Mordhau
Mordhau Merch
Check out our merch shop!

buff projectiles

Baron 1551 2087
  • 3
  • 21 May '18
 yourcrippledson

@Jax said:
there won't be flinch on throwables or archery

Not even going to bother testing headshot flinch eh. What a fucking joke, looks like I backed the wrong game.

Say goodbye to realism bois. When you can slash a plate boot and get a reaction out of a man but not anything when he has an axe stuck in his jaw. There are other means of balancing shit in this game that don't involve fucking my sense of realism up-the-ass ya know. What is even the POINT of the POINT-system, if before you resort to altering point cost to balance something, you just make it dumb instead.

Screenshot (609).png

No point in asking tester opinions or holding polls or anything, the devs want it their way.

Melee characters are artificially buffed in a completely immersion-breaking and unrealistic way so they can feel like really powerful medieval men. Once something enters the airwaves of MORDHAU the "semi-realistic" medieval combat game, it becomes a pencil. EDIT. With an eraser on both sides.

It's okay to have balance as a priority but how much realism are you willing to sacrifice to achieve this? And are there less immersion breaking ways of balancing shit?

I hate this decision with a fiery passion.

Knight 685 1855
  • 21 May '18
 ÐMontyleGueux

Dude, calm down. You're acting like a literal child at that point.

There is plenty of things I'm unhappy about the choices triternion made for mordhau. They are plenty of things I want to see in the game that will never be a thing... Yet I don't act immaturely for it. Not only because the devs have justified their reasoning, but because it's their games, not ours. Ultimately they are the one working their asses off to provide what they think will be a good game, while we're sitting on our lazy asses playing the fruit of years of hard work.

You are free to express yourself, give suggestions and opinions, just as I do. I voice what I want to be in the game and how I see things, which are often if not always taken into consideration. But the right to chose belongs to triternion. You paid for an alpha, a beta and a finished game, which you will get, triternion doesn't owe you more than that.

I like you dude, I really don't wanna be mean to you. But you sounds like you need some good dose of reality before you really make a fool out of yourself.

Duchess 6897 9885
  • 21 May '18
 Sir Zombie

he is a crippled child who can only express himself through the internet

Count 3976 8339
  • 21 May '18
 TheDankestMeme

@ÐMontyleGueux said:
Dude, calm down. You're acting like a literal child at that point.

There is plenty of things I'm unhappy about the choices triternion made for mordhau. They are plenty of things I want to see in the game that will never be a thing... Yet I don't act immaturely for it. Not only because the devs have justified their reasoning, but because it's their games, not ours. Ultimately they are the one working their asses off to provide what they think will be a good game, while we're sitting on our lazy asses playing the fruit of years of hard work.

You are free to express yourself, give suggestions and opinions, just as I do. I voice what I want to be in the game and how I see things, which are often if not always taken into consideration. But the right to chose belongs to triternion. You paid for an alpha, a beta and a finished game, which you will get, triternion doesn't owe you more than that.

I like you dude, I really don't wanna be mean to you. But you sounds like you need some good dose of reality before you really make a fool out of yourself.

acting as a child isnt against the rules tho

also i think they should implement flinch on headshots because as i said like 3 times it is alpha which means they should test as many things as possible rather than thinking too much, playing the actual game will always be a better way of balancing than guessing.
And i'm pretty sure the only thing they have to do to add flinch on headshot is replacing a 0 with a 1 so just fucking do it and wait 1 week to get some responses.

Baron 1551 2087
  • 21 May '18
 yourcrippledson

Nobody owes me shit. I am not delusional.

If I cared about how people perceived me, I would have a real flicking life.

This is my big stink about something that seems fairly obvious to me. It should just follow logic. Over half of the voters voted for a flinch of some kind, so testing it on at least some projectile headshots would be smart. Seeing as how we went from amazing projectile arks with full flinch on everything, to no flinch on any projectile ever, it almost seems like they made them as OP and annoying as possible to begin with so players would be more accepting when they turn everything into A NERF.

Take it or leave it. But that's my opinion, and I am an asshole.

Knight 1836 2232
  • 21 May '18
 Void

Crippledson is this the real you, or are you memeing like in the "delete maul" thread?

Dank, they don't have to test every possible idea. Sometimes you know beforehand that something will have a bad impact. It's not that they have all the time at their disposal.

Baron 1551 2087
  • 21 May '18
 yourcrippledson

@Void said:
Crippledson is this the real you, or are you memeing like in the "delete maul" thread?

Dank, they don't have to test every possible idea. Sometimes you know beforehand that something will have a bad impact. It's not that they have all the time at their disposal.

Then why did they include FULL flinch on everything when they added projectiles? It seems to me if they are so adept at knowing what will work and what won't, they would have been smart enough to try Headshot-flinch only from the beginning, closer to something that would be acceptable. Instead it was full flinch and broken to the point where you could stun lock people with any throwable with ease...

