PDA

View Full Version : The Breach ticket system and spawn times need to stay as they are and this is why



CandleInTheDark
09-10-2018, 11:27 PM
So before I go into this it is necessary to go into dominion. Dominion as it is played at most tiers might as well be on the deathmatch playlist. Look at every match where every member of a team has ended up with 16-20 kills because they have all been part of rolling around the map picking off players one or two at a time and you very quickly see that as an objective based game mode dominion falls flat, it is essentially skirmish plus

That is a good part of the reason that I play tribute when I can get a match, deathmatch otherwise (since at least I know going in what to expect) and dominion more or less only vs ai when level grinding, for someone who wants objective play where teams need to actually play to the objective, dominion doesn't have it. At all.

What has this to do with Breach and spawn times? A good part of the reason dominion is the way it is is because lives are treated cheaply (in that they are given away very readily) and because there is no need to focus on the objective because teams can get everything they need out of kills and people come back every fifteen seconds, if anything the short respawn timer in dominion contributes to it being an objective game mode in name only. People asking for a dominion style short timer and no tickets in Breach either don't realise that this would essentially turn Breach into another mindless rolling 4v4 only on a bigger map or that is exactly what they want and that is not healthy for an objective based game, certainly not one that the devs have stated they want to appeal to competitive players and teams with.

Breach is not a game where you can just stand in the middle of a field killing people, it is not a game where kills mean points but one where deaths instead mean loss of resources or presence on the field in order to influence the objective. Breach is a game where teams need to push together and, when they see an opportunity, take a risk to advance their objective in another part of the map and in order to have that actually make an impact then the risk and reward both need to be significant, each life has to be treated as if it is precious and each death that the other team is not able to get a revive for, and more significantly each team wipe, has to have consequences. For the attacking side those consequences are they lose at least one ticket and if the defenders are able to spend the time guarding a body quite possibly three to four tickets, that's a large percentage for a risk going wrong in spectacular fashion, it is also time that the defenders can reset the capture of a zone or seek to damage the ram. For the defenders who do not have tickets, this is a time that attackers are able to more or less take one of the objectives or for a time double their ram's movement or strike speed. None of this works if someone can come back in fifteen seconds (and I would note that the maximum time someone is out is only double that, not over forty seconds as I have seen banded about) and just throw their life away again with no consequence. By the same logic, this is also why those risks and rewards need to be more significant later in the game as the timer going up by renown or in the case of tribute by flags taken provide.

I am not a competitive gamer by any means but I have long watched any competitive gaming I can find, in a mode such as this every death needs to be a big thing, every half to full team wipe needs to be huge and that does not happen if the consequences and rewards do not balance or are not weighted along with the risk taken. If you want an 'objective mode' where you don't need to think that hard about the objective, you have dominion for that, as I said above it might as well be on the deathmatch playlist to begin with, Breach should not be turned into skirmish plus, as dominion is, on a larger map and the devs should not be taking steps that put it closer to that position.

OoKaMi_79
09-11-2018, 12:03 AM
I’m on PS4 so I hadn’t try yet the new Breach mode but I have been following some youtubers to watch gameplays and when I see the complaints of the respawning time I fully agree with Candle. That time is required to give time to deal with all the other objectives for the teams.

The only thing I would address is that please Ubisoft make the time and effort we put on each match worth. Deliver fair rewards for everyone.

DefiledDragon
09-11-2018, 12:05 AM
Lots of different ways of looking at this.

The long respawn timer encourages players to respawn and venture out onto the map alone, likely resulting in their swift demise, particularly for attackers as the defenders don't have to try to do anything other than gank the attackers and drop the cauldron when the ram is docked. When I've been defending I've met attackers mostly on their own or in pairs. When I've been attacking I've mostly met the defenders in threes or fours.

If you are being ganked, or the players on the other team are just flat out better than you, you're going to spend most of the game staring at the respawn screen. I've seen a lot of players quit mid match when they've been on the losing side. I'm not psychic, so I don't know why they quit, but if I was a betting man I would probably stick a fiver on the lengthy respawn timers.

