Mordhau
 DarkTiti
Sellsword
  • Likes received 60
  • Date joined 23 Jun '16
  • Last seen 10 Jun '18

Private Message

Sellsword 31 60
  • 8 Jun '18
 DarkTiti

@das said:
Now no CFTP, does it favor rapier spam or spear spam?: Favors fast weapons/playstyles, because baiting a miss means reach of your weapon doesn't matter if you can hit them guaranteed

Sure but to know you're going to hit your opponent, you definitely need to take your reach into account. You can't just take out the "reach" criterion out because "you know you're going to hit".
Besides, it is CFTP which actually favours fast weapons and spamming because even if you miss, you can always resort to CFTP to get out of harm.

@das said:

  • or - favors long poke weapons, no one will want to take the risk of missing against a long weapon so no poke is "safe" when you can't CFTP in the event you miss

I've seen a lot of categorical statements in this topic: THIS is going to happen ALL THE TIME, THAT will NEVER be done again, it's ALL going to be THIS, etc. So my first point is that it is very unlikely that the meta becomes one thing only (you even point out two different playstyles in your post so it's not even so bad).
My second point is that even it it did, you can't know that for sure already. It needs testing.
My third point is: yeah, long weapons should have an advantage against short ones and getting rid of CFTP on missed strikes could be a skillful way to achieve that.
My fourth point is that getting rid of CFTP on missed strikes does not mean that baiting an opponent into attacking into a missed strike is out of the game. It is possible to miss your hit in order to bait your opponent into committing into an attack only to make him miss as well and punish it. It involves a lot of footwork and good distance judgement.
My fifth point is that what you describe as a worse meta makes more sense to me. If someone misses a strike, why should they have an "easy" way out of this mistake? I've read that it makes things more complicated and therefore favours skill/technique. Well, yeah. It depends what you want from the game. I'd say most people (who are not pros) will feel robbed when their opponent CFTP to avoid a hit which they had coming.
Simplicity is a good thing. Just compare :
Missing a strike because of poor judgement or good footwork from the opponent, the opponent starts his attack to punish it, CFTP, the opponent had predicted the CFTP (somehow) and feints, the parry goes down, the opponent hits (maybe, if the other one has not got out of the way).
VS
Missing a strike because of poor judgement or good footwork from the opponent, the opponent punishes it.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 21 Apr '18
 DarkTiti

I'm still not quite convinced but hey, good arguments there.
Maybe I'll kill my spirit some day when I have time haha

Sellsword 31 60
  • 21 Apr '18
 DarkTiti

@yourcrippledson said:

@DarkTiti said:
Casual here

Just a quick question: are chambers worth the risk now, compared to a simple parry-riposte?
Are the stamina and change of tempo advantages good enough to foster chambering? Am I missing on some other advantage that would make up for the difficulty of the mechanic? (probably)

Maybe I should post this in the appropriate thread but it is related to the recent update. Will do if asked to do so tho.

I think chambers are worth. once you understand them they feel natural. I automatically morph out of my stabs to chamber directionally now. It feels super cool.

I would suggest fighting some bots to practice the basic concept and timings of chambers. It is too hard to learn when fighting against much better opponents, trying their hardest to kill you, you really don't learn as much as you should be..

So I like to go on Team Death Match Local V bots. No bots on my team and add 2 or 3 to the enemy team only with the addbots console command.
This lets you practice and learn all the timings including the team mechanics

Yes, but apart from feeling cool? Do you feel it gives you a significant advantage, say in a duel, if you chamber your opponent once (pretty hard already)? Twice (now that's very tricky)? Thrice (oh well...)? When do you feel you have outplayed your opponent and the victory should be yours "by right"?
My point is: are chambers truly rewarded, i.e. do they give one an edge proportional to the skill required to perform them?

