1. #1
    Chaf--'s Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    France
    Posts
    45

    Online teams, not forced by a faction.

    I'm making this thread to follow a discussion we started in this thread about team colors. Basically, that could mean than in an online Domination match, you don't have to pick characters for only one faction. You could pick the class/hero you want and have a team with, let's say, 2 Wardens, 1 Raider and 1 Kensei.

    It's important, because it will change the game balance. If players are forced to choose a faction before each Domination matches, they are also forced to know one hero from each faction, if you play random ranked matches. If you could choose your faction and be only in teams of people that choose the same faction that you, it will be less random and will forces you to play with the same people, if they don't change factions. It could also makes the 3 factions unbalanced, because different.

    This could also help strategy/gameplan part more flexible. To throw off a position or make them move. Like if we wanna be more on the defense, so players starts picking a Kabuki or other classes. It could be great.

    Originally Posted by coma987 Go to original post
    See, and I'm hoping against it, as I feel it undermines the major thematic element and unique flavour the game has going for it---three factions warring against one another. That is destroyed if all the factions are suddenly mix-matched on random teams.
    But we talk about multiplayer and balance. Not themes and logic. Don't forget, we're in a video game. A multiplayer-based one. What you've lost on autenticity, you'ill gain it in battle strategy and game viability. I really think we should go for that. That and let the players choose another class after a respawn, if they wants.
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Give different game modes the ability to play with mixed teams, but have other game modes lock factions. I find that to be the easiest solution because everyone gets want they want, but it might split the community a bit.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Chaf--'s Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    France
    Posts
    45
    Maybe an option in the settings, to lock factions on matchmaking/unranked matches?
    But the ranked Domination matches should be faction-free.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    If you pick your hero before you queue up you wouldn't have to know one from every faction. You'd pick what you want to play, and be put into an appropriate game based on that.
    I personally don't want mixed battles. What kind of viking would fight against his brothers and sisters, on the side of some pansy in a tin can? His ancestors would laugh at him!

    Also asymmetric =/= unbalanced

    Just take any fighting game on the market, if you play against someone else who is playing a different character it's asymmetric, but no one would claim it's unbalanced.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Anyway they are or they already did the work about matchmaking, and ubisoft already did games with multiplayer and matchmaking i saw a lot a thread on this topic im not worrying about that. Ubisoft knows how to make games and they do it well, trust them trust Jason Vandenberghe and trust the art of battle.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Chaf-- Go to original post
    Maybe an option in the settings, to lock factions on matchmaking/unranked matches?
    But the ranked Domination matches should be faction-free.
    I think the ranked matches should represent the purest form of the game and it's combat, that is locked faction vs faction battles. We'll have to wait for at the very least the alpha or beta to know which direction they went, but I personally don't like mixed factions.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Chaf--'s Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    France
    Posts
    45
    Originally Posted by waraidako Go to original post
    If you pick your hero before you queue up you wouldn't have to know one from every faction. You'd pick what you want to play, and be put into an appropriate game based on that.
    It'll down the random factor on Ranked battles. Especially when people generally tend to play a few classes.

    Originally Posted by waraidako Go to original post
    I personally don't want mixed battles. What kind of viking would fight against his brothers and sisters, on the side of some pansy in a tin can? His ancestors would laugh at him!
    Again, this is a video game. Lore accuracy over balancing logic makes more problems than solves it.

    Originally Posted by waraidako Go to original post
    Also asymmetric =/= unbalanced
    Just take any fighting game on the market, if you play against someone else who is playing a different character it's asymmetric, but no one would claim it's unbalanced.
    That's the thing. In fighitng games, we can play mirror matches. Outside some really special and explained lores, this shouldn't be possible. Fighting games have also heroes and weaker characters. That would make the game's balance just like Anime games like DBZ Budokai Tenkaichi, when character's power is based off his power in the lore. Which makes the game naturally unbalanced. There is also team-based fighting games, like Marvel VS Capcom or King of Fighters. KoF is a good example, since the characters have a lore team. But you're not forced to pick the entire team, just like a character.

    I was talking about lack of balance, because For Honor have 2 layers of complexity: one on the characters and the 1v1 situations and one based on the team composition and strategy. Forcing a faction is also forcing a specific strategy, rather than letting every one having their way on the classes they wants. I'm really not talking about the game's lore, universe, context and logic. I totally put aside that part to only focus on balance between real people. That's why I'm here.

