Clan for multiplayers modes... | Forums

[MisterWillow]

If that's true about there being 32 player matches, I think it's a mistake, for reasons I outlined here. I really don't see it working out very well...

Of course, I'm not play testing the thing regularly, and I presume even if there are 32 player modes they'll simply not be played if the community finds the problems I think will be present are actually there.

[DarkstarQc]

If that's true about there being 32 player matches, I think it's a mistake, for reasons I outlined here. I really don't see it working out very well...

Of course, I'm not play testing the thing regularly, and I presume even if there are 32 player modes they'll simply not be played if the community finds the problems I think will be present are actually there.

Maybe you wont play a 16 vs 16 mode but I will and I know a lot of people who will, don't presume anything by this community which is really small at the moment since the game is not out and the beta as not been played by anyone. And only a few people have try the alpha which did not include all the game mode. Anyway as I said before I did not start this thread for that, it was to ask for clan support, emblem and tag. And anyway think of it this way maybe a 16 vs 16 would be on a battlefield or defending a fortified place against the other team, the possibility are endless.

[DarkstarQc]

If that's true about there being 32 player matches, I think it's a mistake, for reasons I outlined here. I really don't see it working out very well...

Of course, I'm not play testing the thing regularly, and I presume even if there are 32 player modes they'll simply not be played if the community finds the problems I think will be present are actually there.

I look at your thread and what you suggest is that this game should be only 4vs 4 because of the fighting system, but that doesn't make any sense, just because there is a combat system doesn't means that you cant be jump from behind by someone or outnumber by two or 3 opponent, and you say this must be historically correct, have you ever seen a battle in a movie were two army fight each other but are taking turn and waiting for two opponent to finish their duel before duelling the guy, come on that's ridiculous this is a war game, DONT SCREW THIS UP UBISOFT MONTREAL. There as to be a 32 player modes if those people don't like it they just don't have to played it but most of the people who like multiplayers game WILL played the 32 player mode.

[Eidard]

I want to say that even though this game might be able to hold decently a 16vs16 enviroment I wouldn't like it in the game.

The Art of Battle system has huge potential for becoming an esport, I like competitive games, it is almost the only thing I play since 3-4 years and a 16v16 will not allow for a decent competitive scene, that is why I don't want it in the game, 4v4/5v5/6v6 it is ok, but more than that starts beeing to much, I like beeing important in my matches, in a 16v16 you are just worthless, your impact in the game is really little compared to a 4v4 situation.

And one thing that this game is aming for is the feeling of importance in the battlefield, I would be really surprised if a game mode of 16vs16 is inthe game, I hope there isn't one, I understand that people like those types of games, I just hope for the sake of the competitive scene of this game that there isn't.

And I hope there is a more deep strategic mode than dominion, but I think dominion with small improvements could work as an esport, seems a bit simple though.

Everyone has different tastes though.

[StandardAce]

I think having clans in For Honor would generally be a solid idea.

[MathiasCB]

At first i thougth that hugr battles with a lot of players would be nice... I can still say it would be neat, but not at all needed. As it may seem and feel like a cool idea... But then again... I wouldn't want a mode were you would constanly die by getting struck in the back.

For the part about Clans... I'm all for it.
"We have been called many things but never "sweet".
We are the warborn! We are the clans of blood and legend!
Our fury is eternal! In death we are reborn!
Only one will rule the valley!
We are the warborn!"

[MisterWillow]

I look at your thread and what you suggest is that this game should be only 4vs 4 because of the fighting system, but that doesn't make any sense, just because there is a combat system doesn't means that you cant be jump from behind by someone or outnumber by two or 3 opponent, and you say this must be historically correct, have you ever seen a battle in a movie were two army fight each other but are taking turn and waiting for two opponent to finish their duel before duelling the guy, come on that's ridiculous this is a war game, DONT SCREW THIS UP UBISOFT MONTREAL.

Where did I say either of those things?

I mentioned that the combat system is more geared to 1v1 than crowd control, but I also know that with enough practise, you can fend off at least two people... the 'historically correct' comment must have been someone else. I hope I wouldn't make that argument (being aware of how chaotic melee combat can be), and if I did, then I'd need to see in what context I said it, cause I was probably wrong.

No, the major reason I don't think large scale battles will work very well in For Honor, I'll copy/paste what I said over here, because I don't think I can state it any clearer

---

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.

There as to be a 32 player modes if those people don't like it they just don't have to played it but most of the people who like multiplayers game WILL played the 32 player mode.

Or...

