Mordhau
Mordhau Merch
Check out our merch shop!

Current Issues

Knight 3313 6811
  • 2
  • 17 Dec '17
 Bodkin

@Monsteri said:

@Bodkin said:
If you mean that once the fight starts, the archer should be pulling his secondary out off the bat, then maybe.

Yes.

The problem here lies in the fact that an archer is actually most effective against preoccupied enemies in chivalry, and will be even moreso in mordhau with the added things to deal with.

So, trying to balance it around that idea isn't going to be very fruitful I am afraid. An unoccupied enemy in mordhau is one that is already impervious to projectiles unless his situational awareness is bad. There is no distraction, no reason to get shot without parrying since you can easily see the shots coming. An archer who is far seperated from his team to hit enemies unaware just dies after being revealed from 1-3 shots and the enemy heals up and goes through with a 5v6.

So, I still don't see how that idea gets us anywhere. I would always switch when someone was about to die and I knew it was time to help, but making it like that where that's the only way to be effective just results in the grand conclusion of "why bring a bow in the first place if you are better off just hitting people?"

And let's be real, without a heavy armor limitation rule like we saw in community driven comp in chivalry, everyone would be bringing full heavy regardless. Maybe like 1 brandi guy, but that would be it. Your suggestion would most definitely lead to everyone just using full plate and being invulnerable without there being a limitation on how many knights could be in the battlefield, but then that goes back to your want of having no limitations.

So basically we have come to the conclusion of it being very difficult to make it where everyone is happy

1315 2881
  • 2
  • 17 Dec '17
 Monsteri

The simple answer is that you're not always in range, and you're going to sometimes deal more damage with the bow.

You'll still have time to get several shots off while the enemy is in range to be threatened by your teammate as well.

The window in which you are at your most effective as an archer will be ~6 seconds each small-scale fight, which is fair considering you're putting yourself in no risk at all

EDIT to your edit: The usefulness of certain loadouts is going to rely almost entirely on the gamemode. There is no way to tell what'll happen yet. And I thought you didn't want to use Chivalry as an example? ;p

Knight 3313 6811
  • 4
  • 17 Dec '17
 Bodkin

@Monsteri said:
EDIT to your edit: The usefulness of certain loadouts is going to rely almost entirely on the gamemode. There is no way to tell what'll happen yet. And I thought you didn't want to use Chivalry as an example? ;p

I don't want to use chiv as an example but it's hard not to honestly.

What I do know, however, is if heavy is impervious to projectiles, not even getting flinched, it will make up 80+% of the playerbase no doubt.

And light guys can still bring bik shields. What has to be remembered here is that we should not be thinking from an individual perspective of "what is good for knight-only people who 'b0lonc3d' chiv mercs mod" or "what is good for the cancermancers?"

We have to think from an overall team perspective, and I simply don't see very much benefit at all in having an archer that is ineffective against the majority of players (let's be real here, don't forget that every euroweeb wants full plate) when it is expensive to even bring it (being one of the perk trees, reducing your armor/perks for each bow upgrade you get), when you can simply have a medium armored spearman that does basically the same thing but is effective against all enemies and is easier to use in the first place.

EDIT: You can't make it cheap, otherwise the projectile spam will be real and present everywhere, and they'll even have good weapons and armor. Last the devs said anything, the low tier recurve bow will be weak and cheap, allowing you to have some ranged but retain good teamfighting capability. However, the more you specialize into the archer weapons tree, the less you're going to be able to suit up for melee engagements. If someone were to spend that much for that longbow, and they don't even hurt plate ( recurve is T1, crossbow is T2, Longbow is T3, unless that changed somewhere obviously), it really would not be worth it at all. Just keep that in mind. It would be different if an archer was a requirement, you could make it meh then, but since we can bring whatever we want we must compare it to all available options when filling that team slot. When compared to support polearm guy with a couple throwables, your rendition of the archer just doesn't measure up.

