PDA

View Full Version : So are matches not Faction vs Faction?



WhoDaresWins
08-19-2016, 07:12 PM
I was working under the impression that matches would always be one of a particular faction against another? EG, Knights vs Vikings. Vikings vs Samurai.

But watching some of the latest MP footage, all of the three factions characters are jumbled together? So you have teams of all three sides?

I can't say I'm a big fan of this. Can somebody confirm this please, or was it just done for demo purposes to show off the combat systems?

handheld brando
08-19-2016, 07:19 PM
I was working under the impression that matches would always be one of a particular faction against another? EG, Knights vs Vikings. Vikings vs Samurai.

But watching some of the latest MP footage, all of the three factions characters are jumbled together? So you have teams of all three sides?

I can't say I'm a big fan of this. Can somebody confirm this please, or was it just done for demo purposes to show off the combat systems?



The matches have never been faction vs faction and they explained why in one of the interviews.


The reason is they didn't want to separate people that want to play together if they didn't get the faction they want. The UBI dev Bio jade said that she liked Vikings and her husband liked Samurai. She said she would have been heartbroken if her and her husband couldn't play together because of a faction lock, so they made it so all the factions and any character can be played in any MP match so friends can always play together.

It is far better this way.



https://youtu.be/A1fEx2vspq8

Ymir.exe
08-19-2016, 07:30 PM
It's not better this way. They should have a mode where it's faction vs faction. I don't want to fight side by side with no filthy tin-can wearing pansy.

handheld brando
08-19-2016, 07:49 PM
It's not better this way. They should have a mode where it's faction vs faction. I don't want to fight side by side with no filthy tin-can wearing pansy.

Functionality wise it is better.

This way people can play with their friends and not have to worry about whether they get the faction and hero they want. Otherwise we would have an insane leaver problem because of people not getting the factions they want in a match. But a faction vs faction mode would be cool.

Ymir.exe
08-19-2016, 11:06 PM
You can fight your friends if they're on a different team. Rivalry is fun. Take them out and rub their faces in it.

Fatal-Feit
08-19-2016, 11:18 PM
Functionality wise it is better.

This way people can play with their friends and not have to worry about whether they get the faction and hero they want. Otherwise we would have an insane leaver problem because of people not getting the factions they want in a match. But a faction vs faction mode would be cool.

It's also better because you can fight heroes of your own faction and understand what it's like from the other end.

Seth-Abercromby
08-20-2016, 03:55 PM
For PvP, the decision makes sense since For Honor will likely be a niche game with a small but hopefully active community. Then haveing people constantly arguing or leaving because they didn't get the faction they like would not help a whole lot.

I personally don't mind some hot Warden on Lawbringer action.

handheld brando
08-20-2016, 04:00 PM
For PvP, the decision makes sense since For Honor will likely be a niche game with a small but hopefully active community. Then haveing people constantly arguing or leaving because they didn't get the faction they like would not help a whole lot.

I personally don't mind some hot Warden on Lawbringer action.

hngggg you said the magic word.

Dat lawbringah

Seth-Abercromby
08-20-2016, 04:21 PM
hngggg you said the magic word.

Dat lawbringah

"You can ram that long hard pole of yours into me any time."

handheld brando
08-20-2016, 04:49 PM
"You can ram that long hard pole of yours into me any time."

hnnggggg

oniosama
08-21-2016, 01:17 AM
The matches have never been faction vs faction and they explained why in one of the interviews.


The reason is they didn't want to separate people that want to play together if they didn't get the faction they want. The UBI dev Bio jade said that she liked Vikings and her husband liked Samurai. She said she would have been heartbroken if her and her husband couldn't play together because of a faction lock, so they made it so all the factions and any character can be played in any MP match so friends can always play together.

It is far better this way.

Ohh! Ubisoft are soo sweet, now I can play with my freands, thank you. NOT. The hole idea of this game was a factions war. And now it was abandoned. WP GG.


Functionality wise it is better.

This way people can play with their friends and not have to worry about whether they get the faction and hero they want. Otherwise we would have an insane leaver problem because of people not getting the factions they want in a match. But a faction vs faction mode would be cool.

It's not better, it's simplier. It's just to hard to balance 3 fractions so why bother, easier just give acces to all.


It's also better because you can fight heroes of your own faction and understand what it's like from the other end.

Make a seperate game mode.

People don't try to lie to yourself. From the very beginning main hype for this game was based on faction gameplay. You can now say that it is better this way, that you can play with fiends etc. But deep inside you are feeliling that somethig is wrong.

Seth-Abercromby
08-21-2016, 01:32 AM
People don't try to lie to yourself. From the very beginning main hype for this game was based on faction gameplay. You can now say that it is better this way, that you can play with fiends etc. But deep inside you are feeliling that somethig is wrong.

Wow, careful you don't cut yourself with all that edge.

Also, it's actually a lot harder to balance for individual picks rather than faction picks. With faction picks, you have clear lines on which ones that character will definitely be paired up with and who they might fight. With individual picks anything goes, so each character has to be balanced against all other 11 characters. You clearly have no idea about game-design.

oniosama
08-21-2016, 02:06 AM
Wow, careful you don't cut yourself with all that edge.

Also, it's actually a lot harder to balance for individual picks rather than faction picks. With faction picks, you have clear lines on which ones that character will definitely be paired up with and who they might fight. With individual picks anything goes, so each character has to be balanced against all other 11 characters. You clearly have no idea about game-design.

Tell it to metagaming that will happen when one character can't do anithing and will be cast off coz of it. In faction you need to find a way to make it work, in most cases through interaction with other classes. Same classes in different faction will have a different set of skills and you can't argue with that some of them will be better in different situations and maybe maps. So from it you do not need to adapt, you just need to choose right character.

ksatnodesaelp
08-21-2016, 03:20 AM
The meta-gaming would happen regardless of whether or not classes were locked to a faction, the way it is now will help prevent homogenization of the classes because Ubi won't be able to use the excuse of "faction balance" to make each class a clone of each other, and if a class is underpowered compared to all others then it's more likely to get an update than if it was paired with a faction that's otherwise made up of OP classes.

yote224
08-21-2016, 11:14 AM
Eh, i think the faction vs faction works for the story but multiplayer benefits from more available mixes.
Even within the same class of Vanguard the 3 characters play VASTLY different from one another... I'm bad at explaining this but check it out.
Take 1 faction. 1 faction has 4 classes. 1 team has 4 players. That's already a lot of combinations. Now if you open it up to 4 factions of 4 characters with 4 players you exponentially grow that number of combinations. Then look at the synergies of how one character can aid another within these combinations, THEN look at the possible feat combinations a team can bring to the table. There's a LOT going on there. I'm looking forward to seeing how metas unfold.

I'd be lying if I said faction vs faction didn't interest me and I hope to see and be a part of a community that can organize such matches to really rep the crew and try new things . If private matchmaking is a thing then that opportunity exists and I'm gonna make it happen.

Fatal-Feit
08-21-2016, 12:53 PM
Make a seperate game mode.

People don't try to lie to yourself. From the very beginning main hype for this game was based on faction gameplay. You can now say that it is better this way, that you can play with fiends etc. But deep inside you are feeliling that somethig is wrong.

Eh, I've never seen this as a problem. Not when I played last year and not when I played a few weeks ago either. If there's something I love in game design, it's when the game offers more choices, especially with online components. I'm all for a separate game mode for factions vs factions, but it's also worth mentioning we have a SP game mode that will take the concept to another level, so the idea isn't lost.

MisterWillow
08-21-2016, 10:10 PM
The reason is they didn't want to separate people that want to play together if they didn't get the faction they want. The UBI dev Bio jade said that she liked Vikings and her husband liked Samurai. She said she would have been heartbroken if her and her husband couldn't play together because of a faction lock, so they made it so all the factions and any character can be played in any MP match so friends can always play together.

Could have made a separate mode for mixed factions and properly justified it.

In the Knight story mission, it seems as though Daubeny is disgraced. Perhaps he, and the people still loyal to him, goes off in exile, and while making his own way in the world, comes across other outcasts from the other factions that don't really care who they're fighting with as long as they don't get stabbed in the back, some have made mercenary bands, some are bandits, some are just trying to survive, but because of the war, resources are limited, so even they are drawn into conflict.


This way people can play with their friends and not have to worry about whether they get the faction and hero they want. Otherwise we would have an insane leaver problem because of people not getting the factions they want in a match. But a faction vs faction mode would be cool.

Again, if you picked what faction you wanted to play as prior to matchmaking, this is a moot point.


It's also better because you can fight heroes of your own faction and understand what it's like from the other end.

Fighting against your own faction could happen anyway. Look at the Knight mission, they don't always get along. Same could be said for Samurai and Vikings.


Take 1 faction. 1 faction has 4 classes. 1 team has 4 players. That's already a lot of combinations. Now if you open it up to 4 factions of 4 characters with 4 players you exponentially grow that number of combinations. Then look at the synergies of how one character can aid another within these combinations, THEN look at the possible feat combinations a team can bring to the table. There's a LOT going on there. I'm looking forward to seeing how metas unfold.

While that might be true on a theoretical level, practically speaking it might not work out that way. With every hero being available at all times, there's a possibility that people will find combinations that simply compliment each other better than others in any given situation and stick with said combination match to match---e.g. 1 Conqueror, 2 Orochi, and a Raider---especially if they all have mics and can coordinate with each other.

On the other hand, with locked factions, you would need to change your team composition depending on who you're fighting---e.g. a Berserker might be great for fighting Samurai, but you could be at a disadvantage if you're fighting Knights or another team of Vikings I had a specific example, but I realised while writing this, they haven't officially revealed the relevant information---leading to more variety overall, especially once players learn which characters 'counter' others in any combination of factions, and begin trying to fake one another out on what's good against which classes.

