Excellent game, but a few questions about the design.



  • Hey guys. Played Age of Chivalry back in the day, and was very happy to see a remake of the game and bought it the instant I saw it. Been having a great time in the game, and it is very well made with a good basic concept just like the original. And though this game is excellent, a few things diminish the game for me and I’m not sure if they were purposeful designs, oversights, or were simply not easy to fix.

    1.) The controls feel clunky at times, and the game doesn’t communicate the state of the player very well.
    I don’t feel fully in control of my character at all times. Sprinting sometimes cancels properly and sometimes doesn’t. Actions that cannot be performed while sprinting won’t cancel sprinting for me, like Dodge on MaA. If you can’t Dodge while Sprinting, why doesn’t pressing Dodge just cancel Sprint? Instead you have to manually cancel Sprint then press Dodge. Likewise, I sometimes Taunt in duel servers, but realize that I can’t Taunt, because I’m still Sprinting… Even though I’m standing still – very unintuitive that you are still in the “Sprint state” while stopped. Along those lines, the game also doesn’t really show me very clearly what I’m doing. When I’m sprinting, the only way I know is that my weapon flails up and down a bit faster than normal. In the middle of a fight, I can’t always tell whether I’m about to launch a swing or not and whether the enemy’s attack canceled mine or if it’s in queue and waiting to come. I feel like the “state” that the player is in could be communicated better. So on top of that, the movement sometimes feels unintuitive. There are so many things to get caught on and sometimes simple rocks in the ground are actually insurmountable barriers.

    2.) Archers and ranged weapons in general don’t seem to contribute to the gameplay.
    I’m sure a lot of people complained about Archers already, but I’d like to really ask the “why” question. What’s the idea behind Archers being able to put pressure on the enemy from so far away? I thought Archers would be interesting support units, but as they are they’re pretty much the main damage of the team, since they can attack at a range, can kill in one shot, and cannot be parried. If anyone knew of another game called Savage 2 (it was another melee-intensive game), the ranged weapons in that game were fast to switch to and allowed you to harass enemies, but you rarely kill an enemy straight up with only ranged weapons since they were fast and low damage harass weapons. Could Chivalry benefit from having Archers with support roles at a range rather than being medieval AWPers?

    3.) Weapon switching speed seems punishingly slow.
    I mean, most of the time secondary weapons are for switching to when the situation changes unexpectedly, and so you have a backup weapon. In this game, the weapon switches too slowly to use based on reacting to your enemy, so all it’s good for is switching to before you reach your enemy. But then the question is, why would a Vanguard, Man at Arms, or Knight want to at any point switch from his primary to his secondary? Arguably the only reason would be to use the blunt weapon advantage against Knights while your normal bladed weapon for everyone else, but it seems like the weapon switching mechanic could do more than this if handled better.

    4.) There’s not much of a way to deal with 2v1 situations.
    In 2v1s, usually you’re going to be limited greatly by your terrain, and your slow movement speed backwards means if the two aren’t stupid, they can easily surround you eventually just like cornering a King on a chessboard from two directions. There’s really zero ways to deal with a 2v1 situation other than hope they hit each other with friendly fire. Blocking is impossible against two separate players, especially with the blocking mechanics being unintuitive.

    5.) It feels like the game obscures a lot of its mechanics from the player.
    Having read up some information on the game, it just seems a lot of information on unintuitive game mechanics were never given to players. For example, a lot of weapons have thrusts that just aren’t practical. I’m not sure why 1/3 of the weapon’s utility is completely removed by design, but some axes and blunts simply have no business thrusting. The damage and reach is abysmal, or is overshadowed by a far better swing or overhead. And then there’s the kick, which we are told is useful against blockers, but in reality doesn’t really deal with blockers at all. And do you take more damage from attacks while you are attacking yourself? It seems to be so, but isn’t talked about either. And aside from that, the damage indicators are in the dreaded bar-graph form, telling us nothing. There are no units to compare when someone tells you a weapon does 32% damage and has 95% range with 21% speed, these percents don’t help us play with these weapons properly.