The tickets for the attackers encourage the defenders to run around in a 4 player gank squad because depleting the attackers tickets seems to be the most efficient way to win as defenders. I think we can all agree that being constantly ganked isn't much fun, but as attackers playing against a savvy team of defenders, this is what you have to look forward to.

The tickets for the attackers shifts the defenders focus from stopping the ram, which I believe should be the primary concern for the defenders in the first two phases, to reducing the attackers ticket quota as fast as possible because reducing the attackers tickets by as many as you can during the first two phases can leave them with single figure ticket numbers in the final phase. At that point it doesn't matter that you didn't stop the ram because you just defend the commander and the attackers have no chance, even spamming OP AOE feats because they simply can't withstand the inevitable attrition rate with so few respawns.

i appreciate what you're saying as I too much prefer objective oriented gameplay, which is why I put 1000's of hours into CS:S but I wouldn't play CoD if you paid me 500 a week to do so, but at the same time I don't want to see Breach become Tribute. I want to be able to play it with other players as an alternative to Dominion, but in it's current form I don't believe it will retain sufficient numbers. I really do hope I'm wrong and I really do hope it becomes very popular, but I've seen too many complaints about these precise issues (among others) and I fear the mode will lose players very quickly if they can't hit the right balance.

Also, the XP and steel rewards need a major buff given the time commitment required or Breach will be DoA.

CandleInTheDark
09-11-2018, 12:24 AM
Lots of different ways of looking at this.

The long respawn timer encourages players to respawn and venture out onto the map alone, likely resulting in their swift demise, particularly for attackers as the defenders don't have to try to do anything other than gank the attackers and drop the cauldron when the ram is docked. When I've been defending I've met attackers mostly on their own or in pairs. When I've been attacking I've mostly met the defenders in threes or fours.

If attackers run around like headless chickens, yes, that is bad attacking play. Alternatively, and I have done this with my group and in pug games, the attackers stay together for the first part to see how the defenders are playing, they interrupt executions, cover each other while they revive and they split off to the ram (or guardian in phase two) when they have killed a couple defenders or when they are confident that three of them are capable of holding off four. In the latter case if an attacker is clearing minions around the ram then the defenders need to decide do they continue as they are or do they stop the double speed of the ram in movement or striking? And yes this does work, I have been on teams that have gone into phase three with more than twenty tickets.


If you are being ganked, or the players on the other team are just flat out better than you, you're going to spend most of the game staring at the respawn screen. I've seen a lot of players quit mid match when they've been on the losing side. I'm not psychic, so I don't know why they quit, but if I was a betting man I would probably stick a fiver on the lengthy respawn timers.

Or the fact that they are losing, the devs said that it has always been the plan to have quit penalties in breach possibly for this reason. People behave like this in dominion which has a shorter respawn time, occam's razor suggests they quit in Breach for the same reason.


The tickets for the attackers encourage the defenders to run around in a 4 player gank squad because depleting the attackers tickets seems to be the most efficient way to win as defenders. I think we can all agree that being constantly ganked isn't much fun, but as attackers playing against a savvy team of defenders, this is what you have to look forward to.

The defenders cannot fourman everywhere at once, I covered this up above but sticking as a four or even a three the attacking team can preserve tickets through reviving. If in a straight fight they get beaten again and again that is because the other team is better.


The tickets for the attackers shifts the defenders focus from stopping the ram, which I believe should be the primary concern for the defenders in the first two phases, to reducing the attackers ticket quota as fast as possible because reducing the attackers tickets by as many as you can during the first two phases can leave them with single figure ticket numbers in the final phase. At that point it doesn't matter that you didn't stop the ram because you just defend the commander and the attackers have no chance, even spamming OP AOE feats because they simply can't withstand the inevitable attrition rate with so few respawns.