Also, I only just now noticed this, but unless it recently changed there is going to be sway on archer weapons. Having a crosshair does not mean no sway, I mean there will actually be physical bobbing around of the point-of-aim due to the strain when drawing and holding the bow. The crossbow would obviously sway less, filling its niche of being easier to use and have more guaranteed hits at the cost of theoretical DPS and mobility. This is unconfirmed stuff mostly derived from PM's and such, so take it with a grain of salt, but it's also the best we have to go on considering there has been no official confirmation of mechanics other than the scrapping of the no-crosshair red orchestra bow aiming style.

euroweeb = normal weeb but instead of anime, its deus vult memes and the like

Knight 292 904
  • 17 Dec '17
 GIRUGIRU

Projectiles do not need to flinch, it is extremely frustrating and massively hinders the skill cap within the game to allow projectiles to be in their current state. Being flinched by a projectile right now can turn any 1vX scenario to instant death for the guy who got hit - there is no way for him to defend against a projectile hitting him out his FoV while he is occupied already - parry and shields are not direct counterplay to ranged because of that reason

I'm sorry but nobody is in a position to be predicting the meta at this point

  • If archers are so broken that everyone is forced to play plate armor (for ranged defence), there is a balance issue
  • If plate armor is so good that it overrides the perks of big weps/perks, there is a balance issue

That being said, lets talk about projectile balance. As Bodkin rightfully and very correctly said; archers are best at shooting you while you are occupied - and this is exactly what makes them cancer in a melee game. You cannot consistently manage an archer shooting you while you are already fighting 1vX, it's impossible and even more so with the limited (130 FoV)

As a result, archers will and always be the main inhibition to the skill cap of the game unless there is direct counterplay to them, because there is for every other mechanic in the game. Parriable projectiles and shields are not direct counterplay, because the archer can bypass all rules of melee and just shoot you at distance while you are occupied.

Balancing CompMod was extremely difficult especially when it came to archers, as its very difficult to make them viable without making them massively reduce the skill disparity between teams and also prevent them being cancer. As a result they need their use but they also need counterplay - however Triternion do that is up to them, but for god's sake remove the flinching to med/heavy users

3234 4264
80 286
  • 17 Dec '17
 wizardish

Memes aside, there is one really important takeaway from Mirage: being able to parry projectiles doesn't solve the problem.

I thought it was the best thing being able to parry projectiles (which were slow and very telegraphed if you were focused on the person throwing them at you). However, once you got into larger matches like 6v6 and above, it became clear that projectiles were still a massive issue, even more than chiv. I really thought that having the ability to parry projs would finally balance out ranged vs melee, but it truly didn't. In a fight where you're focusing on multiple different people at a time, who are in your face, there's no way you can keep track of the archer that's several hundred meters away sniping. Even if you could pay attention to the archer, projectiles fuck with the flow of melee combat itself. Now you have to accommodate your parrying not only to the people you're fighting, but also to the archer that's shooting at you which really limits your capability in a fight. So what's the solution? Get an archer to kill their archer. I personally think that's the dumbest shit around and that still doesn't solve the problem.

Archers need to be made extremely niche or very situational in order for them to turn out well. If they take any kind of meta role in a team play setting, the whole game just goes to shit (like it did in chiv).

Knight 3313 6811
  • 4
  • 17 Dec '17
 Bodkin

@GIRUGIRU said:
As a result, archers will and always be the main inhibition to the skill cap of the game unless there is direct counterplay to them, because there is for every other mechanic in the game. Parriable projectiles and shields are not direct counterplay, because the archer can bypass all rules of melee and just shoot you at distance while you are occupied.

Balancing CompMod was extremely difficult especially when it came to archers, as its very difficult to make them viable without making them massively reduce the skill disparity between teams and also prevent them being cancer. As a result they need their use but they also need counterplay - however Triternion do that is up to them, but for god's sake remove the flinching to med/heavy users

It takes bik skill to click on heavy armor when making your loadout yes yes

girurekt.PNG

bik skill counterplay

At the end of the day, I personally cannot fathom a single way to not make archers annoying. Even if it did like 1 dmg, it would still be annoying like a gnat flying in your eye all the time. The thing is, annoying does not always mean effective. It's always going to be annoying to get shot by someone way outside of your own effective range yeah, but if the damage was really low, or hell even zero like Monsteri wants, then it would be a lot more effective for him to be another knight Xv1ing you right now instead of just shooting you with arbitrary meme-sticks. Annoying and effective are not synonymous. There is already so many ways to defend the damage, even unintentionally, that adding any more would just make it ineffective, especially a passive one. Numbers make effectiveness, not some kind of arbitrary emotion or feeling one has when fighting something, and with these changes the numbers just don't add up in favor of actually using archer over having another melee guy instead.

Thing is about all this hard, direct counter business, is that everything else in the game does not follow that rule. There are multiple ways to deal with each situation and every weapon can be made viable in each scenario; so honestly I don't know what this is all about.

But besides that,

Basically ranged effectiveness will go down a bit when compared to chiv, but archers won't be gimped as hard in actual fighting.

Knight 697 1611
  • 17 Dec '17
 das

@wizardish said:
Memes aside, there is one really important takeaway from Mirage: being able to parry projectiles doesn't solve the problem.

