Mordhau
 SushiFish
  • Likes received 78
  • Date joined 12 May
  • Last seen 15 Sep

Private Message

90 78
  • 6 Jun
 SushiFish

The Warhammer is described best as a 'economical' weapon of choice versus heavily armored opponents. The low cost makes it ideal for archers who are on a strict budget due to their costly ranged weapons.
However, compared to more expensive blunt weapons such as the Mace and Eveningstar,
The Warhammer has a incredibly weak 2 hit to kill if all hits land on the head, where as the other two will reliably kill with two body strikes.

I think that the Warhammer head strike should have the damage increased from: 53/52/51/50 to 75/70/65/60

And body strikes from: 38/37/36/35 to 45/44/41/40

So the weapon can have a reliable two hit to kill granted that least one strike connects to the head.

90 78
  • 6 Jun
 SushiFish

@Lionheart Chevalier said:
I should give falchion a try too but I'm a stabby person so I don't give it too much thought. Then again Ive seen people stab the fuck outta me with it so maybe it is right down my alley.

Falchion has a decent thrust damage, a bit less than Bastard Sword but it is by no means bad. But you should consider using the Falchion for its intended purpose, and if not perhaps opt into either Bastard or Arming if thrust attacks are more desirable.

90 78
  • 6 Jun
 SushiFish

@SWSeriousMike said:

Have you considered taking a falchion instead? Your loadout seems to be lacking in the slashing department. When outnumbered I wouldn't trust any of your swords.

Hm, that's a good point actually. And I haven't tried the Falchion too much, but just by looking at its numbers. I can tell that it is a powerful one-hander while being fairly easy to maneuver compared to the Mace and Warhammer.
Thanks for the tip, I'll give it a try! :)

falchion.png

90 78
  • 6 Jun
 SushiFish

Okay, thank you for explaining that to me @ItsJustMilkISwear

90 78
  • 6 Jun
 SushiFish

There, there! I liked it now!!!
Thanks for reminding me.

90 78
  • 6 Jun
 SushiFish

If both OP and @Saiytanic could get some video proof of this. It would be a lot easier to figure out the problem rather than this guesswork.

I am not saying that you both are in the case where you need to 'git gud', but when my block fails, I usually know why.

You both might be onto something about a bug or glitch, so a video proof would be appreciated and could be a good solution to fix this.

90 78
  • 6 Jun
 SushiFish

Bastard Sword, Arming Sword and Shortsword.

I have a thing for one-handed swords since I used to main Man-at Arms in AoC.

90 78
  • 6 Jun
 SushiFish

a1.png

While we are talking about Halberds, here is a quick comparison between original mode and alt mode.

90 78
  • 6 Jun
 SushiFish

+1

Great work considering you had to do these through adjusting numbers in the .INI file. How long time did it take you to make these?

At first glance when I just looked at the pictures before reading, I thought these were some leaked photos.

It would be cool to see more of these.

90 78
  • 6 Jun
 SushiFish

The shields have always been 'a piece of shit' but not in the sense that they are overpowered/underpowered. Its just an awful design.

While Mordhau borrowed a lot of ideas from Chivalry, it never struck me as to why they would also take their poor implementation of shields.

I think most of us can agree that the current shield design is just annoying to deal with, but apparently isn't as viable as a two-hander, or least we are yet to see a godly shield user abuse it to its full potential.

Why can't shields just be a 'empowered' parry similar to Buckler and Target, but with the added hold function that should primarily be focused versus projectiles.

TL;DR
Current shield design is just dumb in my opinion.

90 78
  • 6 Jun
 SushiFish

+1

This is actually a great post OP, and there are some interesting flaws you are pointing out about the said animations.

I hope the devs look into this thread.

90 78

Let's do a quick analysis over the OP and the first comment.

The OP made a post about an idea that could both be great for balance purpose and just a cool statistical number.

And then we have this classic reply which I think can be defined as 'shitposting' from SWSeriousMike.

  • "It's obvious that 2h weapons are most commonly used. You don't need a flawed statistic to know that." @SWSeriousMike

It's not obvious for everyone, and besides this can also be used to show which weapons are mid-tiers, and which are totally never used. cough carving knife cough

  • "Shields can't be USEd as weapon. When a shield blocks an arrow to my back, have I USEd it? When I parry with a weapon, did I USE it? When I idle with a weapon in hand, did I USE it? When I throw a fire pot, have I USEd it once or do you count the time? When someone builds a ballista and another one USEs the ballista, how do you count how much/often the toolbox was USEd?" @SWSeriousMike

Why do you have to be so difficult? This could easily be narrowed down to based on kill or usage with the said setup to show a decently accurate numbers. Nothing will be 100% accurate but it will be close enough to paint the bigger picture.

Bottom line, you're just being a dick right now. The OP actually made a great idea and you are just trying to be difficult in order to discredit his idea. Take your shitposting elsewhere please.

+1 to the OP

90 78
  • 30 May
 SushiFish

What should the pros and cons be?
What is the added mechanic?
Will it just 'look' cool?
Will you be able to strike with both weapons at the same time, doing a double strike, or a 'scissors slash'
Should you be able to parry with one weapon while riposting with the other? (aka shield ripostes)
Locked behind a perk?
How should you be able to interact or equip it?
Historical accuracy?

