PDA

View Full Version : Hire this guy ubisoft



Phenoloth
11-19-2018, 01:08 AM
https://youtu.be/2wBxe3mkTS4

jmac70
11-19-2018, 03:05 AM
Ubisoft hates him because he tells the truth about everything

Treal1994
11-19-2018, 03:37 AM
they really do

DoctorMcBatman
11-19-2018, 03:57 AM
Ubisoft doesn't give a **** about feedback, from a YouTuber, top 1% player, or random forum poster. It doesn't matter. The devs will do what they think is correct and that's that.

MarshalMoriarty
11-19-2018, 03:58 AM
And yet he's so intolerant of anyone criticising him or his channel that he frequently warns people not to say anything negative about either. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of time for this guy and he works hard at his content which I respect.

But his hypocrisy and self congratulation\martyrdom can get a bit much. But that's true of many Youtubers.

jmac70
11-19-2018, 04:15 AM
He is voicing his own opinions why ubi asked for you seen it yourself ubisoft doesn't play this game they look at the top 2.1% of this game that can basically block everything and parry anything they want it's an actual joke. Ubisoft needs to stop LOOKING at the F**KING DATA and look at the actual F***KING gameplay

MarshalMoriarty
11-19-2018, 04:33 AM
I'm just saying that this Champion of straight talking honesty has never made much of this issue before now. He gives a 'this will suck for console players I guess' now and then, but he by no means brings this issue up as often or as stridently as he's making out that he does here.

He is infamous for playing the most broken characters. He was a PK main to start, mained Cent until he was nerfed, Shaman in S4, Berserker and Orochi after they were buffed and is maining Jian Jun now. He's an entertaining vid maker but I find his consistency on balance issues rather dubious.

Klingentaenz3r
11-19-2018, 09:03 AM
And yet he's so intolerant of anyone criticising him or his channel that he frequently warns people not to say anything negative about either. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of time for this guy and he works hard at his content which I respect.

But his hypocrisy and self congratulation\martyrdom can get a bit much. But that's true of many Youtubers.

He (Reavyne Gaming, btw for anybody who did not click the link) is downright dumb and as you said pretty full of himself/very self-righteous imo as well. I actively avoid everyone of his videos for some time now. From the ones I have seen he is definitely not one of the brightest candles on the cake and you can notice that he does not understand the game as well as a lot of other content creators do. He conveys conspiracy theories with the utmost dumb and ridiculous reasonings and oversimplifies a lot (he wants to appear bright but achieves by doing so the exact opposite). Quite a pain to listen to on the usual vid. And don't get me started on his video titles or descriptions... that terrible overusage of exclamation marks all the time. However that just underlines my beliefs on his person.

So yeah, I wouldn't advice to watch/follow him at all if you want you to do yourself (esp. your brain) any good.

Phenoloth
11-19-2018, 10:39 AM
I don't care what you think about that YouTuber. What he says about light attack spam at least for group mode games is definitely right.

Overhauling the damage of light attacks would be great. A light should be a Light!

Knight_Raime
11-19-2018, 11:09 AM
I don't care what you think about that YouTuber. What he says about light attack spam at least for group mode games is definitely right.

Overhauling the damage of light attacks would be great. A light should be a Light!

That's called conformation bias boyo. The guy doesn't know the game as well as he thinks he does.

Zombie.Face
11-19-2018, 11:17 AM
i for the most part quit this game over the new light spam meta. its much more ****ty than the old defense meta. that felt more tactical to me

Phenoloth
11-19-2018, 12:10 PM
That's called conformation bias boyo. The guy doesn't know the game as well as he thinks he does.

Wow ok your argument about the topic which isn't present did change my opinion.. And you are the only one who knows the game?? Are you a rocket scientist? Is this game based on rocket science?

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
11-19-2018, 12:15 PM
I've heard talks of increasing overall health so reducing light spam damage isn't a stretch. To me reducing light damage makes more sense but it will never work. To many spam character mains would be upset.

SangLong524
11-19-2018, 01:10 PM
Oh this forum.
I didnt click on the link. So anyone care to tell me who are you all talking about? I dont mind if you dont :)
Btw, people, quit telling people how they should run their business. Its none of your business. Mind your own business.
Bye!

DefiledDragon
11-19-2018, 02:13 PM
I didn't agree with much of what he said and his boxing analogy was nonsense, but I do agree that you can't ignore the majority of the playerbase and expect the game to do well, or to survive. Having competitive aspirations for a fighting game is a good thing, but it has to be fun to play at more than just the top level if it's going to do well.

Saying all that, I'm not sure how unhappy the majority are. Sure, there's lots of stuff on reddit and on here that suggest that average players don't like certain aspects of the game but most people don't go on forums, they just play the game or not. The only metric for how well the game is doing are player counts and only Ubisoft have definitive numbers on those.

His suggestion of reducing the damage of light attacks wouldn't stop people from spamming them either, it would just increase ttk.

SpaceJim12
11-19-2018, 03:51 PM
Do the light as real light, make it not count and you will get new, even worse turtle meta. I can't remember when I used heavy attacks more then lights. The main dmg now goes from light, and heavies are tool for feints. At least on the level area, where i play the game.
The problem with all this balance, light spam etc things came from poor game design from the beggining. Devs should fix defence, made it harder to do. But they choose easier way and speed up lights.

Phenoloth
11-19-2018, 05:08 PM
Do the light as real light, make it not count and you will get new, even worse turtle meta. I can't remember when I used heavy attacks more then lights. The main dmg now goes from light, and heavies are tool for feints. At least on the level area, where i play the game.
The problem with all this balance, light spam etc things came from poor game design from the beggining. Devs should fix defence, made it harder to do. But they choose easier way and speed up lights.

He didnt mention to not count lights at all.. but an overhaul of the damage numbers would reduce the brainless spam because you got to think before spaming if its worth to use light instead of a strategic prepared heavy attack or a cc move.. and that is way more quality play then just spam by chance lights over and over. Maybe increasing the stamina cost for lights would also help.

I dont mind light spam in a duel or in brawls where you fight 1v1 but in dom or breach light spam is just annoying and makes no sense. Some heros got very good capitalize potential with light spam others just risk an easy parry punish for the opponent, The balance should consider the different game modes. Decrease the damage of light by 50% in dom and breach.

Fix JJ and Monks and the inconsistency of block and parry. Since season 8 something is definetely not as usual with defense when blocking or parrying.
When i have my guard on the correct side and still got hit on that side something cant be allright.

Hormly
11-19-2018, 06:36 PM
Lol reavyne has always been such a f-ckin whiner 😂 I remember when he used to declare "this proves the faction war is rigged!" After every round. Total tool. There are far better youtubers to listen to with regards to this game

Archeun
11-19-2018, 07:14 PM
For Honor is a true treat. It's balanced and truly the epitome of what all games should aspire to be.

The_B0G_
11-19-2018, 07:56 PM
I agree with most of what he said, I never heard of this guy before or seen his vids, but I agree with the majority of what he's saying in this video.

If the devs are balancing the game so average players on PC in an offline training session can't block consistently, how on earth are console players fighting online supposed to be able to come close to blocking any of it?


He also talks about something I made a thread about a week ago, balancing damage numbers by the speed of the attacks. 500ms would be light damage 11-17, so any 400 ms should be less than that.

Keep balancing for the 2% of the smallest platform and you won't have a game left in 6 months.

Knight_Raime
11-19-2018, 07:59 PM
Wow ok your argument about the topic which isn't present did change my opinion.. And you are the only one who knows the game?? Are you a rocket scientist? Is this game based on rocket science?

Didn't even remotely say that. But if you want content creators that actually know the game you should look at alernakin, freezeYT, mege, Zero_Craic, etc.

Phenoloth
11-19-2018, 09:16 PM
Didn't even remotely say that. But if you want content creators that actually know the game you should look at alernakin, freezeYT, mege, Zero_Craic, etc.

Are you serious? I respect all content creators as i respect every skilled honorable player but Zero_Craic is actually moderate or maybe just a bit above average. Mege is good (I've met him several times in duels) and I can't say anything to the other both.

The point is I didn't post a link of that specific content creator because I agree with all his content and opinion but in this case he is right. Stop acting like fanboy and reply to the topic so we can have a constructive dialogue to pass to dev team. ok?

Knight_Raime
11-19-2018, 11:31 PM
Are you serious? I respect all content creators as i respect every skilled honorable player but Zero_Craic is actually moderate or maybe just a bit above average. Mege is good (I've met him several times in duels) and I can't say anything to the other both.

The point is I didn't post a link of that specific content creator because I agree with all his content and opinion but in this case he is right. Stop acting like fanboy and reply to the topic so we can have a constructive dialogue to pass to dev team. ok?

