Mordhau

240 mouse deadzone

5 7
  • 6 Feb
 machinegod

I've been playing with 240, and I noticed that the attack direction is very sensitive. So its very easy to accidentally strike in a totally wrong direction. Would it be possible to add some sort of deadzone or sensitivity for 240 so that its easier to aim strikes using this system? So that you don't twitch a little bit and strike in a totally different direction.

2214 4321
  • 6 Feb
 Maci

Just learn to play with binds tbh

Count 667 2553

Cruel but true.

5 7
  • 7 Feb
 machinegod

I get that binds are better but as long as 240 exists some people will use it and therefore we should try to make it more consistent.

King 2193 2750

@machinegod said:
I get that binds are better but as long as 240 exists some people will use it and therefore we should try to make it more consistent.

Finally someone fucking said it
That and there may be uses to being able to use both

22 63

its a shame that the 240 system is unable to rationalise your attack intentions and all it takes is a slight lean in the wrong direction to throw off your attack. i would say about 1/20 of my attacks get thrown off from this. but then perhaps more training is needed

Knight 310 1267

Stubbornly, I still use the 240° system exclusively. Using a mouse with a flawless sensor (Zowie FK1 with Avago ADNS-3310), I estimate that I only perform the wrong attack 1/500 times. With that said, a perfect sensor should not be required just to control your character as intended.

The advantages of the 240° system are that it uses only one button as opposed to 6, and that it feels - when it works - as though you have far greater control over your attacks than with a more primitive input method like binds. These are strong enough reasons to improve the system rather than remove it.

Prioritise improvement of the angling algorithm, followed by improvement of the dynamic crosshair. The dynamic crosshair was a feature I was really looking forward to, but all you have done with it is created a tiny arrow that jitters too much and skips the deadzones which are not even indicated. Make it bigger, make it display more information such as a circle with the deadzones and bind angles marked, and people will start to prefer the 240° system.

While we are on the topic of the dynamic crosshair, the only other information it displays is when you are parrying. This is arguably the state most clearly conveyed by the animations. A UI element was certainly unneeded, but what is needed, is an element for things such as feint / morph windows, flinch, lockout, and so on.

Knight 680 1748
  • 7 Feb
 Pred

@machinegod said:
I get that binds are better but as long as 240 exists some people will use it and therefore we should try to make it more consistent.

It's one input method for two different actions (attacks and torso movement), it's never going to be super reliable.

209 726
 Cswic

@Pred said:

@machinegod said:
I get that binds are better but as long as 240 exists some people will use it and therefore we should try to make it more consistent.

It's one input method for two different actions (attacks and torso movement), it's never going to be super reliable.

It can be if they want it to be. They can implement a 6 attack 240 system version where each 40 degree angle range is the same attack.

E.g. Right Overhead (like the angle that a bound right overhead uses) is angle 0 degree to 40 degree.

Having 6 set attack angles bound to 6 more generous angle ranges would help 240 feel more consistent than the current iteration, imo.

angles_240.jpg

161 180
  • 7 Feb
 idiotgod

@LuxCandidus said:
Stubbornly, I still use the 240° system exclusively. Using a mouse with a flawless sensor (Zowie FK1 with Avago ADNS-3310), I estimate that I only perform the wrong attack 1/500 times. With that said, a perfect sensor should not be required just to control your character as intended.

The advantages of the 240° system are that it uses only one button as opposed to 6, and that it feels - when it works - as though you have far greater control over your attacks than with a more primitive input method like binds. These are strong enough reasons to improve the system rather than remove it.

Prioritise improvement of the angling algorithm, followed by improvement of the dynamic crosshair. The dynamic crosshair was a feature I was really looking forward to, but all you have done with it is created a tiny arrow that jitters too much and skips the deadzones which are not even indicated. Make it bigger, make it display more information such as a circle with the deadzones and bind angles marked, and people will start to prefer the 240° system.