So---as a complete hypothetical---say I'm fighting Knights as Samurai, I know that against Knights, Shugoki is good against Conqueror, but you also know your opponent knows that, and so knows that they'll pick a counter to your Shugoki, which is Lawbringer, so you need a counter to Lawbringer, so you need Nobushi. Then, you go double Orochi to cap points. But once you get into the match, you find out that the Knights don't have a Conqueror, and instead they went with two Lawbringers, a Warden and a Peacekeeper, which throws off your whole strategy., since now your Shugoki is almost worthless, and the Warden can counter the Nobushi. You can deal with their Lawbringers, though, with the Orochi.

Again, entirely hypothetical, since we have no idea how the Lawbringer, Shugoki, Peacekeeper, or Nobushi actually play, but that sounds more interesting to me from a strategic perspective, than seeing the same hypothetical group of Peacekeeper, Warlord, Lawbringer, Nobushi over and over again, while almost never encountering Kensei or Berserker.

handheld brando
08-21-2016, 10:29 PM
Again, if you picked what faction you wanted to play as prior to matchmaking, this is a moot point.

What happens when the Samurai faction is overpopulated and the knight faction is under populated?

Then the knights are going to fight against samurais a good majority of the time. That would become insanely boring really fast.

MisterWillow
08-21-2016, 10:34 PM
What happens when the Samurai faction is overpopulated and the knight faction is under populated?

There's no evidence that will happen.

Everywhere I go for info on the game---either here or comment sections (youtube, gamespot, etc.)---I always see a pretty even representation of people excited to play each faction. If anything, the Vikings are slightly underrepresented. but that varies site to site.

handheld brando
08-21-2016, 10:49 PM
There's no evidence that will happen.

Everywhere I go for info on the game---either here or comment sections (youtube, gamespot, etc.)---I always see a pretty even representation of people excited to play each faction. If anything, the Vikings are slightly underrepresented. but that varies site to site.

There is no info that it won't either.

Samurai is obviously a very popular faction as is the Vikings.

Voidrek
08-21-2016, 11:02 PM
It's funny, when this game was coming out I just assumed that all the battles would be strictly faction vs faction. And now with the release of all this new gameplay and the Alphas, I realize it is nothing like that.

Maybe it would be kind of cool if they had some sort of mode where it was strictly Faction vs Faction and they tallied up the wins/losses every week and gave members of the winning faction some cool unlocks. MKX had something a little like that (it sucked, though, lol), but I think it could work for this game.

I don't think the Factionless format will change for the current modes, though. In general, I get the feeling people like the current format, but obviously there is no way for me to really know that.

yote224
08-21-2016, 11:05 PM
Thank you, Willow. That was a better explanation of what I was trying to get at. Mind games within Mind games on a mind game bun with mind game seeds smothered in mind game sauce. Assuming the balance is there, of course.

MisterWillow
08-22-2016, 12:14 AM
There is no info that it won't either.

Samurai is obviously a very popular faction as is the Vikings.

Depends on where you're looking.

Made a post over here (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1335356-What-Faction-will-you-be?p=11160926&viewfull=1#post11160926) about the overall disparities related to which faction is most popular on the forum a while ago, which has links to a couple of polls illustrating that the Knights are in fact most popular around here, and yet the Samurai thread has the most activity.

In the discord (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1464668-For-Honor-s-Discord-server?) that Chaf-- made, there are more Knights than anyone. And there's a facebook group (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1485248-Join-the-Brotherhood!) catering to Knights.

And again, if you wade through comments on youtube or any given article on gaming sites looking for people claiming loyalty to a side, it's a pretty even split.


Thank you, Willow. That was a better explanation of what I was trying to get at. Mind games within Mind games on a mind game bun with mind game seeds smothered in mind game sauce. Assuming the balance is there, of course.

Right.

My argument is that those mind games are (potentially) downplayed. You'd only need to find the proper combination of heroes that could compliment one another in any given situation.

ZenBearV13
08-22-2016, 07:03 AM
While that might be true on a theoretical level, practically speaking it might not work out that way. With every hero being available at all times, there's a possibility that people will find combinations that simply compliment each other better than others in any given situation and stick with said combination match to match---e.g. 1 Conqueror, 2 Orochi, and a Raider---especially if they all have mics and can coordinate with each other.

On the other hand, with locked factions, you would need to change your team composition depending on who you're fighting---e.g. a Berserker might be great for fighting Samurai, but you could be at a disadvantage if you're fighting Knights or another team of Vikings I had a specific example, but I realised while writing this, they haven't officially revealed the relevant information---leading to more variety overall, especially once players learn which characters 'counter' others in any combination of factions, and begin trying to fake one another out on what's good against which classes.

So---as a complete hypothetical---say I'm fighting Knights as Samurai, I know that against Knights, Shugoki is good against Conqueror, but you also know your opponent knows that, and so knows that they'll pick a counter to your Shugoki, which is Lawbringer, so you need a counter to Lawbringer, so you need Nobushi. Then, you go double Orochi to cap points. But once you get into the match, you find out that the Knights don't have a Conqueror, and instead they went with two Lawbringers, a Warden and a Peacekeeper, which throws off your whole strategy., since now your Shugoki is almost worthless, and the Warden can counter the Nobushi. You can deal with their Lawbringers, though, with the Orochi.

Again, entirely hypothetical, since we have no idea how the Lawbringer, Shugoki, Peacekeeper, or Nobushi actually play, but that sounds more interesting to me from a strategic perspective, than seeing the same hypothetical group of Peacekeeper, Warlord, Lawbringer, Nobushi over and over again, while almost never encountering Kensei or Berserker.

Locked factions make it more likely for the meta to stagnate, not less. With every hero being available at all times, there's a greater likelihood that players will be able to find a way to counter the meta; If 1 Conqueror, 2 Orochi and a Raider are the current "best combination" then perhaps people will realize that a Lawbringer can "counter" the Conqueror and that knocks out the keystone to their formation.

On that point, I sincerely hope that there will be no "counters" between classes. For a game that is all about dueling (https://youtu.be/UlU_6bgA0po?t=30m47s), it is of utmost importance that every class is balanced against each other. If you go into a 1v1 and know you're going to win based on class choice and not skill, then all Honor is lost. That being said, I hope that the meta will involve every role equally; meaning that the best team composition is one Heavy, Vanguard, Assassin and Hybrid. With locked factions, that would mean the same characters every time. Sounds pretty stagnant to me compared to being able to switch up which Heavy, Vanguard Assassin and Hybrid you bring to the battlefield.

Now imagine this hypothetical; you're up against a team with HideoshiKaze. You know he's really good with the Orochi, but he personally struggles against the Lawbringer because of its long reach and heavy armor. Guess you're SOL though, because you're playing Vikings. In a competitive scene this is huge. Compare this to League of Legends, the envy of all eSports games; you can ban specific characters that you know you don't want to fight, but faction locking would be terrible if you couldn't play Lux and Darius on the same team because one's from Demacia and the other's from Noxus. Every hero is so unique that to be locked out from any one specifically is game changing. The same goes for the Warriors of For Honor. (https://youtu.be/A1fEx2vspq8?t=3m17s)

I originally looked up this link for a different debate, but it works excellently here as well:

Vanderbergh said it himself (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/for-honors-director-on-the-game-that-took-over-a-d/1100-6442711/): "this game isn't about us creating characters and imposing them on you. This game is about you. And so what kind of warrior are you, right? You can change the skin color of your Vikings, too. You want to have a black Viking? Knock yourself out. It's who are you. I want you to be able to be in that game." The point is not to play a character, but to find yourself. That's the point of all the "Knights vs Vikings vs Samurai" hype. It was never about Faction v Faction, it's about the individual (https://youtu.be/UlU_6bgA0po?t=9m24s). It's about finding your inner warrior and expressing it viscerally in combat. If you can't be you because you're male but you identify with the Peacekeeper, then the game isn't accomplishing this cardinal goal.

yote224
08-22-2016, 08:19 AM
@voidrek

You mention MK having a bad example, I would point you in the direction of an old game Lost Planet 2 that had a good example.
Over the course of 3 months (pretty sure) it collected wins and losses of players who participated in "faction battles" . This was its own playlist away from quick matches or ranked matches but you could pledge to 1 of 5 factions and it had a little leaderboard type pie chart display. (Granted this was quite a few years ago)

Ymir.exe
08-22-2016, 09:38 AM
This is seriously killing my hype for the game. Immersion ruined. I was willing to accept horned helmets, but I thought this was going to be more Planetside 2, less Overwatch. Every video we've seen, it's been vikings fighting alongside other vikings, knights fighting alongside other knights, samurai fighting alongside other samurai. What's the point of even having factions if you're not going to do anything with them?

Nico9k
08-22-2016, 10:26 AM
I would like a to see a faction vs faction mode, but I can see why they have it the way it is, as this would obviously make matchmaking a nightmare especially with peer to peer games and all the extra problems that creates when someone leaves a game. Faction mode certainly has a place but it wouldn't be appealing for every mode in my opinion.

If every mode was faction locked how would duel and brawl work? Not to mention the extra layer of balance the devs would have to worry about trying to balance every faction vs faction comp as opposed to just having every class be balanced in a duel format.

yote224
08-22-2016, 10:55 AM
Something I picked up on it you'll skip to the 32 minute mark where our near and dear community member Avarus asks a question that leads to an interesting detail.

https://youtu.be/FZO4iyF51f0

It's mentioned "we want to tell the story of appolyon and show why the multiplayer world is the way it is" .
So while we currently have the "we want you to be able to play who you want without restricting who you can play with" side, I'm pretty sure the Campaign will give us an interesting reason as well.

