Let's Get Some Things Straight.



  • DW would be amazingly fun with a great flow to it and would have a super high skill ceiling with it’s TF2 style run speed and if it had CFTP, no no-feint windows, longer releases and shorter windups and combos and no sweetspot mechanic. But what do we have now? 20,000 artificial walls you smash into head-on.

    As for my windup/combo/release idea, which I’ve never mentioned until now, I think we should shave off 25% of weapons’ windups and combos and make releases 25% longer, making the power of drags more on-par with feints and making certain skillful SUPRISE, YOU’RE DEAD tactics such as the skorpion require even faster reactions to parry and possibly make it something worth going for, of coarse if you remove the stupid sweet-spot mechanic. “But would this make drags too powerful?” Certainly not, I’d say even feints are balanced in DW because of how easy it is to sidestep someone’s attack if they aren’t expecting it and let’s not forget you need to lose some of you’re vision in order to drag. “But wouldn’t animation’s look retarded?” Who says the animations have to change? Just keep them the same but make that last 25% of the windup/combo animation the first 20% of the new release(if you don’t speak math or you don’t understand how speed in this game works) that means the damaging part of your attack will start a few tenths of a second before the attack will accelerate. The timing for parrying a normal swing won’t change but accelerated swings in all forms and decelerated swings will be more powerful and maybe on-par with feints.

    As for additional DW feedback, the game is awesome keep it up.



  • I’m glad you aren’t the expert on what gives a game a high skill ceiling.

    And vote no to more molasses-speed lightsaber swings.



  • actually its a good idea

    feints are awful in dw



  • What is your argument against the sweetspot mechanic?



  • actually I like sweetspot mechanic but it shouldnt exist on onehanders



  • Crushed,

    @HeightofAbsurdity:

    What is your argument against the sweetspot mechanic [for one-handers]?

    :P

    Jstorm:

    I agree with you to some degree in your argument that the current way things are in DW (and MW) limits the player unduly in what they can do to such an extent that the lack of control actually produced anti-fun consequences (primarily with CFTP, but only to some very small degree with the no-feint window’s inclusion since really it is just the moving up of a barrier that would be in place anyways between the wind-up and release to a barrier a bit more on the side of the windup). This is the same problem restricting viking’s weapons feints on initial strikes runs into (which I hope was just a bug last time I played viking and not a conscious design decision): The game design principle that, all other things equal, more player control is preferable to less player control.

    However, despite Rushsecond’s less than substantive post, I do agree to some degree with his sentiment. I already feel like I can drag most attacks to a reasonable extent (especially the spartan weapons I play the most of). I also think that a flat 25%/25% swap on the windups and releases is an oversimplification, and probably a poor one as that would be the equivalent of taking weapon with a windup of 5 seconds and lowering it to 3.75 seconds (which is DRAMATICALLY lower).

    I am honestly curious as to what issue you take with the sweet spot mechanic. I’m highly in favor of it and can only really contrive of ways in which it adds to player control, realism, and the skill ceiling.



  • However, despite Rushsecond’s less than substantive post, I do agree to some degree with his sentiment. I already feel like I can drag most attacks to a reasonable extent (especially the spartan weapons I play the most of). I also think that a flat 25%/25% swap on the windups and releases is an oversimplification, and probably a poor one as that would be the equivalent of taking weapon with a windup of 5 seconds and lowering it to 3.75 seconds (which is DRAMATICALLY lower).

    A lot of times I come up with exact numbers. A lot of times I don’t. It doesn’t have to be 25%, more like 10-15%.

    I am honestly curious as to what issue you take with the sweet spot mechanic. I’m highly in favor of it and can only really contrive of ways in which it adds to player control, realism, and the skill ceiling.

    It’s not being against it but just being for drags and the fact that I don’t need much realism in the combat.



  • I think the sweetspot mechanic is a great gameplay mechanic as well as being realistic. It means there’s a consequence to using drags, as in generally you won’t do as much damage if you accelerate or decelerate your swing.

    However there’s no consequence for using feints in the same way. I suggest an attack after a feint should do less damage.



  • However there’s no consequence for using feints in the same way. I suggest an attack after a feint should do less damage.