While we are on the topic of the dynamic crosshair, the only other information it displays is when you are parrying. This is arguably the state most clearly conveyed by the animations. A UI element was certainly unneeded, but what is needed, is an element for things such as feint / morph windows, flinch, lockout, and so on.

As someone who uses 240 only, do you think you would you benefit from being able to use "Alt" strike to reverse the 240 angle? Say, for instances when you MUST be turning right, but require a swing from the left?

Knight 310 1267

@idiotgod said:
As someone who uses 240 only, do you think you would you benefit from being able to use "Alt" strike to reverse the 240 angle? Say, for instances when you MUST be turning right, but require a swing from the left?

It is probably not something I would use since I am so used to moving my mouse in the desired angle no matter my positioning, but I was surprised when I discovered the key for reversing attack direction works only for binds. In fact I recall people voicing their desire to use it with the 240° system in the past. There is no reason not to have it; It is just an optional convenience for some.

Knight 141 332
  • 7 Feb
 AngelEyes

240 is inferior to binds. We have thoroughly established this enough now. The reason is simple, basically what Pred said or in two words it would be swing manipulation.

Camillo Agrippa of the 16th century revolutionized the way we fence by basic geometry and logic. Simplified example is that thrusting will always have an advantage over a strike simply because it is a single movement while a strike is two movements. (Mostly applied to rapier but the same logic can be applied to any weapon.). Even if you are accustomed to 240 and as subtle as a movement might be, to choose your angle you are still both mentally and physically taking more time to preform a strike. Again, as subtle as it may seem that's all that it takes.

Enough of that though. I have been using 240 on LMB since day one up until a week ago. I took Stoutys advice in his Shroud video on Youtube and did the classic Chivalry setup. As you guys might know changing established habits in Mordhau is hard, like coming off meth hard (No, but yeah). I forced myself to play this way for a little over an hour before I couldn't take it anymore and reverted back to my comfort zone. Interestingly, it's when I switched back to 240 that 240 indeed felt terrible.

I realized that the only thing 240 was useful for was chambers just like Stouty said. With chambers being in the awkward spot that they are (Like I feel like i'm being punished for doing them, lol.) I thought 'well I will just forget about 240 altogether then'. That's when I had the bright idea of binding 240 to a side mouse button. I scraped underhand on side mouse and replaced it with 240. It works wonderfully.

Now I'm not trying to convert anyone here, Play the way YOU like to play. It's worth mentioning that I am a non- competitive, casual player. That matters because I haven't let the opinion of the tryhards affect me, this change hasn't exactly increased my efficiency as a player (Honestly it has in team modes though) but the only real way to I can explain it is in Stoutys words "Honestly Liberating". It just feels right.

@Cswic To expand on that chart you have there, I agree and those degrees should be completely modifiable to the point where the player could deactivate an entire angle if they wanted to. So you could for example have just 3 angles dominate the entire circumference. This honestly was always my understanding as to what a dead-zone was and not tied to sensitivity like the OP is suggesting, I could be wrong though.

@idiotgod This is long overdue and it would absolutely help 240 with accels. Marox confirmed it if I remember right we just have not seen flip-atack-side for 240 yet.

Knight 92 227

I honestly hate binds, it just looks so unnatural and it gives that player an advantage in terms of speed, dragability and unreadability... atleast with 240 it looks more natural and fluid... but it is so unreliable

Knight 33 120
  • 7 Feb
 Jinno

"atleast with 240 it looks more natural and fluid"

looks more natural and fluid

?????????????????????????????????????????

Knight 92 227

@Jinno said:
"atleast with 240 it looks more natural and fluid"

looks more natural and fluid

?????????????????????????????????????????
Like actually aiming with the attack... a whole body motion

Knight 680 1748
  • 7 Feb
 Pred

@Cswic said:

@Pred said:

@machinegod said:
I get that binds are better but as long as 240 exists some people will use it and therefore we should try to make it more consistent.

It's one input method for two different actions (attacks and torso movement), it's never going to be super reliable.

It can be if they want it to be. They can implement a 6 attack 240 system version where each 40 degree angle range is the same attack.

