An idea to fix feints



  • Changing how feint is working right now and making stab motions more noticeable:

    Here’s a simple way to improve the stab motion: Make the resting pose more identifiable. Right now, MAA, Vanguards and Knights lower their weapon to their sides when resting. Make them hold their sword up like you see in your own screen. Make that the same for every weapon, instead of having them similar to stabbing positions.

    The hand positions are different:



    Then, for feints, instead of making the feint animation go back to the beginning of the windup animation, make it go to the resting position.

    Also, only allow feints for half of the windup position, and not throughout the whole thing. What I mean is: If a weapon has 0.4 windup time, don’t let feint to be used at 0.39 of the windup. Only let it happen upto 0.2 of windup time (for example). This way, you only get hit if you reacted too early.

    How’s this idea?



  • Sounds workable, though I’d be happy with just an animation for it.



  • If anything, the game needs more mechanics like the current feint. There needs to be more ways to get past blocks, provoke mistakes, force people into mixups/guesswork/mindgames, and actually hit an opponent. There should be the mechanical equivalent of a fighting game throw - kick should be improved into a core high risk/high reward tool to open your opponent, rather than simply an extremely situational toy used for environmental kills.

    I can get behind the idea of having more distinct animations.

    By shortening the feint window, you want a game based purely on reactions, rather than a game of prediction, reading habits, psychology and strategy. Halving the feint window sounds like an attempt to nerf the Norse sword’s stab, while making every 2h even more useless than they already are. Why would I ever want to pre-block, when I could just do so on reaction, at the last moment, every time? Punishing bad parries would no longer be an effective strategy, everyone might as well be using a shield. Getting past the block of a pro tower-shield user would be even more ridiculous than it already is.

    Change feint and the game goes from a high-speed game of chess, to a boring game of tic-tac-toe, where every fight becomes the same old predictable parry/blocking turtle-fest.



  • @j3st:

    If anything, the game needs more mechanics like the current feint. There needs to be more ways to get past blocks, provoke mistakes, force people into mixups/guesswork/mindgames, and actually hit an opponent. There should be the mechanical equivalent of a fighting game throw - kick should be improved into a core high risk/high reward tool to open your opponent, rather than simply an extremely situational toy used for environmental kills.

    I can get behind the idea of having more distinct animations.

    By shortening the feint window, you want a game based purely on reactions, rather than a game of prediction, reading habits, psychology and strategy. Halving the feint window sounds like an attempt to nerf the Norse sword’s stab, while making every 2h even more useless than they already are. Why would I ever want to pre-block, when I could just do so on reaction, at the last moment, every time? Punishing bad parries would no longer be an effective strategy, everyone might as well be using a shield. Getting past the block of a pro tower-shield user would be even more ridiculous than it already is.

    Change feint and the game goes from a high-speed game of chess, to a boring game of tic-tac-toe, where every fight becomes the same old predictable parry/blocking turtle-fest.

    Shortening the feint window doesn’t remove prediction, reading habits, psychology, and strategy at all.

    According to “How fast do we react to moving obstacles?” by Aivar M P, Brenner E, Smeets J B J, in 2005, Average human reaction time is around 250 ms. According to a human reaction test and data collected from humanbenchmark.com, average reaction time was around 215 ms.

    Throw in ping differences, lag, and skippy animation on top of the human body limitation, and now it’s physically impossible for human players to react to these feints when used at the last moment of the windup. Those who are blocking feints purely do so by chances and luck.

    Chance has no place in competitive gaming. Throughout competitive gaming history, developers of these e-sport games took out game mechanics that rely on chance, because players need to be in control of what is happening. It can be frustrating for the players when the combat is relying heavily on chances.

    The feint window limit I suggested is an example, so it is up to the developers to decide what they want to do. However, limiting feint window to around the possible human reaction time still keeps players on their toes, because the game isn’t just about swinging and blocking; it’s also about knowledge of the weapons, footwork, and distance management, etc.

