• Likes received 169
  • Date joined 5 Jun '16
  • Last seen 24 Jun '20

Private Message

Knight 125 169

Sounds stressful.

Knight 125 169

@Lumi said:
What about giving progressively better gear based on how many chests you've opened or players you've killed? Getting a zwiel from the chest you spawn in kinda breaks the game.

This would just make it more about killing stuff and less about surviving. We are going to have enough maps with the kill focus. I like the survivalist/scavenger vibe here over the bland "I must kill everything" mentality.

Knight 125 169

Talhoffer's manual includes plenty of images where a large shield, comparable to the current game's pavise shield, is used in close combat:



In this spirit, working on shields and their utility should continue. The current pavise shield already has a nice two-handed carrying grip (which does nothing and people just strike you through that massive immaterial wall at their leisure). It's not that much a stretch to add an active blocking function to it. Preferably with some kind of offensive utility, like pushback, but I'd settle even for a huge parry box alone. Likely not that good in dueling, but offering plenty of uses for the field:


Knight 125 169

@Lincs said:
You say that last bit like it's something sinister but yes, that's basically the way it was always intended. Mordhau developed naturally as a spiritual successor to Chivalry, developed by competitive chivalry vets and historic melee combat enthusiasts. The core values expressed in Mordhau are fast paced melee combat, adaptability and quick thinking. Shields in their current state are fundamentally opposite of the core design of Mordhau. Archers are, to a lesser extent, but they've been balanced in a way that they work within the context of the game. Shields remain a sore subject for players because they continue to go against the grain of Mordhau's design philosophy.

Only sinister in the sense that when I put my money to back up the kickstarter project, shields were still spoken like they were a real thing. Teaser videos showed people dueling and winning with shields. Everything gave the reason to believe they would be a core choice, compatible and comparable to 2-handed weapons. If I had known they would be gimped/underdeveloped, along with archery, to drop them to a highly secondary role, made insignificant in comparison to 2-handed weapons, I would never have paid a dime for the game. I want to choose my playstyle.

@Lincs said:
If shields are to be made useful like you want, they need to be made into a reaction-based utility, like a larger parry window, extended timed parry, etc. Otherwise they will remain in their current state.

Like I already suggested earlier, I would rework smaller shields like you put it here, while keeping larger shields a bit as they are now, but perhaps even largening the box a bit and giving them some utility, like pushback.

Different weapons have different utilities. There is no reason to limit shields to one single function.

Knight 125 169

@Bodkin said:
Longbow does 25dmg to t3 torso, but high headshot dmg and is difficult to shoot quickly without practice due to its sway. The weaker and faster recurve does far less dmg (15dmg to t3 torso) but is cheaper to equip where the archer can be more prepared for melee engagement.
Dragonborn must not be landing enough hits.

Somehow you people always have to make it a "l2p" issue. No, it's not about "landing enough hits". Its the simple amount of hits required. Statistically, we can't expect to score headshots all the time. Body and limb shots are going to be the norm. Without a headshot, you have to shoot a plate-wearer like 4-6 times to drop him, counting out bandages and regeneration. And this is with the most powerful bow of the game. As opposed to dropping your fellow archer with a single shot. Which means it's not really worth it to go hunting for plate, but instead hunting those sweet one-shot kills. Which solves the problem: Less arrows towards melee, and even if someone does it, it's a minor nuisance.

Knight 125 169

@Reapy said:
So playing m&b in a pub server you really were required to have a shield out, even if you wanted to just do melee, otherwise you were half dead before you even got up close. In competitive you just can't use 2h swords at all because you'll be dead in half a second.

Sadly, this isn't the case here. Archers have high damage against each other, thanks to the Huntsman perk, but low damage against plate. This leads to archers mainly shooting at other archers and leaving melee alone, aside of accident shots or having no other target at sight.

If the developers wanted to fix this, they would give a perk equal to Huntsman, but against plate-users. Call it "Bodkin", giving a hefty damage increase against plate. This would allow archers to choose their targets. Now the "choice" is between 1) do shit damage on melee, or 2) do awesome damage on other archers. HMM, WHICH WOULD I CHOOSE?

Knight 125 169

@Pred said:
So you expect to just pick a shield in your loadout and be put on par with top 20 players in the game?

Do you people even listen to yourselves, smh.

It sounds like he is asking you to show an experienced player who can whoop ass using a shield, when going against experienced 2-hander users.

We seem to be short of those.

Knight 125 169

@Shovonem said:
Actually the problem with shield is that Mordhau is based on timed parry. So Shield ignores pretty much every mechanic in the game. It ignores drags, feints, morphs etc.

From the historical perspective, maneuvers like feints, drags and morphs belong mainly to dueling. Mordhau has taken heavy influence from Medieval fighting manuals like Talhoffer and Fiore. While these manuals have some content concerning battlefield (particularly Talhoffer), they are mainly dueling-oriented. A big shield is supposed to counter that kind of agile swordwork and make it near-useless. Sure, the agile swordsman can still overcome the cowering shield-man over time - if he doesn't have buddies to prevent this. But in the battlefield you tend to have those buddies. And therefore, battlefield fighting is not that much about agile swordplay, but formations, group tactics, and yes, those big fucking shields, archery, and 3-5 meter pikes. ;)

Current development stage rewards the same dueling techniques in group fighting, which is maybe not the right way to go. There should be pros and cons to everything. Master your drags, morphs and chambers and kick ass one-on-one. Master your shield, spear and bow and kick ass on the field. This is how it should be in my mind.

Knight 125 169

@Shovonem said:
Just buffing/nerfing shield is not the solution. They need to have more counters as well.

