Mordhau
 Naleaus
  • Likes received 875
  • Date joined 25 Oct '15
  • Last seen 22 Jun

Private Message

301 875
  • 11 Apr
 Naleaus

@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.

301 875
  • 2
  • 10 Apr
 Naleaus

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.

301 875
 Naleaus

@Izıl said:
I always found arguing against same side combos retarded, does it matter if its implemented? Sounds like ur argumenting against just to argue. More combo freedom doesnt hurt the game, it enriches it.

Cause it's not a current priority and shouldn't be treated like it's an issue. It's nice, but it doesn't matter if it's implemented. Add it later after 1vX mechanic, balancing, making current animations better, shield changes, releasing the game, etc.

The person I replied to made it seem like this is the fix for everything, and it's the only reason I replied.

301 875
 Naleaus

@Q said:

@Naleaus said:
If you land your first hit, you can just use the shortened recovery on not comboing to attack again from the side, which has the added benefit of opening up morphs without feinting as well. Weapons with hit stop have to do this anyway unless they kill.

In all your examples, you never state how your same side combo actually lands a hit. In your hypothetical world, do people just not parry or are you talking about fighting shit players?

Edit: They can add them, doesn't matter, but it's not a big deal nor would it fix 1vX in the least. Justifying it for that reason is just preposterous.

Yeah but shortened recovery just isn't the same. It is not fluid, & also requires two button presses. Better than nothing though, I suppose.

In my hypothetical world; I was using basic examples, so they would be easy to understand in writing form.

How does shortened recovery require two button presses? One button for first attack, one button for second. You just don't combo. It's the same amount as a normal combo.

When justifying a mechanic and specifically saying it will fix an issue, vague examples that don't happen in real situations do not help your position.

301 875
 Naleaus

@Q said:
Frise, although combos in general are still very important in a 1v1, they are more so in team fights when surrounded my multiple team mates & enemies. Being locked to only combo from the other side is so predictable, & hardly poses a threat. Plus slows down the gameplay.

Forget 1v1, high level play to me is taking out half of the enemy team, or winning a 1vX. Being a good team fighter is more skillfull than a duelist.

With regard to no one using alt-attacks in Chiv. If that is true, then it is their loss imo. As I have all of the alt-attacks bound to dedicated mouse buttons, & use them all the time to good effect. For example, if there was an enemy to my left hand side, I would alt-slash. Which seems to make perfectly logical sense to me. Saying that it is not relevant at high level maybe shows your own lack of understanding of the dynamics of team fights.

If you land your first hit, you can just use the shortened recovery on not comboing to attack again from the side, which has the added benefit of opening up morphs without feinting as well. Weapons with hit stop have to do this anyway unless they kill.

In all your examples, you never state how your same side combo actually lands a hit. In your hypothetical world, do people just not parry or are you talking about fighting shit players?

Edit: They can add them, doesn't matter, but it's not a big deal nor would it fix 1vX in the least. Justifying it for that reason is just preposterous.

301 875
  • 31 Mar
 Naleaus

Needs an in between option. I liked Frontline short of 3-4 issues, but I already know they'll be changed and overall I had fun. If it was to stay like it is currently, I wouldn't enjoy it for long.

301 875
  • 20 Mar
 Naleaus

You ('re supposed to) get money for completing the tutorial, which if kept at 2500, is more than enough I think to start with.

301 875
  • 18 Mar
 Naleaus

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.

301 875
  • 18 Mar
 Naleaus

@Tim_Fragmagnet said:

@Naleaus said:
Wait, so capture points with side objectives? That most everyone including people you act like a condescending shit to already agrees would be good to have?

Lets say we have 1000 tickets

Destroy outer door - 100 tickets
Destroy inner door - 100 tickets
Complete all optional sub objectives within the base - 250 tickets (some amount of tickets per sub objective)
Destroy keep door - 50 tickets
Kill the king - 400 tickets
The team now has 100 tickets left

No, the capture zones are the side objectives, the capture zones are just there to please people like you who just want TDM, but since no one wants to play TDM, you instead play the objective mode while ignoring the objectives and just play TDM in the midfield.

The capture zone are then pointless because they do nothing. Especially if you have a bunch of them. The map and playercount isn't big enough for that, and the fighting will always centralize where the important stuff is. So you'd have fighting at both bases cause that's the only place anything happens, and maybe you'd collect a point for respawning along the way. Otherwise the entire middle of the map is just a waste.

301 875
  • 1
  • 18 Mar
 Naleaus

Wait, so capture points with side objectives? That most everyone including people you act like a condescending shit to already agrees would be good to have?

