"Mistakes" - a misunderstood, and often false concept



  • I always see on the forums how people should pay for their “mistakes”. This is one thing I can’t stand. Yes, people can make mistakes, but often people refer to things as “mistakes” that aren’t really mistakes.

    For example:
    You see an enemy start to approach the back of your ally and stab. You approach the enemy and stab. The enemy was trying to bait you the whole time - they turn and try to force their stab into you. You feint to parry and block his stab.

    What happened there? You made the correct play - you covered your friends back. You were forced to feint to parry because the enemy was baiting you - again, a correct play. Yet, people will say, feint to parry lets you make up for mistakes.

    The point is, you often take action without knowing what other people are going to do. All you can do is make the correct decision at that moment. The game shoud provide you the tools to react quickly to the actions of others (e.g. feint 2 parry, dodge, etc.). So enough with the whole feint to parry lets you get out of mistakes, dodges let you get out of mistakes, xyz… it’s really not based in fact. MAAs make moves knowing that they have the ability to dodge if someone reacts in a certain way… they also have the disadvantage of needing to be close and of being 1 shot.

    ~Mystikkal



  • You can still feint to parry.



  • if you read it right, he never said that you could not. Just like he never said that you could not dodge, he simply pointed out to others that complain about these things that they SHOULD be there, not that they aren’t and so should be added.



  • @Mystikkal:

    I always see on the forums how people should pay for their “mistakes”. This is one thing I can’t stand. Yes, people can make mistakes, but often people refer to things as “mistakes” that aren’t really mistakes.

    For example:
    You see an enemy start to approach the back of your ally and stab. You approach the enemy and stab. The enemy was trying to bait you the whole time - they turn and try to force their stab into you. You feint to parry and block his stab.

    What happened there? You made the correct play - you covered your friends back. You were forced to feint to parry because the enemy was baiting you - again, a correct play. Yet, people will say, feint to parry lets you make up for mistakes.

    The point is, you often take action without knowing what other people are going to do. All you can do is make the correct decision at that moment. The game shoud provide you the tools to react quickly to the actions of others (e.g. feint 2 parry, dodge, etc.). So enough with the whole feint to parry lets you get out of mistakes, dodges let you get out of mistakes, xyz… it’s really not based in fact. MAAs make moves knowing that they have the ability to dodge if someone reacts in a certain way… they also have the disadvantage of needing to be close and of being 1 shot.

    ~Mystikkal

    Yeah, absolutely nothing wrong with that. I don’t know why people complain.



  • same complaint reasoning as cftp in my eyes, cftp is not much different than a feint to parry, it’s just after a combo… no idea why you can feint a regular attack and parry and riposte if need be, but you can’t feint a combo and parry



  • what makes you think this “mistake concept” applies to ftp in particular? I don’t get that impression at all, most posts I’ve seen use that reasoning against panic parry instead which really is nothing but an expensive falling net after you do a poorly placed swing AND forget to combo parry or move out of the way

    I use feint to parry if I want to avoid a hittrade or to be aggressive against heavy feinters, I could totally live without it if offensive feints got nerfed more but right now I think it’s in a good place



  • @lemonater47:

    You can still feint to parry.

    Thanks for the insight



  • Another thing that annoys me is when people bring up the “it is impossible unless the opponent makes a mistake” argument.

    Everyone makes mistakes constantly, even the best players. True skill shows if you are capable of recognizing those small mistakes people make in a given moment and are capable of capitalizing on them.



  • @NoVaLombardia:

    True skill shows if you are capable of recognizing those small mistakes people make in a given moment and are capable of capitalizing on them.

    True skill is making the least amount of mistakes possible, imo. As in, not letting them take control of the fight and not letting them maintain control of the fight if they get it.



  • In the sense of of the broad picture that makes sense.

    However, I am talking about micro stuff here – the stuff that makes the broad picture. Every move someone makes is a mistake. Depending how severe of a mistake it is decides how easy it is to capitalize on it.

    Also, 2 mistakes happen at one time (1 from each player); one may outweigh the other.

    A skilled player will be able to minimize (make smaller, not make less) those mistakes like you said, but also be able to capitalize on the smallest mistake possible.



  • @NoVaLombardia:

    Another thing that annoys me is when people bring up the “it is impossible unless the opponent makes a mistake” argument.

    Everyone makes mistakes constantly, even the best players. True skill shows if you are capable of recognizing those small mistakes people make in a given moment and are capable of capitalizing on them.

    I think that argument stands (and perhaps the perfect MAA is immortal), but it’s not necessarily a bad thing because indeed, everyone makes mistakes.

