yes 12vs12 3 or 2 faction warfield
no 12vs12 3 or 2 faction warfield
yes 24vs24 3 or 2 faction Warfield
no 24vs24 3 or 2 faction Warfield
yes 32vs32 2 faction Warfield
no 32vs32 2 faction Warfield
Member
why would they do that??? because your afraid to get gank in a bigger game mode little boy...Originally Posted by gringojay Go to original post
Member
why would they do that??? because your afraid to get gank in a bigger game mode little boy...Originally Posted by gringojay Go to original post
Junior Member
With current server issues this would be a nightmare, would you really want a game with 64 players when the game shudders to a halt every time a person leaves? If you're lucky enough that it doesn't crash all together.
I know this seems appealing, I really can see why you think it would be cool and I completely agree but not in this game. Something like this would need the game to be designed specifically around it and this game just isn't. It was designed with a focus on fighting one to very few opponents at the same time, not large scale battles. The whole reason ganking works is because the combat is designed in such a way that one person will struggle greatly against multiple enemies. I really hope the game you're talking about does get made some day but it's not this one.
Member
You guys know this game is p2p right? 24 players p2p? 24x bandwidth utilization? You know these packets aren't Multicast too right? Open up wireshark while running this game. This game already hits your NIC hard and will never be able to support this. Already done an analysis of some of the networking aspects that fail this game here...
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...s-of-this-game
Member
they just have to put dedicated server up and running for that other game mode that's it they can even rent server and make money out of it if they allow people to form clan like in battlefield(or at least they used to have clan in other battlefield but that went down the toilet with bf1 which went down the toilet to because of it)Originally Posted by Drekle Go to original post
Senior Member
I was wandering around in story mode last night, in the Samurai campaign where you have to take out the Knight patrols on the way to Apollyons castle, and it just struck me how that environment was perfect for a larger scale map with actual players running around in instead of just NPCs.
There's also a mission where you have to secure a castle, and it goes white neutral coloured until you have cleared all the enemies within, and then you capture it, just like a Dominion Zone, and I thought, why can't we capture castles like this in multiplayer? There is so much potential, and the environments and mechanics are all in place already in the story mode.
Never going to happen with the P2P system, but I can't help wondering why they are thinking so small. I wish they would think big with For Honor. The game is crying out for being able to roam in an open world as a bunch of Samurai, coming across a Knights castle and fighting to capture it. Shame there's no Division / Ghost Recon Wilidlands sized maps for us to crusade around in. Would absolutely love that.
Oh well, can only dream.
Member
Senior Member
Looking at the voting results was too much trouble for your little brain I take it?Originally Posted by townnet Go to original post
Member
why would it be ultra low activity???Originally Posted by townnet Go to original post
Member
Because lack of people to play this mode, this mode gonna mess up the game mechanic.Originally Posted by DarkstarQc Go to original post