Sellsword 31 60
  • 21 Apr '18
 DarkTiti

Casual here

Just a quick question: are chambers worth the risk now, compared to a simple parry-riposte?
Are the stamina and change of tempo advantages good enough to foster chambering? Am I missing on some other advantage that would make up for the difficulty of the mechanic? (probably)

Maybe I should post this in the appropriate thread but it is related to the recent update. Will do if asked to do so tho.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 29 Mar '18
 DarkTiti

@Naleaus said:

@DarkTiti said:
Finally, saying that defence would be harder because there would be no way to do feint to parry is not a good argument: ftp is a difficult technique which new players are unable to perform anyway. And even if they could, would it be so bad not to have ftp? Not everyone is a fan of not being able to punish people who miss their attack.

Not going over the other stuff, someone else can, but the defense thing. How is a FTP hard? They've made it a single button press. It's as easy as trying to parry during your attack. CFTP is simple too, doesn't take much to explain it. Also, you can punish a ftp. It's called feint them. Or morph. Or drag. Or stam them out.

And yet, at least in Chivarly, playing with average folks like me, I can tell you I very rarely saw ftp. I even thought my opponent was outright cheating when it first happened to me. Also, you can't expect newbies to know all the mechanics of the game. This stuff is not explained anywhere. If I had not spent time on the Internet to understand those things, I'd have never known this. Can you even fathom that some people find dragging complicated at first? Not everyone is good and understands stuff from the get go.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 29 Mar '18
 DarkTiti

@yourcrippledson said:
You literally cannot design a videogame with an intentionally high skill ceiling without people demanding that you lower it more to pander to the masses. Abandoning the entire point in the process. Not allowed to test the true limits of peoples abilities because it would discriminate against people without abilities. lol sad.

Haven't read Crushed's comment on this? Does it inspire sadness?
Also, have you read Corsario's comment? Maybe it would show you that, maybe, just maybe, things are not that simple.
Here it is:
From the group of 5 friends that bought the Alpha (all Chiv veterans with 1500 + hours), I'm the only one playing the game half an hour every now and then. The rest stopped playing after the second week and all of them gave me the same answer: feints and morphs "están rotos"... they are broken, they are too easy to use by any player and pose a too heavy burden on the opponent at a minimal cost (unless you are part of the select group of players that overcomes the 200 hours "please brainwash yourself into not parrying but chambering", which makes no sense at all for newcomers).
I think the main problem is that most casual and semi-vet players in Chiv did not feint at all (for chivalrous and non-chivalrous reasons) and now fall into a heavy feinting game which kills the rest of the combat aspects and probably the beauty of the fight (now it's less about timing and more about reading continuous baiting movements).
I'm just afraid a "casual mod" that punishes feints much more, or even removes them, might be more succesful than the core game itself.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 1
  • 29 Mar '18
 DarkTiti

I see your points guys but I disagree.

You make it look like players who would go to those hypothetical feint-free servers would never be able to go to the real servers. As if it mattered that they went to the real servers to be, I suppose, proper players. That is elitist as bananas. If some guys want to run naked in the game, it's fine. If people don't want to feint, it's fine. If people don't want to fight people because they're afraid of feints and therefore only fight bots, it is also fine. It is fine.
Also, adding that it would divide the community... as if it wasn't divided already. The entire forum is full of people who side with position 1 or 2 (or 3 for that matter) on each topic.
As for the degeneration of the game that the lack of feints would produce... Yeah, people will try to exploit the game mechanics, whether they can feint or not. That's hardly new. If you think they should not be able to do whatever, don't attack feints. Attack the mechanic that you dislike.
The fact that feints are done increasingly well with the level of skill of the player does not say much. It is still an easy way to hit someone, even if not done very well.
Finally, saying that defence would be harder because there would be no way to do feint to parry is not a good argument: ftp is a difficult technique which new players are unable to perform anyway. And even if they could, would it be so bad not to have ftp? Not everyone is a fan of not being able to punish people who miss their attack.

Also, again, Jax, I said that this could be one of many ways to deal with it. I'm more than happy if feints are fixed and, apparently, they will be. So I'm happy.

