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

[topeira1980]

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.

i dont see a ton of difference between chivaly and WOTR. (I never used M&B as an example because M&B is completely different).
AS a melee fighter there are a LOT of things that shallow shooters have but FH doesnt - shooters use the environment a lot for cover, different engagement ranges, sniping positions, flanking positions etc. Shooters have weapons that vary sgreatly, as apposed to difference in FH's weapons that are all, pretty much, alike. Because shooters have greater veriety in mechanic an in how different the engagements are thanks to the terrain and map design (while a melee fight will be 90% the same everywhere, bar a few locations with traps and pits) than shooters can get away with simplistic modes.

For Honor can't. and even without Evolves abusive DLC plan and imbalances i fear FH will disappear really Quickly for lack of variety. i dont know if balance will be a problem since i feel like most classes are going to be so much alike that they wont matter so much.
in any case - the game seems really bare boned from all im seeing, even if the two extra classes will be cool.

My only realy big question is what kind of Co-op will be there. Because if the co-op will look like something i can replay over and over again i might change my mind.

[AvarusTyrannus]

i dont see a ton of difference between chivaly and WOTR. (I never used M&B as an example because M&B is completely different).
AS a melee fighter there are a LOT of things that shallow shooters have but FH doesnt - shooters use the environment a lot for cover, different engagement ranges, sniping positions, flanking positions etc. Shooters have weapons that vary sgreatly, as apposed to difference in FH's weapons that are all, pretty much, alike. Because shooters have greater veriety in mechanic an in how different the engagements are thanks to the terrain and map design (while a melee fight will be 90% the same everywhere, bar a few locations with traps and pits) than shooters can get away with simplistic modes.

For Honor can't. and even without Evolves abusive DLC plan and imbalances i fear FH will disappear really Quickly for lack of variety. i dont know if balance will be a problem since i feel like most classes are going to be so much alike that they wont matter so much.
in any case - the game seems really bare boned from all im seeing, even if the two extra classes will be cool.

My only realy big question is what kind of Co-op will be there. Because if the co-op will look like something i can replay over and over again i might change my mind.

Why are we talking about shooters now? Pick a lane, I was saying games like WOTR, Chiv, and M&B handle similarly, lots of sliding around the target high player/target count madness. For Honor is going for more of a focused arcade kind of duel. I find that preferable, which isn't to say that I don't enjoy M&B or Chiv crazy gamemodes, but I think the goal here is something different. In my experience playing, the characters handle quite differently and are best played in a different manner.

Just seems rather uninformed to say For Honor looks bare bones and compare it to something like Chiv where the lion's share of content is added post release by mods and player designed gamemodes.

There will be Co-Op singleplayer campaign.

[MisterWillow]

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.

While I don't think the modes themselves are all that imaginative, to say that makes the game shallow is unwarranted. I could play Dominion for hours and hours and hours, and if I ever do get bored, I can hop in Duels and have a fighting-game experience, because the game is entirely reliant on its mechanics, and the fighting system---both in regard to 1v1 and group fights---makes every single engagement unique.

[T_Sesh]

i dont see a ton of difference between chivaly and WOTR. (I never used M&B as an example because M&B is completely different).
AS a melee fighter there are a LOT of things that shallow shooters have but FH doesnt - shooters use the environment a lot for cover, different engagement ranges, sniping positions, flanking positions etc. Shooters have weapons that vary sgreatly, as apposed to difference in FH's weapons that are all, pretty much, alike. Because shooters have greater veriety in mechanic an in how different the engagements are thanks to the terrain and map design (while a melee fight will be 90% the same everywhere, bar a few locations with traps and pits) than shooters can get away with simplistic modes.

For Honor can't. and even without Evolves abusive DLC plan and imbalances i fear FH will disappear really Quickly for lack of variety. i dont know if balance will be a problem since i feel like most classes are going to be so much alike that they wont matter so much.
in any case - the game seems really bare boned from all im seeing, even if the two extra classes will be cool.

