Aight, imma head out | Forums

[Qoissant]

I think the issue is that players are having unrealistic expectations from the game or devs. the CCU was never meant to make the game 100% perfect, it will never be. It was more to enhance the fighting experience and encourage people to throw more attacks.

Rep 452, playing the game since launch. I'm loving the CCU. yes it's not perfect, it can do with some tweaks but I think many aspects of it are in the right direction.

Nope, the issue is the intentional lack of communication combo'd with the complete butchery of fleshed out concepts. Only using the TG once a year instead of 2-4 weeks before every patch to test for bugs and balance.

I understand what the point was but the problem is that they took a finalized concept and turned it into this absolute joke without consulting the community at all. PK is useless, warden still has OP damage, Kensei got even more damage on top of his ludicrous damage. These were not problems in the CCTG so why should they be problems 4-6 months later?

My issue has nothing to do with the game be perfect and everything to do with devs seemingly trolling the community at this point

[Qoissant]

Overall, the CCU is the correct direction. This is what the game needs, but being the beginning of a new direction, it is definitely quite unrefined.

I think once it gets some refinement, it's going to be far superior to the pre CCU.

Can't wait to see what you guys do, Ubisoft.

Like actually what are you talking aboui

The previous CCU was objectively far superior to this one. Imagine how good the game would be right now if they just had stuck with the previous version of the CCU like we all agreed upon and then improved it from there.

Why release a terrible version just to buff it to a pre existing version that the devs already knew was better.

[Okt0g00N]

Not sure what you are doing asking this question instead of reading the answer to it on other threads that are complaining about the finer, well known details. Or go watch some of Freeze's videos which give crystal clear feedback.

The CCU ruined damage values, you took weak heroes and made them weaker while accidentally turning some heroes into monsters seemingly at random. One of the big points here is that you guys have no excuse to make this mistake. You had custom values almost perfected back in the week two of the CCTG. You went and made a ton of changes to which you should have did another TG, but instead you launched it in a completely unacceptable state.

Warmongers feats are blatantly overpowered and should have easily been noticeable based off of immediate negative feedback that was seen a solid week before the heroes release. There is no waiting to see how she fits in the meta or being excited to see what happens. Her feats are straight broken, pay to win, whatever, and should never have made it into the game like this.

Warmongers feats are arguably the worst thing by far in the live game at the moment and actually deserved a hotfix 24hours after launch when it was painfully clear how bad it was.

basically that, that's what is bothering me as well, instead of living longer i die faster, because SOME people know how to gank and open me up to take 3 heavies one after each other within a fraction of a second to only find myself at 20 health because those 3 heavies were slow chained ones dealing 40 something damage.

[NoVa_Erk]

Not sure what you are doing asking this question instead of reading the answer to it on other threads that are complaining about the finer, well known details. Or go watch some of Freeze's videos which give crystal clear feedback.

The CCU ruined damage values, you took weak heroes and made them weaker while accidentally turning some heroes into monsters seemingly at random. One of the big points here is that you guys have no excuse to make this mistake. You had custom values almost perfected back in the week two of the CCTG. You went and made a ton of changes to which you should have did another TG, but instead you launched it in a completely unacceptable state.

Warmongers feats are blatantly overpowered and should have easily been noticeable based off of immediate negative feedback that was seen a solid week before the heroes release. There is no waiting to see how she fits in the meta or being excited to see what happens. Her feats are straight broken, pay to win, whatever, and should never have made it into the game like this.

Warmongers feats are arguably the worst thing by far in the live game at the moment and actually deserved a hotfix 24hours after launch when it was painfully clear how bad it was.

This, fully agree... I am honest with you. I was one click away from spitting fire on ubisoft fail again... But this here explained almost every point..
So ubisoft i have one Suggestion for you. Get your Sh.t tested by your Team before you Release it to get the critical Balance issues out of the build... And by the way...
go to Youtube, watch freeze and hear what He has to say.... Thank u

[Frozty85]

For all of those stating their leave from For Honor, what change would make you consider trying the game out again? Do your frustrations with the CCU stem from its implementation as a whole, or are there specific aspects of it that you feel "spoil the pot" in a sense?

some of us dont want CCU, some of wants the turtle defence parry playstyle that has existed for 3 years that is the core gameplay identity of this game.