    By setting up this feint window, the game doesn’t devolve to tic-tac-toe. It actually evolves to high speed chess from lottery.



  • Axe feels you should look at fighting games, where exchanges between players feature mixups between mid and low which are too fast to react to naturally, and forces prediction to successfully defend. In fact, this is a huge part of many fighting games.

    Axe feels your example rings hollow, like the heads of so many archers.



  • @Mogul:

    Axe feels you should look at fighting games, where exchanges between players feature mixups between mid and low which are too fast to react to naturally, and forces prediction to successfully defend. In fact, this is a huge part of many fighting games.

    Axe feels your example rings hollow, like the heads of so many archers.

    The fighting games do not have hard-to-tell animations or ping differences (You are playing right next to them). They are 2-dimensional, and they have very distinct animations on what a player is doing. And blocking relies on pushing the correct button out of four buttons (for example). Also, it’s very easy to disengage because of dashes and high jumps. Lastly, fighting games are more forgiving to mistakes while in Chivalry, a player dies in 1 to 3 hits.



  • Every competitive fighting game in existence is based around 3 frame (Street Fighter), to 12 frame (Virtua Fighter) mixups. 3 frames is exactly 48 ms. You have to make an educated guess on your opponent’s next move - whether he’s going to do a quick attack, a delayed one, a throw, a high or low, a frame trap, or a chip string. Essentially, they’re all strategic guessing games, with dozens of ways to feint. They’re about bluffing, and playing the odds - the same reasons why competitive Poker and Roshambo exist.

    It’s strategy, it’s prediction, it’s a mindgame, it’s psychology - players travel from every country across the world to compete at these games, and tens of thousands of people tune in to watch them, precisely because much of it isn’t reactable. Matches aren’t mechanical. Players aren’t taking turns hit-block trading, they aren’t waiting to see an opponent’s every move, and defending against each of them reaction. These games are exciting, with new situations and timings being developed years after release because they’re about outguessing, and outwitting your opponent. The feint timing changes you propose would push this into a game of Dance Dance Revolution, where you seen an animation and hit a button at exactly the right time, rather than a true esport.

    Currently, you counter people by reading their habits, studying their movement, and knowing what type of player they are. Do they tend to do a lot of naked attacks? Do they like to throw one feint and stab at this distance? You’ve seen the way JackBaldy, Speedracer and I fight - we tend to spend a lot of time time studying and watching each other’s movement - lunging in and out of range to threaten and fake each other out. If feints were worse we’d just facehug each other all day with a massive shield and the fastest weapons available - it’d be a boring game with no future.



  • Counter-point: You don’t die in 2 hits in a fighting game, so mispredicting isn’t punished even a fraction as hard as it is in Chivalry.



  • @j3st:

    Every competitive fighting game in existence is based around 3 frame (Street Fighter), to 12 frame (Virtua Fighter) mixups. 3 frames is exactly 48 ms. You have to make an educated guess on your opponent’s next move - whether he’s going to do a quick attack, a delayed one, a throw, a high or low, a frame trap, or a chip string. Essentially, they’re all strategic guessing games, with dozens of ways to feint. They’re about bluffing, and playing the odds - the same reasons why competitive Poker and Roshambo exist.

    It’s strategy, it’s prediction, it’s a mindgame, it’s psychology - players travel from every country across the world to compete at these games, and tens of thousands of people tune in to watch them, precisely because much of it isn’t reactable. Matches aren’t mechanical. Players aren’t taking turns hit-block trading, they aren’t waiting to see an opponent’s every move, and defending against each of them reaction. These games are exciting, with new situations and timings being developed years after release because they’re about outguessing, and outwitting your opponent. The feint timing changes you propose would push this into a game of Dance Dance Revolution, where you seen an animation and hit a button at exactly the right time, rather than a true esport.