Craic is a fairly good tournament player. Really don't know why you think he's above average.

SixAxe505
11-20-2018, 12:48 AM
Just gonna throw this out there. What if light attacks could not kill? What if we treated it as shave damage? If only heavies/zones could kill then wouldn't that make for a more tactful fight?

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
11-20-2018, 01:01 AM
Just gonna throw this out there. What if light attacks could not kill? What if we treated it as shave damage? If only heavies/zones could kill then wouldn't that make for a more tactful fight?
Interesting idea except some characters zones and heavies are better than others. It could work though. Like orochi has to get a heavy while Lawbringer has the option to get a zone or a heavy. Shamon, centurion, and Shaolin might be hard place. It might help in separating OP characters and "finisher" characters. It might be a nightmare to balance in 4v4 IDK.

Vakris_One
11-20-2018, 01:13 AM
Raevyne's got a point but reducing light attack damage isn't really going to significantly improve anything about the game if that's all they do. At best it will simply increasing time to kill. What good will that do however if certain characters still have no openers and only rely on light spam, while others have no viable form of offence and while still others are just crutching on one overturned move because the rest of their kit is not viable? There needs to be an overhaul of the fight system in general if things are to improve, much like how they removed guaranteed GB from a parry and got rid of the last bar of health regen - these things helped to evolve the game and put it into a much better state that it was with those things in it. Merely reducing light attack damage won't do much by itself.

Among other things Stefan Jewinski stated that they want feints to be more believable and that this will potentially alleviate the problematic state of offence in the game to some extent. I would like to see what he has planned put into motion and then see where that takes us. I respect Raevyne's opinion but on this subject Stefan showed us that he knows the problems of the game on a much deeper level than Raevyne does. The problem with Ubisoft is that what they say and what they end up implementing are often two very different things. As such it's a matter of waiting to see what they actually implement.



I agree with most of what he said, I never heard of this guy before or seen his vids, but I agree with the majority of what he's saying in this video.

If the devs are balancing the game so average players on PC in an offline training session can't block consistently, how on earth are console players fighting online supposed to be able to come close to blocking any of it?


He also talks about something I made a thread about a week ago, balancing damage numbers by the speed of the attacks. 500ms would be light damage 11-17, so any 400 ms should be less than that.

Keep balancing for the 2% of the smallest platform and you won't have a game left in 6 months.
The same is also true if they abandon the top level and balance the game for the low to medium skill level. The game's skill checks would be too simplistic and the skill ceiling too shallow to keep anyone invested in playing for longer than a couple of months before completely mastering the combat system, getting bored and then leaving because there's not enough depth to the combat system. In my opinion a top down approach is better because it gives players room to improve and go further up along the skill ladder, which in turn gives the game staying power.

If the game is actually made fun at the top levels then more players will have the incentive to stick with the game because it would be both challenging and fun to grow as a player as you attempt to see how far you can go up the skill ladder. Every step from low to medium, to high skill, to competitive level would be as fun as it is challenging to master - this is how pretty much every good conventional fighting game such as Soul Calibre, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken, etc, work.

DefiledDragon
11-20-2018, 02:05 AM
If the game is actually made fun at the top levels then more players will have the incentive to stick with the game because it would be both challenging and fun to grow as a player as you attempt to see how far you can go up the skill ladder. Every step from low to medium, to high skill, to competitive level would be as fun as it is challenging to master - this is how pretty much every good conventional fighting game such as Soul Calibre, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken, etc, work.

You're right in what you say, but if the game isn't fun and doesn't feel fair and balanced at lower skill levels, or at least lower experience levels, there's little incentive to stick with the game and improve. The game needs to be fun at all levels of play and it needs to feel fair and balanced at all levels of play or it's never going to retain new players. They absolutely should balance the game at higher levels of play, but in doing so they absolutely should not sacrifice fun and a feeling of fairness at lower levels of play.

Vakris_One
11-20-2018, 03:07 AM
You're right in what you say, but if the game isn't fun and doesn't feel fair and balanced at lower skill levels, or at least lower experience levels, there's little incentive to stick with the game and improve. The game needs to be fun at all levels of play and it needs to feel fair and balanced at all levels of play or it's never going to retain new players. They absolutely should balance the game at higher levels of play, but in doing so they absolutely should not sacrifice fun and a feeling of fairness at lower levels of play.
I completely agree. And in a more conventional fighting game, or even a PvP game like Rocket League, balancing the game from the top down usually yields a fun and fair experience at all levels of play. That's because at the highest level the entire gamut of options and tactics are supposed to be used to their maximum potential. So if the devs make sure that everything is viable, fair and solid at high level then the experience will inevitably be just as viable, fair and solid at lower levels. All is good. Except that For Honor doesn't seem to want to work like this and that's the frustrating part.

The problem with For Honor is that the higher up the skill ladder you go the less and less of your kit you can use. For Honor has a very weird paradigm. At low to medium levels you are learning how to use all the attacks and when it's best to use which attacks - pretty normal stuff for any PvP game. However at high level you are suddenly finding that you have to use less of your kit and less of your attacks because it's no longer safe to use a lot of those attacks you spent your time learning. And you start wondering "why did the devs put those attacks in the game then if they're not going to be used past the medium skill level? If they're just going to become dead attacks at higher skill levels then it's like I've been lied to."

Then at the competitive level you use even less. You are stripped down to pretty much just 2 or 3 moves in addition to the number of viable heroes being drastically reduced. The amount of dead attacks start to overwhelmingly outnumber the very small amount of viable attacks. That's pretty terrible for a PvP game. What the FH devs need to do is make sure that the majority of each character's attacks and kit stay viable from low all the way up to competitive level. Not this nonsense that we have where most of the roster are full of dead kits after you move past the noob stomping level. Only then will we have a fun and fair experience that will harmonize properly with a top down balance philosophy.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 03:11 AM
@Vakris_One

Bare my damned children. Excellent freaking posts.
Just a side note. You said in your prior post "stated that they want feints to be more believable."

Do you remember the exact verbiage of that? or could you elaborate more on that? I didn't watch the den. So i'd be really interested in hearing that.

The_B0G_
11-20-2018, 03:18 AM
Raevyne's got a point but reducing light attack damage isn't really going to significantly improve anything about the game if that's all they do. At best it will simply increasing time to kill. What good will that do however if certain characters still have no openers and only rely on light spam, while others have no viable form of offence and while still others are just crutching on one overturned move because the rest of their kit is not viable? There needs to be an overhaul of the fight system in general if things are to improve, much like how they removed guaranteed GB from a parry and got rid of the last bar of health regen - these things helped to evolve the game and put it into a much better state that it was with those things in it. Merely reducing light attack damage won't do much by itself.

Among other things Stefan Jewinski stated that they want feints to be more believable and that this will potentially alleviate the problematic state of offence in the game to some extent. I would like to see what he has planned put into motion and then see where that takes us. I respect Raevyne's opinion but on this subject Stefan showed us that he knows the problems of the game on a much deeper level than Raevyne does. The problem with Ubisoft is that what they say and what they end up implementing are often two very different things. As such it's a matter of waiting to see what they actually implement.



The same is also true if they abandon the top level and balance the game for the low to medium skill level. The game's skill checks would be too simplistic and the skill ceiling too shallow to keep anyone invested in playing for longer than a couple of months before completely mastering the combat system, getting bored and then leaving because there's not enough depth to the combat system. In my opinion a top down approach is better because it gives players room to improve and go further up along the skill ladder, which in turn gives the game staying power.

If the game is actually made fun at the top levels then more players will have the incentive to stick with the game because it would be both challenging and fun to grow as a player as you attempt to see how far you can go up the skill ladder. Every step from low to medium, to high skill, to competitive level would be as fun as it is challenging to master - this is how pretty much every good conventional fighting game such as Soul Calibre, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken, etc, work.

The thing is, getting better and increasing your skill doesn't have much to do with the issues many people are having, on console many attacks, especially on new heroes are so fast you can't react to them.

The devs said it themselves, they want to balance so that light attacks can't be blocked consistently, the example they used was that pope can block everything beside 400ms attacks on an offline mode on PC and he's not a good player. On console, online, light spam is killing the game for a lot of people, if you don't pick a spammer and do it yourself, it's not fun to play anymore.

I think that's what the video was getting at, the game is changing and for most people not for the better, I think the reason this game did as well as it did is because it wasn't like other fighter games you listed, the closer we get to that, the more people will lose interest. Games like that are fun for a bit, but never long, in my experience anyway.