    6.) The combat could be a deeper experience, and the time-to-live in combat is a bit too short.
    Games with deep combat mechanics usually allow opponents to test each other out, which sometimes requires sacrificing some of your resources (in this case, health) to figure out your enemy’s mentality. But with people dying in 1-2 hits, it becomes more like Call of Duty, where that deeper experience isn’t there because people die with just a short exchange. I can’t look at an enemy, see his name is Blahblah, and know that he has a certain way of fighting and use that metacognition to fight him differently. And also, on the note of depth in combat, why is it that weapons do not cancel if they are hit? Being hit during or after windup shouldn’t matter. If you are hit, your weapon must cancel. Otherwise people can do horizontals all day, get hit all day, and still nab a few undeserved kills. If I strike before my enemy, we shouldn’t both take damage. And then there’s the blocking; a great number of times you will be staring straight at where the attack is coming, block, and – It hits you anyway…? You have no idea what just happened, or what you can do to do better next time, all you know is that block is unreliable. And on top of that, there really isn’t a counter for feint attack other than calling his bluff, which is to swing wildly with the oversized cone of horizontal attacks and disregard the enemy’s actions – this is an odd mechanic, in that the way you beat an advanced feinting player is to do what newbies do and not watch for his attack animation.

    I know this might be a bit long, but I felt these things about the game as I was playing and was wondering if they would be addressed or, more importantly, whether they are even felt to be problems that need addressing. I will probably recall more of these as I keep playing. Thanks for reading.



  • Very well put. You put the effort in that I couldn’t be bothered to do without raging.

    The game can’t seem to handle too many multiple key stroke inputs at once. I don’t know about most of you but my hands can sure hit a lot of keys but the game seems to go nuts and either stacks it or just cancels what you’re doing and you have to repress the keys to whatever you wanted it to do.

    This sometimes costs me that fraction of a second you sometimes need to stay alive…



  • 1. It sounds like you ran into some bug regarding the “standing still sprint” rather than design problems. There is no such thing as “sprint state” while standing still. I personally feel that both the animation and the sound produced by sprinting are more than enough indicators, but I suppose an expressed indicator of some sort on the screen won’t hurt. I see absolutely no problem with combat control however. For starters if you are winding up while attacked then your attack will be canceled, putting in an indicator for the status of your attack sounds unnecessary. Finally collision bugs are just bugs.

    2. Archers are there to encourage team work. Archers cause two things: encourage archers to engage other archers first; encourage tank characters with shields to advance at the front. They aren’t the “main damage” of the team, that’s way too much of an exaggeration. Even the best archers tend to miss a lot, and can only get a friction of kills/deal a friction of damages compared to competent melee players. They really only stand out when the rest of the team are bad, but then again any melee player would also stand out in such a situation. I think archers serve the role of ranged support reasonably well. They will always lose in a 1 on 1 fight against a melee character in close range, if both players are equally competent. They are not good at pushing, rather they discourage enemies from carelessly charge into their range. You can’t block AWP, so there is that.

    3. I don’t think switching weapon was ever intended to be part of a fight. Rather it is something you may do right before a fight. If weapon switching is any faster, the authenticity of medieval combat may be harmed. Further, there are plenty of situations where you will want to swap weapon before a fight. For example, one of the best weapon Knight has is the one-handed Norse sword, or as a Vanguard you really don’t want to engage MAA with very fast weapons using a super slow 2-hander and the war axe would be a better choice.

    4. One very competent player should never be able to beat two reasonably competent players with some coordination in a normal fight. Period. You provided a situation, but not reasons why the situation shouldn’t be how it is. Proper teamwork should always pay off.

    5. This I can agree with. Although there is a very good damage chart provided by Martin, I wish that sort of information is readily available ingame. For example, I imagine that most people wouldn’t have easily found out that Norse sword deals more damage with stabs than slash without the chart.