1430 2175

No flinch on archery seems rather... overzealous. Crossbows, bows and throwing spears should definitely be able to flinch enemy players, especially at close range. Flinch removal on such hard hitting weapons is an artificial and arbitrary nerf.

Duke 2266 4010
  • 21 May '18
 Huggles

Why would be flinched from a headshot be any less annoying than getting flinched by a body shot? At the end of the day you are still being flinched by someone out of range of melee that you cannot reasonably account for at all times.

Just imagine how fucking terrible it would feel in a 64p server.

Duke 2266 4010
  • 1
  • 21 May '18
 Huggles

@Lionheart Chevalier said:
No flinch on archery seems rather... overzealous. Crossbows, bows and throwing spears should definitely be able to flinch enemy players, especially at close range. Flinch removal on such hard hitting weapons is an artificial and arbitrary nerf.

And encourage shotgun archery? No thanks.

Baron 1551 2087
  • 1
  • 21 May '18
 yourcrippledson

Stand in front of a full body mirror for me huggles. Now let me know if your head is a smaller target than the rest of your body. Do you think that would significantly reduce the number of times you are flinched by projectiles? While maintaining some sense of realism and satisfaction for anyone witnessing a deadly projectile piercing you head.

Duke 2266 4010
  • 21 May '18
 Huggles

@yourcrippledson said:
Stand in front of a full body mirror for me huggles. Now let me know if your head is a smaller target than the rest of your body. Do you think that would significantly reduce the number of times you are flinched by projectiles? While maintaining some sense of realism and satisfaction for anyone witnessing a deadly projectile piercing you head.

Reducing =/= eliminating. Being flinched by a throwable when you are in the middle of a fight always feels bullshit. The bullshit happening less often doesn't mean it isn't bullshit.

Baron 1551 2087
  • 21 May '18
 yourcrippledson

It's bullshit that I put a sword through your skull and you just stared me down.. It looks extremely stupid. Why do they even make a sound? it makes it look even more stupid than if they didn't react at all.

Baron 1551 2087
  • 21 May '18
 yourcrippledson

This literally makes projectiles not only useless, but actually closer to a detriment, when the enemy you throw them at not only has 0 chance of being flinched, but if they block it, they can get an inflinchable riposte out of it.

Duke 2266 4010
  • 21 May '18
 Huggles

How is being able to kill someone from afar without putting yourself in danger useless in a melee game? No one can block projectiles consistently when they are engaged in large melee fights.

1430 2175

Shotgun archery takes talent and makes sense with a short spear/crossbow. Nothing un-intuitive or cheesy about it.

People are gonna do it anyways, though, just a matter of whether there are trades against archery or not. Those annoying but really good archers would squeeze off their shot at you, and eat a hit as they switch weapons. This leaves both at roughly 1htk and the archer's 1h will likely beat a knight's 2h in this scenario. Many archers are good enough to shotgun without it being a gamble and the bigger their bow or weaker/slower their opponent the more likely they're going to win out. The bad archers who are gambling will miss and die anyways, flinch or no.

Instead of vainly encouraging archers to switch to melee with arbitrary/artificial settings we should be encouraging melee fighters to try flanking them, adopting new tactics for mitigating them(shields, smoke, alternate paths) or countering them with other archers. Archery balance really comes down to map layout. As in where good archery spots are set up, how much range/power these positions have in terms of controlling other objectives, how such positions can be out flanked/attacked and/or how the threat posed by archers in such positions can be mitigated via alternate paths and map cover.

No matter how much sway, range, power, flinch/no flinch, accuracy or point cost, etc are given to them, skilled archers will still be skilled and thus annoying to melee players of any skill level.

Baron 1551 2087
  • 9
  • 21 May '18
 yourcrippledson

They have removed any possibility for any interesting interaction between projectiles and melee. Projectiles are now just encouraged to be cancer, something to throw at the enemies backs. Not actually something to be combative with.

Contrast this to Chivalry, where you had to dodge and shit with footwork, be smart with positioning, utilise cover, and it was fun for the archer, and it made classes have different interactions which were all fun and balanced. Vanguard is weak against projectiles, but he is fast enough to dodge, he can hide in his smoke, he can throw axes at them so they have to move, preventing them from lining up a shot, but he can 1 shot archers. The knight and maa got a shield. Knight is easy to hit but takes more hits, gets biggest shields, maa has dodge, which was fun to use against archers, and it was fun predicting a dodge to line up a headshot.

All of these dynamic combat interactions are gone. Now you are encouraged to play the most cancerous way possible, just shoot at guys who aren't looking at you, who don't know you're there, then run away. This is not as fun for EITHER SIDE.

I see why they want it the way they are making it, for the purely competitive player who rages when they are flinched when fighting another competitive player. And to prevent the end game chiv had when archers became super annoying as they mastered it. BUT they are WAY OVER DOING IT.
For the low-level and casual play, this is an objectively bad decision. Aesthetically it looks terrible. Realism suffers. consistency suffers. In-game-logic suffers.