Having had successful games with defenders in my group and in pugs, yes keeping the zones is important, same as with the attackers though that is not the only course, I have kept the ram paused having killed the minions around it when there are no enemy heroes around for half a minute at a time and in this my group, without me being there unless a couple of my teammates died, had them breaking before the end of the first phase and when one of them managed to hold out untila second after the gate fell left the ram at only half health from all the minion damage and the extra cauldron drops. This was entirely because the ram took over twice as long to get to the gate, teams on either side ignore the ram or the flag for the shield buff at their own risk. A smart team on either side will make the ram a big part of why they won.


i appreciate what you're saying as I too much prefer objective oriented gameplay, which is why I put 1000's of hours into CS:S but I wouldn't play CoD if you paid me 500 a week to do so, but at the same time I don't want to see Breach become Tribute. I want to be able to play it with other players as an alternative to Dominion, but in it's current form I don't believe it will retain sufficient numbers. I really do hope I'm wrong and I really do hope it becomes very popular, but I've seen too many complaints about these precise issues (among others) and I fear the mode will lose players very quickly if they can't hit the right balance.

And in the form people are suggesting, no tickets and short timers, it is going to be just like dominion in that people ignore the objective and have a rolling fourman with everything else happening in the background with the result in each phase, taking longer, being down to maybe one team's minions take a little more damage than the others on the occasional time a whole team isn't around for five seconds at a time. The last thing the devs should be aiming for is deathmatch on a larger map which is what that idea will turn it into.


Also, the XP and steel rewards need a major buff given the time commitment required or Breach will be DoA.

That I agree with and said in my own feedback.

Velentix
09-11-2018, 12:25 AM
I agree with making the deaths count, however penalizing the ones who have gained enough renown to unlock feats is a bit ridiculous, it just makes deathballing the preeminent strategy for the defenders to use. I think it would be better to make the capture points have a greater effect on the damage to the ram (as far as archers go) that way capturing those points will be important to the attackers, non sequential captures of points might be worth considering also.

To balance this though, attackers need to be given an advantage on the field i.e. more troops(historical note; seiging armies nearly always needed several times the defenders in order to successfully take down a fortress). In this way the ram will go forward relatively uncontested unless defenders split up and clear the field. The good thing about this is that deathballing will become harder. Side note: not all the troops of the attackers need to be pikemen you could have dominion minions as well, as long as they had slightly buffed attack speed/damage, still one hit kill.
Just my thoughts, but would be interested to know what you guys think.

CandleInTheDark
09-11-2018, 12:33 AM
I agree with making the deaths count, however penalizing the ones who have gained enough renown to unlock feats is a bit ridiculous, it just makes deathballing the preeminent strategy for the defenders to use. I think it would be better to make the capture points have a greater effect on the damage to the ram (as far as archers go) that way capturing those points will be important to the attackers, non sequential captures of points might be worth considering also.

To balance this though, attackers need to be given an advantage on the field i.e. more troops(historical note; seiging armies nearly always needed several times the defenders in order to successfully take down a fortress). In this way the ram will go forward relatively uncontested unless defenders split up and clear the field. The good thing about this is that deathballing will become harder. Side note: not all the troops of the attackers need to be pikemen you could have dominion minions as well, as long as they had slightly buffed attack speed/damage, still one hit kill.
Just my thoughts, but would be interested to know what you guys think.

I think for me it is more about that in the later game deaths count more, and maybe like tribute where one team is very much better than the opponents it balances it out some. At the same time I do believe that unless the attackers are smart the defenders have less places they need to be and that making the ram zone having a slight bias towards the attacking side would force the defenders to multitask earlier though my concern would be that if it starts out that way the zones falling would skew the balance, it already has an impact when both of the archer zones fall. More damage to the ram when no zones have fallen over more attackers on the field as you suggest might be a way that works though if it is done right.

Non sequential zone captures I am not sure on basically because the way it is it suggests that the attacking minions have a clear path to come into the second and third zones as the ones before fall.

DefiledDragon
09-11-2018, 12:40 AM
If attackers run around like headless chickens, yes, that is bad attacking play. Alternatively, and I have done this with my group and in pug games, the attackers stay together for the first part to see how the defenders are playing, they interrupt executions, cover each other while they revive and they split off to the ram (or guardian in phase two) when they have killed a couple defenders or when they are confident that three of them are capable of holding off four. In the latter case if an attacker is clearing minions around the ram then the defenders need to decide do they continue as they are or do they stop the double speed of the ram in movement or striking? And yes this does work, I have been on teams that have gone into phase three with more than twenty tickets.



Or the fact that they are losing, the devs said that it has always been the plan to have quit penalties in breach possibly for this reason. People behave like this in dominion which has a shorter respawn time, occam's razor suggests they quit in Breach for the same reason.



