Just curious



  • Just wanted to quickly ask–

    If a majority of people can’t defend against something, but some who have invested extra time physically can on a regular basis, does that something fit the definition of imbalanced?

    Just want to get my definition straight.



  • Whether or not it is imbalanced depends on the context, but it is almost assuredly stupid.



  • so in your opinion, you shouldn’t have to practice to get good at doing something? that certainly fits MY definition of stupid.



  • It’s not about time spent, but about effort required + how consistently it can be done in most cases for “unbalanced” IMO. Time spent should rarely be a factor on balance vs unbalance, but understand that every situation is different and unique.



  • Not imbalanced, but it’s very frustrating to find such a thing in game and is generally poor game design. You don’t want to pile difficulty onto newer players so much, since that drives players away.



  • @magilla:

    so in your opinion, you shouldn’t have to practice to get good at doing something? that certainly fits MY definition of stupid.

    That’s not what I said at all.

    I get the feeling you started this thread just to pick a fight with someone. Grow up.



  • @RushSecond:

    Not imbalanced, but it’s very frustrating to find such a thing in game and is generally poor game design. You don’t want to pile difficulty onto newer players so much, since that drives players away.

    Ah. So football isn’t fun to play because the team that practices more and works harder performs better? Just wondering, since I really enjoy working to improve. Didn’t know implementing stuff like that was bad game design. So we should aim for making it so that no matter the time and effort invested, all players are equal, in your opinion?



  • @dudeface:

    @magilla:

    so in your opinion, you shouldn’t have to practice to get good at doing something? that certainly fits MY definition of stupid.

    That’s not what I said at all.

    You said that it was assuredly stupid to perform better under a larger time investment… I.E. practicing to get good? What did you mean then, friend?



  • Are you unhappy because your facehugging alt swings don’t work as well or something? Poor little baby.



  • @magilla:

    @dudeface:

    @magilla guerrilla:

    so in your opinion, you shouldn’t have to practice to get good at doing something? that certainly fits MY definition of stupid.

    That’s not what I said at all.

    You said that it was assuredly stupid to perform better under a larger time investment… I.E. practicing to get good? What did you mean then, friend?

    I meant whatever it was that most people could not defend against (that instead required some exorbitant amount of practice) was stupid, but not necessarily imbalanced.



  • @dudeface:

    Are you unhappy because your facehugging alt swings don’t work as well or something? Poor little baby.

    No, are you mad because they killed you?

    @dudeface:

    I meant whatever it was that most people could not defend against (that instead required some exorbitant amount of practice) was stupid, but not necessarily imbalanced.

    So, in other words, if there are multiple mechanics in a game which take practice to defend, they are inherently stupid?

    I’m not raging about any specific mechanic. I’m simply questioning why so many different games are becoming “liquified” and stripped of mechanics; I.E. dumbed down and intuitive. I am just seeing the trend that more and more people are becoming anti-competition.



  • Your question is so vague that it can apply to a game mechanic that is completely broken, or something that is legitimately interesting but difficult. If you want to have a discussion about something, then narrow down your question. As it stands, it looks like you’re just trying to set people up to get insulted.



  • @dudeface:

    Your question is so vague that it can apply to a game mechanic that is completely broken, or something that is legitimately interesting but difficult. If you want to have a discussion about something, then narrow down your question. As it stands, it looks like you’re just trying to set people up to get insulted.

    If it it defensible, is it broken? I never insinuated that this was in regards to any broken mechanic.



  • @RushSecond:

    Not imbalanced, but it’s very frustrating to find such a thing in game and is generally poor game design. You don’t want to pile difficulty onto newer players so much, since that drives players away.

    Not always true. Any good competitive game ever does what the OP is describing. Learning to surmount those difficulties as a new player is where a lot of people derive their enjoyment.



  • @magilla:

    @dudeface:

    Your question is so vague that it can apply to a game mechanic that is completely broken, or something that is legitimately interesting but difficult. If you want to have a discussion about something, then narrow down your question. As it stands, it looks like you’re just trying to set people up to get insulted.

    If it it defensible, is it broken? I never insinuated that this was in regards to any broken mechanic.

    This question is kind of affirming the consequent, do you mean “If something can be defended against, can it be considered imbalanced?”?

