Mordhau

Shields are NOT overpowered OR 'Broken'. Please do not change them.

58 28

What is it with damned people always thinking that everything should be Fair and 'Balanced'.

THERE IS ALREADY LOSS OF STAMINA on the damned shield. Stop whining about it.

62 29
  • 7 May '19
 Mechanicus

@NumidianPikeman said:
What is it with damned people always thinking that everything should be Fair and 'Balanced'.

THERE IS ALREADY LOSS OF STAMINA on the damned shield. Stop whining about it.

Dude ... EVERYTHING SHOULD be fair and balanced. Thing is that shields already ARE.
Do not get stupid ...

114 197

"Being beatable" and "Being balanced" have correlation between them, but the former does not cause the latter. There's a wonderful fluid combat system in the game which is completely invalidated by the shield. If you have a dagger you'll be outranged, if you have a zweihander you can get shanked in close quarters, if you have a shield noone can touch you if you don't want them to. 1v1 against a shield you will run out of stamina wailing on the shield before the bearer does, and all he needs is a split second to regenerate half of it. You can't hit around it, you can't disarm him, you can't feint him, accels and drags all break upon their shields. And then they still have a 1-handed 4 cost weapon that two-shots you when you decide you might try any of the above. Which is the same HTK as 10, 11 cost weapons. Except they're invulnerable.

Shields are beatable, I beat them, but it's because the people behind them lunge out and attack like idiots rather than because you tricked them or outplayed them or outmanoeuvred them.

And no, kicks don't do shit when you can just backpedal forever.

Aaaand this is without mentioning that 1 shield guy can hold up an infinite amount of people if the terrain is right even though their shield would realistically be torn to shreds in 4 battle axe hits.

62 29
  • 3
  • 7 May '19
 Mechanicus

YOU CAN out-stam them
YOU CAN get around them
and YOU CAN even bait them

I only think YOU can't XD

62 29
  • 7 May '19
 Mechanicus

@Lord Petyr Baelish said:
"Being beatable" and "Being balanced" have correlation between them, but the former does not cause the latter. There's a wonderful fluid combat system in the game which is completely invalidated by the shield. If you have a dagger you'll be outranged, if you have a zweihander you can get shanked in close quarters, if you have a shield noone can touch you if you don't want them to. 1v1 against a shield you will run out of stamina wailing on the shield before the bearer does, and all he needs is a split second to regenerate half of it. You can't hit around it, you can't disarm him, you can't feint him, accels and drags all break upon their shields. And then they still have a 1-handed 4 cost weapon that two-shots you when you decide you might try any of the above. Which is the same HTK as 10, 11 cost weapons. Except they're invulnerable.

Shields are beatable, I beat them, but it's because the people behind them lunge out and attack like idiots rather than because you tricked them or outplayed them or outmanoeuvred them.

And no, kicks don't do shit when you can just backpedal forever.

Aaaand this is without mentioning that 1 shield guy can hold up an infinite amount of people if the terrain is right even though their shield would realistically be torn to shreds in 4 battle axe hits.

99% of ppl that hate on shields don't use them themselves ... oh my what a coincidence :D

7 12

@NumidianPikeman said:
Medieval ages were fought with shields. Not katana wielding Nerd warriors.

That entirely depends on time period of Middle Ages we're speaking about.

In early Middle Ages when tough enough armor (which could counter cuts and cleaves) was not so prevalent among elite warriors and almost didn't exist among common soldiers - shields were primary defensive tool.

Late medieval ages (age of longswords, pollaxes and other two--handed weapons) were fought without shields. Simply because superior armor of that time rendered shields obsolete as means of personal defense and weapons that were effective against that armor required two hands to operate. So late Medieval soldiers were indeed "katana wielding Nerd warriors" from your perspective, where "katana" was some pollaxe or halberd.

By the way, Japan barely experienced any "shield warfare" because, unlike Europe, it was not influenced by Hellinistic & Roman military tactics (which relied on shields a lot), as well as it's military tradition always favored long spears and bows.

7 12

@Mechanicus said:
YOU CAN out-stam them
YOU CAN get around them
and YOU CAN even bait them

I only think YOU can't XD

Aaand that's true only for duel servers.

Because in mass-cockstabbery that every other gameplay mode turns into ain't nobody got time to do what you say before getting 1vX'd to oblivion while shield user just turtles long enough to survive until help arrives.

