PDA

View Full Version : Make For Honor 2 slower and more methodical.



Baggin_
07-10-2019, 11:28 PM
For Honor 1: Great in concept, poor in execution.

Why is For Honor just not that fun anymore? Well it's become way too arcadey, too fast paced with not a whole lot of thought involved when doing anything.

For Honor 2 should have much less health involved, like just a couple hits from a blade is enough to take down a warrior. When parrying, guard breaking or well anything, there should be no guaranteed attacks. If a warrior gets parried, they should be able to parry back.

Dodges now become slower and also make sense. No more fazing through weapons, dodging a blade.

Weapons are now breakable, block too many times and your weapon is going to break leaving you vulnerable.

Look to Bushido Blade for your inspiration on the next game, give us basically an updated version of that mixed with the base that you have.

Don't call it For Honor 2 either, as this will be a much better/different game. One that is not filled with spammy annoying attacks, one that feels fair because If I got hit, it's because I myself messed up. Not because my opponent has a good twitch reaction and gets guaranteed damage.

Take my advice and go make a game worthy of a big audience.

God speed Ubisoft.

Vakris_One
07-11-2019, 01:29 AM
"Slower and more methodical" are very nebulous terms. Without being more specific it sounds like you want everything to be 100% reactable, which as we've already seen simply does not make for a good fighting game.

You haven't mentioned some of the most fundamentally important aspects with a fighting game like For Honor.

1) How will attacking work? Parrying a parry into another parry into another parry endlessly sounds like terrible design that heavily favours defense. Do you also intend for every attack to be reactable?

2) How will blocking work? Will you lose stamina when blocking? Will there be chip damage? Will light attacks bounce off a block or will you be able to continue into your chains even when blocked?

3) How will feints work? Are they going to be like For Honor 1's hard feints that fool absolutely nobody? Or will they be more fluid and better able to play mind games with akin to Mordhau's feints for example, where you can transition one attack animation into another mid swing/mid thrust startup?

4) How will stamina work? Is it going to be like it is now with For Honor 1 where you initiate a single chain just to try and open up your opponent and over 60% of your stamina disappears?

https://www.battle-brothers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/need-more-input.jpg

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
07-11-2019, 07:24 AM
This game could be slowed down if you did the following.
1. Only an offense player can faint an attack. Meaning you can't cancel a parry attempt or option select.
2. Give all characters reflex guard.
3. Give each character a medium range attack that can't be blocked (or dodged) that does low damage. This knife throw type attack is used to force a turtle to attack or throw knives back. The throw would take a thousand ms to setup.
4. OOL tech does half damage or less

Goat_of_Vermund
07-11-2019, 08:04 AM
I think that the game would be far more interesting if everyone would have a kunai/crossbow with cooldown, which cooldown is lowered on every succesful melee attack.
And parrying should work like bp's bulwark: with a different button that leaves you vulnerable if you are baited (with a somewhat bigger reward).

Vakris_One
07-11-2019, 01:09 PM
So let me get this straight. You guys want a huge emphasis placed on ranged attacks ... in a melee combat game...

...

littlefluffyegg
07-11-2019, 03:17 PM
People want for honor 2 to be like the first ever cgi trailer that ended up looking like a weird mordhau third person game.

Baggin_
07-11-2019, 04:07 PM
"Slower and more methodical" are very nebulous terms. Without being more specific it sounds like you want everything to be 100% reactable, which as we've already seen simply does not make for a good fighting game.

You haven't mentioned some of the most fundamentally important aspects with a fighting game like For Honor.

1) How will attacking work? Parrying a parry into another parry into another parry endlessly sounds like terrible design that heavily favours defense. Do you also intend for every attack to be reactable?

2) How will blocking work? Will you lose stamina when blocking? Will there be chip damage? Will light attacks bounce off a block or will you be able to continue into your chains even when blocked?

3) How will feints work? Are they going to be like For Honor 1's hard feints that fool absolutely nobody? Or will they be more fluid and better able to play mind games with akin to Mordhau's feints for example, where you can transition one attack animation into another mid swing/mid thrust startup?

4) How will stamina work? Is it going to be like it is now with For Honor 1 where you initiate a single chain just to try and open up your opponent and over 60% of your stamina disappears?

https://www.battle-brothers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/need-more-input.jpg

I don't know, I'm not a game developer (if I was I would just make a similar game to this but better), all I know is that this game just isn't fun anymore.

A slower more strategic combat game would be a much better way to go about it.

The_B0G_
07-11-2019, 04:08 PM
That trailer did look sick though.

I'd personally like the game to be a bit slower on console, not sure how they would do it without bringing back the turtle meta though.

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
07-11-2019, 04:09 PM
So let me get this straight. You guys want a huge emphasis placed on ranged attacks ... in a melee combat game...

...
The attacker needs to be able to force the counter attacker turtle to attack. If you fight a good turtle who only punishes and never initiates an attack then you need SOMETHING to pressure him to change his tactic. So yes a medium range weapon that force an action is what I've come up with if a slow methodical fight is where a for honor 2 wants to go.
And no I don't want a huge emphasis which is why I said low damage. Probably less than a light attack imo as it would be guaranteed but slow to draw....between 1000 to 1600 ms is what I was thinking.

The_B0G_
07-11-2019, 04:21 PM
The attacker needs to be able to force the counter attacker turtle to attack. If you fight a good turtle who only punishes and never initiates an attack then you need SOMETHING to pressure him to change his tactic. So yes a medium range weapon that force an action is what I've come up with if a slow methodical fight is where a for honor 2 wants to go.

That's basically what fast light attacks are doing now though.

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
07-11-2019, 04:25 PM
That's basically what fast light attacks are doing now though.
I know. That's the point...to slow down the game and make the actual engagement slow and methodical by forcing turtles to attack via another means like a mid range weapon. Also I added to the post you read.

The_B0G_
07-11-2019, 04:47 PM
I know. That's the point...to slow down the game and make the actual engagement slow and methodical by forcing turtles to attack via another means like a mid range weapon. Also I added to the post you read.

My point is why change it to something that's already been solved though, making ranged attacks take the place of light attacks won't make people turtle less, what happens when you get 4 players surrounding you, pelting you with ranged attacks.

I'm totally against ranged attacks personally, the shinobi is bad enough, I can't imagine how annoying it would be if everyone had ranged attacks.

In my personal opinion, and this is putting it as nice as I can, this would be a terrible direction to take this game.

Vakris_One
07-11-2019, 04:55 PM
I don't know, I'm not a game developer (if I was I would just make a similar game to this but better), all I know is that this game just isn't fun anymore.

A slower more strategic combat game would be a much better way to go about it.
We already had a slower and more methodical game back in 2017 Seasons 1 and 2 and it didn't work. So far the most strategic melee combat game I've seen where defence isn't a problem issue is Mordhau.

You don't have to be a game developer to understand why For Honor's combat system has problems and what those problems are. You just need to have taken an interest in the game at the highest level and talked to the players who have the most high level experience and knowledge about this game.

Baggin_
07-11-2019, 05:46 PM
We already had a slower and more methodical game back in 2017 Seasons 1 and 2 and it didn't work. So far the most strategic melee combat game I've seen where defence isn't a problem issue is Mordhau.

You don't have to be a game developer to understand why For Honor's combat system has problems and what those problems are. You just need to have taken an interest in the game at the highest level and talked to the players who have the most high level experience and knowledge about this game.

It's because Mordhau doesn't give you free hits, if you get hit it's because you messed up. Not because someone got a lucky parry. I really do think the key to this game is not giving people free attacks.

