Mordhau
 Seseau
  • Likes received 198
  • Date joined 12 Sep '17
  • Last seen 4h

Private Message

79 198
  • 6 Jun
 Seseau

@ŁoɍdRαƴmund said:
Watch the video on youtube by Lloyd Le-Mar called: On Mordhau & Women. Then decide if you still want female characters. Im not saying i dont want female characters just that you should take his considerstions in mind.

Edit: Here is link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBgZ8Y_KW5M

I watched most of the video, and while that man should (and might) be narrating audiobooks, his points aren't very strong imo. He always seems to circle back to how women are perceived, how some things related to fighting and war are exclusive to men, how we'd all coil in horror at the sound of a woman being murdered in-game, etc.

It's true that the voice lines for females would need to be done very well, but if they are, I personally think it would open up an entire new world of banter and lines. The man in the video even goes as far as to argue that banter is exclusively a man thing and so forth. While I think that if the devs totally embrace the oddity that a woman in such a battlefield would present, and write the lines accordingly, they could come up with dialogue that is both funny and completely believeable.

Most women on the battlefield would not fare as well as men, even with weapons and armor. But your occasional Brienne of Tarth isn't so hard to believe, and it's been stated the devs don't care too much about that kind of realism. I suspect they have a precise vision for female characters in the game and want to execute it perfectly to have the whole thing come together as well as possible.

At the end of the day, I personally think it could lead to great voice lines and concepts, and I'm all for it.

79 198
  • 4 May
 Seseau

@Peacerer said:
In alpha almost noone, literally, played shield (and arrows), while 90%+ "testers" played 2h weapons.

It was to be expected there will be more shield (and bow/cb) players at release when new players come unaware of how poorly everything else is but 2h weapons.

People are not stupid although. There's already decline in shield users (same with archery). New players quickly realize they can't utilize their potential with s+1h (even more with archery which is badly implemented) and switch to 2h.

Something i have been saying all the time while in alpha, only to face harassment of 2h elitists.

Funny, I'm observing the opposite. I see more and more people, presumably new players, use the shielded presets. It makes for pretty annoying fights, since it's a pain to properly deal with a shield user in a melee with 3+ players around.

79 198
  • 1
  • 27 Apr
 Seseau

"eh, look at the bright side
they saved you from wasting hard shekels over this Jew'ed product with microtransactions and online only"

This looks like a very reasonable-minded website.

79 198
  • 22 Mar
 Seseau

@TheKingInTheNorth said:
I think early access is just as bad of an idea as launching it now. The game might be near feature-complete, but the 'main' game modes feel unpolished and at times unstable, even on my (no flex i swear) beast of a PC. I did not have a lot of fun playing in the test weekend to be perfectly honest, for various reasons.

The potential of a polished version of this game on release is much higher, and will probably be much better for longevity and player retention. And I think this game needs MANY layers of polish before it's ready. There are UI elements and menus that feel cheap, the maps feel and look great on some parts but look kind bland in other parts. Also, we're missing a LOT of flavour. Intro/ending cinematics for the major game modes would add so much. Doesn't have to be high production value, just a few seconds of footage to get you hyped up. Granted, chivalry didn't have any flavour either, but that was 2014. In this day and age people want to be more immersed even in multiplayer-focussed games.

Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I think this game can be a real gem if we give it some more time. Taking the EA gamble might kill the game before it gets a chance to realise the potential it definitely has. That's what I think at least.

It's been said many times that they are on their last legs in terms of funding. They need an influx of money soon or they won't be able to keep going. Hence the suggestions of EA; it's the lesser of two evils considering it lets them "release" in a state where they can still polish before actual release.

79 198
  • 1
  • 22 Mar
 Seseau

I actually agree. From the get-go I considered EA to be a bad move, but looking at the state of Frontlines when compared to the game everyone will inevitably compare it to, the game is not ready for release (understand: it's not ready to capture a stable and long-lasting audience).

Frontline needs to be more compelling in order to achieve that. EA, if done right, could give the devs the time and money to reach that goal.

I think it's a good idea.

79 198
  • 18 Mar
 Seseau

I disagree that combat should be the main entertainment. I think combat should be almost secondary to map design.

There is so much that could be done to make Frontlines fun. Ripping on Chivalry is fine, but it was more or less the first of its kind, came out in 2012 and went above and beyond given the time to make fun game modes. Most maps were OK and only a couple were really super fun, but they delivered.