[WolfenTank]

Yep, same story here;

Been there from the start. More than 1300 hours into the game and yesterday I deleted the game.

More than fed up with it, but even more fed up with the devs.

DISGUSTING!

[Justifi3d]

I think the issue is that players are having unrealistic expectations from the game or devs. the CCU was never meant to make the game 100% perfect, it will never be. It was more to enhance the fighting experience and encourage people to throw more attacks.

Rep 452, playing the game since launch. I'm loving the CCU. yes it's not perfect, it can do with some tweaks but I think many aspects of it are in the right direction.

I don't think that wanting the game to be in a playable state is an unrealistic expectation.

[Rabbits_On]

For all of those stating their leave from For Honor, what change would make you consider trying the game out again? Do your frustrations with the CCU stem from its implementation as a whole, or are there specific aspects of it that you feel "spoil the pot" in a sense?

Its not just CCU. Its game balance. Ubisoft sucks at it look at rainbiw for example it isn't balanced either.

[Astrad06]

For all of those stating their leave from For Honor, what change would make you consider trying the game out again? Do your frustrations with the CCU stem from its implementation as a whole, or are there specific aspects of it that you feel "spoil the pot" in a sense?

It's nice to see that after a week of the release of the update and a week of complaints and people leaving for honor, someone has appeared. Probably what I write will not be shared or shared only in part, but I will write it anyway. If I were in Ubisoft first I would go back to the pre CCU version, not because it is perfect, but because it has less problems to fix, especially as regards the characters; at the moment each hero would have to be revised individually and the work would be a little too long, the pre CCU is definitely a better base. I'll refer to the previous version to list my points. Now let's start talking about the changes, let's start with the combat system in general:

1) The problem of light spam. From what I understand, reading your intentions and the responses of the community, you would like the lights to be used and that they do not crash every time on a block without the possibility of continuing but at the same time avoid that the players use only the lights to fight . I would make the first light of each chain a super light thus giving the possibility to continue a chain, but without intervening on the reactive block, if I am good in reactions I want to be able to block, but if I attack I do not want to bounce 50 times to start a chain (we gratify the mixup and the use of fighting styles). I would gradually increase the necessary stamina cost (as already proposed by someone), enough with the standardization, a nice 8-10-12 or 8-10-14, it does not prevent light chains but urges players to use a good mixup to not immediately go out of stamina. Make the parry more complex, a light by definition should be very difficult to parry but not to block, decrease the frames for parry / deflect / cc on the lights but leave a reactive block. And don't reward the punishments on the lights with disproportionate damage, if I'm good at parrying them my reward is already that, you don't need 50 damage to reward me. Enter the ability to dodge the second light attack like in the CCU but remove the skipped 100ms, if someone has latency issues it's unplayable and the animations are ugly to see, not to mention the difficulty in reactive block. I would also remove the increased cooldown for light endings, a fight must be smooth and if I'm good at mixing I don't see why it should be forcibly stopped, and I wouldn't penalize characters who rely on the use of lights. There is already a stamina limit to avoid 100-0. With these changes it should be possible to reward the attack through the possibility of starting a chain and the reduction of the fear of a light opening, but at the same time it gives the possibility to react and defend the opponent. an absolutely dynamic combat. In 2vs1 the super light could be a problem but it would become manageable with a tweak of the revenge mode. Honestly I don't disagree with the greater difficulty in the CCU due to the numerical disadvantage, you have to be good to fight 1vs2 / 3.

