible moves on the dev teams side? Iíd say they were good decisions.

Anyways though, I think mix ups are what the game should gear towards, not start away from. What we need to be focusing on is getting rid of constant guaranteed damage. Some things should be rewarded, but other than damage on gb and a few CC easily dodged/ interrupted moves, there shouldnít be any free chicken. More mix ups, less CC honestly. Make it tactical and a mind game rather than a spam fest.

The_B0G_
01-24-2018, 04:45 AM
Without unblockables, no matter what defence meta nerfs there are, there will always be turtles. I recently started noticing I'm always fighting lvl 3 bots when I see a bot in game, so that means I'm fighting in the top 10 percent.

Me and my friends I usually play with have also noticed the increase in people who just parry bait and turtle constantly, in the higher skill levels this is how most combat is, I find myself waiting for teammates to help with the really big turtles because even with unblockables its hard to open them up, because of this every night this week one of us has gotten so fed up we had to quit playing before we threw a controller.

If we go backwards and make every character as slow and predicatable as the OG cast, this game will never improve. They're on the right course.

Sauronbaine
01-24-2018, 05:05 AM
With how unbalanced the roster is, I think that’s rather a ballsy thing to say. Please give insight to how you think Shamans bite is balanced and shouldn’t be nerfed? Pre need Shinobi/ warden/ shugoki/ PK? Those were horrible moves on the dev teams side? I’d say they were good decisions.

Anyways though, I think mix ups are what the game should gear towards, not start away from. What we need to be focusing on is getting rid of constant guaranteed damage. Some things should be rewarded, but other than damage on gb and a few CC easily dodged/ interrupted moves, there shouldn’t be any free chicken. More mix ups, less CC honestly. Make it tactical and a mind game rather than a spam fest.

Because nerfing doesn't always fix things. Shugoki got nerfed so bad, hes terrible. PK got nerfed VERY little and she remains top tier. She dropped down from S-tier where Shaman and Glad currently reside, and is now A tier, which is I call, top tier.

Centurion got nerfed to B tier along with Shugoki.

Warden... Im not sure where ill place him but ill say high B or Low A.

I mean. Nerfing CAN work but Ubi doesn't exactly have a good track record with their balancing. I mean look at the Shaman release... and Glad release...

and PK release.

And Centurion release!


lol.

Tundra 793
01-24-2018, 06:26 AM
Here is where I have to disagree.


While yes, in general, the DLC roster is superior, you are forgetting that the Raider AND the Peacekeeper remain A tier which is below S tier.

Most of the DLC resides in the B tier category along with most of the original roster.

I dont want to see the DLC cast toned down... I want them to be buffed and turned up. Nerfing is bad. Always bad.

Tier lists are not as solid an argument as many people believe. I've been here since day 1, and have seen countless tier lists, and no two were alike.

Kensei, while he's been widely considered low tier since Season 1, has always been the bane of my existence. I just can't seem to get the parry times right, so a good Kensei can always kick my ***.
But I absolutely understand why he needs his rework, and my opinion on him shouldn't have any bearing on his place in For Honor. We have to be open minded to the bigger picture of hero balance, not just our own perspectives.

You deal quite plainly in absolutes, and my counter point is simply; It's not black and white. Heroes aren't locked into tiers, and nerfing is far from always bad. In my head, For Honor should be a more grounded fighter than what it's currently looking to become.

Sauronbaine
01-24-2018, 06:35 AM
Tier lists are not as solid an argument as many people believe. I've been here since day 1, and have seen countless tier lists, and no two were alike.

Kensei, while he's been widely considered low tier since Season 1, has always been the bane of my existence. I just can't seem to get the parry times right, so a good Kensei can always kick my ***.
But I absolutely understand why he needs his rework, and my opinion on him shouldn't have any bearing on his place in For Honor. We have to be open minded to the bigger picture of hero balance, not just our own perspectives.

You deal quite plainly in absolutes, and my counter point is simply; It's not black and white. Heroes aren't locked into tiers, and nerfing is far from always bad. In my head, For Honor should be a more grounded fighter than what it's currently looking to become.

THen why are people saying Glad and Shaman are top tier/S class?


I mean if tier lists dont exist... then whats the point? Anyone can make an arguement that X is OP... that Highlander is OP...

And you are right, tier lists are never the same. The same was for Mortal Kombat and Injustice. Always difference of opinion...

But, PK is still one of the strongest characters in the game imo. They didn't do much to her for nerfs that would affect her from being top tier.... and the guy said we should buff PK? I jhad to reply to that...


Meh. Doesn't really matter in the end. The game will NEVER be balanced.

Tundra 793
01-24-2018, 06:42 AM
THen why are people saying Glad and Shaman are top tier/S class?

Because they are very, very good heroes, and many would argue they're too good.


I mean if tier lists dont exist... then whats the point? Anyone can make an arguement that X is OP... that Highlander is OP...

Tier lists exists, but there's not a lot of objective metrics with which to judge heroes, so tier lists are just anecdotal evidence, ergo we can't rely on them solely for balance changes.


And you are right, tier lists are never the same. The same was for Mortal Kombat and Injustice. Always difference of opinion...

But, PK is still one of the strongest characters in the game imo. They didn't do much to her for nerfs that would affect her from being top tier.... and the guy said we should buff PK? I jhad to reply to that...

You've just drifted into my point; You think PK is very strong, whereas I find her quite balanced. Right here is why we can't use tier lists to judge heroes, because yours and mine would be very different.


Meh. Doesn't really matter in the end. The game will NEVER be balanced.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7CYzc1naaw

Sauronbaine
01-24-2018, 07:23 AM
Because they are very, very good heroes, and many would argue they're too good.



Tier lists exists, but there's not a lot of objective metrics with which to judge heroes, so tier lists are just anecdotal evidence, ergo we can't rely on them solely for balance changes.



You've just drifted into my point; You think PK is very strong, whereas I find her quite balanced. Right here is why we can't use tier lists to judge heroes, because yours and mine would be very different.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7CYzc1naaw


I am fine with your opinion...


Like some people argue that Centurion is really powerful still and is still top tier... where as I find him average, but this is because I had played Centurion the most so I know how to fight one. :P

Jazz117Volkov
01-24-2018, 08:12 AM
The DLC Heroes, despite there being only 6 of them, has more Unblockables, Stuns and Bleeds than the entire 12 Hero Vanilla Roster.
It's this trend of simply making more powerful heroes that has me worried. The newer heroes, Highlander excluded, all seem to just be amped up versions of the original heroes in terms of types of attacks, and the speed of them.

The DLC guys really are loaded with stuns and bleeds. This has bugged me for a while. I personally don't play any of the DLC heroes because I don't feel any sense of mastery with their movesets. It's just all sorts of spam with various auxiliary effects to further disable your opponent. It's not fun to fight against. Dealing with Shamans and Gladiators quickly devolves into a chore where your alertness needs to be up at 11 so you don't fall for their "player skill shortcuts". Shaman and Centurion both get their strongest punishes off of soft-feints. It's a bit of a joke.


