Combo Feint to Parry



  • At first you had a system that was simple and elegant and now you have the current system. Removing panic parry doesn’t fix it, it only further limits options. Building on that point, I can only reiterate the smartest thread on this board: (credit to Chrisomatic of Lg)

    @chrisomatic:


    Figure 1 - Chiv Combat Flow (Current)

    The (X)'s indicate restrictions:

    Technically, these (X)'s result in new states - so the actual flow diagram of combat looks like this:


    Figure 2 - Chiv Combat Flow (Current - Extended)

    It is much easier to read the first one, but it’s important to see the system for what it is. Because of these restrictions, there are 3 different wind-ups, 2 different parries, and 2 different feint states.

    Notice that the “Panic Parry” blue line is essentially a substitute for the ‘combo > feint > parry’ string, allowing a way to bypass attack recovery - except you can’t riposte from it.

    PROBLEMS WITH PANIC PARRY

    It provides a skill-less route to bypass attack recovery.

    It is one-directional.

    It’s confusing.

    But what if we simplified Figure 1/2? What if we removed all the restrictions and the panic parry line? We would get this:


    Figure 3 - Chiv Combat Flow (Simple)

    This is a complete view. In this world there is only one kind of wind-up state, one parry state, and one feint state. Seems a little more intuitive. Maybe even elegant?

    This system offers no restriction, and the maximum possible options. It provides more complex pathways which allows for more depth of combat and is the vision of why Chivalry was so great to me. It has avenues for experimentation, differing play-styles, and mind-games.

    Why have there been more and more (X)'s added to the fighting system over time? They seem to be put in place to prevent actions that are deemed “exploitative”. But in doing this it complicates the system in an arbitrarily bad way and restricts the freedom of the player…

    Design your combat system to be simple, elegant, and intuitive and nothing else really matters.
    Strive so that each mechanic is orthogonal and covers a large amount of game play space and the game will be fun and interesting.

    FURTHER THOUGHTS

    One question I wanted to bring up is,

    Why can I feint-to-parry after an attack, but if I combo an attack I can’t do it?

    Chivalry is a complex game. But, I feel that if the mechanics and state system is designed in a simple and intuitive way, then balancing is just a matter of getting the numbers right (state window times, weapon damage, weapon length, stamina costs, etc…). But the approach taken currently seems to be ‘I can balance the game If I adjust and limit the way a player can play my game’. Sure, you may be able to get closer to a balanced game by removing certain actions by the player because it minimizes the possible permutations of the game state - but that is not the right way.

    For example, if you consider the ancient chinese game “Go”, the rules are extremely simple. And because of this, the game is considered by many to be one of the greatest games ever created. And it’s because of the beauty that can happen as two players play it. There are a HUGE amount of possible states of that game, and tons of potential for intelligent minds to be challenged and improved by exploring the interesting space that “Go” offers. Chivalry doesn’t have to be designed as simply as “Go”, but I think that striving for a more elegant rule-set can only make a game more beautiful and interesting in that way.



  • Agree.

    Also: No CFTP = Dodge very op

    +1



  • one swing at a time, boys!



  • @CRUSHED:

    Agree.

    Also: No CFTP = Dodge very op

    +1

    +2

    +1


Log in to reply