DefiledDragon
11-20-2018, 03:21 AM
I completely agree. And in a more conventional fighting game, or even a PvP game like Rocket League, balancing the game from the top down usually yields a fun and fair experience at all levels of play. That's because at the highest level the entire gamut of options and tactics are supposed to be used to their maximum potential. So if the devs make sure that everything is viable, fair and solid at high level then the experience will inevitably be just as viable, fair and solid at lower levels. All is good. Except that For Honor doesn't seem to want to work like this and that's the frustrating part.

The problem with For Honor is that the higher up the skill ladder you go the less and less of your kit you can use. For Honor has a very weird paradigm. At low to medium levels you are learning how to use all the attacks and when it's best to use which attacks - pretty normal stuff for any PvP game. However at high level you are suddenly finding that you have to use less of your kit and less of your attacks because it's no longer safe to use all those attacks you spent your time learning. And you start wondering "why did the devs put those attacks in the game then if they're not going to be used past the medium skill level? If they're just going to become dead attacks at higher skill levels then it's like I've been lied to."

Then at the competitive level you use even less. You are stripped down to pretty much just 2 or 3 moves in addition to the number of viable heroes being drastically reduced. The amount of dead attacks start to overwhelmingly outnumber the very small amount of viable attacks. That's pretty terrible for a PvP game. What the FH devs need to do is make sure that the majority of each character's attacks and kit stay viable from low all the way up to competitive level. Not this nonsense that we have where most of the roster are full of dead kits after you move past even so much as the noob stomping level. Only then will we have a fun and fair experience that will harmonize properly with a top down balance philosophy.

I've never actually thought about it like that but yeah, you're absolutely right. Characters move sets in FH become ever more restricted in terms of viability as you progress whereas in other fighting games, the characters movesets open up to you as you improve and become invaluable tools in the arsenal of your offence. I find it difficult to put my finger on the issue. It's certainly too easy to defend but at the same time, characters who are typically regarded as "viable" are far too easy to use, requiring little actual skill in order to succeed. Conq is the classic example of this, as is Glad to a degree in that without his zone, he would likely be two tiers lower than he is now. How problematic are a games mechanics that one move in a characters kit can propel them up the tier list like that?

I've offered a number of suggestions on how to improve the game in terms of balance and player engagement, but in all honesty, I really don't know what they can do short of re-designing the mechanics from scratch.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 03:28 AM
The thing is, getting better and increasing your skill doesn't have much to do with the issues many people are having, on console many attacks, especially on new heroes are so fast you can't react to them.

The devs said it themselves, they want to balance so that light attacks can't be blocked consistently, the example they used was that pope can block everything beside 400ms attacks on an offline mode on PC and he's not a good player. On console, online, light spam is killing the game for a lot of people, if you don't pick a spammer and do it yourself, it's not fun to play anymore.

I think that's what the video was getting at, the game is changing and for most people not for the better, I think the reason this game did as well as it did is because it wasn't like other fighter games you listed, the closer we get to that, the more people will lose interest. Games like that are fun for a bit, but never long, in my experience anyway.

I think the point of what Vakris is saying is that if the game is pandered to in the way that would appease the players like ravyene the fun wouldn't last long either. Because people would master the game super quickly. We're trying to say that dumbing down the game will only feel nice in the short run. Making the game good from the top down perspective would make the game good in the long run for everyone.

The only reason these "competitive improvements" feel bad for mid to low players right now is because how lop sided it makes balancing. And this lop sidedness only happens because the fundementals of the game are ****ed. If the devs are capable of fixing offense at a mechanical level then there wouldn't be a need to fist every kit full of unblockables. We wouldn't need to keep adding in 400ms attacks to everything. both things could go back to being powerful tools to individual hero styles. Fixing offense at a mechanical level would mean a top down perspective of balance could still be achieved. and the less of the 400ms attacks and quick unblockables would mean things at a mid/low level wouldn't feel as chaotic/frantic. Thus the game is fun in the long run for everyone.

Raveyne and many others try to implement quick fixes that address the symptoms and not the actual problems. Which is not how you fix the game for the better.

The_B0G_
11-20-2018, 03:40 AM
I think the point of what Vakris is saying is that if the game is pandered to in the way that would appease the players like ravyene the fun wouldn't last long either. Because people would master the game super quickly. We're trying to say that dumbing down the game will only feel nice in the short run. Making the game good from the top down perspective would make the game good in the long run for everyone.

The only reason these "competitive improvements" feel bad for mid to low players right now is because how lop sided it makes balancing. And this lop sidedness only happens because the fundementals of the game are ****ed. If the devs are capable of fixing offense at a mechanical level then there wouldn't be a need to fist every kit full of unblockables. We wouldn't need to keep adding in 400ms attacks to everything. both things could go back to being powerful tools to individual hero styles. Fixing offense at a mechanical level would mean a top down perspective of balance could still be achieved. and the less of the 400ms attacks and quick unblockables would mean things at a mid/low level wouldn't feel as chaotic/frantic. Thus the game is fun in the long run for everyone.

Raveyne and many others try to implement quick fixes that address the symptoms and not the actual problems. Which is not how you fix the game for the better.

I agree changes need to be made, but can the game only be made better by increasing the speed of everything and adding feintable unblockables to everyone?

I'm speaking more generally as a game design level, but I found that when the game was slower and more about mind games with intense back and forths here and there was a much better pace than this new "Go like *uck" bar style fighting, as soon as you engage it's non stop lights and feints and unblockables, more feints than attacks, I personally just find it mentally exhausting keeping up with all the feints and lights, it takes a lot of the fun out of the game, it turns fighting into a chore.

AzureSky.
11-20-2018, 03:41 AM
Implement Frames, there, problem fixed, is not that hard guys (for us) this change doesn't change the feel for low and medium skill level players but increase the ceiling by a lot, making it a serious fighting game.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 03:49 AM
I've never actually thought about it like that but yeah, you're absolutely right. Characters move sets in FH become ever more restricted in terms of viability as you progress whereas in other fighting games, the characters movesets open up to you as you improve and become invaluable tools in the arsenal of your offence. I find it difficult to put my finger on the issue. It's certainly too easy to defend but at the same time, characters who are typically regarded as "viable" are far too easy to use, requiring little actual skill in order to succeed. Conq is the classic example of this, as is Glad to a degree in that without his zone, he would likely be two tiers lower than he is now. How problematic are a games mechanics that one move in a characters kit can propel them up the tier list like that?

I've offered a number of suggestions on how to improve the game in terms of balance and player engagement, but in all honesty, I really don't know what they can do short of re-designing the mechanics from scratch.

Varied ms increments on every attack means parrying isn't as simple anymore because people actually need to learn the hero's timings rather than the timings for the whole game. This in turn means people could attack more often because the likely hood they'd run into someone that knows how to parry most of the cast would be much much lower. (where as if you're at where I am right now high mid tier most raw attacks are parried if the opponent wants to.)

Making at least all chain starting lights not bounce off guard if blocked means the opponent needs to counter the follow up in order to reset the fight to neutral. This can be done by using the enhanced light property that already exists in the game. Pretty much all heros have some kind of mix up once they get into a combo even if it's something as simple as a feint mix up. If people are spending less time in neutral fights are more dynamic and engaging rather than staring contests/only use safe moves from neutral. And the varied ms increments on attacks only help this.

Fixing guard so it's more of an active thing than a passive thing would be a big help as well. Standard guard allows you to be blocking whilst able to attack. AFAIK no other fighting game lets you do both at the same time. The only easy way to change this would be to give everyone a reflex guard that decays some where between current assassin decay and shinobi's decay.

These changes still allow strong defense to be possible. But not for a majority of players. and in the top level being able to go into combos more often unless the person parries will at least shake up high tier play to some degree. I'm unsure if the actual parry and GB mechanics need changing. Feints themselves should probably be touched first. They need to be harder to understand. Feinting should be a thing that should be more of a read imo. But i'm not sure how to do that.

Once that's all taken care of though then we need to go to every kit and give them fundamental bones, and then the kits could be built off of that. IMO these fundamentals are:

~every version of two hit combo's (for people like JJ or warlord)
~every version of 3 hit combo's (for people like warden)
~half of both for some characters.
~A dodge move of some kind (dodge light, dodge heavy, dodge bash, dodge gb) to deal with committed to bashes/ganks.
~A heavy on GB. (executes are vital for most game modes)
~a soft feint to either GB or some move. Maybe both.
~An opener. (could be an unblockable attack mix up, unblockable bash mix up, or something like berzerker where he gets something special after a feint)
~A usable zone for basic option selecting. (meaning the zone has to be 700ms or faster)
~good delay windows.