The defenders cannot fourman everywhere at once, I covered this up above but sticking as a four or even a three the attacking team can preserve tickets through reviving. If in a straight fight they get beaten again and again that is because the other team is better.



Having had successful games with defenders in my group and in pugs, yes keeping the zones is important, same as with the attackers though that is not the only course, I have kept the ram paused having killed the minions around it when there are no enemy heroes around for half a minute at a time and in this my group, without me being there unless a couple of my teammates died, had them breaking before the end of the first phase and when one of them managed to hold out untila second after the gate fell left the ram at only half health from all the minion damage and the extra cauldron drops. This was entirely because the ram took over twice as long to get to the gate, teams on either side ignore the ram or the flag for the shield buff at their own risk. A smart team on either side will make the ram a big part of why they won.



And in the form people are suggesting, no tickets and short timers, it is going to be just like dominion in that people ignore the objective and have a rolling fourman with everything else happening in the background with the result in each phase, taking longer, being down to maybe one team's minions take a little more damage than the others on the occasional time a whole team isn't around for five seconds at a time. The last thing the devs should be aiming for is deathmatch on a larger map which is what that idea will turn it into.



That I agree with and said in my own feedback.

Yeah, as I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you, those were just my observations based on my own experience and on the feedback I've seen from players thus far. I want Breach to be popular and I want it to be an objective focused mode of play, but objective based game modes require cooperation and teamwork or the experience can be a dreadful one. There's a reason that the 24 player CS:S deathmatch servers are always full and the 12 and 16 player objective based ones rarely are. I think players like you and I are in the minority within this community. Like I said though, I hope I'm proven wrong.

Velentix
09-11-2018, 12:41 AM
realized I forgot my 2 cents on tickets lol.
1st I think the lower the ticket count the faster the respawn. As far as tickets throughout the game or just in the kill the lord segment, I'm a bit torn but I lean more on the side of only after the ram.

The reason for this being that if they want an objective based mode it needs to have a primary focus of the objective (namely the ram) not an easy side out of deathballing the attackers. Leave that crap in dominion. Any objective mode should have conflicts occurring as a result of the objective not for the sake of conflict itself.

DefiledDragon
09-11-2018, 12:44 AM
One other point that was made about tickets was that having one bad player on the attacking team, who isn't very good and therefore has low renown and therefore a higher spawn rate, can completely bollocks the game for the attacking team by burning all their tickets. It's a valid, if a little brutal, concern.

Velentix
09-11-2018, 01:29 AM
I think for me it is more about that in the later game deaths count more, and maybe like tribute where one team is very much better than the opponents it balances it out some. At the same time I do believe that unless the attackers are smart the defenders have less places they need to be and that making the ram zone having a slight bias towards the attacking side would force the defenders to multitask earlier though my concern would be that if it starts out that way the zones falling would skew the balance, it already has an impact when both of the archer zones fall. More damage to the ram when no zones have fallen over more attackers on the field as you suggest might be a way that works though if it is done right.

Non sequential zone captures I am not sure on basically because the way it is it suggests that the attacking minions have a clear path to come into the second and third zones as the ones before fall.

As far non sequential captures is concerned, I think the possibility would be good provided that any non sequential capture is only carried out by heroes with no minion support so that if all defenders just sit at the first location and deathball, attackers have an option to try to split them up. Especially if the defenders are substantially better player.

LargeBanana
09-11-2018, 03:23 AM
what the hell is a ticket... lol

Illyrian_King
09-11-2018, 06:48 AM
As much as I shout at my monitor when I have to wait 30sec, as much I still think that it is a good system and should not be changed.

It makes great sense.

Kryltic
09-11-2018, 11:48 AM
I'll keep my reply short and sharp.

Long respawn times is not the best way to encourage players to stick with a new game mode. There are good reasons why Dominion is by far the only real living game mode and I'll bet quick respawn times is definitely one of them.

