Stamina drain from successful parries (POLL)



  • So - there has been a couple threads on this: but heres a poll for it - cus its the best way for TB to see general community wishes at a glance.

    –--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overview:

    Chivalry uses a stamina “pool”, which drains upon the use of certain moves: such as dodging for MAA, and feints. This means that you can only perform a certain amount of moves, before becoming stamina drained. If drained, you cannot combo, you cannot perform more moves (that use stamina), and you will be “stunned” if you make another successful parry. This “stun” will often be giving the enemies around you a free hit each. Not becoming stamina drained, and thus managing stamina well is very important, for these obvious reasons.

    You also lose some stamina for missing attacks, which punishes imprecision.

    However when you successfully parry an attack, you also lose stamina. You gain the option to riposte from this: so you are somewhat rewarded for your parry - but only if you are immediately offensive: and this can be predictible - or not helpful in certain situations. Certain weapons drain more stamina than others - parrying a maul loses more stamina than parrying a dagger.

    Recently: Torn Banner added the “Parry into Parry” mechanic - which allows a player to immediately parry again instantly after making one successful parry. This means that if a player is surrounded - they can; with skill, parry several incoming attacks and remain unscathed. BUT unfortunately, this defensive play is limited heavily: as often in these situations the outnumbered player simply gets stamina drained: and then is cut to pieces whilst defenceless.

    –----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many people believe that you should not be stamina drained at all for making successful parries, enabling a player of high skill to defend themselves to the LIMIT of their own skill. As it stands, defensive play is not a good idea, players are almost punished for making successful parries: avoiding damage at the cost of stamina - which becomes almost a second healthbar, which once drained leads to certain death.

    Many high level players will always seek to attack, regardless of the situation and even when heavily outnumbered - but this is only because their choices are limited - they are experienced enough to know that defensive play is often a bad idea.

    Stamina drain for successful parries. What do you think should happen?

    I think that stamina drain for parries should be HEAVILY reduced for most weapons: but not for smaller one handers such as daggers, 1hed axes and maces, or shortswords etc.



  • Absolutely not. In theory parrying multiple attacks completely unharmed in both health and stamina might sound epic and skillful, but this will unnecessarily lengthen battles for the less experienced players who don’t yet know how to attack around someone’s defense.

    In Chivalry players often witness duels that go on and on until someone finally runs out of stamina. I’d rather have this than no end to these duels at all.

    In fact, I think the difference in stamina cost for parrying should be more exaggerated. Parrying daggers with a Maul should barely cost any stamina at all, while Archers really shouldn’t be able to parry multiple Mauls in rapid succession.



  • @Rickvs:

    Absolutely not. In theory parrying multiple attacks completely unharmed in both health and stamina might sound epic and skillful, but this will unnecessarily lengthen battles for the less experienced players who don’t yet know how to attack around someone’s defense.

    We should probably be focused on how it impacts comp play.

    @Rickvs:

    In Chivalry players often witness duels that go on and on until someone finally runs out of stamina. I’d rather have this than no end to these duels at all.

    Same deal here, but teamplay is more important.



  • I mean - your entitled to your opinion: but what it boils down to from where im sitting is -

    “It will raise the skill ceiling and this is bad because it makes it harder for noobs”. Since when has that ever been a bad thing? They will have to learn.

    Im not an advocate of “infinite stamina” - people will still be drained for using feints, missing attacks etc… I dont want stam drain for parries removed entirely, but i want it heavily reduced from its current state. It limits the usefulness of a players personal skill.



  • I think stamina drain on parry should be dynamic based on what you’re using and what you’re parrying. Using a longsword and parrying a long sword should cost less than parrying a maul. Heavy two-hand weapons like maul, zweihander, ect. should drain a lot more than lighter two-hand weapons, and also using a light weapon to parry heavy weapons should cost more stamina. Parrying a pole hammer with a short sword should cost more than parrying a sword of war. Parrying with a dagger should cost more than parrying with a short sword.

    It should be dynamic based on weapon weight for both the weapon used to parry and the weapon you’re parrying against.

    As far as current values, it does feel like you run out just a tad too fast. As much as I liked on release’s stamina values, maybe it was too forgiving for today’s mechanics. I think vanguard’s draining stamina/extra knock back wasn’t exactly the buff they needed, though.



