Minor adjustments need to be made | Forums

[X_____ACE_____X]

Some sort of a hope/wish list.

Make the (AI/ordinary) soldiers more of a challenge and either increase the AI or decrease the player in size for a more realistic feel.


Implement some sort of weapon progression, but keep it extremely balanced. If you have been playing for 1 year or 1 day everyone has gear where the only difference is cosmetic. (that doesn't mean everyone has the same weapon just make it balanced)

I also hope the 4v4 isn't going the be the maximum for multiplayer I would love for 32v32 or more because no battle will ever be the same, 4v4 will get old pretty quick.


That is my 2 pennies worth. Not exactly original or creative thinking but IMO extremely important factors.

[spaff_meister]

re 32 v 32, that would subtract heavily from the game's core mechanic/theme - the duel based combat and feel. There's nothing gained in a game like this from having a spam of opponents to face, the mechanics simply are not designed around that.

32v32 would only make sense if the maps were proportionately scaled up, but that poses problems in that it would mean creating massive, massive maps (waste of time/resources) and would make traveling around the map a ball ache for players.

Same principle applies for AI soldiers; they are background to the dueling mechanism the game employs. This was discussed in an interview somewhere (I think e3 showcase?)

As for more players in general, from what I heard, it seemed hinted that something close to 6v6/8v8 were possibilities, though probably additions to the core 4v4 game mode. Less players isn't inherently bad in a game like this, where it might be in one like an FPS where the combat system is different.

[X_____ACE_____X]

[QUOTE=tom1172821;10868552
32v32 would only make sense if the maps were proportionately scaled up, but that poses problems in that it would mean creating massive, massive maps (waste of time/resources) and would make traveling around the map a ball ache for players.
[/QUOTE]




The maps would not have to be MASSIVE in the way you might be thinking and perhaps 32vs32 would be pushing it but personally I don't think it is, I seriously think 4v4 with nothing other than cannon fodder between you and your enemy could be the games downfall.

[MathiasCB]

I would say a MASSIVE map would not be needed, it would work fine with more or less an open battlefield.
60 players total facing each other on an open field, like actual war. Could be fighting over territory, a territorial system could be implemented too, to see which faction is the greatest holding the most land.

Let's say.. The legion holds Castle Black(imagination levels are high). The Warborn launches an attack on the castle and players get to fight in some warmode where everyone is placed outside the castle, fighting each other. Could be made in several macthes. Every match won grants points.

One big battle outside the castle 32v32. If the attackers win they get to charge the actual castle, if they lose they simply lose and don't go further. If a win, Matches go to 4v4, fighting over the actual castle.

[spaff_meister]

The maps would not have to be MASSIVE in the way you might be thinking and perhaps 32vs32 would be pushing it but personally I don't think it is, I seriously think 4v4 with nothing other than cannon fodder between you and your enemy could be the games downfall.

Well they would have to be massive so that they correlate with the way the game is currently intrinsically designed for smaller fights, about five or six times the size of the 4v4 maps so that heroes are spread out enough that encounters occur between singular-pairs of heroes, rather than several at a time.

I don't see what you get added to the experience in doing this, considering the time and resources that would have to go into building it. CS:GO is 5v5 on relatively small/medium sized maps and one of the biggest major league games and most popular FPS', because the game is centred around teamwork with small numbers, as is For Honour.

[SnorriUlversson]

Agree about AI and equipment progression, I would like to see a progrssion like WoW's PvP tiers but less strict possibly.
About massive battles I disagree, honestly it would be just a huge mess and probably a lot of people would experience lag spikes, fps drop etc...ruining game experience; but this is just my opinion

[X_____ACE_____X]

Well they would have to be massive so that they correlate with the way the game is currently intrinsically designed for smaller fights, about five or six times the size of the 4v4 maps so that heroes are spread out enough that encounters occur between singular-pairs of heroes, rather than several at a time.

I don't see what you get added to the experience in doing this, considering the time and resources that would have to go into building it. CS:GO is 5v5 on relatively small/medium sized maps and one of the biggest major league games and most popular FPS', because the game is centred around teamwork with small numbers, as is For Honour.

If you mean 5 times larger than what was shown at E3 then what's wrong with that? if fights break out between 2v2 3v3 4v4 2v1 3v1 4v1, it just adds to the whole feeling of it being war and random.

Whats wrong with time if it means implementing something that makes more sense? Seems to me you are more interested in something being rushed and sloppy than something that takes time to be refined, I guess that might be the difference between us.


On your final point, This isn't a fps, this isn't a MLG title, not sure where your logic lies on this so I can't comment.

[X_____ACE_____X]

Agree about AI and equipment progression, I would like to see a progrssion like WoW's PvP tiers but less strict possibly.
About massive battles I disagree, honestly it would be just a huge mess and probably a lot of people would experience lag spikes, fps drop etc...ruining game experience; but this is just my opinion

Well would you agree if it was say toned down to 10v10 or 20v20 with a guaranteed lag free experience? Also War is not clean.

[spaff_meister]

You've misread/not understood the principle of my argument, twice, and I won't be repeating myself.

[X_____ACE_____X]

You've misread/not understood the principle of my argument, twice, and I won't be repeating myself.

I would have classed it as a discussion, but if you prefer to have arguments then I would be happy if you didn't reply. Understand that.