MisterWillow
08-22-2016, 01:51 PM
|Please acknowledge beforehand that I can't debate these properly because of the NDA, and am doing so the best I can with vague examples and hypotheticals|


Locked factions make it more likely for the meta to stagnate, not less. With every hero being available at all times, there's a greater likelihood that players will be able to find a way to counter the meta; If 1 Conqueror, 2 Orochi and a Raider are the current "best combination" then perhaps people will realize that a Lawbringer can "counter" the Conqueror and that knocks out the keystone to their formation.

My point is, given the selection of heroes and their various abilities, there will be a certain combination that people will find which gel together more than others. and while that might not be some sort of unstoppable juggernaut of a super-group, it would be more advantageous to use that comp more than others, This is mitigated by having people pick a general playstyle---offense (Vikings), defense (Knights), and speed (Samurai)---and then selecting heroes within that framework based on the situation.

Again, certain characters within any faction might not do that well against characters in another---e.g. Berserker would do well against Samurai, but not against Knights or Vikings---which you would need to account for while forming your team, and then there's layers and layers to that dance. 'Well, I know <insert hero> isn't great against <insert faction>, so we should probably pick <insert hero> instead, but they might be counting on that, so maybe <insert hero> would be better.


On that point, I sincerely hope that there will be no "counters" between classes. For a game that is all about dueling (https://youtu.be/UlU_6bgA0po?t=30m47s), it is of utmost importance that every class is balanced against each other. If you go into a 1v1 and know you're going to win based on class choice and not skill, then all Honor is lost. That being said, I hope that the meta will involve every role equally; meaning that the best team composition is one Heavy, Vanguard, Assassin and Hybrid. With locked factions, that would mean the same characters every time. Sounds pretty stagnant to me compared to being able to switch up which Heavy, Vanguard Assassin and Hybrid you bring to the battlefield.

Having one of each class be the best comp sounds stale as well. And even then, you could still fall into the trap of having the same four over and over, depending on how well Warlord, Kensei, Peacekeeper, and Nobushi mesh.

If you restrict people to a certain faction, and they're fighting against another faction, they could feel two Heavies, a Hybrid, and a Vanguard could be more beneficial toward that faction as opposed to another; but their comp could be thrown off if the other team knows they'll probably use that comp instead of another, and has two Hybrids and two Assassins. But you'd never stick with one composition, because the next team would require a different tact, precisely because the heroes play differently faction to faction (i.e. the Vanguards are 'all-rounders' but vary significantly in how they control and the strategies they use.


Now imagine this hypothetical; you're up against a team with HideoshiKaze. You know he's really good with the Orochi, but he personally struggles against the Lawbringer because of its long reach and heavy armor. Guess you're SOL though, because you're playing Vikings.

Or you could pick Warlord and attempt to stonewall him. Or pick Valkyrie for her (presumed) range and defense.


In a competitive scene this is huge. Compare this to League of Legends, the envy of all eSports games; you can ban specific characters that you know you don't want to fight, but faction locking would be terrible if you couldn't play Lux and Darius on the same team because one's from Demacia and the other's from Noxus. Every hero is so unique that to be locked out from any one specifically is game changing. The same goes for the Warriors of For Honor. (https://youtu.be/A1fEx2vspq8?t=3m17s)

Never played League, so this could just be ignorance, but even having a desire to ban certain characters seems to me like some are unbalanced.

As far as the differences in For Honor goes, again, it would be more interesting to me to pick a general playstyle and then pick a hero within that playstyle than to have every playstyle available to everyone at all times because then you would need to approach each encounter (both physical opponents but also matches overall) differently every time.

That's not to say, of course, you could come upon a defensive Viking player, or a Knight that relies on evasion, but because the base characteristics are different, it could lead to greater variety.


The point is not to play a character, but to find yourself. That's the point of all the "Knights vs Vikings vs Samurai" hype. It was never about Faction v Faction, it's about the individual (https://youtu.be/UlU_6bgA0po?t=9m24s). It's about finding your inner warrior and expressing it viscerally in combat.

Then. Why. Have. Factions.?

Why set this up as a millenia-long struggle between three cultures forever divided only to have them all intermingled? Why not set the whole thing in some war-torn place controlled by nobility and warlords and have you pick from a handful of mercenaries that bear resemblance to Knights, Vikings, and Samurai to fight for some duke somewhere? That would have been perfectly acceptable from a thematic perspective, and it would have accomplished the same thing without the confusion and/or aggravation.

They just put out a trailer showcasing the factions, having them say their piece on what they're fighting for, who they are as a people, and what they want to ultimately accomplish (in a similar way to Planetside, actually). To clump them all together betrays that spirit, because none of their cultural pride really means anything if one will fight alongside another, even though their ideals and goals all conflict.


If every mode was faction locked how would duel and brawl work? Not to mention the extra layer of balance the devs would have to worry about trying to balance every faction vs faction comp as opposed to just having every class be balanced in a duel format.

Duels needn't apply to this discussion, since it's 1v1 anyway.

Brawls are contentious to me. On the one hand, I think they could be rationalised via some sort of gladiatorial sport, and so would all be mercs fighting for whatever reason, so mixing them would be fine, and on the other, I feel like I should be consistent and want Brawl to be faction locked as well.

Honestly, though, I feel Brawl would be a much more interesting mode if you had three teams of two, one of each faction, in the same match (possibly with a central point the teams are trying to claim, King of the Hill style). That's something unique the game could pride itself on.


It's mentioned "we want to tell the story of appolyon and show why the multiplayer world is the way it is" .
So while we currently have the "we want you to be able to play who you want without restricting who you can play with" side, I'm pretty sure the Campaign will give us an interesting reason as well.

I've said elsewhere that if they can justify it, then I'd be fine with it. It would still be deflating if they set up this giant war waged between three warrior cultures, only to have those cultures intermix at the end---presumably defeating Apollyon---and yet continue to fight, but I could live with it.

I just don't understand why they'd set it up like that in the first place.

dapheenom
08-22-2016, 02:13 PM
Then. Why. Have. Factions.?
Campaign mode.

This is a game above all else, so everything should be in service to gameplay. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from setting up a faction locked league. I wouldn't be opposed to Ubi setting an toggle option for faction locked gameplay rooms, however. But confining everyone to that would be awful. My group of friends want to run games together as a team and we're looking forward to being able to have a Valkyrie, a Conqueror, and two Kensei. Giving us that choice sold the last holdout among us on the game, since she wants to play with us but didn't want to forced to use a samurai when she's a Viking nerd.

More options are better for the players, period.

MisterWillow
08-22-2016, 02:34 PM
Campaign mode.

The last trailer was for multiplayer, and they're still selling people on which faction they want to identify with.

You want to be favoured by the gods and live for battle and glory?
You want to rebuild your culture with absolute devotion?
You want to protect your lands against invaders, and protect the innocent?

Why present it this way, if they're all just fighting together---the Knights fighting alongside the invaders, the Vikings with those not in the gods favour, the Samurai forsaking their devotion to rebuild their culture?

They've also said the multiplayer is an extension of the campaign. The two are not entirely separate.

And once again, I'm not opposed to a mode where people can play whomever they want, and explained that a few comments ago, as long as it's justified via the story.

Voidrek
08-22-2016, 06:25 PM
@voidrek

You mention MK having a bad example, I would point you in the direction of an old game Lost Planet 2 that had a good example.
Over the course of 3 months (pretty sure) it collected wins and losses of players who participated in "faction battles" . This was its own playlist away from quick matches or ranked matches but you could pledge to 1 of 5 factions and it had a little leaderboard type pie chart display. (Granted this was quite a few years ago)

Ah yeah, that sounds like a better example. I never got a chance to play any of the Lost Planet games, except I believe the demo of either the first or second one.

As far as the MK example, it was pretty bare bones, if I recall. Lets say you chose Special Forces as your Faction, I don't think you even needed to play as a Special Forces character (Sonya, Jax, etc) to contribute to the Faction points.

At least if they added a mode in For Honor, it would actually be a legitimate Faction vs Faction battle where you would be forced to team up with your fellow faction members to take on the others.

Fatal-Feit
08-22-2016, 07:06 PM
Tbh, MisterWillow, I hope For Honor's MP isn't connected to any narrative. Just like teams not being locked to a faction, I'd like to see them become more creative with their game modes because of it. The freedom will allow them to create game modes that are simply more fun for players.

I like of think of it as the MP during the golden days of Halo. Game modes such as Infection or Oddball were an absolute blast back in the day and they made literally no sense. For example, I'd personally love to see For Honor have some sort of Juggernaut mode in an 8 player free-for-all, where one player is the Juggernaut and they get some incredible enhancements to their damage and health and must kill other players to rack up their points while the other players have to try to work together to take them down. The person who kills the Juggernaut gets to steal the enhancements and so on.

ZenBearV13
08-22-2016, 08:40 PM
My point is, given the selection of heroes and their various abilities, there will be a certain combination that people will find which gel together more than others. and while that might not be some sort of unstoppable juggernaut of a super-group, it would be more advantageous to use that comp more than others, This is mitigated by having people pick a general playstyle---offense (Vikings), defense (Knights), and speed (Samurai)---and then selecting heroes within that framework based on the situation.

This is baseless supposition, and having locked factions does nothing to mitigate this. There could just as likely be a particular combination of Vikings that gels together more than others, and there would be fewer ways to counter that composition with locked factions.