I thought it was the best thing being able to parry projectiles (which were slow and very telegraphed if you were focused on the person throwing them at you). However, once you got into larger matches like 6v6 and above, it became clear that projectiles were still a massive issue, even more than chiv. I really thought that having the ability to parry projs would finally balance out ranged vs melee, but it truly didn't. In a fight where you're focusing on multiple different people at a time, who are in your face, there's no way you can keep track of the archer that's several hundred meters away sniping. Even if you could pay attention to the archer, projectiles fuck with the flow of melee combat itself. Now you have to accommodate your parrying not only to the people you're fighting, but also to the archer that's shooting at you which really limits your capability in a fight. So what's the solution? Get an archer to kill their archer. I personally think that's the dumbest shit around and that still doesn't solve the problem.

Archers need to be made extremely niche or very situational in order for them to turn out well. If they take any kind of meta role in a team play setting, the whole game just goes to shit (like it did in chiv).

Ding ding ding. Even with shorter range, the ability to be parried, less damage, slower projectiles, the existence of gap closers, and very noticeable effects, projectiles still wrecked shit.

Knight 196 414

In a melee game, where pretty much everyone needs to be in your face to be able to kill you, the people who can be across the map and still kill you will always rule/wreck the meta. I can't think of a counter to archers besides other archers. If I had my way, I'd ban them completely from any competitive matches. They're fun in big casual games, because who cares. But they'll be completely overpowered in competitive team fights unless they're nerfed into the ground, but at that point, why even play an archer?

I don't know how developers will balance archers, but I definitely DO NOT think the solution is to buff heavy armor anymore. For fucks sake, heavy is still the meta even after this patch. I use a spear, and I'll be damned if I still don't have my 3/3/0 load out. Think of how many competitive cosmetic/light players you you see. I don't see any.

My current issue with the game is that even with the point system, plate armor pretty much still dominates. You can have full plate and battle axe, full plate and messer, etc. I think five point weapons ought to be the max points you can put into a weapon while still being able to have full plate armor. I also think they need to give naked/light armor more advantages over heavy. Right now, they're essentially the same thing, but heavy can absorb three to four hits while light can absorb pretty much two. One handers are also pretty good for the amount of points they cost. This patch did a nice job of making shield a little less OP, but shield + mace or shield + messer is still incredibly strong.

Light and heavy armors should have their strengths and weaknesses to balance them out. The weakness of heavy armor should be that it's slow and cumbersome. Yet heavy armor can still perform all the matrixes, ducks, jumps, etc the exact same as light armor. What does light get? A little extra speed? That just doesn't really cut it imo. Would like to hear other opinions.

1315 2881
  • 17 Dec '17
 Monsteri

Also, the devs seem to want a skirmishing style of archery where they loose a bunch of shots and then join melee, anyway. I'm fine with this and it's partly what I placed my arguments upon.

I'd also be fine with the polar opposite. Make archers really powerful, but give them absolutely no melee weapon. This means if they get ganked or pushed with utility they have no way of defending themselves, which definitely makes the whole situation more fair. As it stands, what happens is that you've worked all that time to get to the archers camping some bridge - then you're rewarded with them all pulling out their shanks and just shanking you full of holes from 5 directions.

Knight 3313 6811
  • 17 Dec '17
 Bodkin

Personally, the skirmisher method sounds more fun to me.

Naked and light should be getting cucked by arrows- I agree

Medium should be respectable defense but defeatable by the heavier archer weapons

Heavy should be a good defense against archers- I agree, but I still think full immunity without a headshot is too strong and will only mess up the variety in the game. This is just something we will have to agree to disagree on honestly. It would be different if there were roles like red orchestra of something, and you had to avoid the tanks, but with the freedom in this game I am quite certain it would be all anyone uses. I mean, it's that way already.

But at the end of the day, I'd rather be support utility capable of actually fighting rather than being gimped at the primary function of the game, that is the melee combat

3234 4264
  • 17 Dec '17
 Havoc

If only we had a ranged weapon that had reduced range compared to the bow/xbow, focused on damage vs heavy, but was worse off against medium and light.

Count 4205 9821
  • 17 Dec '17
 DerFurst

Make a really big sword - a sword bigggger than all the other ones, so big that it can hit archers from far away

solution solved melee mans

1430 2176

@Prince Oberyn Martell said:
In a melee game, where pretty much everyone needs to be in your face to be able to kill you, the people who can be across the map and still kill you will always rule/wreck the meta. I can't think of a counter to archers besides other archers. If I had my way, I'd ban them completely from any competitive matches. They're fun in big casual games, because who cares. But they'll be completely overpowered in competitive team fights unless they're nerfed into the ground, but at that point, why even play an archer?

