https://steamcommunity.com/app/629760/discussions/0/2530372519578320898/

If you're looking at their health in the box after you die, you get health on kill. If you want to see what damage something does to each armor type, open a loadout, equip the weapon, then press the Advanced button. Damages are consistent with what's shown there.

@Runagate said:
I always see very good players say that there are ways to punish misses consistently even with the current cftp, but I've never seen them tell what those ways are.

It gets said everytime. Morph, drag, feint, just hit them to get stamina advantage.

@Frise said:

@Naleaus said:
Ok so you're just going to not comment on coming changes and rewrite what you wrote the first time.

Comment on some small suggested stab timing changes and a buff to easy parry that's "in the works"? Months ago Marox himself said they were experimenting with ways to make direction relevant, and then the only thing they came up with was increase stab release (the worst way to do so).

They also adjusted parry size/positioning. I've been able to waterfall again this patch again with varying degrees of success. Stab drags work pretty well for me. Stab itself doesn't need a lot of changes to make them readable. Increasing windup will help the instant feeling, decreasing feint windows will make reading easier. An animation change could negate the need for either or work in conjunction.

This "there's a solution coming up" thing is tired to shit and hasn't worked so far. Small balance changes and giving more buffs to 1vX won't solve any fundamental issues with the combat. Frontline was silently developed without testing it in the alpha and letting us provide feedback and it clearly didn't work.

Adding more buffs to the 1 in 1vX is a bandaid solution but it's better than nothing.

Any adjustments to 1vX will be a band aid. With base mechanics, 1vX will be hard as fuck. You can increase parry lockout, bandaid. HA, bandaid. Easy parry buff, band aid.

Chiv had huge fucking parries that let you crouch and lookup to the sky gods, who would answer your prayers by letting your ass parry for you, and reverses which enabled a nice circle around you as dangerous. Plus shit 2 frame animations. It's sort of broken base mechanics allowed stuff like that, while Mordhau's don't.

Also, I like teamfights at the moment compared to when we had HA. Still wish we got to test AP again though.

However, if they are going to add those changes, they need to just get them out there, so that they can see how they play out, and then make changes. That's what the alpha is for. And with such little time before release and the rate at which the combat has been evolving lately, very little is going to be accomplished with the combat if they don't start experimenting.

I agree, everyone has been waiting at this point. Unfortunately, balance/mechanic testing has been stuck behind content/engine updates, etc. I don't know the specific reasoning for it, but would have been nice to have separate experimental branch. I can't blame Crush for it, cause he's at the mercy of the other devs. Can blame him for animations though.

However, I don't think mechanic changes will stop after release. Balancing obviously will continue too. Maybe we can get a opt in test build after release.

I also like the game currently. Obviously it can be better, there's always things to be improved, but I'll be playing at release and enjoying it as is.

@Lionheart Chevalier said:
I don't like that we get scraps of what may or may not be coming from people who might be on the dev's inner circle. More specifically to deflect or play down combat complaints that have been made since day 1 of Alpha and will likely continue post-release.

Where is Jax?

You'd prefer Jax, who is for better or worse a company man to give you a spiel? All I did was post what I've seen discussed as far as changes and give my opinions. It's not limited to a specific inner circle of people.

I like the game and like the state it's in. There are things I want changed and I touched on some of them. If that's a problem, let me know and I'll attack your opinion.

@Frise said:
"Just ok" isn't the standard of quality I imagined 2 years ago from a game made from former Chivalry veterans that experienced how shitty Tornbanner were at developing. I thought Mordhau was gonna be developed to be a great competitive game. Instead we're getting another big multiplayer medieval game with "ok" combat. Shields are crap? Well at least they're not broken, so it's ok. 1vX impossible? Eh, game's still balanced. Stabs are more unreadable than in Chiv? Eh just spam chambers and be forced to hard-read them if you're in 1vX.

Balance changes can happen post-release but major mechanic changes are unlikely. The 2 years of alpha was the time to do experimental mechanic changes.

Ok so you're just going to not comment on coming changes and rewrite what you wrote the first time.

Besides your title's hyperbole (you know balance updates won't stop after release), I'll go through a few things I know are either tentative, are in the pipeline or have been discussed.

Stabs:
Tentatively, stab animation update and possibly separate, slightly nerfed feint/morph windows for stabs are in the pipeline.

We've suggested to start with 25ms windup increase and 50ms feint window decrease. But changes are coming at some point so just gotta wait and see.

Shields:
I personally think they really require mechanic changes, and I assume marox is busy with other stuff. Either way, as long as they're not entirely OP or weak at release, it'll be ok for awhile.