Overall, I think the effect this is having on the game is fundamentally changing the tone and speed of it. I'm replaying the Story Mode on Realistic at the moment, and while the fights aren't particularly challenging anymore, I appreciate their pace far more. There's less grabs, throws, punches, bleeds. It's a much more grounded type of combat, not a competition to spam the most unblockables.
That very much mirrors my initial impression of Season 2: "Oh...it's this sort of game now..."


Personally, I want to see more tempered attack speeds, less moves in each heroes moveset (Really, you could take away Glad's toe stab and Shaman's bite and they'd still be perfectly viable, even great heroes), and generally just more restraint in hero design.
Yeah, that old saying: Jack of all trades, master of none. Well, these DLC chaps are typically released as masters of everything.

I really enjoyed the clear groove each of the OG vanguards fell into. They were each super unique in how they approached combat, and even though Kensei leans towards the weaker end, there's a great sense of mastery when you excel with each of their styles. The new heroes often feel awkward in how strong they are with typically auxiliary moves: Cent with his guardbreak, Shaman with her bleed and bashes, Aramusha with his feints. These guys are built around specialty moves.

The basic structure of light and heavy attacks has been discarded in favour of fast heavies with high damage and super fast lights with guaranteed followups, and every second move is given a bleed or stun property.


I still want to see the parry changes take effect, but I'd really hoped to have had this in game a while ago, before we got into the reworks so we could see the affect it had on the meta, rather than trying to fix the meta by punching through it.
I'm more than a little concerned I won't enjoy the game after the changes. If the DLC heroes and their obnoxious traits are an indication of where the devs are pushing the game, I doubt I'll be on board with it.

Rarely should a hero have more than two auxiliaries: stun, bleed, hyper armour, unblockable, soft-feints. Stacking specials cheapens the combat. Glad can open with a stun, easily get an unblockable, get bleed, throw out more stuns just because.

If I pick up my Warden post patch and there's a slew of status effects attached to half a dozen super fast heavies with guaranteed followups, I'm done. That's not the game I bought.

Alustar.
01-24-2018, 10:02 AM
I feel if I wanted to play a slow paced, easily predictable combat game with a highly restrictive and repetitive move set, I'd go back to playing Dark souls :/

ChampionRuby50g
01-24-2018, 10:25 AM
I feel if I wanted to play a slow paced, easily predictable combat game with a highly restrictive and repetitive move set, I'd go back to playing Dark souls :/

While I do like the amount of mind games and moves each hero has to master, I agree with us not needing as many Unblockables/Stuns/Bleeds. That is starting to take the combat out of the players hands in a way, to a point where everyone will be relying on these type of moves to win a fight, instead of their skill with actual attacks. If Iím outplayed and die, kudos to the enemy. But if itís a close fight and I get hit with a bleed move and die from said bleed, it feels cheap and as if the player did not truly kill me, a gimmick did. There have been times where I have been struck with bleed with at least 25% HP left, been hit by a few attacks and still would be alive fighting but only to collapse off something that struck me 10s earlier.

Jazz117Volkov
01-24-2018, 10:36 AM
I feel if I wanted to play a slow paced, easily predictable combat game with a highly restrictive and repetitive move set, I'd go back to playing Dark souls :/
It's not about being repetitive or restrictive; For Honor is the only game I know of that actually allows you to attack from different directions, but instead of building mechanics around that, all the new characters have just devolved into typical fighting game characters: really fast and long combos distributed over left and right instead of high and low.

The assassin deflect is the only mechanic aside from parrying/blocking where attack direction actually matters. For Honor is not living up to its potential.

Alustar.
01-24-2018, 10:39 AM
While I do like the amount of mind games and moves each hero has to master, I agree with us not needing as many Unblockables/Stuns/Bleeds. That is starting to take the combat out of the players hands in a way, to a point where everyone will be relying on these type of moves to win a fight, instead of their skill with actual attacks. If Iím outplayed and die, kudos to the enemy. But if itís a close fight and I get hit with a bleed move and die from said bleed, it feels cheap and as if the player did not truly kill me, a gimmick did. There have been times where I have been struck with bleed with at least 25% HP left, been hit by a few attacks and still would be alive fighting but only to collapse off something that struck me 10s earlier.

But that's not the case, you are totally overlooking the skill of players who read through those feints and attacks, then manage to block parry or counter them.

ChampionRuby50g
01-24-2018, 11:14 AM
But that's not the case, you are totally overlooking the skill of players who read through those feints and attacks, then manage to block parry or counter them.

Do you mean the players who block parry and counter bleed attacks?
You can have a game that isnít slow paced and easily predictable without bleed and stun attacks though. Not saying there should be no bleed or stuns, but when 6 DLC heroes have more than the original 12 combined, that is a serious oversight.

Jarl.Felix
01-24-2018, 11:48 AM
Of course it came to this.. when devs openly stated that they "are still thinking how to balance this game" :))

After 1 year of full data, failed decisions and broken mechanics they still don't have any idea how to balance this game..

Playerbase reached lowest numbers since recent "events". So don't have high hopes on balance, this game will continue to be **** in 2018 also.

PDXGorechild
01-24-2018, 12:58 PM
I still want to see the parry changes take effect, but I'd really hoped to have had this in game a while ago, before we got into the reworks so we could see the affect it had on the meta, rather than trying to fix the meta by punching through it..

I'd hoped to see the parry changes a lot earlier too, seemed like a crucial precursor to re balancing the old roster and the new. Especially seeing as deflects and counter attacks may need adjusting as well to bring them in line, so hopefully they delayed the changes to see how they would work with the first batch of reworks. Fingers crossed.

Good post though, I agree and am also concerned about the general direction of the game. Centurion was the first and most obvious attempt to break the meta, something that backfired terribly imo. Sadly they didn't learn from this mistake and proceeded to pump out another 4 similarly over the top characters that are frustrating to fight.

Stronger, faster and nastier doesn't necessarily mean better.

Tone the new classes down a bit and boost the original ones up to meet in some kind of middle ground, fix parry and tweak the fight system, implement dedicated servers and throw in some new game modes and I honestly think this will be on track to be the best fighting game of all time.

Alustar.
01-24-2018, 01:20 PM
Do you mean the players who block parry and counter bleed attacks?
You can have a game that isnít slow paced and easily predictable without bleed and stun attacks though. Not saying there should be no bleed or stuns, but when 6 DLC heroes have more than the original 12 combined, that is a serious oversight.

And that to me send almost paradoxical, how do you shift the meta of a game from an unintended meta? More importantly, I feel sometimes like the devs are playing catch up to understand the design they implemented. It feels like we have very few options to coat overly defensive characters. Either faster attacks, or CC and unblockable attacks. And to be fair, every be hero has either a CC ability and access to some form of unblockable. In my opinion, they are critical in breaking open defensive players. With the incoming reworks, I hope this disparity gets alleviated.

ChampionRuby50g
01-24-2018, 01:58 PM
And that to me send almost paradoxical, how do you shift the meta of a game from an unintended meta? More importantly, I feel sometimes like the devs are playing catch up to understand the design they implemented. It feels like we have very few options to coat overly defensive characters. Either faster attacks, or CC and unblockable attacks. And to be fair, every be hero has either a CC ability and access to some form of unblockable. In my opinion, they are critical in breaking open defensive players. With the incoming reworks, I hope this disparity gets alleviated.

