What actually ARE the arguments against removing feint?



  • This is more out of curiosity than anything else.

    And just to be clear, I am envisaging a game in which offensive feinting was not possible but defensive feinting (i.e feint to parry) is possible (this would probably be done using a similar mechanic which is on the beta now, i.e. if you feint you can’t attack for, let’s say, 2 seconds).

    So, what are the aruments for NOT removing it, seeing as it clearly cannot be countered unless the feinter does it at a very stupid time/in a very stupid manner?



  • Feint to parry? Who are you gonna fool? The attacker has nothing to lose.



  • @lemonater47:

    Feint to parry? Who are you gonna fool? The attacker has nothing to lose.

    I don’t understand what you’re talking about… feint to parry is never used to ‘fool’ anyone.



  • @Bloodhead:

    So, what are the aruments for NOT removing it, seeing as it clearly cannot be countered unless the feinter does it at a very stupid time/in a very stupid manner?

    They already said some duels went on for a much longer time that they wanted, so they added feint.



  • @gregcau:

    @Bloodhead:

    So, what are the aruments for NOT removing it, seeing as it clearly cannot be countered unless the feinter does it at a very stupid time/in a very stupid manner?

    They already said some duels went on for a much longer time that they wanted, so they added feint.

    Okay right, I guess that makes sense… Still baffles me how poorly they thought that one through…



  • @Bloodhead:

    @lemonater47:

    Feint to parry? Who are you gonna fool? The attacker has nothing to lose.

    I don’t understand what you’re talking about… feint to parry is never used to ‘fool’ anyone.

    Well you said that you want It to be so when you feint you can’t attack. Defeats the purpose of doing so. And it wouldn’t be called feinting anymore as by definition it means “to deceive”. Its from an old French word. And the only time you would want to use a “defensive feint” is when someone feints you anyway.

    It speeds up duels. Adds a different challenge to the game and more playstyles.



  • I like limited feint, one argument is that it adds a luck aspect since feints can be so hard to read.



  • Turns a game of skill (the swordfight) into a total coin-toss. Can’t imagine what the devs were smoking when they dreamed it up.



  • @Panzerlang:

    Turns a game of skill (the swordfight) into a total coin-toss. Can’t imagine what the devs were smoking when they dreamed it up.

    You really should just post

    “Whatever Jcash says +1”



  • Feints aint a problem if you play offensive though, or if you’re far away, the problem is facehugging+feinting or people that feint three times in a row before attacking, although with feint-to-parry you can attack instead of block and if you have to just hit your FtP button. Then again I dislike feints and don’t use them, I just drag my mouse or attack slower than people usually would to be able to hit people.



  • It’s all about the guessing game vs no guessing game, or translated into duel times, really short duels vs longer duels.

    Age of Chivalry, Mount & Blade and War of the Roses don’t use guessing games. In AoC, it’s all about punishing your opponent - someone moves in to attack you, you step back for example, they miss, you hit them during recovery; footwork is everything in AoC, no feint to parry bullshit around to protect you from you own errors or misjudgments and certainly no feints for getting past parries, it was a relatively harsh environment for newcomers as the skill ceiling was extremely high. The best tactics were to ‘dance’ around your opponent, hitting them, then quickly turning around and backing away whilst being prepared to parry counter attacks if you didn’t dance out of range fast enough.

    War of the Roses & Mount & Blade don’t need guessing games because they rely on four different blocks, as opposed to one; any time your opponent switches side or feints you in those games, you have time to react and change your block as appropriate, but granted, it is a small amount of time but the point is you always have a chance to react and are never left hanging in a state of ‘dead time’.

    Chivalry has no recovery based punishments (thanks to feint to parry), so footwork isn’t as important as it could potentially be. Chivalry has no multiple blocks, besides looking left and right. Chivalry has no dancing, besides Vanguards and their long weapons. The ONLY thing this game really has left is feints, remove it entirely and it becomes a trade fest for the most part. It’s simply down to the way it was designed, feint was needed later in development to prevent long stalemates which just ends up with people running out of stamina, and that’s no fun when it happens in the majority of duels. Sure, no feints are nice for one or two fights, but imagine EVERY duel vs a good player being about who can maintain their stamina the best.