Forget about feint-free servers guys, not worth arguing. It won't be implemented anyway.

edit: I say "you" in the general sense.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 1
  • 29 Mar '18
 DarkTiti

Having feint-free servers hurts nobody, apart from the devs admittedly because they would have to provide it. I can't see how that would be a bad implementation to give the possibility to get rid of it if some people really can't bear them. All I said was that it could be worth testing.

And I am not in favour of reading feints easily because they would just become a useless technique which is obviously no good. TBF, I like Crushed's take on this, it's perfectly fine by me to reduce the window. As a matter of fact, it was among the things I wrote they could consider changing. If it was not clear, I am not suggesting that all the things I wrote should be implemented simultaneously. One could do really.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 29 Mar '18
 DarkTiti

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

I'm just gonna add my perspective as a HEMA practitioner and say feints are super easy to read and punish in real life. Mostly because in HEMA, your defence is more often than not also an attack. So someone feints, you counterattack, he dies.

In Mordhau this works similarly with chambers. Think of chambering as an attack and defence in one. The animation is not realistic, and you don't necessarily always counter stabs with stabs in real life, but it does feel natural in the game. If you go for a chamber and your opponent feints, you win the exchange.

This additional mechanic gives people that can't seem to read feints another way out. I'm not saying it's fool proof but it's better than nothing.

Removing feints or nerfing them significantly would be fun for casuals, but it would ruin competitive. Top players have invested time and effort into learning to read feints, a core comp mechanic, and then it would be nerfed so casuals can do it without practising for a long time? That doesn't seem fair. Not to mention competitive would be shitty when feints are nerfed and everyone reads everything.

I have about 650 hours in chivalry and almost 300 in Mordhau, and I can read feints if I go tryhard mode, but I'm still not good enough to keep up with the pros most of the time. This is motivation to keep practising.

The fact that many people including myself are able to read most feints is proof that the mechanic is not broken. The fact that you have chambers as a secondary line of defence against feinters should be enough to realise you (not you specifically, I mean all people complaining about feints) just want it the easy way.

By the way, the ranking system should keep the insanely good pro players away from the casuals anyway.

Thanks for the perspective and the feedback :) It's good to see that modern epee has not drifted so far away from HEMA that they don't relate to one another anymore.
I did not say that feints should be removed from the game mind you. The worst I said was that there could be dedicated "no feint" servers, which would leave the rest of the game intact.

You have indeed put a lot of time in the game and you are part of a minority. The fact that you're not a "pro" does not mean you're not a very good player. Pros represent very little in terms of numbers. I respect the fact that you're good because you have practised, everyone does I think. If feints were made a bit less effective, good players like yourself would still have an edge because you would still be better at dealing with feints (and with everything really) than me, for example, or 80% of the rest of the player base. The game must be fun, or so I've read in comments saying that IRL demands are dumb. If the game stops being fun for casual players because of feints, one could argue the game is failing them. People don't mind so much being killed by people who are better. I don't anyway. But feints are very frustrating and therefore unfun on the receiving end.

As for chambers, they are partly a gamble. In this very topic and in others, people have said that it is extremely difficult to chamber everything = they can't be performed consistently like parries. To punish a feint with an attack, you have to try to chamber the feinted attack. Since people rarely try to chamber, they will rarely be in a position to punish a chamber. Besides, chambers are only a possible solution when you can focus on very few people, which leaves in team fights a bit out of the equation.