I think I get what you mean. The developers have created such a diverse combat system and a game that is incredibly complex when you get into the overall design. There are so many moving parts going all at once in For Honor, and that is very hard to effectively manage. It is incredibly hard to find the right balancing point, especially with the large amount of differing opinions. But, I agree to an extent. This may not be popular, but not every hero needs access to CC at least in 4v4. I understand that 1v1 is also a core aspect of the game, but balancing for 1v1 and 4v4 at the same time is a gagantuan task. Not every hero having CC would require two players to work together to take down a skilled opponent, and these two players playing two different classes will complement each other in team fights. One hero is viable at breaking open a turtle while the other is viable at capitalising on it. Shoving both those qualities into one hero can create a jumble thatís hard to manage. Personally, I can live with how the game is and the direction itís potentially heading is as this is one of the finest games Iíve played in a long time.

Excuse me if none of that made much sense or is just completely wrong. Iím a few beers deep 👍👍

Hormly
01-24-2018, 04:58 PM
I remember when cent and shin were released and the writing was on the wall. These guys were demonstrative of the direction the game was taking and i REALLY didnt like it.

Its all just more unblockables, more speed.

Feels like FH 1 and FH 2

Okita_Soji..
01-24-2018, 07:19 PM
Sorry to be pessimistic but what makes any of you think the "reworks" of the original cast will turn out good? Look at how all the DLC heroes have been. The numbers are there for all to see. There are so many posts every season about how the new heroes are this and that like they are from a different game. What have the Devs done with each new hero that's been released that shows that they know what people want and will be happy playing. Lots of posts about ruining original heroes. They can read what no one wants but we all know what's coming... UB and spamable moves.

I do love this game and want things to turn out well but almost every step the Devs make is poor. Everyone has there hopes on servers, me too, but when will they come and what new issues are we gonna get? Sure they will be in season 5, what week? Week 6 of the season, week 2, week 7? Season 5 is gonna start and everyone will be hyped then we wait still week after week playing againt the AI because they still aren't out. But they are coming were told....

Just saying the more you get excited for something with this game the bigger the disappoint. Get ready for the backlash...

Alustar.
01-24-2018, 09:15 PM
I think I get what you mean. The developers have created such a diverse combat system and a game that is incredibly complex when you get into the overall design. There are so many moving parts going all at once in For Honor, and that is very hard to effectively manage. It is incredibly hard to find the right balancing point, especially with the large amount of differing opinions. But, I agree to an extent. This may not be popular, but not every hero needs access to CC at least in 4v4. I understand that 1v1 is also a core aspect of the game, but balancing for 1v1 and 4v4 at the same time is a gagantuan task. Not every hero having CC would require two players to work together to take down a skilled opponent, and these two players playing two different classes will complement each other in team fights. One hero is viable at breaking open a turtle while the other is viable at capitalising on it. Shoving both those qualities into one hero can create a jumble thatís hard to manage. Personally, I can live with how the game is and the direction itís potentially heading is as this is one of the finest games Iíve played in a long time.

Excuse me if none of that made much sense or is just completely wrong. Iím a few beers deep 👍👍

Lol, and here I was worried my party before want going to be understood, or want really in line with the topic(I was literally falling asleep at work) I can understand the sentiment for not having that much crowd control, and while I disagree, I think something that could help both 4s and duels is having a clear defining difference between classes. For instance if PK (or other top performing heroes) were to get some form of CC, since make then executable from neutral. Kind of like Valk, whee you need to combo them. That way we have CC for all, but like you've said to keep them from being spammed.

Alustar.
01-24-2018, 09:22 PM
Sorry to be pessimistic but what makes any of you think the "reworks" of the original cast will turn out good? Look at how all the DLC heroes have been. The numbers are there for all to see. There are so many posts every season about how the new heroes are this and that like they are from a different game. What have the Devs done with each new hero that's been released that shows that they know what people want and will be happy playing. Lots of posts about ruining original heroes. They can read what no one wants but we all know what's coming... UB and spamable moves.

I do love this game and want things to turn out well but almost every step the Devs make is poor. Everyone has there hopes on servers, me too, but when will they come and what new issues are we gonna get? Sure they will be in season 5, what week? Week 6 of the season, week 2, week 7? Season 5 is gonna start and everyone will be hyped then we wait still week after week playing againt the AI because they still aren't out. But they are coming were told....

Just saying the more you get excited for something with this game the bigger the disappoint. Get ready for the backlash...

That's all personal opinion though. I for one love the game, both what it stated as and where is going now. There is no other game like this.

Okita_Soji..
01-25-2018, 01:27 AM
That's all personal opinion though. I for one love the game, both what it stated as and where is going now. There is no other game like this.

Look at the OP. The numbers are all there. I said it in the past all the new heroes are faster and better than the originals. What I was told was 500ms is the same, which is true but they have more than just fast attacks, I shouldn't have to list all their improvements. The OP spells it out clearly, which is we're this game is heading, spam, bleed and UB.

Parry changes were mentioned in season 2, still waiting. Defensive meta this and that and what has been done? All I'm saying is don't get your hopes up for season 5 to be this great thing that will fix the game and make everything amazing. The stream tomorrow will be vague as they all are dangling the carrot in front of our noses. Reworks are coming, servers are coming, defensive meta changes are coming......maybe sometime in the next 2 months or we wait till season 6.

Alustar.
01-25-2018, 02:31 AM
Look at the OP. The numbers are all there. I said it in the past all the new heroes are faster and better than the originals. What I was told was 500ms is the same, which is true but they have more than just fast attacks, I shouldn't have to list all their improvements. The OP spells it out clearly, which is we're this game is heading, spam, bleed and UB.

Parry changes were mentioned in season 2, still waiting. Defensive meta this and that and what has been done? All I'm saying is don't get your hopes up for season 5 to be this great thing that will fix the game and make everything amazing. The stream tomorrow will be vague as they all are dangling the carrot in front of our noses. Reworks are coming, servers are coming, defensive meta changes are coming......maybe sometime in the next 2 months or we wait till season 6.

The game has barely been out a year. Not everything happens on your time. In fact, there is an entire world out there that moves behind your back. You have to give things time. The more you get impatient, the less likely we all see to see positive change. Even if things get pushed back, I would rather wait another week or more so the job is done right. It's not like the game is unplayable in the mean time.
And let's not forget, this is just that.. A game. Enjoy the ride, not everything is going to be crisp, pristine and perfect. That's life.

Mia.Nora
01-25-2018, 03:05 AM
Look at the OP. The numbers are all there. I said it in the past all the new heroes are faster and better than the originals. What I was told was 500ms is the same, which is true but they have more than just fast attacks, I shouldn't have to list all their improvements. The OP spells it out clearly, which is we're this game is heading, spam, bleed and UB.