Again, certain characters within any faction might not do that well against characters in another---e.g. Berserker would do well against Samurai, but not against Knights or Vikings---which you would need to account for while forming your team, and then there's layers and layers to that dance. 'Well, I know <insert hero> isn't great against <insert faction>, so we should probably pick <insert hero> instead, but they might be counting on that, so maybe <insert hero> would be better.

Again, I sincerely hope that there aren't any kind of "counter picks" in For Honor because every hero should be balanced against every hero. This shouldn't even come into your planning unless you know who you are fighting against and what specific character they personally struggle against because of their playstyle and not their class.


Having one of each class be the best comp sounds stale as well. And even then, you could still fall into the trap of having the same four over and over, depending on how well Warlord, Kensei, Peacekeeper, and Nobushi mesh.

Indeed, it would get stale, but it's less likely to stick if players have more options with which to undermine the meta.


If you restrict people to a certain faction, and they're fighting against another faction, they could feel two Heavies, a Hybrid, and a Vanguard could be more beneficial toward that faction as opposed to another; but their comp could be thrown off if the other team knows they'll probably use that comp instead of another, and has two Hybrids and two Assassins. But you'd never stick with one composition, because the next team would require a different tact, precisely because the heroes play differently faction to faction (i.e. the Vanguards are 'all-rounders' but vary significantly in how they control and the strategies they use.

If you don't restrict people to a certain faction then they will pick whatever class they want and you will have to adapt your strategies on the fly every time, unless you know specifically who you're up against. You can play with different compositions because you never know what you're up against. There will never be a "best composition" because the enemy composition is always in flux.


Or you could pick Warlord and attempt to stonewall him. Or pick Valkyrie for her (presumed) range and defense.

Unless he's really good against Warlords and Valkyries. In that case you're still SOL because his one weakness is the Lawbringer and you can't pick him.


Never played League, so this could just be ignorance, but even having a desire to ban certain characters seems to me like some are unbalanced.

There are a lot of Champions in League and they're not all perfectly balanced, so that is a factor, yes. However, in top tier competitive play the real point of banning is to deny your opponents their best Champions, ones you know they would utterly wreck you with. I definitely don't want warrior bans in For Honor, I'm simply bringing up an example of how counter picking comes into play when you know your enemy rather than know which classes are strong against which.


As far as the differences in For Honor goes, again, it would be more interesting to me to pick a general playstyle and then pick a hero within that playstyle than to have every playstyle available to everyone at all times because then you would need to approach each encounter (both physical opponents but also matches overall) differently every time.

You do pick a general playstyle and then a hero within that playstyle when you pick your warrior. The only difference is that with unlocked factions, your choice doesn't dictate my options.


Then. Why. Have. Factions.?

Why set this up as a millenia-long struggle between three cultures forever divided only to have them all intermingled? Why not set the whole thing in some war-torn place controlled by nobility and warlords and have you pick from a handful of mercenaries that bear resemblance to Knights, Vikings, and Samurai to fight for some duke somewhere? That would have been perfectly acceptable from a thematic perspective, and it would have accomplished the same thing without the confusion and/or aggravation.

They just put out a trailer showcasing the factions, having them say their piece on what they're fighting for, who they are as a people, and what they want to ultimately accomplish (in a similar way to Planetside, actually). To clump them all together betrays that spirit, because none of their cultural pride really means anything if one will fight alongside another, even though their ideals and goals all conflict.

The factions story is just a fun excuse for the gameplay. That's all it ever was, from the very beginning. They started the idea with the mechanics, with sword fighting using the right analogue stick, and then built from there. They decided to incorporate more than just Knights because they wanted more variety, and they picked the Vikings and Samurai to add to the mix because they are such well known and well loved warrior legacies. They had to come up with an excuse for why all three societies would exist in the same place and needed a reason for them to be fighting, so they came up with the cataclysm and everything else.


Brawls are contentious to me. On the one hand, I think they could be rationalised via some sort of gladiatorial sport, and so would all be mercs fighting for whatever reason, so mixing them would be fine, and on the other, I feel like I should be consistent and want Brawl to be faction locked as well.

Honestly, though, I feel Brawl would be a much more interesting mode if you had three teams of two, one of each faction, in the same match (possibly with a central point the teams are trying to claim, King of the Hill style). That's something unique the game could pride itself on.

I agree that a 2v2v2 mode would be fun. If they ever make faction locked modes then I hope they include this. That still doesn't mean we should all be locked into only fighting alongside our faction in every mode.


I've said elsewhere that if they can justify it, then I'd be fine with it. It would still be deflating if they set up this giant war waged between three warrior cultures, only to have those cultures intermix at the end---presumably defeating Apollyon---and yet continue to fight, but I could live with it.

I just don't understand why they'd set it up like that in the first place.

We'll just have to wait and see what the campaign has in store.


The last trailer was for multiplayer, and they're still selling people on which faction they want to identify with.

You want to be favoured by the gods and live for battle and glory?
You want to rebuild your culture with absolute devotion?
You want to protect your lands against invaders, and protect the innocent?

Why present it this way, if they're all just fighting together---the Knights fighting alongside the invaders, the Vikings with those not in the gods favour, the Samurai forsaking their devotion to rebuild their culture?

They've also said the multiplayer is an extension of the campaign. The two are not entirely separate.

And once again, I'm not opposed to a mode where people can play whomever they want, and explained that a few comments ago, as long as it's justified via the story.

Once again, the point of picking a faction is about personal choice (https://youtu.be/UlU_6bgA0po?t=9m24s). It's not about picking a side in a war, it's about discovering your inner warrior. You want to be wild and free? Try a Viking. You want to be devoted and focused? Try a Samurai. You want to be a defender of the innocent? Try a Knight. This is a personal choice (https://youtu.be/UlU_6bgA0po?t=8m57s), and it does not require segregation between the players who made different choices.

MisterWillow
08-23-2016, 08:48 AM
This is baseless supposition, and having locked factions does nothing to mitigate this.

To be as vague as possible, it was already happening in the Alpha. Certain heroes worked so well together that you were hard pressed to find other heroes in Dominion, and when you did encounter them, the team they were on usually ended up losing because they weren't equipped with the skills to counter (for lack of a better word) said comps' combined skill set which wouldn't exist if you couldn't combine the defensiveness of the Knights with the speed of the Samurai and aggression of the Vikings.

I will admit, this may be different once all the heroes are playable, but the possibility exists players will find another combination that will excel more often than others.


There could just as likely be a particular combination of Vikings that gels together more than others, and there would be fewer ways to counter that composition with locked factions.

Gels together against Knights, maybe, but not against Samurai or other Vikings (or the opposite, or any combination thereof). And within that, the hypothetical 'ideal' composition of Vikings could 'counter' a certain composition of Knights, but not another---e.g. Warlord, Valkyrie, Raider, Berserker is great against Conqueror, Lawbringer, Warden, Peacekeeper, but if the Knights have 2 Lawringers instead of a Peacekeeper, they could nullify the Warlord, but then if the Vikings had 2 Raiders and 2 Valkyries, they could work around (one of) the Lawbringer(s) and keep the Warden and Conqueror busy, etc. etc.

If everyone is available at all times, you could combine the speed of the Orochi, the adaptability of the Valkyrie, the defense of the Conqueror, and the power of the Shugoki, and their playstyles might compliment one another so well that there would be little sense in having any other combination. Sure, you might mix it up once in a while and throw in a Nobushi or Warlord, but the only real reason for that could be out of boredom, or you might encounter other team comps simply because someone really wanted to main Kensei, but it might not really be for any strategic reason.


Again, I sincerely hope that there aren't any kind of "counter picks" in For Honor because every hero should be balanced against every hero. This shouldn't even come into your planning unless you know who you are fighting against and what specific character they personally struggle against because of their playstyle and not their class.

That's a different discussion, in my opinion, because that's more related to duels and less to do with team composition, so, to me, it has little relevance here.

That being said, it should be possible to fight and beat any one hero with any other hero, but it would naturally follow, given that certain heroes have certain skill sets, with their own strengths and weaknesses, that certain heroes (or classes) would be more difficult to fight with some heroes than others---e.g. defeating a Conqueror with a Berserker could be possible but more difficult than if you tried with Nobushi.


Indeed, it would get stale, but it's less likely to stick if players have more options with which to undermine the meta.

But my argument is to have multiple metas depending on the faction you are vs the faction you're fighting. I think it would vary games match to match, and make more heroes viable long-term, since you'd have fewer to pick from in any given match, you'd have more incentive to pick otherwise underplayed heroes more often.


If you don't restrict people to a certain faction then they will pick whatever class they want and you will have to adapt your strategies on the fly every time, unless you know specifically who you're up against. You can play with different compositions because you never know what you're up against. There will never be a "best composition" because the enemy composition is always in flux.

I disagree. If you can combine the strengths of every faction into one composition, you can pick the heroes that compliment one another, instead of using the class within your faction to deal with a situation.

Every faction would ultimately have imperfect compositions available to them, but by complimenting what weaknesses you do have vs an given faction, you could alter said composition every match. Opening every strength of every faction to every player at all times increases the chances of finding a legitimate 'best composition'.


You do pick a general playstyle and then a hero within that playstyle when you pick your warrior. The only difference is that with unlocked factions, your choice doesn't dictate my options.

If you pick your faction before entering matchmaking, my choice has nothing to do with yours.


The factions story is just a fun excuse for the gameplay. That's all it ever was, from the very beginning. They started the idea with the mechanics, with sword fighting using the right analogue stick, and then built from there. They decided to incorporate more than just Knights because they wanted more variety, and they picked the Vikings and Samurai to add to the mix because they are such well known and well loved warrior legacies. They had to come up with an excuse for why all three societies would exist in the same place and needed a reason for them to be fighting, so they came up with the cataclysm and everything else.

