1v1
2v2
4v4
8v8
16v16
32v32
Member
Well, right now ill say what everyone is saying, we cant have more than 8 players in the current map sizes and modes. But, it could work just fine in an open field map, like suggested in a thread already, an huge map with nothing but tall grass in the middle and some trees in both sides, im talking about 3x - 5x the size of the original maps, then perhaps we could have more people fighting in the same map. Rendering wont be a problem, but in the server-side, i can see this problem still happening tho
Regarding the blood, i dont know if you noticed, but there ARE blood stains on your armor when you get hit, and is pretty awesome btw, see this gameplay and youll notice it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOBKBnAWh4U, go to 9:02 for the exact moment, or stay for the whole journey, the video is funny. And yes, i do feel this game needs a LOT more blood, and less of those Vodoo magic, fancy lighten feats and neons everywhere. The HUD design is a big problem right now Ubi
As for the gore....i would really like some limb cutting as executions too, like what the kensei do to a lucky fella in the story cinematic trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6GGoTxvGzk, around 2:38), and not restrict to decapitations only, the same goes for the cannon fodder soldiers you slain. Now one thing i suggested before are the bodies dissapearing after 2secs and becoming "mummies" in the ground, its.... weird to say the least.
Finally, regarding the horses, wagons, archers..... best leave it for the sequel right? maybe in "For Glory" in 2020 xD
Senior Member
Originally Posted by LastMoh1can Go to original post
I cant believe all you guys think this "Epic megabattle modes" would work. Leaving technical limitations aside, for honors gameplay mechanics dont allow for it.
Making enormous maps, so the tenthousand players you all wish for dont get in the way of each other and can fight properly, MIGHT work gameplaywise but then again, where is the point of doing that ? If you separate 100people to fight 1v1, why have a mega multiplayer mode in the first place ? If you do not separate them how would you keep all those players from just clumping up, having a massive bulp of players wildly swinging area attacks ? How would this end any other way as the people fighting on the edges of the bulp slowly slaughtering everyone in the middle, not because they play better but because they are the only ones not having someone stabbing swords in their backs ? How would you prevent everyone from lying on the floor all the time because of revenge mode beeing activated simultaniously by everyone who is not dying in the first 2 seconds ? If 5 attacks are thrown at you every second, there is no other possible outcome than a player either also trying to attack and immediately die OR blocking in ANY direction and immediately blocking all 5 attacks because if only one of the incoming attacks matches his defense stance he will block them all, immediately finishing out his revenge meter, throwing like 10 people around him on the floor, landing a blow somewhere and then the whole procedure starts anew.. Sounds really funny to me.
Even if you take revenge out, players will nevertheless just form a big bubble because the best tactical decision in this enviroment is not duelling but looking for someone who is duelling someone and bury an axe in his back. In the resulting chaos, noone will be able to focus on specific attacks and react to them, it will just be a gamble. In the resulting hack and slash fest, you might not even be able to make out who killed you because of all the attacks thrown out.
You are also limited to play the warden ALL the time because of his fast area attack.
I could go on for hours.
Member
I think the reason the mass battles sound exciting for this game is because that's exactly what they were like. Individual warriors had skill, but when it fell to mass charges in the field, or situations similar, it was pure chaos. Skill did not always prevail as much as luck and situational awareness so you aren't suddenly surrounded by four enemies. There would be clumps of soldiers in the worst of it. That's kind of the point of the phalanx and disciplined armies with battle formations - they were very successful keeping a wider front and not devolving into pure chaos - at least until they met the Teutonics in the north and got surrounded in the field.
Personally I would love to have this be a part of the game in its own specific mode. There's the modes where one can develop one's skills and shine in a one on one environment (1v1, 2v2, 4v4). There's the modes where one can do that with some objectives in mind (Dominion). It's sort of small unit and individual actions on a battlefield. I do think though too it would be fun to experience general melee and just the chaos and the luck involved to get through it. There would have to be some sort of limitation though to make it work - one side reaches a certain number kills - or - better to my mind - you can only respawn three times. Eventually the field would be narrowed down to a few like you always see in the movies and they determine the fate of the engagement. I think it would be great and I'd love to see it as an additional mode if it's technically possible - but - I'm not in any way looking to undo or undermine what's already there.
Member
Youre right, noobs & dishonorable types will wreck this mode, but really... it doesnt matter the mode you play, all you said already happens in any mode past 1x1. Someone will always ruin you duel, either accept the fact with serenity or rage spectacularly, it wont change their playstyles. Like Sr.Smith used to say........its inevitable...
Now for those who like massive battles, i suggested a gamemode on that thread, its like an total war game with you controlling the general. And look, im not that naive, I dont have any hopes of getting it done, its just that i like to dream a little and shape games to my liking. Ill just bump that idea here, if you dont like, dont worry, it probably wont happen
- Its a 1x1 mode, but with an huge army at the players disposal, similar to a Total War game where you are the general and you give specific commands to troops, except you'll be in there spilling blood yourself!
- This mode could take an special section in this game, where players manage their armies, banners, colors, captains ( similar to a clan where you invite players to join your army) and a place where you could use the gold you get (by ONLY playing this mode) to buy a variety of troops, steel to upgrade their weapons and armors, skill points aquired by experience of troops to make them more strong against other troops, learn special formations, and even be able to counter players in some way. And many other things i would like to suggest, but i'll go megalomaniac and my mind would explode.
- The battle objectives could be: points drain by control of territories / total anihilation / general killing / castle capture / etc.