I think that's it. But I might be forgetting one or two things.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 03:51 AM
I agree changes need to be made, but can the game only be made better by increasing the speed of everything and adding feintable unblockables to everyone?

I'm speaking more generally as a game design level, but I found that when the game was slower and more about mind games with intense back and forths here and there was a much better pace than this new "Go like *uck" bar style fighting, as soon as you engage it's non stop lights and feints and unblockables, more feints than attacks, I personally just find it mentally exhausting keeping up with all the feints and lights, it takes a lot of the fun out of the game, it turns fighting into a chore.

i'll just copy paste my reply to someone else from here:

"Varied ms increments on every attack means parrying isn't as simple anymore because people actually need to learn the hero's timings rather than the timings for the whole game. This in turn means people could attack more often because the likely hood they'd run into someone that knows how to parry most of the cast would be much much lower. (where as if you're at where I am right now high mid tier most raw attacks are parried if the opponent wants to.)

Making at least all chain starting lights not bounce off guard if blocked means the opponent needs to counter the follow up in order to reset the fight to neutral. This can be done by using the enhanced light property that already exists in the game. Pretty much all heros have some kind of mix up once they get into a combo even if it's something as simple as a feint mix up. If people are spending less time in neutral fights are more dynamic and engaging rather than staring contests/only use safe moves from neutral. And the varied ms increments on attacks only help this.

Fixing guard so it's more of an active thing than a passive thing would be a big help as well. Standard guard allows you to be blocking whilst able to attack. AFAIK no other fighting game lets you do both at the same time. The only easy way to change this would be to give everyone a reflex guard that decays some where between current assassin decay and shinobi's decay.

These changes still allow strong defense to be possible. But not for a majority of players. and in the top level being able to go into combos more often unless the person parries will at least shake up high tier play to some degree. I'm unsure if the actual parry and GB mechanics need changing. Feints themselves should probably be touched first. They need to be harder to understand. Feinting should be a thing that should be more of a read imo. But i'm not sure how to do that.

Once that's all taken care of though then we need to go to every kit and give them fundamental bones, and then the kits could be built off of that. IMO these fundamentals are:

~every version of two hit combo's (for people like JJ or warlord)
~every version of 3 hit combo's (for people like warden)
~half of both for some characters.
~A dodge move of some kind (dodge light, dodge heavy, dodge bash, dodge gb) to deal with committed to bashes/ganks.
~A heavy on GB. (executes are vital for most game modes)
~a soft feint to either GB or some move. Maybe both.
~An opener. (could be an unblockable attack mix up, unblockable bash mix up, or something like berzerker where he gets something special after a feint)
~A usable zone for basic option selecting. (meaning the zone has to be 700ms or faster)
~good delay windows."

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
11-20-2018, 04:01 AM
So when they decided on making lights 400ms did they judge that on the top 2 percent? If so that has got to be the stupidest thing they have done. That's like making the game of basketball into a game where the only way to score is to dunk. Tell me ubi how does the common man improve on reaction time? How does the common basketball player learn to dunk? If this is true it's utterly stupid.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 04:04 AM
So when they decided on making lights 400ms did they judge that on the top 2 percent? If so that has got to be the stupidest thing they have done. That's like making the game of basketball into a game where the only way to score is to dunk. Tell me ubi how does the common man improve on reaction time? How does the common basketball player learn to dunk? If this is true it's utterly stupid.

Bro the top 2% players don't react to 400ms lights. they're not reactable. that's the point. 400ms lights exist purely so people can actually get some damage in. You deal with 400ms attacks by reading your opponent. something all players are capable of improving.

MarshalMoriarty
11-20-2018, 04:33 AM
People would not stop playing if the game removed all the spam meta. This isn't a 1v1 fighting game for the majority. Its about team based battles that have 1v1 encounters as part of the experience. That is where the players are and where they always have been in FH. There are reletively few maps and many characters have a standard template way of working that a great many players use. Yet they don't find it boring to keep doing this, because the game has a unique style and every match feels different.

What does put people off is cheap spamming and the feeling that they don't have any chance, that it isn't even a contest because the attacks are coming way too fast etc. This kind of thing does not encourage people to get better. Because it feels like a mug's game. Why put in so much effort to beat people who are button bashing ultra safe, easily spammed moves? It feels utterly futile because its obvious that the opposition is being propped up by poorly designed, cheap characters.

Its not a contest, its not a case of losing because they have greater skill than you and its simply no fun to put up with. So they don't and they leave.

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
11-20-2018, 04:35 AM
Bro the top 2% players don't react to 400ms lights. they're not reactable. that's the point. 400ms lights exist purely so people can actually get some damage in. You deal with 400ms attacks by reading your opponent. something all players are capable of improving.
So let me get this straight. They made lights unreactable in a game where to prevent damage is, let's say, half the game? So you, as a common man, have to read your opponents unreactable light spam in order to keep him from "dunking" on you? Sure that sounds like a fun. Reminds me of the game hungry hungry hippos. So much reading your opponent in order to win. So much skill.

DefiledDragon
11-20-2018, 04:45 AM
Varied ms increments on every attack means parrying isn't as simple anymore because people actually need to learn the hero's timings rather than the timings for the whole game. This in turn means people could attack more often because the likely hood they'd run into someone that knows how to parry most of the cast would be much much lower. (where as if you're at where I am right now high mid tier most raw attacks are parried if the opponent wants to.)

Making at least all chain starting lights not bounce off guard if blocked means the opponent needs to counter the follow up in order to reset the fight to neutral. This can be done by using the enhanced light property that already exists in the game. Pretty much all heros have some kind of mix up once they get into a combo even if it's something as simple as a feint mix up. If people are spending less time in neutral fights are more dynamic and engaging rather than staring contests/only use safe moves from neutral. And the varied ms increments on attacks only help this.

Fixing guard so it's more of an active thing than a passive thing would be a big help as well. Standard guard allows you to be blocking whilst able to attack. AFAIK no other fighting game lets you do both at the same time. The only easy way to change this would be to give everyone a reflex guard that decays some where between current assassin decay and shinobi's decay.

These changes still allow strong defense to be possible. But not for a majority of players. and in the top level being able to go into combos more often unless the person parries will at least shake up high tier play to some degree. I'm unsure if the actual parry and GB mechanics need changing. Feints themselves should probably be touched first. They need to be harder to understand. Feinting should be a thing that should be more of a read imo. But i'm not sure how to do that.

Once that's all taken care of though then we need to go to every kit and give them fundamental bones, and then the kits could be built off of that. IMO these fundamentals are:

~every version of two hit combo's (for people like JJ or warlord)
~every version of 3 hit combo's (for people like warden)
~half of both for some characters.
~A dodge move of some kind (dodge light, dodge heavy, dodge bash, dodge gb) to deal with committed to bashes/ganks.
~A heavy on GB. (executes are vital for most game modes)
~a soft feint to either GB or some move. Maybe both.
~An opener. (could be an unblockable attack mix up, unblockable bash mix up, or something like berzerker where he gets something special after a feint)
~A usable zone for basic option selecting. (meaning the zone has to be 700ms or faster)
~good delay windows.

I think that's it. But I might be forgetting one or two things.

Yeah, I'm still in the mindset that guarding is the issue rather than attacking and much of what you say points to that. I like the idea of a basic kit that everyone has access to, with additions based on each characters individual style, but turtling is far too easy. I've seen many good suggestions from not only yourself but a number of others but I believe they're falling on deaf ears. The path the game is taking is a difficult one. Allowing players to get "guaranteed" damage in by way of unreactable attacks is certainly one way to address the issue, but is it the right way?

As I think about the issues the game has, I can't help but keep comparing FH to other fighters, which is difficult as it's so different in terms of its mechanics. For example, in other fighters, defending is mechanically easy, arguably easier than it is in FH (hold back, hold a button, dash, sidestep etc...). Having said that though, you also have guaranteed followups in the form of combo's/juggles which allow you to heavily punish your opponent once you do manage to land an opening attack, but these followups require tight timing and skill to execute correctly. The skill requirement lies with the attacking player.

Could that be translated to FH? Even if it could, is it desirable? At low-mid levels of play in FH, spamming lights or bashes is easy. At higher levels of play, you need to be skilled and familiar enough with the games mechanics to land an opener, but once the opener lands you have little to no options. Adding guaranteed followup attacks based on strict timing, i.e. combo's, would add another layer but I'm not sure it would suit the game as it would feel very much out of place based on what the game is right now.