I don't want to speak about what their ultimate intentions. I can only really interpret how they're presenting the thematic elements, and how they're presenting it as a war between the three cultures.

Even the last multiplayer trailer presented the factions as wholly separate entities fighting for conflicting reasons that seems to contradict the notion of them mixing.

They've also said that the campaign explains the state of the multiplayer world---and again, if they explain mixed factions through that, I'll have less of a problem with it---and tying them together like that seems to indicate it's more than an afterthought, or some trifling, flitting notion that excuses some violence; especially because, again, there would be more thematically palatable ways of mixing the factions, making them mercenaries, or some sort of gladiatorial event, or some other such thing.

There was absolutely no need for constructing the world in the way they did if they intended to have all the characters fighting alongside one another in the end.


Once again, the point of picking a faction is about personal choice (https://youtu.be/UlU_6bgA0po?t=9m24s). It's not about picking a side in a war, it's about discovering your inner warrior. You want to be wild and free? Try a Viking. You want to be devoted and focused? Try a Samurai. You want to be a defender of the innocent? Try a Knight. This is a personal choice (https://youtu.be/UlU_6bgA0po?t=8m57s), and it does not require segregation between the players who made different choices.

Once again, mercenaries accomplish the exact same thing without the implication that the Vikings are all part of a big clan, the Knights are sworn to each other, and the Samurai are all honor bound to their people. They're all just warriors fighting for the highest bidder---granted, they could have the same ideals about them---and the story could centre around the nobility you're hired by.

It seems stupid to create the subtext of Knights vs Vikings vs Samurai only to have them all fight alongside one another.

Altair_Snake
08-23-2016, 09:31 AM
I am glad they have free factions on MP. Very glad! The UI is killing me, though.

Ymir.exe
08-23-2016, 10:50 AM
It doesn't make sense to me why they then would give each faction the same archetypes.

The glass cannon: Berserker, Orochi, Peacekeeper
The quality build: Warlord, Kensei, Warden
The strength build: Raider, Shugoki, Conqueror
The polearm user: Valkyrie, Nobushi, Lawbringer

The classes for each faction roughly mirror each other. So it's not like one faction would get an overwhelming advantage. There are minor differences, but generally speaking they're the same. So, really, there's nothing to be gained by mixing the factions, since they're all copies of one another. I really don't understand this decision. I get that people want to play with their friends, and everyone might not want to play the same faction, but have that be an optional gamemode, not the main game itself.

Look at a game like War Thunder as an example. You have Arcade Battles, where you can fly whatever you want, with your friends flying whatever they want, and it's fine. American, British, Japanese, German, and Soviet aircraft all flying together. But then you go to Realistic Battles or Simulator Battles and it's entirely faction based. The Japan players are flying with other Japanese aircraft only, the Germany players are flying with other German aircraft only, and the Soviet players are flying with other Soviet aircraft only.

That's what I'd like to see for For Honor. I understand that they want to respect the people who want to play different factions but still play with their friends. And that's an admirable attitude. But please also respect those of us who don't want mixed factions. Our desire to play faction vs faction is just as legitimate as their desire to play mixed factions.

iHunny
08-23-2016, 11:02 AM
It doesn't make sense to me why they then would give each faction the same archetypes.

The glass cannon: Berserker, Orochi, Peacekeeper
The quality build: Warlord, Kensei, Warden
The strength build: Raider, Shugoki, Conqueror
The polearm user: Valkyrie, Nobushi, Lawbringer

The classes for each faction roughly mirror each other. So it's not like one faction would get an overwhelming advantage. There are minor differences, but generally speaking they're the same. So, really, there's nothing to be gained by mixing the factions, since they're all copies of one another. I really don't understand this decision. I get that people want to play with their friends, and everyone might not want to play the same faction, but have that be an optional gamemode, not the main game itself.

Look at a game like War Thunder as an example. You have Arcade Battles, where you can fly whatever you want, with your friends flying whatever they want, and it's fine. American, British, Japanese, German, and Soviet aircraft all flying together. But then you go to Realistic Battles or Simulator Battles and it's entirely faction based. The Japan players are flying with other Japanese aircraft only, the Germany players are flying with other German aircraft only, and the Soviet players are flying with other Soviet aircraft only.

That's what I'd like to see for For Honor. I understand that they want to respect the people who want to play different factions but still play with their friends. And that's an admirable attitude. But please also respect those of us who don't want mixed factions. Our desire to play faction vs faction is just as legitimate as their desire to play mixed factions.

I somewhat agree, I think there should be a multiplayer mode of faction vs faction. Personaly I would enjoy a mixed team for quick battle system.

handheld brando
08-23-2016, 11:03 AM
I am glad they have free factions on MP. Very glad! The UI is killing me, though.

The game would be insanely difficult if the UI wasn't the way it was. Seriously though guard breaks on certain characters would be literally impossible to deal with without the UI.
It is also very minimal compared to some games. I can't say too much but I tried actually watching animations instead of the indicators and I got punished really hard in some fights by several people.

When you get hands on time you will understand.



It doesn't make sense to me why they then would give each faction the same archetypes.

The glass cannon: Berserker, Orochi, Peacekeeper
The quality build: Warlord, Kensei, Warden
The strength build: Raider, Shugoki, Conqueror
The polearm user: Valkyrie, Nobushi, Lawbringer

The classes for each faction roughly mirror each other. So it's not like one faction would get an overwhelming advantage. There are minor differences, but generally speaking they're the same. So, really, there's nothing to be gained by mixing the factions, since they're all copies of one another. I really don't understand this decision. I get that people want to play with their friends, and everyone might not want to play the same faction, but have that be an optional gamemode, not the main game itself.

Look at a game like War Thunder as an example. You have Arcade Battles, where you can fly whatever you want, with your friends flying whatever they want, and it's fine. American, British, Japanese, German, and Soviet aircraft all flying together. But then you go to Realistic Battles or Simulator Battles and it's entirely faction based. The Japan players are flying with other Japanese aircraft only, the Germany players are flying with other German aircraft only, and the Soviet players are flying with other Soviet aircraft only.

That's what I'd like to see for For Honor. I understand that they want to respect the people who want to play different factions but still play with their friends. And that's an admirable attitude. But please also respect those of us who don't want mixed factions. Our desire to play faction vs faction is just as legitimate as their desire to play mixed factions.

The classes do not mirror each other.

They may have the same role but the Raider plays like a totally different beast compared to the Warden. While both are Vanguards, they are different kinds of Vanguards.

Kensei and Warden have such drastically different playstyles that a Kensei could probably be confused for an Assassin while the Warden could be confused as something akin to a Heavy. The only thing these classes share is the role, however, their playstyles are so incredibly different that they could never be considered mirrors of each other.

ZenBearV13
08-23-2016, 07:37 PM
To be as vague as possible, it was already happening in the Alpha. Certain heroes worked so well together that you were hard pressed to find other heroes in Dominion, and when you did encounter them, the team they were on usually ended up losing because they weren't equipped with the skills to counter (for lack of a better word) said comps' combined skill set which wouldn't exist if you couldn't combine the defensiveness of the Knights with the speed of the Samurai and aggression of the Vikings.

I will admit, this may be different once all the heroes are playable, but the possibility exists players will find another combination that will excel more often than others.

Indeed, there are more heroes coming out, so that will shake things up a lot. More importantly, the Technical Test was a small group of new players (yes, some of us played in the previous Alpha, including myself, but we're still very new) that only played for a week. That is not adequate evidence to support your claim. There are too many variables and not enough time to properly vet them all. For example: were you playing with a group of friends or a PUG? Were your teammates all really good and would dominate the enemy even with a different composition? Did you ever face an organized group with equally skilled players, if so how often? Did you ever face Developers, if so how often? If yes, did you face players who did not get as much exposure to the Devs so they didn't get the chance to learn as much as you did? Etc, etc.


Gels together against Knights, maybe, but not against Samurai or other Vikings (or the opposite, or any combination thereof)...

If everyone is available at all times, you could combine the speed of the Orochi, the adaptability of the Valkyrie, the defense of the Conqueror, and the power of the Shugoki, and their playstyles might compliment one another so well that there would be little sense in having any other combination...

But my argument is to have multiple metas depending on the faction you are vs the faction you're fighting...

If you can combine the strengths of every faction into one composition, you can pick the heroes that compliment one another, instead of using the class within your faction to deal with a situation...

Opening every strength of every faction to every player at all times increases the chances of finding a legitimate 'best composition'.

This is all still baseless supposition. You have no verifiable evidence supporting the claim that free choice of all classes will make the meta stagnate, all you have is your opinion. In my opinion, less options makes for stagnant meta. I reject the idea that any one set of heroes will be superior to all other possible combinations because there are so many variables in play; every hero is unique, even compared to their "mirrors" in other factions, every player will play each hero differently based on skill and style, you have dozens of options for Feats, varied equipment that alters your stats, etc, etc. To claim that all of this will boil down to a single superior composition is absurd, and it is even more absurd to restrict the game and vastly reduce the variety of options just on the off chance this could come true.


I don't want to speak about what their ultimate intentions. I can only really interpret how they're presenting the thematic elements, and how they're presenting it as a war between the three cultures.

They made their intentions very clear from the start, just watch the videos I linked. It's not their fault you didn't listen, so don't blame your confusion on them.


Even the last multiplayer trailer presented the factions as wholly separate entities fighting for conflicting reasons that seems to contradict the notion of them mixing.

They've also said that the campaign explains the state of the multiplayer world---and again, if they explain mixed factions through that, I'll have less of a problem with it---and tying them together like that seems to indicate it's more than an afterthought, or some trifling, flitting notion that excuses some violence; especially because, again, there would be more thematically palatable ways of mixing the factions, making them mercenaries, or some sort of gladiatorial event, or some other such thing.