    Have you tried sidestepping drags in DW? It’s so easy I don’t think the sweetspot mechanic is needed as a sort of “punishment” for dragging since, right now, all it does is make drags much weaker than feints and even feints are super easy to sidestep too. Basically, I don’t believe DW needs no-feint windows or sweetspots to nerf drags and feinting hen the movement speed is so fast.



  • @Jstorm:

    However there’s no consequence for using feints in the same way. I suggest an attack after a feint should do less damage.

    Have you tried sidestepping drags in DW? It’s so easy I don’t think the sweetspot mechanic is needed as a sort of “punishment” for dragging since, right now, all it does is make drags much weaker than feints and even feints are super easy to sidestep too. Basically, I don’t believe DW needs no-feint windows or sweetspots to nerf drags and feinting hen the movement speed is so fast.

    There’s nothing stopping you from changing your drag to counter the sidestep. Against noob draggers sidestepping is fine but against anyone else it doesn’t work much.



  • @lemonater47:

    @Jstorm:

    However there’s no consequence for using feints in the same way. I suggest an attack after a feint should do less damage.

    Have you tried sidestepping drags in DW? It’s so easy I don’t think the sweetspot mechanic is needed as a sort of “punishment” for dragging since, right now, all it does is make drags much weaker than feints and even feints are super easy to sidestep too. Basically, I don’t believe DW needs no-feint windows or sweetspots to nerf drags and feinting hen the movement speed is so fast.

    There’s nothing stopping you from changing your drag to counter the sidestep. Against noob draggers sidestepping is fine but against anyone else it doesn’t work much.

    Unless you’re talking strictly about LMB, most classes can outrun most weapons by sprinting forward and around their side. (This is what we mean by sidestepping, if you’re unaware) A tiny mistake can result in a miss/punish against a good duelist.

    I would like the sweet spot mechanic a lot more if it was consistent. Some weapon’s tracers are really off, most often on overheads.



  • @HeightofAbsurdity:

    The game design principle that, all other things equal, more player control is preferable to less player control.

    That is VERY generalized statement with a lot of caveats Height. When people talk about CFTP and “lack of control” affecting the depth of combat they all seem to be jumping to a misdirected conclusion. It’s easy to make the jump from, “cftp was taken out so I have less control in my combos and therefor the game must be worse” but in reality cftp was creating an environment with only one play style. Giving players choices about how they play and what they can do is where you get the most depth. You have to carefully balance things so that foo strategies don’t spring up and eclipse other choices of play. By removing cftp we opened up many more possibilities for footwork and defensive postures. I would argue that this increased the depth of chivalry far beyond what it was before. As I just said though it takes constant balancing and thinking to make sure various choices are equal. We have to actually discuss these issues in depth so that the developers will trust us enough to put out more patches with design and balance changes. There is always room for balancing and improving.



  • @Dr.Nick:

    @HeightofAbsurdity:

    The game design principle that, all other things equal, more player control is preferable to less player control.

    That is VERY generalized statement with a lot of caveats Height. When people talk about CFTP and “lack of control” affecting the depth of combat they a-ll seem to be jumping to a misdirected conclusion. It’s easy to make the jump from, “cftp was taken out so I have less control in my combos and therefor the game must be worse” but in reality cftp was creating an environment with only one play style. Giving players choices about how they play and what they can do is where you get the most depth. You have to carefully balance things so that foo strategies don’t spring up and eclipse other choices of play. By removing cftp we opened up many more possibilities for footwork and defensive postures. I would argue that this increased the depth of chivalry far beyond what it was before. As I just said though it takes constant balancing and thinking to make sure various choices are equal. We have to actually discuss these issues in depth so that the developers will trust us enough to put out more patches with design and balance changes. There is always room for balancing and improving.

    General game design principles are, by definition, general. And the qualifications are necessary so I don’t devolve into fallacies of accident.

    The argument that you raise is one that rises from a valid game design principle: that the inclusion of an option that makes all other options suboptimal, though technically adding to the amount of options available, practically limits the amount of viable options available.