Turk-Adam
09-11-2018, 12:32 PM
I agree with OP's post. I also understand why many folks may not like the game mode because of the long re-spawn time. I think one possible solution would be to massively increase the reward for breach game mode.

hypothetical example would be if you get 1 steel per minute of play have breach give 3 steel per minute. This way reward is triple every other game mode.This would make playing and sticking with the game mode ideal and people who still rather re-spawn quickly and fight again can still do dominion and/or other stuff.

This is just a suggestion, perhaps it's not a good one. People might complain that breach rewards more points and "they don't want to play it."

Alustar.
09-11-2018, 01:48 PM
I'll keep my reply short and sharp.

Long respawn times is not the best way to encourage players to stick with a new game mode. There are good reasons why Dominion is by far the only real living game mode and I'll bet quick respawn times is definitely one of them.

Skirmish respawn times are less than 7 seconds usually. Much lower than dominion, fast lower than tribute, and is not played nearly as heavily.

voiddp
09-11-2018, 02:45 PM
Dominion is the most played mode because it offers good balance of teamfights and objective based gameplay. It still can be won by ganking on some maps but there are still objective capture that helps, and tactic.

Skirmish is too chaotic and to get ganked or to gank for the whole match is not so interesting. Also its unlogically hidden with duel-like elimination in pair. It also doesn't help.

Tribute on the other hand is too heavily objective based, and too chaotic with 3 staffs going back and forth in balanced matches. And too fast to win in unbalanced.


What I like about siedge is that it has both team fights like dominion, and also heavily objective based. But at the same time have big rails to follow, and not that chaotic.


On the topic:
Also I dont really care about tickets, untill they are balanced right. I even like it more when I need to have actually different perks/feats builds for attacking and defending, based on tickets and one way zones.

SpaceJim12
09-11-2018, 03:17 PM
As far as I know, defender have no tickets to revive. So what about them? They could still deathballing with no punishments.
I did not play Breach, so my information could be incorrect. But I saw enough videos and I didn't see any revive limits for defenders.

CandleInTheDark
09-11-2018, 03:44 PM
As far as I know, defender have no tickets to revive. So what about them? They could still deathballing with no punishments.
I did not play Breach, so my information could be incorrect. But I saw enough videos and I didn't see any revive limits for defenders.

Defenders have no tickets, no, they also don't regain control of any lost objectives. They start each of the first two phases with two archer zones that cut down minions pushing the ram and with control of the cauldron area which means their minions will be the ones backing them up if the teams fight over trying to use or prevent use of the cauldron. This is why the longer respawn times also need to be a thing because what balances the lack of tickets is once they lose one of these zones it is for keeps and taking out one or two gives the attackers the advantage, a total team wipe if they all happen pretty close, along with the distance the first two zones are from defender spawn, means that the defenders will likely lose a zone.

Deathballing is only really a problem if the defenders are able to spawn camp the attacking zone or if the attackers completely lack co-ordination. I don't know what the attacking meta will settle as but I have found more success in teams that stay together for the first part of each phase in an effort to take the first two zones, by the end of the first phase they should have an idea on if three or even two of them can hold four which gives one of them the freedom to clear minions from the ram area and to stay near the ram, both conditions of which beign together cause the ram to move at double speed and strike at double speed when docked. There is also the size of the map, the defenders are not able to deathball everywhere at once and they will either lose the zones or they will lose time in which to take attacking tickets or damage the ram, they can't have it all.

Here is the thing, it is not kills that decide a game but controlling the battlefield, a well co-ordinated attacking team can interrupt executions and cover each other as they revive or go to the heal point, kills don't mean points but deaths mean loss of resources and/or battlefield presence for both teams. As far as I can see the main strategy for both teams is to push together until they have a time they have a numerical advantage either in people currently being dead or in that they can at least hold the other team to a stalemate which lets them look towards getting the shield buff for the ram or gate, the neutral guardian or in speeding up or stopping the ram, the ideal situation is to have three pushing the zones together and one at the ram area if they are able to either split the focus of the other team or fight at a numerical disadvantage.

SpaceJim12
09-11-2018, 03:54 PM
Well, Candle, guess I will see it myself in october. Some good signs in this thread for Breach. Hope it's will bring game back to healthy way.

