Minor adjustments need to be made | Forums

[McEspada]

I would like too see something like in wow
(i know i get burned for this but)
"Strand of the Ancients" this mod is based on a step to step encountered in strategic place like doors a.s.o..
The map does not need to be bigger but more objectives must be considered to be a interesting and fun map to play.
sry for that wow mentioning but it`s a good idea, i think.

[SnorriUlversson]

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.

10v10 maybe, but honestly I don't know since I still haven't played it. I had some experience with MMO and huge pvp battles become always a mess without sense or minor fights of 5-10 max people for strategical purpose...

[X_____ACE_____X]

I would like too see something like in wow
(i know i get burned for this but)
"Strand of the Ancients" this mod is based on a step to step encountered in strategic place like doors a.s.o..
The map does not need to be bigger but more objectives must be considered to be a interesting and fun map to play.
sry for that wow mentioning but it`s a good idea, i think.

Indeed a great idea, this game seems to have a perfect combat system and I love the historic battle feel to it, but this game will crash if they don't take it a couple steps further and implement reason and goal.

However having just 4v4 over and over again would get tedious. I know it wouldn't be possible to have a fully fledged scale battle due to lag and server issues but having the fight take place at strategic locations with more than 4 to create unique moments would surely be an important part of the games longevity.


Even though it's out of the question imagine this combat system in a game like the total war series, maybe even with a campaign behind it of some sort, now that would be ground breaking.

[SnorriUlversson]

If they release something like Strand of the Ancients in For Honor I'll say goodbye to my social life...

[MathiasCB]

Indeed a great idea, this game seems to have a perfect combat system and I love the historic battle feel to it, but this game will crash if they don't take it a couple steps further and implement reason and goal.

However having just 4v4 over and over again would get tedious. I know it wouldn't be possible to have a fully fledged scale battle due to lag and server issues but having the fight take place at strategic locations with more than 4 to create unique moments would surely be an important part of the games longevity.


Even though it's out of the question imagine this combat system in a game like the total war series, maybe even with a campaign behind it of some sort, now that would be ground breaking.

Now that would be something i would enjoy.

If they release something like Strand of the Ancients in For Honor I'll say goodbye to my social life...

Who needs a social life when you can fight as a huge Viking with a huge weapon. All the socialization we need is between ourselves whilst we smash our foes! I guess we can follow Legolas and Gimlis example, count every kill out loud!

[Cinnalex]

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.

I agree mostly with what you are saying. I would not mind a mode where there are a ton of players VS each other. I also would love it the "Minions" weren't minions instead were your size and real soldiers. That being said i do believe a large 32V32 would be a little difficult and probably not the best thing. It would be cool and be like a real war but with the play style focusing 1v1 it would probably be..... odd? i cant think of the word, but i don't think it would be a great idea. Probably best to keep it at no more than 10v10 if even that. But that is just my opinion, and i also agree on the cosmetic stuff, and i would have to have an advantage over anyone who is new if i have been playing for ever just because of my weapon. Im pretty sure though that they wont have a level up system to increase damage on weapons and such though.

[MisterWillow]

However having just 4v4 over and over again would get tedious.

You'd be surprised. I am/was a big fan of the multiplayer in Uncharted, and that's 5v5, and someone else pointed out that CS:GO is 5v5, and you have to take into consideration that that's without the mobs (not to mention that LoL DOTA and Smite are all 5v5 with mobs). It all comes down to map size and/or funneling players to objectives. You don't need dozens of people for a match to be hectic and/or fun.

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.

Seems to me you're asking for quantity over quality.

I also think you're forgetting (or misunderstanding) that the 'art of battle' system wants to capture the intimacy of a real sword fight, where every time you cut someone down it's a triumph. I doubt very much that you would be able to maintain that feeling with 64 people on the map; or even if you could at the beginning, once enough people are killed, duels would turn into massacres, as one person would be forced to fight far more people than the battle system is meant to handle. They demonstrated that you could theoretically fight two people (there was little more than a single exchange of blows in the gameplay released so far), since blocking in the direction of the second opponent blocks everything he throws, but how well would that really work against three people? four people? ten people (should one side dominate in a large-scale battle)?

It's not like a shooter, where you can keep your distance; duck behind cover and take pop shots; chuck a couple grenades; and/or camp around a corner and wait for people to run through and shoot them in the back. You have to be in someone's face to kill them. Also, the feats are unlocked with kills, so eventually a large-scale match would turn into one or two guys (or three, or four, or ten should one side dominate) able to spam arrow storms/catapults. And it would happen, because people (especially clans) would group together, lock onto one guy, decimate, and move on. It's much harder---if not impossible---to have such a strategy exist or circumstance arise with a small player count.