301 875
  • 1
  • 18 Mar
 Naleaus

I was being condescending because Tim can't accept opinions are subjective, and that people have their own ideas of what they like. I've stated multiple times I'd like varied things to do to affect the match, while keeping the current tug of war from capping, but that's not apparently correct.

301 875
  • 2
  • 18 Mar
 Naleaus

@Tim_Fragmagnet said:
You aren't DOING anything.

You aren't ACCOMPLISHING anything.

Neither within the context of the map/battle, nor in the literal sense within the circle.

Objectively false. You move your spawn closer to the end objective and it changes ticket decay rates. It's a large scale fight. You push the enemy back and move forward. All the objectives listed were me literally waiting for people to kill to either take that objective or prevent it being taken. Just say you want flavor for the objectives, cause that's all it seems you really want.

And Citadel was horrible for more than the balancing.

301 875
  • 2
  • 18 Mar
 Naleaus

@Tim_Fragmagnet said:

@Naleaus said:
What is exciting about standing next to a cart, ram, wall, trebuchet, etc? You do nothing besides stand there. The overall progression of the map had more to do with it, but the gameplay loop was mostly to force combat in centralized locations.

The gameplay loop was you actually accomplishing things on the field of battle

poison the water supply

Stand next to a cart, fight people

kill their peasants

Attack bots while fighting people in a certain location

break down the barricade

Hit a wall, fight people that show up

siege the castle

Stand next to a ram, fight people

advance the siege towers

Stand next to a tower, fight people

ram down the gate

One person gets to press E, others kill people

burn their farms

Throw stuff, fight people standing

free the slaves
charge up the stairs to break down the doors of the citadel so you can kill the false king
Run a lot on a boring map because combat wasn't centralized

The gameplay loop of Frontline involves

Standing in a circle doing fuck all

And killing people

Moving to the next circle

While killing people

Standing in the next circle doing fuck all

While killing people

It's uninteresting
uninspired
non engaging
not exciting
and will die in months

So if you changed the cap point to pressing E to raise a flag, or standing there till the trebs shoot, it's more fun? It's just flavor, but doesn't really add much besides distracting you from the wave of enemies on the way.

The objectives that were really different and fun, sure, add them. But most objectives on their own weren't fun if you remove the combat. And they wouldn't suddenly make things fun if you add them in Frontline.

301 875
  • 18 Mar
 Naleaus

@Tim_Fragmagnet said:

@Naleaus said:
The combat itself is the exciting part.

See, you say that.

But you're wrong.

Otherwise the playerbase of the closed alpha wouldn't be fucking dead.

No, what's exciting, is the actual gameplay of the main mode of the game.

It's why chivalry stayed alive for as long as it did.
Because Team Objective, was a very exciting, and extremely engaging gamemode.
It kept Chivalry alive, DESPITE the game having garbage servers, netcode, broken animations, and jank ass side effects of the combat that literally pushed new players away from the game.

What is exciting about standing next to a cart, ram, wall, trebuchet, etc? You do nothing besides stand there. The overall progression of the map had more to do with it, but the gameplay loop was mostly to force combat in centralized locations.

301 875
  • 1
  • 18 Mar
 Naleaus

The combat itself is the exciting part. The objective is just a means of forcing combat in specific places. I prefer something similar to Bodkin, side objectives that give bonuses/open stuff up that don't require all 32 players to do.

When I played Chiv, pushing a ram, cart, standing on a sluice gate or by a trebuchet were just cap points with flavor. The fun part was the combat around that area. Changing it to a stationary one is fine cause you move to another once you're done and combat happens in between cap points too.

The other objectives like throwing torches, killing peasants, hitting a wall, etc could be added as the side objectives.

301 875
  • 17 Mar
 Naleaus

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.

301 875
  • 2
  • 17 Mar
 Naleaus

I kind of agree with the need for something besides capping a point prior to the end objective, but maybe not replacing it altogether. Capping the points should provide you spawn advantage in that area, and there should be other objectives to help advance the map or give an advantage. An example idea:

Since there are trebs on the map that just fire randomly and hit both teams, in the middle of the map make a secondary objective. Erect/Gain control of a tower, once you have control and climb it, one person gets a view of the map, like the spawn map, and gets to pick a place to shoot a flaming arrow to show the Trebs were to aim. All trebs then aim at that particular area (excluding main spawns and such) and destroy the fuck out of it. Tactically, you can tell your team to get away from the stables, shoot the arrow there, and take out the enemy before moving in yourself to take it.

Just an example I thought of.

301 875
  • 14 Mar
 Naleaus

Why no clips of me matrixing your stabs and one shotting you like 4 fights in a row :(

301 875
  • 14 Mar
 Naleaus

@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?

301 875
  • 11 Mar
 Naleaus

@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.