An underdog weapon doesn't really call for more counters, but I get your meaning. Different kind of shields should have different qualities. Now they're just same useless template with a different-sized parry box, really. Bucklers and smaller shields should be agile, reactive, improving on chambers maybe, but requiring good timing and with a parry box only slightly larger than a 1-hander weapon. Larger shields should have bigger parry box, virtually unpenetrable for the biggest shields. They should be unreactive and slow, designed to delay the enemy, but ultimately losing the stamina battle under an aggressive attack, while also being vulnerable to attacks from the flank.

Allowing shields to push the opponent would already make them more interesting to play, and would require more timing as a shield player. Just defend and ultimately lose your weapon, or find the narrow gap when to push the opponent off-balance and start attacking - or miss it and give a gap for the opponent to get in instead. In essence, this option would allow a counter for both sides.

Knight 125 169

@Peacerer said:
Shields were nerfed significantly by developers on purpose mainly because of 2h elitists whining against them. Ironicly, there were almost no players who used them at the time and surely there's even less players with shields now.

Yes, I remember this well enough. There was like 1-2 good shield players before. It was enough to discourage the ballerinas, who started crying and got their nerf. Now nobody plays with shield (for long anyway).

With shields being a joke and archers hunting each other, 2-handers can make the 90% of the active gameplay. I suppose that's how it was intended all along.

Knight 125 169

@Lionheart Chevalier said:
I was hoping for much more objective type stuff in the frontline, maybe pushing things to give the attacking team an edge or whatever when attacking a flag etc. Maybe the other FL maps will feature this stuff that made made Chivalry TO so much fun.

I was hoping to see carts being pushed, flags carried, and battlements built and demolished more graphically as well. Now taking objecitves felt like just clearing out enemy and standing in a circle. Lots of promise here, just lots of room for improvement.

Because of the size of the map, it's extremely difficult/impossible to defend it with a low player count, the forts having so many access points and whatnot. That said, I'm very much looking forward to a scenario dedicated on defending/attacking a castle!

Knight 125 169

@saul_g00dman said:

@Lionheart Chevalier said:
My blood boils when I see a new player trying to learn the game with a shield and then gets kicked to death by some guy spamming the laugh emote.

Shield mechanics defeat the purpose of using a shield.

thats how they learn

To stop using a shield and start practicing to become a zwei ballerina? Check.

Knight 125 169

Nothing to add to the poster above.

Knight 125 169

Answers and likes here don't surprise. The majority of alpha actives are old Chivalry drag-queens who feel like the only way to play is the ballerina way. Effective shields would ruin it, so any and all requests for shield fixing are voted down.

I took a few months break from game testing. After coming back, I observed the games for about 3 days on different servers. I saw absolutely NO active shield users, just 2-handers and archers. Someone took up shield a few times but quickly stopped using it.

I tried it myself, and found it highly ineffective. I'm not a good player, but I have hundreds of hours playtime in Mordhau and Chivalry, mainly using a shield. If I can't make the shield work at least in mediocre efficiency, no new player will either.

If playing with a shield is "boring", like some of you claim, it should be made more interesting, instead of the niche weapon nobody uses actively.

Suggestions: work on buckler so that it can be used as an active parry weapon instead of passive wall. Make it more difficult to go around larger shields. Give one more shield even larger than kite shield, or alternatively, make pavise shield able to block and push while equipped. Allow kick or shield push when carrying shield and no other weapon is equipped.

Knight 125 169

Shields are currently useless. 1 player in 10 is using them, because of this.

Going over or under even the biggest shield is ridiculously easy, even with big 2-handed weapons like zwei. They offer minor passive protection against arrows, but are otherwise useless.

I hope this will be sorted out before the launch. Otherwise this game is reduced to same 2-hander gliding fest as Chivalry.

(Also, if you wield only shield and no weapon, you cannot punch with free hand, push with shield or kick. It limits your all available actions to block.)

Knight 125 169

@Peacerer said:
Exactly, i can't imagine all the melee 3k+ Chiv crybabies when archer's released.

Yup. Seems like the majority of alpha players aren't satisfied unless shields and archery are made completely useless when compared to 2-handers.

Knight 125 169

@ThunderDuck said:
Of course it will. Shields are a crutch for people who don't want to deal with parry timing.

Similarly it could be said that a 2-handed weapon is a crutch for people who don't want to deal with fighting up close. Retarded ideas both. There are always different weapons and different strategies. Even if you don't like some, it's pointless to call it a crutch.

Knight 125 169

Of course more reach and damage won't help you if you don't use it effectively. Equally shield won't help you if you are bad at using it. That's hardly an answer.

Knight 125 169

@TheUprising said:
one handers already have their advantages, though not enough to fight toe to toe with a 2hander, from what I understood pre-release, 1-hander+shield should be equal in strength to a 2 hander.

Somewhat equal, yes, I agree. But a 2-hander is always superior against multiple opponents, since you can swing in big arcs and threaten multiple directions at once. So I would argue that 1-hander + shield should be stronger against a single opponent.

@TheUprising said:
With all the advantages they have, complaining about their downsides just seems ludicrous, since I think the devs are planning to nerf them as we speak.

They can "nerf" shields if they see it fit. That will only lead to no one playing with shields. Maybe that's the purpose? I don't know. But thing is that if shields were that superior, you'd see more than half people in FFA matches running with a 1-hander and shield, which is not the case.

Knight 125 169

@TheUprising said:
this is intentional, shield needs to have SOME downside.

The downsides of using a shield are already rather clear. Less range, as you're restricted to a one-hander, and therefore stunted ability of fighting more than one opponent. Kicks stunning you with ridiculous ease atm.

As a regular shield user, I have to somewhat agree with the OP. There won't be much point in using them unless something is changed.