It's a tough one, it really is. I'm very much in favour of making significant changes to how defence works and the more I consider the options the more I lean towards reworking defence. I realise that I'm critical of the games designers in many of my posts, but I do have sympathy for them. The game is mechanically unique and this sets it apart from other fighters. It's going to be challenging to balance the roster in such a way that all tiers of play are both viable and fun without sacrificing the core of what makes For Honor the wonderfully unique experience that it is. I do believe, however, that looking at ways of making defence more skill based and less passive would be a good start.

Vakris_One
11-20-2018, 05:29 AM
@Vakris_One

Bare my damned children. Excellent freaking posts.
https://media.giphy.com/media/uPp84qC46HO4U/giphy.gif

:p



Just a side note. You said in your prior post "stated that they want feints to be more believable."

Do you remember the exact verbiage of that? or could you elaborate more on that? I didn't watch the den. So i'd be really interested in hearing that.
I can't remember the exact time on the video off the top of my head but Stefan did say they want feints to be "more believable" and that they aim for this to potentially "open up" the viability of a lot of heroes offense. It's in that ambigious Ubi-speak that we all love so much but it does suggest they will be doing something with feints. Zer0_craic did his own analysis vid of the Warriors Den where he interpreted it as meaning that they will potentially make feinting into a better tool to use.


The thing is, getting better and increasing your skill doesn't have much to do with the issues many people are having, on console many attacks, especially on new heroes are so fast you can't react to them.

The devs said it themselves, they want to balance so that light attacks can't be blocked consistently, the example they used was that pope can block everything beside 400ms attacks on an offline mode on PC and he's not a good player. On console, online, light spam is killing the game for a lot of people, if you don't pick a spammer and do it yourself, it's not fun to play anymore.

I think that's what the video was getting at, the game is changing and for most people not for the better, I think the reason this game did as well as it did is because it wasn't like other fighter games you listed, the closer we get to that, the more people will lose interest. Games like that are fun for a bit, but never long, in my experience anyway.
I'm not saying For Honor needs to become a carbon copy of those games. I'm saying that those games have the correct balance philosophy, which For Honor needs in order to thrive. Aesthetically, cosmetically and mechanically For Honor is its own thing and can absolutely continue to be its own thing. But underneath all of that there needs to be a solid foundation stone for the balance of the game. A game like Soul Caliber for example understands that you need the combat system to become deeper and richer the more a player progresses up the skill ladder, not shallower and shallower. For Honor does not understand this and that is why it's flailing and flopping about and doesn't know what to do with itself.

Raevyne's suggestion isn't a bad one but he doesn't show that he understands that aforementioned principle. His suggestion is a quick fix that will only patch up some unseamly stuff for a little while. It will eventually tear at the seams and fall apart again because it's not addressing the core issues. It's like applying a band aid to an open wound. Without stopping the bleeding and sowing up the wound the patient will continue to bleed out straight through that band aid.


I've never actually thought about it like that but yeah, you're absolutely right. Characters move sets in FH become ever more restricted in terms of viability as you progress whereas in other fighting games, the characters movesets open up to you as you improve and become invaluable tools in the arsenal of your offence. I find it difficult to put my finger on the issue. It's certainly too easy to defend but at the same time, characters who are typically regarded as "viable" are far too easy to use, requiring little actual skill in order to succeed. Conq is the classic example of this, as is Glad to a degree in that without his zone, he would likely be two tiers lower than he is now. How problematic are a games mechanics that one move in a characters kit can propel them up the tier list like that?

I've offered a number of suggestions on how to improve the game in terms of balance and player engagement, but in all honesty, I really don't know what they can do short of re-designing the mechanics from scratch.
I watched some of Mege's recent videos where he's playing ranked matches in Soul Calibre and that's when it struck me. The stark contrast in how a player opens up into using their moves and using their kit knowledge in a richer and deeper way as they progress in skill in that game. While in For Honor the player closes down and drops out entire movesets from their arsenal and represses a large part of what they used at lower levels because of the restrictions you have to force upon yourself the higher up you go. In most good fighting games the player's experience of the combat system deepens as they go up the skill ladder. In For Honor the experience worsens and becomes more shallow the higher up you go.

I'm no expert so I can't say what needs to be done to fix this but I can try to describe where I think the core issue lies. I think the number one problem is how the higher up you go the less moves you can use and this essentially means heroes with completely dead kits at higher levels. We kinda need a global change here. Something that will alleviate a lot of the problems concerning hero viability across the board. In my opinion the fundamentals that a player learns about their hero when starting out should be the foundation stone upon which they can then build and refine their technique at the higher levels.

They shouldn't have to abandon pretty much all of the fundamentals of the combat system as they go up the skill ladder. What you learn at low level should remain useable at the highest level, just not optimal unless you combine it with good technique. The richness of your technique is what should make a more meaningful impact after you master the moveset of a character. Perhaps making feints "more believable" could do something here. It is a technique you learn early on and if feinting can be made into something that can stay viable all the way up to high level then maybe we might be on to something.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 06:18 AM
People would not stop playing if the game removed all the spam meta. This isn't a 1v1 fighting game for the majority. Its about team based battles that have 1v1 encounters as part of the experience. That is where the players are and where they always have been in FH. There are reletively few maps and many characters have a standard template way of working that a great many players use. Yet they don't find it boring to keep doing this, because the game has a unique style and every match feels different.

What does put people off is cheap spamming and the feeling that they don't have any chance, that it isn't even a contest because the attacks are coming way too fast etc. This kind of thing does not encourage people to get better. Because it feels like a mug's game. Why put in so much effort to beat people who are button bashing ultra safe, easily spammed moves? It feels utterly futile because its obvious that the opposition is being propped up by poorly designed, cheap characters.

Its not a contest, its not a case of losing because they have greater skill than you and its simply no fun to put up with. So they don't and they leave.


Yes For honor was primarily designed with 4v4 in mind and duels were a side thing. But that doesn't really change anything. In high tier competitive 4's your kit doesn't get better because there is more things to defend from. Nobushi (which is a high tier character pick for 4's) still only has one thing to do. It's just swapped. In duels/1v1 scenario she only can really use hidden stance follow ups to counter an opponent and try to work in from there. all of her dodge attacks are useless. Where as in 4's it's the opposite. You're primarily using her dodge attacks and zone for interrupts and that's pretty much it. External guard is just as strong as normal defense. So the problem we face with characters being less viable the higher we go up the ladder still exists. And while 1v1 isn't the main stay mode if your combat is flawed at the core of a basic encounter than it's flawed wherever you go. So yeah. Not everything needs to be super viable for duels. But if a character can't perform on their own in a 1v1 then they're kit is flawed.

The game isn't going to die out regardless of what happens because FH offers an experience you can't get anywhere else. That doesn't have anything to do with what me and vakris are trying to state. Which is the "fun" to be had will go down the drain wether they pander to the lower brackets or they keep beating around the core flaws like they have been. If you honestly think if they reverted a lot of what people dislike right now that the game would be basically perfect and thrive then there really isn't a conversation to be had between us.


So let me get this straight. They made lights unreactable in a game where to prevent damage is, let's say, half the game? So you, as a common man, have to read your opponents unreactable light spam in order to keep him from "dunking" on you? Sure that sounds like a fun. Reminds me of the game hungry hungry hippos. So much reading your opponent in order to win. So much skill.

I mean your analogy is crude and incorrect. But doesn't really matter. If people are not comfortable with being asked to make reads then they don't really belong in a fighting game. This isn't exclusive to for honor. All fighting games ask this of a player once you get to a certain skill level. I'm not saying that for honor's current way of doing reads is flawless. I am saying that regardless of what changes are made of the game unreactable attacks are required. With out them you have no depth to the fighting itself.

Jazz117Volkov
11-20-2018, 06:24 AM
Feinting requires the might-be / won't-be environment though. Traditional 2D fighters are linear; your best combo is your best combo, there's no movement around that. Your best combo in For Honor will typically be a mix-up, i.e. some sort of feint or mind-game. It's why most combos in For Honor don't get used, because they're ideas brought over from 2D fighters and For Honor's feint and parry mechanics render them mostly useless.

I still think the optimal route for this game is more depth to the existing mechanics, such as guard breaking. Many of the game's mechanics are too simple and far too much is forced onto the parry mechanic. Making light attacks more effective, for example, by virtue of being harder to parry means the aggressor is more likely to use these attacks which means the only viable response is more likely to be a light parry. Light parries should not be the pivot point. Why isn't Lawbringer viable? The hero with some of the best mix-ups, feints, punishes, and combos: it's because of the power of light parries.