Knight_Raime
07-11-2019, 05:53 PM
It's because Mordhau doesn't give you free hits, if you get hit it's because you messed up. Not because someone got a lucky parry. I really do think the key to this game is not giving people free attacks.

No, you're existing in a tier of gameplay where attacks land often. "free damage" is really the only way for people to do damage in the highest tiers of play. You don't get rid of that to solve the problem. You figure out why people need that in the first place. Which is several things. For honor doesn't encourage offense and overly rewards defense.

Mordhau has a much more complex approach to combat. An easy example is there are a handful of more angles you can attack from. Another easy example is there are a few different ways you can turn a single move into a different move.

The_B0G_
07-11-2019, 06:44 PM
It's because Mordhau doesn't give you free hits, if you get hit it's because you messed up. Not because someone got a lucky parry. I really do think the key to this game is not giving people free attacks.

For Honor feels very scripted compared to Mordhau though, Mordhau feels like a more organic fighter, it's based on physics, FH is not. In Mordhau you can't dodge through attacks or use any kind of hidden stance to avoid being hit, you can even get hit while blocking or parrying at the proper time if you don't actually move your cursor toward the area the attack is coming in from, I can't tell you how many legs I cut off in that game from ducking and lowering my aim at the last second of an attack.

With FH defense is too easy with slow attacks, an attack thrown on the right, will hit the right side, there's no morphing or moving to target a different body part mid swing.

FH is almost mathematical in nature, certain attacks can only safely be used at certain times, during certain characters moves, and while Mordhau balances the game as a whole, weapon by weapon and by armor values, FH has to balance character by character. Every attack has a proper counter attack or "punish".

I think one thing FH could take from Mordhau is the attack "morphing" which is pretty much soft feints on regular attacks, kind of like Kensei has with his heavy attacks being feinted into light attacks. Light attacks soft feinted into heavys and vice versa. They could maybe slow down attacks if they added that ability along with reflex guard for all characters except maybe shield users.

Mordhau has it's own issues, the fighting in Mordhau once you start fighting the veterans looks absolutely ridiculous, the constant spinning and jumping... lauching attacks and dragging them back so they come out really slow but still hit just as hard, not my cup of tea, it was fun for a while though.

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
07-11-2019, 07:28 PM
My point is why change it to something that's already been solved though, making ranged attacks take the place of light attacks won't make people turtle less, what happens when you get 4 players surrounding you, pelting you with ranged attacks.

I'm totally against ranged attacks personally, the shinobi is bad enough, I can't imagine how annoying it would be if everyone had ranged attacks.

In my personal opinion, and this is putting it as nice as I can, this would be a terrible direction to take this game.

1. It's the point of the topic to discuss how to resolve what has already been solved as OP and others are not content with the solution.
2. Shinobis range attack is not much like what I'm describing.
3. 4 people would be better off engaging you. And if there is a problem with three of them (because you hold easily catch one of them) ubi could always increase the revenge of ranged weapons or a cooldown. The delay of the draw is meant to to give the Tutle the chance to attack before the next draw.
5. Maybe it is a bad idea. This topic was made based on malcontent for the current state of the game. It's just an idea I had how to solve the speed issue without increasing the turtle meta. The mechanic might do the job. IDK. It's best idea I got. Chip damage as an option isn't really a viable option.
6. I think the game "felt" better in earlier times but then again I was always good at turtling. It's fine now but I see the OPs point. Having a slow methodical fight is more enjoyable at least to me. If I can be punished for turtling too much I think that is great as it is a natural habitat. I would prefer a ranged attack as I described rather than all this other nonsense that is being added to the game just to solve the problem of the turtle meta.

The_B0G_
07-11-2019, 07:38 PM
1. It's the point of the topic to discuss how to resolve what has already been solved as OP and others are not content with the solution.
2. Shinobis range attack is not much like what I'm describing.
3. 4 people would be better off engaging you. And if there is a problem with three of them (because you hold easily catch one of them) ubi could always increase the revenge of ranged weapons or a cooldown. The delay of the draw is meant to to give the Tutle the chance to attack before the next draw.
5. Maybe it is a bad idea. This topic was made based on malcontent for the current state of the game. It's just an idea I had how to solve the speed issue without increasing the turtle meta. The mechanic might do the job. IDK. It's best idea I got. Chip damage as an option isn't really a viable option.
6. I think the game "felt" better in earlier times but then again I was always good at turtling. It's fine now but I see the OPs point. Having a slow methodical fight is more enjoyable at least to me. If I can be punished for turtling too much I think that is great as it is a natural habitat. I would prefer a ranged attack as I described rather than all this other nonsense that is being added to the game just to solve the problem of the turtle meta.

I agree with you on everything, just not the ranged attack option. I can barely defend against 500 ms lights on ps4, I might block 50% of them, I usually just HA through it if I have the ability with the character I'm playing.

I just personally don't think the ranged attacks is a good idea, I don't have any better idea's to fix the turtle meta beside what the devs have done though. Separate balancing for consoles would help, besides that I'm not sure what they can do.

Baggin_
07-11-2019, 08:22 PM
Ubi is pulling support for this game. So any talk about this version of For Honor is pointless, I'm strictly talking about a sequel or successor. I do not want to see a sequel to this game, but rather a branch off of some of the ground work they have laid.

The next game should very much be slower, thought inducing and not filled with mechanics that don't make any sense.

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
07-11-2019, 08:52 PM
Ubi is pulling support for this game. So any talk about this version of For Honor is pointless, I'm strictly talking about a sequel or successor. I do not want to see a sequel to this game, but rather a branch off of some of the ground work they have laid.

The next game should very much be slower, thought inducing and not filled with mechanics that don't make any sense.
I misspoke. I know it would be utterly futile to make the kinds of changes we've been discussing. I hope they make a similar game to for honor or a sequal though I think they should name it differently to avoid the confusion of before.

The_B0G_
07-11-2019, 10:08 PM
Lets just hope their next game is an open world PvE game, set up like Ghost Recon Wildlands. Have a multiplayer too but focus on PvE.

That way you could have very competitive PvP without having the more casual side of the playerbase influencing balances that make top tier PvP worse.

Vakris_One
07-12-2019, 12:04 AM
Lets just hope their next game is an open world PvE game, set up like Ghost Recon Wildlands. Have a multiplayer too but focus on PvE.

That way you could have very competitive PvP without having the more casual side of the playerbase influencing balances that make top tier PvP worse.
I have no interest in For Honor as an open world PvE game. They already have Watchdogs 3 and Skull and Bones coming up to fill that category. As well as GR: Breakpoint. For Honor as a PvE game has no legs to stand on. Just look at Arcade and what a poor experience fighting against bots is. Would you really buy an open world Arcade mode from this dev team?

They would have to completely scrap the Art of Battle system and go for something squarely aimed at giving the player a power trip as they hack away at bots. At which point literally every PvE game in Ubisoft's roster will have done this aspect but to a better standard.

PvE and PvP don't mix. Games that try to build a system that caters to both usually end up failing miserably at one or doing both really badly. Only shooters can somewhat get away with it. For Honor's niche is in PvP and they would be quite foolish to squander away their current monopoly on the market that For Honor tapped into.

ballon009
07-12-2019, 03:44 AM
With regard to making for honour an MMO with the same combat system would be NEXT GEN. But make it as an separate IP. If anything I could consider for honour as a test realm to maybe grander designs. As many moves from for honour are actual in AC OD.

