Game is called For Honor

>game is called For Honor
>PvP consists of people trying to 3v1, guardbreak spamming and le edge throwing for instant kills
Really makes you think.

Other urls found in this thread:

forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1573505-Guard-not-working-properly-PART-2-Mouse-and-Gamepad-VIDEO
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Devs always forget how big of cunts the player base is. Don't forget running instead of fighting

Alright lemme check the dictionary.

>Honor
>"The quality of knowing and doing what is morally right."

Explain to me how winning is morally wrong and I'll concede the point to you OP.

Cowardice is morally wrong, running away to avoid a fight is cowardly and therefore morally wrong

>honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions

how does ganking and cheap tricks apply to this?

>All warfare is based on deception. There is no place where espionage is not used. Offer the enemy bait to lure him.
>Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
>The supreme art of war is to subdue the
enemy without fighting.
>If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles
>Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
>The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.
>Opportunities multiply as they are seized.
>Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.
>For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

t. Sun Tzu

Think I trust his opinion on warfare that you plebs.
Git gud.

Tsun ZU said that

If you already know the answer, why ask the question?

>large scale warfare is the same as personal combat.

>Game is ill-suited for fighting multiple people at once
>People abuse this weakness to get quick kills in duels
>"All is fair in war lol it's just a game bro relax"
>Can't have actual fun and engaging duels because some faggot will come running to gank you every time
>No one bothers to play because of faggots like that
>Game dies off

Well done, you killed a community for the sake of cheaply winning a couple matches.

>Explain to me how winning is morally wrong
Rape of Nanjing

It absolutely is.
>If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

Apply this shit in competitive games, you will do better.

What if I told you the book was called "the art of war" and literally is about how winning at all costs, often dishonorably, is ok as long as you win

>Honor
>In a video game
If you actually gave a shit about honor you would concern yourself with the horrendous warcrimes going on around the world, and not a shit game made by a even shittier developer.

There is nothing honorable about letting your enemies win you cuck.

>Game is called 4 Honor
>Game has only 4 people playing at a time who are even remotely honorable at all
gets my noggin joggin

Thats my point, dum dum. Winning has nothing to do with honor and a few of the things you quoted are not considered honorable

>Mechanics of the game are clearly designed around 1v1 dueling
>The group-fight game modes are the most popular

I just don't understand

Winning has a lot to do with honor but not towards your enemies.
It's morally right to win for your side.
It's morally wrong to let your enemies win.

Honor is a poor mans reason/excuse

>only these two things are morally right or wrong.
Loyalty is morally right, loyalty to a bad person is morally wrong

Who is fighting for a bad person here?

Maybe learn English?

[mass noun] High respect; great esteem:
[in singular] A person or thing that brings esteem:

Things can be morally right or wrong depending on the context. It isn't as black and white as
>winning = good
>losing = bad

I'm pretty sure that in this video game the only context is winning or losing.

you can justify it all you want but at the end of the day you're still a fag that isn't fun to play against

And at the end of the day you're still mad because you're bad.

That's not even what context means.
If you win in a cowardly way it's still morally wrong.

>game is called For Honor
>multiplayer trash
Really doesn't make you think.

Why is it morally wrong?
How are you defining cowardly in this situation?
It's simple use of tactics to gain an advantage.
Both sides can use these tactics if they decide to do so.
Nobody has an unfair advantage.

You're just calling it dishonorable because you personally disprove for an unspecified reason.

>1. lacking courage; contemptibly timid.
>2. characteristic of or befitting a coward; despicably mean, covert, or unprincipled:

No, I'm calling it morally wrong, because being cowardly is morally wrong.

>user thinks he's funny/clever
>makes a cringy and unfunny post
Really makes you think.

>For honor 1v1
>QTE
lol?

Courage is the ability to act despite fears.
A coward wouldn't fight.
Dirty fighting isn't cowardly, it's brave.

>running away until a match ends is still fighting
Really makes you think

>The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.

>Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.

>The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant.

>Why won't my enemies let me hit them when I want to hit them?!

You're still operating on the false pretense that winning, no matter how you win, is morally right. You can win in ways that are morally right and you can win in ways that are not. Running away from a fight until everyone quits is not morally right

nigga you expect people to have honor in online pvp? fuckers don't even bow in dark souls anymore, hell ive been backshanked while bowing before.