    When I fight a MAA it always feels like he’s in charge, either playing well enough to kill me or killing himself by running into a swing he could’ve avoided. “Could’ve avoided” is the point here; fast weapons + fast movement + dodge are more tools than any other class has to avoid situations in which you are truly at the mercy of your opponents. Vanguard may die because he gets countered by archers, knight may die because he gets surrounded easily, but as Man at Arms I feel like every death is an obvious mistake I made right there in the fight. I didn’t move/dodge properly, I was too aggressive or I just fought when I shouldn’t have, which is another unique defensive option you get as Man at Arms: you don’t have to fight. Depending on the gamemode you can often just opt out of combat, stall with dodge, run for teammates and noone can stop you unless there’s another MAA right up your ass.

    I think it’s great fun. I’m having a blast learning MAA after playing almost exclusively knight and vanguard for 400ish hours. I agree with skill consisting of making few mistakes yourself and exploiting your opponent’s mistakes, but I feel that as MAA you get more bang for your buck-skill on both accounts. If MAA does see a real nerf I hope he stays as unique as he is now.



  • Seriously? Have NONE of you read the art of war? ALL combat is essentially punishing your opponent for his mistakes. Playing a better game than he does, not to sound cliche but it is the ultimate “dance of war”



  • Vanguard may die because he gets countered by archers, knight may die because he gets surrounded easily, but as Man at Arms I feel like every death is an obvious mistake I made right there in the fight. I didn’t move/dodge properly, I was too aggressive or I just fought when I shouldn’t have

    This is true for all classes. There is never one person in full total control, even an archer shooting someone without a shield.

    As a vanguard dying to archers, you could also say what you said…“I didn’t move properly, or I was being too aggressive (greedy)” Or you didn’t place a good smoke.

    As a knight getting surrounded easily, you could also say what you said…“I didn’t move properly (positioning, straying too far away from teammates), or playing too aggressive and greedy.”

    “Could have avoided…” Any class could have “avoided” a situation, or handled such situation better. The point is that each class has their perk to handle a specific situation better. Dodge helps MAA to avoid help positioning (i’m avoiding from saying speed, because archers also have speed). Bows help archers assist teammates relatively safely. Vanguards have massive range to initiate, support, and zone. Knights have durability, which allows them to constantly keep pressure at a target.

    All these perks form roles that counter or support others in team play in specific situations depending on the map. It forms one big harmonious symphony. The key is to recognize.

    which is another unique defensive option you get as Man at Arms: you don’t have to fight.

    If you aren’t fighting, then you aren’t helping your team. Just because you may be able to get a better KD doesn’t mean you are the MVP (not as far as competitive play goes). All that time you are staying back and regenerating health or stamina could be a kill you could be assisting in, or saving a teammate from death.

    When I fight a MAA it always feels like he’s in charge

    This is a state of mind. The moment you feel someone else is in charge is the moment you gave up your control. You’re confusing being ‘in charge’ with requiring a different mindset to fighting a knight. Hell, you need a different mindset when fighting an archer, and even a vanguard.

    If MAA does see a real nerf I hope he stays as unique as he is now.

    MAA did see a real nerf. Enough to destroy viability of many weapons and force one play-style only. Their ability to handle group encounters at melee was weakened at an exchange of getting a better fire-pot.

    The day when capping out on MAA in competitive play is the only viable strategy is the day when MAA are truly overpowered. This has never been the case pre-patch, and certainly isn’t the case now.

    But lets keep this as general as possible and not another MAA OP thread.



  • MaA are only horrifically OP in duels. They’re perfect in team play but it’s not very skillful because of how piss easy it is to evade all damage with dodge. That’s why I think MaA shouldn’t have dodge, not that it makes them OP but that for 11 months now all it’s caused is trouble amongst the community and dodge is really skillless. Make it so you need good footwork to accomplish what you can now with a MaA, then I’ll be content.



  • @Jstorm:

    MaA are only horrifically OP in duels. They’re perfect in team play but it’s not very skillful because of how piss easy it is to evade all damage with dodge. That’s why I think MaA shouldn’t have dodge, not that it makes them OP but that for 11 months now all it’s caused is trouble amongst the community and dodge is really skillless. Make it so you need good footwork to accomplish what you can now with a MaA, then I’ll be content.

    Vanguard would be clearly superior over maa without dodge.



  • @Jstorm:

    @NoVaLombardia:

    True skill shows if you are capable of recognizing those small mistakes people make in a given moment and are capable of capitalizing on them.

    True skill is making the least amount of mistakes possible, imo. As in, not letting them take control of the fight and not letting them maintain control of the fight if they get it.

    It’s a combination of that, and pushing the opponent hard enough that s/he starts to make mistakes.



  • @rumpelstiltskin:

    @Jstorm:

    MaA are only horrifically OP in duels. They’re perfect in team play but it’s not very skillful because of how piss easy it is to evade all damage with dodge. That’s why I think MaA shouldn’t have dodge, not that it makes them OP but that for 11 months now all it’s caused is trouble amongst the community and dodge is really skillless. Make it so you need good footwork to accomplish what you can now with a MaA, then I’ll be content.