Phalynnx- are just reskins of centorian
Spearman- are a mix of Valkyrie and Nabushi
Swordman- play a lot like warden
Shield barriers- are literally warlord copies lmao


Etc etc. So it’s not like for honour is absent from the new games. But it’s just not really fully in. Same as if you look to Arkham city you can see the nemesis system , just not fully fledged. But it’s fully integrated in Shadow of War.

So it is highly possible and even to say it is very probable that a for honour combat styled mmo is ALREADY being worked on. And my guess would be would release sometime 2038.




Now in regard to for HONOUR 2. I do agree that combat should be slower. And here is how to do it in a way that makes sense.


ARMOUR

Armour must be punishing and rewarding. If a hero uses heavy armour they should be SLLLOOOOOOOWWW. So slow that they should barely be able to run in armour. And be unable to fient attacks or use light attacks at all. Heavy armour has to use slow +unblockable attacks that can kill an enemy in 1-2 shots. Their attacks should be at min 900ms for heavies and zones of 1300ms.

On the opposite light armour should be all about feinting, mobility and rapid mobility. They should have attacks around same speed as they are in for honour right now.

Medium armour would be somewhere in the middle, they would allow with some combos of weapon to have slow light attacks, or something on that lines.



Weapons

Likewise weapons should be realistic, rather then deal damage- they should add Blunt, slash, and impale damage. Impail works best against medium armour . Slash would work best against light armour . And blunt would do a lot against heavy ?


Likewise weapons would have a stagger. If you hit a weapon depending on its weight you should be thrown, pushed back, or nothing (block and riposte). This would force ppl to stop turting. Since if they tried to just guard they would be staggered by weapons and this would open them up and potential kill them.

... aka turtling will die out the game simply due to forcing enemies physically.



[U]Fients / GBs


The weapon class as well as armour will dictate how long the stated action will take.

Ha + Hw= 1.4s to gb, fient is impossible, Attack speed is 700ms (light), 1500 (heavies + zones). Attacks knock enemies block (only parriable). Movespeed -150%
Ha + Mw= 1.2 to gb, fient takes X4 animation time, 650 (light), 1000 (heavies + zone). Attacks stagger (only parryable). Movespeed -100%
HA+ Lw= 0.9ms to gb, fient is 1.5 slower . 550ms (light), 700 ms (heavies + zone). Attacks don’t do anything. Movespeed -75%

Ma+ Hw= 1.2s to Gb, fient is X6 slower. Attack speed 900ms (lights, 1300ms heavies+ zones). Attacks knock enemies back (only parriable). Movepseed -100%
Ma +Mw= 1.0s to Gb, fient is 1.5 slower. Attack speed is 500ms (lights, 700ms heavies + zones). Attacks knock back (blockable). Movespeed -30%
Ma + La= 800ms to Gb, fient is normal, attack is 450 (light, 600ms heavies + zones). Attacks do nothing

La+ Hw= 1.0s fo gb, fient is normal. Attack speed normal, movement speed is normal
La+ Ma= 600ms GB, fient is 1.5x faster, attacks cause bleed, movement speed + 30%
La + La= 200 ms Gb, fient is x6 faster. Attacks cause major bleed. Movement speed + 150%.


Damage multiplayer

Ha= 0% against Hw, -50% dmg taken against Mw, -100% dmg against Lw (unless enemy GB, stunned, knocked down, or bleeding)
Ma= 0% against Mw, -50% dmg taken against Lw
La= 0% against Lw

Aka in other words... Lw will never hurt a heavy armorer unless stunned or broken. Medium does reduced dmg. And heavy does normal.

....Now these percentages work in reverse as well. So a Hw against La will do a bonus 100% dmg as armour is pierced.


Dmg types

Bleed- only applies by Lw (remove bonus of Ha), major bleed X2 damage (on GB, stun etc hit with bleeding attack).- all bleeds are slashing damage
Stun- only applied by Hw, and negated by Ha, Ma reduces stun duration by 0.5. LA does nothing- all stun is piercing
Knock down- applied by Mw + Ma- all knock down is piercing damage
Blind= only applied by Ma + Lw- all blind is blunt damage


[B][U]Revenge

La or La +500% duration to revenge but takes an additional 65% to trigger
Ma or Mw, +350% duration but takes an additional 20% to trigger
Ha or Hw- as now in game


I gonna allow you guys to balance how the combos of Armor and weapons would work.




Feats and powers

Depending on your armour + weapon selection you are limited to choices. You would drag an drop a ability into 4 slots. Up to balancing limitations.



Combos

Depending I the above your combos will be fast deadly and full of mix ups. Or you will have to be the jump in wolf. Where you charge a killing heavy swing once and become fully open.








But that’s my way for Ubisoft to balance for honour 2. But plz comment down below on how to add or fix it. I spent a out of time typing this up, thanks

ballon009
07-12-2019, 04:01 AM
Part 2 of post I forgot to mention in part A. What weapons are considered What?


Hw= Spear, Halbeard Warpike, Spear- guantlet, Mace, anything with a shield, Staff.
Mw= Longsword, septor, bludgeon, Flail, Quatter staff, anything with a bucker
La= Duel blades, syckle, short sword, trident, Glaieve, nodachi

Ha= tempered armour, Chain mail, Gambeson or Tempered steel
Ma= plate armour, and mixed weave, or steel
La= cloth, leather, or wood

The_B0G_
07-12-2019, 12:41 PM
I have no interest in For Honor as an open world PvE game. They already have Watchdogs 3 and Skull and Bones coming up to fill that category. As well as GR: Breakpoint. For Honor as a PvE game has no legs to stand on. Just look at Arcade and what a poor experience fighting against bots is. Would you really buy an open world Arcade mode from this dev team?

They would have to completely scrap the Art of Battle system and go for something squarely aimed at giving the player a power trip as they hack away at bots. At which point literally every PvE game in Ubisoft's roster will have done this aspect but to a better standard.

PvE and PvP don't mix. Games that try to build a system that caters to both usually end up failing miserably at one or doing both really badly. Only shooters can somewhat get away with it. For Honor's niche is in PvP and they would be quite foolish to squander away their current monopoly on the market that For Honor tapped into.

Well, if you had no interest in the PvE, you could just play the PvP portion... that's the point I just made in my previous post. Watchdogs and Bones have nothing in common with this game, I'm talking about a medieval open world fighter, theres plenty of open world shooters out already.

Arcade was poorly done, it failed because of the artificial difficulty the random modifiers gave to the AI. They also made level 3 bots perfect on defense, which also ruined it.

Add a story questline and some side missions, lots of enemies but the skill level of only level 2 for most bots, make missions harder by adding more enemies, not ones with perfect reflexes. The odd boss bot level 3 though. You could add a ton of stuff for PvE, if you think all they can do is something like arcade, then you don't have a very good imagination.

An open world PvE game with a competitive PvP side would draw in way more players than a purely PvP game.

I'm not sure why you think they would have to scrap the art of battle system, that's the only thing that makes For Honor, For Honor, that doesn't make sense. Not sure why you think that would need to be scrapped.

PvE and PvP don't mix? Tell that to Wildlands, Ark, COD even has Zombie mode and every MMO on the market also has PvP and PvE, saying they don't mix just wrong. We're talking about to separate modes, not a hybrid of PvE and PvP (like For Honor already is)

Vakris_One
07-12-2019, 02:17 PM
Well, if you had no interest in the PvE, you could just play the PvP portion... that's the point I just made in my previous post. Watchdogs and Bones have nothing in common with this game, I'm talking about a medieval open world fighter, theres plenty of open world shooters out already.

Arcade was poorly done, it failed because of the artificial difficulty the random modifiers gave to the AI. They also made level 3 bots perfect on defense, which also ruined it.

