How to negate the "Never Attack First" Meta | Forums

[Pariah695]

The turtle meta lasts for more than a month now!
I think they had plenty of time to think about that problem that is killing the game.

I'm just asking for a reaction, a word from the devs. Just to know if they even consider changing anything.

It can't stay as it is right now, and it's just going to get worst.

Soon all the fights will just be 2 Wardens facing each others for days without doing anything...

The turtle meta has been around for much more than a month. In the first alpha version of the game several months ago, this problem still existed. And even back then there were people on the forums saying that defense was too strong. And Ubi has done nothing.

Honestly, after hearing Ubisoft saying how they didn't expect defense to be this strong and things like how feinting parries and berserker lights being punishable with GB on block were all unintended, it really makes me think that the designers of this game had no idea what they were doing. Clearly things like frame data they weren't even considering.

The long silence from Ubi not fixing anything means one of two things to me. Either they don't care and have no actual interest in fixing the game, which makes sense because it's Ubisoft and they only care about mass market casual appeal, of which the game is great for as is. Or they're really taking the time to learn how to design and balance a competitive fighting game.

Or I suppose they're trying to wrap their heads around the problems they barely understand, and throwing a bunch of ineffectual fixes at it, such as increasing chip damage, and remaining just as clueless as to what they're doing. I don't mean to sound rude, but it's shocking to me that no one on their QA team was good enough to see these problems and bring them up to the devs during development. It really feels like a bunch of casual gamers who have no understanding of the incredible amount of depth a typical fighting game has.

[Varicose_Veins]

The turtle meta has been around for much more than a month. In the first alpha version of the game several months ago, this problem still existed. And even back then there were people on the forums saying that defense was too strong. And Ubi has done nothing.

Honestly, after hearing Ubisoft saying how they didn't expect defense to be this strong and things like how feinting parries and berserker lights being punishable with GB on block were all unintended, it really makes me think that the designers of this game had no idea what they were doing. Clearly things like frame data they weren't even considering.

The long silence from Ubi not fixing anything means one of two things to me. Either they don't care and have no actual interest in fixing the game, which makes sense because it's Ubisoft and they only care about mass market casual appeal, of which the game is great for as is. Or they're really taking the time to learn how to design and balance a competitive fighting game.

Or I suppose they're trying to wrap their heads around the problems they barely understand, and throwing a bunch of ineffectual fixes at it, such as increasing chip damage, and remaining just as clueless as to what they're doing. I don't mean to sound rude, but it's shocking to me that no one on their QA team was good enough to see these problems and bring them up to the devs during development. It really feels like a bunch of casual gamers who have no understanding of the incredible amount of depth a typical fighting game has.

All this and...

it will be telling in the next Warrior's Den broadcast if this issue is discussed.

So far Ubi have barely mentioned it. My gut feel is they don't get the depth and magnitude of this problem.

Seems like Roman is the key guy at Ubi when it comes to the fighting paradigm. I'll be watching tomorrow to see what he says. Up to now he's only talked about character match-up data, bug fixes and tiny tweaks.

[Xanthus730]

The turtle meta has been around for much more than a month. In the first alpha version of the game several months ago, this problem still existed. And even back then there were people on the forums saying that defense was too strong. And Ubi has done nothing.

Honestly, after hearing Ubisoft saying how they didn't expect defense to be this strong and things like how feinting parries and berserker lights being punishable with GB on block were all unintended, it really makes me think that the designers of this game had no idea what they were doing. Clearly things like frame data they weren't even considering.

The long silence from Ubi not fixing anything means one of two things to me. Either they don't care and have no actual interest in fixing the game, which makes sense because it's Ubisoft and they only care about mass market casual appeal, of which the game is great for as is. Or they're really taking the time to learn how to design and balance a competitive fighting game.

Or I suppose they're trying to wrap their heads around the problems they barely understand, and throwing a bunch of ineffectual fixes at it, such as increasing chip damage, and remaining just as clueless as to what they're doing. I don't mean to sound rude, but it's shocking to me that no one on their QA team was good enough to see these problems and bring them up to the devs during development. It really feels like a bunch of casual gamers who have no understanding of the incredible amount of depth a typical fighting game has.

1. For Honor isn't framerate-locked and moves/sim-speed/physics aren't tied to framerate. Hence: there is no such thing as frame data in For Honor. Moves and everything else is done in milliseconds. Though, this is mainly a pedantic argument.
2. They haven't been silent.

That is all.

[Pariah695]

They have been silent, for months. Ever since the first publicly playable alpha build people, including myself, have been talking about these issues on the forums. All the way up until launch they never said a word, never acknowledged anything people were saying, and didn't fix very much at all. Only post release did they realize how strong defense was, claiming they had no way of knowing that was the case because during the tests players only had a few days to play and didn't have the time to reach the level for that to crop up. Despite several people talking about these issues over 6 months ago after only about 4 days to play.

[Mr_Gallows]

They have been silent, for months. Ever since the first publicly playable alpha build people, including myself, have been talking about these issues on the forums. All the way up until launch they never said a word, never acknowledged anything people were saying, and didn't fix very much at all. Only post release did they realize how strong defense was, claiming they had no way of knowing that was the case because during the tests players only had a few days to play and didn't have the time to reach the level for that to crop up. Despite several people talking about these issues over 6 months ago after only about 4 days to play.

That's just wrong. They have NOT been silent for month. Every tuesday, there is a twitch stream of three hours where they discuss the game. Today is the third show. Last week they mentioned the defensive meta and admitted that defence was too strong.

[Maaci]

He said for months, not month. And three weeks of talk from their side and they havent given us any concrete answers whatsoever.

[Felis_Menari]

He said for months, not month. And three weeks of talk from their side and they havent given us any concrete answers whatsoever.

It's starting to look like we should play other games until For Honor gets fixed up. ME: Andromeda is only a week away; if FH is still borked by then, I may end up giving it a break for a month or two before giving it another go.

[Mr_Gallows]

He said for months, not month. And three weeks of talk from their side and they havent given us any concrete answers whatsoever.

I doubt they have any answers yet. I am sure they don't want to release their raw design ideas for a future patch. If you watch the show there are actually answers... just not to the question of defence. But watch today and if they don't mention it - just keep asking

[Pariah695]

I totally get them not wanting to spill the beans on the exact things they're working on, but something a little more than, "We're looking into it" would be immensely appreciated. I'd like to at least know they actually understand what the problems are so they can properly approach fixing them. I can't give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually get it when they released the game in the state they did.

It's frustrating that these problems have been around for as long as they have, and only now they're being addressed. I was so hyped for this game, as I'm sure many of us were. And then you get your hands on it and it feels great and it's a blast. But after not too long you start to see the problems. Eventually you reach a level where the problems become all the game is, and it becomes utterly miserable to play.

I completely dropped the game after less than a week. I still love what the game is, or what it wants to be at least, but I can't bring myself to have fun playing it. This is the only fighting game I've ever played where fighting someone at the same skill level as you is not the most intense and fun experience you can have. That's where the impatience to hear when fixes will be comes from. I want to be able to love For Honor. Not knowing when or IF that will be possible is quite vexing.

[Maaci]

Didnt watch it but from your post i seem to not have missed much. I tried to watch this show another week ago and i didnt like the approach they did, felt slow paced and a little bit all over the place with random talk about random stuff and then one guy from ubisoft was harder to understand as well.

Anyway, YE, they should atleast mention WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE and not some generic crap such as "defence is to strong", that can literally mean a ton of things. This feels like typical PR-talk and my experience with that is that the game will never be fixed, EVER! Thats my experience with that kind of pr-talk.