Mordhau
 Echonian
Knight
  • Likes received 263
  • Date joined 18 Mar '17
  • Last seen 14 Jan

Private Message

Knight 174 263
  • 3
  • 14 Jan
 Echonian

Proximity VOIP would objectively help coordinating with people in random games, when on your team. Being able to call out things for them on the fly during a fight would add to game play, so from that perspective it's a great idea and one I support.

But to a lot of people, game play features and quality take a back seat to their own sensibilities.

Since there will inevitably be trolls who abuse proximity VOIP, and since a lot of people seem unwilling to simply mute these rare players who cause a problem, this apparently is a good enough reason to many to not have a feature in the game that objectively would make the game play run more smoothly - especially as a team experience.

Which is the argument made against VOIP in practically any team game, yet games that are well made include in-game VOIP regardless because it always helps with coordination. A game like the Red Orchestra series (or Rising Storm by extension) has in-game VOIP, including often proximity chat, because it adds to the experience and makes coordinating with your team simpler.

The fact that some people on it can be annoying (which is always a minority) doesn't make it worth not having the feature in the game, and since it's generally trivial to just mute the offenders if you need to in any game having in-game VOIP, there's no downside other than occasionally having to go through the horror of someone being annoying on the internet.

It's frustrating to me that so many people playing online video games find the very idea of voice chat so offensive and scary that the idea of implementing it in pretty much any game is seen as a travesty. It is a good feature to have in the game when it allows for proper communication, lets people interact socially to a point as well if they want to (I've had tons of fun moments over VOIP with strangers in games that have proximity VOIP), and has the sole downside of being rarely abused. Yet this downside is so easily negated by simply muting those who abuse the system that it seems 100% nonsensical to not include the feature.

Is there a legitimate argument anyone can make against having proximity voice chat, or even voice chat in general, integrated into games like this? The argument "use Discord/Teamspeak" doesn't work when playing with random people on a large scale, by the way, so please don't bother with that one. You can't just invite whatever random 64 players happen to be in a server for a game onto your private voice chat server and separate things properly every time you want to be able to decently communicate with the average person playing. Both because few people would want to go to the trouble (meaning voice is them worthless for communication with most people), and because it's too much trouble in the first place to expect of anyone.

Knight 174 263
  • 14 Jan
 Echonian

@NikolaiLudovik said:
I don't really know about the archer limits.
It was in chivalry and it didn't bother me. To be honest, I think it was better that way. Archer limits should probably only be in team based gamemodes. By doing it that way, it didn't really make the game bad or anything, but it would've been worse if everyone could go archer.

I mostly played Chivalry later on with servers that had no archer limit, and those servers had vastly more enjoyable game play in my view than the servers with archer limits.

Sure, one team might have a bunch of archers, but reasonably speaking in most games only so many people would pick archer because the main game-mode involved taking objectives and pushing them, and you had to do a lot of close-quarters fighting for that. Add tower shield groups into the mix and having ten archers shooting at your team at once didn't matter if you just had 2-3 knights pushing a cart or so.,

Archers were never overpowered in Chivarly, and they certainly aren't overpowered in this game. People just got extremely upset when they died to one - which is understandable sometimes, but that feeling of being upset never actually translated into overall game play balance. Archers would have a higher k/d ratio when good than most other players, but that didn't mean they were contributing more to their team (again: main mode is about doing an objective, not about staying alive longer and getting more kill-shots).

Mordhau has more ways than ever to deal with archers, too. The improved variety of throwing weapons, the ability to deflect arrows fired at you with a melee weapon, and also the fact that apparently there is a perk in the game to make anyone using a bow against you magically take extra damage if you shoot at them. The last one being a wholly unnecessary perk that is so absurdly overpowered versus archers that all archers wanting to contribute currently need to pick it and then just have archer vs archer duels all the time, but that's beside the point and a discussion for another time.

Knight 174 263
  • 3
  • 14 Jan
 Echonian

No comment delete option, apparently. After reading the thread, my post here seemed unnecessary.

Feel free to check it out if you want.

Knight 174 263
  • 29 Sep '18
 Echonian

@PhillyCheesesteak said:
I think something everyone needs to consider is the size the Frontline maps will be. Frontline is going to be the main mode, so most of the game will be balanced around it. Archery will often be at longer ranges than the current map.