My only realy big question is what kind of Co-op will be there. Because if the co-op will look like something i can replay over and over again i might change my mind.

I have to disagree with your arguments regarding the use of environments in this game and the weapon play styles. If anything, you make very direct use of the environments in this game, more so than most shooters do even. Positioning matters more in this game, not just because of the environmental hazards that you can toss people onto/into/over, but also when you are outnumbered for instance, you are not going to want to be in an open space where you can be flanked, you are going to want to flee to a space where your attackers can only really attack you one at a time, such as a narrow hallway for instance. There are also ambushing spots to take into account, such as high ground where you might be attacked from above in killed in one shot. In regards to weapons, sure there are different types in shooters - assault rifles, shotguns etc, but I think the different classes in this game are supposed to largely fill that role. Even with just the vanguard types that we've seen so far, plays have said that each character feels and plays much different than the other characters from the other factions in that same archetype.

[ir0cklee]

I think they are really banking on how fun n' complex the combat is. Because all these modes, except dominion, are basically the same tdm-esque gameplay with different numbers of players.

Given that most of us play Overwatch and do the same basic 3 gamemodes over and over, I can't really bash these guys too hard.

I am sure they are going to come out with more innovative ones post-release.

[Echo_Magnus]

If TL;DR, just read this: Let the mass of the players decide when they actually get their hands on the product. Until then, we're just spit-balling ideas, and not any one of us has enough experience with this game to even ponder what we think might be a good game mode. What works for one game may not for this. Spending Development hours on other modes before anyone knows for certain that those modes will work is literally a waste of time and money.

As per paying for additional content in the future... I'm not going to assume they'll make us pay for a new game mode. The season pass just signifies that the Devs have committed themselves to not just launching the game, but further enhancing it in the future. These enhancements may or may not come behind a pay wall. Alpha/Beta = Appetizers, Release = Main course, DLC/etc.= Dessert. I fully expect to pay for dessert.

Below I elaborate.

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.

This is a valid point, and I can understand people being communally dissatisfied with the options that will be available day one. But we can speak to our dissatisfaction all day -- it is merely speculation. For all we know, the game will launch, and a third of the game modes listed will barely see use.

As for paying for them... Well I don't like the idea of paying for a game more than once anymore then the next player... I don't know what to say here other than that is just the direction the industry is moving in. And despite the opinions of most players on the forums stating how much they hate paying for DLC's, etc. -- this just doesn't show in the market as most players will flesh out the cash when the time comes (especially if they enjoy the game).

As players I believe that we need to adapt to the changing market and recognize that there are costs associated with big budget games. We get the quality of games that we do today because of the size and experience of the Devs teams available .As a result of these ever expanding Development companies, the cost of the game and subsidiary products will reflect that. In return we get a better game.

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

Certainly if people unanimously agree on a specific game mode that is currently absent, the Devs should consider adding this. However I wouldn't put it past the Devs that their reasoning for this may or may not be due to inherent limitations in the current Engine they're using for the game. Moreover, it appears there is some pseudo-story wrapped up in the multiplayer maps, and maybe some of the game modes being suggested are "outside" of the direction they're trying to go with the games multiplayer. But having not played the game myself, my opinion carries very little weight here.

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.

I hear you, but this pales in comparison to the tens of thousands of hours that players will log within the first week of the game. As it stands, it is a very small, focused group that would/is be speculating what may be interesting to the rest of the players. I've just seen too many instances where a game launched with more game modes then were actually utilized. What was thought to be a good idea, turned out to not draw a very large crowd.

Put plainly, we can't assume that based on our experiences with other games, that we will enjoy those same modes in this game. I mean we can literally look at these other games and see the modes that don't/didn't get used. In the end I believe the majority of the player base will settle on 2-3 games modes that are already available, and the rest will only see the occasional visit.

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

Speculation in this case is players speculating what they think would be a good game mode when, without trial, could lead to an unused game mode that the Devs would/will have spent time on -- only for the players to abandon those modes for whatever their reasons.