Should the maps be large enough, I could see 8v8 at most. Increasing the number of players beyond that doesn't do anything to make a duel more exciting, it's just increasing the likelihood of people being outnumbered as a match drags on.

[X_____ACE_____X]

You'd be surprised. I am/was a big fan of the multiplayer in Uncharted, and that's 5v5, and someone else pointed out that CS:GO is 5v5, and you have to take into consideration that that's without the mobs (not to mention that LoL DOTA and Smite are all 5v5 with mobs). It all comes down to map size and/or funneling players to objectives. You don't need dozens of people for a match to be hectic and/or fun.



Seems to me you're asking for quantity over quality.

I also think you're forgetting (or misunderstanding) that the 'art of battle' system wants to capture the intimacy of a real sword fight, where every time you cut someone down it's a triumph. I doubt very much that you would be able to maintain that feeling with 64 people on the map; or even if you could at the beginning, once enough people are killed, duels would turn into massacres, as one person would be forced to fight far more people than the battle system is meant to handle. They demonstrated that you could theoretically fight two people (there was little more than a single exchange of blows in the gameplay released so far), since blocking in the direction of the second opponent blocks everything he throws, but how well would that really work against three people? four people? ten people (should one side dominate in a large-scale battle)?

It's not like a shooter, where you can keep your distance; duck behind cover and take pop shots; chuck a couple grenades; and/or camp around a corner and wait for people to run through and shoot them in the back. You have to be in someone's face to kill them. Also, the feats are unlocked with kills, so eventually a large-scale match would turn into one or two guys (or three, or four, or ten should one side dominate) able to spam arrow storms/catapults. And it would happen, because people (especially clans) would group together, lock onto one guy, decimate, and move on. It's much harder---if not impossible---to have such a strategy exist or circumstance arise with a small player count.

Should the maps be large enough, I could see 8v8 at most. Increasing the number of players beyond that doesn't do anything to make a duel more exciting, it's just increasing the likelihood of people being outnumbered as a match drags on.

I stopped reading after that, I have no interest in someone who likes to throw around assumptions. So I regret (or do i?) to inform you, that was a waste of time typing on your end, if you expect me to read it. Ridiculous.


Also if you would like a lesson in how to disagree before you add to the discussion in future, read what Kenji and Snorri had to say and understand disagreement doesn't have to resort to assumptions without evidence.

[Oakmantle]

I also believe the developers stated that the idea of "Heroes" was an integral part of the design philosophy. As much as historical accuracy, they may also want to replicate the feeling of being someone that really stands above others on the battlefield, much like the famous generals of Feudal Japan, legendary Knights and Viking warlords.

Personally I do not think this game benefits much from having numbers as high as some have suggested. Not only does it appear to run counter to the 1v1 and more intimate design philosophies, but also stand a great risk of lowering performance and turning tactical combat into a fairly mindless thug of war. Especially for random players, acting to a team's interests is hard enough as it is in smaller groups, and it will undoubtedly make for scenarios where Clans go on pubstomps. And though you can argue for Clan vs. Clan, I am not so sure that organizing even 10+ players on each side for every match is something that is going to keep the gamemode, and subsequently the game itself, envigorated for long.

And OUTLAW_Smokey, I do not mean to be rude, but I suggest you stop taking all the arguements as personal offenses. We are all just trying to pitch our own constructive ideas for the game we already love, even though it's not even out yet.

[X_____ACE_____X]

I agree mostly with what you are saying. I would not mind a mode where there are a ton of players VS each other. I also would love it the "Minions" weren't minions instead were your size and real soldiers. That being said i do believe a large 32V32 would be a little difficult and probably not the best thing. It would be cool and be like a real war but with the play style focusing 1v1 it would probably be..... odd? i cant think of the word, but i don't think it would be a great idea. Probably best to keep it at no more than 10v10 if even that. But that is just my opinion, and i also agree on the cosmetic stuff, and i would have to have an advantage over anyone who is new if i have been playing for ever just because of my weapon. Im pretty sure though that they wont have a level up system to increase damage on weapons and such though.

I possibly did go over board with 32v32 however depending on the battleground it could work, as a separate mode, I may be wrong, as it is only opinion but 10vs10 with more challenging minions in the similar game mode shown at e3 would be not too chaotic but enough to create unique moments.