DefiledDragon
09-11-2018, 04:06 PM
Here is the thing, it is not kills that decide a game but controlling the battlefield, a well co-ordinated attacking team can interrupt executions and cover each other as they revive or go to the heal point, kills don't mean points but deaths mean loss of resources and/or battlefield presence for both teams. As far as I can see the main strategy for both teams is to push together until they have a time they have a numerical advantage either in people currently being dead or in that they can at least hold the other team to a stalemate which lets them look towards getting the shield buff for the ram or gate, the neutral guardian or in speeding up or stopping the ram, the ideal situation is to have three pushing the zones together and one at the ram area if they are able to either split the focus of the other team or fight at a numerical disadvantage.

Yeah but ultimately, it IS kills that decide the game because once the attacking team reach the commander, they either kill him or they run out of tickets. If their tickets have been severely depleted during the first two phases, their chances of killing the commander are slim to none. That's why ganking as defenders is a sound tactic.

If they removed tickets until the final phase, or if they guaranteed a minimum number of tickets for the final phase it would alleviate this issue but as it is, I've seen attacking teams get to the commander with as few as 6 tickets left.

CandleInTheDark
09-11-2018, 04:22 PM
Yeah but ultimately, it IS kills that decide the game because once the attacking team reach the commander, they either kill him or they run out of tickets. If their tickets have been severely depleted during the first two phases, their chances of killing the commander are slim to none. That's why ganking as defenders is a sound tactic.

If they removed tickets until the final phase, or if they guaranteed a minimum number of tickets for the final phase it would alleviate this issue but as it is, I've seen attacking teams get to the commander with as few as 6 tickets left.

Again that is on the attacking team to realise that the defenders are grouping up and to do likewise, reviving each other and taking the time to heal or affect another part of the battlefield when either they have forced the defenders to split their focus (three holding four and one affecting the ram area) or when there are defenders down. My last run in breach was as the attackers, we got through phase one very cheaply because we took all the zones and had presence at the ram, three of us took the guardian and the buff because they were set on not losing their second zone early and lost it anyway and we entered the last phase with twenty tickets killing the Lord for the loss of four. This wasn't a group, at best it was two twos, more likely a two (myself and another) and two solo. This was also bearing in mind that we lost the flag in both phases and had to hit the gate an extra time in each phase.

Yes the tickets system can work against the attackers if they do not co-ordinate, but bearing in mind that revives are a thing, so long as they push together where they meet resistance the attackers have every opportunity. Both teams have to react to what each other are doing, especially if a team can handle a mismatch, three vs four if the defenders are set on grouping up is doable if one of the three can handle two people or if they cover each other to revive if one of them falls and if the defenders all fall that means they are losing a zone and a lot of ground on the ram.

OoKaMi_79
09-11-2018, 05:02 PM
Breach Mode - Ticket System..........but why?

Not really sure why dev team decided to implement this new system for breach mode.....tickets are too simple to deal with all the factors involved in a For Honor match.

For all dominion and skirmish we have point system, I know that it is not perfect, but at least that system gives more options to customize the score you get with each kill. Skirmish is the perfect example because after each elimination we see in our screen the criteria for the score, getting more if it is a honorable kill (1v1) and less points for ganking 2v1, 3v1 or 4v1.

I think points system should be available here in breach mode too as I see too many complaints about limited respawns.

Winning conditions should be 1000 points for each phase and every time the attacker team reach a new phase the scores from both teams returns to 0

Other think that I believe should be considered to respawn time is if you got ganked then your time should be shorter (again according to the number of enemies)

CandleInTheDark
09-11-2018, 05:21 PM
Breach Mode - Ticket System..........but why?

Not really sure why dev team decided to implement this new system for breach mode.....tickets are too simple to deal with all the factors involved in a For Honor match.

For all dominion and skirmish we have point system, I know that it is not perfect, but at least that system gives more options to customize the score you get with each kill. Skirmish is the perfect example because after each elimination we see in our screen the criteria for the score, getting more if it is a honorable kill (1v1) and less points for ganking 2v1, 3v1 or 4v1.

I think points system should be available here in breach mode too as I see too many complaints about limited respawns.

Winning conditions should be 1000 points for each phase and every time the attacker team reach a new phase the scores from both teams returns to 0

Other think that I believe should be considered to respawn time is if you got ganked then your time should be shorter (again according to the number of enemies)

So basically skirmish on a bigger map which is the last thing the game needs.