    Originally Posted by Willaguy2010 Go to original post
    I think the ranked matches should represent the purest form of the game and it's combat, that is locked faction vs faction battles. We'll have to wait for at the very least the alpha or beta to know which direction they went, but I personally don't like mixed factions.
    We both have different definitions about the meaning of "purest form of the game". For me, "pure", in a context of competition, means "fair". If factions are locked, that means specific classes will never be in the same strategy and team balance will be forced into a small circle of classes. That will also means that, to make it more fair, Ubisoft Montreal will need to make 3 classes with the same playstyle. One for each faction. With different weapons, yes, but maybe with the same logics and chains, to make every factions viable against another. Either way, this doesn't sound "fair" and this doesn't sound "pure".

    My "purest" idea is just Domination mode with free choice of class for every body. To focus on skill and team strats.
    Share this post

  8. #8
    MisterWillow's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,342
    Originally Posted by Chaf-- Go to original post
    It's important, because it will change the game balance. If players are forced to choose a faction before each Domination matches, they are also forced to know one hero from each faction, if you play random ranked matches. If you could choose your faction and be only in teams of people that choose the same faction that you, it will be less random and will forces you to play with the same people, if they don't change factions. It could also makes the 3 factions unbalanced, because different.
    I'll echo waraidako in saying that just because the factions are different does not make them unbalanced.

    We don't know all the Heroes for every faction, and if they are how I think they will be, every faction will have Heroes analogous to the other Heroes in other factions---that is, every faction will have a glass cannon (Oni/Orochi), every faction will have a tank (Shugoki), every faction will have a relatively balanced character (Raider/Warden/Kensei)---so the overall balance is retained.

    As far as differences, they would just be defining features to further gel with your overall play-style. Want to be slightly faster than everyone else? Go Samurai. Or slightly more powerful? Go Viking. There also seem to be some things that each faction gets that others might not---so, the Vikings appear (if the linked thread above is right) to be the only faction with a dual wielding Hero (but unless that's the Tank class, the Raider might be their closest analogue), and the Samurai might be without a shield Hero (but might make up for it with a Hero more distance oriented).

    It's the same in the faction decision one makes in Planetside---the Terran Republic has hard-hitting weapons that are less accurate and fire slower, the New Conglomerate has faster firing weapons that do less damage, and the Vanu Sovereignty has extremely accurate weapons with almost no recoil (since they're all lasers) that do less damage---it's all about how you want to play, and what you feel comfortable with.

    This could also help strategy/gameplan part more flexible. To throw off a position or make them move. Like if we wanna be more on the defense, so players starts picking a Kabuki or other classes. It could be great.
    It could be done within the confines of the factions, though. One side is picking all fast people, meet them with speed, or pick tanks and soak up damage. Again, assuming I'm right, you won't need to switch factions, since all the tools you need are at your disposal already.

    But we talk about multiplayer and balance. Not themes and logic. Don't forget, we're in a video game. A multiplayer-based one. What you've lost on autenticity, you'ill gain it in battle strategy and game viability. I really think we should go for that. That and let the players choose another class after a respawn, if they wants.
    I would argue that the authenticity, as you put it, is a major selling point. It also lends itself to people roleplaying (see some of the interactions between Mathias, myself, and some of the Samurai) and having more fun within the game, and the wider community, than if you're just a person on a team with a weapon fighting another team of people with weapons.

    Maybe it's just us wanting different things out of this, but I really think you can keep the theme strong and restrict people to a faction (for the length of a match, or a session, at least) while having the strong strategic elements, and balancing, and everything else you're wanting.

    P.S. - the quote in you original post is mis-attributed to coma, when I said that [click]
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by MisterWillow Go to original post

    It's the same in the faction decision one makes in Planetside---the Terran Republic has hard-hitting weapons that are less accurate and fire slower, the New Conglomerate has faster firing weapons that do less damage, and the Vanu Sovereignty has extremely accurate weapons with almost no recoil (since they're all lasers) that do less damage---it's all about how you want to play, and what you feel comfortable with.



    You got the New Conglomerate and Terran Republic switched up btw. I agree that asymmetry does not equal unbalanced.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    MisterWillow's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,342
    Originally Posted by Willaguy2010 Go to original post
    You got the New Conglomerate and Terran Republic switched up btw.
    ...well, that's embarrassing.
    Share this post

Page 1 of 7 123 ... Last ►►