    I don’t feel that CftP at all encouraged nothing but spamming though, nor do I think its inclusion with an even higher stam drain penalty would encourage nothing but combo spam. I’d equate the position that previously combat was nothing but combo spamming with the position that all no-feint duels are stale attack and parry cycles.

    By removing cftp we opened up many more possibilities for footwork and defensive postures.

    I actually feel that the buff to defensive postures has decreased the possibilities for footwork. It used to be that, due to the incentive for aggression CftP and a lack of feint window provided, that fights were almost entirely dictated by using proper footwork and range judgment to properly initiate and then keep that momentum going. Currently we see a ton more stam outs because people are able to parry a good bit more, to the point the majority of my fights I feel like I’m battling against a yellow bar rather than a red one. We see, where before you could choose whether or not to risk going in for a hit on one person when he had back up, people now refusing to engage until they have the numbers. The ability to play make has diminished. The ability to 1v1 an MAA (making them the only optimally viable 1v1 class imho) has been diminished.

    And again, I feel there is a misconception that everyone played the same way prepatch. My Gmace style was very different from Bada’s SoW style which was different from Legion’s SoW style which was different from Whisper’s poleaxe style which was different from Moose’s gmace style (u get the picture). MAA’s all played differently (in fact, there was actually a debate on the optimal way to play MAA which seems to have been quieted entirely since). Vg even used to have a greater variety of options afforded to him (though their removal was less concerned with balance and more concerned with aesthetics, and I feel I’m being charitable by excluding pre-nerf brandi as something that made other Vg weapons supoptimal). While defensive styles are stronger now, many offensive styles have been nerfed or invalidated completely, resulting in what I feel is less dynamic play and fewer optimal options available.



  • @Dr.Nick:

    @HeightofAbsurdity:

    The game design principle that, all other things equal, more player control is preferable to less player control.

    That is VERY generalized statement with a lot of caveats Height. When people talk about CFTP and “lack of control” affecting the depth of combat they all seem to be jumping to a misdirected conclusion. It’s easy to make the jump from, “cftp was taken out so I have less control in my combos and therefor the game must be worse” but in reality cftp was creating an environment with only one play style. Giving players choices about how they play and what they can do is where you get the most depth. You have to carefully balance things so that foo strategies don’t spring up and eclipse other choices of play. By removing cftp we opened up many more possibilities for footwork and defensive postures. I would argue that this increased the depth of chivalry far beyond what it was before. As I just said though it takes constant balancing and thinking to make sure various choices are equal. We have to actually discuss these issues in depth so that the developers will trust us enough to put out more patches with design and balance changes. There is always room for balancing and improving.

    I think this is a very well thought out and sensible argument. Which is nice because a lot of the pro-cftp crowd have categorised anyone who disagrees as having “no argument” or even worse “you just don’t like seeing me top the score boards and 1v4 people”.

    I think we need something to replace panic parry and cftp, something that does give control to the player but doesn’t end up with the max aggression/max defense reward dichotomy of cftp. A cftp with no riposte and/or extra stamina cost might work however I would like something that makes more intuitive sense. Launching into combos should logically be an aggressive play style with risk attached, it shouldn’t also provide a defensive maneuver that bypasses the recovery one would normally have to wait out if one was being more cautious and not comboing.



  • @Dr:

    I think this is a very well thought out and sensible argument. Which is nice because a lot of the pro-cftp crowd have categorised anyone who disagrees as having “no argument” or even worse “you just don’t like seeing me top the score boards and 1v4 people”.

    Its not an argument its an opinion.

    No CFTP has reduced the amount of playstyles/viable weapons for me.

    Also CFTP = more choices, you can choose to cftp or not, saving your stamina, you can choose to play with CFTP or not.

    CFTP removed? its one choice less :3



  • @CRUSHED:

    @Dr:

    I think this is a very well thought out and sensible argument. Which is nice because a lot of the pro-cftp crowd have categorised anyone who disagrees as having “no argument” or even worse “you just don’t like seeing me top the score boards and 1v4 people”.

    Its not an argument its an opinion.

    Great! Let’s play everyone’s favourite game… semantics!! That will help :D

    argument
    noun
    1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views
    2 a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

    opinion
    noun
    1. a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
    2. a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.

