Member
Great game, but has WAY too many flaws. This thread is a collection of new ideas as well as old ideas that I think would change and benefit the game tremendously.
GENERAL COMBAT CHANGES:
1. INCREASE SPEED OF MOST ATTACKS (ELIMINATE MOST TELEGRAPHING)
- Everything is too easy to react to. This is the real reason the defensive meta exists
- Players would be MUCH more aggressive and combat would become much more fast-paced
- Offense would become much more rewarding and viable since attacks are much safer and much harder to punish, which in turn makes turtling lose its viability since defense would become more difficult than offense
- The skill ceiling would increase drastically and the skill of a player would show in how well they can react to attacks
- Ineffective feints and mind-games would become much more viable, but also not as required. This means more options for offense
- Aggressive gameplay and faster-paced combat would induce higher excitement and adrenaline-like gameplay.
- Attacks are just far too telegraphed in this game. Look at basically any other fighting game out there and you will see how little telegraphing there is compared to For Honor. This game might be about reaction, but not everything should be so easy.
Defense is currently too simple and easy. It should be the opposite. Spamming might become more viable, but again, the true skill of a player would start to show. Spamming is always a thing in games with effective attacks and moves. If a player cannot react and dies to spamming, then maybe they aren't as good as they thought they were. The point though isn't to make combat necessarily easier however. Parries would still exist, so spamming can still be punished. This change is just designed to make offense more viable and make combat faster.
Think about it this way: In real life, anyone who can hold a sword can swing it, but not everyone can avoid that swing as easily. Attacking is always easier in real life than defending. It's how it should be. When defending is easier and more rewarding, it's far less exciting and much more mundane.
- Some heroes' moves might become obsolete and useless, such as many unblockable bashes and such, but the balancing of the meta/game should not revolve around the heroes', but the balance of heroes' should revolve around the meta/game. So if many hereos' become much weaker, then so be it. They should be buffed/nerfed around the changes. Not the changes around them.
*CONSOLES WOULD NEED DIFFERENT VALUES AND NUMBERS, OR EVEN REMAIN UNCHANGED FROM THESE CHANGES, DUE TO THE NATURE OF CONTROLLERS AND CONSOLES
2. TECHING TO BE MORE DIFFICULT
- As of now, guard breaks are nearly useless because of how easily they are teched
- Guard breaks were created solely for the purpose of breaking defenses/turtling, but it is highly ineffective and is not accomplishing it's intended purpose
Solution to spammable guard techs: Implement a "teching stance," where the combatant automatically techs any new guard breaks after one was recently attempted on him for a certain amount of time (say 10 or so seconds), whether the guard break was successful or not. This is basically the same as Mortal Kombat's system with throws where one cannot be thrown for a certain time after a recent attempt was made to throw him. Now, this is not to say that the combatant cannot be guard broken, so dodging is still unsafe against guard breaks, but if the player is able to tech, the game will do it for him when they are in the "teching stance."
3. CHANGE ALL BLOCKING/ACTIVE GUARDS TO REFLEX
- Reactions would become much more "real." This means that players actually need to react to everything thrown at them, rather than leaving their guard in the direction they know their opponent has quickest
- Heroes' that rely on certain directions for attacks would not be completely shutdown
- Turtling would become much more difficult
- Offense would gain viability and would be much safer, increasing aggressiveness
- Skill ceiling would raise significantly
- With there being only 3 directions to attack from, it doesn't make sense to completely render one direction useless
Most of the pros to the changes here are basically the same as the first change: INCREASE SPEED OF ALL ATTACKS
4. LOWER THE REWARDS OF PARRIES FROM HEAVIES
Already being considered and discussed by the devs.
With these changes, combat becomes much faster and more aggressive, making it overall more exciting and adrenaline-inducing. Turtling and the defensive meta would be rendered useless because defense becomes much more difficult, which makes offense much more viable and easier. The skill ceiling would raise dramatically and these changes would reveal the skilled from the non-skilled based on their ability to react. For Honor is a fighting game designed around reaction, but just because it was designed around that does not mean it should be easy. It should be what it was intended to be. Watching 2 players aggressively swinging at each other for dear life is much more exciting than a staring contest.