    Vanguard would be clearly superior over maa without dodge.

    Well, the idea is that you could do what you can now with MaA, just requiring good footwork.



  • @NoVaLombardia:

    Vanguard may die because he gets countered by archers, knight may die because he gets surrounded easily, but as Man at Arms I feel like every death is an obvious mistake I made right there in the fight. I didn’t move/dodge properly, I was too aggressive or I just fought when I shouldn’t have

    This is true for all classes.

    I’m saying it’s true to a greater extent for Man at Arms. Of course there’s always something you could’ve done better as any class, but rarely is the solution as easy and effective as it would be for a MAA. If I get surrounded as a knight I did something wrong, but I have to mess up a lot harder as MAA to be threatened in that situation. If I get killed as a knight because someone overcame my defenses with drags or angling then I failed because I wasn’t good enough, but if I was a Man at Arms I could’ve dodged any manner of tricky attack very easily despite my unchanged skill level.

    Maybe a better player doesn’t see this as clearly as me because he parries more consistently, but to someone who is above average at best it’s a world of difference to be able to just dodge every single attack.



  • @Torrenz:

    @NoVaLombardia:

    Vanguard may die because he gets countered by archers, knight may die because he gets surrounded easily, but as Man at Arms I feel like every death is an obvious mistake I made right there in the fight. I didn’t move/dodge properly, I was too aggressive or I just fought when I shouldn’t have

    This is true for all classes.

    I’m saying it’s true to a greater extent for Man at Arms. Of course there’s always something you could’ve done better as any class, but rarely is the solution as easy and effective as it would be for a MAA. If I get surrounded as a knight I did something wrong, but I have to mess up a lot harder as MAA to be threatened in that situation. If I get killed as a knight because someone overcame my defenses with drags or angling then I failed because I wasn’t good enough, but if I was a Man at Arms I could’ve dodged any manner of tricky attack very easily despite my unchanged skill level.

    Maybe a better player doesn’t see this as clearly as me because he parries more consistently, but to someone who is above average at best it’s a world of difference to be able to just dodge every single attack.

    I agree with everything.



  • @Mystikkal:

    I always see on the forums how people should pay for their “mistakes”. This is one thing I can’t stand. Yes, people can make mistakes, but often people refer to things as “mistakes” that aren’t really mistakes.

    For example:
    You see an enemy start to approach the back of your ally and stab. You approach the enemy and stab. The enemy was trying to bait you the whole time - they turn and try to force their stab into you. You feint to parry and block his stab.

    What happened there? You made the correct play - you covered your friends back. You were forced to feint to parry because the enemy was baiting you - again, a correct play. Yet, people will say, feint to parry lets you make up for mistakes.

    The point is, you often take action without knowing what other people are going to do. All you can do is make the correct decision at that moment. The game shoud provide you the tools to react quickly to the actions of others (e.g. feint 2 parry, dodge, etc.). So enough with the whole feint to parry lets you get out of mistakes, dodges let you get out of mistakes, xyz… it’s really not based in fact. MAAs make moves knowing that they have the ability to dodge if someone reacts in a certain way… they also have the disadvantage of needing to be close and of being 1 shot.

    ~Mystikkal

    I agree with you. I guess it’s just the people that got many kills by killing their enemy while they were recovering from their strike. Those are usually those that decline to use feints or drags because they say its OP.

    Mistakes should be punished, yes. But as you said feint to parry is not making up a mistake, it’s just defending yourself. People complain about feinting being a luck-game. Well… Wouldn’t it be a luck-game, if we removed feint to parry, so you can’t defend yourself against an enemy that turned around to hit you while you were winding up an attack??
    Also: It would probably result in less Teamplay. In my experience every gamemode, except for FFA and Duel, is won by Teamplay. Even if it’s just two guys working together, covering each other’s back.
    They survive and get to the objective. Removing stuff like feint to parry would make it harder to cover each other effectively and less people would stay close to each other.
    And I guess a single vanguard would also get an advantage of that. Many people are complaining about the vanguard being op because you can easily handle multiple enemies alone as a vanguard. But it’d be even easier if there was no feint to parry.

    My multy-enemy tactic is always the same: Aim at the one guy, windup and then aim at the other guy. He usually blocks to late because he didn’t expect you to attack him and was probably winding up an attack. Now, he could feint to parry, so he won’t get the hit and the other one could hit you while you’re recovering from the blocked attack. Without feint to parry, this would be impossible and more people would cry out for a vanguard nerf. My poor beloved vanguard… Hated so much. :( Thanks to stupid LMB-spammers that get more tks than good kills and thanks to bad players that can’t handle them and call them OP because of that. :(

    Well back to topic:
    I said everything. So now a short answer for all you guys who don’t want to read this all: I agree. Feint to parry needs to stay!!


Log in to reply