    Currently, you counter people by reading their habits, studying their movement, and knowing what type of player they are. Do they tend to do a lot of naked attacks? Do they like to throw one feint and stab at this distance? You’ve seen the way JackBaldy, Speedracer and I fight - we tend to spend a lot of time time studying and watching each other’s movement - lunging in and out of range to threaten and fake each other out. If feints were worse we’d just facehug each other all day with a massive shield and the fastest weapons available - it’d be a boring game with no future.

    You are right about competitive tournaments having chances, which invalidates my argument.

    However, when comparing the fighting games to Chvalry, we should be talking about shield, not parrying. Fighting games do not have momentary blocking, it’s permanent as long as you are holding the directional button. Still you do have to decide which direction you want to use, just like shields. If fighting games had a momentary blocking, it would be a disaster. Plus, in fighting games, you don’t lose in 1-3 hits like Chivalry.

    Poker is arguable. A study concludes that it is a game of chance, although they stated that pro players can minimize their losses better than amateurs. However, a court ruling decided that Poker is a game of skill. People have different opinions on Poker. The most important aspect of Poker, however, is the player’s ability to analyze the body language of other players and distribution of cards.

    In Chivalry, none of that is possible because there is no indication of what this person might do, if you met them for the first time. Dueling each other hundreds of times and figuring out what the opponent will do can be achieved by anyone.



  • @POOP:

    The fighting games do not have hard-to-tell animations or ping differences (You are playing right next to them). They are 2-dimensional, and they have very distinct animations on what a player is doing. And blocking relies on pushing the correct button out of four buttons (for example). Also, it’s very easy to disengage because of dashes and high jumps. Lastly, fighting games are more forgiving to mistakes while in Chivalry, a player dies in 1 to 3 hits.

    None of that is true though. Netplay has been standard in fighters for a long, long time. I regularly play VF5 against players in Australia and Japan. Even though it can be laggy playing someone on the other side of the world, the better player always wins out because their mindgames and mixups were better.

    There are 2d Fighters like Street Fighter, and 3d Fighters like Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur, Tekken, and Bushido Blade. 3d fighters have a lot in common with PC melee games like Mount & Blade, Jedi Knight, and Chivalry. The main difference is that you’re using a joystick instead of a mouse and keyboard. An actual 3d battlefield, swing arcs, sidestepping, environmental hazards - it’s all there.

    As for fighters being more forgiving - in VF5, one touch from a pro player can go anywhere from 30% to 90% of your health. Then there’s okizeme, the knockdown/wakeup situations, which is a game in itself. You have to outpredict what your opponent is going to do after he’s knocked you on your ass - it’s entirely possible you never have the chance to do anything for an entire round.

    @SlyGoat:

    Counter-point: You don’t die in 2 hits in a fighting game, so mispredicting isn’t punished even a fraction as hard as it is in Chivalry.

    Counter-counter-point:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvpMmwm9HXw

    Nevermind all the nasty things I can do to you while you’re on the floor, and the mixups I can force you into while you’re trying to get up.

    So yea, at a beginner level, people aren’t killing each other in 2 hits - as you play more, every touch is a big deal, as it is in Chivalry. Finally, Chivalry is a game where you can have 40 players running around at the same time - people should die quickly.



  • @j3st:

    None of that is true though. Netplay has been standard in fighters for a long, long time. I regularly play VF5 against players in Australia and Japan. Even though it can be laggy playing someone on the other side of the world, the better player always wins out because their mindgames and mixups were better.

    There are 2d Fighters like Street Fighter, and 3d Fighters like Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur, Tekken, and Bushido Blade. 3d fighters have a lot in common with PC melee games like Mount & Blade, Jedi Knight, and Chivalry. The main difference is that you’re using a joystick instead of a mouse and keyboard. An actual 3d battlefield, swing arcs, sidestepping, environmental hazards - it’s all there.

    As for fighters being more forgiving - in VF5, one touch from a pro player can go anywhere from 30% to 90% of your health. Then there’s okizeme, the knockdown/wakeup situations, which is a game in itself. You have to outpredict what your opponent is going to do after he’s knocked you on your ass - it’s entirely possible you never have the chance to do anything for an entire round.