While the larger player counts will factor into balance, the current maps do have a fair mix of combat ranges for bow use. Well, camp in particular, where shooting just from tower to tower has enough delay on your arrow impacts that you are likely to miss many shots even with perfect aim from random enemy movement. Having archer combat at longer ranges would be mostly not feasible, although it could work with groups of archers working together and assuming most of their shots will miss.

I feel like the core issue of this perk isn't relevant to the combat distance, though. Since it affects all ranged attacks hitting archers, regardless of how far they were attacked from, it is equally overpowered in any situation.

It also causes a problem where someone using a recurve bow (or similar) essentially is unable to ever fight properly in melee, even if they want to do some light armor skirmishing, because they essentially are at a massive disadvantage to anyone with that perk giving them a massive projectile damage bonus vs them (when archers are typically lightly armored and liable to die quickly regardless).

My ideal build for this game utilizes the recurve bow, quarterstaff, and a utility item of some kind (smoke or firepots or traps or such), who can support teammates in melee combat occasionally with the quarterstaff or defend himself with it, and use the bow mainly at fairly short ranges to support teammates in a melee. In chivalry I did a similar thing with the shortbow, yet huntsman as a perk essentially forces archers to stay at maximum range to make sure they have even more protection from projectiles than they would normally need (again: being lightly armored and flimsy to begin with).

So I hope that it gets fixed.

Knight 174 263
  • 2
  • 27 Sep '18
 Echonian

@Cswic said:
Quick poll for some of the more popular suggestions for huntsman from another thread. For those that may not know, huntsman is a 2 point perk that increases projectile damage to archers by 100%.

Huntsman poll

Of the options here, headshot only seems like the only viable one.

Current huntsman is essentially extremely overpowered against archers, making it 100% necessary to do well as one in archer vs archer fights. It can't be balanced either - any sort of perk that gives a damage bonus in a game like this will always end up causing major balance issues, no matter how much the point cost or limitations are that are placed on it.

Making it the baseline on the other hand would also be absurd. Right now, it is easy to counter archers with throw projectiles, shields, smoke, and bows - even "if" you don't use huntsman. The fact that you can parry arrows as well makes it even easier, forcing archers to actually use ambush tactics in order to catch you off-guard with a shot. Making this a baseline won't fix the problem with the imbalance here - it will only make it worse. You can already kill archers with a couple of throwing axes or some throwing daggers quite handily without a perk, so making them die even faster will simply end up as a net nerf to archers, something that hasn't seem needed at all in any of the TDM games I've played so far (though perhaps it will be different once we have 64 player frontline).

Headshots might work, since it would encourage accurate shooting - making it a niche ability that isn't consistently overpowered. It would need to be tweaked for every single weapon and armor combination though to make sure it is balanced, as it still has the same overall problem of the current ability - that is, giving a damage bonus percentage.

Removing it entirely would be fine and perfectly balanced. On the other hand, increasing bow costs when using a longbow and a dagger already takes pretty much all of your points is not really a good idea from a balance perspective. Again: this just ends up as being a nerf to archers for no good reason.

Lastly, making it only work on bows also would be not really changing the core problem with the perk. This would simply make archers overpowered against archers, but not make it easier for other classes to kill them when closing the gap.

In summary: the skill itself is what is flawed, not the implementation. It is a damage % buff that is so powerful and costs so few points as to make it utterly essential for combating archers. You could ordinarily balance it by making it simply cost a lot more points (probably around 4-5 would be balanced), but archers in that case would be unable to reasonably equip it, defeating the entire purpose. You could counter "that" problem by lowering the cost of bows, but then you'll introduce new problems with fully armored archers and such.

Ultimately, I have yet to see any compelling reason for this perk to exist. The idea of giving someone a damage bonus against someone else just because they happen to have a certain type of weapon equipped goes against the entire concept of this game as being based around creating your own freeform medieval warrior, and it fundamentally feels out of place. I have yet to see any reason that the perk is necessary for game balance either, and even if it were, having game design where a particular perk is needed just to balance the game would tell me that the game has some sort of fundamental balancing flaw.

If it is not needed for game balance, then it is overpowered as it stands, with no good way to balance it. If it is needed for game balance, then it becomes a necessity for anyone fighting archers, forcing people into a particular play style meta that is frustrating.

Edit: Although I suppose if it cost more points and was balanced so you could only use it as an archer with basically no armor or other weapons (except maybe a dagger or something), then it might be fine. If other archers were able to then afford a decent weapon or some light/medium armor. It would make it a good perk for "archer killer" archers who want to be mobile, but make them especially squishy due to the point cost.

