Mordhau
 yourcrippledson
Baron
  • Likes received 1901
  • Date joined 1 May '17
  • Last seen 22h

Private Message

Baron 1465 1901

@Void said:
Also, having fewer playtesters with knowledge and understanding on the game is more important than having lots of playtesters that don't know enough about the game and its mechanics.

Yeah, we don't need to let these players, that have no fucking clue what they are talking about, play the game to let them affect things, like FoV and swing manipulation, when we can just check out some youtube comments and base game design around that.

Baron 1465 1901

@Mittsies said:
2019-01-16_13-17-21.gif

@Gauntlet

I like how I made it in there but I dislike how I still have 0 hearts on that comment. And a lot of comments actually. Hey Jax, when are you implementing the "like your own comment" function on the forum?

Baron 1465 1901

@ArmedSpartan said:
I think the FOV limit is fine.

Literally anyone who uses less than 130 FoV is going to think it is fine. Like I understand the stigma behind the limitation. But without reverses it's not even an exploit. So fail to see the harm in testing it for a patch...

@Void said:

@Frise said:
People that don't play the game and haven't played Chivalry are already complaining in comment sections of Youtube about the FoV being 'weird'. I do agree that the current FoV limit feels restricting, but we will have to live with that to avoid people getting scared off by awful FoV levels.

That's true.
I've also seen comments under Shroud's streams on youtube about the FoV being too high. Even with the current max it looks weird to them.
It is important for the game to look good to those people (and to us).
The way Torn Banner handled FoV is irrelevant.

If the nubs don't like high fov, they will move the slider to the left, and never think of it again.

I agree that the game should look good to everyone. Which is why it is important we have ample display options, so nobody is left forced to use an FoV they aren't totally comfortable with :)

Baron 1465 1901

@Bodkin said:
Huge fov in chiv was a major advantage at a high level and a crutch at a low one that makes the game seem like a garbage jankfest to anyone attempting to watch.

In my experience, since you have to move your camera more at lower FoV to see the same amount as a higher FoV, the higher FoV often times makes for a less janked out recording.

Baron 1465 1901

@Frise said:
120 was always inferior to higher FoV values in Chivalry. Yes, some high-tier players used 120, but doesn't mean that 120 is on-par with higher FoVs. Those high-tier players stayed on low values not because it was optimal, but because it didn't look like shit/they were just used to it.

Yeah and they weren't getting destroyed enough to warrant changing it. There are no backspins this game so the advantage is a fraction if what it was. I just want the game to not feel bad/restrictive next to its spiritual predecessor. Which imo it does.

Baron 1465 1901

Moving the camera back would help too.
88da563d8f314a64d145fdb62daf0c10.jpeg

This is a fairly accurate representation of where our first person eyes actually are for some reason.

Baron 1465 1901

Just as many of the top chiv players played at like 120 fov as 140, with the average 130. So it shouldn't be the upper limit here.

If 120 is viable in chiv vs 140s and 150s, where backspins were still a thing, how would 140 fov be so "gamebreaking" here?

How about instead of shitposting the shit posts about it we just TEST it for a patch? Thought the point of testing was testing shit out.

Baron 1465 1901

@conny said:
Cuz then you got to make your game look like an oldschool-movie lsd tripp to avoid a disadvantage

Better than having to go download the FoV mod to avoid a disadvantage.

Baron 1465 1901

@Frise said:
d.PNG

Dats da one

What is the point of an fov slider if one side is a joke and the other is barely acceptable?

Baron 1465 1901
Baron 1465 1901

@Gluten said:
What if they make it possible to bind any angle? Would that make all the 240-haters happy?

I don't just want to remove 240. I want them to remove 240 and do a complete rework on binds lol.

Baron 1465 1901

There is another thread about proximity voices up. Maybe that's a feature only found in hardcore mode?

Baron 1465 1901

This topic hasn't been moved?

Baron 1465 1901

@TRYTE said:
I built my PC back up again to play this game so I'm kinda bummed out it's not working :(

Meh. You're probably less disappointed this way.

Baron 1465 1901

Q5 or Q6 if they want it to be more than a polished turd.

Baron 1465 1901

I have amazing memories thanks to proximity chat in Halo 3

Baron 1465 1901

I feel like the game needs to give you the tools to succeed for any given scenario. Artificially limiting the scenarios is yet another glaring symptom of poor game design.

If there was no archer limit would it really be an unplayable mess? Or would it force players to come up with different rushing strategies to overcome a team of archers? making the game less samey and more interesting and dynamic overall. But "nah we can't actually make that fun so just eliminate the scenario.".

Bad Game Design.

Baron 1465 1901

Ya it's exactly how i imagined when i backed the kickstarter. Bad combat hidden behind Call of Duty cover up.

Baron 1465 1901

Ya but i remember jax specifically saying they made projectile flinch retarded so they wouldn't need a retarded archer limit. But now we just have double retard. So we should lose one?

Baron 1465 1901

How many bots/players did you test at a time with that fps?