    If so, then yes, something can be both of these simultaneously



  • @Josh:

    @magilla:

    @dudeface:

    Your question is so vague that it can apply to a game mechanic that is completely broken, or something that is legitimately interesting but difficult. If you want to have a discussion about something, then narrow down your question. As it stands, it looks like you’re just trying to set people up to get insulted.

    If it it defensible, is it broken? I never insinuated that this was in regards to any broken mechanic.

    This question is kind of affirming the consequent, do you mean “If something can be defended against, can it be considered imbalanced?”?

    If so, then yes, something can be both of these simultaneously

    I was implying that in a game of this nature, a completely broken mechanic probably could not be defended against.



  • There’s a difference between imbalance and bad design.

    Here, I drew you a chart about why the prior implementation of feinting was dumb.

    [image:282et714]http://i41.tinypic.com/2yzdezl.jpg[/image:282et714]

    Chivalry last patch was very much a case of the latter. Your performance scales with skill linearly as you become more familiar with the game, but once you’ve got the basics down it plateaus for a while, then makes a huge jump simply by mastering unintuitive mechanics like last second combo feints and combo feint to parry.

    The reason this skill scaling is so unintuitive is because without these mechanics, you are rewarded for being careful and calculated with your attacks. The less a new player spams attacks, the better they become because they’ll leave less openings and make less mistakes. Until they discover feinting - and then spamming attacks is rewarded, because they never leave themselves open while being able to trick enemies into making mistakes. Beyond this point skill scaling is pretty slow as well because it all becomes about predicting this single mechanic. You essentially don’t get better at any other part of the game except reading feints once you’ve mastered them.

    Now there are more mechanics to learn and no catch-all spam tactic. The skill ceiling is just as high but the road to get there is smoother and more intuitive. The reason people don’t like this isn’t because the ceiling was lowered, it’s because they’ve dropped several rungs on the ladder and have to learn new things to get back to where they were.

    @magilla:

    I was implying that in a game of this nature, a completely broken mechanic probably could not be defended against.

    Super fast combo feinted swings back before feints had a recovery time were simple enough to defend against, but they were unarguably broken. Bugged practically hitscan crossbow bolts pre-hotfix were easy to defend against just by bringing a shield, but they too were obviously broken.

    Of course, if the game had shipped with these oversights and we took too long to fix them, they’d have become ingrained into the meta just like combo feint spamming. There’d be legions of people defending these broken mechanics. The only thing I regret about Patch 2 was that it didn’t come much sooner so people wouldn’t have been totally reliant on this playstyle before it was fixed.



  • @SlyGoat:

    [image:f9t7qljn]http://i41.tinypic.com/2yzdezl.jpg[/image:f9t7qljn]

    I think this visual representation makes this idea very clear. Thanks Sly.

    I should start drawing pictures more when presenting arguments… how ironic.



  • I have to say that I agree with you in regards to the “spammability” of the feint mechanic. I am fairly certain that no one here enjoyed the machine-like view of arms driving back and forth rapidly before a swing. Although this was a mechanic one could defend against after enough time invested, it was not enjoyable. In fact, I refused to use it.

    However, I totally disagree with you on combo feint to parry. You say it’s unintuitive, and I hear that a lot. However, we always had the ability to feint. Why wouldn’t we be able to perform it during a combo?

    You changed the feint mechanic: made it so that only during a certain point in windup could it be used. You say that this angers people primarily because they had to learn new things to get to where they were. However, the best players have still been consistently the best players. There was no new learning curve.

    If you swing a sword, you can stop it anywhere in its swing. It may be difficult, but momentum does not hinder you that much. What are people really dissuaded by? They are dissuaded by the change in PACE in the game. Stamina pools are lower, and we can no longer cancel an attack into a parry from our reactions. If we face two opponents and strike one, we will most likely take a hit in return from the other. Do you realize how this changes pace, the momentum of the player, and the overall dynamic of the game? You took the fluid feel of combat and essentially made it clunky. We can no longer manipulate the weapon accurately; instead, if we swing, we are completely susceptible. While this works from a dueling standpoint, it withdraws much of the reactionary essence of the game. And, in team play… Well, it’s obviously a pace-killer.



  • My opinions are nil in speaking to you, because you are a developer, and ultimately the game will adhere to your vision. I loved Chivalry then and love it now, and would ask that you do not pool me in with feint spammers, look-down overheaders, or facehuggers. But for me, the pace has changed drastically.


Log in to reply