1vX:
Tentative easy parry riposte buff in the pipeline, plus some other mechanics to help punish purposely missed attacks.

The easy parry one would be a buffed riposte (still up in air on specific buff, could be damage, speed, knockback, etc) after you do a parry into parry, riposte into parry or chamber into parry. This would help with your chamber desire as well.

Again, an actual mechanic change, so I assume will come when programmers can get to them.

Weapon variety:
I disagree partially with everything feeling the same. I think some categories/weapon types feel similar, which make sense to me. But an estoc doesn't feel like a battle axe which doesn't feel like a spear which doesn't feel like a warhammer.
And there are weapons like exec and maul which are played very differently from others. Plus blunt weapons having hitstop. Waraxe is also very fun with it's fast combos, which makes it feel different to battle axe.

I think some of the sameness comes from timings/releases not lasting forever like Chiv, and from using the procedural animations. Not much to be done about that though.

This isn't necessarily a defense, just my thoughts and what I have seen discussed. Balance wise the game is in probably the best spots it's been, so I'm happy mostly.

We used spikes and funneled bots into them, then at the end took a shield dude for a walk while people fixed stuff and bought items. They're not hard to kill, you can force them into trying to attack out of range very easily then punish.

Random projectiles were the most difficult part till end rounds. More bot behavior variance would be nice.

I didn't have the issues with not getting into games. Once I got in an active server, it was a pretty quick loop of playing till death/win then switching to the new server where everyone else was waiting for game start. I have an SSD so load in game quickly, but I definitely saw some others having issues loading in late.

As for gameplay, I had a lot of fun with it and liked it more than FL, and I hate BR games. I think at the moment the most skilled players will have the most fun. Once the playerbase isn't sweaty tryhards mixed in with others, it should even out somewhat for everyone. It's pretty easy to get to the end game just avoiding fights and scavenging stuff near the end, but the games weren't full earlier.

Are the chests in the dungeon affected by your graphics settings? I could instantly tell after a round or so which were real and which were fake just by the look of them.

@Enlok said:
If you want to do a stress test, why you don't do an open beta like all multiplayer games?

Because they don't need extra players to fill a few servers. All extra players would do is force them to commit to specific server hosts and setups before they've been tested. Why pay for a bunch of stuff before you know it's going to work?

@Frise said:
Imagine thinking the only way to make stab feints reasonable is to give us chambers to crutch read. Imagine lacking that amount of brainpower to think past a single step.

Imagine thinking stab animations will ever be readable or thinking anything like that will change before release, or that removing chambers altogether will be healthy for a game where they're used as a soft read for feints or to pressure when you don't have initiative. Imagine thinking that making parrying more difficult will lead to enjoyable team combat when parry is already shit to begin with. Imagine having a chin.

Have fun reading stab feints.

@FaffyШaffy said:

@Pred said:

@Seseau said:
People like you are the reason why Chiv had its initial success and then failed to keep the tens of thousands of "noobs" it attracted.

Nah, Chivalry failed to keep the noobs because it made them rage at the game with all the cheese, Mordhau seems to be going the same path tbh imo.

There's been 4 months of development we don't know about, so maybe something will change, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

He's probably talking about his involvement in the comp/balance loop and how his input will result in a very flawed game.

Cept he's wrong anyway cause Giru wasn't involved in Chivalry's early days and TBS DIDN'T listen to comp/good player balance early on and subsequently lost most of the their comp players by making the game pretty shit for almost a year.

People quit Chiv cause it was unbalanced, buggy as hell and hard to get into after people started getting good, and not because of people on the forums. As for in game toxicity, it's going to be 100 times as bad this once it releases.

Most of the people offering actual balance criticisms do so from a perspective of "Will this be good for the health of the game?" and not just "Hurrdurr skill ceiling." You want to have both. Assuming his feedback will result in a flawed game is pretty subjective, since you're assuming that all his feedback is listened to and that something you might not like is flawed in the first place.

@idiotgod said:

@Naleaus said:

@idiotgod said:

@Naleaus said:
It's a lot of possibilities and the back and forth of initiative seems more interesting to me than just taking damage because of a timing nerf.

It's really not a lot of possibilities. It's the same fucking possibilities that exist at any other moment in combat that you didn't just out-play your opponent in a very blatant way through footwork and timing.

That's a different issue. It's not that the possibilities don't exist, it's that you don't like them, which is fine. You outplayed your opponent through footwork and timing, you're rewarded with initiative without using stam through parrying to do so. Once you have initiative, it's up to you to make the play.

But I already made the play. Why do I have to make a play to gain initiative to have a chance to make a play? That is just an extra step. The play I made should be good enough to land a hit, but I still have to make you fall for a feint instead? It's stupid...