A lot of questions to be left answered before this could even be considered.

What should the 1h vs 1h+shield vs 2h VS Dual be like?

Dual-wielded shields? throwables? throwables in off-hand with a weapon in main hand?

90 78
  • 28 May
 SushiFish

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days, but never really bothered to make a post about it. Since not everyone is here to have a productive discussion whether for or against the proposed idea.

If there were to be a such dual-wielding mechanic in Mordhau. I think it could function as being able to equip and decide which weapon to strike with depending on which side you are choosing to attack.

Right side > Main hand
Left side > Main hand

Or reverse for lefties.

90 78
  • 1
  • 25 May
 SushiFish

Moderator, please close this topic.

90 78
  • 3
  • 25 May
 SushiFish

@DylanS_98 said:
I can't take you or your thread seriously. You can make jokes about people killing themselves 'in-game' but if someone disagrees with you, their entire argument is invalid?

Way to produce and keep a topic -ON- topic. /s

"but if someone disagrees with you, their entire argument is invalid?" -
This comment is incorrect. When someone actually brought up their points and opinion about the topic, I did not render their entire argument invalid? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but I think you should take another look at the whole thread before replying.

"You can make jokes about people killing themselves 'in-game'"
The part where I am making a reference to an in-game feature should already indicate that it isn't meant to be an aggressive reaction, but instead a bad joke in response to a bad reply.

"I can't take you or your thread seriously"
I just wanted to bring up the idea of the shield potentially having an extra feature when worn on the back as a topic of discussion, for people to either add their arguments for or against it. And I think I've been pretty accepting to responses that clash with my own.

As a closing statement.
I just think it's disrespectful when people go into these topics and just shitpost instead of actually contributing to the discussion. Should at least give it a fair chance. I think we can both agree that "Don't let people get behind you lmao" - @ToLazy4Name doesn't really add anything. It's unnecessary.

90 78
  • 23 May
 SushiFish

Alby, this is exactly the kind of response I was looking for. Why couldn't this have been your first response? And it is a good point you are making with that having a shield on your back reducing damage will make it annoying to punish people that are actually running away, and there's been mention of that people could turn around and make the feature be annoying in that case too.

That's already so much better, thank you. And I brought up the whole thing about bows and etc because I had seen similar discussions where dual chads are just spewing out their anectodal evidence, and I also brought them up because you initially started your response by mentioning how this was cowardice, and other things that weren't even brought up in the topic, so why shouldn't I get the chance to return the favor and derail a bit myself?

But yeah, I like that response much better than the first, thank you.

@ToLazy4Name

Don't you got better things to do but shitposting?

"The next set of rules apply to all Categories but Offtopic:

1.1. You shall stay on topic.

2.1. You shall do no shitposting.

3.1. You shall not necropost. (more than 60 days since the last post)"

Anyways, think you can see that my response is just meant as a joke in a light hearted tone.

90 78
  • 1
  • 23 May
 SushiFish

@ToLazy4Name said:
Don't let people get behind you lmao

Laughing your ass off, you are really funny. :^) go press End in-game ty.

@VampireDuck
Anyways, I hadn't thought about the possible exploit with them spinning around, that's a good input. I appreciate you pointing out this.

90 78
  • 23 May
 SushiFish

@Alby said:
No, cowards who run away from fights should not get a damage reduction and if you don't watch your back then that's on you.

'Cowards' actually, and I also think you have completely missed the point here. You had your comical statement, no go back to staying irrelevant since you aren't here to discuss for or against the idea. Least I think your statement about "Cowards who run away..." and "If you don't watch your back, then that's on you." are complete invalid points. Kind of sad to be fair, but I'll just ignore...this whatever it is for now.

It's actually sickening how the mindset of these players are.
Bows needs a buff : "LEARN HOW TO USE BOW, I ALWAYS HIT."
Shields being a flawed design : "learn how to deal with them, git gud."
Let's pretend that dagger had a glitch where it one shot everyone within 10m radius : "Don't get hit by it, learn to parry bro!"

I suppose every aspect of the game can be solved by 'getting good' if we follow their short sighted and unnecessary statements.

The whole deal with the shield providing back protection was an idea to introduce different ways of using the shield instead of the way everyone hates, it should be a additional bonus that you can feel make a difference, but the difference shouldn't be gamebreaking or overwhelming for the person hitting you in the back. Because then we would have the problem with everyone using it.

90 78
  • 22 May
 SushiFish

Hello,

Since frontline is chaotic mess, I have lost track of how many times I have been struck in the back to enemies that flanked, or being put in an fight where opponents are all around you. Not that this is an critical issue since it relies heavily on your own awareness and footwork, but it could be a nice addition of a passive protection could be added to the back while wearing a shield there.

A tiny damage reduction, not acting as a held block of course. (That'd be overpowered !)
This could make you actually consider to wear a shield on the back as extra protection.

Please let me know what you think about the idea.