Warfield mode...!!! | Forums

[ArchDukeInstinct]

why would it be ultra low activity???

Your idea fails on so many levels and it's completely nonviable technically. For Honor uses a peer to peer model instead of the more typical client to server model for networking which is a huge factor as to why all your comparisons to other multiplayer games are irrelevant. Peer to peer has its benefits but is inherently unequipped to handle many players in a real time game, because each player has to send and receive packets updating game state/actions/etc from every other player in the game. The more there are the more work it is. It's perfect for duel and brawl but easily starts to somewhat struggle with only 8 when in skirmish, dominion, or elimination.

But really, anything more than 4v4 sounds awful given the mechanics of this game even if it was doable. Sorry.

[MatlaenStrider]

I think 32v32 would bring back some people because EVERYONE wants to siege a castle. Two thumbs way up!

[DarkstarQc]

Your idea fails on so many levels and it's completely nonviable technically. For Honor uses a peer to peer model instead of the more typical client to server model for networking which is a huge factor as to why all your comparisons to other multiplayer games are irrelevant. Peer to peer has its benefits but is inherently unequipped to handle many players in a real time game, because each player has to send and receive packets updating game state/actions/etc from every other player in the game. The more there are the more work it is. It's perfect for duel and brawl but easily starts to somewhat struggle with only 8 when in skirmish, dominion, or elimination.

But really, anything more than 4v4 sounds awful given the mechanics of this game even if it was doable. Sorry.

I know how peer to peer work lol as for the game mechanics I don't see a problem with it if you have bigger maps you have less chance of running into 4 to 5 players at the same time and lets not forget people that even if you all don't like it ganking will always be part of this game and all multiplayer games unless you stick with the duel and as for that other dude who think it would be less populated look at the result of the pool genius. I would loved it and obviously a lots of people would love it too. As for the peer to peer problem well we wont know if it works until they try it and if it doesn't with peer to peer the just have to put up some dedicated server for that game mode that's it. Hope they do it.

[DarkstarQc]

I think 32v32 would bring back some people because EVERYONE wants to siege a castle. Two thumbs way up!

Yeah it would be really fun!!! and those who don't,like it just don't have to play it and stick with to duel with ai sti!.

[ArchDukeInstinct]

As for the peer to peer problem well we wont know if it works until they try it and if it doesn't with peer to peer the just have to put up some dedicated server for that game mode that's it. Hope they do it.

One of the biggest if not the biggest complaint on these forums is constant disconnects and networking issues compared to other games and you think the development team should spend an enormous amount of time, effort, and resources into creating 12v12, 24v24, and 32v32 game modes because "they won't know until they try it out"? Hello? It's struggling with 4v4 for many people. These issues largely don't exist in duel, brawl. But just adding 4 additional players is having a dramatic impact for these people and now you want to at least triple the count now? Of course it isn't going to work with peer to peer and switching to dedicated servers is likely going to take a complete overhaul of the networking code, not to mention setting up these servers and paying for them, likely with no plan to do such a thing prior. It would be a disaster.

I know how peer to peer work lol as for the game mechanics I don't see a problem with it if you have bigger maps you have less chance of running into 4 to 5 players at the same time

Okay so let me get this straight, you want 12v12 and up modes just so, for a typical engagement, you see 4-5 other players... Uhh you can see that in the regular 4v4 modes right now. So why do we need new modes for this? The only real meaningful difference are bigger maps which means it takes a lot longer to get anywhere of importance on the map. Wow I'm glad we overhauled the entire networking to get that.

and lets not forget people that even if you all don't like it ganking will always be part of this game and all multiplayer games unless you stick with the duel

Well maybe so but it doesn't change that it might be a good idea to avoid making it worse, right? Maybe you could say to just not play the game mode okay but what about orders specific to it?

and as for that other dude who think it would be less populated look at the result of the pool genius. I would loved it and obviously a lots of people would love it too.

What about it? You have 139 total voters at the moment of writing this. Hardly enough to be representative and even if it was, both 24v24 and 32v32 have more no votes than yes, genius. So more than half the people don't want it but it's going to do well? You better hope the other half are diehard fans apparently. 12v12 did win by a significant amount and it is the most reasonable too. Nearly a 1/4th still don't want it, which is pretty bad still.

For Honor plays just fine with the amount of players in the game modes, adding more players, even if not a massive amount of work, is not going to make it better or really add anything in my opinion. The fact is that it's not going to work without a ridiculous amount of effort that could be spent somewhere else that is much more likely to yield positive results.

[Captain-Courage]

I'ts not Chivalry Nor Mount and Blade alas.

No dedicated server, nothing more than little tiny 4 vs 4 (talk about epic, lol, more like a schoolyard fight)
I guess they favored small scales because they thought that it was the right format for Esports (and it makes sense)

But just a tip Ubi : don't bother guys, you wil not succeed in Esports, except at making everybody laugh.

So go for the fun.

[DarkstarQc]

One of the biggest if not the biggest complaint on these forums is constant disconnects and networking issues compared to other games and you think the development team should spend an enormous amount of time, effort, and resources into creating 12v12, 24v24, and 32v32 game modes because "they won't know until they try it out"? Hello? It's struggling with 4v4 for many people. These issues largely don't exist in duel, brawl. But just adding 4 additional players is having a dramatic impact for these people and now you want to at least triple the count now? Of course it isn't going to work with peer to peer and switching to dedicated servers is likely going to take a complete overhaul of the networking code, not to mention setting up these servers and paying for them, likely with no plan to do such a thing prior. It would be a disaster.



Okay so let me get this straight, you want 12v12 and up modes just so, for a typical engagement, you see 4-5 other players... Uhh you can see that in the regular 4v4 modes right now. So why do we need new modes for this? The only real meaningful difference are bigger maps which means it takes a lot longer to get anywhere of importance on the map. Wow I'm glad we overhauled the entire networking to get that.



Well maybe so but it doesn't change that it might be a good idea to avoid making it worse, right? Maybe you could say to just not play the game mode okay but what about orders specific to it?



What about it? You have 139 total voters at the moment of writing this. Hardly enough to be representative and even if it was, both 24v24 and 32v32 have more no votes than yes, genius. So more than half the people don't want it but it's going to do well? You better hope the other half are diehard fans apparently. 12v12 did win by a significant amount and it is the most reasonable too. Nearly a 1/4th still don't want it, which is pretty bad still.

For Honor plays just fine with the amount of players in the game modes, adding more players, even if not a massive amount of work, is not going to make it better or really add anything in my opinion. The fact is that it's not going to work without a ridiculous amount of effort that could be spent somewhere else that is much more likely to yield positive results.

I don't see why if you would not like a bigger game mode because your afraid of getting gank you make a point of explaining why if they do put a bigger game mode and you don't like it just don't play in it. it's really simple.

[gringojay]

why would they do that??? because your afraid to get gank in a bigger game mode little boy...

no BIG boy , for all the reasons that other people have already given you. You are asking for a new game lol. Games cost a lot of money and take a long time to make, just because it's virtual doesn't mean that anything is possible. Or rather with finite resources. What you aren't understanding is this isn't a gaming issue, it's an economic issue.

[gringojay]

No one can really argue that it would or wouldn't be fun since that's subjective. But what people have been arguing (and you've been ignoring [you dum fuccca]) is the technical feasability of it. Mate how can you struggle to take on new information so much? go home, let the adults talk....

[Aibjorn]

It would be really nice. But For Honors p2p system is **** and it would be un-playable.