    6. I strongly disagree with this. There are more tricks to the combat than the three attacks, parry and feint on the surface. The community have already found many interesting new ways to fight (e.g. dragging/delaying attack, turtle duck, fake jump attack, stamina fight). On a regular pub server, if you spend a substantial amount of time you will also come to learn various people’s different style - who tends to spam feint, who always starts off with a jump attack and who’s bad at blocking etc. The reminder of your suggestion in this section then begins to indicate that you may be lacking in combat experience or are exaggerating. People who “swings and gets hit all day” are the easiest of targets. Didn’t you just mention earlier that people die in 1-2 hits? As for failing blocks, there may be three causes: it may be that you blocked early (players with slow weapons sometimes delay their strike by dragging so that it lands just as your block is down); the enemy’s arm has actually flanked you, which you may perceive as “in front of you” on high FOV settings; finally there is a very very rare bug where attacks go through block completely (even after hearing the block sound). If you didn’t hear the block sound, then it was your own fault. Finally, feint can be countered in most cases by managing the distance well, learning the opponents from previous engagements, improve your timing (don’t block until the windup animation is nearly over, admittedly there are 3-4 weapons with animation problems in this regard, but that can be fixed) or simply by equipping a shield. Swinging wildly won’t beat an advanced feinting player, unless the said player was just a newb who likes to feint. Any competent player would cancel a swing mid-swing and parry if needed. Nonetheless, feinting is not in an ideal situation, and there is definitely room for improvement.



  • I believe he’s talking about using toggle sprint, as opposed to holding it down. I’ve had many of the same issues as he’s talking about when using toggle sprint. I find it’s better, even with the bugs, yet still it’s frustrating when you can’t exactly tell if you’re sprinting out of a fight or just jogging slowly due to the lack of visual cues. I usually use toggle sprint because allows me to use my left hand for more precise movement whereas I would have to be holding down shift the entire time.

    I’ve also had the same problem as the OP where I’m completely stopped, yet still considered to be in ‘sprinting mode,’ so I can’t taunt or dodge, or if I’m a Vanguard I’ll sometimes even perform the leaping attack from a total standstill. I’m sure this is not on purpose, it just needs to cancel sprint when stopped or dodging.



  • Archers do contribute to gameplay. And you’re wrong about them not being able to be parried, I’ve seen arrows parried before. Imagine what maps would look like without archers. It wouldn’t matter if the level was like the flat gmod level or was on a pirate ship, all fights will look the same. Level design wouldn’t be very important at all. And imagine fights, it would just be a tugofwar between 2 teams as to who will spawncamp each other. It wouldn’t even be a medieval game. It would be a dueling game. Just like the warband mod cRPG, go play that if you want to know what combat is like without archers, they were nerfed to extinction in it. I think that’s what you want out of archery, if archery in this game was nerfed it would become a terribly unbalanced terror like cRPG. I hope that does not happen.

    Yea toggle sprint is broken, don’t use that shit. Dodging is also terrible at the moment, MaA is practically unplayable because of it.



  • Well I have to disagree with the movement part the game seems great to me and flows perfectly

    I got to the Archers point and then stopped… Really? Knights can’t be 1 hit even by a headshot, and archers already are a supporting role!! Not sure what game youre playing if you think archers are the main damage of the team.

    Good archers are few and far between… on TO maps archers camping and trying to counter their archers or get some kills when the team needs to use a ram are usually a wasted space… I don’t tell people how to play their game, but seeing them labeled as the main force in the game, is just ridiculous

    and Shields? One of the main reasons to bring one is for archers…



  • I don’t really understand you. I read here that archers are useless, too weak, slow etc. But every time (EVERY) i play and in my team there’s about 3 or 4 archers, you can read on the chat all the time things like “f*kin archers!”, “archer again” and so on. I often play as an archer and I think they are very useful to the gameplay and balanced far enough.