However, you can't take away the power of light parries without having a viable substitute (that utilizes existing mechanics), so I don't see much happening on this front aside from light attacks getting faster. The pillars that make For Honor unique--feint, parry, dodge, and guardbreak, and the punishes and options available off of each--are becoming more diluted, simplistic, and obsolete, because, instead of advancing or evolving any of those mechanics, the dominant response to all of the game's issues has been to give the "jab button" steroids for two years.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 06:32 AM
Yeah, I'm still in the mindset that guarding is the issue rather than attacking and much of what you say points to that. I like the idea of a basic kit that everyone has access to, with additions based on each characters individual style, but turtling is far too easy. I've seen many good suggestions from not only yourself but a number of others but I believe they're falling on deaf ears. The path the game is taking is a difficult one. Allowing players to get "guaranteed" damage in by way of unreactable attacks is certainly one way to address the issue, but is it the right way?

As I think about the issues the game has, I can't help but keep comparing FH to other fighters, which is difficult as it's so different in terms of its mechanics. For example, in other fighters, defending is mechanically easy, arguably easier than it is in FH (hold back, hold a button, dash, sidestep etc...). Having said that though, you also have guaranteed followups in the form of combo's/juggles which allow you to heavily punish your opponent once you do manage to land an opening attack, but these followups require tight timing and skill to execute correctly. The skill requirement lies with the attacking player.

Could that be translated to FH? Even if it could, is it desirable? At low-mid levels of play in FH, spamming lights or bashes is easy. At higher levels of play, you need to be skilled and familiar enough with the games mechanics to land an opener, but once the opener lands you have little to no options. Adding guaranteed followup attacks based on strict timing, i.e. combo's, would add another layer but I'm not sure it would suit the game as it would feel very much out of place based on what the game is right now.

It's a tough one, it really is. I'm very much in favour of making significant changes to how defence works and the more I consider the options the more I lean towards reworking defence. I realise that I'm critical of the games designers in many of my posts, but I do have sympathy for them. The game is mechanically unique and this sets it apart from other fighters. It's going to be challenging to balance the roster in such a way that all tiers of play are both viable and fun without sacrificing the core of what makes For Honor the wonderfully unique experience that it is. I do believe, however, that looking at ways of making defence more skill based and less passive would be a good start.

To your first question yes. Unreactable chip or mix ups are both things that the game needs. But that doesn't really mean the way for honor is currently going about it is the right way to do so. Kits like orochi and Nuxia overly rely on basic unreactable attacks. That's bad design. Tiandi and shaolin do not rely on these. but they have them. They're more like what the game should be like in regards to unreactable attacks. The problem (which you seemingly know) is that defending is too easy. So the devs have to slam hard on the mix ups/reads in order for them to be useful. If the core game around them was actually fixed then orochi wouldn't even exist as a kit. he'd have a proper one. and Nuxia's whole trap game would be a lot better. And thus she probably wouldn't need her double omnidirectional unreactable attacks.

To your second question I don't think so. For honor is different. It's more of a fencing game. Which not many fighters have. We don't have the mechanics let alone health pools that would support combo strings. That's why punishment from a mistake is so high. Because in reality you're only getting one attack in. It's a self feeding cycle really. I personally think it would be a mistake to go that way and ditch the art of battle system. I think it's salvagable. We just need to really iron out the base mechanics. And then actually get down to proper kit design. Because right now heros are no where near close to a standard fighter in other games. Tiandi and Shaolin are the closest we've got to actual character design comparable to other fighters. Besides giving every kit the good bones I talked about the devs could do with trying to be more adventurous and expand on the games base mechanics with hero kit design.

For instance lets look at a simple one. Blocking. Lets just say some how we managed to get blocking to be an active action. We could give a hero who's meant to be more defensive orientated something special for perfect guarding. What is perfect guarding? Meeting an attack at a very specific time. Think similar to how deflects used to be done back in the closed beta. Something similar to that. Maybe if he did that his next attack hit harder. or gave him some kind of ability to not flinch from being hit next. etc. The devs kinda started to do this with Nuxi'a trap mechanic. They need to be thinking more like that when it comes to making heros feel unique.

Another idea they can expand on that they started with is berzerker. His next light after a feint is faster. We could easily add in feints to characters move sets that allow them to do something interesting. Personally i think soft feints are sort of in line with what normal feints should be like. Meaning not really distinguishable. and only counterable on read. Parrying to give guaranteed damage will likely never change. and it might not need to if the rest of the base game is set up in a way where parrying is not really common place due to how more viable offense is.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 06:34 AM
@Vakris_One

on my way bby.
And that's very cool if they do that.
I honestly wouldn't know how to make feints harder to distinguish. And only a sliver of an idea on how to make feints more useful moveset wise.
But there is potential there and i'm excited to see what if anything they do about that.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 06:42 AM
Feinting requires the might-be / won't-be environment though. Traditional 2D fighters are linear; your best combo is your best combo, there's no movement around that. Your best combo in For Honor will typically be a mix-up, i.e. some sort of feint or mind-game. It's why most combos in For Honor don't get used, because they're ideas brought over from 2D fighters and For Honor's feint and parry mechanics render them mostly useless.

I still think the optimal route for this game is more depth to the existing mechanics, such as guard breaking. Many of the game's mechanics are too simple and far too much is forced onto the parry mechanic. Making light attacks more effective, for example, by virtue of being harder to parry means the aggressor is more likely to use these attacks which means the only viable response is more likely to be a light parry. Light parries should not be the pivot point. Why isn't Lawbringer viable? The hero with some of the best mix-ups, feints, punishes, and combos: it's because of the power of light parries.

However, you can't take away the power of light parries without having a viable substitute (that utilizes existing mechanics), so I don't see much happening on this front aside from light attacks getting faster. The pillars that make For Honor unique--feint, parry, dodge, and guardbreak, and the punishes and options available off of each--are becoming more diluted, simplistic, and obsolete, because, instead of advancing or evolving any of those mechanics, the dominant response to all of the game's issues has been to give the "jab button" steroids for two years.

Just noting that while i don't agree with all of your conclusions here I do find this to be a very thought provoking and interesting post.

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
11-20-2018, 07:34 AM
I mean your analogy is crude and incorrect. But doesn't really matter. If people are not comfortable with being asked to make reads then they don't really belong in a fighting game. This isn't exclusive to for honor. All fighting games ask this of a player once you get to a certain skill level. I'm not saying that for honor's current way of doing reads is flawless. I am saying that regardless of what changes are made of the game unreactable attacks are required. With out them you have no depth to the fighting itself.
Being cynical and being rude are two different things entirely. I wantnt trying to be rude so I'm sorry if it came off that way. Bash to light are suppose to be unreachable. 400 ms lights are reactable according to the video and considered easy to the more advanced players. Again according to the video.
But let's assume 400 ms lights are just really difficult for the common man. The problem I see is there is no actual counter in place for a prediction for alot of the caste. Take Valkyrie in her original form. Her shield tackle was a great example of how to reset a fight in your favor if someone attempts to lightspam. It was so effective they had to Nerf her defense in order to "buff" her. If you used her like a snapping turtle she was a far better character and more balanced both defense and offense than any of the the characters in her original form. Now she is unbalanced, spam, one trick pony, and noob friendly. If they would have simply made more characters like her, warlord, and conc this game would be more balanced. But they didn't. Again sorry if it came off rude that was not my intention.

MarshalMoriarty
11-20-2018, 07:42 AM
Where did I say it would be perfect? All I said is that balancing the game to the experience have shown themselves to be most interested in, and removing things they clearly despise would be far more sensible than balancing to a competitive scene hardly anyone cares about and on a platform only a minority play on. Ignoring what the majority wants from this game in favor of the minority is foolish.

Your insistence that people would have less fun if they weren't constantly facing cheap, unreactable lights and soft feints is absurd. People don't care about being the very best. They want to use interesting characters in a fun combat systems and fighting in teams.

Tone down the light spam and speeds, make 2 Dominion and 1 Breach map every season, fix the other 4v4 modes so they reward people properly and have unique items you can only get there, do serious reworks and not hack jobs like PK, and do some single player co op dlc because FH's lore is good enough to support that if you hire some good writers. Boom.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 07:48 AM
Being cynical and being rude are two different things entirely. I wantnt trying to be rude so I'm sorry if it came off that way. Bash to light are suppose to be unreachable. 400 ms lights are reactable according to the video and considered easy to the more advanced players. Again according to the video.
But let's assume 400 ms lights are just really difficult for the common man. The problem I see is there is no actual counter in place for a prediction for alot of the caste. Take Valkyrie in her original form. Her shield tackle was a great example of how to reset a fight in your favor if someone attempts to lightspam. It was so effective they had to Nerf her defense in order to "buff" her. If you used her like a snapping turtle she was a far better character and more balanced both defense and offense than any of the the characters in her original form. Now she is unbalanced, spam, one trick pony, and noob friendly. If they would have simply made more characters like her, warlord, and conc this game would be more balanced. But they didn't. Again sorry if it came off rude that was not my intention.