2) The turtling problem. In part I have already answered this problem, the super light would keep the priority of the attacker, and the parry more complex but the possible block would make the turtle passive but not rewarded. Damage fix for parry / cc / deflect and punishment equalization. If a character parries a heavy to player, for example, he will be entitled to a side heavy, but for everyone to do so, the damage will already be different from character to character. For the CC and the deflect instead I would have thought of a different thing, decrease the damage to make it very close to a light but turn them into series initials like the CC. This system would allow: a passive defense in which both players receive a small damage (block), a defense that gives life to a punishment (parry), an active defense but difficult to execute, with little damage but to go to the counterattack and take the initiative (deflect and CC). Here, too, there would be greater dynamism, a difference between the types of defense and a greater balance between attack and defense. There must be skill on both sides, don't value just one of the two.

3) The resistance of the characters. It would be enough to slightly increase the life of the characters and reduce the damage of some moves that have been thought of as punish, but which in reality are felt as simple moves of the kit (eg: hammered to the ground by the jorm).

4) Character changes. The warmonger obviously needs feat balancing for 4vs4 and probably also alternative feat for 1vs1. It is boring to be oneshot by a light but I realize that in 1vs1 they are quite useless. I have nothing against the moveset but it is a little too similar to the warden. The light side swings are clearly copied from the warden, changing the rigging movement a bit might help. Also I would propose something more characteristic given his propensity to use the fists. A socket similar to the nuxia maybe? I honestly don't want to comment on this. The changes to the lawbringer in my opinion are correct, you have fixed some moves that are too strong, but you have not given an alternative. Perhaps simply inserting a light chain would help him with the openings without compromising on style (as I will always argue I prefer mixup to guaranteed or ultra-fast compli). Same for the goldsmith, reducing speed is fine but you need alternatives and an unblockable heavy isn't. Not to mention that he's out of his fighting style, he's a fast-paced, swift warrior, great in close combat but leave the heavy hits to the shugo. Maybe a good punch in the stomach like a bash was better. Finally I would put a team to work to expand the kits of some characters that are too reductive: Jorm, Warden, etc ... They do the usual 2 things in 2-3 different ways, we power the mixup instead of giving guaranteed hits or huge punishments after having spam the usual move.

5) Difference between PC and CONSOLE. Unfortunately I know that this point will absolutely not be accepted because it would require double the staff to be made. It is useless to go around it consoles and PCs are different. Different performances, different inputs, different subroutines. In my opinion these changes would be good for both of us but as for the balancing of the ms they should be done separately and relying on people to test the changes and the responses of the game. You have the testing grounds for this or as they have proposed, assume freeze. For now this is what came to my mind and that I could see from everyone's responses on the forum, I hope they are at least partly shared.

I apologize in advance for my English, if something is not understood I will try to explain it better.

PS. one thing that I find annoying, however, is that an older member is given more importance on a forum than a new member. A person may never have written anything but it does not mean that you have recently played, I have less than 30 written messages but I pre-ordered the game and I have been playing it since day one without ever having missed an event. (In reference to the appearance of the ubisoft staff only after a senior member said to leave, many others have said this before, I hope it is not connected)

[Qoissant]

PS. one thing that I find annoying, however, is that an older member is given more importance on a forum than a new member. A person may never have written anything but it does not mean that you have recently played, I have less than 30 written messages but I pre-ordered the game and I have been playing it since day one without ever having missed an event. (In reference to the appearance of the ubisoft staff only after a senior member said to leave, many others have said this before, I hope it is not connected)

I agree opinions should be taken seriously regardless of seniority on the forum however there is something to be said for putting in the time to get the amount of posts some of the people have here and I'm not talking about me. Some members have 3-5k posts. That means they have been posting more than daily since the launch of this game. It's one thing to buy a game and play it but its a completely different think to come on this forum daily to give feedback, teach people things, discuss controversial topics, etc. So in that regard it makes sense for the devs to try to give them attention when push comes to shove and they clearly don't have the time. Again I BARELY reach the criteria for seniority here. Raime or even Goat is an example of someone with WAY more dedication to the forum than me and deserve slightly more attention IMO