I completely agree with the ranking system. That only works if many players are trying to join a server though, which might not be the case, especially if casual players are driven away from the game because of mechanics they rightly or wrongly perceive as unfair.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 1
  • 29 Mar '18
 DarkTiti

Having read the entire topic, it seems that despite the implementation of chambering, feints and morphs (referred to as feints, it's easier) are the biggest deal in the game. Now, very experienced players (which may represent 10% of the whole community, and that's probably being generous) are fine with that because they have learnt how to read them consistently-ish. The rest of the player base cannot deal with them or only marginally.
I believe Chivalry could retain casual players because of its ridiculous and goofy aspects. Mordhau lacks this dimension, it is a much more serious game (which I love BTW). If the game is too unforgiving for new players, it will drive them away. It seems that it has already.
So you could:

  • Make feinting more difficult / more readable. Make cancelling attacks only possible for less time than there is now.
  • Make feinting more costly in terms of stamina (which could be justified by the added concentration it requires) so that two feints would actually leave you with little stamina.
  • Have dedicated servers where feinting simply is not possible (hell, if some players don't want feints, let them choose).
  • Implement another feature such as the extension of the weapon to prevent charging in recklessly with a feint (see below)

None of this seems unreasonable. This is a closed beta. It is meant to test things out.

Also, I want to discuss the ever so popular IRL argument. I've been fencing for ten years, mostly epee. For what it's worth, I know that "feinting" is done. It really is. But it's more risky because you can be hit during the whole time. This is similar to chambering you may think but not really: all your opponent has to do is extend his arm in front of him and let you impale yourself on it.
So actual feinting is not: attack, cancel attack when the opponent takes a parry, attack again.
It is: attack, wait for your opponent's reaction. If it is a parry, change line and hit. If it is an extension of the arm, take the blade (chamber, if you like) and hit keeping contact with the blade or play with distance to hit the hand or forearm without putting yourself in reach of being hit.
It is a lot more difficult because you have to ADAPT to your opponent's reaction. It is not just him that has to adapt. If he parries and you fail to change line, you're fucked. It is not just a matter of attacking again. If he extends his arm and you fail to either take the blade (can be pretty difficult) or find the sweet distance, you're also fucked. In fact, if distance is not right in general, the feint will fail.
Just imagine if Mordhau let you keep your weapon extended. Nobody would charge at you with a feint anymore because they would impale themselves, unless they would know that you would go for the parry anyway. You would have to beat the weapon on the side, say with an attack on the BLADE ONLY, and then hit with another attack which could become a feint if your opponent took a parry. But if your beat is attempted too close to your opponent, you would be hit because his weapon would already be extended.
Also, that would actually give reach the impact it has IRL.
That extension of the arm could just be a matter of pressing a button and maintaining it (maintaining the thrust key for example).

I know this kind of idea is not popular. I'm not sure why though.

Just my 2 cents

Sellsword 31 60
  • 14 Oct '17
 DarkTiti

@DarkTiti said:

@kEsa1996 said:

@DarkTiti said:
I'm not part of the alpha, just fyi.

Aren't parries and everything a lot tighter than Chiv already? I mean, making it tighter could become frustrating. It's not a game that will only be played by elite fighters let's hope (otherwise, it will die, I think that's obvious).

I'm really not sure smaller parry boxes will help against foot attacks and the likes. They would still be effective, arguably even more so, they just would not be as needed I guess. What I don't understand is how don't those foot attacks hit the floor first. How come you can swing a halberd towards the floor without it catching the dirt? If you look at the second video, it's pretty clear there is something wrong with the distance and the reach of the weapon.
Look at the size of those things IRL:

Halberdier-corps.jpg*

There is no way you can swing that in such a tight space, unless you use the alternative grip maybe, in which case you would have to come very close to your opponent. So maybe reducing the angle of attack for the longest weapons would be a good start, so that they come more horizontally that currently and don't hit feet from underneath.
As for shorter weapons, they should not be able to reach down there.

Now that's all neat and tidy in my head but I guess that does not work in game. Could we discuss that?

Reducing the angle would make the attacks even harder to identify (Whether it is a sideswing or an uppercut).

I like Huggles' idea. After 1200+ hours of WOTR with it's extremely direction centered parry system, one of my main gripes with Chivalry and Mordhau is how the parry system nearly completely ignores direction and only relies on timing.