400ms attacks are only reactable if they are buffered. (buffered means to input the attack before the other attack animation has completely finished.) Currently in FH if you buffer an attack it comes out slower than the attack should be, around 67ms ish (give or take a little) slower. In other words when you buffer an attack it's not it's correct speed. Then you have delayed attacks. Which are attacks that are input after an attack animation is completed. The longer you can delay till the last possible combo frame the closer the attack is to it's intended speed. So if you can properly delay a 400ms attack it will never be reactable. The devs are aware of this and they've known at least as far back as when their lag compensation system was close to being completed. (so think to back around season 4-5 iirc.)

The counter for prediction play on a 400ms attack is parrying. But parrying in itself is over burdened in the game. But i'll go back to my original statement. unreactable attacks/mix ups are needed for the game to have a skill gap and for the game to have depth overall. I don't like that 400ms attacks have become a lot more common place. Just as i'm not a fan of how much we have to rely on unblockable mix ups. But I have accepted them because for honor currently is a damned broken mess. It doesn't function at a base level. The foundation is riddled with cracks and poor design. the over saturation of these things is needed because defense at it's core is too good. If we want to dial back on the strength of the individual unblockable mix up/kits relying on 400ms combos then we have to tone back defense as a whole and make offense mechanically viable on it's own.

Currently the developers are using hero design to circumvent the games base problems. This does not fix the base issues. It side steps it. and it makes hero design/balance in general a damned joke. So if I were you i'd start advocating for changes to the games base mechanics. As that's the only way the things your not fond of can truly be dialed back.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 07:59 AM
Where did I say it would be perfect? All I said is that balancing the game to the experience have shown themselves to be most interested in, and removing things they clearly despise would be far more sensible than balancing to a competitive scene hardly anyone cares about and on a platform only a minority play on. Ignoring what the majority wants from this game in favor of the minority is foolish.

Your insistence that people would have less fun if they weren't constantly facing cheap, unreactable lights and soft feints is absurd. People don't care about being the very best. They want to use interesting characters in a fun combat systems and fighting in teams.

Tone down the light spam and speeds, make 2 Dominion and 1 Breach map every season, fix the other 4v4 modes so they reward people properly and have unique items you can only get there, do serious reworks and not hack jobs like PK, and do some single player co op dlc because FH's lore is good enough to support that if you hire some good writers. Boom.

Until you can properly understand and respect the importance of balancing from the highest level down you're never going to have a solid grasp on the real issues with this game. No duh removing the things people dislike will make people happy. That has nothing to do with what's actually best for the game.

News flash, You don't need to want to be the very best in order to want a good experience with depth to the gameplay. That's just being incredibly dismissive. Of which your entire post is full of. You're also not understanding my statement. I have no doubt that the low skill bracket of players would be over joyed to be able to go back to reactions only. My point is if that's all that mattered people would get bored eventually because there's nothing to challenge them. There's nothing for them to improve upon.

Contrary to popular belief people don't play video games just to play. There is always and end goal. If you stick around with a video game long enough you're going to want more out of it. If you completely kill the depth from a fighting game and shorten the skill gap to practically nothing then there is absolutely nothing left for the game to offer you. And thus you'll shelve it and move to something else. Those who only care to sign in and play the game maybe 3 times a month don't actually care about what's happening in the game overall. Those people (which are the people you're supposedly referring to) are the kind of people who will take any game and play it for a month tops and then ditch it for the next new thing they have interest in.

My point is that if you actually care about the game. if you have any intent in having the game be something you repeatedly come back to, simplifying the game for "the masses" will only make you drop the game in the long run. Because it will have nothing to offer you. A very easy example I can pull is Destiny 2. It was a solid game at launch. Fun to play. Shooting things felt good. Killing people in pvp felt great. Anything you could ever want loot wise was practically handed to you. The game was very much for the casual player. And what happened? It was dying. Why? because there was nothing to keep people invested. No reason to sign in and play on even a semi often basis.

MarshalMoriarty
11-20-2018, 08:15 AM
So your argument is to make everyone unhappy because its for their own good? Regardless of the fact that people have shown they don't want it? Regardless of people light spam, unblockable spam way more than they ever hated defense meta (given they were willing to stick around for a year in a game that constantly crashed whilst defense meta was in place)? A defense meta which does exist in the modes people actually play?

The end goal is having a good time. With lots of characters, maps and modes you don't need the game to be some ultra tight and hardcore experience, nor is it what people want. Not when you achieve that by 400ms attacks, unblockables and soft feints. If that's the price of greater depth, the people have spoken with their actions.'Thanks but no thanks'

The game offers progression for your characters and an endlessly enjoyable team based experience. People are not leaving in boredom or because they don't feel the combat system doesn't offer enough. They left first because the game crashed and now because the game is a spammy nightmare. Balanced to the wrong mode, the wrong platform and in the wrong way.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 08:22 AM
So your argument is to make everyone unhappy because its for their own good? Regardless of the fact that people have shown they don't want it? Regardless of people light spam, unblockable spam way more than they ever hated defense meta (given they were willing to stick around for a year in a game that constantly crashed whilst defense meta was in place)? A defense meta which does exist in the modes people actually play?

The end goal is having a good time. With lots of characters, maps and modes you don't need the game to be some ultra tight and hardcore experience, nor is it what people want. The game offers progression for your characters and an endlessly enjoyable team based experience. People are not leaving in boredom or because they don't feel the combat system doesn't offer enough. They left first because the game crashed and now because the game is a spammy nightmare.

Nope. If you'd been paying attention to anything in this thread that i've been saying you'd know that i'm not saying the current way they're approaching unreactable offense is perfectly fine. I am saying unreactable offense as a concept is required to exist in some form for the game to actually have depth. Because depth is important for all players (aside from those who only play the game for a short time and then move onto the next new thing ofc) since depth offers the player something to chase/invest in.

But your so tunnel visioned in what you dislike that you're incapable of seeing anything. This isn't an us versus them mentality despite what you keep attempting to perpetuate. If the games foundation was built properly you can absolutely have a game that has the ability to foster a competitive environment whilst still having an enjoyable experience for those who only play casually. If your position was that you doubted the devs could actually accomplish such a thing regardless of what changes they could make then we wouldn't have an argument here. I wouldn't agree with you, but I could understand and respect your opinion.

But that's not what you're doing. To you unreactable=evil, bad, garbage, skilless, spammable, cheap, etc. People who condemn things purely because of concept alone are not open minded or reasonable individuals. Life isn't black and white.

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
11-20-2018, 08:45 AM
400ms attacks are only reactable if they are buffered. (buffered means to input the attack before the other attack animation has completely finished.) Currently in FH if you buffer an attack it comes out slower than the attack should be, around 67ms ish (give or take a little) slower. In other words when you buffer an attack it's not it's correct speed. Then you have delayed attacks. Which are attacks that are input after an attack animation is completed. The longer you can delay till the last possible combo frame the closer the attack is to it's intended speed. So if you can properly delay a 400ms attack it will never be reactable. The devs are aware of this and they've known at least as far back as when their lag compensation system was close to being completed. (so think to back around season 4-5 iirc.)

The counter for prediction play on a 400ms attack is parrying. But parrying in itself is over burdened in the game. But i'll go back to my original statement. unreactable attacks/mix ups are needed for the game to have a skill gap and for the game to have depth overall. I don't like that 400ms attacks have become a lot more common place. Just as i'm not a fan of how much we have to rely on unblockable mix ups. But I have accepted them because for honor currently is a damned broken mess. It doesn't function at a base level. The foundation is riddled with cracks and poor design. the over saturation of these things is needed because defense at it's core is too good. If we want to dial back on the strength of the individual unblockable mix up/kits relying on 400ms combos then we have to tone back defense as a whole and make offense mechanically viable on it's own.

Currently the developers are using hero design to circumvent the games base problems. This does not fix the base issues. It side steps it. and it makes hero design/balance in general a damned joke. So if I were you i'd start advocating for changes to the games base mechanics. As that's the only way the things your not fond of can truly be dialed back.
I'll admit I didn't know about the buffer on light attacks. I have been advocating for basic mechanical design to be reestablished. If they added full guard similar to Valkyrie old one to none spam characters I think it would be a good way of circumventing the broken basic mechanics. Adding unparriable heavies to none spam classes would also go a long way. If I had to choose between an aggressive spam class or a defensive class I would choose the 🐢 class to match my last style. I like a slow dragged out fight. Fighting games that go into twenty hit combos and juggling aren't realistic to me. A man with a shield and a sword should always have an advantage over a man with just a sword all things being equal. This is originally what for honor for wrong imo. The rock paper scissors of choosing your character. Sword and sheild vs double swords vs throw attacks (like shinobi) . I come from playing mostly shootemup games where one class has a distinct advantage over another at different distances. Sniper, assault rifle, smg, then shotgun respectively at farthest to closest. For honor should have been modeled like this for 4v4 action imo. Sword and shield vs double sword vs chain weapons like shinobi or whips. From there you could easily make hybrid classes.

