Senior Member
I really don't particularly see the point in mentioning this with such detail. We already know the dlc heros have more than OG heros.
Bringing up 4v4 as a showcase for the imbalance of DLC heros is also not a great argument. Pre DLC 4v4 was the exact same thing it is now. Being that majority of players spam fast and/or safe attacks in groups. The only time 4v4 EVER looks good is when watching pros because they are able to actually counter that. I'm not saying 4v4 is okay as is. But to pretend that this is new and caused exclusively by dlc heros is just you blatently trying to force your point.
I absolutely do not agree with the mentality of removing moves and bringing down the dlc heros. The DLC heros work because they have good aspects in them that the base OG kits lack. While some DLC heros are gimmicky with some things all of them either have proper mix up game or good kit flow. Wether you want a slower paced more "tactical" game or a faster paced more combo/mix up intensive game is irrelevant. Base game was flawed and part of that was due to poor kit design.
Gladiator and shaman are the best examples of actual mix ups and good kit flow. I'm not saying both kits are flawless or 100% fair in every regard. But they both work. That is what we need to put into the older kits.
It can be as simple as giving every OG hero the ability to soft feint a single attack into a GB and also giving every single one of them a light into heavy combo. Both of those alone would shoot up kit viability in the OG cast by a good amount. If you're worried anyone is going to turn out like shaman than your worry is misplaced. Shaman is meant to be decent at everything. Conq will not be this way when reworked. Neither will kensei. I really hate to say it but if you're fixated on the game becoming "fast attack/unblockable spam" the problem is your mentality. Not the game. it's a very short sighted and toxic mindset.
I would have absolutely no problem with the game being more like fencing than a traditional fighter. It's what drew me to for honor in the first place. The PROBLEM was that it was too freaking simple. It had a very low skill ceiling and short skill gap. Even if we went back to base for honor but with all the defensive meta fixes the game would still be floundering because the kits themselves in the OG roster are VERY lacking. They're not really even kits. Just one gimmick that may or may not work. Warden is SB. Valk is sweep. etc. Wether you like shaman or not at least she's got a complete kit. Wether you like gladiators kit or not at least it works. Bringing the other heros down will not improve the game. it doesn't fix the old heros. Actually reworking the old kits fixes the old kits.
I personally would love for honor to be more combo intensive with longer fights. But even if the devs nail the parry nerfs and hero reworks it's not going to happen. This is entirely because with the exception of shinobi movement/positioning doesn't matter enough. This is because footsies and frame traps are not a thing. If we were going to go back to the fencing style that for honor launched with blocking would need a serious rework. The base mechanics would need to be redone in such a way that it's how the person uses the mechanics that makes someone good. Like dark souls. or smash brothers. Basically. For honor is and always will be one demensional and simplistic regardless of what is changed. It's simple but with no depth. It's fair easier for the developers at this point to make kits themselves have better depth and use than for them to scrap the game entirely (figuratively of course) to re do the mechanics from scratch. Maybe in for honor 2. But not with this one.
Banned
Senior Member
Everyone might know that this was the case, but being confronted with the actual numbers can still serve to highlight the underlying issues me, and others have expressed concern for.I really don't particularly see the point in mentioning this with such detail. We already know the dlc heros have more than OG heros.
And just because the community at large is aware of this, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.
Dominion is one of, if not the most popular gamemode. With that in mind, it's definitely worth using it as a starting point when arguing about the overall direction of For Honor, and the impact of newer hero design on the broader gameplay.Bringing up 4v4 as a showcase for the imbalance of DLC heros is also not a great argument.
I disagree. The crux of my argument is that the DLC heroes are half as many in number, yet have significantly more attacks with special properties. It's true that most players will rely on faster and safer attacks in 4v4 modes, but the popularity of the DLC heroes, paired with their averagely higher numbers of special attacks increases the rate of which players will encounter these moves in a game. This is what I don't like, and Season 2-4 only exacerbated this issue.Pre DLC 4v4 was the exact same thing it is now. Being that majority of players spam fast and/or safe attacks in groups.