But there would be no uppercut, no proper uppercuts anyway, with the largest weapons since their attack angle would be limited to, say, a -30° angle (say 0° is horizontal, minus is from below, plus is from above).

Besides, I don't see why it would be a problem to identify the swing precisely. As long as you understand which general direction it's coming from, you don't need to adjust your parry to match it perfectly. Also, as it is now, it's even harder because there are even more possibilities. I can't see how limiting attack angles could add anything. It can only subtract.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 14 Oct '17
 DarkTiti

@kEsa1996 said:

@DarkTiti said:
I'm not part of the alpha, just fyi.

Aren't parries and everything a lot tighter than Chiv already? I mean, making it tighter could become frustrating. It's not a game that will only be played by elite fighters let's hope (otherwise, it will die, I think that's obvious).

I'm really not sure smaller parry boxes will help against foot attacks and the likes. They would still be effective, arguably even more so, they just would not be as needed I guess. What I don't understand is how don't those foot attacks hit the floor first. How come you can swing a halberd towards the floor without it catching the dirt? If you look at the second video, it's pretty clear there is something wrong with the distance and the reach of the weapon.
Look at the size of those things IRL:

Halberdier-corps.jpg*

There is no way you can swing that in such a tight space, unless you use the alternative grip maybe, in which case you would have to come very close to your opponent. So maybe reducing the angle of attack for the longest weapons would be a good start, so that they come more horizontally that currently and don't hit feet from underneath.
As for shorter weapons, they should not be able to reach down there.

Now that's all neat and tidy in my head but I guess that does not work in game. Could we discuss that?

Reducing the angle would make the attacks even harder to identify (Whether it is a sideswing or an uppercut).

I like Huggles' idea. After 1200+ hours of WOTR with it's extremely direction centered parry system, one of my main gripes with Chivalry and Mordhau is how the parry system nearly completely ignores direction and only relies on timing.

But there would be no uppercut, no proper uppercuts anyway, with the largest weapons since their attack angle would be limited to, say, a -30° angle (say 0° is horizontal, minus is from below, plus is from above).

Sellsword 31 60
  • 14 Oct '17
 DarkTiti

I'm not part of the alpha, just fyi.

Aren't parries and everything a lot tighter than Chiv already? I mean, making it tighter could become frustrating. It's not a game that will only be played by elite fighters let's hope (otherwise, it will die, I think that's obvious).

I'm really not sure smaller parry boxes will help against foot attacks and the likes. They would still be effective, arguably even more so, they just would not be as needed I guess. What I don't understand is how don't those foot attacks hit the floor first. How come you can swing a halberd towards the floor without it catching the dirt? If you look at the second video, it's pretty clear there is something wrong with the distance and the reach of the weapon.
Look at the size of those things IRL:

Halberdier-corps.jpg*

There is no way you can swing that in such a tight space, unless you use the alternative grip maybe, in which case you would have to come very close to your opponent. So maybe reducing the angle of attack for the longest weapons would be a good start, so that they come more horizontally that currently and don't hit feet from underneath.
As for shorter weapons, they should not be able to reach down there.

Now that's all neat and tidy in my head but I guess that does not work in game. Could we discuss that?

Sellsword 31 60
  • 5 Jul '17
 DarkTiti

I agree with the OP. I never really liked the healing system in chiv. The way it works is flawed IMO because when you're hit, you have two options:

  • Either you keep fighting (risk taking), which is fine by me.
  • Or you retreat and... do nothing. Literally. Nothing. For some time. It's boring as hell.

So I'd rather have some people carry bandages or some medieval healing beverages that would heal you in 3 seconds (but you would have to sheath your weapons and remain immobile to do so). Normal, slow, self healing should still be in the game but at least bandages would foster team play and give an edge to the most organised teams.
It would essentially be additional content compared to what was present in chiv.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 10 Jun '17
 DarkTiti

@crushed said:
There is knockback on successfull parries (the guy doing the parry), clashes, hitting world objects, hits and kicks

Knockback is there for visual/gameplay feel reasons as well as gameplay/balance reasons. Bigger, more damaging weapons usually have more knockback, while the smaller and faster weapons don't have much. Parry knockback will not vary too much except for some special cases. Hit knockback varies quite a bit, with sledgehammer being at the top here. It is one of the things that makes the weapons feel more unique and different from each other, for example some weapons have a stab that can act as a shove, while others have the slash being stronger and a more pierce-ish stab.