  • Would be interesting to see where this goes…



  • I really hope this goes ignored. This is the very definition of a careful what you wish for scenario.

    @Triumphant:

    I mean - your entitled to your opinion: but what it boils down to from where im sitting is -

    “It will raise the skill ceiling and this is bad because it makes it harder for noobs”. Since when has that ever been a bad thing?

    When a fairly new company is developing a game that could stand to be more popular? Don’t be so quick to dismiss every mechanic that allows new players to feel like they’re contributing. A tasty morsel like being one of the gang who brought down a giant of a player just by being there is the kind of experience that keeps people playing.

    Winning a 1vX is another, so I can see why people want more stamina, but just raising the level feels like a gimme. I’d prefer a mechanic where you had to work for advantage, like adrenaline. Here’s what it boils down to from where I’m sitting:

    “I don’t like dying and it’d happen less if I had more stamina.”

    Probably right. Hard to tell until they try it. But other players probably get a kick out of you dying, hypothetical person, so you’ll just have to live and let live. Or live and let DIEEE.



  • @McLumberjack:

    I really hope this goes ignored. This is the very definition of a careful what you wish for scenario.

    When a fairly new company is developing a game that could stand to be more popular? Don’t be so quick to dismiss every mechanic that allows new players to feel like they’re contributing. A tasty morsel like being one of the gang who brought down a giant of a player just by being there is the kind of experience that keeps people playing.

    Winning a 1vX is another, so I can see why people want more stamina, but just raising the level feels like a gimme. I’d prefer a mechanic where you had to work for advantage, like adrenaline. Here’s what it boils down to from where I’m sitting:

    “I don’t like dying and it’d happen less if I had more stamina.”

    Probably right. Hard to tell until they try it. But other players probably get a kick out of you dying, hypothetical person, so you’ll just have to live and let live. Or live and let DIEEE.



  • @McLumberjack:

    I really hope this goes ignored. This is the very definition of a careful what you wish for scenario.

    When a fairly new company is developing a game that could stand to be more popular? Don’t be so quick to dismiss every mechanic that allows new players to feel like they’re contributing. A tasty morsel like being one of the gang who brought down a giant of a player just by being there is the kind of experience that keeps people playing.

    Winning a 1vX is another, so I can see why people want more stamina, but just raising the level feels like a gimme. I’d prefer a mechanic where you had to work for advantage, like adrenaline. Here’s what it boils down to from where I’m sitting:

    “I don’t like dying and it’d happen less if I had more stamina.”

    Probably right. Hard to tell until they try it. But other players probably get a kick out of you dying, hypothetical person, so you’ll just have to live and let live. Or live and let DIEEE.

    You’ve completely missed the point. Nothing of what you just said applies to this. The “very definition of a careful what you wish for” scenario?

    Extremely ironic, given that you advocate giving an “adrenaline system” that gives stamina back for successful hits or kills… Do i even need to say why that is ridiculous, and would be absolutely game breaking?

    You’ve misquoted me and missed the point entirely. Did you even read the poll? The point isnt MORE stamina, enabling a player to spaff around missing attacks. Its less stamina drain for SUCCESSFUL PARRIES ONLY. How is that a “gimme”? You still have to make the parries. How in any way could that be gamebreaking? It raises the skillcap and nothing more.

    It will barely even affect the rabble. You telling me that reducing stam drain for parries is going to overnight make noobs die in droves (even more than they already do?).

    You can still be “part of the gang” that took down a good player, its not hard to sprint at him in a pack and spam lmb till he goes down, hes still hardly likely to survive. It just gives him an actual chance if he’s good enough to make the parries, giving time for teammates to arrive and help… rather than rewarding him with paralysis and death.



  • Yes I know what the poll is about. I know it’s SPECIFICALLY about parries and drain, but the net result is more stamina, even if that’s not the point. Look, if I have five apples… I’m going to stop here and assume you don’t need the apples to see why this is the case. But I’ll gladly come back to it if you genuinely can’t grasp it.