Perhaps not caused exclusively by DLC heroes, but I feel it's most definitely made worse by them. And I am not forcing a point, I'm simply making one. At no point did I state that my opinion about this was definite and the only correct one. Voicing my opinions and concerns is not "blatantly forcing" a point.I'm not saying 4v4 is okay as is. But to pretend that this is new and caused exclusively by dlc heros is just you blatently trying to force your point.
It's fine that you don't agree with me, but I have to say at this point; I do not appreciate the tone of your post. Because you don't agree with me, does not mean my concerns are to be dismissed out of hand, and that I shouldn't have bothered to bring them up in the first place.I absolutely do not agree with the mentality of removing moves and bringing down the dlc heros. The DLC heros work because they have good aspects in them that the base OG kits lack.
And like I said a few pages ago, I'm hoping the answer lies in a middle ground between bringing down the DLC heroes, and bringing up the OG roster. I do feel that Gladitor and Shaman could still work exceptionally well without the toe stab, and headbutt. They seem to be very superfluous moves.
Again, the tone of your post seemingly singling me out almost feels like a personal attack. I really don't appreciate that when for the past 4 pages, several other members have expressed both support and disagreement with my point.. Wether you want a slower paced more "tactical" game or a faster paced more combo/mix up intensive game is irrelevant.
I am not alone in feeling the way I do, and because some players share this sentiment it does not make our desires and wishes for the game irrelevant.
I don't believe that the entire base game was flawed, but as the meta began to materialize some kits certainly showed that they were lacking in specific areas. But I don't believe that making the DLC heroes kits' so well equipped that few of them have any downsides was the right call.Base game was flawed and part of that was due to poor kit design.
Agreed, but I'm hoping for more of a middle ground, than simply giving older heroes as many moves as those two heroes. The Berserker for example could make do with 1 unblockable move, or just something to better combat turtles, while the Gladiator could absolutely remain viable without the toe stab.Gladiator and shaman are the best examples of actual mix ups and good kit flow. I'm not saying both kits are flawless or 100% fair in every regard. But they both work. That is what we need to put into the older kits.
I don't believe my worry is misplaced, because the past 4 Seasons all kept adding to the things that makes me worry. Shaman may have been meant to be decent at everything, but currently she's really great at everything.If you're worried anyone is going to turn out like shaman than your worry is misplaced. Shaman is meant to be decent at everything.
Bold claim when we currently know nothing of what their reworks will actually entail.Conq will not be this way when reworked. Neither will kensei.
Again, you're really singling me out and damn near condemning my opinion because you don't agree with it. Seriously, having an opinion that might not be popular does not make it toxic or shortsighted.I really hate to say it but if you're fixated on the game becoming "fast attack/unblockable spam" the problem is your mentality. Not the game. it's a very short sighted and toxic mindset.
My opinion is based on 4 Seasons worth of content and balances, I would not consider that shortsighted. I am not fixated, i am worried that the game will focus too much on faster attacks, and higher numbers of unblockables because that's what's been happening for the past 4 Seasons.
Not to be outright rude, but you did read the whole thread before posting, right?Bringing the other heros down will not improve the game. it doesn't fix the old heros. Actually reworking the old kits fixes the old kits.
These are all interesting ideas, and I don't want to say that nothing you're suggesting can't ever be done. If you don't want to believe that For Honor can make the changes needed to make it a better game for you, that's fine. But I do believe that For Honor can improve, and become a game I would love even more.But even if the devs nail the parry nerfs and hero reworks it's not going to happen. This is entirely because with the exception of shinobi movement/positioning doesn't matter enough. This is because footsies and frame traps are not a thing. If we were going to go back to the fencing style that for honor launched with blocking would need a serious rework. The base mechanics would need to be redone in such a way that it's how the person uses the mechanics that makes someone good.
That's the point of this thread. If we have ideas or suggestions, we're only hurting the game by keeping quiet about it.
Senior Member
@Tundra
I should mention specifically that I do happen to say "you" a lot when i'm not actually directly referring to you specifically but in a much wider group capacity. Like when someone is arguing about issues with republicans. They might replace the word "republicans" with something like "people like you..." I'm 100% aware this is my bad writing and not your fault on assuming. So I apologize about that. But just wanted to make sure to point it out. Also please don't read too much into my tone either. I might come off as condecending or dismissive at times but i'm not. I see all people I debate with on the same level with me. I just argue with passion. If I start blatently insulting you or getting close to swearing those would be ques that i'm actually being pissy and not just arguing with passion. Anyway. onto the meat of the debate.