    I think this demonstrates why we have disagreement on this topic. People who play fighting games don’t play all the fighting games. They stick with the one they like.

    Same goes for Chivalry. You prefer one way while others may prefer something else. It’s up to the developers to decide which direction they will ultimately take. Whichever direction this game goes, we have to adapt.

    @SlyGoat:

    @j3st:

    Counter-point: You don’t die in 2 hits in a fighting game, so mispredicting isn’t punished even a fraction as hard as it is in Chivalry.

    Counter-counter-point!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvpMmwm9HXw

    Nevermind all the nasty things I can do to you while you’re on the floor, and the mixups I can force you into while you’re trying to get up.

    So yea, at a beginner level, people aren’t killing each other in 2 hits - as you play more, every touch is a big deal, as it is in Chivalry. Finally, Chivalry is a game where you can have 40 players running around at the same time - people should die quickly.

    Chivalry doesn’t have chain combo attacks like that. Also you can mess up the VF chain combo and stop hitting because of the timing and other factors, while Chivalry you only click one of the three, up to three times. You can’t mess up the swing combo. In a normal scenario, a Chivalry player can only hit 2 times if the other person isn’t blocking, because the other person can hit you after the 2nd combo.

    Again, blocks in fighting games are not the same as Chivalry parry. Shield is closer to the blocking in fighting games.

    My response from above:
    You are right about competitive tournaments having chances, which invalidates my argument.

    However, when comparing the fighting games to Chvalry, we should be talking about shield, not parrying. Fighting games do not have momentary blocking, it’s permanent as long as you are holding the directional button. Still you do have to decide which direction you want to use, just like shields. If fighting games had a momentary blocking, it would be a disaster. Plus, in fighting games, you don’t lose in 1-3 hits like Chivalry.

    Poker is arguable. A study concludes that it is a game of chance, although they stated that pro players can minimize their losses better than amateurs. However, a court ruling decided that Poker is a game of skill. People have different opinions on Poker. The most important aspect of Poker, however, is the player’s ability to analyze the body language of other players and distribution of cards.

    In Chivalry, none of that is possible because there is no indication of what this person might do, if you met them for the first time. Dueling each other hundreds of times and figuring out what the opponent will do can be achieved by anyone.



  • However, when comparing the fighting games to Chvalry, we should be talking about shield, not parrying. Fighting games do not have momentary blocking, it’s permanent as long as you are holding the directional button. Still you do have to decide which direction you want to use, just like shields. If fighting games had a momentary blocking, it would be a disaster.

    I think the point you’re trying to make is that in fighting games, you can just hold one direction to block most attacks, without the same vulnerability you get from missing a parry window in Chivalry.

    That doesn’t hold up though, since many attacks have their own counters, that are not defended by simply holding back. You are always vulnerable to something, good defense often requires having good offense, even predicting, and preemptively throwing out an attack to counter/stuff an opponent’s (called “playing footsies”, fundamental to most FGs).

    If you are being a turtling, reactionary newbie and just holding down-back to crouch block all day, I’ll just walk up and throw you. Or throw an overhead which hits crouch-blockers. To defend against either attacks, you have to start throwing out your own pokes, which can interrupt my throw/overhead. If you poke too much, too predictably, I can punish that with a hard attack, which makes you want to start blocking again. In fighting games, block itself is an action that is heavily punishable.

    Fighting games give you all sorts of tools that are the equivalent of Chivalry’s parry - something that blocks an attack, and gives you room to counterattack, but leaves you vulnerable if timed incorrectly.

    In SF3 you have an actual parry - press forward at the exact moment a hit would land on you, and you absorb it, while the opponent is forced to carry out the remainder of his recovery frames. If you miss it, you take whatever damage/combo was coming to you - if you’re pressing forward to parry, you’re not holding back and blocking. In SF4 you get something called a “focus attack” - it absorbs a single attack. You can dash out of it early so it acts like SF3’s parry, or you can hold it so it becomes a block-breaking attack. As a counter, you can throw people out of focus attacks, do a multi-hit attack, or use some of the moves specifically designed to “armor-break”, which ignores a focus attack’s single-hit-absorbing ability.