I'm more suggesting that we give the game a chance, and see if we are in fact not satisfied with the available games modes, instead of assuming we aren't based on a list. I'm not sure how many maps there will be available, so we haven't even factored in that variation. For that matter we'll have to wait and see how many players actually show up for the game. If there isn't a large draw to the game, then the game runs the risk of having too many options, and not enough players to fill out those options.

[Patient_Fodder]

Can't do the step by step as the text becomes too long.
So I'll try it this way.

I am sorry Mr Echo_Magnus,

But I think you are dead wrong in many ways. You underestimate the player knowledge, and you overestimate corporate wisdom. If you had read the various posts around, there are a load of proven gamemodes people suggest, it has nothing to do with money (I worked for corporates for the past 18 years, including software development).

I have been gaming for 37 years (and no I did not start playing at birth), you doubt that experience? How about people who already took part in last year's Alpha, or the recent TT? Do they not have valid hands on experience and did they not give their individual , not community, feedback to Ubisoft based on their experience with the game in the then current state?

On paying for unknown future releases. I am not dissatisfied, yet, I am speaking from experience from a game Ubi published. That is why I put the question forward. I bought the gold edition for Siege, I have not played as much as I would have for various reasons, but I still sit on a load of earnings ingame which I cannot use. I do not want to have undisclosed content in a game, not talking dlcs. The question was not "will you be satisfied with dlcs and their content", the question still is, "do you feel the release game modes are enough?" The season pass has unknown content, on that topic, but one is already expected to pay 40 euros in advance (no discount price) without knowing what will be in it? Have you played Siege? I fell for that season pass and am now sitting on 384000+ renown. A waste of real money.

Alphas and Betas are test phases, not the appetiser. An appetiser is a finished product by itself.
I do not believe that we have to accept this moving market as players. However, the more people do accept it as you do, the less likely it is to change again for the better (although Ubisoft did take a turn by not splitting the community in siege, or making it pay to win, all credits there).

On your ideas on cost I have to disagree again.
The company has a fixed amount of fte-s, they will need to provide for the needs of the company, and will do so in virtual teams. The resources are shared from Support to higher Management. This is to make products more profitable. I as a consumer care not about if, and how much money they make, I care about the money I am about to spend and the quality/quantity of the product. They have planned their titles way in advance and the cost model is relatively fixed, that is where the Project or Programme Manager (ok they call it Director) comes in. There is a predefined budget to develop a product. This will not grow all of the sudden, it may merely be rechanneled if required and will be at the expense of those developments where the budget was pulled from.

On the players debating what they like.
What I was trying to say is that the more debate there is, the more novelties may come up, or errors can be avoided. This may not be nessecary, true, but then why have feedback closed forums on tests? The same on selected testgroups? If the idea is not feasible they will discard it. What you are saying basically is, do not voice your individual opinion, but that is exactly what is asked for. Nowhere have I seen a request to come up with a community suggestion. I brought up thousands of hours as I did not want to go into rediculous numbers, but I alone have over 25000 hours in games, I own (from C64 onward) about 1800 games at least I guess on various platforms. Any data they require should be obtained from tests prior to the release date.

I can therefore easily "assume" what I will or will not play. This is not a speculation, based on the release list, Dominion is the only mode that appeals to me, that is a fact.
I cannot speak for others however.

But I am not trying to convince you. I like the debate and your effort put into this. Hell I even encourage you to voice your opinion as much as possible for reasons I already stated. Your individual voice matters, never give up that freedom or right.
: o)

I think we will have to agree to disagree for now and see where we stand coming Februari.

So back to the original question of the topic, I can conclude that you are satisfied with the announced modes?

[topeira1980]

I think they are really banking on how fun n' complex the combat is. Because all these modes, except dominion, are basically the same tdm-esque gameplay with different numbers of players.

Given that most of us play Overwatch and do the same basic 3 gamemodes over and over, I can't really bash these guys too hard.

I am sure they are going to come out with more innovative ones post-release.