E.g. Right Overhead (like the angle that a bound right overhead uses) is angle 0 degree to 40 degree.

Having 6 set attack angles bound to 6 more generous angle ranges would help 240 feel more consistent than the current iteration, imo.

That was my idea as well, but we got a semi-official response semi-indicating this is not happening. So it is what it is I guess.

Duchess 650 2668
  • 7 Feb
 Stouty

@AngelEyes said:
That's when I had the bright idea of binding 240 to a side mouse button. I scraped underhand on side mouse and replaced it with 240. It works wonderfully.

I also thought this would be the best of both worlds back when I was deciding which control scheme to use in Slasher. Like you said I don't want to tell you how to play but I will say that eventually I came to the conclusion that if you had the muscle memory for most of your binds there's no reason to keep 240 in the equation, it becomes a wasted button. You'll find yourself only chambering using your scrollwheel or lmb when it comes from the right angle because those are the ones you land the most easily.

As for muscle memory, I've swapped my binds around a lot over the past couple of years so I know it's a real pain, the best thing to do is go into an offline lobby with 1 bot, toggle damage and stamina off and try to chamber every attack. Do that for 20-30 minutes a day for a week and you should be golden

209 726
  • 7 Feb
 Cswic

@Pred said:

@Cswic said:

@Pred said:

@machinegod said:
I get that binds are better but as long as 240 exists some people will use it and therefore we should try to make it more consistent.

It's one input method for two different actions (attacks and torso movement), it's never going to be super reliable.

It can be if they want it to be. They can implement a 6 attack 240 system version where each 40 degree angle range is the same attack.

E.g. Right Overhead (like the angle that a bound right overhead uses) is angle 0 degree to 40 degree.

Having 6 set attack angles bound to 6 more generous angle ranges would help 240 feel more consistent than the current iteration, imo.

That was my idea as well, but we got a semi-official response semi-indicating this is not happening. So it is what it is I guess.

Happen to remember who the semi-official response was from? Wouldn't surprise me if that was the case honestly.

161 180
 idiotgod

@LuxCandidus said:

@idiotgod said:
As someone who uses 240 only, do you think you would you benefit from being able to use "Alt" strike to reverse the 240 angle? Say, for instances when you MUST be turning right, but require a swing from the left?

It is probably not something I would use since I am so used to moving my mouse in the desired angle no matter my positioning, but I was surprised when I discovered the key for reversing attack direction works only for binds.

Did you mean you "wouldn't" use it? Cause you said "would" then the rest of the thing made it seam like you wouldn't.

But you do think it should be a thing, and so do I, and that other guy too

@Stouty said:

As for muscle memory, I've swapped my binds around a lot over the past couple of years so I know it's a real pain, the best thing to do is go into an offline lobby with 1 bot, toggle damage and stamina off and try to chamber every attack. Do that for 20-30 minutes a day for a week and you should be golden

Okay this paragraph right here makes me cringe. I know cause I have been there, and doing it ONCE is fucking horrible enough. So why does the game set you up for the inevitability of doing it TWICE by having shit40 be the default?

Knight 680 1748
  • 7 Feb
 Pred

@Cswic said:

@Pred said:

@Cswic said:

@Pred said:

@machinegod said:
I get that binds are better but as long as 240 exists some people will use it and therefore we should try to make it more consistent.

It's one input method for two different actions (attacks and torso movement), it's never going to be super reliable.

It can be if they want it to be. They can implement a 6 attack 240 system version where each 40 degree angle range is the same attack.

E.g. Right Overhead (like the angle that a bound right overhead uses) is angle 0 degree to 40 degree.

Having 6 set attack angles bound to 6 more generous angle ranges would help 240 feel more consistent than the current iteration, imo.

That was my idea as well, but we got a semi-official response semi-indicating this is not happening. So it is what it is I guess.

Happen to remember who the semi-official response was from? Wouldn't surprise me if that was the case honestly.

Jax, I think on two separate occasions. It was something along the lines of "we won't have six animations because there is already a system which has 240".