46 42
  • 7 May '19
 123mop

Late medieval ages (age of longswords, pollaxes and other two--handed weapons) were fought without shields. Simply because superior armor of that time rendered shields obsolete as means of personal defense and weapons that were effective against that armor required two hands to operate. So late Medieval soldiers were indeed "katana wielding Nerd warriors" from your perspective, where "katana" was some pollaxe or halberd.

The common foot soldier never had armor to obsolete shields. Walls of pikes obsoleted shields in some cases.

Your typical foot soldier never carried a longsword into battle. They usually carried a spear of some variety, and then a backup weapon like a dagger or short sword if fighting got too close for the spear. If the spear was an appropriate length to use in one hand they'd bring a shield with them.

Full plate armor that only knights and lords could afford allowed those few individuals to forego a shield if they chose. But when you enter a pitched battle, having something to stick between incoming arrows and rocks and your helmeted head is still highly desirable. Even in official knightly duels shields were common equipment for combatants to bring, so to say they were ever obsoleted by armor is nonsense.

7 12

@123mop said:
The common foot soldier never had armor to obsolete shields. Walls of pikes obsoleted shields in some cases.

In late Medieval ages common foot soldiers were sufficiently armored to counter cutting & cleaving weapons.

Your typical foot soldier never carried a longsword into battle. They usually carried a spear of some variety, and then a backup weapon like a dagger or short sword if fighting got too close for the spear. If the spear was an appropriate length to use in one hand they'd bring a shield with them.

Which century? AFAIK even as they carried some backup weapon, shields were already gone from the battlefield by 14th century.

Full plate armor that only knights and lords could afford allowed those few individuals to forego a shield if they chose. But when you enter a pitched battle, having something to stick between incoming arrows and rocks and your helmeted head is still highly desirable.

Dude, I am not even talking about full plate armor. Gambeson and chain mixes are already impervious to slashes, non-specialized weapon stabs, non armor-piercing arrows and protect from blunt strike force as well to some degree.

Back in 10th century chainmail was top tier armor affordable by elites only, but it went more and more common trough the centuries, while elites got new shiny plate armor.

Even in official knightly duels shields were common equipment for combatants to bring, so to say they were ever obsoleted by armor is nonsense.

That's because what they were. Duels. With rules and restrictions. These shields were also almost exclusively used as heraldic display and as additional protection for mounted lance duels because even for full plate dull lance hits were no joke.

Knight 499 953
  • 7 May '19
 wierHL

Stop perpetuating this nonsense that shields are already balanced and the people who want it overhauled just suck. The biggest opponents of current shield design are mostly alpha testers, who in my experience were some of the sweatiest fucking tryhards during the alpha/beta.

Shields have been largely unchanged since the later alpha patches and beta. The testers have seen how obnoxious they can be in the hands of both sweaty tryhards and even people who actually do suck (like me). Complaints about shields have been expressed for months now:

  • They're clunky (due to raise/lower delay) brick walls that ignore timing aspects.
  • While being held up and can only be beaten with attrition or unreliable side hits or...
  • The hard counter is kick-stun which is not only clunky in general but also unusable in 1vX.

The biggest proponent of shield changes is arguably @Lionheart-Chevalier, an alpha tester who has stated multiple times that he loves shields. Pretty much the opposite of the noob who doesn't like shields in general that OP and @Mechanicus are presenting. (And frankly it seems to me you're just putting up a strawman).

As for Lionheart's proposed changes, from what I can tell the most important ones are these:

  • Make block region smaller, accurate to their models.
  • Remove raise/lower delay (and loosen turncap? I can't remember).

This way a shield user can still hold their own against multiple people, as long as they actually aim properly. A shield user in a group is still well protected if they watch themselves, but in 1vX will get dmg if they leave their flank open to ripostes from the 1.
Removing the raise/lower delay would reduce their clunkiness so if anything that's a buff rather than a nerf.

A change many have suggested (myself included) is that holding the shield up beyond normal parry window removes your chance to riposte. This way "parrying" with the shield is better in melee, but holding up the shield makes it an anti-projectile tool.

Kick-stun is a bandaid fix. Increasing stamina drain or adding shield HP or any attrition mechanic would be a bandaid fix as well.