I can see when this kind of thing would be helpful. However I think it misses it's mark here on the forums. As majority of players don't visit here or even either reddit page. This would be a much better format if done in a video by a community pillar or if the devs themselves published something like this. My point is I believe enough people on the forums are aware of the big disparity between OG heros and DLC heros. So trying to use it as an argument, at least imo, is wasted and not needed.
You kind of ruin my point with 4v4 by splitting it into 2 pieces like that. Not devaluing what you said just pointing it out. Moving on though yes. The dlc heros mean you run into special attacks more. But that's a loaded argument. As imo it's worded in such a way to lead people (wether you believe it or not) to believe that the problem started with the dlc heros. Not that they made them worse. I personally quit 4v4 in season 1 because of how rubbish the spam was.
I can agree that aspects about dlc heros can be nerfed to bring them in line a little. But I don't think that removing moves is the right avenue for that. Toe stab might not work at higher levels but removing it entirely just gives him one less option to potentially threaten with. That's not good. In general I don't think developers should ever think to removing something as a go to option to address something. It would be better for them to address the problem. So in toe stabs case the problem isn't actually the move itself. it's that animation queing forces people to eat the stab. that should be looked into rather than simply out right removing the move.
Here is the uncomfortable issue though. yes. It sucked that DLC heros. people you paid real money for. Had better ways of dealing with game flaws. At the same time though it's not like they really had a choice. They wanted to make the game better. But they also were legally required to push this content people paid for. If it came out super delayed people would literally try to sue. The dlc heros in my opinion were a great way for the devs to test ideas on how to address issues the game had. They learned with the centurion that unblockables alone are not enough to fix the issues. With each season we could see they were getting better at making more useful kits. In an ideal situation this wouldn't have happened. and the numerous growing pains the game has been through over a year now wouldn't have been a thing. But the game wasn't good enough for a lot of players. and the devs have been trying to address that for awhile now.
Shaman is factually not great at everything. You can look at other kits even some OG kits and see them being better than her at certain concepts. The reason she doesn't feel like this though is because she's got the option to do multiple things. Her flexibility masks her issues and flaws. It's not a bold claim. It's very simple to understand why they won't turn out like shaman. Because kits have themes. As I eluded shaman is meant to be hyper flexible. Kensei is all about that mix up/feint game. The rework will be focused on making that more usable. He might become flexible as heck. But he won't have the pressure, the range, or the sustain like shaman. Conq is all about defending. etc.
Let me reword. What is toxic and short sighted is devolving all the dlc heros as nothing but fast attack/unblockable spam. I know this isn't said outright. But the worries presented and the way the argument is postured makes it come off like that. Being present for 4 seasons doesn't mean much if all you're gleaming from the kits is exactly what you don't want. And since this post started with numbers lets talk about fast attacks. Did you know every hero in the game save 3 has a 500ms attack or faster? to my knowledge 3 heros have 400ms attacks. pk's zone. thighlanders OF lights. and shaman's top bleed poke. No one has any faster than that.
Just your post. I don't sift through multiple pages.
Yes it's possible. In the sense that anything is possible because of the unlimited possibilities reality can have in a vacuum. That doesn't mean it's realistic.
If your intended goal is to make the game closer to it's original fencing roots I would suggest those suggestions are counter productive. The developers spent nearly 2 seasons trying to bandaid that kind of game. It didn't work. They decided to rework the game towards what the competitive crowd wanted. Which was a more intense mix up heavy kind of game. Where people had an actual kit list and not a few moves with a single gimmick. It's far more likely that the devs would take yet another design path change with the next game. Then attempt to do so again while in the middle of still working on this new direction.
Senior Member
I should mention specifically that I do happen to say "you" a lot when i'm not actually directly referring to you specifically but in a much wider group capacity.Those two statements sort of contradict each other. But even besides that, you're still throwing around words like "toxic", "shortsighted" and "irrelevant", whether they're directed at me, or a larger group still isn't what I'd consider an appropriate way to debate.Just your post. I don't sift through multiple pages.