    And yes, I totally agree with you guys about the controlls problems. It’s completly random that you change weapon or no, start running or no. The game has difficulties with interpretation what you want to do if you push a few keys at the same time. Actually I think that movement and controlls are the biggest enemies in this game.



  • @Aelius:

    The game can’t seem to handle too many multiple key stroke inputs at once. I don’t know about most of you but my hands can sure hit a lot of keys but the game seems to go nuts and either stacks it or just cancels what you’re doing and you have to repress the keys to whatever you wanted it to do.

    That’s actually part of the game, it’s called the combo system. You can string together a queue of delayed attacks that will occur faster than if you allowed your first attack to finish and starting up a second one. And as far as multiple key stroke inputs, that’s actually a mechanical restriction of most keyboards. The electronic matrix under your keyboard means you cannot press certain keys together at the same time.

    @GhoXen’:

    Archers are there to encourage team work. Archers cause two things: encourage archers to engage other archers first; encourage tank characters with shields to advance at the front.

    Well, encouraging Archers to engage other Archers first doesn’t really add anything to the game, since it’s still Archers :D. Like in TF2, one thing I sort of disliked was how Snipers were in “their own world” so to speak. They just shot at each other and periodically take shots at other classes, and no one has enough burst damage at that range to kill them, so they’re safe and they know it. That’s sort of how Archers feel in Chivalry. There’s very few ways to counter or pressure Archers. Maybe if Smoke Pots were more effective and lasted more than 3 seconds?

    @GhoXen:

    They aren’t the “main damage” of the team, that’s way too much of an exaggeration. Even the best archers tend to miss a lot, and can only get a friction of kills/deal a friction of damages compared to competent melee players.

    Well, I guess I shouldn’t say main damage, but Archers constantly have attackable targets in their area of influence is the reason why they feel overwhelmingly powerful. Because while you’ve got your melee guys doing the whole ballroom dance thing where neither side wants to engage too far in for fear of being surrounded, you always have Archers still managing to get a couple arrows past the the people paying attention with Shields. And they have such a wide area of influence that they can be overwhelmingly opportunistic and land arrows on enemies that are focused on something else. By the way, I’m mostly talking almost exclusively about Longbow/Shortbow/Warbow Archers, since the reload time on Crossbows makes its damage output relatively low. That, and I don’t feel I have a sufficient grip on how to use Crossbows properly yet.

    @GhoXen:

    I don’t think switching weapon was ever intended to be part of a fight.

    That’s okay. I just thought I’d ask, since it seemed like it might be an interesting mechanic for, say, Vanguards to be able to switch to secondaries when they get closed in, rather than having to have a short range weapon in their hand before the MaA is even in range.

    @GhoXen:

    One very competent player should never be able to beat two reasonably competent players with some coordination in a normal fight. Period.

    Ah, well what I mean is that there seems to be literally nothing you can do against 2v1s, you can’t even defend in any way, which felt kind of odd. Most games allow you to have a chance at winning if you pull sufficiently clutch plays, but Chivalry’s combat system literally allows zero chance if the players aren’t completely incompetent.

    @GhoXen:

    People who “swings and gets hit all day” are the easiest of targets.

    Ah, I mean people who play Knights and win a fight just because they can trade more blows than me as a Man at Arms or Vanguard. He slashes with a slow weapon, so I respond by thrusting with a fast weapon, but because his “wind up” has already occurred, we both hit each other, and I can only take 2 hits whereas he can trade 5 blows and still live. But that kind of puts me at an impasse, because the windup for a weapon isn’t very intuitive. I’m sure I can learn the game well enough that I can get a feel for the windup of each weapon, but it seems as though having a system where ANY attack will get interrupted by being hit would introduce a deeper system of combat, rather than encourage trading blows, you have to consider the speed of your blow in relation to the speed of your enemy’s potential blow, which can cancel your attack. And like you said, I haven’t completely immersed myself into the depth of the combat yet, but I felt like the “trading blows” mechanic was one of the weirder things that stood out.