    Let’s look at countering a fireball. Most people will throw these out to force you to block, slowly chipping down your hp. You can jump towards your opponent (extremely unsafe), but most players expect that and have a devastating counter waiting. A better way would be to block, or neutral jump over a few to get a sense of your opponent’s rhythm and timing, then throw out your own attack which negates, or evades the fireball. You can dissipate their fireball with your own, or do a hurricane kick, which goes straight over fireballs during certain frames. Everyone’s options are punishable, so the best guesser/mind-reader wins.

    Fighting games also give you moves with invincibility, or deflection frames. Everyone’s heard of the Dragon Uppercut, or Shoryuken. Many moves don’t have hurtboxes during certain frames (invincibility), causing enemy attacks to whiff through parts of/your entire body, with the tradeoff being humongous recovery frames. These moves can be used to beat, parry and counter attacks. You can do so many things with these, like go straight through fireballs. They’re also fakeout/bait fodder - do a string of basic jab/throw mixups, trick someone into thinking you’re going to do another jab/throw attempt so they predictively throw out an invincible/deflection attack to beat it, but this time walk up and block instead of doing anything. Punish them heavily while they’re stuck in long recovery frames.

    Bushido Blade, you block by attacking with the correct button, causing your weapon to deflect their attack. Miss and you lose the use of a limb, or die instantly.

    Soul Calibur, you have “guard impacts”, which work almost exactly as they do in Chiv. If you miss, you’re left wide open and lose some meter.

    …and the list of mechanics can pile into pages. The key point is that all these tools are designed to make gameplay more predictive and strategic. For every defensive parry type mechanic, there are a plethora of ways to bait and get around it. Since half the tools aren’t reactable, the games are more about reading players and psychology - even 40 yo’s like Sako can compete at the top.



  • Chivalry doesn’t have chain combo attacks like that. Also you can mess up the VF chain combo and stop hitting because of the timing and other factors, while Chivalry you only click one of the three, up to three times. You can’t mess up the swing combo. In a normal scenario, a Chivalry player can only hit 2 times if the other person isn’t blocking, because the other person can hit you after the 2nd combo.

    Right, Chivalry doesn’t have true combos - just fighting game chain-attacks where swings bypass their recovery frames and flow into each other.

    One touch in Chivalry means 40% of your life, and one touch in VF means 40% of your life. VF has a high executional requirement for combos, while Chivalry has 40 other players running around, where long combos wouldn’t be feasible. The mindgames and prediction leading up to the touch is what’s important.



  • The only fighting game that is even CLOSE to chivalry is Bushido Blade. You are really grasping at straws here. The depth of Chivalry is not 1vs1 but Objective based teamplay.

    The mechanics are not there for a 1vs1 experience of the same depth as a fighting game which is designed FOR 1v1.



  • The only fighting game that is even CLOSE to chivalry is Bushido Blade.

    On the topic of Bushido Blade, Jedi Outcast/Jedi Academy (legendary PC melee games) ripped almost all its system from it - weapon stances and their defensive/offensive tradeoffs, weapon locks, knockaways, right down to the to-hit calculations.

    Anyway, startup frames, recovery frames, stun/flinch frames, frame advantage/disadvantage, defensive options like parry and their recovery/weaknesses, counterattacks, weapon arcs, the importance of distance, sidestepping/evasion, footwork, baiting, punishment and mindgames - all common aspects of every melee game. They all share the same goals - trying to make everything leading up to a hit an interesting, strategic game that holds up to long-term play. Some are just more refined and in-depth than others.

    Want the game to grow as an esport, something people continue to grow in and play for years? Don’t neglect the core combat which everything revolves around. Raise the skill cap - introduce more ways for players to outwit each other.