In Chiv I enjoyed tricking archers and the like with footwork. I enjoyed waiting out my enemy and getting that throwing axe hit when they are dodging all over the place. I like having to carry a shield and it having a really solid purpose and role.

All of this is lost, and I don't see it being worth it, not even close.

Duke 2266 4010
  • 21 May '18
 Huggles

@Lionheart Chevalier said:
Shotgun archery takes talent and makes sense with a short spear/crossbow. Nothing un-intuitive or cheesy about it.

People are gonna do it anyways, though, just a matter of whether there are trades against archery or not. Those annoying but really good archers would squeeze off their shot at you, and eat a hit as they switch weapons. This leaves both at roughly 1htk and the archer's 1h will likely beat a knight's 2h in this scenario. Many archers are good enough to shotgun without it being a gamble and the bigger their bow or weaker/slower their opponent the more likely they're going to win out. The bad archers who are gambling will miss and die anyways, flinch or no.

Instead of vainly encouraging archers to switch to melee with arbitrary/artificial settings we should be encouraging melee fighters to try flanking them, adopting new tactics for mitigating them(shields, smoke, alternate paths) or countering them with other archers. Archery balance really comes down to map layout. As in where good archery spots are set up, how much range/power these positions have in terms of controlling other objectives, how such positions can be out flanked/attacked and/or how the threat posed by archers in such positions can be mitigated via alternate paths and map cover.

No matter how much sway, range, power, flinch/no flinch, accuracy or point cost, etc are given to them, skilled archers will still be skilled and thus annoying to melee players of any skill level.

No, if the archer gets hit with their bow still out they are fucked. They eat the hit + disarm + the combo hit. Shotgun archery will be too risky of a thing to attempt. Archers will take their last shot in time to switch to their weapon. That is fine, relatively close range but not waiting for someone to be literally in facehug range to take the shot. That's not the concern.

Shotgun archery DOES NOT TAKE SKILL. It is much easier to hit someone in point blank range than it is to hit them from afar.

The role of archery generally is to shoot at the enemy from afar while they are engaged in melee to make it easier for your team to kill them and to also kill them. It is also to kill other archers to prevent them doing the same to your thing.

It is not to run away baiting people to chase you and fire point blank shots then continue running away. It is not to take on individual opponents who are fully aware of you and responding appropriately.

Duke 2266 4010
  • 21 May '18
 Huggles

@yourcrippledson said:
They have removed any possibility for any interesting interaction between projectiles and melee. Projectiles are now just encouraged to be cancer, something to throw at the enemies backs. Not actually something to be combative with.

Contrast this to Chivalry, where you had to dodge and shit, and it was fun for the archer, and it made classes have different interactions which were all fun and balanced. Vanguard is weak against projectiles, but he is fast enough to dodge, he can hide in his smoke, he can throw axes at them so they have to move, preventing them from lining up a shot, but he can 1 shot archers. The knight and maa got a shield.

All of these dynamic combat interactions are gone. Now you are encouraged to play the most cancerous way possible, just shoot at guys who aren't looking at you, who don't know you're there, then run away.

I see why they want it the way they are making it, for the purely competitive player who rages when they are flinched when fighting another competitive player. And in the end game when archers became super annoying in chiv as they mastered it. But for the low-level and casual play, this is an objectively bad decision. Aesthetically it looks terrible. Realism suffers. consistency suffers. In-game-logic suffers. I enjoyed tricking archers and the like with footwork. I enjoyed waiting out my enemy and getting that throwing axe hit when they are dodging all over the place. I like having to carry a shield and it having a really solid purpose and role.

All of this is lost, and I don't see it being worth it, not even close.

There was no meaningful interaction in chivalry. You just ran around trying your best to mitigate the chances of being shot but ultimately it was entirely out of your control. Smokes were horribly ineffective in vanilla chiv. Shields were very easy to get around by shooting at the feet, hands, head.

It is just plain silly for archers to be incredibly strong in a melee focused game. They should have a role and operating outside of that role should have serious drawbacks. Projectiles should be a long ranged damage dealer. Period.

The only exceptions that even remotely makes sense is something like the short spear, maul, and war axe because of the crazy point cost for the limited quantity. It would also be much easier for someone to keep track of in combat than the trillion archers sure to be in the average frontline map.

Baron 1551 2087
  • 21 May '18
 yourcrippledson

@Huggles said:
It is just plain silly for archers to be incredibly strong in a melee focused game. They should have a role and operating outside of that role should have serious drawbacks. Projectiles should be a long ranged damage dealer. Period.

Nobody here is arguing for them to be INCREDIBLY STRONG.

I just want mechanics to make sense. not be arbitrary.

I want it to not look retarded when headshots don't flinch.

I want archers to be a semi-competent, flexible and fun thing to play as, with more meaningful interaction than just shooting into the crowed without any strategy or purpose beyond "we are forced to include them because it is a medieval game and people expect it"

They have just been thrown in cause. If this is the case, the game would be better without them.