Add a story questline and some side missions, lots of enemies but the skill level of only level 2 for most bots, make missions harder by adding more enemies, not ones with perfect reflexes. The odd boss bot level 3 though. You could add a ton of stuff for PvE, if you think all they can do is something like arcade, then you don't have a very good imagination.
It's got nothing to do with imagination. It's about being realistic rather than living in a dream world where all hopes and wishes come true. I can imagine a bunch of stuff, for sure, but can this dev team actually do it while still providing a PvP experience that is better than or equal to what we have now? That's where my doubts lie from a purely practical standpoint.

And this isn't a dig at the FH devs. They've supported the PvP aspects of For Honor with a lot of dedication. But there are far more experienced and bigger teams out there that have been incapable of doing justice to a 3rd person PvE MMO with a competitive PvP aspect. All of the examples that come to mind are shooters.

If you believe they can pull off a superb 3rd person PvE MMO open world fighting game while also pulling off a fun and competitive PvP fighter/Moba hybrid I admire your optimism but not your sense of practicality. Absolver is a good example of how this was attempted and failed.



An open world PvE game with a competitive PvP side would draw in way more players than a purely PvP game.
Depends on if it's done well or not. If either part is a mediocre or garbage experience then nobody will play it and you'll be left with a piece of dead weight that pulled in time, resources and money away from other areas of the project. Just look at Warframe's attempt at a PvP scene if you want an example of how hard it is to convince your core playerbase to embrace an opposing gameplay mode.



I'm not sure why you think they would have to scrap the art of battle system, that's the only thing that makes For Honor, For Honor, that doesn't make sense. Not sure why you think that would need to be scrapped.
Because it's incredibly obvious the system was made purely for Player vs Player and was never intended to be optimal for fighting against AI. It is a heavily reaction and read based system, which can only be fun when facing another human being because we aren't machines. AI has to be programmed to actually make human-like mistakes on purpose. Without making a huge leap in artificial intelligence to make it "more human" the level 2 and 3 bots are about as good as it gets for fighting against AI with the reaction/read based mechanics of this combat system.



PvE and PvP don't mix? Tell that to Wildlands, Ark, COD even has Zombie mode and every MMO on the market also has PvP and PvE, saying they don't mix just wrong. We're talking about to separate modes, not a hybrid of PvE and PvP (like For Honor already is)
PvE and PvP have two completely opposing mind sets. Not sure why it's a surprise revelation that the two different types of players don't mix. I mean even in the games you mentioned that seperate PvE and PvP into two different modes you'll find that they never have a competitive PvP aspect. The PvP aspect is mostly a sideshow with PvE being the main focus of the game.

You actually never mentioned you're talking about seperate modes until now by the way. The way you were describing it made it sound like you wanted something like Elite Dangerous where it's primaily a PvE game but you can also opt into PvP while still inhabiting the same open world.

Two seperate modes in the same game always means one mode is going to be more dominant than the other because they need to be able to rely on a core playerbase in order to make enough sales. A For Honor that's focused primarily on PvE with PvP being some novelty sideshow pushed off to the curb just isn't appealing to me. Sign me up for a hard pass on that.

The_B0G_
07-12-2019, 03:09 PM
It's got nothing to do with imagination. It's about being realistic rather than living in a dream world where all hopes and wishes come true. I can imagine a bunch of stuff, for sure, but can this dev team actually do it while still providing a PvP experience that is better than or equal to what we have now? That's where my doubts lie from a purely practical standpoint.

And this isn't a dig at the FH devs. They've supported the PvP aspects of For Honor with a lot of dedication. But there are far more experienced and bigger teams out there that have been incapable of doing justice to a 3rd person PvE MMO with a competitive PvP aspect. All of the examples that come to mind are shooters.

If you believe they can pull off a superb 3rd person PvE MMO open world fighting game while also pulling off a fun and competitive PvP fighter/Moba hybrid I admire your optimism but not your sense of practicality. Absolver is a good example of how this was attempted and failed.


Depends on if it's done well or not. If either part is a mediocre or garbage experience then nobody will play it and you'll be left with a piece of dead weight that pulled in time, resources and money away from other areas of the project. Just look at Warframe's attempt at a PvP scene if you want an example of how hard it is to convince your core playerbase to embrace an opposing gameplay mode.


Because it's incredibly obvious the system was made purely for Player vs Player and was never intended to be optimal for fighting against AI. It is a heavily reaction and read based system, which can only be fun when facing another human being because we aren't machines. AI has to be programmed to actually make human-like mistakes on purpose. Without making a huge leap in artificial intelligence to make it "more human" the level 2 and 3 bots are about as good as it gets for fighting against AI with the reaction/read based mechanics of this combat system.


PvE and PvP have two completely opposing mind sets. Not sure why it's a surprise revelation that the two different types of players don't mix. I mean even in the games you mentioned that seperate PvE and PvP into two different modes you'll find that they never have a competitive PvP aspect. The PvP aspect is mostly a sideshow with PvE being the main focus of the game.

You actually never mentioned you're talking about seperate modes until now by the way. The way you were describing it made it sound like you wanted something like Elite Dangerous where it's primaily a PvE game but you can also opt into PvP while still inhabiting the same open world.

Two seperate modes in the same game always means one mode is going to be more dominant than the other because they need to be able to rely on a core playerbase in order to make enough sales. A For Honor that's focused primarily on PvE with PvP being some novelty sideshow pushed off to the curb just isn't appealing to me. Sign me up for a hard pass on that.

First off, the next For Honor wouldn't be the same dev team, as many of the devs are already on to other games, also it's a video game, anything is possible if you can imagine it, that's the beauty of video games.

As for making a good PvP while having focus on PvE, I don't see that as an issue, you would need a bigger dev team obviously but Ubisoft is a pretty huge company, I think they could handle it. A ton of the work is already done with the current FH, how many maps are there after 2+ years? 10 maps? Do you think 10 maps is all that much work to make for PvP along side the work they would do for PvE, most devs use portions of maps from the open world for PvP, so they're already made, they would just need to be optimized for PvP.

I did mention them being two separate modes, I said have it set up like Ghost Recon Wildlands, which is two different modes.

As far as Absolver goes, I think that failed because it was too complicated and the controls were too clunky, I didn't find the fighting fun at all, also the graphics style wasn't for me either, the whole thing with everyone wearing the same mask was pretty boring when it comes to character customization.

With a bigger dev team, which they would probably get seeing how For Honor sold pretty well and is still being played over two years later, I don't think it's impossible at all for both PvE and PvP to be good modes. Ubisoft has the resources.

Basically your only issue with this idea is you don't have confidence that Ubisoft could do it justice, not the idea of an open world pve fighter in general.

ballon009
07-12-2019, 03:49 PM
Guys you have basically ignored my suggestion. Do you guys agree with how I balance the game around heavy vs light gear and weapons?

Vakris_One
07-12-2019, 05:12 PM
First off, the next For Honor wouldn't be the same dev team, as many of the devs are already on to other games, also it's a video game, anything is possible if you can imagine it, that's the beauty of video games.

As for making a good PvP while having focus on PvE, I don't see that as an issue, you would need a bigger dev team obviously but Ubisoft is a pretty huge company, I think they could handle it. A ton of the work is already done with the current FH, how many maps are there after 2+ years? 10 maps? Do you think 10 maps is all that much work to make for PvP along side the work they would do for PvE, most devs use portions of maps from the open world for PvP, so they're already made, they would just need to be optimized for PvP.

I did mention them being two separate modes, I said have it set up like Ghost Recon Wildlands, which is two different modes.