4v4/GANKING SOLUTIONS:
1. INCREASE TEAMMATE DAMAGE CONSIDERABLY (To receive about 80-100% damage)
- MUCH less Xv1 attack spamming now that teammates need to watch where they swing, since they now risk killing each other perhaps more than their enemy
- Those in ganking situations now can react to multiple enemies since there would no longer be multiple attacks at once without consequence
- Unblockable moves and bashes would become much more unsafe to spam
Players are much less likely to attack a single target when there are already multiple teammates on said target because of how little they would actually be engaging, since they now pose a giant risk to their teammates. If players do decide to gank in pairs, it would need to be more tactical and communication between allies would be almost required to avoid killing each other.
DOMINION CHANGES:
I do not know what exactly could be implemented, but these are some ideas:
- Capture zones continuously spawn Captains (the stronger soldiers seen specifically in skirmish and the campaign) and soldiers to help the battle when a hero is present, and a few of them stay to defend the zone
- Zones would become more than just an area to capture for points, but would become key areas to hold in a match because of added perks or combat abilities
Example would be:
- Holding a zone with a hero could occasionally grant small buffs (SMALL, not skirmish or elimination BIG)- Holding a point with a hero increases that heroes' refresh rate for cooldowns (reduces cooldown)- Uneven fights earn less/more points for killing. Those on the giving end earn less (those who outnumber), while those on the receiving end earn more (those who are outnumbered). For instance, a 1v1 fight earns 100% for either, but a 2v1 only earns 50% for the 2, but the 1 earns 150% (points earned for whichever side kills). *This could also be implemented into skirmish, but not very necessary due to the nature of skirmish
The reason for these changes is to reduce the amount of ganking that happens. Increasing teammate damage might be the best change for this, but these changes would also cause players to be less likely to want to roam around and gank, but play the objective.
REVIVES:
- A player can be revived as many times as possible, but every revive brings back the player with 50% less. So for instance, the first revive revives the player for 50% health and stamina, but each additional revive reduces that number by half, so the second revives them at 25%, then 12% and so on.
I've seen many 4v1 fights last WAY too long because of how the team with more can continuously revive their teammates when they fall. It's not necessarily fair when the 1 almost cannot win because of the infinite (EXTREMELY unrealistic might I add) revives. There should ALWAYS be consequences to dying anyways.
*Another idea, but isn't necessary or required, is to give all heavies "charging," similar to how Warden charges his shoulder bash. The reason for this is to give variation in attacks and make heavies not quite so useless.
Member
Hey, I disagree with a lot of your points but there are some good ones too, so here's what I think.
General changes
1) I think increasing the attack speed of ALL characters is a bad idea. You're supposed to be able to react to attacks without having to be ultra-pro. What's more the game devs want to go down the route of playing mind games. Feints, counters, counter-counters, delaying attacks, throwing off timings and that sort of thing. So increasing the attack speed of all characters would reduce the viability of confusing and outwitting your opponent. Basically the game would become a spam-fest of mashing the fastest attacks.
However I do think some attacks could be a lot faster. A lot of the assassins have very slow heavy attacks that could be faster but deal slightly less damage. A lot of the heavy classes have light attacks that are too slow to use as opening moves. So I think there's scope to improve the speed of some characters in some areas but it would have to be balanced and in context with that character's desired play-style.
2) I agree that guardbreaks shouldn't be so easy to use. They also need to be more punishable so that there's less desire to use them during a fight. Your idea is alright but it doesn't get round the break in the flow of the fight when someone just keeps trying to guardbreak you. I would suggest that guardbreaks should be a single button press counter, like they were before they reverted it to beta mode, but that if your opponent interrupts your guardbreak you lose half your stamina or they get a free light attack. It wouldn't be enough of a punishment to deter the use of guardbreaks but it would make you far more selective about when and how you use them. Basically, it would raise the risk of guardbreaks to match the reward they currently get.