If that's what you consider passionate debating, please tone it down a bit. I almost didn't bother writing this reply, because if any of your retorts need to use such derogatory terms, I really have no interest in continuing any discussion with you.
But since you put in the effort for a long and thought out reply, I'll do the same.
A few members here actually explicitly stated they were not aware, or were shocked at how big the disparity actually is. So some insight was gained by people from my post, and to me it wasn't a waste.However I think it misses it's mark here on the forums. As majority of players don't visit here or even either reddit page. This would be a much better format if done in a video by a community pillar or if the devs themselves published something like this. My point is I believe enough people on the forums are aware of the big disparity between OG heros and DLC heros. So trying to use it as an argument, at least imo, is wasted and not needed.
My post is basically an op-ed, and I've no need for it to go viral. I know Fred and Jurassic pass on our thoughts and ideas when they deem it relevant to the developers, that's enough for me.
But even if what you'd consider enough people did know about it, there wasn't really any outlet or discussion for their thoughts on the matter, this thread can now provide that.
I tried finding a way to deal with it in its entirety, but I couldn't think of a way that wouldn't end up making the same conclusions I already have. Breaking your sentences apart allowed me to go more in depth about each underlying point.You kind of ruin my point with 4v4 by splitting it into 2 pieces like that. Not devaluing what you said just pointing it out.
My exact wording was;The dlc heros mean you run into special attacks more. But that's a loaded argument. As imo it's worded in such a way to lead people (wether you believe it or not) to believe that the problem started with the dlc heros. Not that they made them worse.
"...the popularity of the DLC heroes, paired with their averagely higher numbers of special attacks increases the rate of which players will encounter these moves in a game. This is what I don't like, and Season 2-4 only exacerbated this issue."
I'm sorry if that sounds loaded, but to me the last sentence marks the notion that the DLC heroes made this issue worse, not that they were solely the cause of it. I further condeded this point in my very next paragraph.
With due respect, how can you make such broad statements about whatever impact the DLC heroes has had on 4v4 modes, if you yourself don't play them?I personally quit 4v4 in season 1 because of how rubbish the spam was.
For future reference; You can safely assume I make my arguments based on 4v4 Dominion, at an average/mid tier level, which is also where I believe most other players perform at. High, and low tiers I would imagine, have the smaller populations compared to mid tier.But I don't think that removing moves is the right avenue for that. Toe stab might not work at higher levels but removing it entirely just gives him one less option to potentially threaten with. That's not good.
To your point; Assuming your arguments stem from Duels, removing a whole move from any heroes moveset must seem much more impactful. But even without the toe stab, his kit is still larger and more versatile than a number of Vanilla heroes, many of whom remain quite viable at all tiers of play today.
In 4v4 modes, the unblockable and unparriable toe stab is just 1 of what is now a plethora of such moves one must watch out for. Sure these moves also existed in Season 1, but I'll argue they were much less severe. The DLC heroes all have unblockables, and many of them all activate faster, from varying ranges.
Gladiator released a long time ago at this point, doing anything to him wouldn't be a go to option. I'll also say at this point, you're doing yourself a disservice by not reading the entire thread.In general I don't think developers should ever think to removing something as a go to option to address something. It would be better for them to address the problem.
Everyone, including the folks who agree with me, all say they're more than willing to wait for the Season 5 reworks, and longer to see what other solutions the developers come up with.
My suggestions and preference for nerfing the DLC heroes is not an opinion I will fight to the death for, and I also stated on page 1 I'm waiting, and hoping that the reworks solve the problems I have with the game, without the need for removing whole moves.
I agree, the DLC heroes were promised content before the game launched, there'd be no realistic way to not release them as advertised.They wanted to make the game better. But they also were legally required to push this content people paid for. If it came out super delayed people would literally try to sue.
I disagree. The community at large discovered that the Centurion was the most un-fun hero to fight very quickly, but even with the constant, daily cries of the entire For Honor community, it took months before any changes were made to him.The dlc heros in my opinion were a great way for the devs to test ideas on how to address issues the game had. They learned with the centurion that unblockables alone are not enough to fix the issues.
The Centurion is the genesis for my worries. It showed in a horrifying way how not to solve the game's issues, and I fear that the developers have not learned exactly why so many people hated the Cent. Another point to this, while they probably did intend to use the new heroes as a test bed, as you suggest, this was the wrong solution in my opinion. Rather than keep trying to fix the games issues 2 heroes at a time, I'd have much preferred it if the new heroes were toned down, and more effort put into balancing the older roster.
