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