Final release game modes ... any thoughts? | Forums

[Pallbearer7]

Stat changes from gear have been confirmed to be to fit different players' playstyles, and not make someone necessarily stronger. No gear will give a player a clear cut advantage over other players, so I disagree that stat changes from gear should be excluded from ranked, as that will simply limit playstyles and reduce diversity of the games.

Tons of games come out with that same mantra. It's always a huge problem to balance things so exactly that there is no small imbalance. The problem is that perfect balance is nigh impossible, so just to prevent tons of petty squabbles between pros over little gear advantages, it's better for there to be absolutely no advantage possible. I am sure they will attempt to make the game as balanced as possible, but different stats will always end up with tiny little imbalances, there's nothing we can do.

Also in terms of game types I'm absolutely stoked they have a duel mode. I really really hope it's like Chivalry's duel where everyone ends up in a lobby with up to 20 or so other players, and you can chill in the lobby and ask certain people to duel, or duel someone random. After each match you end up back in the lobby and can ask someone else to duel or you can watch anyone else's duel that's also in the lobby. That way we can get some good ol' spectating in.

[TheBearJew411]

Also in terms of game types I'm absolutely stoked they have a duel mode. I really really hope it's like Chivalry's duel where everyone ends up in a lobby with up to 20 or so other players, and you can chill in the lobby and ask certain people to duel, or duel someone random. After each match you end up back in the lobby and can ask someone else to duel or you can watch anyone else's duel that's also in the lobby. That way we can get some good ol' spectating in.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if you have ever played the Mortal Kombat style king of the hill mode where you spectate and wait in a line to play and winner stays on and you can rank the matches you watch.

[Patient_Fodder]

Stat changes from gear have been confirmed to be to fit different players' playstyles, and not make someone necessarily stronger. No gear will give a player a clear cut advantage over other players, so I disagree that stat changes from gear should be excluded from ranked, as that will simply limit playstyles and reduce diversity of the games.

Well as I said earlier, I'd prefer no ranked whatsoever.

I can however understand why people who would like to see ranked would rather not have any influences from any stats, and keep it bare bones.

Not taking away abilities, mr Tyrannus was talking gear stats, so how that would influence gamestyles I do not know. If it would influence gamestyles, I agree with your point made.

[Pallbearer7]

I'm not sure if you have ever played the Mortal Kombat style king of the hill mode where you spectate and wait in a line to play and winner stays on and you can rank the matches you watch.

That sounds really awesome and in the same vein as Chivalry's duel mode. It's got the whole kinda casual, sit back and fight when it's your turn/you choose. And you can watch whilst you're not fighting. Just a really great idea. I hope they implement it in that way.

[Patient_Fodder]

...... that are a mix between fodder, enemies and heroes ........

Wait I just spotted that, well, see you on the battlefield!

(okok, I conveniently added a comma)

[Echo_Magnus]

I'd imagine there will be more in time. I have a feeling they want to let the game release and make sure eveything is steady before they begin introducing more game modes. There is after all, a season pass that is/will be available with the game.

Trying to anticipate or declare what modes would be "fun" now isn't such a great idea. With a more narrowed list, this gives the Devs the opportunity to flesh out any issues in the gameplay. It also allows for the players to naturally produce desired game modes AFTER the game has been released, and players have had a chance to play the game.

We can sit around a table of ideas, but without having extensive play time in the game -- we can only speculate.

[Patient_Fodder]

I'd imagine there will be more in time. I have a feeling they want to let the game release and make sure eveything is steady before they begin introducing more game modes. There is after all, a season pass that is/will be available with the game.

Trying to anticipate or declare what modes would be "fun" now isn't such a great idea. With a more narrowed list, this gives the Devs the opportunity to flesh out any issues in the gameplay. It also allows for the players to naturally produce desired game modes AFTER the game has been released, and players have had a chance to play the game.

We can sit around a table of ideas, but without having extensive play time in the game -- we can only speculate.

Are people willing to pay (again) for future unknown releases? The question was if people were satisfied with the final release game modes, to which the answer seems to be no for the majority who responded. Everybody then of course adds what they would have preferred to see, which is fine.

The more debate there is on what people like, the more possible useful information there may be for the Devs.

I assume that there are 1000s of hours worth of gameplay in games on this forum, I guess the forum population does have an idea on what they would like to see based on their experience of game modes in other games.

What this has to do with speculation of any kind is something I fail to see.

[IGotNothing111]

While the modes may get boring after a while, i think that i will still enjoy at least half of them. I hope they would add more as the game goes on

[topeira1980]

For Honor will have a strong start and will die really quickly.
EVOLVE became obsolete really quickly (what was it? two months) and that game was a heck of a lot deeper than For Honor.

For Honor is very .... shallow. simplistic. The combat system and graphics look all really impressive, but the Game modes look super simplistic and mundane and nothing to hold interest for long.
I bet the rationality behind this is paid DLC.


A mod I would love to see is a mode where each team has a leader. if a team member kills enemy players these players respawn. if a leader kills an enemy than that enemy remains dead. if the leader dies than his team stops respawning.
other members in this forum suggested few mods they would want to see but when small indie devs and their games (like chivalry and War of the roses) can produce far more interesting game modes with way more players than UBI seems just greedy (because more game modes will be plaid DLC) or amateurish.

[AvarusTyrannus]

For Honor will have a strong start and will die really quickly.
EVOLVE became obsolete really quickly (what was it? two months) and that game was a heck of a lot deeper than For Honor.

For Honor is very .... shallow. simplistic. The combat system and graphics look all really impressive, but the Game modes look super simplistic and mundane and nothing to hold interest for long.
I bet the rationality behind this is paid DLC.


A mod I would love to see is a mode where each team has a leader. if a team member kills enemy players these players respawn. if a leader kills an enemy than that enemy remains dead. if the leader dies than his team stops respawning.
other members in this forum suggested few mods they would want to see but when small indie devs and their games (like chivalry and War of the roses) can produce far more interesting game modes with way more players than UBI seems just greedy (because more game modes will be plaid DLC) or amateurish.

Evolve had a lot of problems leading to it's demise, poor balance and the most anti-consumer DLC plan to date were likely leading factors. I don't really find it valid to compare this game to things like M&B or Chiv when they are so clearly going to different things, I suppose being melee mulitplayer the connection will always be made, but I think For Honor is something else. I sure hope it doesn't die out quickly.