Clashes and hitting world objects has knockback but it's mostly for visual and feedback reasons there. Kicks have recently been changed from a locked in animation to more dynamic knockback, which means kicking people off walls and such looks proper now.

Chambers will most likely not get any knockback so you can use it to close gaps in extreme cases.

Knockback makes the combat feel a lot more "weighty" and powerful than without, which is another big reason to have it.

TBH, I don't mind knockback when the opponent is hit: you want to display the impact (to which sound should also contribute). This should be further demonstrated on a fatal hit by the rag-doll effect. But it should remain very subtle as long as the opponent is still alive. I would greatly favour a torsion of the body in the direction of the hit rather than the whole body being pushed away.

However, it makes no sense to me to have knockback for parries. If anything, in a fight where one has a bigger weapon than his opponent, a successful parry should allow the underdog to close in, not to make him fall back. I don't really see the point of sanctioning a good parry, which is not so easy to pull off in the first place.
Can you elaborate on the reasons you want to implement knockback for successful parries? Some of us don't see the point and have proposed other, less gimmicky, solutions.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 1
  • 7 Jun '17
 DarkTiti

@Huggles said:

@Sir Zombie said:
I don't see why you shouldn't be able to sprint after parrying.

I don't think you should be able to sprint for the duration of the parry because getting into face hug range should take a little more than blindly sprinting forward imho. I would take (short) sprint lockouts as opposed to goofy knockback any day tho.

I think you guys are not discussing the same thing. Nobody wants to be able to hold a parry WHILE sprinting and we all want to be able to sprint AS SOON AS the parry has no more effect.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 7 Jun '17
 DarkTiti

Why should there even be knockbacks? Big weapons already inflict more damage than their smaller counterparts, and have more reach. I don't see why they should be able to push the opponent away to keep that reach advantage. There are surely better ways to achieve that (see under).

@Sir Zombie
I don't see why either we should be prevented from sprinting after a parry.
However, I think there should be a certain amount of time between sprinting and parrying (sorta very short recovery time) so that people can't just blindly sprint at someone and expect to block any attack that comes their way.
To come back to the topic title, if knockback is only (or mainly) a way to maintain distance for big weapons, then preventing silly, reckless, charges with recovery time would solve it. That's a lot more intuitive than a knockback which both breaks the immersion and is just a game gimmick.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 1
  • 16 May '17
 DarkTiti

I feel like the way Mordhau has been presented in the Kickstarter video shows that the devs want some realism to it (the castle in the background notably gave this impression). It might be unintentional or unconscious but it is there.

On the one hand, I personally care about unity of the temporal setting because having Roman soldiers fight full plate knights would be silly. On the other hand, I think we should expand the geographic setting and I think that is the plan anyway (cf the crusade KS goal). After all, this game is about mercenary companies. Those companies might very well hire anyone, from any country, as long as they can fight. So it could be justified lore wise.

But yes, mixing time periods would definitely attract more people, so would mixing geographic zones, but I think Mordhau would be better off sticking with a strict time period (which can still be a large one mind you) to keep its coherent look.

Sellsword 31 60
  • 16 Apr '17
 DarkTiti

Hi all!
I know, it's way too early to think about this but I can't help but fantasise on a TES game with Mordhau's combat system. How great would that be?!
I know that modding will be a thing but frankly there is no way it ever comes close to Skyrim... Do you think the devs could say "hello" to the guys from Bethesda to see if they'd be interested in it? (I know, I'm high on drugs for saying that)

What do you guys think?
I'd buy such a game instantly personally.