- After the battle, in case you lost your entire army, i have 2 ideas: buy new troops and make them very cheap to do so while also making the upgrades and skills easily obtainable.... OR.... revitalisation of the regiment, where you could pay a signficant amount of gold to reset each troop the way they were, without loss of skills and upgrades. Or we could just reset everything after each battle and make this mode easy and boring....
Member
The idea of huge maps is interesting but what is the underlying story? The campaign should have the knights possibly battling during the Hundred Years' War as Henry V forces.
The Vikings campaign should include major battles like Hastings in 1066 giving players a chance to demonstrate their martial art Gilma involving grappling wrestling style which developers can research and their should be a good variety of weapons overall.
All of this is what will make this a memorable experience for the right reasons.
And the Samurai should be able to battling in a story similar to Shogun to crown a new shogunate.
Also research into the fighting styles used by each force would really make this memorable particularly with the Samurai being Kendo experts capable of using judo or Karate and related weapons when unarmed making them lethal either way.
Also think what the non combat sequences will be like in terms of cut scenes that make the storylines engrossing. Also there appears to be a surprising lack of depth to the players weapons and this will need correcting otherwise the combat will seem pretty repetitive also there seems to be nothing the player can command whether it's archers raining barrages of arrows, catapults with boulders and fireballs or other cavalry and so this may be worth researching to add some variety to the game as it will help artillery will be particularly useful in smashing castle fortifications sending troops tumbling from them into moats and archers could help defend walls or soften troops up when they're charging .
Member
Senior Member
I agree that this will be common in deathmatch which will be the hack n slash mode i ll never set a foot into. Dominion is a different issue. The point-capture mechanic spreads players across the battlefield. So fights of 1v1 and 2v2 will be most common. Also, fighting on your own vs. 2 opponents can work for a while. The footage we have now mostly shown 2 teams of noobs running around and occasionaly forming deathballs but that wont be a viable strategy once people gain experience.Youre right, noobs & dishonorable types will wreck this mode, but really... it doesnt matter the mode you play, all you said already happens in any mode past 1x1. Someone will always ruin you duel, either accept the fact with serenity or rage spectacularly, it wont change their playstyles. Like Sr.Smith used to say........its inevitable...
This is nice and all but you are talking about a totally different game in just one mode, making the whole argument tautologic.Originally Posted by LastMoh1can Go to original post
For example many people like rpgs, so i guess someone could say "Ubisoft, please include a massive openworld singleplayer mode with a great story where the characters can use magic" That wouldnt be "bad" but arguing about it is somehow pointless. Of course noone has a problem if they would somehow decide to include a second game on the ForHonor disc. It just doenst have anything to do with the topic at hand: For Honor.
Great. Then we should also limit vision to just 1/5 of the screen. Not because it would make sense, or because it would work gameplaywise but just because thats how it was when knights had their visor down...Originally Posted by AeraLure Go to original post
No you wont. You would hop in there, play some games and then decide that it just doesnt work.Originally Posted by Orisoll Go to original post
Well, back when i was 14 years old i played a lot of so called "4vs4 20 minutes no attack"-games in starcraft. That was ******** gameplaywise but i had fun. So if you are still a kid you might also have fun in 32vs32
Member
Battlefield and Call of Duty have basically the same mechanics.... There's no new way you hold your gun, intricate reloading etc. They basically play exactly the same, no matter how you want to look at it.Originally Posted by DesperateRook53 Go to original post
For Honor has it's own mechanics. Sure Chivalry had fairly detailed fighting mechanics, but For Honor's fighting mechanics are geared towards going against lower amounts of enemies, and chivalry seems like it gives you the tools to go against multiple enemies. (haven't actually played it myself though).
To me the problem is not in suggesting new ideas, I just get agitated when people say this game "NEEDS" higher player count to be good.
My other problem is that the suggestion just doesn't go with the game.... Is it fine if I say "Oh this game should have guns and jetpacks so all the factions can use them, it would be awesome!" It may sound cool to some people but just doesn't work for this game and just isn't what this game is period.
But at the end of the day you do have the freedom to suggest whatever you want for this game.. I just feel like we are more in the fantasizing about something that seems cool in the mind and may have worked for other games instead of what will work with For Honor and its unique mechanics.
Junior Member
Senior Member
Would big battles be awesome? Sure.
Is it doable? Not very likely.
Would big battles fit to the general theme? Yes.
But the game mechanics would have to be ignored in such a mode.
Big battles would be cool but the engine and technology used could not handle it properly. A p2p system coordinating 64 players in a highly timing based game? Not happening. To make it remotely work, skills a d combo would need to be reduced to an absolute minimum. This would suck out the games identity as a skill based, strategic fighting game, leaving an empty shell, pretending to be chivalry.
What can be done to make battles more crowded? Add "soft bots". "soft bots" are based on heroes but their type is restricted to the attackers / defenders faction. They don't have special abilities and only half the size and health of a true bot / player class. However, they have the ability to resurrect fallen heroes (us and true bots) and they can take capture points - at a slower rate.
This makes them an additional threat and would add a new layer to the battle. Loom at them as some kind of sergeant or elite soldier, who already stands above simple foot soldiers but does not have the skill of a full fledged hero.
To make them distinguishable, their armor should be more basic compared to a level 1 hero and their body size should be reduced compared to a hero. Uniform colours matching the side and the absence of heraldry and patterns would do the rest.
With this workaround, battles would look more crowded, no additional connections would need to be managed by the host and another tactical layer would be present.