    @NeoRussia:

    Dodging is also terrible at the moment, MaA is practically unplayable because of it.

    What’s wrong with Dodging exactly?

    @Warrior:

    Well I have to disagree with the movement part the game seems great to me and flows perfectly

    I feel like you get trapped on a lot of little pieces of terrain. Like, far more than you should be given that it’s usually like a rock or what seems like a smooth surface, but turns out to lock you in place.

    @Warrior:

    Not sure what game youre playing if you think archers are the main damage of the team.

    Well, it just seemed odd to me that Archers, with their support roles, are top in kills so often. And having a shield out to counter an Archer means you can’t really go and melee fight someone since you have to stare at the Archer, kind of disappointing.

    So yea, I just thought I’d bring up these points for discussion. Aside from the bugs and some of the mechanics that I mentioned, nothing is specifically wrong with the game. Really enjoying it. Hard to believe one guy did the bulk of the work on this game.



  • 2: … well archers are beyond anoying in ffa but in LTS or TO they are absolutly nessecary for the defending team … like in the lv where you have to defend the king , it would be near imposible without 2-3 archers …

    3: … lol actualy i would say that its not slow enough … im AOC switching for your throwing weapon in the middle of fight was a stupid and mostly lethal mistake , i like it that way , now right in the middle of a fight you can easely switch for your firepot/throwing knifes and kill the other guy ( ahhh i remeber the good old time in aoc when ppls made the mistakes of switching to their throwable in the mioddle of a fight , i would just rush them )

    4: … as a MAA i can esely go againts 2 knights and win ( as long as they dont time their attacks … lol they never do ) … just keep you distances and try use slash a bit more … ( i only use swings when im alone vs 2-3 enemies )

    6: … if it would take more than 2-3 hits to kill somebody with the main weapon , the game wouldnt be that awesome , after all , a claymore hit to the head shouldnt take more than 2 hit to kill sombody … and againts fainters , just step up the agression , or even better , keep a medium distance between you and him and only come close when youre about to attack

    IMO that is



  • 4. How well you can handle this situation depends largely on your class. If you’re a knight being flanked by a MAA while a Knight or Van keeps you pressured, grats, you’ve been flanked. Thats how it goes. Knights are brutal heads up fighters and take alot of punishment, but their slowness and lack of mobility makes them vulnerable to being flanked or teamed up on.

    If you find yourself in this situation, your best bet is offense, rather then defense. Try to intercept the less defensive of the 2 targets (Van with sword and MAA with shield+mace, go for the van) They know they have the advantage, and I’ve had 2v1s and even 3v1s which I have turned around and won ( completed with battlecry each time one goes down… lets get pumped. ) because AXE caught someone with his trusty Axe on the way in.

    Cramped spaces work well too, back into a doorway, or force them into engagements where they risk hitting each other. Nothing will turn a fight more quickly, ( and raise all sorts of hell in teamchat ) like taking a guys head off because his helpful melee archer buddy flinched him.



  • @Stergeary:

    @NeoRussia:

    Dodging is also terrible at the moment, MaA is practically unplayable because of it.

    What’s wrong with Dodging exactly?

    It’s really laggy and doesn’t work right too many times. Half the time it doesn’t even work at all when you press the dodge button, the other half it stutters you towards where you are so I feel like I have to mash the button to get it to work. The timing is also different depending on what action you are doing before and after you dodge like blocking and attacking. The biggest problem is your opponent sees your model there before you do, so they can hit you and react to you before you are even there. The double tap dodge is a complete mess, it is even less consistent. I’d have to say that MaA is really broken because of all of this and this needs fixing ASAP yet we’ve been waiting 2 weeks and no patch. Losing hope in this game because of shit like this.



  • @Stergeary:

    Hey guys. Played Age of Chivalry back in the day, and was very happy to see a remake of the game and bought it the instant I saw it. Been having a great time in the game, and it is very well made with a good basic concept just like the original. And though this game is excellent, a few things diminish the game for me and I’m not sure if they were purposeful designs, oversights, or were simply not easy to fix.