Parry changes were mentioned in season 2, still waiting. Defensive meta this and that and what has been done? All I'm saying is don't get your hopes up for season 5 to be this great thing that will fix the game and make everything amazing. The stream tomorrow will be vague as they all are dangling the carrot in front of our noses. Reworks are coming, servers are coming, defensive meta changes are coming......maybe sometime in the next 2 months or we wait till season 6.

That's pretty much my take. We already know dedicated servers won't drop with the start of Season 5, but during sometime S5. Looking back at the road plan given at S3 they gave the impression that dedicated servers were scheduled for S4. They have been working on parry changes since S2, same goes for salvage and inventory size.

I can understand things like that getting delayed a week or two, but not being able to deliver results in 10 months is just delay tactics and lip service. I am not even sure if reworks will drop with S5 start, but when they do my hope is not that high that they will be pleasing.

Knight_Raime
01-25-2018, 01:12 PM
I really don't particularly see the point in mentioning this with such detail. We already know the dlc heros have more than OG heros.
Bringing up 4v4 as a showcase for the imbalance of DLC heros is also not a great argument. Pre DLC 4v4 was the exact same thing it is now. Being that majority of players spam fast and/or safe attacks in groups. The only time 4v4 EVER looks good is when watching pros because they are able to actually counter that. I'm not saying 4v4 is okay as is. But to pretend that this is new and caused exclusively by dlc heros is just you blatently trying to force your point.

I absolutely do not agree with the mentality of removing moves and bringing down the dlc heros. The DLC heros work because they have good aspects in them that the base OG kits lack. While some DLC heros are gimmicky with some things all of them either have proper mix up game or good kit flow. Wether you want a slower paced more "tactical" game or a faster paced more combo/mix up intensive game is irrelevant. Base game was flawed and part of that was due to poor kit design.
Gladiator and shaman are the best examples of actual mix ups and good kit flow. I'm not saying both kits are flawless or 100% fair in every regard. But they both work. That is what we need to put into the older kits.

It can be as simple as giving every OG hero the ability to soft feint a single attack into a GB and also giving every single one of them a light into heavy combo. Both of those alone would shoot up kit viability in the OG cast by a good amount. If you're worried anyone is going to turn out like shaman than your worry is misplaced. Shaman is meant to be decent at everything. Conq will not be this way when reworked. Neither will kensei. I really hate to say it but if you're fixated on the game becoming "fast attack/unblockable spam" the problem is your mentality. Not the game. it's a very short sighted and toxic mindset.

I would have absolutely no problem with the game being more like fencing than a traditional fighter. It's what drew me to for honor in the first place. The PROBLEM was that it was too freaking simple. It had a very low skill ceiling and short skill gap. Even if we went back to base for honor but with all the defensive meta fixes the game would still be floundering because the kits themselves in the OG roster are VERY lacking. They're not really even kits. Just one gimmick that may or may not work. Warden is SB. Valk is sweep. etc. Wether you like shaman or not at least she's got a complete kit. Wether you like gladiators kit or not at least it works. Bringing the other heros down will not improve the game. it doesn't fix the old heros. Actually reworking the old kits fixes the old kits.

I personally would love for honor to be more combo intensive with longer fights. But even if the devs nail the parry nerfs and hero reworks it's not going to happen. This is entirely because with the exception of shinobi movement/positioning doesn't matter enough. This is because footsies and frame traps are not a thing. If we were going to go back to the fencing style that for honor launched with blocking would need a serious rework. The base mechanics would need to be redone in such a way that it's how the person uses the mechanics that makes someone good. Like dark souls. or smash brothers. Basically. For honor is and always will be one demensional and simplistic regardless of what is changed. It's simple but with no depth. It's fair easier for the developers at this point to make kits themselves have better depth and use than for them to scrap the game entirely (figuratively of course) to re do the mechanics from scratch. Maybe in for honor 2. But not with this one.

Alustar.
01-25-2018, 01:34 PM
Could not have put better words out there. +1 that all day, Raime.

Tundra 793
01-25-2018, 02:05 PM
I really don't particularly see the point in mentioning this with such detail. We already know the dlc heros have more than OG heros.

Everyone might know that this was the case, but being confronted with the actual numbers can still serve to highlight the underlying issues me, and others have expressed concern for.
And just because the community at large is aware of this, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.


Bringing up 4v4 as a showcase for the imbalance of DLC heros is also not a great argument.

Dominion is one of, if not the most popular gamemode. With that in mind, it's definitely worth using it as a starting point when arguing about the overall direction of For Honor, and the impact of newer hero design on the broader gameplay.


Pre DLC 4v4 was the exact same thing it is now. Being that majority of players spam fast and/or safe attacks in groups.

I disagree. The crux of my argument is that the DLC heroes are half as many in number, yet have significantly more attacks with special properties. It's true that most players will rely on faster and safer attacks in 4v4 modes, but the popularity of the DLC heroes, paired with their averagely higher numbers of special attacks increases the rate of which players will encounter these moves in a game. This is what I don't like, and Season 2-4 only exacerbated this issue.


I'm not saying 4v4 is okay as is. But to pretend that this is new and caused exclusively by dlc heros is just you blatently trying to force your point.

Perhaps not caused exclusively by DLC heroes, but I feel it's most definitely made worse by them. And I am not forcing a point, I'm simply making one. At no point did I state that my opinion about this was definite and the only correct one. Voicing my opinions and concerns is not "blatantly forcing" a point.


I absolutely do not agree with the mentality of removing moves and bringing down the dlc heros. The DLC heros work because they have good aspects in them that the base OG kits lack.

It's fine that you don't agree with me, but I have to say at this point; I do not appreciate the tone of your post. Because you don't agree with me, does not mean my concerns are to be dismissed out of hand, and that I shouldn't have bothered to bring them up in the first place.
And like I said a few pages ago, I'm hoping the answer lies in a middle ground between bringing down the DLC heroes, and bringing up the OG roster. I do feel that Gladitor and Shaman could still work exceptionally well without the toe stab, and headbutt. They seem to be very superfluous moves.


. Wether you want a slower paced more "tactical" game or a faster paced more combo/mix up intensive game is irrelevant.

Again, the tone of your post seemingly singling me out almost feels like a personal attack. I really don't appreciate that when for the past 4 pages, several other members have expressed both support and disagreement with my point.
I am not alone in feeling the way I do, and because some players share this sentiment it does not make our desires and wishes for the game irrelevant.


Base game was flawed and part of that was due to poor kit design.

I don't believe that the entire base game was flawed, but as the meta began to materialize some kits certainly showed that they were lacking in specific areas. But I don't believe that making the DLC heroes kits' so well equipped that few of them have any downsides was the right call.


Gladiator and shaman are the best examples of actual mix ups and good kit flow. I'm not saying both kits are flawless or 100% fair in every regard. But they both work. That is what we need to put into the older kits.

Agreed, but I'm hoping for more of a middle ground, than simply giving older heroes as many moves as those two heroes. The Berserker for example could make do with 1 unblockable move, or just something to better combat turtles, while the Gladiator could absolutely remain viable without the toe stab.


If you're worried anyone is going to turn out like shaman than your worry is misplaced. Shaman is meant to be decent at everything.