I think they are really banking on how fun n' complex the combat is. Because all these modes, except dominion, are basically the same tdm-esque gameplay with different numbers of players.

Given that most of us play Overwatch and do the same basic 3 gamemodes over and over, I can't really bash these guys too hard.

I am sure they are going to come out with more innovative ones post-release.

i share the worry.
the thing that makes the difference between MP game modes in FH is the logic, reasoning and strategy that governs your decisions. the decision behind "where should i go on the map now" is what makes the difference in MP games, mostly. in dominion there is a constant desire to balance the CPs (capture points) to your teams favor. so it's different than the other 3, but the other 3 are all very much the same.
The dynamics the govern where you go are identical. all the mode that only have a purpose of killing other players are going to contain the EXACT same thing dominion has minus the CP strategy.
Duel is 1v1, but 1v1 exists all the time in dominion so it's nothing new.
I think i will enjoy the no-respawn mode more since THAT is different than the combat in dominion because dominion has only a brief moment of that.

i think that FH has a little problem - the combat is meant for 1v1 mostly. 1v2 is a done deal 90% of the time, unlike in shooters. because of that the balance of the map, the game modes and the SP campaign is so that players would most likely fight 1 other opponent. not more, because that's not much fun nor fair. this greatly limits the variety of the game modes and it definitely limits the possibilities of the campaign.
This is why im pretty positive the campaign will be a flop. a big one.

About overwatch - i dont play that game so my assumptions are just assumption but in a game like this, or in counter strike and such there is variety because of the fire arms. the difference between a long range engagement is far greater than in melee combat. you can snipe form above, shoot from below, use windows as cover, run up close to use your shotgun or stay far away to use your carbine. you can kill an enemy quickly from behind or have a longer fire fight from the front and afar. Not to mention that overwatch has characters that are vastly different. all these things are not present in FH or any other melee game. in these games it's all combat form 6 feet away, face to face. that's it.
There is no real stealth, no archery, no magic or medium range combat.... every two characters fight the same - block in 3 directions, bash and break the opponents guard. it's all very much the same. while i really like how the combat mechanics sound and look, im just saying its far more limiting than other games.

@Tnigz - now, i agree with what you said that there is indeed significance in map layout in the fights in FH, but the layout isnt nearly as important as in shooters. i just think that eventually people will grow tired of the game much faster than in most other MP games out there.

Sure, it looks like a lot of fun now, but no man sky seems like fun before you play it... and even when you do play it its fun... for a few hours. than you understand there is nothing else to it besides the initial excitement. there's not much room to grow and more to see. if 3 of the 4 modes in FH are oil boiling down to "run around, see a player - run to him and kill him" than that'll be shallow and boring quickly. Dominion has slightly more depth as you need to judge where to run, who to fight, when to retreat, but having just ONE mode like this is... disappointing. and on such small maps too. the smaller the map - the less possibilities it has for variety.

While i get why 4vs4 requires small maps - i also think that in this case this game needs to have more than 15 maps at lauch included in the 60$ price tag.... and i highly doubt UBI will be so understanding.

i hope im wrong and FH will hold on stronger than what im thinking, but the writing on the wall is foreboding, sadly.
at least that's how I read it.


@Patient_Fodder - that was a very nice and interesting post. well said.

[Patient_Fodder]

Thank you kindly mr Topeira!
: o)

[Echo_Magnus]

But I am not trying to convince you. I like the debate and your effort put into this. Hell I even encourage you to voice your opinion as much as possible for reasons I already stated. Your individual voice matters, never give up that freedom or right.

Thank you, and you as well.

I think we will have to agree to disagree for now and see where we stand coming Februari.

Agreed, and I would have mentioned the same. But I'd like you to know that you were heard, and I'm reconsidering my opinion.

So back to the original question of the topic, I can conclude that you are satisfied with the announced modes?

I'm thirsty for game time more then anything. But I'll post that seperately so our conversation and what is on topic are not too closely tied together.

It was good meeting you PF.