    As you say it raises the skillcap, or in other words allows skilled players to die less and dominate more than they already do. Fuck that, they have enough fun as is and it genuinely does risk driving away new players for an easy life.

    Inexplicable Reggae Break

    As for SUCCESSFUL PARRIES ONLY. As opposed to what, being hit in the face? It’s a gimme because the player isn’t having to do anything additional for it. Adrenaline (I favour the kills only option, just so you know, of course hits would be broken) you’re having to actually ACT to get your bonus. In a 1vX, kill 1 and you’ll be that much better off against the X-1. It’s a perk for making progress, and a loss for the mob for letting you kill one of them.



  • I think I’d rather just see a slightly larger stamina pool. Although perhaps if you do a successful Parry into Parry then the second parry should have no stamina cost; this to help with 1vx fights.



  • This is a no brainer.



  • @McLumberjack:

    Yes I know what the poll is about. I know it’s SPECIFICALLY about parries and drain, but the net result is more stamina, even if that’s not the point. Look, if I have five apples… I’m going to stop here and assume you don’t need the apples to see why this is the case. But I’ll gladly come back to it if you genuinely can’t grasp it.

    As you say it raises the skillcap, or in other words allows skilled players to die less and dominate more than they already do. Fuck that, they have enough fun as is and it genuinely does risk driving away new players for an easy life.

    Inexplicable Reggae Break

    You can try and sort of… talk down to me if you like - Mr “stamina should be regenerated upon successful hits or kills”.

    Skilled players will still probably die 95% of the time in 3v1s, but just not during some fucking stunlock from which they cannot defend themselves.

    This change would have a mild effect on gameplay at most, but overall make it more fluid - whilst raising the skillcap and more importantly promoting options for a player. A defensive playstyle will suddenly be more viable. Why should we be restricted to all out offensive play in order to stand a chance of surviving in 1vNs? Moreover - that concept in itself defies logic.

    But regardless - the risk of players “leaving for an easy life” is negligible, as these kind of players never exceed 50 hours anyway: they do not form the backbone of your community for any longer than a very transient moment. They should not be catered for, as they will not be here in a years time.



  • This post is deleted!


  • There’s an additional paragraph made as an edit which addresses some of your points.

    It wasn’t my intention that the noobs were the ones asking for an easy life.

    I certainly don’t find myself having to go ‘all out offensive’ to win a 1vX right now, it’s about striking a balance. This topic seems to be advocating an ‘all in’ defensive style though. I don’t see why the game should allow people to just go rope-a-dope. Some of the numbers thrown around in recent parry threads have been very un-mild too.

    Mr “Something you didn’t say”.



  • This would be great for the game and I would love to have this! Fighting 1xN would be far less annoying.



  • i don’t understand this obsession with 1vX situations, do you guys just run forward not giving a shit about your teammates and then expect to win? no other game rewards or has mechanics in place to “allow” an outnumbered player to “stand a chance”. and as for dealing with 1vX’s with a “defensive” playstyle you are eventually going to lose if you don’t take out a player quickly and efficiently anyway.

    even talking about pubs there is very little you can do in most games as a 1v3 situation where all 3 of them are in a group and staring you down with full resources. i mean i might be getting your “arguments” wrong so please explain why lowering stamina on parry is a good thing when you list a fucking disadvantageous position as a balancing factor.

    all this really does (assuming feint costs aren’t changed but parry cost is) is make feints even stronger because you’re not punished as heavily for feinting and parrying, not to mention this whole “defensive playstyle” thing doesn’t make any sense to me. do people just sit there, parry all day and not attack/feint or something



  • I think it stems from friendly flinch being removed, as well as most servers having some friendly fire limits. It’s not that 1vX is a disadvantage, it’s that it has mechanics in place that make it more of a disadvantage than it should be. The best thing to do in such a situation is to use footwork and the environment to position your enemies in such a way that they hit each other and then take advantage of that, but the game as it stands undercuts this.

    I’d rather see friendly flinch come back, though, than mitigate an entirely different mechanic that works well to patch this hole.



  • maybe not have friendly flinch for archer/ranged attacks but only melee instead



  • Indeed it should be lowered for all weapons. Infinite would be a bad idea as it’d make shieldusers close to immortal, but lowered would be great.