I don't believe my worry is misplaced, because the past 4 Seasons all kept adding to the things that makes me worry. Shaman may have been meant to be decent at everything, but currently she's really great at everything.


Conq will not be this way when reworked. Neither will kensei.

Bold claim when we currently know nothing of what their reworks will actually entail.


I really hate to say it but if you're fixated on the game becoming "fast attack/unblockable spam" the problem is your mentality. Not the game. it's a very short sighted and toxic mindset.

Again, you're really singling me out and damn near condemning my opinion because you don't agree with it. Seriously, having an opinion that might not be popular does not make it toxic or shortsighted.
My opinion is based on 4 Seasons worth of content and balances, I would not consider that shortsighted. I am not fixated, i am worried that the game will focus too much on faster attacks, and higher numbers of unblockables because that's what's been happening for the past 4 Seasons.


Bringing the other heros down will not improve the game. it doesn't fix the old heros. Actually reworking the old kits fixes the old kits.

Not to be outright rude, but you did read the whole thread before posting, right?


But even if the devs nail the parry nerfs and hero reworks it's not going to happen. This is entirely because with the exception of shinobi movement/positioning doesn't matter enough. This is because footsies and frame traps are not a thing. If we were going to go back to the fencing style that for honor launched with blocking would need a serious rework. The base mechanics would need to be redone in such a way that it's how the person uses the mechanics that makes someone good.

These are all interesting ideas, and I don't want to say that nothing you're suggesting can't ever be done. If you don't want to believe that For Honor can make the changes needed to make it a better game for you, that's fine. But I do believe that For Honor can improve, and become a game I would love even more.
That's the point of this thread. If we have ideas or suggestions, we're only hurting the game by keeping quiet about it.

Knight_Raime
01-25-2018, 02:59 PM
@Tundra

I should mention specifically that I do happen to say "you" a lot when i'm not actually directly referring to you specifically but in a much wider group capacity. Like when someone is arguing about issues with republicans. They might replace the word "republicans" with something like "people like you..." I'm 100% aware this is my bad writing and not your fault on assuming. So I apologize about that. But just wanted to make sure to point it out. Also please don't read too much into my tone either. I might come off as condecending or dismissive at times but i'm not. I see all people I debate with on the same level with me. I just argue with passion. If I start blatently insulting you or getting close to swearing those would be ques that i'm actually being pissy and not just arguing with passion. Anyway. onto the meat of the debate.

I can see when this kind of thing would be helpful. However I think it misses it's mark here on the forums. As majority of players don't visit here or even either reddit page. This would be a much better format if done in a video by a community pillar or if the devs themselves published something like this. My point is I believe enough people on the forums are aware of the big disparity between OG heros and DLC heros. So trying to use it as an argument, at least imo, is wasted and not needed.

You kind of ruin my point with 4v4 by splitting it into 2 pieces like that. Not devaluing what you said just pointing it out. Moving on though yes. The dlc heros mean you run into special attacks more. But that's a loaded argument. As imo it's worded in such a way to lead people (wether you believe it or not) to believe that the problem started with the dlc heros. Not that they made them worse. I personally quit 4v4 in season 1 because of how rubbish the spam was.

I can agree that aspects about dlc heros can be nerfed to bring them in line a little. But I don't think that removing moves is the right avenue for that. Toe stab might not work at higher levels but removing it entirely just gives him one less option to potentially threaten with. That's not good. In general I don't think developers should ever think to removing something as a go to option to address something. It would be better for them to address the problem. So in toe stabs case the problem isn't actually the move itself. it's that animation queing forces people to eat the stab. that should be looked into rather than simply out right removing the move.

Here is the uncomfortable issue though. yes. It sucked that DLC heros. people you paid real money for. Had better ways of dealing with game flaws. At the same time though it's not like they really had a choice. They wanted to make the game better. But they also were legally required to push this content people paid for. If it came out super delayed people would literally try to sue. The dlc heros in my opinion were a great way for the devs to test ideas on how to address issues the game had. They learned with the centurion that unblockables alone are not enough to fix the issues. With each season we could see they were getting better at making more useful kits. In an ideal situation this wouldn't have happened. and the numerous growing pains the game has been through over a year now wouldn't have been a thing. But the game wasn't good enough for a lot of players. and the devs have been trying to address that for awhile now.

Shaman is factually not great at everything. You can look at other kits even some OG kits and see them being better than her at certain concepts. The reason she doesn't feel like this though is because she's got the option to do multiple things. Her flexibility masks her issues and flaws. It's not a bold claim. It's very simple to understand why they won't turn out like shaman. Because kits have themes. As I eluded shaman is meant to be hyper flexible. Kensei is all about that mix up/feint game. The rework will be focused on making that more usable. He might become flexible as heck. But he won't have the pressure, the range, or the sustain like shaman. Conq is all about defending. etc.

Let me reword. What is toxic and short sighted is devolving all the dlc heros as nothing but fast attack/unblockable spam. I know this isn't said outright. But the worries presented and the way the argument is postured makes it come off like that. Being present for 4 seasons doesn't mean much if all you're gleaming from the kits is exactly what you don't want. And since this post started with numbers lets talk about fast attacks. Did you know every hero in the game save 3 has a 500ms attack or faster? to my knowledge 3 heros have 400ms attacks. pk's zone. thighlanders OF lights. and shaman's top bleed poke. No one has any faster than that.

Just your post. I don't sift through multiple pages.
Yes it's possible. In the sense that anything is possible because of the unlimited possibilities reality can have in a vacuum. That doesn't mean it's realistic.
If your intended goal is to make the game closer to it's original fencing roots I would suggest those suggestions are counter productive. The developers spent nearly 2 seasons trying to bandaid that kind of game. It didn't work. They decided to rework the game towards what the competitive crowd wanted. Which was a more intense mix up heavy kind of game. Where people had an actual kit list and not a few moves with a single gimmick. It's far more likely that the devs would take yet another design path change with the next game. Then attempt to do so again while in the middle of still working on this new direction.

Tundra 793
01-27-2018, 07:58 AM
I should mention specifically that I do happen to say "you" a lot when i'm not actually directly referring to you specifically but in a much wider group capacity.


Just your post. I don't sift through multiple pages.


Those two statements sort of contradict each other. But even besides that, you're still throwing around words like "toxic", "shortsighted" and "irrelevant", whether they're directed at me, or a larger group still isn't what I'd consider an appropriate way to debate.
If that's what you consider passionate debating, please tone it down a bit. I almost didn't bother writing this reply, because if any of your retorts need to use such derogatory terms, I really have no interest in continuing any discussion with you.

But since you put in the effort for a long and thought out reply, I'll do the same.


However I think it misses it's mark here on the forums. As majority of players don't visit here or even either reddit page. This would be a much better format if done in a video by a community pillar or if the devs themselves published something like this. My point is I believe enough people on the forums are aware of the big disparity between OG heros and DLC heros. So trying to use it as an argument, at least imo, is wasted and not needed.