Instead, they now have to rework/rebalance 12 heroes, instead of 6.
Once again, have to disagree. For Honor was praised by critics for the combat system, and players flocked to a brand new IP in a niche genre, because For Honor did a lot of things right to open it up to new demographics.But the game wasn't good enough for a lot of players. and the devs have been trying to address that for awhile now.
What was broken at launch was the P2P system, and the later-emerging defensive meta. It feels to me like the developers tried fixing that meta, by simply punching through it with unblockables.
This did not fix it for me.
You're saying that she's not great at everything, but don't provide any examples of classes that can do things better than her.Shaman is factually not great at everything. You can look at other kits even some OG kits and see them being better than her at certain concepts. The reason she doesn't feel like this though is because she's got the option to do multiple things. Her flexibility masks her issues and flaws. It's not a bold claim.
Her leaps, and headbutts allow her unbelievable range, and wallsplats. She has 2 fast unblockables, both can be feinted. Her heavy start ups can be feinted into a bleed, her zone can be feinted into a bleed, guaranteed 2nd light, heavy dodge attack, dangerous parry punishes.
You state she's hyper flexible, and I agree, but her hyper flexibility has made her great at all aspects of combat.
What's the downside of playing as the Shaman?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Because I don't like the newer heroes kits, I shouldn't have an opinion about them?Being present for 4 seasons doesn't mean much if all you're gleaming from the kits is exactly what you don't want.
Me being present for 4 seasons is exactly what qualifies my opinion, that I don't like the direction the game is heading.
2/3 heroes with the fastest attacks are DLC heroes. That's my point.Did you know every hero in the game save 3 has a 500ms attack or faster? to my knowledge 3 heros have 400ms attacks. pk's zone. thighlanders OF lights. and shaman's top bleed poke. No one has any faster than that.
From my point of view, they weren't band-aiding that kind of game. The players were crying out for balance, and the parry changes to finally kill the defensive meta, not heroes to compensate for it.The developers spent nearly 2 seasons trying to bandaid that kind of game. It didn't work.
I'd love it if you could find a quote from any of the developers stating that this was a conscious design decision they made. Because catering only to the competitive crowd, seems like suicide for a new IP with the issues For Honor's had.They decided to rework the game towards what the competitive crowd wanted.
Member
I for one appreciate your thread. As a Kensei/nobushi main, It's really tough to watch as I switch to shaman and double my KDA and still feel good about the 500+ PvP hours (700+ total) I've put in since beta understanding my mains. Also, since I'm on PC, duel (my favored mode) has very low numbers. Since season 2 (and the dawn of the centurion CC) dominion has completely changed. Now that is my favored mode for time efficiency"s sake and skill in the core game mechanics seem to have lesser influence in team success. Moreso, it is seems simply picking a versatile high cc team increases success in dominion given group fights are essentially forced.Originally Posted by Tundra 793 Go to original post
As for knight raime: I'm sure you didn't mean to sound like a condescending elitist, but that's kind of how it came off in your posts. As an attorney - a can assure you saying things along the lines of "you are short sighted" and making assumptions on changes you know little about is not about"arguing with passion." It is being intolerant/dismissive of others opinions and wanting to win an online argument (which is impossible given the op is an opinion).
Senior Member
@Tundra
Of course they seem contradictory when you yank both of them and set them side by side. My point was that the post was never directed only at you. Just the type of players that you seemed to be mixing up with (in my head.) It's in general very wrong for me to make assumptions about people and/or generalize people into a specific type of person or behavior. I will own up to that. Just being around here long enough somethings easily frustrate me more than others. Not an excuse. Just explaining my thought process in hopes that i'm easier to understand. Also I went back and read the reply you're looking at. I only used toxic and short sighted again. And it was only when I was explaining why I thought that. So I don't know why you're focusing on those words rather than what came after. I can attempt to use different wording but I was under the assumption that those words were perfectly fine in a debate because they're not out right insults and they're followed up with (at least in my second post) an explanation on why I feel those descriptors fit. I feel like you're nitpicking on this. But we should just both move on.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think informing 3 people (as just a random number) is worth repeating the same core argument over. You think that the more people are aware the better. and that's fine. I'm sure the developers are very aware of the disparity so this thread wouldn't be anything new to them. If your post was created as a megathread for said discussion then I apologize. But it didn't come off as one. To me it just came across as the same tired argument that's been beaten to death. I'm aware that is on me. But I think it's been posted enough in the forums that my feelings on seeing said subject once again resurface are warrented.