DefiledDragon
09-11-2018, 05:28 PM
Damn. All this talking about it makes me want to play it again.

OoKaMi_79
09-11-2018, 06:02 PM
So basically skirmish on a bigger map which is the last thing the game needs.

That not what I was trying to say. Points wouldn’t come only from kills, there are all the other goals in each phase. I was only addressing that the limited respawns and time are the major concerns or complaints about this new mode. And that is why I thought on the other points system where gank is penalized in the score. Ticket systems count the kill only, no matter if was an honorable kill or you got ganked by four enemies.

I would like to see a point system that could have a fair score for each kill and objective on every phase of breach.

DefiledDragon
09-11-2018, 07:25 PM
That not what I was trying to say. Points wouldn’t come only from kills, there are all the other goals in each phase. I was only addressing that the limited respawns and time are the major concerns or complaints about this new mode. And that is why I thought on the other points system where gank is penalized in the score. Ticket systems count the kill only, no matter if was an honorable kill or you got ganked by four enemies.

I would like to see a point system that could have a fair score for each kill and objective on every phase of breach.

The simple removal of tickets from the first two phases would be the way to go imo. Make the ram the focus for both the attackers and defenders and you remove the incentive to gank and shift it to capturing or defending the archer zones and supporting/destroying the ram.

CandleInTheDark
09-11-2018, 07:31 PM
That not what I was trying to say. Points wouldn’t come only from kills, there are all the other goals in each phase. I was only addressing that the limited respawns and time are the major concerns or complaints about this new mode. And that is why I thought on the other points system where gank is penalized in the score. Ticket systems count the kill only, no matter if was an honorable kill or you got ganked by four enemies.

I would like to see a point system that could have a fair score for each kill and objective on every phase of breach.

First of all the devs have said more than once that they are not going to put into place any system that tries to force players to 'play it 1v1' in their team based games so that is a non starter to begin with. Secondly as soon as kills become any part of putting together points towards an objective it will become a rolling 4v4 until one team can just deathball the other in 90% of the games, just as it has happened in dominion, whatever measures are put on 'but there was more than one person doing the killing' there are put into place. It is what dominion has become, it is what skirmish was always meant to be, it doesn't happen in tribute because it can't happen in tribute and it should not be made any easier to happen in Breach..

As I described above, there are ways of getting through the attacking game in Breach with the current tickets and that basically comes down to the attackers playing smart and ensuring that when someone falls there are people nearby to prevent the execution and push for the revive until they have an advantage that allows them to affect other areas of the map. If people think of actually playing the objective rather than thinking only of kills and letting the larger part of the game happen in the background the tickets become less of an issue.

Xil_h
09-11-2018, 08:39 PM
Ganging is such a bad strategy in Breach.

You know... When you are attacker pushing the ram and a 4 man ganging squad comes.. You just leave, walk away. The map is so huge you can run for minutes. And if they actually chase you, your team will take archer points.
So they are forced to split, and when they do you can show your duel skills an kill the remaining defender.
When that happens and you may even execute the defender, you will have a lot of room to do things. The defenders will even struggle to regroup as there are suddenly all objectives under pressure, buffs taken by the attackers, healing zone gone, etc.

Also I have seen many sudden victorys in which a ganging defender 4 man squad got killed because the attackers baited them in a trap and collapsed on them, making the Commander an easy victim.

Ganking is bad, when the opposing team knows what to do.

OoKaMi_79
09-11-2018, 09:08 PM
I see that you are making the point of “a team that knows what to do” and “a team playing smart”....I kind of understand that but I really think that definitely requires good communication. Let’s be honest: how many of us have three other friends willing to use their mics for playing in the “right” way?

I see that the lack of that full communicated team will bring a good amount of bad experiences when players want to play by themselves in a random matchmaking....I see those kind of complaints in dominion already where people are upset of getting bad companions that doesn’t full their expectations.