Knight 174 263
  • 2
  • 26 Sep '18
 Echonian

Bit of a random question, but does this perk apply to thrown attacks? Since thrown weapons are literally projectiles, given the description of the ability I would assume they do, but everybody in this thread in particular is only mentioning archer vs archer combat. I remember back in Chivalry that I used to play with throwing knives as the Man at Arms, and in many MANY situations it let me close the gap or even kill archers outright by using them.

It would be worth using this perk to take down archers with throwing knives or axes or even stones more easily when I am playing a light or medium armored mobile class that will die if I get hit only a couple of times by them, but despite the description saying projectiles do 200% damage, I just wanted to confirm whether or not this was "arrows/bolts" rather than "projectiles in general."

As far as whether or not it is needed: it does seem a bit powerful, honestly. No other perk in the game gives you a massive damage boost, even if under narrow circumstances, and the idea of balancing the game around damage increases of all things is a bit tricky. After all: when it only costs 2 points for the perk, and archer vs archer is already something that is going to be a big thing in large-scale battles, I'm worried that this perk might be seen as 100% essential and overpowered in archer vs archer combat.

Archers are already limited by points in not being able to wear much armor or wield many other weapons, so they already can die fairly quickly to bow attacks. In this sense, I would prefer this perk be changed up. The idea behind it is good: encouraging you to hunt archers, but doing so by doubling your damage output to them is a bit much. Then again, I'm not sure of any good alternative. Right now without it archers could just run away in fights, but that has always been a problem in Chivalry, and I'm not sure allowing for more one-shot kill fights is a good solution to the general strategy of "run away when you are in danger."

Perhaps hitting an enemy archer with a projectile could, instead, make their wait time to regenerate health significantly increase for a short while? That way if they decided to retreat, you might have 15-30 seconds to do your thing before they came back, rather than having them just duck down for a few seconds to heal and immediately continue the fight.

Or maybe have your projectiles slow their movement speed for a few seconds, to make it harder for them to escape? This wouldn't be any more overpowered than allowing double damage, since as it stands one or two good shots with the perk can get you a kill depending on armor and where you hit plus the bow you use and such. Yet it would also give archers who are hit by a shot from someone using this at least a chance to avoid dying immediately.

Knight 174 263
  • 26 Sep '18
 Echonian

@TheDankestMeme said:

@Echonian said:
The fact that the six posts directly following my own were literally the exact sort of responses I was referring to did a pretty good job of reinforcing my point, which I'm somewhat grateful for. Though I don't expect anything to be done regarding community moderation or community building in general until closer to release, if at all. Hopefully we can see actions taken that will ensure that this game is able to attract and maintain a large enough audience for 64 player servers to be viable.

Not that I have a problem with memes, I just find it a bit disappointing when people have nothing else to do but that.

i would have fucking killed myself if i wasnt spamming memes so no i dont have anything to do but that

You know, the solution to that is finding a good therapist, not meme-ing on random internet forums.

Get help. You deserve better. Everybody can get a second chance at life.

Knight 174 263
  • 26 Sep '18
 Echonian

Allowing you to mute individual players is the best option, so you can mute spammers without it affecting the choice and capability of everyone in the game to use the voice commands as they were intended.

Knight 174 263
  • 3
  • 25 Sep '18
 Echonian

The fact that the six posts directly following my own were literally the exact sort of responses I was referring to did a pretty good job of reinforcing my point, which I'm somewhat grateful for. Though I don't expect anything to be done regarding community moderation or community building in general until closer to release, if at all. Hopefully we can see actions taken that will ensure that this game is able to attract and maintain a large enough audience for 64 player servers to be viable.

Not that I have a problem with memes, I just find it a bit disappointing when people have nothing else to do but that.

Knight 174 263
  • 1
  • 25 Sep '18
 Echonian

@Rattsknecht said:

@Echonian said:
Thanks for the information.

Frontline is what I am looking forward to most in this game. 64 player team objective battles in Chivalry, when also set to good maps and with 100% team damage (by far the best way to punish LMB/heavy weapon spam in team fights) plus no third person view (less needed in Mordhau without spin attack abuse and such) , were some of the best battles I ever had in that game. While Mordhau isn't of course the same game, at least having the number of players we can see in a battle can make for more epic battles that aren't just random dueling.

Of course to those who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours on Mordhau already to get good with said dueling, I'll have a lot of catching up to do.