There was absolutely no need for constructing the world in the way they did if they intended to have all the characters fighting alongside one another in the end.

Once again, mercenaries accomplish the exact same thing without the implication that the Vikings are all part of a big clan, the Knights are sworn to each other, and the Samurai are all honor bound to their people. They're all just warriors fighting for the highest bidder---granted, they could have the same ideals about them---and the story could centre around the nobility you're hired by.

It seems stupid to create the subtext of Knights vs Vikings vs Samurai only to have them all fight alongside one another.

The Campaign mode follows the story of the factions. It's entirely possible, and I think likely, that the developers came up with the story before they decided whether or not to lock the factions in multiplayer. They wouldn't then scrap a well thought out and engaging story just to keep people from being confused. For that matter, they never once claimed it would be faction vs faction, you just assumed that based on trailers and gameplay videos from an incomplete game. I also think your mercenaries idea could work if it was just multiplayer, I actually thought of that concept myself when I was younger imagining video game ideas, but it would make for a terrible single player story. I much prefer the Campaign they're setting up now.


Our desire to play faction vs faction is just as legitimate as their desire to play mixed factions.

I've said this numerous times and I'll say it again; you can. Set up a fight club like you see in Dark Souls, a game that doesn't even have matchmaking of any kind period yet people still manage to play together and set up and abide by rules more limited than the game presents. No estus, no hexes, always bow, etc. You have the freedom to play however you want, you don't need a separate game mode to accomplish this. That being said, I would be fine with a game mode coming out in the future which locks the factions, but I'm very, very glad that is not the only game mode available.

MisterWillow
08-24-2016, 07:03 AM
Indeed, there are more heroes coming out, so that will shake things up a lot. More importantly, the Technical Test was a small group of new players (yes, some of us played in the previous Alpha, including myself, but we're still very new) that only played for a week. That is not adequate evidence to support your claim. There are too many variables and not enough time to properly vet them all. For example: were you playing with a group of friends or a PUG? Were your teammates all really good and would dominate the enemy even with a different composition? Did you ever face an organized group with equally skilled players, if so how often? Did you ever face Developers, if so how often? If yes, did you face players who did not get as much exposure to the Devs so they didn't get the chance to learn as much as you did? Etc, etc.

Solo queuing and the skill of the players has little to do with it, honestly. Take any game where team compositions can make all the difference---Overwatch, for example (which I know is an imperfect comparison, since you can switch comps mid-match)---and if you either can't communicate with your team, or half the team is really bad at their characters (or the game in general), they'd still lose.

A meta still existed. If teams had a certain comp, and they were fighting people of equal skill, they would do better than if they had something different..


This is all still baseless supposition. You have no verifiable evidence supporting the claim that free choice of all classes will make the meta stagnate, all you have is your opinion.

The same is true in your case. You have no evidence that it won't happen, either, only your opinion.


In my opinion, less options makes for stagnant meta. I reject the idea that any one set of heroes will be superior to all other possible combinations because there are so many variables in play; every hero is unique, even compared to their "mirrors" in other factions, every player will play each hero differently based on skill and style, you have dozens of options for Feats, varied equipment that alters your stats, etc, etc. To claim that all of this will boil down to a single superior composition is absurd, and it is even more absurd to restrict the game and vastly reduce the variety of options just on the off chance this could come true.

But what makes them unique is partly based on their faction. Again, Knights are generally more defense-based, Vikings excel at offense, and Samurai benefit from being evasive. What would make locked factions interesting is attempting to compensate for your factions' weaknesses while exploiting another's.

Viking aggression means their defense could be weaker overall, so when fighting Samurai, you know they can exploit this, so you pick more defensive classes (Warlord/Valkyrie, presumably) to attempt to counter this. But the Samurai could always pick heavy hitters like Shugoki and try to smash through that defense, or ones that excel at confusion, like Orochi or Nobushi to throw you off. But then again, you could always try and counter their speed with speed, and throw a couple of Berserkers in, since they might not be expecting that.

With mixed teams, it means you can compensate for one's factions weakness with the strength of another, and if there is a certain couple of combinations that simply works more often than others, people will find them, and then you'll see less and less of the other heroes, especially once you start talking about high-ranked play and tournament settings, since you'd be stupid to not exploit something like that.


They made their intentions very clear from the start, just watch the videos I linked. It's not their fault you didn't listen, so don't blame your confusion on them.

I beg to differ.

Reveal trailer: Knights fighting Vikings fighting Samurai. Not interspersed, not chaotically arranged, not 'oh, here's a Samurai being mauled by a Viking, who is then saved by a Knight'. They were three separate armies grouped and fighting as entirely separate units.

Story trailer: Pretty self-explanatory. Thousand year war, Knights vs Vikings vs Samurai. Apollyon introduction---which could potentially cause the factions to unite, but they have also said the campaign 'explains' the multiplayer world---so if they all unite against Apollyon, why would they still be fighting?

Factions trailer: The basic ethos of each faction is stated individually (which all at least marginally conflict with one another). Each faction is shown together, uses the term 'we' as in their faction, charges into battle together. Once more, it reminded me of the Planetside 2 faction trailers (Terran (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzDdg0SmBP0"), NC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54bH9YC2lfQ), Vanu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al_1s3CAOgA)), albeit briefer.

They continually use the phrase 'Knights, Viking, Samurai'---Jason used it in the video linked---which contributes to the confusion, because it treats them as separate entities, especially once they start ascribing values on the choice (Viking enthusiasm, Samurai discipline, Knights protection). More to the point, you've found a single solitary example of what you're interpreting as a clarification in this regard. If it were really their intention to have them all fight together from the beginning, you'd be able to find many more than that (pre-Gamescom), given how many interviews they've done. And even if you did (and, credit to you, I vaguely recall at least one other), the phraseology of that statement is highly interpretive.

Placing a value system on a certain faction means to me that you won't necessarily agree with the others---you may respect them as fellow warriors, but your philosophies conflict, so you don't fight for the same reasons, meaning you will probably fight each other. That's present here on the forums, where role-playing exists to at least a marginal degree and is displayed in a tongue-in-cheek manner every so often---Vikings calling Knights tin cans, Knights calling Vikings barbarians, Samurai lost in their haikus and acting superior to everyone (:p), all variously calling their compatriots to battle against the others because they're all playing a role in not liking one another (in a playful way) because of their faction identification. Aside from the combat system, that's the major thing that invested me in the game, and it made the community at least a little more fun to be apart of.

Contrary to your argument, prior to Gamescom, they never, ever, ever, ever, implied in any public capacity that the factions' characters could be on the same team. The only hint that it would be that way was the Viking in the E3 stage demo and the info that came out about the factions not being locked in the alpha---the first could simply be taken as an easter egg (and was (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1182932-Vikings-in-the-E3-Live-Demo?)), and the later could very easily be construed as being more manageable from a testing position, given that there are heroes missing from every faction.


For that matter, they never once claimed it would be faction vs faction, you just assumed that based on trailers and gameplay videos from an incomplete game.

Oh, please. It was so heavily implied that the assumption was implicit in several people here, and if you go through comment section at other sites discussing the game, or youtube videos, the assumption is implicit with them as well. I suspect that there's going to be a lot of confusion when people who haven't been watching the interviews, or reading the articles, and have just heard the pitch of Knights, Vikings, Samurai fighting a war boot the game for the first time, or just seen a trailer like the reveal one, and find themselves a Knight fighting alongside their presumed enemies.

The trailers function as exercises in world-building more than anything, and every bit of promotional material has built the world as a war between three factions. They couched it in language of a conflict between cultures and asked people to identify with one. Do not blame people if during their shouts of enthusiasm they missed a whisper of contradiction.


I've said this numerous times and I'll say it again; you can. Set up a fight club like you see in Dark Souls, a game that doesn't even have matchmaking of any kind period yet people still manage to play together and set up and abide by rules more limited than the game presents. No estus, no hexes, always bow, etc. You have the freedom to play however you want, you don't need a separate game mode to accomplish this. That being said, I would be fine with a game mode coming out in the future which locks the factions, but I'm very, very glad that is not the only game mode available.

But there's so much they could have done by having the primary mode of play Faction vs Faction. They could have had the Risk-type 'War' mode that someone suggested, or the overworld map idea I proposed, where stats were tracked on how well the factions were doing against one another. They could have really engrossed people in the world. Instead they're making it just another MOBA, with characters and abilities, but very little rhyme or reason for why they're fighting, just players capping points because, hey, it's a video-game and that's what you do in a video-game.

It could have been more than that, even if it did have a mixed-factions mode.

handheld brando
08-24-2016, 07:26 AM
More options are better for the players, period.

You know that's what this really boils down to as well.

I know people want full gender customization for the classes and I understand why. Personally, I don't think its a big issue because it doesn't really affect gameplay in a significant way.

However, a mandatory faction lock would be a significant gameplay factor and would not only force certain strategies within certain factions but would also cement those strategies as required when playing as that faction. What if the Viking faction has a strategy that requires a Raider, a Warlord, and 2 Berserkers? What if the Raider, Warlord, and 1 Berserker are all grouped together but the last guy wants to play the Warlord too? Those 3 are going to turn on the one guy because he is not playing what they want him to play to complete their strategy and the one guy ends up not enjoying himself because he now gets to spend the match getting harassed for playing his favorite class.

It happens in all team based games where a group will turn on the odd man out if he doesn't follow suit with what they want. Having locked factions would only make this type of situation far too common and then people would begin leaving matches because of it.