  • @Martin:

    Sure, no feints are nice for one or two fights, but imagine EVERY duel vs a good player being about who can maintain their stamina the best.

    Yeah, we wouldn’t want too much realism.



  • So this game is just about duels now?

    Cool.



  • @Panzerlang:

    @Martin:

    Sure, no feints are nice for one or two fights, but imagine EVERY duel vs a good player being about who can maintain their stamina the best.

    Yeah, we wouldn’t want too much realism.

    Nothing to do with realism, and indeed I wouldn’t want too much realism.
    –------
    @OP there are no * substantial* arguments against removing feints, that hold any weight next to the fact that

    They’re an unreadable luck based mechanic in an otherwise difficult skill based game that adds nothing but unnecessary variability.



  • Stamina has everything to do with realism, especially if both combatants are wearing plate. Has a damn sight more to do with it than a fantasy feint that bears about as much relation to realism as I do to Henry Tudor.



  • My only thought about feinting is that 1h feintig is absolutely unreadable. You can at least wait some split seconds to see if your foe is feinting if they use 2h weapons, but 1h is just unfair.

    Remove 1h feinting or restrict it but KEEP 2H FEINTING!



  • My only thought about feinting is that 1h feintig is absolutely unreadable. You can at least wait some split seconds to see if your foe is feinting if they use 2h weapons, but 1h is just unfair.

    Remove 1h feinting or restrict it but KEEP 2H FEINTING!

    +1!



  • @Panzerlang:

    Turns a game of skill (the swordfight) into a total coin-toss. Can’t imagine what the devs were smoking when they dreamed it up.

    There’s no such thing as a coin-toss in this game. There is no element of randomness.

    Player 1 decides to feint. Player 2 decides to parry.

    There’s no 3rd party controlling the fate of that. Everything is controlled by the players.

    Arguments against removing feints:::

    1. Blocking is too powerful, fights last too long, and are pretty boring to watch.
    2. Turtling would be really easy; TO competitive play would end up tie-ing on the same objectives a lot.
    3. More options = higher skill ceiling. Don’t remove options from a game.

    Besides, in the beta, the feints seem pretty readable to me. The only issue is with fast weapons that can still punish people even though they fell in the 0.15 sec mark.



  • @gregcau:

    @Bloodhead:

    So, what are the aruments for NOT removing it, seeing as it clearly cannot be countered unless the feinter does it at a very stupid time/in a very stupid manner?

    They already said some duels went on for a much longer time that they wanted, so they added feint.

    Long lasting duels are a good thing, and they only happen between two fairly even players in terms of skill. This makes them as damn epic as the words description can carry in weight. It is the most fun one can have in this game, in my opinion.

    @Martin:

    It’s all about the guessing game vs no guessing game, or translated into duel times, really short duels vs longer duels.

    Age of Chivalry, Mount & Blade and War of the Roses don’t use guessing games. In AoC, it’s all about punishing your opponent - someone moves in to attack you, you step back for example, they miss, you hit them during recovery; footwork is everything in AoC, no feint to parry bullshit around to protect you from you own errors or misjudgments and certainly no feints for getting past parries, it was a relatively harsh environment for newcomers as the skill ceiling was extremely high. The best tactics were to ‘dance’ around your opponent, hitting them, then quickly turning around and backing away whilst being prepared to parry counter attacks if you didn’t dance out of range fast enough.

    War of the Roses & Mount & Blade don’t need guessing games because they rely on four different blocks, as opposed to one; any time your opponent switches side or feints you in those games, you have time to react and change your block as appropriate, but granted, it is a small amount of time but the point is you always have a chance to react and are never left hanging in a state of ‘dead time’.