Actually we dont have 100% team damage and with perks its even lower, but it has hitstop wich might punish mindless lmbing even more, because it would often take a hit away from you which you would otherwise land. When you lmb in a crowd of people its because youre desperately reaching for this one enemy hit, and risk of collateral damage will never fill as discouraging as not landing a hit at all. Oh and you cant hurt more than one teammate

Yeah, there are other mechanics that can also punish that behavior just fine in Mordhau. I played some team deathmatch earlier for the first time in over a year in Mordhau, and fighting groups is extremely difficult (as it should be), yet the fact that enemies can't easily swing through one-another like in Chivalry to kill you makes everything fine.

In Chivalry though, the 50% team damage servers had significantly more team kills than on the 100% team damage server I used to love playing on. The reason for this was simple: with 100% team damage, high damage weapons were far more likely to kill multiple teammates with 1-2 hits if you just spammed LMB, and this was a quick way to get yourself kicked from a game or at least punished sufficiently through lowered score and longer respawn time. So people tended to adapt quickly and actually pay attention to where they swung their weapon, and it ended up being a much better game with 100% team damage as a result of this.

In Mordhau this may not be necessary since it has other mechanics at play to prevent the same issue. If attacking through teammates isn't likely to kill enemies, or even possible, then people will avoid it as it just wastes their stamina.

Knight 174 263
  • 25 Sep '18
 Echonian

Thanks for the information.

Frontline is what I am looking forward to most in this game. 64 player team objective battles in Chivalry, when also set to good maps and with 100% team damage (by far the best way to punish LMB/heavy weapon spam in team fights) plus no third person view (less needed in Mordhau without spin attack abuse and such) , were some of the best battles I ever had in that game. While Mordhau isn't of course the same game, at least having the number of players we can see in a battle can make for more epic battles that aren't just random dueling.

Of course to those who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours on Mordhau already to get good with said dueling, I'll have a lot of catching up to do.

Knight 174 263
  • 1
  • 25 Sep '18
 Echonian

The forums are a cesspool, so expecting less of the Discord is probably naive.

This is what happens to certain communities when they are not properly moderated. The thing is: when people can say whatever they want on the internet, the vocal minority of edgelords tend to drown out the majority. This is why forums and communities tend to have moderation. Not because they want to violate "muh freedomz," but because it has been well known for as long as the internet has been around that basic moderation is necessary to prevent online communities from turning into places that the vast majority of people wouldn't go near.

Which further increases the problem, as the only people who will get on Discord or this Forum are increasingly the edgelords. I myself haven't been on this forum in about a year, and most of it was due to the fact that for every serious and game-related comment I could find, you would have a dozen people just wasting time with childish memes or other meaningless nonsense. Most people interested in the game might take one look at the community and immediately write it off, and that's simply the way things are. I can't understate the importance of this issue either: when I say "most people interested in this game," I'm talking about the people who could actually fill up servers or make for any sort of active community down the road.

Now, if it is a greater evil to enforce a few rules here and there to turn things into less of a cesspool, than it is to allow a community to fester and die without any success or greater appeal ever having been gained, then perhaps I could understand allowing this. I've seen this happen in many communities before however, and without exception, every single online community that lacks basic moderation to prevent things from just being a meme and racist cesspool dies a gruesome death. This can take months, it can even take a few years, but it always happens far earlier than in similar communities which had a bit more activity taken to combat this.

In the end, you might end up with the game only having a tiny fraction of the user-base that could have been possible due to issues like this. When nobody feels welcome in a community, they won't come back, and that's true of any community in any place or circumstance. This game has a lot of potential to be great however, and I am looking forward to having a vibrant community with tons of major 64 player battles and success for the game in general. This will require it to be finished developing however, and beyond that it needs gameplay balance and community direction to be handled properly in order to allow it to succeed. It won't have the advantage Chivalry had of being essentially unique in its genre, so while Torn Banner was perhaps not as good at dealing with community issues as they should have been, you guys are going to need to be if you ever want this game to be a success outside of meme kings and edge lords.

Knight 174 263
  • 18 Sep '17
 Echonian

If you alt-tab during a loading screen, Mordhau completely freezes, and locks your mouse cursor so that you cannot click anything in Windows 10. Twice now (in version #1 and #3), I have had to log out through the option I get with ctrl-alt-delete, as even bringing up the task manager to close the process is worthless if I can't click the button to end the executable.

A game should never take control of your system like this, and I hope that this can be sorted out ASAP.