    I don’t see exactly what point you were trying to make, it seems to be both.



  • Below is my a bit of an aside, so I’ll quote it away:

    @[b:

    TL;DR: It is an argument where some of the statements that make up that argument are opinions]My technical definition for an argument has always been a set of statements, one or more of which (the premises) claims to give rational support for another (the conclusion). This case is a complex argument with the following premises and Conclusions:

    Statement 1: The inclusion of an option that yields a playstyle that makes all other options suboptimal, though technically adding to the amount of options available, practically limits the amount of viable playstyles available.

    Statement 2: CftP yields a playstyle that makes all other options suboptimal

    Statement 3: CftP, practically limits the amount of viable options available.

    Statement 4: Practically limiting the amount of viable options, all other things equal, is poor game design.

    Statement 5: Games shouldn’t include mechanics which are poor game design choices.

    Note that an argument need not be a good argument to be considered an argument. For example: Dr. Nick is a doctor, therefore he is the member of this board most qualified to assess the health of the game balance. Obviously bad argument (equivocation, appeal to unqualified authority, begging the question, etc.). It also doesn’t mean that the conclusion can’t be true just because one bad argument that shares the same conclusion exists (throwin’ that in here to emphasize I just wanted to have fun with Dr. Nick’s name and not make a passive aggressive statement that he lacks credibility). Also note that opinions are found in almost every argument as one element necessary for an argument to be considered an argument is a point of contention. To say that air is good for sustaining the life of humans because it has oxygen doesn’t really have any point of contention among rational humans. To say that HeightofAbsurdity is lame because he types shit that is too long that no one cares about is an argument, while the conclusion of that argument (that I’m lame) is an opinion (as much as some would have you believe it is a fact).

    Note that in the above aside, the point of contention primarily is statement 2. I’m very sick so I’m going to try to go back to bed now that I’ve finished my soup, but I’d like to address this statement in more depth later (I already gave an immensely superficial treatment of it in my last post in this thread). I’d also like to expand on why, in a similar vein to the claim Nick made that all things aren’t equal therefore the argument from increased player control is fallacious, the conclusion expressed by statement 4 above being applied to this case may also be fallacious.



  • Guess what if you dont use certain mechanics to its fullest in other competitive games you also play “suboptimal”

    @Dr:

    @CRUSHED:

    @Dr z0b:

    I think this is a very well thought out and sensible argument. Which is nice because a lot of the pro-cftp crowd have categorised anyone who disagrees as having “no argument” or even worse “you just don’t like seeing me top the score boards and 1v4 people”.

    Its not an argument its an opinion.

    Great! Let’s play everyone’s favourite game… semantics!! That will help :D

    argument
    noun
    1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views
    2 a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

    opinion
    noun
    1. a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
    2. a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.

    I don’t see exactly what point you were trying to make, it seems to be both.

    There are no facts to support his so called argument.



  • Lol@Dr Nicks post

    all you are saying:

    CFTP makes every other playstyle suboptimal

    guess what

    If people dont want to bunnyhop in quake they are playing on a suboptimal playstyle
    If people dont want to aim down sight in battlefield/cod they are playing on a suboptimal playstyle
    If people dont want to lasthit in dota they are playing on a suboptimal playstyle
    If people dont want to learn spray patterns in CS they are playing on a suboptimal playstyle
    If people dont want to rocketjump in TF2 as solly they are playing on a suboptimal playstyle
    If people want to use daggers 24/7 in chivalry they are playing on a suboptimal playstyle

    i could go on but i HOPE you get the point and i hope you understand now why your argument sounds so fucking stupid to me



  • Nearly all of those are not true. In battlefield/cod, you spend most of the game NOT aiming down the sights, because you get much better vision and mobility; you only aim when you actually want to shoot. In dota/lol, supports don’t want to last hit, instead letting teammates get the kill, not to mention many games are lost because one guy goes to farm while his team is engaged on 5v4. You don’t rocket jump constantly in TF2, since that’s killing yourself and wasting ammo when done at the wrong time.

    Meanwhile with CFTP, at any point that the choice mattered, you had to choose the combo to be playing optimally, and it’s availability made misses barely matter.


Log in to reply