    1.) The controls feel clunky at times, and the game doesn’t communicate the state of the player very well.
    I don’t feel fully in control of my character at all times. Sprinting sometimes cancels properly and sometimes doesn’t. Actions that cannot be performed while sprinting won’t cancel sprinting for me, like Dodge on MaA. If you can’t Dodge while Sprinting, why doesn’t pressing Dodge just cancel Sprint? Instead you have to manually cancel Sprint then press Dodge. Likewise, I sometimes Taunt in duel servers, but realize that I can’t Taunt, because I’m still Sprinting… Even though I’m standing still – very unintuitive that you are still in the “Sprint state” while stopped. Along those lines, the game also doesn’t really show me very clearly what I’m doing. When I’m sprinting, the only way I know is that my weapon flails up and down a bit faster than normal. In the middle of a fight, I can’t always tell whether I’m about to launch a swing or not and whether the enemy’s attack canceled mine or if it’s in queue and waiting to come. I feel like the “state” that the player is in could be communicated better. So on top of that, the movement sometimes feels unintuitive. There are so many things to get caught on and sometimes simple rocks in the ground are actually insurmountable barriers.
    some things here i agree with, some controls feel kinda unintuitive at the time, other things are by design to reward players who have experience. maniuplating the controls are a part of the learning curve, and its what allows some players to just walk though people.
    the terrian thing i whole heartly agree with. some things i can get over, some i cant, small rocks have mile high walls on them, some formations i cant jump up, reguardless of the fact i can jump high enough.

    2.) Archers and ranged weapons in general don’t seem to contribute to the gameplay.
    I’m sure a lot of people complained about Archers already, but I’d like to really ask the “why” question. What’s the idea behind Archers being able to put pressure on the enemy from so far away? I thought Archers would be interesting support units, but as they are they’re pretty much the main damage of the team, since they can attack at a range, can kill in one shot, and cannot be parried. If anyone knew of another game called Savage 2 (it was another melee-intensive game), the ranged weapons in that game were fast to switch to and allowed you to harass enemies, but you rarely kill an enemy straight up with only ranged weapons since they were fast and low damage harass weapons. Could Chivalry benefit from having Archers with support roles at a range rather than being medieval AWPers?

    ive been using archer prtty reguarly now that ive unlock everything. im normally in the top three spots on the team with a 2:1ish ratio most games. the problem with archers are nto the class but the players. most players approch archers like snipers, and i blame the arrow cam fulyl for this, it allows archers to have to much range, it needs to be removed. archers (as i play them) should be a mid range combat support. im far enough away that in an enemy charges me i can get two shots off with my warbow, close enough to over the shoulder aim an ally, but behind the main meat shields to not pollute traffic.
    anotehr problem is alot of archers dont learn melee combat. they think of their bow as their only weapon, going so far as to fire arrows while engaged in melee. the archer has powerful weapons, and i reguarlly beat knights 1v1 with the broad dagger, you need to learn melee to be useful.

    3.) Weapon switching speed seems punishingly slow.
    I mean, most of the time secondary weapons are for switching to when the situation changes unexpectedly, and so you have a backup weapon. In this game, the weapon switches too slowly to use based on reacting to your enemy, so all it’s good for is switching to before you reach your enemy. But then the question is, why would a Vanguard, Man at Arms, or Knight want to at any point switch from his primary to his secondary? Arguably the only reason would be to use the blunt weapon advantage against Knights while your normal bladed weapon for everyone else, but it seems like the weapon switching mechanic could do more than this if handled better.

    you kinda hit it on the head here i think, one thing is theres rarely a reason to swap weapons. it can be done in combat though, toss a kick out and it gives you enough time. the few times i would ever change weaponms would be to my dagger as an archer or my shield to deal with one, there are very few situations that limit weapon length to worry so much aout that.