Knight 174 263
  • 1
  • 17 Sep '17
 Echonian

@roshawnmarcellterrell said:

@Echonian said:

@DrEpochノಥ益ಥノ said:
242 walk 400 sprint for full plate

262 walk 460 sprint for cloth

This isn't any where near enough of a difference IMO, being able to survive 1 shot vs 5. and you cant really kite and choose your engagements.

Heavy armor is currently very strong, but it isn't as overpowered as many claim, because most players are simply really bad and have to rely on their ability to tank hits rather than on their actual skill in aiming attacks and such to win fights.

It isn't supposed to be balanced right now, and "1 shot vs 5" is a ridiculous exaggeration (more like 2 vs 4 for light vs heavy armor, still a lot, but not 5 times more). I've managed to do well with light armor myself by leveraging even that slight speed increase, by the way. You can use that speed increase when in close combat to keep the initiative more easily and keep the range you want, and you can also run away to swap weapons or throw something or such more easily with light armor.

I'm not saying light armor isn't weak right now - it is - but it isn't as weak as you're claiming, and I'm sure the devs will balance things out eventually. So don't worry about it. There's no need for you to get so riled up by Sir Zombie either, or to turn this into a passive aggressive party over nothing. Or rather, an aggressive one, I guess? Whatever.

A lot of people have made this complaint, and I GUARANTEE you that it is something that will be balanced as soon as balance becomes a priority.

Actually 1 shot vs 5 is pretty accurate from my experience. Not that i'm complaining, it's just that i more often do die from one hit. Full plate does take at least 4 hits to kill and often 5 hits.

I do think the devs realize this and will fix it, so i'm not worried about it.

One thing i do think there should be is an increase of acceleration to top speed. Actually i think if you gave light the same acceleration we had in chivalry, that alone should balance it out without even having to increase the top speed.

I think it depends largely on the weapon. It takes me 4-5 hits to kill heavy armor with a quarterstaff, and I die in 2-3 hits with the same weapon attacking me. The real kicker though with light armor is that you can be one shot by quite a few weapons (or even a throwing dagger to the face). Heavy armor isn't ALWAYS 4-5 hits though to kill. A mace will kill someone in heavy armor with 2-3 hits, for example, and larger swords can do it in 2 hits if you hit them accurately (usually more like 4 though).

As you said though, I'm sure that things will be balanced out in due course.

Knight 174 263
  • 17 Sep '17
 Echonian

@Bang said:
The kick needs to be nerfed if anything. It does 10 damage, a free hit, gives back initiation, and punishes any close combat. Plus you can riposte kick, feint to kick, morph to kick and combo to kick. Maybe it's fine if you just backpedal with a spear but otherwise it's obnoxious and anti-fun. Plus it lessens the skillgap from matrixolike chambering to passive kcikboxing,

The kick is "supposed" to punish someone face-hugging you. That isn't "close combat," that's SUPER DUPER close combat, since the kick has a short reach.

A missed kick costs a massive amount of stamina, and leaves you open to be hit. A hit kick allows your enemy to be hit, and gives you a bit of breathing room. It's a moderate risk, moderate reward move.

Also, you can't kick fast enough to use it in place of chambering or any normal fighting. If someone is actively attacking you, it isn't easy to get a kick off without being hit in the meantime.

Knight 174 263
  • 17 Sep '17
 Echonian

@Carlo_Mano said:

@Echonian said:
Although, kicks taking as much stamina as you're claiming is definitely a problem if true (I haven't noticed it myself).

They might take less when they are successful, I haven't checked that.

I just finished playing for like 3 hours (sucking the whole time), and I don't recall the stamina from kicks being less if you hit or not. Though I don't recall ever worrying about my stamina running out after a successful kick, and do remember it being an issue when I kicked and missed, so maybe there is a connection? If somebody could confirm this, that would be nice.

Kicks are hard to use in this game, though. I've managed to make them a good part of my repertoire with my light armor quarterstaff build (which I struggle to get a 1.0 k/d with, but that's beside the point). If you keep an enemy on the defensive, it gives you a much better opportunity to kick them while they are focused on countering your attacks, and most people never seem to want to risk kicking you to get you off of them.

Knight 174 263
  • 17 Sep '17
 Echonian

@das said:

@Spook said:
An idea I had to help remedy this (won't completely fix it) is to add "Enemy"/"Friendly" above someone's name at the bottom of the screen when you look at them, like this:

enemy.png

In the future we'll probably have small icons that hover over friendlies in close proximity, as well as changing the crosshair color when looking at enemies/friendlies.