As far as Absolver goes, I think that failed because it was too complicated and the controls were too clunky, I didn't find the fighting fun at all, also the graphics style wasn't for me either, the whole thing with everyone wearing the same mask was pretty boring when it comes to character customization.

With a bigger dev team, which they would probably get seeing how For Honor sold pretty well and is still being played over two years later, I don't think it's impossible at all for both PvE and PvP to be good modes. Ubisoft has the resources.

Basically your only issue with this idea is you don't have confidence that Ubisoft could do it justice, not the idea of an open world pve fighter in general.
Not really. My main issue is that everybody that suggests a PvE For Honor is woefully unaware of how little sense that makes based on the fundamental mechanics of For Honor. It's all wrapped up in wishful thinking and writing out personal fantasies for the "ideal game" with little to no thought put into the facts and logic of it.

I mean it was right there when you were surprised that the Art of Battle fight system wouldn't work for PvE while correctly acknowledging that the fight system is indeed what makes For Honor, For Honor. The conclusion to that realisation is what is lacking. What makes For Honor, For Honor IS the Art of Battle fight system. And what makes the Art of Battle fight system IS PvP.

It is not suited for PvE ergo it does not provide a worthwhile experience for PvE. And this is really what makes me shake my head when reading theories about a PvE For Honor. These theories seem to live in a dream land that is seperated from reality. A land where a heavily reaction and read based combat system will somehow magically work in an environment where you are playing against a computer with 0.01 milisecond reaction times. I find it equal parts bizarre and funny that people think this will be a great gameplay experience.

What makes For Honor feel like For Honor is the combat system. The combat system is designed specifically for PvP. It doesn't work against AI. These are simple truths. You take the PvP out of For Honor and you take the game's core identity with it. Now at that point you might as well call it a brand new IP because that's exactly what it will be. It will not be For Honor anymore. It will be a game loosely based on For Honor's very thin lore.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with people having opinions and ideas. I just wish people would be more concious of their methodology when coming up with their opinions and their conceptual ideas and theories. I find this helps greatly in seperating facts from fiction and not getting the two confused.

The_B0G_
07-12-2019, 05:40 PM
Not really. My main issue is that everybody that suggests a PvE For Honor is woefully unaware of how little sense that makes based on the fundamental mechanics of For Honor. It's all wrapped up in wishful thinking and writing out personal fantasies for the "ideal game" with little to no thought put into the facts and logic of it.

I mean it was right there when you were surprised that the Art of Battle fight system wouldn't work for PvE while correctly acknowledging that the fight system is indeed what makes For Honor, For Honor. The conclusion to that realisation is what is lacking. What makes For Honor, For Honor IS the Art of Battle fight system. And what makes the Art of Battle fight system IS PvP.

It is not suited for PvE ergo it does not provide a worthwhile experience for PvE. And this is really what makes me shake my head when reading theories about a PvE For Honor. These theories seem to live in a dream land that is seperated from reality. A land where a heavily reaction and read based combat system will somehow magically work in an environment where you are playing against a computer with 0.01 milisecond reaction times. I find it equal parts bizarre and funny that people think this will be a great gameplay experience.

What makes For Honor feel like For Honor is the combat system. The combat system is designed specifically for PvP. It doesn't work against AI. These are simple truths. You take the PvP out of For Honor and you take the game's core identity with it. Now at that point you might as well call it a brand new IP because that's exactly what it will be. It will not be For Honor anymore. It will be a game loosely based on For Honor's very thin lore.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with people having opinions and ideas. I just wish people would be more concious of their methodology when coming up with their opinions and their conceptual ideas and theories. I find this helps greatly in seperating facts from fiction and not getting the two confused.

Well, thats your opinion, and thats just it, an opinion, like mine, why do you feel you know better than any one else on these forums? I never said I was "surprised" I see absolutely no reason why the art of battle can't be used for PvE, and you haven't really given any real reason why besides "its meant for PvP". AI reaction times are instant no matter which game you play, I don't see that as an issue that cannot be solved, thats what difficulty levels are for.

You can play the current For Honor vs AI, so that whole theory is just dumb. The only reason people don't is because fighting 1v1 against AI is boring and you make less xp and steel, fighting multiple AI is still fun and can be challenging, if they expanded onto the PvE portion they could keep the same system and make it more exciting by fighting multiple enemies at once in large co op battles.


Where did I say take PvP out of For Honor? I believe I said make two separate modes. I basically want to add on to what For Honor did, but with an open world campaign instead of what we have now, something more challenging that they keep adding on to as the game continues to be developed after release.

These ideas aren't fantasy just because you don't like them, games evolve every year, if you think this is impossible, then you really do lack imagination.

Okita_Soji..
07-12-2019, 05:44 PM
I really hope for a mix of For Honor with Conan Exiles. Open world, build castles, recruit minions, raid other castles, etc. But fighting similar to For Honor, not the button mashing and running around like in Conan, or Shadow of war. In Conan there are separate pvp and 2 pve modes. The maps in many games are so huge and can be filled with so many things. There could be regions for each faction like on our map. Maybe with a seperate area for dueling if you find someone out and about and challenge them to a duel, like how racing games have the flash your lights to race. Fighting should be more weapon based like balloon009 described, not hero driven. More like that original trailer would great. This was a good game for awhile but it has become too flashy and arcadey now.

Vakris_One
07-12-2019, 09:43 PM
Well, thats your opinion, and thats just it, an opinion, like mine, why do you feel you know better than any one else on these forums?
I don't and never said I did. I simply understand the mechanics and the highest level PvP aspects of this game at a much deeper level than the majority of people on this forum, including you. Does that mean I can't be wrong? No, of course not. Does that mean my opinions are somehow always superior? Absolutely not. One thing it does mean however, is that my opinions involve critical thinking born of a dedicated knowledge about this game and are generally more well researched and more logic based than the majority of other people's on here.

As I wrote before, I don't have a problem with opinions. What I do have a problem with - and this isn't aimed at you directly - are people who don't do the diligent work of examining their own methodology before coming to their conclusions and then being arrogant enough to believe that their opinion cannot be wrong. Especially when in the face of people who have made the effort and dedication to be as knowledgeable about the subject as they possibly can. It's a laziness, and downright lack of critical thinking that I see way too often on here and on Reddit.



I never said I was "surprised" I see absolutely no reason why the art of battle can't be used for PvE, and you haven't really given any real reason why besides "its meant for PvP". AI reaction times are instant no matter which game you play, I don't see that as an issue that cannot be solved, thats what difficulty levels are for.
I did give you the exact reason but you haven't bothered to comprehend it. If you honestly can't understand the fundamental reason why a computer will beat a human at reaction based tasks then I can't help you. The short answer is: to make it work they will need to dumb the AI down to the point where it's simply boring to fight them after you learn every inch of their patterns. When instead you could be fighting a human player with a nigh inexhaustible amount of different patterns and outcomes.



You can play the current For Honor vs AI, so that whole theory is just dumb. The only reason people don't is because fighting 1v1 against AI is boring and you make less xp and steel, fighting multiple AI is still fun and can be challenging, if they expanded onto the PvE portion they could keep the same system and make it more exciting by fighting multiple enemies at once in large co op battles.
You realise you basically just described Arcade, right? That really great fun mode that everybody loves and would totally spend 60 dollars for a few bigger maps and a couple more bots in a fight. I guess we just inhabit two different living spaces in this game to agree on this. You find fighting multiple AI challenging, I don't. We can agree that it can be fun, especially with friends. But then again, any game is more fun with friends. I doubt however that fun vs AI without an aspect of ever expanding challenge (like that of fighting against human players) will have more longevity than For Honor has had and continues to have.