A few members here actually explicitly stated they were not aware, or were shocked at how big the disparity actually is. So some insight was gained by people from my post, and to me it wasn't a waste.
My post is basically an op-ed, and I've no need for it to go viral. I know Fred and Jurassic pass on our thoughts and ideas when they deem it relevant to the developers, that's enough for me.
But even if what you'd consider enough people did know about it, there wasn't really any outlet or discussion for their thoughts on the matter, this thread can now provide that.


You kind of ruin my point with 4v4 by splitting it into 2 pieces like that. Not devaluing what you said just pointing it out.

I tried finding a way to deal with it in its entirety, but I couldn't think of a way that wouldn't end up making the same conclusions I already have. Breaking your sentences apart allowed me to go more in depth about each underlying point.


The dlc heros mean you run into special attacks more. But that's a loaded argument. As imo it's worded in such a way to lead people (wether you believe it or not) to believe that the problem started with the dlc heros. Not that they made them worse.

My exact wording was;

"...the popularity of the DLC heroes, paired with their averagely higher numbers of special attacks increases the rate of which players will encounter these moves in a game. This is what I don't like, and Season 2-4 only exacerbated this issue."

I'm sorry if that sounds loaded, but to me the last sentence marks the notion that the DLC heroes made this issue worse, not that they were solely the cause of it. I further condeded this point in my very next paragraph.


I personally quit 4v4 in season 1 because of how rubbish the spam was.

With due respect, how can you make such broad statements about whatever impact the DLC heroes has had on 4v4 modes, if you yourself don't play them?


But I don't think that removing moves is the right avenue for that. Toe stab might not work at higher levels but removing it entirely just gives him one less option to potentially threaten with. That's not good.

For future reference; You can safely assume I make my arguments based on 4v4 Dominion, at an average/mid tier level, which is also where I believe most other players perform at. High, and low tiers I would imagine, have the smaller populations compared to mid tier.

To your point; Assuming your arguments stem from Duels, removing a whole move from any heroes moveset must seem much more impactful. But even without the toe stab, his kit is still larger and more versatile than a number of Vanilla heroes, many of whom remain quite viable at all tiers of play today.
In 4v4 modes, the unblockable and unparriable toe stab is just 1 of what is now a plethora of such moves one must watch out for. Sure these moves also existed in Season 1, but I'll argue they were much less severe. The DLC heroes all have unblockables, and many of them all activate faster, from varying ranges.


In general I don't think developers should ever think to removing something as a go to option to address something. It would be better for them to address the problem.

Gladiator released a long time ago at this point, doing anything to him wouldn't be a go to option. I'll also say at this point, you're doing yourself a disservice by not reading the entire thread.
Everyone, including the folks who agree with me, all say they're more than willing to wait for the Season 5 reworks, and longer to see what other solutions the developers come up with.
My suggestions and preference for nerfing the DLC heroes is not an opinion I will fight to the death for, and I also stated on page 1 I'm waiting, and hoping that the reworks solve the problems I have with the game, without the need for removing whole moves.


They wanted to make the game better. But they also were legally required to push this content people paid for. If it came out super delayed people would literally try to sue.

I agree, the DLC heroes were promised content before the game launched, there'd be no realistic way to not release them as advertised.


The dlc heros in my opinion were a great way for the devs to test ideas on how to address issues the game had. They learned with the centurion that unblockables alone are not enough to fix the issues.

I disagree. The community at large discovered that the Centurion was the most un-fun hero to fight very quickly, but even with the constant, daily cries of the entire For Honor community, it took months before any changes were made to him.
The Centurion is the genesis for my worries. It showed in a horrifying way how not to solve the game's issues, and I fear that the developers have not learned exactly why so many people hated the Cent. Another point to this, while they probably did intend to use the new heroes as a test bed, as you suggest, this was the wrong solution in my opinion. Rather than keep trying to fix the games issues 2 heroes at a time, I'd have much preferred it if the new heroes were toned down, and more effort put into balancing the older roster.
Instead, they now have to rework/rebalance 12 heroes, instead of 6.


But the game wasn't good enough for a lot of players. and the devs have been trying to address that for awhile now.

Once again, have to disagree. For Honor was praised by critics for the combat system, and players flocked to a brand new IP in a niche genre, because For Honor did a lot of things right to open it up to new demographics.
What was broken at launch was the P2P system, and the later-emerging defensive meta. It feels to me like the developers tried fixing that meta, by simply punching through it with unblockables.
This did not fix it for me.


Shaman is factually not great at everything. You can look at other kits even some OG kits and see them being better than her at certain concepts. The reason she doesn't feel like this though is because she's got the option to do multiple things. Her flexibility masks her issues and flaws. It's not a bold claim.

You're saying that she's not great at everything, but don't provide any examples of classes that can do things better than her.
Her leaps, and headbutts allow her unbelievable range, and wallsplats. She has 2 fast unblockables, both can be feinted. Her heavy start ups can be feinted into a bleed, her zone can be feinted into a bleed, guaranteed 2nd light, heavy dodge attack, dangerous parry punishes.
You state she's hyper flexible, and I agree, but her hyper flexibility has made her great at all aspects of combat.

What's the downside of playing as the Shaman?


Being present for 4 seasons doesn't mean much if all you're gleaming from the kits is exactly what you don't want.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Because I don't like the newer heroes kits, I shouldn't have an opinion about them?
Me being present for 4 seasons is exactly what qualifies my opinion, that I don't like the direction the game is heading.


Did you know every hero in the game save 3 has a 500ms attack or faster? to my knowledge 3 heros have 400ms attacks. pk's zone. thighlanders OF lights. and shaman's top bleed poke. No one has any faster than that.

2/3 heroes with the fastest attacks are DLC heroes. That's my point.


The developers spent nearly 2 seasons trying to bandaid that kind of game. It didn't work.

From my point of view, they weren't band-aiding that kind of game. The players were crying out for balance, and the parry changes to finally kill the defensive meta, not heroes to compensate for it.


They decided to rework the game towards what the competitive crowd wanted.

I'd love it if you could find a quote from any of the developers stating that this was a conscious design decision they made. Because catering only to the competitive crowd, seems like suicide for a new IP with the issues For Honor's had.

Jiblet2017
01-27-2018, 09:21 AM
Those two statements sort of contradict each other. But even besides that, you're still throwing around words like "toxic", "shortsighted" and "irrelevant", whether they're directed at me, or a larger group still isn't what I'd consider an appropriate way to debate.
If that's what you consider passionate debating, please tone it down a bit. I almost didn't bother writing this reply, because if any of your retorts need to use such derogatory terms, I really have no interest in continuing any discussion with you.

But since you put in the effort for a long and thought out reply, I'll do the same.



A few members here actually explicitly stated they were not aware, or were shocked at how big the disparity actually is. So some insight was gained by people from my post, and to me it wasn't a waste.
My post is basically an op-ed, and I've no need for it to go viral. I know Fred and Jurassic pass on our thoughts and ideas when they deem it relevant to the developers, that's enough for me.
But even if what you'd consider enough people did know about it, there wasn't really any outlet or discussion for their thoughts on the matter, this thread can now provide that.