I don't know how developers will balance archers, but I definitely DO NOT think the solution is to buff heavy armor anymore. For fucks sake, heavy is still the meta even after this patch. I use a spear, and I'll be damned if I still don't have my 3/3/0 load out. Think of how many competitive cosmetic/light players you you see. I don't see any.

My current issue with the game is that even with the point system, plate armor pretty much still dominates. You can have full plate and battle axe, full plate and messer, etc. I think five point weapons ought to be the max points you can put into a weapon while still being able to have full plate armor. I also think they need to give naked/light armor more advantages over heavy. Right now, they're essentially the same thing, but heavy can absorb three to four hits while light can absorb pretty much two. One handers are also pretty good for the amount of points they cost. This patch did a nice job of making shield a little less OP, but shield + mace or shield + messer is still incredibly strong.

Light and heavy armors should have their strengths and weaknesses to balance them out. The weakness of heavy armor should be that it's slow and cumbersome. Yet heavy armor can still perform all the matrixes, ducks, jumps, etc the exact same as light armor. What does light get? A little extra speed? That just doesn't really cut it imo. Would like to hear other opinions.

I agree with many of your sentiments. Heavy armor should prolly be slower off and maybe more cumbersome (jumps cost more stamina, torso manipulation limit, etc) and light armor gets the speed and matrixes. Medium armor would get a bit of both with a weakness to ranged and piercing weapons.

I strongly disagree with the idea that armor should limit your weaponry. It may be reasonable that the heavy classes don't get Zwei/Halberd but they should be able to get their Messer, Battle axe, and maybe even Greatsword along with a point or two left over for a secondary. Why would anyone use slow 2h without armor to protect them? Might get quick stabbed before you even raise your slow weapon for a hit.

Knight 5410 7408
  • 17 Dec '17
 Humble Staff

I remember a post (that i think Furst did) in one of those searing hot archer debate threads and back then it sounded quite nice, and still kinda does in my mind.
It was along the lines of "ranged weapons deal significantly reduced damage at extreme range". Furst implied that this should not make naked and light armor feel safe at all, like, less damage but still dangerous while medium would be able to soak a few more shots. I think he suggested that for heavy armor, it would deal very low damage or none at all (of which im not fond of) all of this accompanied by no flinch (maybe medium benefiting of no flinch as well). I'd say that reducing the damage to like 25% or 20% sounds fine, especially since Triternion doesn't aim for super powerfull archery. I know heavy meta is a problem but this way i think melee only players would feel a lot better in their heavy armor, sniping is hard by nature but also having reduced damage would mean that an archer would have to be insanely good to wear a heavy player down let alone kill him from far far away.
At closer ranges, even in point blank seems fair to me that plate armor reduces quite a chunk, again, because of triternion's approach to archery. At point blank you may be able to do more harm to the plate user if you have a blunt secondary but shooting at him from a few meters is safer given that you have inferior armor. Sounds like a good trade of to me.
I see it like having to fight a heavy user with light armor and say an arming sword, you have chances of wining althought quite low.
I know i'm a noob at melee and a trash tester atm but this sounds like a fine compromise in between absolutely hard counter and archery raping everything.

Count 449 1186
  • 1
  • 17 Dec '17
 Hadeus

Some thoughts on Archery. I think it should be quite simple.

Arrows cause damage to all armor types. Heavy offers the most damage reduction (as it should).
Arrows can 1 shot naked heads. Damage is increased towards the head of armored opponents.
Arrows flinch enemies right before the engagement. (This was a huge benefit of having a good archer on your team).

There is no need for an option to remove archers. In Chivalry, if no one wanted projectiles, it was agreed upon b4 match.

Bow sway would make archery immersive and add more skill depth to it. You could 'learn' your bow.
I'm not opposed to a cross-hair, but in my experience - learning to shoot without one actually helps you learn how to aim.

Archery should not be 'nerfed' simply due to the potential of them being OP. Archery is the perfect antithesis to melee. It spices things up and everyone hates them. It would also make Heavy Plate armor/Shields more useful.

3234 4264
  • 2
  • 17 Dec '17
 Havoc

Roses had good archery mechanics.

Add a CoF that increases based on movement and stamina and you're good to go.