Inexperienced/unlucky players will be frustrated by having to constantly dodge catapult strikes while fending off four opponents and experienced players will be bored by constantly launching catapult strikes and slaughtering people outnumbered due to their team constantly waiting to respawn.

[BoldAlphawolf]

I think the lobby size can hold up too 32 player's so you aren't fighting the same 4 man team every time, I honestly don't think there is going to be a 16v16 for one Jason VandenBerghe at E3 emphasized that one on one duel aspect which was a big part of the core game design he said, think of mortal combat where you can have ten people in a lobby but the matches arent 5v5's there always 1v1, or 2v2 in tag team

[DarkstarQc]

Where did I say either of those things?

I mentioned that the combat system is more geared to 1v1 than crowd control, but I also know that with enough practise, you can fend off at least two people... the 'historically correct' comment must have been someone else. I hope I wouldn't make that argument (being aware of how chaotic melee combat can be), and if I did, then I'd need to see in what context I said it, cause I was probably wrong.

No, the major reason I don't think large scale battles will work very well in For Honor, I'll copy/paste what I said over here, because I don't think I can state it any clearer

---

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.



Or...

Inexperienced/unlucky players will be frustrated by having to constantly dodge catapult strikes while fending off four opponents and experienced players will be bored by constantly launching catapult strikes and slaughtering people outnumbered due to their team constantly waiting to respawn.

I didn't say 64 players at the same times but the pre-ordered did state network players 2-32 which probably mean there will be some sort of game mode were there is 32 players involved. But as I said before that thread was to ask for clan support, customizable emblem and tag. What's your opinion on that are you for it or against it? And a battlefield is a battlefield, shooter or not.

[MisterWillow]

I didn't say 64 players at the same times

I know. I was copy/pasting from a thread made months ago, which expressed my thoughts on the matter best. Anything over 16 players, I think will present the problems I proposed.

but the pre-ordered did state network players 2-32 which probably mean there will be some sort of game mode were there is 32 players involved.

Which could easily be placeholder information.

That's not to say you're wrong, necessarily, just that I don't think it's a good idea.

But as I said before that thread was to ask for clan support, customizable emblem and tag. What's your opinion on that are you for it or against it?

Absolutely in favour of all of it. Been advocating for it since the beginning.

And a battlefield is a battlefield, shooter or not.

I disagree. Again, I feel like I've talked this topic to death, so I'm going to copy/paste again, this time from over here. And some of this is reiteration, just so you're aware.

---

Completely different circumstances, environments, and tactics are involved in something like Battlefront (or shooters in general).

For example, deaths in shooters occur far more quickly, and any firefight that you are involved in only lasts a couple of seconds even if you're a highly skilled player (in which case, you probably killed your opponent from across the room). You can find a position and slaughter five people in rapid succession, lob a grenade that kills multiple people bunched up. You yourself can be killed by someone you didn't see and you have no way of countering.

Melee necessitates being right in your opponent's face, and fights have the potential to be over a minute long. Incidentally, I can't wait for this to actually come out and for people to get really good, because then fight length will only go up, add to that the fact that being outnumbered can be countered and defended against. Aside from the level 4 Feats (Arrow Storm, Catapult Strike), there's no comparison between the two strategically (or even mechanically).

Moreover, a larger player count could lead to one team being overwhelmed by a team travelling in larger groups, picking off smaller groups or lone players, affecting game balance by having two, three, or (probably) more players constantly having access to all their feats. It could very easily turn into a massacre if the match falls into a rhythm of five or more players (depending on the team size) waiting to respawn at all times, which would happen if both teams take the same strategy and charge as a single unit. After that initial clash, the match would pretty much be decided by which side loses the most players the quickest, since the moment they're dead, they have the respawn time and then have to get back to where the fight is happening (if it still is happening by that point), at which point the person that's killed you has turned to someone else who was already fighting a guy, who dies by the time you get back to where you were, so now you're outnumbered, and so on until your team has next to no chance of victory.

---

There's also latency they have to worry about, and as anyone who's played a fighting game online will tell you, latency in a melee environment (which For Honor would obviously have) can literally kill you in arguably a more infuriating way than in an online shooter---primarily because in a shooter, you can take the various variables (time for bullets to reach their target, player movement, hit boxes, etc. plus the latency) and reason out a kill you might disagree with, whereas a melee game necessitates proper timing and spacing, knowing when and how to attack, knowing frame count for actions (at higher levels), so even knowing how to counter any given attack might not matter if the server skips for a second---and if you've tried Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, or any other fighter and found the servers are being finicky, then you'll know that that effectively renders the game unplayable. And that's 1v1, on a small stage (which sometimes only allows lateral movement), with