I tried finding a way to deal with it in its entirety, but I couldn't think of a way that wouldn't end up making the same conclusions I already have. Breaking your sentences apart allowed me to go more in depth about each underlying point.



My exact wording was;

"...the popularity of the DLC heroes, paired with their averagely higher numbers of special attacks increases the rate of which players will encounter these moves in a game. This is what I don't like, and Season 2-4 only exacerbated this issue."

I'm sorry if that sounds loaded, but to me the last sentence marks the notion that the DLC heroes made this issue worse, not that they were solely the cause of it. I further condeded this point in my very next paragraph.



With due respect, how can you make such broad statements about whatever impact the DLC heroes has had on 4v4 modes, if you yourself don't play them?



For future reference; You can safely assume I make my arguments based on 4v4 Dominion, at an average/mid tier level, which is also where I believe most other players perform at. High, and low tiers I would imagine, have the smaller populations compared to mid tier.

To your point; Assuming your arguments stem from Duels, removing a whole move from any heroes moveset must seem much more impactful. But even without the toe stab, his kit is still larger and more versatile than a number of Vanilla heroes, many of whom remain quite viable at all tiers of play today.
In 4v4 modes, the unblockable and unparriable toe stab is just 1 of what is now a plethora of such moves one must watch out for. Sure these moves also existed in Season 1, but I'll argue they were much less severe. The DLC heroes all have unblockables, and many of them all activate faster, from varying ranges.



Gladiator released a long time ago at this point, doing anything to him wouldn't be a go to option. I'll also say at this point, you're doing yourself a disservice by not reading the entire thread.
Everyone, including the folks who agree with me, all say they're more than willing to wait for the Season 5 reworks, and longer to see what other solutions the developers come up with.
My suggestions and preference for nerfing the DLC heroes is not an opinion I will fight to the death for, and I also stated on page 1 I'm waiting, and hoping that the reworks solve the problems I have with the game, without the need for removing whole moves.



I agree, the DLC heroes were promised content before the game launched, there'd be no realistic way to not release them as advertised.



I disagree. The community at large discovered that the Centurion was the most un-fun hero to fight very quickly, but even with the constant, daily cries of the entire For Honor community, it took months before any changes were made to him.
The Centurion is the genesis for my worries. It showed in a horrifying way how not to solve the game's issues, and I fear that the developers have not learned exactly why so many people hated the Cent. Another point to this, while they probably did intend to use the new heroes as a test bed, as you suggest, this was the wrong solution in my opinion. Rather than keep trying to fix the games issues 2 heroes at a time, I'd have much preferred it if the new heroes were toned down, and more effort put into balancing the older roster.
Instead, they now have to rework/rebalance 12 heroes, instead of 6.



Once again, have to disagree. For Honor was praised by critics for the combat system, and players flocked to a brand new IP in a niche genre, because For Honor did a lot of things right to open it up to new demographics.
What was broken at launch was the P2P system, and the later-emerging defensive meta. It feels to me like the developers tried fixing that meta, by simply punching through it with unblockables.
This did not fix it for me.



You're saying that she's not great at everything, but don't provide any examples of classes that can do things better than her.
Her leaps, and headbutts allow her unbelievable range, and wallsplats. She has 2 fast unblockables, both can be feinted. Her heavy start ups can be feinted into a bleed, her zone can be feinted into a bleed, guaranteed 2nd light, heavy dodge attack, dangerous parry punishes.
You state she's hyper flexible, and I agree, but her hyper flexibility has made her great at all aspects of combat.

What's the downside of playing as the Shaman?



I'm not sure what you're saying here. Because I don't like the newer heroes kits, I shouldn't have an opinion about them?
Me being present for 4 seasons is exactly what qualifies my opinion, that I don't like the direction the game is heading.



2/3 heroes with the fastest attacks are DLC heroes. That's my point.



From my point of view, they weren't band-aiding that kind of game. The players were crying out for balance, and the parry changes to finally kill the defensive meta, not heroes to compensate for it.



I'd love it if you could find a quote from any of the developers stating that this was a conscious design decision they made. Because catering only to the competitive crowd, seems like suicide for a new IP with the issues For Honor's had.

I for one appreciate your thread. As a Kensei/nobushi main, It's really tough to watch as I switch to shaman and double my KDA and still feel good about the 500+ PvP hours (700+ total) I've put in since beta understanding my mains. Also, since I'm on PC, duel (my favored mode) has very low numbers. Since season 2 (and the dawn of the centurion CC) dominion has completely changed. Now that is my favored mode for time efficiency"s sake and skill in the core game mechanics seem to have lesser influence in team success. Moreso, it is seems simply picking a versatile high cc team increases success in dominion given group fights are essentially forced.

As for knight raime: I'm sure you didn't mean to sound like a condescending elitist, but that's kind of how it came off in your posts. As an attorney - a can assure you saying things along the lines of "you are short sighted" and making assumptions on changes you know little about is not about"arguing with passion." It is being intolerant/dismissive of others opinions and wanting to win an online argument (which is impossible given the op is an opinion).

Knight_Raime
01-27-2018, 09:27 AM
@Tundra

Of course they seem contradictory when you yank both of them and set them side by side. My point was that the post was never directed only at you. Just the type of players that you seemed to be mixing up with (in my head.) It's in general very wrong for me to make assumptions about people and/or generalize people into a specific type of person or behavior. I will own up to that. Just being around here long enough somethings easily frustrate me more than others. Not an excuse. Just explaining my thought process in hopes that i'm easier to understand. Also I went back and read the reply you're looking at. I only used toxic and short sighted again. And it was only when I was explaining why I thought that. So I don't know why you're focusing on those words rather than what came after. I can attempt to use different wording but I was under the assumption that those words were perfectly fine in a debate because they're not out right insults and they're followed up with (at least in my second post) an explanation on why I feel those descriptors fit. I feel like you're nitpicking on this. But we should just both move on.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think informing 3 people (as just a random number) is worth repeating the same core argument over. You think that the more people are aware the better. and that's fine. I'm sure the developers are very aware of the disparity so this thread wouldn't be anything new to them. If your post was created as a megathread for said discussion then I apologize. But it didn't come off as one. To me it just came across as the same tired argument that's been beaten to death. I'm aware that is on me. But I think it's been posted enough in the forums that my feelings on seeing said subject once again resurface are warrented.

I will concede on the loaded argument part. I don't really feel like going back and rereading the whole thing to see if it was literally just me getting upset and tunnel visioning or if your post really was worded in a way that would justify my feeling of the loaded argument. I believe besides this thread that i've never ever made my statements about a dlc heros impact in 4v4. Nor have I ever pretended to understand their impact in 4's. I've always been discussing on the forums from a duelist perspective. It's not to say that i've literally not touched 4v4 past season 1. I just play it so infrequently that I personally don't believe it's worth mentioning. As to my statement in this thread I did agree that DLC heros made things worse. So we can move on from this particular point.

I'm still not going to agree. Regardless of the situation I don't think removing the move is the right call. Your argument seems to come from "there are 32 unblockables in the game (again random number) removing a single one surely won't matter much." Which to me seems like a pretty weak argument. It doesn't take into consideration at all what the move does and doesn't do. Your solution of removing it only solves that problem. It doesn't address other potential issues from doing so. Which I tried to elude to. Yes his kit would still be "fine" without toe stab. That doesn't emperically mean it's okay to remove toe stab.