You made a play to get initiative. Footwork doesn't do damage. Except kicks I guess.
And against bad players, someone that fucked up and didn't combo, or someone with a weapon that can't combo, that play would probably be enough. Except they could still footwork you, matrix, etc.

@idiotgod said:

@Naleaus said:
It's a lot of possibilities and the back and forth of initiative seems more interesting to me than just taking damage because of a timing nerf.

It's really not a lot of possibilities. It's the same fucking possibilities that exist at any other moment in combat that you didn't just out-play your opponent in a very blatant way through footwork and timing.

That's a different issue. It's not that the possibilities don't exist, it's that you don't like them, which is fine. You outplayed your opponent through footwork and timing, you're rewarded with initiative without using stam through parrying to do so. Once you have initiative, it's up to you to make the play.

@Frise said:
Getting to morph/feint/drag to punish a whiff is not a punish, it's just getting initiative back, since the whiffer can combo-feint and start reading. Conceptually, it also turns interesting plays into more of what the combat already revolves too much around. And as we learnt from Chivalry and shields in this game, balancing through stamina is a boring approach to combat design.

The morph/feint/drag is the counter to the counter. The original punish is attacking their miss. They counter with CFTP, you counter with a morph/drag/feint. However they could instead just combo feint and read as you said, which is a counter to your counter. It's a lot of possibilities and the back and forth of initiative seems more interesting to me than just taking damage because of a timing nerf.

@Frise said:

@rob_owner said:
i think i value training over intuition. Accept the rules of whatever fighting environment, so it doesnt matter what scenario you give.

That's completely beyond the point. This discussion's point is to make the game better by making the combat intuitive. It's not about complaining vs adapting, it's about providing feedback during the alpha to improve the game, because that's the fucking point of the alpha.

There's two ways to look at intuitive in this situation. One is what they see visibly when attacking someone that misses. The other is what they know is possible through extension of the mechanics in the game.

Preferably you'd want both without diluting either. In this instance though, I'd lean more towards the mechanics taking precedent, as punishes do exist and very much work. The animation could maybe be changed without affecting timings to better denote the difference in vulnerability between entering recovery and comboing, but there's always going to be some that appear instant or whatever.

I personally don't think there needs to be more punishment for missing than there already is. I also don't have much issue with matrixing and other dodges not being rewarded more.

@intTobey said:

I'm not sure if you're arguing about the same thing. The 240 control scheme itself is fine, I don't think anyone cares about retaining that. The problem is that the procedural animations would be better as independent animations for each angle. You could then try to make animations for each particular angle that don't get broken by staring at the ground, jumping, etc. You could give them independent timings to allow more mixups, different turncaps, etc.

The degree of control as far as current 240 implementation really doesn't add much to the game. You can't do many precision drags and chamber angles are already forgiving as hell. What difficulty there is from reading mid angle attacks comes from distorting your body during the attack, which is what you're against, not the mid angle itself.
I actually use 240 for slashes and underhands typically. Not because of any function, but because I'm lazy. Its not very difficult to make animations difficult to read for most players, and it's easy enough to do all the stupid looking shit with 240. Removing binds won't fix that. I would hope that independent animations and timings would do a better job of that.

Again, this is all moot. Nothing is going to change this late in the game.

@Jax said:

There shouldn't exist a control scheme that provides advantages to its user outside of comfort and preference IMO.

general consensus is that binds are superior to 240, however 240 has more fidelity/control. it balances out imo

current animations are left attack and right attack. everything else is procedurally animated.

What Pred said. I don't care if you go in and change shit, it's too late at this juncture. But besides the ability to make angles more difficult to discern, there's really no advantage to the extra "freedom" you get from 240. If super precise drags existed, it might, but they don't due to other balance reasons.

The reasoning to not use procedural animations is because then each angle can have a very distinctive animation, windup/release timings for specific angles can be changed to allow more fine tuning for balance, etc

Again, too late for all of that. Just make current stuff as good as possible and release it, then fix it later if it's an issue.

@Jax said:

@Mittsies said:
While we're on the subject, just remove 240 entirely.
You'll still be able to angle your attacks with the mouse, it'll just be locked to the 6 primary angles.

no

just because you don't want to use it doesn't mean it should be removed

why get rid of the other 234 angles when the animation tech already supports them?

If you want a serious answer, it's because having 6 angles only allows for angle specific animations that can help remove ambiguity while doing things to hide/break your animations. If the extra angles had any purpose other than obfuscation of what you're doing they'd have a purpose, but chamber angles are pretty lax and otherwise they really don't help you hit anyone at all.