    4.) There’s not much of a way to deal with 2v1 situations.
    In 2v1s, usually you’re going to be limited greatly by your terrain, and your slow movement speed backwards means if the two aren’t stupid, they can easily surround you eventually just like cornering a King on a chessboard from two directions. There’s really zero ways to deal with a 2v1 situation other than hope they hit each other with friendly fire. Blocking is impossible against two separate players, especially with the blocking mechanics being unintuitive.

    agreed, but intended. as mentioned above, a great player should not be better then two good ones. granted they are winable if your smart about it. parrying one guy to quick thrust the other works. kicking people away so do a duck slash on both. of course its all very situanial, but its better like this IMO.

    5.) It feels like the game obscures a lot of its mechanics from the player.
    Having read up some information on the game, it just seems a lot of information on unintuitive game mechanics were never given to players. For example, a lot of weapons have thrusts that just aren’t practical. I’m not sure why 1/3 of the weapon’s utility is completely removed by design, but some axes and blunts simply have no business thrusting. The damage and reach is abysmal, or is overshadowed by a far better swing or overhead. And then there’s the kick, which we are told is useful against blockers, but in reality doesn’t really deal with blockers at all. And do you take more damage from attacks while you are attacking yourself? It seems to be so, but isn’t talked about either. And aside from that, the damage indicators are in the dreaded bar-graph form, telling us nothing. There are no units to compare when someone tells you a weapon does 32% damage and has 95% range with 21% speed, these percents don’t help us play with these weapons properly.

    weapon values in game could be clearer, as it stands i dont find them to be helpful in anyway.

    6.) The combat could be a deeper experience, and the time-to-live in combat is a bit too short.
    Games with deep combat mechanics usually allow opponents to test each other out, which sometimes requires sacrificing some of your resources (in this case, health) to figure out your enemy’s mentality. But with people dying in 1-2 hits, it becomes more like Call of Duty, where that deeper experience isn’t there because people die with just a short exchange. I can’t look at an enemy, see his name is Blahblah, and know that he has a certain way of fighting and use that metacognition to fight him differently. And also, on the note of depth in combat, why is it that weapons do not cancel if they are hit? Being hit during or after windup shouldn’t matter. If you are hit, your weapon must cancel. Otherwise people can do horizontals all day, get hit all day, and still nab a few undeserved kills. If I strike before my enemy, we shouldn’t both take damage. And then there’s the blocking; a great number of times you will be staring straight at where the attack is coming, block, and – It hits you anyway…? You have no idea what just happened, or what you can do to do better next time, all you know is that block is unreliable. And on top of that, there really isn’t a counter for feint attack other than calling his bluff, which is to swing wildly with the oversized cone of horizontal attacks and disregard the enemy’s actions – this is an odd mechanic, in that the way you beat an advanced feinting player is to do what newbies do and not watch for his attack animation.

    melee combat is a dance, and a better player normally wins. one thing i notice here is your confusion with dead angles.
    the reason you were hit behind the shield is a dead angle, or the angle of the weapon went behind the shield and thus wasnt blocked. the shield will only block what it can, and blind blocking doesnt work against smart attackers (or lucky ones with long weapons) to block properally you need to aim your shield at the tip of the enemies weapon.
    shields are IMO unreliable for 1v1 because of this. they offer more cover but less defence. a parry offers the same defence as a shield, but a shield just blocks more area, the downside to this is its obscureing of your vision, which allows people to nail you in blind spots. i win the majority of fights my enemy uses a shield in because they cant see my attacks to adjust mid swing. shields also IMO make people lazy. they have their use, 2v1 and ranged combat is greatly mitigated by shields. but 1v1 they are very poor.

    I know this might be a bit long, but I felt these things about the game as I was playing and was wondering if they would be addressed or, more importantly, whether they are even felt to be problems that need addressing. I will probably recall more of these as I keep playing. Thanks for reading.

    tossed my thoughts in red.


Log in to reply