Most everything can be boiled down to "stand next to X for Y" if you're condescending enough, but it's true that pushing a ram to try and break down the door while the enemy pours boiling oil on you is far more epic than standing in a circle. It's true that holding a fort with ballistas against catapults and then protecting your king to help him escape is more engaging than what we currently have.

Let's face it: most people who play this game will not delve that deep into the combat system, and will mostly be looking to the game modes for entertainment. Frontlines, in its current form, does not deliver that entertainment. This is why I think Frontlines should have been introduced to the testers much, much sooner and really should have been the entire focus of the alpha phase: it will be the meat of the game to the largest portion of the playerbase.

This is only my opinion of course. Several people are saying Frontlines is fine, and maybe most others will feel that way too. Time will tell, but I personally am not too hopeful anymore.

79 198
  • 17 Mar
 Seseau

The more I think about it, the more I suspect the core issue is map design. Chivalry's best map had layouts and phases we all remember. I'd say the reason Stonehills was by far the best-liked map was because it divided the storming of a castle very well: take the village, breach the gate, invade the castle. Similarly, we all remember hustling along that tree bridge, under ballista and archer fire and with enemy on the other side of the river in that other map I can't remember.

The map used in the test feels more like Battlegrounds, which was imo one of the weaker TO maps but still fun.

My favourite moments of Chivalry were during phase 2 of Stonehills, where you had ballistas on the ramparts and you had to either bring down the enemy pushing the cart or, as Mason, endure all that fire and arrows and death to break that gate. It was one of the few moments where I would say a game made me feel like a warrior on a battlefield.

I always sucked at Chiv, but always had fun in those moments. This is what Frontlines is lacking: choke points, locations that matter and objectives which have an actual impact on the game's course.

Though it pains me to say it, I think the current iteration fails completely to improve on Chivalry's TO and may even be a step back. Which is a shame, considering everything else in Mordhau improves upon Chiv, but in my opinion this really was the one thing that had to be nailed just as it was in Chiv.

79 198
  • 17 Mar
 Seseau

I played it briefly yesterday, certainly not long enough to form a real pertinent opinion, but my first impressions were that it kind of lacked focus? It was rather simple in its implementation and did not really feel like a real battlefield. I actually think the phase approach of Chivalry was more successful at conveying that feeling.

This took a very long time to develop, and I'm eager to play it again to form a better opinion, but I have to admit at first glance I was a bit underwhelmed.

79 198
  • 4 Mar
 Seseau

@Naleaus said:

@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.

My last sentence was poorly phrased and overall just bad. It just baffles me to see such bad attitude from someone who apparently has a significant say in the game's balance.

My primary point was that you can't just dismiss every concern with "get good". The large majority of people who will play this game will not care about its potential competitive scene, and obscuring gameplay with weird, sort of nonsensical mechanics which are best for pro play seems like a bad move to me.

I think that if you put your hypothetical everyday casual Mordhau player up against someone who cftps, they will be very puzzled by the mechanic and likely won't be able to piece it together without somebody else telling them. It's a very logical process: you missed and left yourself vulnerable, therefore I can exploit this. Except not, because yada yada high level yada yada reasons. The argument that it costs stamina is not without basis, but to your average guy that parry looks and feels nonsensical.

79 198
  • 4 Mar
 Seseau

Isn't GIRU heavily involved in the gameplay feedback loop with the devs? I was always under the impression that he gets a significant say.

Either way you are by far the most abrasive person I've seen in this community, which is saying something. Your answer to literally everything is "get good" and then you invariably descend into insults.

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.

79 198
  • 20 Feb
 Seseau

@Goatie said:
Pubg has RNG yes but so do most competitive games to a certain degree. I follow the competitive pubg scene and it has a pretty high skill ceiling. People just look at the base game and then assume it's the exact same. The rules are changed like no red zones and slower circles, increased loot. Teams figure out consistent drops through scrimming so no-one has to fight a team for their starting loot, only on rotations and smaller circles do fights tend to be more forced.

I agree, and that is why I mentioned PUBG as an example. I personally don't care for it and still think that its competitive game mode is not on par with Dota, CSGO or Starcraft 2, but its competitive scene definitely has a following. When they have official tournaments, there's usually 5k-10k viewers, which is very solid.

But PUBG created its competitive scene by somewhat following the "right" order: they made a game, released it, sold millions of copies and then reinjected some of that money into creating tournaments. The first iterations of PUBG tournaments were incredibly rough, but they created new, tournament-only rulesets and heavily invested in observer tools to improve on the viewer experience.