3) Absolutely disagree. The reflexive guard is specifically for assassin characters. Its a unique de-buff deliberately put on them because they're supposed to be more fragile and they're supposed dodge more. A lot of your points could easily be countered with one word... Feinting. If someone has their guard set to the direction of your fastest attack then feint another attack then use your fastest attack. They'll swap their guard stance and you'll get them.
As for making the game more offense orientated, it should be done in a way that raises the skill ceiling by giving people more options rather than by disabling parts of their characters.
Also this would be far too advantageous to the assassin characters. They're already the most frequently picked and some might argue the game is already unbalanced in their favor, so giving them any more boosts above the other classes would make them far too unbalanced.
4) Are you talking about the reward for heavy characters parrying or all classes parrying heavy attacks?
I think generally the rewards from parries should be reduced. Like, for all characters. At the moment, against any non-ranged character, you get a free guardbreak for a parry and therefore a free heavy attack. I don't agree with only reducing the reward for heavy characters or for heavy attacks. Mostly because some heavy characters have pretty slow light attacks that are as easily parried as some fast character's heavies, and it would only encourage them to turtle more if they were at more risk for using their light attacks.
4V4 and ganking!
1) No. Increasing damage to team-mates would not improve ganking, it would just make it annoying for someone that's already fighting 1v1 when their buddy comes along and starts beating down both the enemy and them. Players simply wouldn't care about other players, they'd just go for the enemy kill thinking they could revive their team-mates afterward. In fact, that could even be used to recover health to full quickly, if you kill your low-health team mate then revive them with full health.
Friendly fire is not the best way to deal with ganking. The best way to deal with ganking is by giving moves like rolling immunity to attacks so that they can be used to escape. They also need to solve the guardbreak/ shoulder bash spam that leaves someone unable to defend. Since those attacks don't damage there would be no risk of team mates using those attacks while someone beats you down.
Ultimately you're supposed to be at a disadvantage in a gank. That's why it's better to fight in groups. It's part of the game. Making you unable to defend yourself in a gank is not part of the game. So what they need to do is address the moves that leave you vulnerable. Personally I think giving revenge hyper armour and immunity to guard breaks would do the trick. If people couldn't interrupt you for a short time then you'd have that chance to take down one or two of the enemies, or to run away without someone using a running attack to slow you down again.
Dominion!
- Woop, great idea! I always thought it was strange that they had captains defend areas in the tutorial but not the actual game. It would give the opposing team time to get back and defend their places but ultimately it wouldn't be any danger to the attacker.
- Buffs for holding zones you'd have to be careful about but I think it's a good idea. You could have a team specific upgrade on each zone. In other words, if your team owns the zone and it's not being contested then you can claim the upgrade. Just the usual upgrades like the shield and/or more attack power for the A and C zones (since they're captured almost immediately by the team on that side), while the B zone (or equivalent soldier controlled area) could have the full feats upgrade.
- I made a post recently asking for points and renown to be awarded to someone that was holding off more than one attacker. Since they're giving their team a numbers advantage while the two or more enemies are occupied with them. I wouldn't want these points to be added to the team score because this would discourage ganging up, which is a valid tactical decision within that game mode. It would allow that player to gain their feats and for their part to be reflected on the scoreboard. (Right now, if you're constantly holding off ganks you usually end games with very low scores because you get very few kills while trying to survive and it doesn't reflect the part you played in the fight, keeping those enemies busy and contesting the zones.)
Revives!
- This might make reviving too weak. At the moment it's pretty balanced for the amount of time it takes to revive and it gives your team the advantage of reviving you in the middle of the map, rather than having to respawn and regroup. It would make a massive difference to skirmish especially.