What happens if the Knights are really good against the strategies that the Viking faction and the Samurai have but the Samurai have no good strategies to counter the Vikings or the Knights? Suddenly the Samurai are the weak man out and people will flock to the other factions because it's easier to win matches as the Knights or Vikings than it is to bother with struggling to win as a Samurai.

These are the kind of situations that an open faction system completely avoids and it makes it easier to balance the game on a hero by hero basis rather than a hero/faction basis.

MisterWillow
08-24-2016, 07:58 AM
However, a mandatory faction lock would be a significant gameplay factor and would not only force certain strategies within certain factions but would also cement those strategies as required when playing as that faction. What if the Viking faction has a strategy that requires a Raider, a Warlord, and 2 Berserkers? What if the Raider, Warlord, and 1 Berserker are all grouped together but the last guy wants to play the Warlord too? Those 3 are going to turn on the one guy because he is not playing what they want him to play to complete their strategy and the one guy ends up not enjoying himself because he now gets to spend the match getting harassed for playing his favorite class.

This will happen anyway if a strategy calls for a Hybrid, Assassin, and two Vanguards, but a couple people main Assassins, so you have a team of Valkyrie, Orochi, and two Peacekeepers.


What happens if the Knights are really good against the strategies that the Viking faction and the Samurai have but the Samurai have no good strategies to counter the Vikings or the Knights? Suddenly the Samurai are the weak man out and people will flock to the other factions because it's easier to win matches as the Knights or Vikings than it is to bother with struggling to win as a Samurai.

What happens if it's just plain easier with a team of Lawbringer, Warlord, Orochi, Shugoki? Or Raider, Nobushi, Peacekeeper, Berserker? Or Conqueror, Valkyrie, Kensei, Warden?

Suddenly the other heroes aren't played except by people who mained them, and they're berated for having picked their favourite because it screws with the team comp.

Seth-Abercromby
08-24-2016, 11:56 AM
Suddenly the other heroes aren't played except by people who mained them, and they're berated for having picked their favourite because it screws with the team comp.

By that logic, we can just tell the devs to make only 4 characters and have all other factions get exact mirrors of those. That's more fun, right?

Meta will always be a thing, but locked factions will not solve that, they will only act to amplify it. Suddenly it's not that certain characters see more use in Comp than others, but you'll end up seeing people playing almost exclusively as one faction. Free character selection in a completely balanced game means that there will not be one specific meta combo that is just better for each faction, but one that excels at one particular strategy and a huge part of selecting your team would be based on anticipating the opponent's strategy and choosing one that can counter it. That way almost all characters become relevant for competitive, even when just situational.

Ymir.exe
08-24-2016, 12:12 PM
I've said this numerous times and I'll say it again; you can. Set up a fight club like you see in Dark Souls, a game that doesn't even have matchmaking of any kind period yet people still manage to play together and set up and abide by rules more limited than the game presents. No estus, no hexes, always bow, etc. You have the freedom to play however you want, you don't need a separate game mode to accomplish this. That being said, I would be fine with a game mode coming out in the future which locks the factions, but I'm very, very glad that is not the only game mode available.


Then YOU set up fight clubs for your mixed faction battles. I don't see why those of us who want faction vs faction should be the ones discriminated against in that respect.

Also, I've seen nothing so far that indicates that what you're suggesting is even possible. Show me where they've stated that you can set up custom passworded servers with your own rulesets.


By that logic, we can just tell the devs to make only 4 characters and have all other factions get exact mirrors of those. That's more fun, right?

Meta will always be a thing, but locked factions will not solve that, they will only act to amplify it. Suddenly it's not that certain characters see more use in Comp than others, but you'll end up seeing people playing almost exclusively as one faction. Free character selection in a completely balanced game means that there will not be one specific meta combo that is just better for each faction, but one that excels at one particular strategy and a huge part of selecting your team would be based on anticipating the opponent's strategy and choosing one that can counter it. That way almost all characters become relevant for competitive, even when just situational.

Meta is not a matter of locked or mixed factions. It's a balance issue. And only re-balancing the game can fix it. And balancing each faction against 2 other factions is easier than balancing each of the 12 classes against all of the others.
Because factional asymmetry =/= imbalance.

iHunny
08-24-2016, 01:34 PM
Then YOU set up fight clubs for your mixed faction battles. I don't see why those of us who want faction vs faction should be the ones discriminated against in that respect.

Also, I've seen nothing so far that indicates that what you're suggesting is even possible. Show me where they've stated that you can set up custom passworded servers with your own rulesets.



Meta is not a matter of locked or mixed factions. It's a balance issue. And only re-balancing the game can fix it. And balancing each faction against 2 other factions is easier than balancing each of the 12 classes against all of the others.
Because factional asymmetry =/= imbalance.

Cos its easier to balance each class if its mixed.

ZenBearV13
08-24-2016, 02:22 PM
snip

I've made my case and you've made yours. Clearly we are at an impasse, so once more we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Time will tell which of us is right. I meant no ill will in debating with you and hope you feel the same. See you on the battlefield!


Then YOU set up fight clubs for your mixed faction battles.

That wouldn't be possible if multiplayer had locked factions. If they had separate game modes for it then great, everyone gets what they want. They didn't decide to do that for any number of reasons, but that doesn't prevent you from having your Faction vs Faction battles if you so choose.


Also, I've seen nothing so far that indicates that what you're suggesting is even possible. Show me where they've stated that you can set up custom passworded servers with your own rulesets.

We also haven't seen or heard anything that indicates it won't be possible. It might not be, which would be a shame. Faction v Faction matches could still happen regardless, I've been in enough All Ana/Reaper/etc. games in Overwatch to know that's possible. I sincerely doubt they won't have private matches where you can invite friends into your group to play with and against. It would be a huge misstep for Ubi not to include such functionality.

Seth-Abercromby
08-24-2016, 02:34 PM
Meta is not a matter of locked or mixed factions. It's a balance issue. And only re-balancing the game can fix it. And balancing each faction against 2 other factions is easier than balancing each of the 12 classes against all of the others.
Because factional asymmetry =/= imbalance.

Restrictions are a huge element of Meta. The more loose they get, the more open it becomes.

Asymmetry is always an imbalance, that's the whole point of it, what is important is that the scale never tips too far into any direction. Factional balance is easier to an extend, but it also has a higher likelihood to create extremes that can create very lopsided results. It's also more difficult to get good reads on the individual classes when one faction is either getting curb-stomped by the other two or completely dominating the conflict.

With open matching, you can get a lot more consistent readings on which classes are under or over-performing and more precisely administer careful balance tweaks.

handheld brando
08-24-2016, 10:14 PM
This will happen anyway if a strategy calls for a Hybrid, Assassin, and two Vanguards, but a couple people main Assassins, so you have a team of Valkyrie, Orochi, and two Peacekeepers.




That is fine though because then at least there is a variety of different heroes from different factions to deal with. It will keep it far more fresh.





What happens if it's just plain easier with a team of Lawbringer, Warlord, Orochi, Shugoki? Or Raider, Nobushi, Peacekeeper, Berserker? Or Conqueror, Valkyrie, Kensei, Warden?

Suddenly the other heroes aren't played except by people who mained them, and they're berated for having picked their favourite because it screws with the team comp.


Look at what you said?
You named all the classes here and asked what if these 4 were easier to play than these 4 or these 4.

That is a good thing because it means the Devs will take a look at what makes these 4 so good and then they can bring up the other classes with buffs or nerf down the strong 4 to bring them in line with the others. If this was a faction locked then they would just end up nerfing one of the classes and then that faction would have a weaker Lawbringer for example and the overall faction takes a huge hit. If its open even if the Conqueror is nerfed too much then I can go with a Warlord instead or a Shugoki. With a faction lock if the Conqueror is nerfed then I have to switch factions and the knights lose out on some good conqueror players now or deal with my overnerfed class. I can't see any upside to having faction locks other than "Muh Immerzionz". Maybe in an separate mode but even then this game is probably not going to have a massive community so splintering it in too many ways between too many gamemodes will just hurt the game overall.

MisterWillow
08-25-2016, 09:20 AM
By that logic, we can just tell the devs to make only 4 characters and have all other factions get exact mirrors of those. That's more fun, right?

Where did you get that from?

No, I'm saying that locking the factions makes the entire experience more interesting because each faction plays differently, or at least benefits from being played differently.

Vikings benefit more from being played aggressively.
Knights benefit more from being played defensively.
Samurai benefit more from being played evasively.

Obviously, depending on who's playing what, you can find players who main Warden that are fairly aggressive, or players that main Raider and rely on evasion, or players that main Kensei that are very defensive---or any combination thereof---but because of the way the factions overall play, combined with the different classes therein---which adds another dimension to strategy, since Assassins are generally evasive, Heavies generally are defensive, Vanguards generally aggressive---means that you need to adjust your strategy based not only which faction you are, but also the faction you're fighting, as well as the team compositions of both.

As a hypothetical, the Viking Heavy is still inherently a defense-based character, but because they're a Viking, they could benefit more from from being used offensively, whereas the Conqueror could benefit more from being focused on pure defense (admittedly, from what little footage we've seen of the Shugoki, he might buck the trend in this case, since he doesn't seem very mobile).


Meta will always be a thing, but locked factions will not solve that, they will only act to amplify it. Suddenly it's not that certain characters see more use in Comp than others, but you'll end up seeing people playing almost exclusively as one faction.

Not true.

There is no inherent power imbalance between the factions because they are not asymmetrical in terms of inherent power, they are asymmetrical in terms of general playstyle.

Players who prefer to play defensively in other hack-n-slash games will feel right at home being a Knight, players who pull aggro in every game they play will gravitate toward the Vikings, and players who prefer dodging attacks and tend to go for speedy characters/builds in other games would find comfort in the Samurai; but again having the classes play different roles within the factions means that players who like hybrid playstyles---like using evasion defensively or like to take advantage of increased defense to plough through enemies---will find something that suits them.