"That's what the PvP portion will be there for" you could argue. The question is, are Ubisoft going to want to go to all that effort when they could achieve a lot of that same longevity by simply working on improving the quality of the PvP with none of the additional PvE workload? Keeping in mind their track record is one of following the path of least resistance.



Where did I say take PvP out of For Honor? I believe I said make two separate modes. I basically want to add on to what For Honor did, but with an open world campaign instead of what we have now, something more challenging that they keep adding on to as the game continues to be developed after release.

These ideas aren't fantasy just because you don't like them, games evolve every year, if you think this is impossible, then you really do lack imagination.
Well you're confusing blissful ignorance with imagination here. Being naive about the mechanics of the Art of Battle does not mean you have more imagination than me. It simply means you are unaware of certain things outside of your current level of knowledge.

Furthermore, you changed the proposal for your idea. I mean you started off with:


Lets just hope their next game is an open world PvE game, set up like Ghost Recon Wildlands. Have a multiplayer too but focus on PvE.

That way you could have very competitive PvP without having the more casual side of the playerbase influencing balances that make top tier PvP worse..

That does not sound like you basically just wanted to add on to For Honor's campaign with an open world. That straight up read like you wanted to relegate the PvP portion to a closed off mode and focus the game primarily as a PvE MMO with PvP as a sideshow. Bog, look how much trouble it is to balance For Honor when PvP is the primary focus of the game. How much longer do you think it will take between PvP focused patches if they also have to worry about the quality of what should be Triple A PvE content and separate PvE balancing?

In my opinion you 'd be better off asking Ubisoft to make a completely new IP rather than trying to shoehorn For Honor awkwardly into an MMO dress. I mean sure, anything's possible. They grabbed the sailing mechanics from AC: Black Flag and are attempting to make a whole game out of it so who knows. But as I said before, with For Honor's combat mechanics as we know them; I personally would not be enthusiastic for a full priced game that offers the pleasure of a For Honor vs Bots Mode: The MMO.

Baggin_
07-12-2019, 10:19 PM
The art of battle is an extremely flawed system and needs overhauled in such a way that only a sequel or successor can fix it. You can tell this from the highest level play when everybody just plays "optimally" and uses as many exploits within the system as they can.

Like I've said before, making the game slower, heavier hitting (like one heavy is enough to kill) and giving nothing for free is the key to profecting this system. You said on the first page "it's as if I want everything to be reachable".
The answer to that is actually yes I do. It literally should be a game about making a mistakes such as poor timing and stamina management, not spamming all the unreactable attacks you can or turtling up hoping to get that parry or gb for guaranteed damage. That is no fun for anybody.

The thing this game is missing that happens in real weapon combat is the back and forth combat when it comes to parrying.
There would be no turtling if you got nothing guaranteed for doing so. People would not be afraid to throw out attacks.

I do not have all the answers, but they've taken this game in the opposite direction it should go. I'm fairly confident that most people who have ever played this game can agree with me. You can tell this from the continually dwindling player base. Most of the people I used to play with all the time rarely ever play anymore including myself.

UbiInsulin
07-12-2019, 10:34 PM
Appreciate the thought you put into your post! Ultimately, we're still focusing on making offense more viable in FH for all the reasons that we've talked about over the years. There was a time when this forum/Reddit were full of posts about the defensive nature of the game, after all.


Ubi is pulling support for this game.

No, this is definitely not the case.

Also, as a general note: call-out posts of other users can be considered trolling. There's no reason for the thread to go in that direction.

Baggin_
07-12-2019, 10:47 PM
Appreciate the thought you put into your post! Ultimately, we're still focusing on making offense more viable in FH for all the reasons that we've talked about over the years. There was a time when this forum/Reddit were full of posts about the defensive nature of the game, after all.



No, this is definitely not the case.

Also, as a general note: call-out posts of other users can be considered trolling. There's no reason for the thread to go in that direction.

No offense ubisulin, but the proof that the game is being worked on less and less is kind of in the pudding.

I mean, you guys are getting much slower at releasing the simplest updates. Just one example can be Kenseis' side lites are still 600ms. This should have been fixed already to keep him up to par.

We're getting less and less content you, guys had hardly anything for E3 and talked about it like it was a big deal.

I really could keep going on and on. Don't get me wrong, I hope you're telling the truth but I personally feel you're paid to say that.

UbiInsulin
07-12-2019, 11:49 PM
No offense ubisulin, but the proof that the game is being worked on less and less is kind of in the pudding.

I mean, you guys are getting much slower at releasing the simplest updates. Just one example can be Kenseis' side lites are still 600ms. This should have been fixed already to keep him up to par.

We're getting less and less content you, guys had hardly anything for E3 and talked about it like it was a big deal.

I really could keep going on and on. Don't get me wrong, I hope you're telling the truth but I personally feel you're paid to say that.

Well, I'm not really paid to say anything that isn't publicly confirmed. You can look at the schedule we released back in December 2018 (https://forhonor.ubisoft.com/game/en-us/news-community/152-341958-16/new-heroes-and-more-coming-in-the-year-of-the-harbinger) for information on what else is being released this year. Plus we had the Spectator Mode announcement.

I'm not going to say these are the exact additions you personally would have wanted, but it's the addition of new heroes and a new aspect of the game. More balance changes will continue to come in. Stamina changes, matchmaking changes, and hero adjustments have been made (https://forhonor.ubisoft.com/game/en-us/news-community/152-350620-16/patch-notes-2100-to-2104) recently. All I'm trying to get at is that this is a supported game and will continue to be.

I've been seeing the talk about Kensei recently and am passing it to the team. I've noticed an uptick (https://www.reddit.com/r/CompetitiveForHonor/comments/c6opjl/kensei_is_so_easy_to_fix_that_it_feels_criminal/) in posts about him lately.

ballon009
07-13-2019, 01:09 AM
Ubilin if you want to fix the exploits here is how to with 2 clicks ok.

So here if goes.....


Remove lock on. Make it so that in a fighting game the weapons have to actually hit the enemy? Oh I know it’s revolutionary. No not hitscans but you know actually connect. This would be done by making the hit zone in each target a small line, any where else would be a miss, and have game consider x stated weapon length etc etc.


I know right game design.. not lazy hit boxes. No super armour, no double dodges. Simple stuff balancing is. Right it down in your notes and send it to Ubisoft Montreal not Quebec.

MrB3NX
07-13-2019, 11:31 AM
Well, I'm not really paid to say anything that isn't publicly confirmed. You can look at the schedule we released back in December 2018 (https://forhonor.ubisoft.com/game/en-us/news-community/152-341958-16/new-heroes-and-more-coming-in-the-year-of-the-harbinger) for information on what else is being released this year. Plus we had the Spectator Mode announcement.

.

I hope Ubisoft is not scaling back on the game

The departure of Damian and Pope made us worried a lot specially Damian is still at Montreal and not in France according to that fake story

Replacing the live stream with blog posts made it even worse , I love short Dens and now it's gone for good

The best thing is to release a new pass for the fourth year alongside an expansion dlc on E3

that way you won't disappoint anyone .

Goat_of_Vermund
07-13-2019, 01:11 PM
I don't think we should write down this game just yet. In fact, the main problem could be fixed with one step: balance changes with every 2-3 weeks for half a year, focusing on 1 problematic hero heavily and all the others slightly. Lots of work and drama, but good changes can not be made without giving the character a try online, we always spot obvious flaws in practice after a few days, waiting for months afterward is depressing. For example, it's really hard to know we will have to take the bs what is raider for an other month.
After the game is in a solid state, making paying dlcs would become much easier.