Member
General Combat Changes:
1. The point with increasing attack speed was not very specific. Certain moves and attacks might be fine where they are at, but the point is that attacks are far too telegraphed and slow. The defensive meta exists solely because of how easy it is to defend and punish your opponents. Overpowering parries and non-existent chip damage are not the only reasons for that. Most attacks in general just need to be faster. Eliminate telegraphing. Not literally all attacks need to be faster, so I edited that part, but just the ones that are far too simple and easy to react to/punish.
Also, feinting is only effective in mid-level play. High-level players rarely fall for feints and that is where the game should be balanced. I also heavily disagree with the game focusing on "mind-games." The game should be about reaction. That's what it was designed to be in the beginning, but the only reason the focus is being shifted into that "mind-game" BS is because Ubi can't seem to figure out how to fix the meta and make offense more viable. The problem with mind-games too is that they only work for a limited time. Once someone figures out your mind-game strategy, you're done. Yeah, you can try something else, but there's only so much you can do. Mind-games are also, again, highly ineffective at high-level play. It shouldn't be about out-confusing or outwitting your opponent, but simply outplaying them through reaction.
2. The reason guard breaks exist is to break through an opponent's defense. If you look at games like Mortal Kombat, throws are generally never used because they really don't need to be and are generally unsafe, but they exist in case you just can't get a hit through. I dislike the guard break mechanic in general, but my point is that if it's going to be in the game, it should serve a purpose.
3. The reason I suggested removing active guards (changing all to reflex) is so that people actually have to react to attacks, rather than set their guard in the direction they know their opponent is strongest in. Some heroes', like Kensei, are completely shutdown by non-assassin heroes because all anyone has to do is block up top and he has nothing to attack with. His fastest moves are from up top.
Even if they balanced heroes correctly and there were no weak directions, I still agree with this because, again, the point is to force players to actually react to attacks. This game is far too simple and easy to remove 1/3 of the directions you're able to attack from. The skill ceiling is very low and this is one of the reasons why. If Assassins' would be getting a huge advantage from this, then there are other changes for that, such as lowering their health (except maybe not Shinobi).
4. I was referring to rewards from parrying heavy attacks. The reason I didn't write anything on this is because Ubi has already mentioned that they wanted parries to be less rewarding on heavy attacks.
4v4/Ganking
1. You are correct that you should be at a disadvantage during a gank, but the problem is how ganking works currently. There is way too much spamming from multiple enemies. The point is to deter enemies from wanting to spam. It is still possible to gank, but you'd just need to watch where you swing.
I have thought about the "revenge hyper-armor" solution and while it is a good one, the problem is you are strictly relying on revenge to do anything. Revenge should only be a small boost to help even the odds. That's it. It shouldn't be the only solution to win a fight against more than one opponent.
Revives
1. In this current state though, reviving is too powerful. It makes absolutely no sense to die and be brought back to full, as if you just respawned. There should always be consequences for dying. The amount of time it takes to revive someone is very short, and even shorter with revive gear. Part of the ganking problem too is in revives. Let's just say you are in a 1v3, but you're actually winning the fight. You kill one and turn onto someone else. The problem is one of them focuses on you, keeping you busy, while the other revives his teammate back to full. You kill him again, but the same thing happens again. It makes no sense. You're basically being penalized for killing. You can go ahead and say it's his fault for letting the enemy revive, but then again, he should also focus on his current target. There are already enough disadvantages to being outnumbered.
Senior Member
Member
.
.
Gank team spending can be slightly slowed by a couple of changes.
- The enemy / player's respa / slot game should not be in the same place as it is now, but on different sides of the map. Now Gank players are waiting in those areas. The nature of Domiantion's game suffers greatly from this.
- scoring system should be changed. Get points for every shot and fight that a player makes in battle, so that a clean cube would be less worthy. Now, often, other players steal Kills and get a better score than the one who first fought and nearly killed.
Member
I'd like to hear your feedback as to why? We don't usually agree on much, but I usually explain why I disagree. These are not perfect changes, but just something to chip away at the defensive meta and make the game far more "reactionary" than it currently is (since the devs are now focusing on mind-games rather than pure reaction).Originally Posted by nyrue Go to original post