    You hit and ran the other thread, so I’ll just paste my reply from there:

    @2kaj79xt:

    Chivalry is not designed to be purely 1v1 duels jesus christ.

    Don’t build your house on sand. If the core combat mechanics are fundamentally strong and have strategic depth, then everything else falls into place. Solid 1v1 is where everything starts.

    I think you can do better than that.



  • @j3st:

    I think the point you’re trying to make is that in fighting games, you can just hold one direction to block most attacks, without the same vulnerability you get from missing a parry window in Chivalry.

    That doesn’t hold up though, since many attacks have their own counters, that are not defended by simply holding back. You are always vulnerable to something, good defense often requires having good offense, even predicting, and preemptively throwing out an attack to counter/stuff an opponent’s (called “playing footsies”, fundamental to most FGs).

    If you are being a turtling, reactionary newbie and just holding down-back to crouch block all day, I’ll just walk up and throw you. Or throw an overhead which hits crouch-blockers. To defend against either attacks, you have to start throwing out your own pokes, which can interrupt my throw/overhead. If you poke too much, too predictably, I can punish that with a hard attack, which makes you want to start blocking again. In fighting games, block itself is an action that is heavily punishable.

    Yes, and Chivalry has that too. If you are using shield, you either: jump over and overhead, facehug and rightswing, intentionally miss stab and drag it around, or kick.

    This is different from the momentary parry.

    I think if we have some sort of ways to allow players to react to feints instead of guessing, the players need to rely more on teamwork than actual dueling skills.

    Like I said, you can’t really compare fighting games to Chivalry.

    I’m not exactly sure how the ping and latency works, but we need to take that into account too.



  • @POOP:

    If you are using shield, you either: jump over and overhead, facehug and rightswing, intentionally miss stab and drag it around, or kick.

    None of that works against a high level player - particularly with a tower shield. Kick is suicidal, offers insufficient frame advantage, and is a massive waste of stamina. Pros know all the little parlor tricks and block angles people tend to use. Faking out a player like Jackbaldy while he’s using a tower shield is impossible with a 2h. Even when I’m on my MAA, dodging and burning my entire stam bar trying to land a hit with a Norse sword, getting an attack through is rare - that’s with the feints we have now.

    The game is still new. Players are only going to get much better at blocking, and reading feints.



  • i heavily dislike the feint and the combo system in this game.

    in warband feints were needed to make ur oppenent mess up his block direction,it was all about speed in adjusting ur block.here its just gueswork rly,someone swings so i block,ow he feinted now i cant block because block is on a timer.its ridic that blocking/parrying is more a game of chance then one of skills(yes some skill is still involved but alot less then the other medieval melee games)

    as for the combo system it just rewards spamming,if u hit ur first attack spam that button to get a faster 2nd attack.the other problem with this and its one ive rly become to hate.is that my first attack is always from right(its impossible to start attacking from left)this means that when i have a wall or object on my right side my normal attack is turned unusable.being able to choose between attack from left or right would make so much more sense as i very very often end up in situations where i start cursing that i should be able to swing from left to right and not only right to left.



  • I don’t quite understand the point of this thread.

    1. Everyone can feint. The mechanics doesn’t give advantage to a single class or weapon. Or at least, it shouldn’t, and I definitely haven’t seen something like “feint whores” yet…
      It would be nice if the OP would provide some kind of evidence why the feint mechanics “needed fixing.”

    2. The game has been out for only 3 weeks. I think that it is safe to say that even most skilled players right now rely too much on mistakes of others to make good plays. The feint is just an easy way to exploit mechanics right now because it is directly based on your enemy being duped.
      Also I truly don’t feel that the feint button is the “win button” even right now.



  • Play on some duel servers if you haven’t seen the feint whoring yet, arch2.

    And actually feints definitely do favor fast weapons. Feinting with a slow weapon is basically useless and costs a lot more stamina than feinting with a light weapon.


Log in to reply