Some people on this forum would have Triternion do the opposite and put all of their chips on the competitive aspect of the game when it has not even released. Considering their size and scope, what they have already achieved with Mordhau is impressive. To create a real competitive scene, you either need numbers and interest or money to artificially prop up the game (e.g. Overwatch). And even that doesn't always succeed (e.g. Overwatch). I refer you back to my cart and horse comment.

Anyway. There is clearly a demographic on the forum that is convinced Mordhau will either become an esport or be "competitive" (again, would love clarifications on what that means to each involved player). I just don't see it.

79 198
  • 2
  • 20 Feb
 Seseau

@Mittsies said:
you're confusing 'competitive game' with 'e-sport'

That is because the people who generally argue for a competitive scene in Mordhau rarely give details. What is a competitive scene to you? What does it entail?

Mordhau, by virtue of being a skill-based zero sum game, is competitive. A competitive scene though? That can either be high level matchmaking with no particular purpose other than playing at a high level, or tournaments with a meaningful scene. But I rarely see people, even Stouty, clarify which they mean when they talk about a competitive scene. I just see the word "competitive" being thrown around with few explanations behind it.

My primary point all along has been that, for a game to be designed around its highest level players, there should be a meaningful scene to back it up. Otherwise you're coming up with arbitrary mechanics to enhance gameplay for 1% of the playerbase, and alienating the rest. Unless you create different game modes and rulesets, which seems like a good compromise.

79 198
  • 20 Feb
 Seseau

@PinkiePowPowMSK said:
I like how you mention that you cant see any competitive potiential for Mordhau and afterwards talk about competitive PUBG. Melee games like chiv and Mordhau are games with one of the highest skill celling specially compared to modern battle royale games like PUBG. A high skill celling is one of the reason why Mordhau will have a big competitive scene and a high skill celling is also one of the reason why chiv stayed alive and why i have so many hours in it. The reason why chiv sold many copies but didnt have alot of players is because it wasnt polished and balanced properly and therefore had alot of problems. And that is where Mordhau comes into the picture, Mordhau is next generation of skill based melee combat that will correct the mistakes made by chiv that made new players turn away from what to them seemed like a dogshit game because of stuff like spins. Spins was accepted by the skilled players because it added a higher skill celling to the game. Spins was also the solution to 1vX in chiv and there is now because Mordhau removed spins a need for either a new mechanic like active parry or hyperarmor or a rebalance of already implanted mechanics like feints and drags. I personally in the first solution would prefer active parry over hyperarmor as it brings a higher skill celling to the game. I Can also see it from ur perspective that theres no need to add a mechanic just to give an advantage to the single player in the 1vX and therefore i think a rebalance of already implanted mechanics like feints or drags could be the better solution.

That is precisely the reason why I mentioned PUBG actually. I don't think it's a good competitive game either; it relies entirely on RNG. The only reason it has a semblance of an esports scene is the same as Overwatch: companies are forcing money into it. On its own, PUBG lacks the fundamental basis to be a viable competitive game, though for reasons different than Mordhau.

I also disagree with your assessment that a game having a high skill ceiling automatically qualifies it to be competitive on any meaningful level. That is not true. The lifeblood of viable competition is viewership. The reason all of these Dota, CSGO, Siege (to a lesser extent) tournaments exist is because people watch them. Mordhau, in my opinion, lacks the basic appeal to viewers and offers a rather poor experience for spectators, because high level gameplay relies on making one's attacks look obscure even to the learned player.

Again, and apparently I have to be painfully clear on that point, but I do not think this is an irrefutable truth. Time may prove me wrong. This is my opinion and I'm sure the players who have spent thousands of hours on Chiv, and hundreds of Mordhau will disagree, because they do understand the game. It's just that for there to be a meaningful competitive scene, plays also have to look clear and concise to the viewer, no matter how trained. They have to know what's happening, and how could they when you have even skilled players complaining that attacks are too fast for human reaction or that they look unreadable?

Now if we're talking about small tournaments and competitions among the high level players with no further expectations, I'm sure that will happen and will be lots of fun. But people here are talking about Mordhau as if it should be designed like Dota; around the highest level players. But that is one massive cart you're putting before a tiny horse, because honestly I do not see an esport arising from Mordhau.