I'd go with the green/red crosshair and signifier you made, minimal and effective. I don't know about floating chevrons.

If a person is having trouble telling what color is what and which team they are on after checking at the start of the game, having a red crosshair certainly isn't going to help them. I could see a lot of players confusing a red crosshair for a sign that the person in question is on the red team, after all.

Coloring a person's name red or blue when you look at them would be better, since it would match the already-existing colors. Having a slight tint (that is optional) around your screen or part of the UI would also be neat, but again, it needs to be optional if it's going to be a visual distraction.

Knight 174 263
  • 17 Sep '17
 Echonian

The release phase for weapons is already very short, so I'm not sure what the issue is.

Are you suggesting that, instead of having a recovery period after attacking without a combo (or something), that your weapon just magically stops doing damage mid-swing at some point?

The last thing this game needs is another timing mechanic on attacks. If you could only damage during part of release, drags would also be worthless, and while I don't drag often myself it is clearly an intended tactic in the game.

Of course, in an ideal world, we would have physics-based damage where weapons did more or less damage depending on their velocity when they impacted you - but they don't seem to want to put that in for some reason. Probably so that things like drags are more viable, even if a piece of metal hitting you at half the speed shouldn't be doing the same damage (especially against armor, though you might be able to argue that against an unarmored or lightly armored foe, half speed still hurts a lot).

Knight 174 263
  • 1
  • 17 Sep '17
 Echonian

@DrEpochノಥ益ಥノ said:
242 walk 400 sprint for full plate

262 walk 460 sprint for cloth

This isn't any where near enough of a difference IMO, being able to survive 1 shot vs 5. and you cant really kite and choose your engagements.

Heavy armor is currently very strong, but it isn't as overpowered as many claim, because most players are simply really bad and have to rely on their ability to tank hits rather than on their actual skill in aiming attacks and such to win fights.

It isn't supposed to be balanced right now, and "1 shot vs 5" is a ridiculous exaggeration (more like 2 vs 4 for light vs heavy armor, still a lot, but not 5 times more). I've managed to do well with light armor myself by leveraging even that slight speed increase, by the way. You can use that speed increase when in close combat to keep the initiative more easily and keep the range you want, and you can also run away to swap weapons or throw something or such more easily with light armor.

I'm not saying light armor isn't weak right now - it is - but it isn't as weak as you're claiming, and I'm sure the devs will balance things out eventually. So don't worry about it. There's no need for you to get so riled up by Sir Zombie either, or to turn this into a passive aggressive party over nothing. Or rather, an aggressive one, I guess? Whatever.

A lot of people have made this complaint, and I GUARANTEE you that it is something that will be balanced as soon as balance becomes a priority.

Knight 174 263
  • 17 Sep '17
 Echonian

@Carlo_Mano said:

@Hadeus said:
I don't mind feinting/morphing (I love it), but the lack of stamina penalty on both is a bit lopsided.

This.

The slow, useless, rangeless, turn capped kick costs 1/4 of stamina. Feint not even half of that.

It's ok to use feints, it's a core mechanic of the game, I understand that. But when spamming it is the way to win, there's a problem.

And don't give my that "git gud" bullshit. If it was only about that, you would be spamming chambers as much as you spam feints by now.

"Git gud" still applies.

Spamming chambers isn't done because it's a technique that requires a high level of skill, and feints do not, so trying to equate them when it "is" definitely skill that allows a person to chamber more often is odd.

Just because one technique is easier to use and therefore is being used more often does not mean that said technique is actually overpowered among skilled players (the players who things need to actually be balanced around, by the way). I haven't had any real problem with feint spamming yet in this game, because you can counter it much more easily than in Chivalry. You can attempt to chamber and hit them during their feints, you get a first-hit stun making it viable to simply try to out-speed people in general, and often-times you can parry in time even IF they spam feints and confuse you, as long as you are paying attention.

It really only is a problem spamming feints when you panic, and that hasn't changed between this game and chivalry, but feints are far less powerful now than I remember them being in chiv. Simply because you can afford to attempt counters to them. Again, chambering or simply attempting to out-speed someone with usual trades is a valid course.

I mean, I still suck at chambering myself, but I've gotten better.

Although, kicks taking as much stamina as you're claiming is definitely a problem if true (I haven't noticed it myself).