You're operating on the false pretense that losing and dying is more moral than winning with tactics you consider dirty.

>why won't my enemies play the game we are playing?!

...

Yeah, losing and dying is not considered morally wrong. Weird, huh?

what does it make me think about?

>this thread

You can apply that book to pretty much anything that relies on interpersonal interactions. You should read it some time.

>in the forest
>start invading
>found player
>we both have shields up at a slight distance away
>both not budging
>i initiate a bow
>after mine i done he starts to bow
>proceed to run to his back and backstab
>victory
>rinse and repeat

Whenever my frienda were watching, all of them would either be laughing or calling me a genius


Good times

>Sun Tzu said that
>in context to life or death real battles
>this means its okay to run in circles until the magic time out clock says that everyone has to stop fighting and a winner is decided by how many points one army has

Just be glad there's a clock.

I don't think you get how to apply sun tzu if you think its a points game analogy, he'd mean hide til your opponent thinks you died or something then sneak attack you won...

being proud of cheesing backstabs in DaS is almost as bad as the guys who camp the first boss spawn with OP glitched items and emote after like they achieved something.

Just sharing funny moments, aint really proud of what i did but when you go through like 3 months of honorabu pvp, you start seeking different pleasures and that pleasure was suckering other players into an easy win

The game needs limited revivals. One or two per game.

>all these fucking honorfags in 2vs2 who gets all butthurt when you 2vs1

For the love of god, can someone explain to me what the fuck is going through these fucking morons' head? If all you want is honorabru duels, there's game mode for that already.

>Running away from a fight until everyone quits is not morally right
Avoidance of an unadvatageous battle has been part of warfare theory since its inception some more than 4000 years ago.

>The skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.

whatever floats your boat, I went gravelord and gave the forest folk a scare at one point, that sword is mental early on.

Just play 1v1 duel then you absolute fucking faggot

In a fight all that matters is winning. prove me wrong

>muh honor

if fighting solved anything why have we (earth) been in a perpetual state of war for 4000 years?

winning at all costs just means you never considered an alternative.

>Have to pull out technicalities when he goes against society accepted definitions
ALWAYS A LAUGH

>tsun zu

niqqa, what?

>duel
>not 1v1

have you ever played a video game?

More like:

>why won't my enemy try to hit me
>why is this match taking 15 mins
>does he really expect to make a comeback by biding his time?

It's just shitters who know they are about to lose playing for time simply to annoy/inconvenience the opponent.

>running away on low hp
>defeat impossible

nah

more like inevitable

>we
>(earth)

I haven't been to war with anyone niqqa, I am not part of your collective.

if you're a human being on earth you are as capable of being shot as the rest of us.

>its not happening too me so its not happening
then don't argue about the morals and honor of war?

forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1573505-Guard-not-working-properly-PART-2-Mouse-and-Gamepad-VIDEO

Posting this in every For honor thread

Because if fighting is sure to result in victory then you must fight.

Sun Tzu said that.

The optimal play being unfun is a flaw of the game, not the players.

name one competitive game where optimal play is fun to play against

They have no honour, just like women.

I am a human being living on earth, correct.

I am just as capable of being shot as anyone? Maybe. I have a body, which can be shot, yes. But I don't put it in front of guns, and I don't try to piss off people that have guns.

>it's not happening to me so its not happening
That's absolutely not what I'm saying.

Try this on for size:
>earth is in a perpetual state of war
I'm not at war

It's not happening to ME, so it CAN'T be happening to EVERYONE.

AND I'D SAY HE KNOWS A LITTLE MORE ABOUT FIGHTING THAN YOU DO PAL BECAUSE HE INVENTED IT, AND THEN HE PERFECTED IT SO THAT NO MAN COULD BEST HIM IN THE RING OF HONOR

Yakui is my girlfriend

Quake

>implying you can't rocket jump away like a bitch constantly

*autistic screaming

>called For Honor
>you can play as vikings

>this thread
Do you seriously think that in period of war, if you see a comrade attacked by someone, you won't come in help?
Stay salty