UbiInsulin
07-13-2019, 06:34 PM
I hope Ubisoft is not scaling back on the game

The departure of Damian and Pope made us worried a lot specially Damian is still at Montreal and not in France according to that fake story

Replacing the live stream with blog posts made it even worse , I love short Dens and now it's gone for good

The best thing is to release a new pass for the fourth year alongside an expansion dlc on E3

that way you won't disappoint anyone .

Spots get back-filled. For Honor still has a ComDev, lead designers, etc. We're not even half-way through the content we've announced for the Year of the Harbinger.

I can understand that you enjoyed the shorter episodes, but the reality is that there was a ton of community feedback about wanting more substantive content in Warrior's Dens, and in order to concentrate on that the schedule has changed. Pretty much the exact same content you're interested in will be available in weekly blog post format. :)

Hormly
07-13-2019, 06:45 PM
The game used to be slow and methodical and it just didn't work, fighting games need to be quick. if this had been the philosophy from the ground up the combat system wouldn't be such an unbalanced catastrophe now.

What I would love to see in a for Honor 2 is simply for the devs to learn from all of their mistakes and focus on making a more balanced and deep combat system

Liduras
07-13-2019, 08:02 PM
The biggest flaw of this game is lack of distance control. Without distance control, the game will have either turtle meta or luck based spam meta. Even in the very fast paced 2D fighting games and in real life fights, you can react to the footwork of your oppenent to avoid or counter unreactable moves. Example: you can go forward, start moving backwards to make your oppenent miss, then land your attack. There are also a lot of other distance control based strategies in other fighting games.

Distance control similar to most fighting games is not possible in this game because:

The locked on movement speed is too slow.
Dodges work with i-frames. Dodging should work with collision detection.
This game has the weird GB mechanic which magically stops players and is guaranteed against dodging players. There should be another way to counter dodges.
Forward and backward dash recovery is too long for most heroes and dashing limits the angles and types possible attacks too much.

Justicator
07-13-2019, 09:56 PM
I have posted this around a year and a half ago, I think; when I made a very large break from FH. I do apologize if certain aspects are not true anymore/have been changed; but from what I observed when returning to FH, most of what I wrote all that time ago still holds true. For those that love theorycrafting and balancing; enjoy :)
PS: also, forgive my tone; I was extremely frustrated with FH at the time. I now mostly play it non-competitively and with friends, laughing at my and their failiures.

PART 1: BALANCING
Achieving balance in a game like FH can be difficult if one does not wish to have bland and samey heroes that are way to similar to each other. And yet, the way UBI does it is so completely wrong that it would be laughable if it wasn't so frustratingly stupid. Let's say every hero is broken into three components; Offensive Power, Defensive Power and Utility. For the purpose of this text they shall be refereed to as options A, B and C respectively. Now lets say that a hero may have a maximum of 3 ranks in each of these options while having a total of 6 points that you may spend in them. So for instance our current hero types would look something like this:
ASSASSIN: A(3), B(1), C(2)
VANGUARD: A(2), B(2), C(2)
HEAVY: A(1), B(3), C(2)
HYBRID: would depend on the classes it is a hybrid of.
This is balance. If your hero is exceptionally good at something it must be exceptionally bad in something. If a hero should be a jack of all trades, meaning that it is average in all of his options, it may not be exceptionally great or terrible at any of them. If you give something to a hero, you must take something from his other aspects to compensate. This is simple logic. What did UBI do? Every new hero got more and more options on top of what everyone before it already had. And the options jhust kept piling and piling while the OG cast was left behind. Those that did get a rework mostly (with the exception of kensei) had their attacks sped up, damage buffed/nerfed and/or unblockables sped up. I strongly believe now that no rework other than that of the kensei is actually good. But, with marching fire, UBI, broke the balance even further with the introduction of Nuxia. You see, regardless of weather her trap mechanic is actually any good (which is very debatable), she, nevertheless, got another entirely different option in combat; option D. She can totally negate your block and parry attempts. But she can block and parry herself. So she got a totally different option but she did not lose any of her other options. Because of this we have a single hero that has a unique mechanic but did not lose any of the base mechanic that other heroes have. This is not balanced. Either all heroes have a unique mechanic, no one has a unique mechanic or the heroes that do have a unique mechanic must not have access to all the "basic" mechanics that others have. Again, her trap mechanic is actually crap and forces you even further into the assassin light spam meta where you react with a fast light to almost any indicator on the screen regardless of what it is. But this is just a symptom of the current state of them game and the incompetence of the balancing team.

Now that we understand how balancing is done, one can clearly see why having all heroes come to the level of shaman is actually a crap idea. This game IMO would be in such a better position if the new kensei was the "ideal" for rebalances and new heroes.

PART 2: CORE CHANGES
FH has a unique mechanic, the guard stances; the reason why the original players started playing it. Instead of using this, with each expansion, UBI moves away from its core concepts into the cesspool BS gameplay it is now; light and ublockable spam. It is obvious to everyone by now that UBI did not expect everyone to become fairly good at blocking and most even good at parrying. It is why the defensive meta and staring contests happened. This is not UBI's fault; they created a unique game (actually Jason VandenBerghe created a unique game, UBI butchered it) and they could not foresee all the problems that it might have. And yet, how they handled this problem is entirely UBI's fault; their "answer" to the defensive meta would be their first step into a long series of wrong choices. The following are the changes that I would make to FH that would focus on the core gameplay of FH and balance that. FH has **** foundations ATM and no amount of decoration you put in that house will ever make it stable; it is only a matter of time before it crumbles completely.

DEFENSIVE CHANGES:
-Added a new core mechanic; GUARD. Guard is constantly depleted when blocking attacks. It is re-filled when you make attacks. Guard is depleted depending on the damage of the attack that you block; the higher the damage the more it depletes your Guard. Once an enemy breaks your guard (meaning that it is depleted completely) you enter a unique stagger animation during which time the opponent has a guaranteed heavy. If he GBs you, you may CGB.
-Parrying is no longer a heavy input but a unique input; a button that does absolutely nothing but parry. If you are baited into a parry, you remain in a vulnerable animation, and not in a heavy attack that may be canceled, or what's worse, even go through and actually punish the player that baited you. During this vulnerable state, the player is guaranteed a heavy. If he GBs you, you may CGB.
-Assassins may no longer parry. Instead, their deflect is now performed with the unique parry button. Additionally, deflects are now chain starters for every assassin, but on their own deal very low damage. Deflects are like this for all assassin classes (no more free GB for zerker crap). If the assassin is baited into a failed deflect, it enters a vulnerable state during which you are granted a light against it.

The goal of these changes is to force a reaction simply by using attacking. If you are no longer able to block everything indefinitely, you will have to attempt to parry or step back and initiate your own offense. Either way, you may not be passive. Also, by removing parry from assassins, you force them to These changes become more viable when combined with the following offensive and utility changes.

OFFENSIVE CHANGES:
-All classes may now soft feint a heavy into a GB. All classes may now Soft feint a heavy into a light. Weather this soft light soft feint is done from any heavy, specifically finishers or in some other manner should be balanced by the specific class; but everyone should be able to do it.
-All classes now have basic L-H-L-H and H-L-H-L combos in addition to the combos they already have.
-Any light attack faster than 500ms has its attack speed reduced to 500ms. No more unreactable 400ms crap, this is terrible balancing.
-Blocking Light attacks no longer stops your momentum and you may continue with your attack combo (similarly to how heavy attacks now function)
-Zones are now all 600ms and should all be multiple attacks. The second and/or third attacks should be soft feintable into a light for everyone. The stamina cost for zone attacks is reduced but their damage (especially the damage from the first hit) is also reduced.
-All assassins now do dash attacks with a heavy input and they are all the same speed, that of the orochi for instance.
The goal of these changes is to give every hero the same playing field and the same ability to bait as well as the same ability to punish those baits. The soft feint heavy into GB for instance should have been introduced way back into season 2 for all heroes; why only some have it is beyond idiotic. These changes also force a reaction form a player not by extra fast, cheesy or otherwise broken ublockable attacks and mechanics, but by playing smart.