I will concede on the loaded argument part. I don't really feel like going back and rereading the whole thing to see if it was literally just me getting upset and tunnel visioning or if your post really was worded in a way that would justify my feeling of the loaded argument. I believe besides this thread that i've never ever made my statements about a dlc heros impact in 4v4. Nor have I ever pretended to understand their impact in 4's. I've always been discussing on the forums from a duelist perspective. It's not to say that i've literally not touched 4v4 past season 1. I just play it so infrequently that I personally don't believe it's worth mentioning. As to my statement in this thread I did agree that DLC heros made things worse. So we can move on from this particular point.
I'm still not going to agree. Regardless of the situation I don't think removing the move is the right call. Your argument seems to come from "there are 32 unblockables in the game (again random number) removing a single one surely won't matter much." Which to me seems like a pretty weak argument. It doesn't take into consideration at all what the move does and doesn't do. Your solution of removing it only solves that problem. It doesn't address other potential issues from doing so. Which I tried to elude to. Yes his kit would still be "fine" without toe stab. That doesn't emperically mean it's okay to remove toe stab.
There is no real way to accurately judge how little or how much the unblockables of launch impacted 4's. It is something you and I will have to agree to disagree on. I personally remember how frustrating it was to deal with 3 warlords stunlocking people with an unreactable headbutt. or having conq, LB, and warlord all on one team shoving you around. The dlc heros brought more and that certainly would up frustration levels. We are really arguing from the same feeling of frustration. Just at different levels. It's hard for me to understand how you can have the perspective of how frustrating unblockables can be as a mechanic but also sort of almost ignore how annoying they were on OG heros back before DLC was out. I can see you personally not feeling like they were. But I don't think you should be saying that they were not as a broad application in a statement that includes more than just your own feelings.
The developers as far as I know have not attempted to address toe stab complaints since his launch. So removing it would be their first and go to response to said problem if they were going to go through with your suggestion. There is no time stamp or sticker on a move or kit that once removed makes the point I was making wrong. If the community deemed the move a problem the developers should attempt to find ways to fix the move a few times before just removing it. That is my point. That is one side/perspective of Centurions presence until his nerfs. Just as my perspective is also apart of that. The developers specifically made centurion to be a "turtle buster" which is why he's got 3 seperate unblockables. What ended up happening though was he ended up being very bad at opening turtles and became to be known himself as one of if not the best turtle hero in the game.
It took them months because the developers wanted to play it smart. They didn't want to knee jerk reaction nerf him and ruin his power in duels. They've stated as such before on not just centurion but that being their philosophy in general. They want the hero to be viable in both 4's and duels. They technically did accomplish this with the centurion. I don't believe they were using the heros to fix the game. They were trying to use them to see what does and doesn't work in kits on top of the defensive meta. Also that is a little difficult. The OG roster was designed without our feedback. The DLC heros specifically had player feedback. There would be no way for them to "tone down" the dlc heros before launching them if they still had no grasp on what was needed to make kits/the game better. We both agree the overall situation wasn't the best. and we should probably just leave it at that.
I don't like nor care for reviews. They're far to influenced by both each other and companies. Further more Just because For Honor got rave reviews at launch doesn't mean the game was flawless. Let me rephrase for you. After the game had been out for a few weeks the competitive community (at the time basically just the really good players who had loads of experience from the alphas/betas and now got the full product for a little bit) were showcasing and pointing out how easy it was to defend yourself and how easy it was to kill another player by doing so. They didn't like this. They wanted a bigger skill gap. This is how the defensive meta term came to be and that is what I was referring to when I said "the game wasn't good enough for players." The developers did several things in attempts to fix the meta whilst fixing the power of moves that benefitted from the meta. One of these changes as an example was giving a free GB on blocking warden's zone.