79 198
  • 19 Feb
 Seseau

@Rhike said:

@Seseau said:

@Mittsies said:
Keep in mind that we've got radically different scopes and perspectives here.

Players like Stouty understand how crucial a 1vX mechanic is in mordhau because they have a lot of experience playing 2v2 skrims with high level players, it adds depth and complexity to a scenario which would otherwise be "whichever team loses a player first, loses the match." That's also why Stouty wants active parry back, because while hyperarmor is better for large-scale games where it can be harder to keep track of your surroundings, active parry feels much better in small-scale games.

Players like Seseau, on the other hand, have never played in a small-scale high-level match, so their perspective of the game is limited to large-scale games. The 1vX mechanic is much less mandatory during, for example, 2v3 and 3v4 engagements. They reference ganking in dota because they're thinking about the game in terms of a "big battle" where there are way more variables and chaotic elements happening, making any kind of special 1vX mechanic seem unnecessary / rule-bloat.

Neither side is inherently wrong, though it's better to balance the game for competitive play first, then tweak it further to make casual play feel nice if possible.

I think you make good points, and I do understand that this seems necessary for the competitive aspect of the game. I just personally think the game has no real competitive potential to begin with. Perhaps mechanics such as these should be kept in a different, competitive-only mode (think how game settings are tweaked for PUBG in tournaments for example).

Dota is balanced around the competitive scene, and it makes sense for several reasons:

1) Its competitive scene is tried and true, and has been around for a long time so it's just the logical thing to do
2) It has a huge following on Twitch and with viewers in general
3) It looks messy to people with no knowledge of the game, but its high level play does not rely on making attacks look as jumbled and unreadable as possible.

This last point is why I believe Mordhau can likely have a small competitive scene, but nothing meaningful enough to base the entire design of the game on it. Since beating high skill players involves making your attacks look disgusting and impossible to read, and therefore to follow, it has very little appeal to the audience and especially to people with no knowledge of the game.

Anyway. Even if I'm wrong and the game does spawn a healthy, significant competitive scene, it doesn't make sense to design the core gameplay around it when it doesn't exist yet. It's far more sensible to come up with clear, non-confusing mechanics to first appeal to all players alike, and then refine that with different game modes when things start to branch out.

You're oblivious to the other side of the coin. Every "fact" you just mentioned is skewed in your favor.

I will say this though; even currently, you just have to play a lot and take the game seriously, and everything will become clear. There could be a trend of toning things down for release, but, once again, newbies are going to fight newbies. Both are unskilled. No problems will occur.

I did not state my opinions as facts. I just explained my opinion and the reasons behind it. You're free to disagree, but don't tell me I was pretending to state absolute truths.

79 198
  • 19 Feb
 Seseau

@Mittsies said:
Keep in mind that we've got radically different scopes and perspectives here.

Players like Stouty understand how crucial a 1vX mechanic is in mordhau because they have a lot of experience playing 2v2 skrims with high level players, it adds depth and complexity to a scenario which would otherwise be "whichever team loses a player first, loses the match." That's also why Stouty wants active parry back, because while hyperarmor is better for large-scale games where it can be harder to keep track of your surroundings, active parry feels much better in small-scale games.

Players like Seseau, on the other hand, have never played in a small-scale high-level match, so their perspective of the game is limited to large-scale games. The 1vX mechanic is much less mandatory during, for example, 2v3 and 3v4 engagements. They reference ganking in dota because they're thinking about the game in terms of a "big battle" where there are way more variables and chaotic elements happening, making any kind of special 1vX mechanic seem unnecessary / rule-bloat.

Neither side is inherently wrong, though it's better to balance the game for competitive play first, then tweak it further to make casual play feel nice if possible.

I think you make good points, and I do understand that this seems necessary for the competitive aspect of the game. I just personally think the game has no real competitive potential to begin with. Perhaps mechanics such as these should be kept in a different, competitive-only mode (think how game settings are tweaked for PUBG in tournaments for example).

Dota is balanced around the competitive scene, and it makes sense for several reasons:

1) Its competitive scene is tried and true, and has been around for a long time so it's just the logical thing to do
2) It has a huge following on Twitch and with viewers in general
3) It looks messy to people with no knowledge of the game, but its high level play does not rely on making attacks look as jumbled and unreadable as possible.

This last point is why I believe Mordhau can likely have a small competitive scene, but nothing meaningful enough to base the entire design of the game on it. Since beating high skill players involves making your attacks look disgusting and impossible to read, and therefore to follow, it has very little appeal to the audience and especially to people with no knowledge of the game.