UTILITY CHANGES:
-Stamina Changes! The more you attack, the less stamina your every next attack costs, allowing you to feint more and keep up the pressure. The stamina loss you receive when you get parried is also reduced.
-Completely reworked bashes! Heroes now have access to the following bash attacks: either from neutral or as part of a chain. Bashes from neutral may be canceled at any point before they are "released" (just the way that warden's shoulder bash now works), but they NEVER guarantee anything; they simply "stun" your opponent (meaning you get that flashing screen where you do not see the stance of your opponent) briefly, allowing your opponent to initiate his attacks more easily. Bashes that are a part of a chain are fast and guarantee a light, but they may not be soft feinted or canceled. They must be committed. An enemy that dashes them gets a guaranteed light.
-Completely reworked chip damage! Increased chip damage to 20% . For each additional character attacking you, the chip damage is re-scalled so that their total would always be 20%. This means that if 2 people are attacking you, their chip dmg will each be 10% (total 20%), 3 people attacking you means that their chip damage is 6,66% each (total 19,98%) and if 4 people are attacking you, each of them does 5% chip damage, total 20%.
-Certain classes (mainly heavies, but a few others as well), especially those that have a ton of armor on them (like the LB), get HA on heavy attacks. Not assassins, not those skinny bastards, NO! Guys with HEAVY ARMOR get HA.
-All heroes have the same amount of HP. The damage reduction they have should, on the other hand, vary greatly. Those that have a lot of armor should have far better damage reduction that lightly or no armored heroes. The flip side is that this should directly dictate how well are ones dashes and general mobility.
-Heroes now have a standardized throw distance depending on their type; heavies throw the furthest, then vanguards and then the assassins. Hybrids throw depending on what they a re a hybrid of. No more shaman BS throw distance unrealistic crap.
-No more carrying heroes on ones shield, weapon or shoulder for an obscene amount of time for easy ledge kills. Our heroes are not some hopeless morons that will not fight back any simply enjoy the CHO-CHOO express to hell ride so calmly. It is unrealistic and immersion breaking. Balance the classes by giving them proper options in 4v4 situations to make them viable, and not this crap.

The goal of these changes is to compliment the defensive and offensive ones, while bringing FH a step back from certain complete and unrealistic crap that plagues it ATM. Additionally, unblockable attacks now become an extra tool in ones kit, not something that the entire kit revolves around or something that must be spammed if one wants to have any real chance of wining.

The_B0G_
07-15-2019, 10:31 PM
I don't and never said I did. I simply understand the mechanics and the highest level PvP aspects of this game at a much deeper level than the majority of people on this forum, including you. Does that mean I can't be wrong? No, of course not. Does that mean my opinions are somehow always superior? Absolutely not. One thing it does mean however, is that my opinions involve critical thinking born of a dedicated knowledge about this game and are generally more well researched and more logic based than the majority of other people's on here.

As I wrote before, I don't have a problem with opinions. What I do have a problem with - and this isn't aimed at you directly - are people who don't do the diligent work of examining their own methodology before coming to their conclusions and then being arrogant enough to believe that their opinion cannot be wrong. Especially when in the face of people who have made the effort and dedication to be as knowledgeable about the subject as they possibly can. It's a laziness, and downright lack of critical thinking that I see way too often on here and on Reddit.


I did give you the exact reason but you haven't bothered to comprehend it. If you honestly can't understand the fundamental reason why a computer will beat a human at reaction based tasks then I can't help you. The short answer is: to make it work they will need to dumb the AI down to the point where it's simply boring to fight them after you learn every inch of their patterns. When instead you could be fighting a human player with a nigh inexhaustible amount of different patterns and outcomes.


You realise you basically just described Arcade, right? That really great fun mode that everybody loves and would totally spend 60 dollars for a few bigger maps and a couple more bots in a fight. I guess we just inhabit two different living spaces in this game to agree on this. You find fighting multiple AI challenging, I don't. We can agree that it can be fun, especially with friends. But then again, any game is more fun with friends. I doubt however that fun vs AI without an aspect of ever expanding challenge (like that of fighting against human players) will have more longevity than For Honor has had and continues to have.

"That's what the PvP portion will be there for" you could argue. The question is, are Ubisoft going to want to go to all that effort when they could achieve a lot of that same longevity by simply working on improving the quality of the PvP with none of the additional PvE workload? Keeping in mind their track record is one of following the path of least resistance.


Well you're confusing blissful ignorance with imagination here. Being naive about the mechanics of the Art of Battle does not mean you have more imagination than me. It simply means you are unaware of certain things outside of your current level of knowledge.

Furthermore, you changed the proposal for your idea. I mean you started off with:

.

That does not sound like you basically just wanted to add on to For Honor's campaign with an open world. That straight up read like you wanted to relegate the PvP portion to a closed off mode and focus the game primarily as a PvE MMO with PvP as a sideshow. Bog, look how much trouble it is to balance For Honor when PvP is the primary focus of the game. How much longer do you think it will take between PvP focused patches if they also have to worry about the quality of what should be Triple A PvE content and separate PvE balancing?

In my opinion you 'd be better off asking Ubisoft to make a completely new IP rather than trying to shoehorn For Honor awkwardly into an MMO dress. I mean sure, anything's possible. They grabbed the sailing mechanics from AC: Black Flag and are attempting to make a whole game out of it so who knows. But as I said before, with For Honor's combat mechanics as we know them; I personally would not be enthusiastic for a full priced game that offers the pleasure of a For Honor vs Bots Mode: The MMO.

I'm going to try to keep this as short as possible, but probably fail, I'm guessing you haven't played Ghost Recon Wildlands, I should have just explained the idea more in-depth. Wildlands is not an MMO, it's a 4 player co op open world shooter that gives you the freedom to take down the cartel in any order you wish to.

The multiplayer, which was added a year after the game released (Im not asking for a late release of PvP) is just as popular as the PvE portion.

So I'm not really asking for the PvP to take a back seat so much as asking the PvE campaign portion not to be completely abandoned after release, like For Honor did.

Final point, what I'm suggesting isn't at all like arcade mode, in arcade you sit in loading screens until you fight, then you fight 1 or 2 enemies with some modifiers that change the whole fight mechanics, changes them completely sometimes (no parrying, constant revenge, unblockables) then you go back to a loading screen and do it again. That's not fun, I'm suggesting an open world campaign that you can go around doing bounties, conquests, raids, seemlessly without load screens.

I agree that bots are too easy 1v1, but you get some level 2 skilled bots that attack aggressively and it adds difficulty, and can be challenging and fun. I personally think going into a castle siege with 3 friends and trying to make it to the end without dying would be a blast. By the end you could be the only one left, fighting four level 2 bots.

I'm sure it wouldn't be a huge challenge for the elite top 1-2% of players, but I'm positive that having a mode like this would draw in a whole other player base that normally wouldn't buy this kind of game.

I may not be in the top tier of players on this game, but I've been playing since the beta, and I don't think there is any reason at all why this couldn't work.