There is no real way to accurately judge how little or how much the unblockables of launch impacted 4's. It is something you and I will have to agree to disagree on. I personally remember how frustrating it was to deal with 3 warlords stunlocking people with an unreactable headbutt. or having conq, LB, and warlord all on one team shoving you around. The dlc heros brought more and that certainly would up frustration levels. We are really arguing from the same feeling of frustration. Just at different levels. It's hard for me to understand how you can have the perspective of how frustrating unblockables can be as a mechanic but also sort of almost ignore how annoying they were on OG heros back before DLC was out. I can see you personally not feeling like they were. But I don't think you should be saying that they were not as a broad application in a statement that includes more than just your own feelings.

The developers as far as I know have not attempted to address toe stab complaints since his launch. So removing it would be their first and go to response to said problem if they were going to go through with your suggestion. There is no time stamp or sticker on a move or kit that once removed makes the point I was making wrong. If the community deemed the move a problem the developers should attempt to find ways to fix the move a few times before just removing it. That is my point. That is one side/perspective of Centurions presence until his nerfs. Just as my perspective is also apart of that. The developers specifically made centurion to be a "turtle buster" which is why he's got 3 seperate unblockables. What ended up happening though was he ended up being very bad at opening turtles and became to be known himself as one of if not the best turtle hero in the game.

It took them months because the developers wanted to play it smart. They didn't want to knee jerk reaction nerf him and ruin his power in duels. They've stated as such before on not just centurion but that being their philosophy in general. They want the hero to be viable in both 4's and duels. They technically did accomplish this with the centurion. I don't believe they were using the heros to fix the game. They were trying to use them to see what does and doesn't work in kits on top of the defensive meta. Also that is a little difficult. The OG roster was designed without our feedback. The DLC heros specifically had player feedback. There would be no way for them to "tone down" the dlc heros before launching them if they still had no grasp on what was needed to make kits/the game better. We both agree the overall situation wasn't the best. and we should probably just leave it at that.

I don't like nor care for reviews. They're far to influenced by both each other and companies. Further more Just because For Honor got rave reviews at launch doesn't mean the game was flawless. Let me rephrase for you. After the game had been out for a few weeks the competitive community (at the time basically just the really good players who had loads of experience from the alphas/betas and now got the full product for a little bit) were showcasing and pointing out how easy it was to defend yourself and how easy it was to kill another player by doing so. They didn't like this. They wanted a bigger skill gap. This is how the defensive meta term came to be and that is what I was referring to when I said "the game wasn't good enough for players." The developers did several things in attempts to fix the meta whilst fixing the power of moves that benefitted from the meta. One of these changes as an example was giving a free GB on blocking warden's zone.

I really don't feel like going over shaman specifically again. I've gone over explaining how to counter the things people struggle with about her. I've tried explaining how range is her biggest weakness along with her being bad if not being the one applying pressure. I'm tired of repeating myself. But to be very short and to the point I don't think any mix up she offers is stronger than some of the other mix ups in the game. Centurions mix up I believe is far better than any mix up she has. And he's got better punishes for failing to counter the mix up. Shugoki has a far better health gain setup due to the OHK potential, more health gained, bigger health bar, and that getting a hug on goki is much easier that getting a bite on someone. And I think Shinobi is far better at being a threat at any range than she is due to him being a lot more mobile and a lot more safe. Even if you agreed with me on all of those claims you'd just back peddle to "see dlc heros are problem" which while is technically true is besides this specific argument and is straw manning me because it forces me to go and argue that rather than what we were originally arguing about.

I'll try to rephrase. You see the dlc heros. All you see is negative things. I see the dlc heros. I see good and bad things. If you have ever actually acknowledged that dlc heros have showed good things and you're just choosing to focus on the things you don't like than I apologize. But it really feels like you either refuse to acknowledge the good aspects or you're aware of them but don't feel they matter since the kits in your opinion bring more negative things. I would never say your perspective or anyone elses never matters.

That is a strawman. Your over arching point is that dlc heros are a problem. But you didn't acknowledge that a lot of the OG heros have fast moves too. And a common complaint is that "dlc heros are fast attack/unblockable spam." My point was to try to get you to see that while some of the DLC heros might have some faster attacks it's not a huge deal as people make it out to be BECAUSE most of the OG roster also has fast attacks. If you can acknowledge that and your focus is more on unblockable spam then we can move on.

Season 1 and season 2 were full of individual hero fixes in attempts to nerf the power level on kits that benefitted from being passive/defensive. In my opinion the devs didn't truly change gears from bandaids to actual fixes until season 3. There is a few things to state about that last part. For one there was never a direct quote. It seems blatently obvious that they decided to listen to the competitive feedback when they openly acknowledged the term defensive meta AND also agreed about it being an issue. That in my opinion is as good as any direct statement you could want. And as I already elaborated on in my previous point that "design decision" didn't really happen till they started messing with the games core mechanics. Which wasn't till season 3. So around half way through it's life cycle. For honor was already struggling/dying to many players far before that. You can argue that it was suicide to do so. But where for honor currently was near the end of season 2 any change they were going to make could have been a monumental failure.

Continuing on that last point though. Just because the developers started taking the feedback of competitive players more seriously doesn't inherently mean decisions based on that feedback wouldn't be beneficial for all types of players. In fact in games that are actually designed to be competitive it's the common/correct path to balance from the top down. As the top players show you the games fullest potential and break the game for you so you can see the issues that lay within your game. I believe the youtube channel "extra credits" made a video about this or something similar. I would encourage a watch purely just for informational purposes.

Regardless. We are back at square one here. You wanted a different kind of game than what is happening. I want what is happening. We can shoot the **** all night till our faces are blue and throats dry from talking. We're not going to see eye to eye here on arguably some very important concepts. I'm fine with this. My whole original issue here was 90% my fault anyway. I should have just ignored the thread because I knew despite how well something would have been worded I would have taken offense because I care very much about the game and I really like where it's going. I tend to get pretty aggressive about things I care about. I acknowledge and appreciate your point of view even if it's not one I agree with. I do hope the reworks hit base for as many people as it can. I can't be more hyped than I already am after seeing that trailer. I really do think for honor is going to gain second wind from this and continue to be the great game it is.

Tundra 793
01-30-2018, 09:01 PM
Regardless. We are back at square one here. You wanted a different kind of game than what is happening. I want what is happening. We can shoot the **** all night till our faces are blue and throats dry from talking. We're not going to see eye to eye here on arguably some very important concepts. I'm fine with this.

You're probably very right. With that in mind, would you mind terribly if we dropped the whole debate between us, and just moved on? Since we're very unlikely to come to any understanding other than "agree to disagree", perhaps it'll serve us and everyone else best if we just moved on, rather than keep posting essays that are basically 2 subjective views, neither one more right or wrong than the other.

I'd be more than happy to keep debating, and answer the entirety of your last post if you prefer that as well.