    Chivalry has no recovery based punishments (thanks to feint to parry), so footwork isn’t as important as it could potentially be. Chivalry has no multiple blocks, besides looking left and right. Chivalry has no dancing, besides Vanguards and their long weapons. The ONLY thing this game really has left is feints, remove it entirely and it becomes a trade fest for the most part. It’s simply down to the way it was designed, feint was needed later in development to prevent long stalemates which just ends up with people running out of stamina, and that’s no fun when it happens in the majority of duels. Sure, no feints are nice for one or two fights, but imagine EVERY duel vs a good player being about who can maintain their stamina the best.

    I exclusively duel without feints, and it does not boil down to stamina most of the time. More often than not the only times I win due to stamina are either against good maa which is often the only way to get a hit in, or against people who carelessly manage their stamina by wasting it on feint to parries.

    Duels are far more intense, and there are only a handful of players that I ever end up going into epicly long duels with, but that’s the damn point. Their skill is relatively even with mine, with slight variations in style, and it’s a constant struggle of defensive and offensive might being employed again and again against each other. It is awesome, no other word for it… it inspires awe and excitement beyond anything duels with feints offer.

    @NoVaLombardia:

    @Panzerlang:

    Turns a game of skill (the swordfight) into a total coin-toss. Can’t imagine what the devs were smoking when they dreamed it up.

    There’s no such thing as a coin-toss in this game. There is no element of randomness.

    Player 1 decides to feint. Player 2 decides to parry.

    There’s no 3rd party controlling the fate of that. Everything is controlled by the players.

    To any given human being, subjectively, something is random if they do not possess the information necessary to predict what will happen. In the event of a feint attack, you have limited ability to predict. It is not entirely random against someone you fight against a lot, since you develop a sense of their patterns and what they are likely to do, but this is limited. For the most part, it is random, simply due to lack of time to process the information required for it not to be random.

    Why is a coin-toss random? I can look at what what side the coin is at before I flip it, but my mind and eyes are not fast enough to analyze the information of the coin as it is being flipped. If I was fast enough, I would be able to see how many times it turns, and I’d know the result, but alas just like feints, humans are not fast enough.

    Arguments against removing feints:::

    1. Blocking is too powerful, fights last too long, and are pretty boring to watch.
    2. Turtling would be really easy; TO competitive play would end up tie-ing on the same objectives a lot.
    3. More options = higher skill ceiling. Don’t remove options from a game.

    1 - Blocking is on that cusp, but not entirely. I still find it quite easy to bypass a parry against almost anyone, especially with 1hs, it’s so easy to get around a parry with them. Fights last a while in duels, which is a good thing not bad. If you think they’re boring to watch, I don’t even know what to say to that. I guess personal preference, but that’s like saying you don’t like chocolate. Doesn’t make sense.

    2 - I firmly and completely disagree with this. In competitive team games feints are far far less potent and by that extension far less necessary. There is so much chaos that standard fakeouts are even more effective than usual, not to mention how fast other players move and your confinement to first person meaning you will get hit often without even seeing what happened. That’s the point. Oh, and archers.

    3 - This is incorrect if those options are improperly balanced against each other. More balanced options = higher skill ceiling.

    Besides, in the beta, the feints seem pretty readable to me. The only issue is with fast weapons that can still punish people even though they fell in the 0.15 sec mark.

    The beta amplifies feints as parrying sooner is necessary. 150 ms is well, well below average human reaction time, and that’s with nothing but one thing to focus on. Even in a 1vs1 duel you’re looking and analyzing more than just the weapon.



  • There are no logical arguments to removing feint. None, whatsoever.

    It’s either people who have no idea about real combat and think duels should last for 5 minutes with swords clanging together because that’s what they see in the movies.

    Or it’s people who are rank 40+ who use all the dirty tricks and exploits in the game who only want to focus on being on the offensive with lookdown overheads and don’t like being killed by someone lower rank than them from a feint.


Log in to reply