Anyway. Even if I'm wrong and the game does spawn a healthy, significant competitive scene, it doesn't make sense to design the core gameplay around it when it doesn't exist yet. It's far more sensible to come up with clear, non-confusing mechanics to first appeal to all players alike, and then refine that with different game modes when things start to branch out.

79 198
  • 1
  • 19 Feb
 Seseau

@Stouty said:
yeah skill based combat would be nice

"deep and fluid combat system that allows those that master it to turn into an unstoppable force on the battlefield"

when did that turn into "lol theres 2 of them of course they win"

Are you arguing that superiority in numbers should not be an advantage?

If one skilled player faces two low, or even mid skilled opponents, he can and very likely will win. But if all three players are of the same skill, roughly, then why should the 1 get an edge? Makes no sense at all. Killing players to get superior numbers is the cornerstone of team-based competitive games. It's why ganks in Dota are a thing, it's why flanking/crossfire in Siege is a thing... I could go on.

There is no logical reason to grant an advantage to a player facing superior numbers just because he might be more skilled. In the end, skill prevails, and part of that skill is successfully gaining an advantage and leveraging it, for example through sheer numbers.

79 198
  • 18 Feb
 Seseau

@Mittsies said:

@Tim_Fragmagnet said:
Active parry was trash

Hyper armor and trades are literally worse.

It's simple, there should not be a mechanic to help you in 1vX situations, as the only thing that gets you out of them, should be your own skill, or your teammates.

Don't know why it ever went any other way.

If you put yourself into a 1vX situation, that's your fault, the game shouldn't hold your fucking hand.

If the rest of your team dies and you're left in a 1vX situation, well tough shit, it happens.

without any 1vX mechanic, 2v2/3v3 skirmishes would feel a lot worse. as soon one person dies on a team, that team basically loses instantly. with a 1vX mechanic, you can actually clutch in 1v2 scenarios and win, which makes the game a lot more deep and interesting. I've spectated a lot of 2v2 top-level games and the 1v2 clutches are by far my favorite part to watch. and yeah it's possible to clutch even without this mechanic, but only if you're an absolute god / significantly better than your opponents, and would make the competitive side of the game even less accessible than it already is.

The fact that the game would even need such a mechanic tells you its potential for competitive play. I cannot think of one successful competitive game that gives you a hand when you are outnumbered.

79 198
  • 17 Feb
 Seseau

As someone who has barely scratched the surface of Mordhau and plays on a casual level, I have to ask: why is 1vX so important that it deserves its own mechanic to make it more possible to win in those situations?

It seems like such a contrived idea. I can't think of a game that has mechanics to help a player facing multiple opponents.

79 198
  • 15 Feb
 Seseau

@KineticWolf said:
You can make a parry look like a riposte? Is that a glitch, I'm confused, how could a parry look like a riposte?

I believe it involves making your character look up right after you parry. From the opponent's point of view, it makes your weapon jerk quite a bit and looks similar to an incoming blow. Most of the better players abuse this mechanic and seemingly break their spine looking up to simulate a riposte. You then parry an attack that never even began and and you're a sitting duck.

79 198
  • 14 Feb
 Seseau

@Bodkin said:

@conny said:
Make chamber the only option in certain weapon matchups. Why does dagger have to be able to parry any weapon? Wanna fight with the big boys, get a descent weapon. Just a thought, ravish me

inb4 we see even more shields lmao

No but in all seriousness there's no reason why it couldn't parry. Smaller parrybox sure, but not even being able to parry is a little odd.

Honestly what I find weirder than being able to parry a maul with a dagger is the fact that you can move the maul around quick enough, in facehug distance, to parry someone shanking you with dagger.

There's a lot of unrealistic things in this game that need to stay for gameplay. Suspension of disbelief

I honestly would be fine with the dagger and the very short weapons not being able to parry. It could be played like a bit of a pocket sand build, you get disarmed and quickly pull the dagger for a stab or two until the opponent adjusts and recovers. Then it becomes useless, because parrying a full blow from a Zweihander with a 10cm blade looks and feels absurd. But hey, it bought you time and let you land a couple of hits.

But it's true that this is probably getting into "realism over gameplay" territory. Nonetheless, I think daggers and other short, ultraquick weapons tend to be a source of frustration for beginners and casuals more than anything else.