12 Player Matches? | Forums

[MisterWillow]

Im just hoping if this game mode is implemented that the "stone circle"/ capture point you speak of moves around on the map throughout the battle. Moving the battles through multiple zones and each time fighting to accomplish a specific objective that would benefit your team.

That would be interesting. Say there's an initial capture point, once one team captures it, it spawns a very large mob for that team and the capture point moves to a different part of the map, which said mob heads toward. The team that won the first point has an advantage because of the mob, but it would also encourage the two other factions to team up momentarily.

Also like the idea that each team is trying to do something different to win, conceptually. My only hesitation is that it disincentivises engaging the enemy. Everyone might retreat to their respective objective and ignore the other factions. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[Lord-Arion]

Great ideas guys. The king of the hill match sounds like it would get really intense.

[Solid_Altair]

I wouldn't like having more players. Keep in mind this is a melee game, not a shooter. Shooters can use some lag compensation tricks and get away with it, for they work pretty well in their set up. But things are different with melee. Lag compensation doesn't work as well, so chances are we're gonna have to deal with true latency. 8 players actually seems pretty bold to me. And 4 vs 4 is a good number. It seems to work well in incentivizing strategy - as it did in The Last of Us.

As for having 4v4v4, I don't like it. Things end up depending two much on luck or on two teams trolling the third one.

That lone wolf mode also doesn't sound balanced.

I like free for all modes, but they're extremely hard to implement. AC did it very well, but that was because of the game's extremely unique rules. For a game like For Honor, team vs team is the one way to go.

BTW... does anyone have any info on how they're gonna handle the connectivity? This is a much more sensitive subject in a melee game than it is in shooters.

[slicknick99]

good points Solid_Altair, perhaps a 3v3v3 or a 2v2v2 would be more appropriate?

also to mister willow, in regards to "king of the hill" instead of making each faction have their own individual objectives to complete within the match, make a SINGLE objective that all teams are incentivized to capture. Creating a mini mosh that travels on the larger map (ie. attack/defend the armory, ransack/defend the king's/ daimyo's/ jarl's treasure) From there each player would have to either A. kill a certain amount of the enemy player of BOTH teams. or B. hold the zone for a large period of time. (haven't worked out the kinks, any other ideas are much appreciated.) Perhaps once your team has successfully won the "objective" your AI army would push into that zone.

[MisterWillow]

also to mister willow, in regards to "king of the hill" instead of making each faction have their own individual objectives to complete within the match, make a SINGLE objective that all teams are incentivized to capture. Creating a mini mosh that travels on the larger map (ie. attack/defend the armory, ransack/defend the king's/ daimyo's/ jarl's treasure) From there each player would have to either A. kill a certain amount of the enemy player of BOTH teams. or B. hold the zone for a large period of time. (haven't worked out the kinks, any other ideas are much appreciated.) Perhaps once your team has successfully won the "objective" your AI army would push into that zone.

Ah. That makes more sense. I guess I just misread it.

Sound good.

[Solid_Altair]

good points Solid_Altair, perhaps a 3v3v3 or a 2v2v2 would be more appropriate?

also to mister willow, in regards to "king of the hill" instead of making each faction have their own individual objectives to complete within the match, make a SINGLE objective that all teams are incentivized to capture. Creating a mini mosh that travels on the larger map (ie. attack/defend the armory, ransack/defend the king's/ daimyo's/ jarl's treasure) From there each player would have to either A. kill a certain amount of the enemy player of BOTH teams. or B. hold the zone for a large period of time. (haven't worked out the kinks, any other ideas are much appreciated.) Perhaps once your team has successfully won the "objective" your AI army would push into that zone.

Certainly for connectivy.

But having more than two sides really tend sto be messy. Real Time Strategy games used to have modes like this, but in following installments these modes were excluded, because they were so unfair.

Your idea of having to kill dudes of BOTH factions does sound intriging, though. Maybe it'd cast another miracle, like the miracle of AC FFA modes.

[Giorgos78GR]

i support this

[Doctrinaire]

What would be the objective on this mode»? it's hard to have one with 3 teams...

I would suspect it would be something like Capture The Hill, and there may be pre-stages you need to capture as well, in order to capture the hill. 4 capture points with 3 of them being pre-stages that belong to each faction (not a spawn point though) and then the hill top point.

[Deadshot.]

I can see the 3 team mode being a sort of "Attain Control of THIS" for a boost to NPC troops.... then "Attain Control of THAT" for some other perk, etc.

The only problem I can foresee with the "moving control point" would be that players would figure out where the next control point will 'probably' be (though I'm sure they'd try to randomize it), and they'll simply leave the fight in order to get a leg-up on the next point. We see this issue in other games where the control points randomly move around.

I think (and I haven't put much thought into it...so it may be ridiculous...don't judge me ) that it would be neat to have the control point remain the same spot - but to have random game perks go to the attacking teams in order to keep the attack fresh and exciting. For example... the team that is doing the poorest at trying to overcome the defending team, suddenly receive an ability feat boost to help them out.

That being said, I'm certain that - as long as they include the NPC warriors with the teams - each team will be able to use their ability feats to help them overcome whoever is stuck defending a set location. Nothing like standing back to back at the top of a control point - and having a hail of arrows come raining down on your position.

[Havemercy87]

Try this on for size? "He who wears the Crown" a timed battle for the crown. Anyone can wear the crown and you wear it for your team. Of course to get it you must slay the current "King". To make it fair, at the start of the match the crown will be somewhere on the map, location unknown. To add an aesthetic, the crown could be visible on the head of the holder and give off a gold dot on the minimap.