I really don't feel like going over shaman specifically again. I've gone over explaining how to counter the things people struggle with about her. I've tried explaining how range is her biggest weakness along with her being bad if not being the one applying pressure. I'm tired of repeating myself. But to be very short and to the point I don't think any mix up she offers is stronger than some of the other mix ups in the game. Centurions mix up I believe is far better than any mix up she has. And he's got better punishes for failing to counter the mix up. Shugoki has a far better health gain setup due to the OHK potential, more health gained, bigger health bar, and that getting a hug on goki is much easier that getting a bite on someone. And I think Shinobi is far better at being a threat at any range than she is due to him being a lot more mobile and a lot more safe. Even if you agreed with me on all of those claims you'd just back peddle to "see dlc heros are problem" which while is technically true is besides this specific argument and is straw manning me because it forces me to go and argue that rather than what we were originally arguing about.
I'll try to rephrase. You see the dlc heros. All you see is negative things. I see the dlc heros. I see good and bad things. If you have ever actually acknowledged that dlc heros have showed good things and you're just choosing to focus on the things you don't like than I apologize. But it really feels like you either refuse to acknowledge the good aspects or you're aware of them but don't feel they matter since the kits in your opinion bring more negative things. I would never say your perspective or anyone elses never matters.
That is a strawman. Your over arching point is that dlc heros are a problem. But you didn't acknowledge that a lot of the OG heros have fast moves too. And a common complaint is that "dlc heros are fast attack/unblockable spam." My point was to try to get you to see that while some of the DLC heros might have some faster attacks it's not a huge deal as people make it out to be BECAUSE most of the OG roster also has fast attacks. If you can acknowledge that and your focus is more on unblockable spam then we can move on.
Season 1 and season 2 were full of individual hero fixes in attempts to nerf the power level on kits that benefitted from being passive/defensive. In my opinion the devs didn't truly change gears from bandaids to actual fixes until season 3. There is a few things to state about that last part. For one there was never a direct quote. It seems blatently obvious that they decided to listen to the competitive feedback when they openly acknowledged the term defensive meta AND also agreed about it being an issue. That in my opinion is as good as any direct statement you could want. And as I already elaborated on in my previous point that "design decision" didn't really happen till they started messing with the games core mechanics. Which wasn't till season 3. So around half way through it's life cycle. For honor was already struggling/dying to many players far before that. You can argue that it was suicide to do so. But where for honor currently was near the end of season 2 any change they were going to make could have been a monumental failure.
Continuing on that last point though. Just because the developers started taking the feedback of competitive players more seriously doesn't inherently mean decisions based on that feedback wouldn't be beneficial for all types of players. In fact in games that are actually designed to be competitive it's the common/correct path to balance from the top down. As the top players show you the games fullest potential and break the game for you so you can see the issues that lay within your game. I believe the youtube channel "extra credits" made a video about this or something similar. I would encourage a watch purely just for informational purposes.
Regardless. We are back at square one here. You wanted a different kind of game than what is happening. I want what is happening. We can shoot the **** all night till our faces are blue and throats dry from talking. We're not going to see eye to eye here on arguably some very important concepts. I'm fine with this. My whole original issue here was 90% my fault anyway. I should have just ignored the thread because I knew despite how well something would have been worded I would have taken offense because I care very much about the game and I really like where it's going. I tend to get pretty aggressive about things I care about. I acknowledge and appreciate your point of view even if it's not one I agree with. I do hope the reworks hit base for as many people as it can. I can't be more hyped than I already am after seeing that trailer. I really do think for honor is going to gain second wind from this and continue to be the great game it is.
Senior Member
You're probably very right. With that in mind, would you mind terribly if we dropped the whole debate between us, and just moved on? Since we're very unlikely to come to any understanding other than "agree to disagree", perhaps it'll serve us and everyone else best if we just moved on, rather than keep posting essays that are basically 2 subjective views, neither one more right or wrong than the other.Regardless. We are back at square one here. You wanted a different kind of game than what is happening. I want what is happening. We can shoot the **** all night till our faces are blue and throats dry from talking. We're not going to see eye to eye here on arguably some very important concepts. I'm fine with this.
I'd be more than happy to keep debating, and answer the entirety of your last post if you prefer that as well.