Free character selection in a completely balanced game means that there will not be one specific meta combo that is just better for each faction, but one that excels at one particular strategy and a huge part of selecting your team would be based on anticipating the opponent's strategy and choosing one that can counter it. That way almost all characters become relevant for competitive, even when just situational.

This is exactly my point. Certain game modes will benefit from certain strategies, and if certain heroes can form a meta combo specifically designed for winning at Dominion more often than not, because that specific composition excels at keeping and holding points more than any other, then you will see that composition more and more and more depending on just how good it is, to the detriment of every other character. Even if the Dominion composition wouldn't benefit from being brought into Skirmish, you'd have another composition there that's simply better suited for killing people, so no matter the game mode, you'd encounter the same characters over and over, where you otherwise might encounter more characters match to match.


I meant no ill will in debating with you and hope you feel the same.

No ill will whatsoever. Just adamant. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be grateful.

I'll probably still upset the thematic elements were lost, though.


That is fine though because then at least there is a variety of different heroes from different factions to deal with. It will keep it far more fresh.

Unless every team you face is Valkyrie, Orochi, and two Peacekeepers.


Look at what you said?
You named all the classes here and asked what if these 4 were easier to play than these 4 or these 4.

No, I meant, what if any one of those individual hypothetical compositions are inherently better at winning in certain game modes than any other composition.

If Lawbringer, Warlord, Orochi, Shugoki is better at Dominion, that's all you'll ever see in Dominion.


That is a good thing because it means the Devs will take a look at what makes these 4 so good and then they can bring up the other classes with buffs or nerf down the strong 4 to bring them in line with the others. If this was a faction locked then they would just end up nerfing one of the classes and then that faction would have a weaker Lawbringer for example and the overall faction takes a huge hit. If its open even if the Conqueror is nerfed too much then I can go with a Warlord instead or a Shugoki. With a faction lock if the Conqueror is nerfed then I have to switch factions and the knights lose out on some good conqueror players now or deal with my overnerfed class.

Unless you aren't good with the Warlord or Shugoki, and you're still stuck.

I admit that balancing the individual heroes would probably be a more delicate balancing act, especially if one class in a faction gets nerfed into the ground, but again, it isn't about any faction or class being better than another, especially as it pertains to this discussion, it's about forming a composition that compliment one another in such a way that they have no weaknesses, and I feel like that is more likely if you can combine one heroes' faction strength with another's while using a third and fourth to offset their faction weaknesses.

On an individual basis, I feel like the devs should look more at Duels and how every hero stacks up against any other, so if there's one or two heroes that can simply crush everyone else in duels, it could indicate inherent character imbalance.

IGotNothing111
08-25-2016, 03:37 PM
I'm kinda happy it is like that, if you are going to have different classes and factions it would get tiring fighting the same people as the same faction

Honorhound01
08-27-2016, 05:53 PM
+1 for a faction versus faction mode.

Perhaps the ability to fight over territory, resources, etc.

Mr.Riot
08-27-2016, 10:54 PM
Lol don't understand why people want such restrictions. If you want to play as one faction go play with 3 other friends and tell em to choose the same factions. But let other people have the choice of choosing what they want. I guess its a bit more immersive when its faction vs faction but eh I rather not conflict with my friends when its time to choose my hero. If they had another game mode that is faction on faction then that would be cool and cater to everyone.

drysprocket
08-28-2016, 10:58 PM
I logged in here for the first time just say how disappointed I am in this mixed faction nonsense. If a faction vs faction mode isn't an option, I'm totally soured on this game and will pass on it. Yes, I can see some benefits of making it open and appealing to a more casual audience who may just want to pick one character and play, as well as other reasons pointed out.

But this is not how they hooked me with this game to start with. Having a hodgepodge of different factions on one team all playing together vs a different hodgepodge on another completely breaks the immersion of the game, as someone else pointed out. And it does make the whole point of having factions seem pointless, as has also been pointed out. This basically makes it a full Overwatch type roster, with some faction limitations....for reasons...

I just can't believe they would take such a great concept and pretty much throw it away. So sad.

iHunny
08-28-2016, 11:03 PM
I logged in here for the first time just say how disappointed I am in this mixed faction nonsense. If a faction vs faction mode isn't an option, I'm totally soured on this game and will pass on it. Yes, I can see some benefits of making it open and appealing to a more casual audience who may just want to pick one character and play, as well as other reasons pointed out.

But this is not how they hooked me with this game to start with. Having a hodgepodge of different factions on one team all playing together vs a different hodgepodge on another completely breaks the immersion of the game, as someone else pointed out. And it does make the whole point of having factions seem pointless, as has also been pointed out. This basically makes it a full Overwatch type roster, with some faction limitations....for reasons...

I just can't believe they would take such a great concept and pretty much throw it away. So sad.

As others have said, its possible to make private matches and do factions vs faction in those. Personaly I prefer the mixed so if I play with my firends I do not have to be in a specific faction, we might chose to, but we do not have to.

drysprocket
08-28-2016, 11:23 PM
As others have said, its possible to make private matches and do factions vs faction in those. Personaly I prefer the mixed so if I play with my firends I do not have to be in a specific faction, we might chose to, but we do not have to.

Yeah, but then it'll be an afterthought, and surely unbalanced. This game should be balanced for factions primarily, and then sure- a free mode where anyone can pick whatever character. And I hear you about playing with friends...but shouldn't the game nudge us just to play and learn more than one single character? So max, you'd have to be competent at 1 on each team.

It just feels really dumbed down to me. Ubisoft has blown it again.

Fatal-Feit
08-29-2016, 12:17 AM
Yeah, but then it'll be an afterthought, and surely unbalanced. This game should be balanced for factions primarily, and then sure- a free mode where anyone can pick whatever character.

If all the characters are properly balanced without faction restrictions, then there shouldn't be any balancing issues with locking your team faction either.

iHunny
08-29-2016, 12:41 AM
It just feels really dumbed down to me. Ubisoft has blown it again.

I disagree, and I think it will be easier for them to balance it if its "open". Will be easier to see what classes dominates rather then what faction. I think.

MisterWillow
08-29-2016, 01:10 AM
I disagree, and I think it will be easier for them to balance it if its "open". Will be easier to see what classes dominates rather then what faction. I think.

They could manage that via Duel mode if they paired every hero with each other and see in a 1v1 if any one character is glaringly better than the others. Group fights makes everything inherently imbalanced anyway.

I also question the design decision to give every faction one of each class (Heavy, Vanguard, Assassin, Hybrid) if they're just going to allow you to pick whoever you wanted. It would make a tad more sense if instead they'd tie class to faction a little bit more (i.e. Knights are tanks, Vikings are all-rounders, Samurai are assassins) and then work from there to make truly unique characters, rather than make ones that vaguely correspond to one another.

Things like this gives me the feeling they started out with the game being Faction v Faction and then changed it when people in the office found out they wouldn't be able to play together with one another, their friends, or family, or whomever, even though they could have just tied a faction choice to a save file and had people switch files depending on what they wanted to play or who they wanted to play with.

General_Valor
08-29-2016, 04:26 AM
Just because each hero has a Faction of the same class (Assassin, Vanguard, Tank, Hybird) does not mean that each member of said class operate the same. To have one faction be specialized damage dealers, tanks, or whatever would just be boring. Why bother having four heroes in a faction if they all do the same thing?

MisterWillow
08-29-2016, 05:42 AM
Just because each hero has a Faction of the same class (Assassin, Vanguard, Tank, Hybird) does not mean that each member of said class operate the same. To have one faction be specialized damage dealers, tanks, or whatever would just be boring. Why bother having four heroes in a faction if they all do the same thing?

Why bother having factions if you can use any hero you want and can mix-and-match designations at your leisure?

What difference does it make if every Viking is a bruiser with a slightly different skill-set if you've got a tanky Knight and rougish, agile Samurai on your team?

More to the point, why give each faction their own version of each class if they're going to be all jumbled together?

Honorhound01
08-29-2016, 10:32 AM
I don't think it's the end of the world but they'd be foolish to not make it possible to have Faction versus faction mode.

It's fine to not split up the people that want to play the character they want but not be separated, but what about those of us that'd like to have that faction versus faction aspect? These two things don't need to exclude each other.

How about a 4v4v4 battle like in the trailer where they fight over water?

handheld brando
08-29-2016, 12:24 PM
I don't think it's the end of the world but they'd be foolish to not make it possible to have Faction versus faction mode.

It's fine to not split up the people that want to play the character they want but not be separated, but what about those of us that'd like to have that faction versus faction aspect? These two things don't need to exclude each other.

How about a 4v4v4 battle like in the trailer where they fight over water?

Why splinter the player base even further?

We already know this game is not going to be for everyone. Faction vs Faction mode would be cool but at the same time a lot of the community is already going to be split over duels and dominion so I feel like splitting it even further with yet another game mode at such an early point would do more harm than good. That being said I do want to see it eventually.

Honorhound01
08-30-2016, 02:24 AM
Why splinter the player base even further?

We already know this game is not going to be for everyone. Faction vs Faction mode would be cool but at the same time a lot of the community is already going to be split over duels and dominion so I feel like splitting it even further with yet another game mode at such an early point would do more harm than good. That being said I do want to see it eventually.

Well perhaps not at launch but something like it should happen at some point. Some people think this is going to be super niche but I can see this game becoming a fairly well known title. Hopefully an influx of players as we get closer to release will allow for some sort of faction play, even if we're not fighting over a map/resources I only heard about this game last week for example..