With that I’m not really sure that a game mode that relies on communication and strategy will be successful among a good amount of the gamers that don’t have a full and communicated group of friends.....just a thought

DefiledDragon
09-11-2018, 09:15 PM
I see that you are making the point of “a team that knows what to do” and “a team playing smart”....I kind of understand that but I really think that definitely requires good communication. Let’s be honest: how many of us have three other friends willing to use their mics for playing in the “right” way?

I see that the lack of that full communicated team will bring a good amount of bad experiences when players want to play by themselves in a random matchmaking....I see those kind of complaints in dominion already where people are upset of getting bad companions that doesn’t full their expectations.

With that I’m not really sure that a game mode that relies on communication and strategy will be successful among a good amount of the gamers that don’t have a full and communicated group of friends.....just a thought

That's one of my concerns. I really do like that the game mode requires some strategy and I would be hugely excited for this if the following were true.

1. For Honor on PC had a large and active community. It doesn't.
2. Other objective focused modes (Tribute/Infernal Dominion) had proven popular. They haven't.

Given the above, my concern is that I will end up playing breach against bots like I do with Tribute, because nobody wants to play it. Sure, I'll enjoy it, but it's just not the same.

Still, time will tell I guess. I can't see them making major changes to it at this stage and it will probably roll out as is, or with minor adjustments and we'll just have to see how popular it is.

Xil_h
09-11-2018, 09:24 PM
Uhm... all my friends that game are willing to use a mic?!
They are also more than 3, lol.

Cuz friends usually talk. Not just about what to do in a game, but just hang out in chat after a long workday.

CandleInTheDark
09-11-2018, 09:27 PM
I see that you are making the point of “a team that knows what to do” and “a team playing smart”....I kind of understand that but I really think that definitely requires good communication. Let’s be honest: how many of us have three other friends willing to use their mics for playing in the “right” way?

I see that the lack of that full communicated team will bring a good amount of bad experiences when players want to play by themselves in a random matchmaking....I see those kind of complaints in dominion already where people are upset of getting bad companions that doesn’t full their expectations.

With that I’m not really sure that a game mode that relies on communication and strategy will be successful among a good amount of the gamers that don’t have a full and communicated group of friends.....just a thought

I gave the example above where we managed just that, so far as I know only two of us were micced up, of the other two on the team one used the text chat and a bunch of us signalled our intent with the quick messages, that game we started phase three with twenty tickets and killed the Lord for the loss of four of them so it is doable without being micced up (but yes that will always be an advantage). And while you may make the point that some people can't be bothered to learn the game mode and will just leave, the person I was micced with was on only his second Breach game and besides that those aren't the people that should be catered to.

At the same time, yes it means that people who want to play this are going to have to learn to play smart and learn to communicate more, I also think the devs need to make it a priority to get voip through teams working on dedicated servers as it did on P2P, but the answer isn't to turn a game mode the devs want to appeal to the competitive community with into something that is just dominion on a larger scale which itself is just skirmish on different maps most of the time.

Yes its popularity might take a hit in some quarters, but again if people want an 'objective mode' where they don't have to think of the objective outside of we can roam as a four and kill people they have dominion for that. There are a good few people, I am one of them and have spoken with others, who won't play dominion PVP at any time we have a choice in anything else because there is no objective play in most of the games we get any more and quite frankly I would rather deal with wait times and the occasional bad teammate than have what should be a completely different experience turn into just another skirmish plus.

UbiInsulin
09-11-2018, 10:29 PM
Damn. All this talking about it makes me want to play it again.

That's a good sign! :)

For what it's worth, we did pass on that some players were concerned with respawn times.

DefiledDragon
09-11-2018, 11:06 PM
That's a good sign! :)

For what it's worth, we did pass on that some players were concerned with respawn times.

I'm not really sure yet though. Maybe if you reinstate the test and run it for another week I'll probably have made up my mind by then.

Alustar.
09-11-2018, 11:15 PM
Damn. All this talking about it makes me want to play it again.

Exactly how I feel! Come on October!!!

matt89connor
09-14-2018, 04:16 PM
The mode system is very complex in terms of balancing.

I do not say that the tickets should go away, but the respawn time, the gank and the weak revenge mode, do not help much this system.

honestly I did not love Breach because every death (if you are a slow hero and you suffer a gank, or win or die you can not escape), because of the long respawn and the gank absurd especially if you are the invader