How is it silly? In Mount and Blade, say in a 1 v 1 scenario, if someone did not mess up their blocking, there was no way to penetrate defense. And let me tell you, it wasn’t that difficult to do that. Even scrubs like Leonidas took a tour around the arena map because of how overpowered defense was compared to offense. Anyways, enough of that, I’m not going to dick wave with a moderator.
May I assume you are talking about combat with shields? I think M&B’s combat without shields is actually very good, and few people consider defending yourself without a shield easy. There are no players who never mess up their blocking when they don’t have a shield. Duels between good players do take a while, usually, but there are enough techniques available in Warband for deception and throwing off your opponent’s rhythm that you can really gain an advantage out of learning how to attack well. Anyway.
Saying that defending yourself with a shield is ‘overpowered’ may be true in some situations, but definitely not all the time. What combat techniques are considered ‘overpowered’ in M&B heavily depends on the skill level of the players experiencing them. New players can be broadly separated in turtles and spammers. The turtles don’t necessarily only defend, they’re generally people who really want to learn the game. They don’t take many risks, but perform reasonably well if they have a sturdy shield and there’s a neat, polite block-counterattack rhythm going on. Spammers don’t give a fuck and just attack, usually with a big twohander. Well, guess who complained about who? The forum has, over the course of the existence of multiplayer, practically always been filled with posts by newer players complaining about the spammers. A good player thinks of a spammer as a free kill, but this all-out offensive style seems to be effective against below-average players. So, for them (which is actually a sizeable chunk of the playerbase), your claim isn’t true. In duel situations, neither is it true for very good players. Their ability to block almost as well with a weapon as with a shield generally means that the one with the twohander has the advantage, since he can exploit his weapon range to get in several hits on the shield and break it quickly. A player who turtles will see his shield quickly obliterated.
What I will agree with is that defending yourself with a shield was ridiculously easy compared to the challenge of defending yourself without one. And Battle mode had a tendency of forcing infantrymen to go with a shield, otherwise they’re free kills for archers. And that does make Battle combat more boring, yes.
And don’t worry about me being a moderator, I won’t hand out warnings for simply having a bit an argument, and I’m especially reluctant to do so when I’m involved in the discussion myself.
And I will have to disagree with you. I think that a lot of people are used to the Mount and Blade style of blocking where you just hold block and hide behind your shield (Easy as pie to do), and when faced with something different and something that requires skill and has a learning curve, they cry about it. It’s clearly stated in the tutorial how to block. Just people don’t bother to educate themselves and they rather cry about it.
Manual blocking (== blocking without a shield) in M&B has, for many players, a learning curve with the gentleness and softness of a brick wall, and I can say that blocking in Chivalry is very easy compared to manual blocking in Warband. That’s not a bad thing, Chivalry differentiates in skill in other area’s. But to anyone who, like me, trained to get blocking down in M&B, this isn’t a challenge. In M&B I needed to practice intensively on blocking alone for hours to even get a semblance of defending myself reliably. In Chivalry, you pick up the game and you can block most attacks no problem. Attacks are generally much more telegraphed and executed slowlier, the aim of your block is fairly forgiving and feinting is much less prevalent. Yes, blocking with a shield in M&B is even easier than it is in this game, but many of the ex-M&B’ers here are veterans of the game who got the advanced techniques of that game, to some extent, down. It’s ludicrous to claim that they would be crying because there is too much challenge.
The only situations where I still fuck up regularly in Chivalry are in really close range. I expect I’ll eventually get used to it (unfortunately I can’t pour all that much time in Chivalry atm), but I think the sudden leap in percentage of fucking up when in close range has to do, for me personally, with not really needing to aim my block at longer range. I really believe the game would be more intuitive if the blocking aim would be a bit more unforgiving at longer ranges, so it feels a bit more consistent. We can go back and forth about this all day, though, no way to know before actually simulating it.
And personally, I don’t see how you could make blocking at a distance more difficult without doing a complete revamp of how the current blocking system works mechanically, but I could be wrong. I personally like the current state of blocking because it doesn’t make blocking too strong or too weak and it doesn’t make it nigh impossible to engage in anything besides a 1 v 1. Yes, two handed weapons have their issues, but I don’t think the best solution is to alter the blocking system.
Well, I’d just make it require more precise aim at the tip of the weapon. Surely you must have noticed how, right now, it just doesn’t matter in the slightest. You just click RMB and you’re done, if your enemy isn’t right in your face. Just make the area you’re blocking (if that’s how the code works, I have no idea of course) a bit smaller so aiming is an issue all the time, not just at very specific moments in the game.