Finally, asking for redesign of a clunky mechanic is not the sign of a "casual" (as a derogatory term). What reeks of "filthy casuals" is clinging to a poorly designed crutch and insisting that it's supposed to be low skill high reward or that it's necessary to survive stabs in frontline.

46 42
  • 7 May '19
 123mop
  • Make block region smaller, accurate to their models.
  • Remove raise/lower delay (and loosen turncap? I can't remember).

I think these are really solid changes that everyone can get behind. It never feels good to effectively wrap around a shield only to have your attack bounce off of their back due to a shield hitbox that's larger than the shield. And as a shield user, being able to turn your shield faster would be particularly nice. This way you could still hold a defense against several enemies, but you'd really have to work for it by aiming your block for each individual attack. It would be more skill based on each side, allowing more options and counterplay.

At the end of the day, a shield user has a weaker weapon than a 2H player, so their defense SHOULD be stronger, and I think the 2-3 points, vision obscurement, and a hand spent on the shield should be good for more than just a little projectile defense.

The shield represents an investment in pure defense, so it should be natural for people to complain that it's hard to break through a good shield defense. If the shields are ever worse for defense than not having one (like in chivalry) that'll be a truly striking problem.

62 29
  • 8 May '19
 Mechanicus

@wierHL said:

  • Make block region smaller, accurate to their models.
  • Remove raise/lower delay (and loosen turncap? I can't remember).

As someone who ONLY defends shields I guess it matters when I say:

OK. IF BOTH of these changes are made simultaniously, and nothing else, I guess that is acceptable.
But only if you Katana-Nerds stop complaining afterwards.

PS: And learn to express yourself in LESSER TEXT XD

7 12

@123mop said:
At the end of the day, a shield user has a weaker weapon than a 2H player

That's why every tryhard runs shield and rapier/spear combo. Because these are weaker weapons.

777 1031
  • 8 May '19
 smellycathawk

Make it so you don't hit the shield when your sword doesn't hit the shield and make it so the sword hits the shield when it hits the shield. Not complicated.

114 197

@Mechanicus said:

@wierHL said:

  • Make block region smaller, accurate to their models.
  • Remove raise/lower delay (and loosen turncap? I can't remember).

As someone who ONLY defends shields I guess it matters when I say:

OK. IF BOTH of these changes are made simultaniously, and nothing else, I guess that is acceptable.
But only if you Katana-Nerds stop complaining afterwards.

PS: And learn to express yourself in LESSER TEXT XD

When you have no logical argument, resort to trying to insult who you're arguing with and telling them that they shouldn't elaborate on their views and should instead scream loud words like an ape like you because that's what you can deal with.

Flawless.

1756 1814
  • 8 May '19
 SWSeriousMike

I think the veterans have been too tolerant to the bad ideas of the new players.
Your attrition-based ideas are shit. Plain and simple.
The idea that some weapons should just ignore shields are shit as well. We could as well play rock-paper-scissors.

There you have it: Less text.

62 29
  • 6
  • 8 May '19
 Mechanicus

@Lord Petyr Baelish said:

When you have no logical argument, resort to trying to insult who you're arguing with and telling them that they shouldn't elaborate on their views and should instead scream loud words like an ape like you because that's what you can deal with.

Flawless.

I was accepting the idea in this post of mine -.-
Edit: But here have an argument: YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T even really read the post you commented on so I guess even
"screaming like an ape" is too high for you.

Bullshit.

62 29
  • 8 May '19
 Mechanicus

@SWSeriousMike said:
I think the veterans have been too tolerant to the bad ideas of the new players.
Your attrition-based ideas are shit. Plain and simple.
The idea that some weapons should just ignore shields are shit as well. We could as well play rock-paper-scissors.

There you have it: Less text.

I love you

56 136
  • 8 May '19
 k0dlak

Holy shit, Mechanicus is like a shittier version of Christian. Did you even bother to read any of the previous, well-thought-out arguments against shields? You're making a fool of yourself bringing up ideas that have already been debunked.

62 29
  • 1
  • 8 May '19
 Mechanicus

@k0dlak said:
Holy shit, Mechanicus is like a shittier version of Christian. Did you even bother to read any of the previous, well-thought-out arguments against shields? You're making a fool of yourself bringing up ideas that have already been debunked.

I defend shields. In places such as these we are few against many. AND yes, I read them, I was annoyed by them, I didn't agree.
And what kind of ideas did I bring up here in this thread >/ ?