Knight 3313 6811
  • 4
  • 17 Dec '17
 Bodkin

@Humble Staff said:
I remember a post (that i think Furst did) in one of those searing hot archer debate threads and back then it sounded quite nice, and still kinda does in my mind.
It was along the lines of "ranged weapons deal significantly reduced damage at extreme range". Furst implied that this should not make naked and light armor feel safe at all, like, less damage but still dangerous while medium would be able to soak a few more shots. I think he suggested that for heavy armor, it would deal very low damage or none at all (of which im not fond of) all of this accompanied by no flinch (maybe medium benefiting of no flinch as well). I'd say that reducing the damage to like 25% or 20% sounds fine, especially since Triternion doesn't aim for super powerfull archery. I know heavy meta is a problem but this way i think melee only players would feel a lot better in their heavy armor, sniping is hard by nature but also having reduced damage would mean that an archer would have to be insanely good to wear a heavy player down let alone kill him from far far away.
At closer ranges, even in point blank seems fair to me that plate armor reduces quite a chunk, again, because of triternion's approach to archery. At point blank you may be able to do more harm to the plate user if you have a blunt secondary but shooting at him from a few meters is safer given that you have inferior armor. Sounds like a good trade of to me.
I see it like having to fight a heavy user with light armor and say an arming sword, you have chances of wining althought quite low.
I know i'm a noob at melee and a trash tester atm but this sounds like a fine compromise in between absolutely hard counter and archery raping everything.

Having range based penetration values for different armor types would be cool to see and I have no issue with it.

To deal meaningful dmg to a heavy user with a bow, depending on which one obviously, would require you to be within like 20m or something.

The only issue this would cause is inconsistency, but that could be solved with 2 methods.

1) making the penetration mechanic only count on body and leg hits, leaving headshots alone. This would increase the skill gap between meh archers and good archers because they would have varying effective ranges with this mechanic. This isn't fully realistic obviously, but the impact hitting you against your head, even if not penetrating the helmet, would often be enough to hurt you bad if it was a straight on shot undeflected. Then again, the game's far from realistic anyhow. Obviously the damage still changes depending on helmet armor type, it just bypasses the extra protection added for range by making a difficult shot (obviously a little bit of luck is involved but it's the same for every feint, gamble, drag, and chamber we do as well. Our success relies on our opponent and our luck in either case, which is also a factor of our own inherent talent).

2) for this to work, you would have to show damage values over targets on hits however, so you could tell how much dmg you were able to do. Otherwise it becomes a big guessing game for the archer and makes it harder to provide Intel to your teammates

This way plate feels heavy and armor actually works to an extent, but it's not completely undefeatable without ruining your loadout. I am fond of this suggestion.

Edit: one easy way to tell if it procced or not would be to have arrows bounce off with a different sound when there was no penetration, and instead of having scaled damage, just have two set damage values for a penetrating shot and one that didn't make it through. I'd say like a third of damage for a nonpenetrating shot, so if the best bow in the game took 3 bodyshots on a knight or something, it would take 9 with no penetration or headshots. These are arbitrary values made up for example

301 875
  • 1
  • 17 Dec '17
 Naleaus

@Bodkin said:
2) for this to work, you would have to show damage values over targets on hits however, so you could tell how much dmg you were able to do. Otherwise it becomes a big guessing game for the archer and makes it harder to provide Intel to your teammates

Crosshair, assuming there is one, or another UI element while aiming could indicate if you're within the correct range for this suggested mechanic. Even something like having the enemies name show up while aiming if within the correct range would work.

I kind of like this idea. Up close? Increased damage and flinch. Far away? Reduced damage and no flinch. Headshot with no helm? You dead. With helm? Shit hurts no matter what, but you're alive.

Knight 222 187
  • 18 Dec '17
 REKTKWONDO

Stab chamber need to connect just as a clash and it will be fixed

Being unable to morph to the opposite side
Start the good stab and you'll be able, its a part of the game, if opponent start left stab, start right, if opponent start right, start left

Being unable to punish after attempting a chamber
It just mean you start your windup after your opponent, we can actually punish with a slower weapons. You are just too slow

Tracers being too long
It give a downside to delay. Its fine

Projectiles flinching
You can see it, just open your eyes

Teammates flinching
We need it to punish bad player, bad teamplay

Inconsistent active parry
It should happen as a clash hitbox instead of a big parry hitbox, to make skilled player able to activ parry and bad player not able actually active parry is too OP and not skilled

Attacks being queued without input
False, you attack unvolontary, actually have 0 problem with it, it's your fault, not the game

Lockout
Its not the lockout time but the Flinch time, but yeah it need to be fixed