Knight_Raime
11-20-2018, 09:19 AM
I'll admit I didn't know about the buffer on light attacks. I have been advocating for basic mechanical design to be reestablished. If they added full guard similar to Valkyrie old one to none spam characters I think it would be a good way of circumventing the broken basic mechanics. Adding unparriable heavies to none spam classes would also go a long way. If I had to choose between an aggressive spam class or a defensive class I would choose the �� class to match my last style. I like a slow dragged out fight. Fighting games that go into twenty hit combos and juggling aren't realistic to me. A man with a shield and a sword should always have an advantage over a man with just a sword all things being equal. This is originally what for honor for wrong imo. The rock paper scissors of choosing your character. Sword and sheild vs double swords vs throw attacks (like shinobi) . I come from playing mostly shootemup games where one class has a distinct advantage over another at different distances. Sniper, assault rifle, smg, then shotgun respectively at farthest to closest. For honor should have been modeled like this for 4v4 action imo. Sword and shield vs double sword vs chain weapons like shinobi or whips. From there you could easily make hybrid classes.


Yeah a lot of people still don't know about the buffered issue/get the wrong idea about delayed attacks despite this being more common place info the past few months than when it originally came out. The buffer issue applies to both light and heavy attacks by the way. Bashes are not effected. And I don't believe neutral attacks are effected either since there is never an attack that came before them. Though some soft feints are effected by the delay thing. Like peace keepers soft feint into bleed poke.

Anyway, Giving full guard to more people seems kind of counter to one of the core issues (which is how strong defense is.) If you're meaning to say give everyone a singlular input to have an active defense and ditch passive defense entirely than that's an interesting idea that i'd need to chew on. Unparryable heavies imo is the wrong way to go. Both for buffing heavies and for dealing with parry. But I did see an idea about making the slower heavies (like lawbringers and slower) if they got blocked would net a low damage chip light if the opponent blocked it. Thus giving their slow heavies some pressure. But i'm personally not sure how I feel about that entirely.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to make for honor's class system more robust and a bigger part of the game as a whole. As this game was kind of trying to do that to begin with. So long as all heros get the basic bare bones attributes needed to have a functional class and offense/defense as a whole are fixed then i'd have no issue with going that direction.

SpaceJim12
11-20-2018, 10:25 AM
Well, when I read all this, I think Vakris_One is really right.
I remember days, when every feint count. Nowadays hard feinting pretty useless, cause highly predictable and reactable. Kits degradation + mechanic degradation is a main problem with battle system. You can't GB now here and there, it's not easy to land kick/bash move now. A lot of things became useless, while players adapt to them.

The_B0G_
11-20-2018, 12:52 PM
Okay I've read a lot of the replies but not all so forgive me if this is already answered, you guys are suggesting that everyone should have reflex guard, wouldn't doing that make assassins better at defense than all vanguards and heavy characters? On top of having the same reflex guard, assassins would have better dodges, deflects and even though dodge attacks aren't exclusive to only assassin's, all of the assassins have them, most non assassin's don't.

Assassin's in general are already better at offense than the other characters, if you switched everyone to reflex guard there would zero point in taking anyone besides an assassin, they would have better offense and better defense.

I'm not trying to say that I think 400 ms attacks shouldn't be in the game, I just think that the strategy is leaving in favour of lucky guesses and over using only the fastest parts of each heroes kit, or the unblockable feints that are near impossible to read that you have to react to.

I personally just feel like it's becoming more of a guessing game, I have no problem having to guess on the odd attack here and there, but it's non stop now, you're always guessing on console. I just wish there was another direction to take the balance in this game, this direction isn't a fun direction.

I guess next time the game is free on PC maybe I'll probably pick it up, seeing as the only reason I didn't before was all my gear on console, which was trashed by the perk system.

SpaceJim12
11-20-2018, 02:11 PM
I'm not trying to say that I think 400 ms attacks shouldn't be in the game, I just think that the strategy is leaving in favour of lucky guesses and over using only the fastest parts of each heroes kit, or the unblockable feints that are near impossible to read that you have to react to.

Ahh, lucky guesses. So many Valks and Tiandi this days, who just spam lights and do accident counter attack. Even if they not lock on you. Starnge that Orochi didn't get this mechanic.

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
11-20-2018, 04:46 PM
All I'm saying is there is no direct counter for spam for the common man with some characters. When I played Pk many moons ago I would zone cancel if I was being spammed by another PK to reset the fight. Old val could use her shield tackle techs more in a fight if going against an assasin class because her zone was crap.
This is the problem. There is no direct threat to spam for many characters. There should be a balance between the 🐢 meta and the spam/bash meta in this way. Instead it's all cheese which makes the game not fun.
I don't care if they make everyone reflex guard.
If you give heavies reflex guards you also need to give them a really fast zones reset button for spam. You can't just Nerf slow heros without giving them spam breakers of some kind. Not on prediction...during the spam.
It's the nearly same in boxing. If your getting whaled on you get the ref to reset the fight.

Knight_Raime
11-21-2018, 02:37 AM
Okay I've read a lot of the replies but not all so forgive me if this is already answered, you guys are suggesting that everyone should have reflex guard, wouldn't doing that make assassins better at defense than all vanguards and heavy characters? On top of having the same reflex guard, assassins would have better dodges, deflects and even though dodge attacks aren't exclusive to only assassin's, all of the assassins have them, most non assassin's don't.

Assassin's in general are already better at offense than the other characters, if you switched everyone to reflex guard there would zero point in taking anyone besides an assassin, they would have better offense and better defense.

I'm not trying to say that I think 400 ms attacks shouldn't be in the game, I just think that the strategy is leaving in favour of lucky guesses and over using only the fastest parts of each heroes kit, or the unblockable feints that are near impossible to read that you have to react to.

I personally just feel like it's becoming more of a guessing game, I have no problem having to guess on the odd attack here and there, but it's non stop now, you're always guessing on console. I just wish there was another direction to take the balance in this game, this direction isn't a fun direction.

I guess next time the game is free on PC maybe I'll probably pick it up, seeing as the only reason I didn't before was all my gear on console, which was trashed by the perk system.

If things were my way all characters would have some sort of dodge counter. So no assassins wouldn't be better defensively. As every hero would have reflex guard and dodge attacks.
If my suggestions were done we wouldn't need to add many more 400ms attacks. And kits like orochi/nuxia would be redone so they wouldn't have to rely on them. etc.

Rhyza.
11-21-2018, 03:28 AM
That's called conformation bias boyo. The guy doesn't know the game as well as he thinks he does.

Eh, he has his ups and downs. It's all opinion, though I do agree with what he said concerning light spam.

Off topic, but Valkyr is just the best.

Knight_Raime
11-21-2018, 04:23 AM
Eh, he has his ups and downs. It's all opinion, though I do agree with what he said concerning light spam.

Off topic, but Valkyr is just the best.

Honestly Garuda will probably replace her as my favorite frame once she drops on console. Can't wait for that gore godess.

The_B0G_
11-21-2018, 01:43 PM
If things were my way all characters would have some sort of dodge counter. So no assassins wouldn't be better defensively. As every hero would have reflex guard and dodge attacks.
If my suggestions were done we wouldn't need to add many more 400ms attacks. And kits like orochi/nuxia would be redone so they wouldn't have to rely on them. etc.

That sounds appealing, but can you honestly believe the devs will add 3 more dodge attack animations per character that don't have one? Cent, Shugo, LB, WL, HL and Aramusha would all need 3 brand new dodge attack animations, seeing how slowly this dev team moves, I just can't see that happening.

The way you want to rebalance, is there any divide between heavy and assassin play styles, or will everyone be playing the same way now? Will they have better defense, or just 10-15 more health than assassin's? I just feel that the way the game is being balanced only around speed, how will the slower characters ever be a better pick than the faster ones, especially if the heavy classes all have reflex guard too.

I'm not trying to say there's no way this could work, because I know that you know your s*** and know much more than me about the technical side of this and how fighting games work in general; so if there were any way to stop this game from being a mix of only 400-500 ms attacks, I'm down.