Combat Suggestions [Feedback]

[Ministro]

It ain't the real sauce. They always nerf sauce and giving peanuts. Trust us we know the way. Again most vets dont enjoy onesided system. They wanna brag. The assumption is that there will come a less leverageable system but thats, as far as I see, a mythical claim. Mo1 had most equitable system out even ten years later. Drastically unpopular opinion but I kick you if you don't agree

I think that chip damage on parrying will help. If they wanna parry-whore, they can just stand there and die more slowly.

I forgot to mention (about to log for the evening) I was thinking kick should induce a block delay, kind of like a mini-stun effect. Getting kicked should throw you off your game, allowing someone to come in and nail you. With a decent feint, and decent kick mechanic, and chip damage, and a less wide parry arc, I don't think it'll be that bad really, but TBH, I need to check out 1-handers more; I'll do that tomorrow, see how slow/viable they are. G'nite.

 

[Buffallo]

I forgot to mention (about to log for the evening) I was thinking kick should induce a block delay, kind of like a mini-stun effect. Getting kicked should throw you off your game, allowing someone to come in and nail you. With a decent feint, and decent kick mechanic, and chip damage, and a less wide parry arc, I don't think it'll be that bad really, but TBH, I need to check out 1-handers more; I'll do that tomorrow, see how slow/viable they are. G'nite.

Lol resolved by slowing block but ok

Goodnight sir.

 

[Teknique]

Apologies in advance, I usually make a conscious effort to keep my posts positive, but enough is enough.

/soapbox on

Time to say what is *not* being said in YET ANOTHER thread littered with "1vX" and "but you're encouraging zerging" arguments.
What is not being said is that in MO1, there was a small group of individuals who got to a point where they could just wade through an entire squad of say, half a dozen people, and kill them all without needing a heal, or even running out of stamina. (I'm looking at you Teknique/Rorry/Handsome, and a few others) These individuals had the time of their lives at the expense of basically everyone else, because they enjoyed essentially Superman status.

And they desperately want to bring that ridiculous bullshit back.

I am seriously hoping that the Dev's aren't gonna buy it a second time. Dev's no longer playing/guilding with them was a step in the right direction.

The best way to tell who these people are, is to simply watch who continues, thread after thread, using phrases like "but you're ruining my 1vX" and "but that's gonna encourage zerging" as if being outnumbered isn't supposed to convey an advantage. It is, should have been for a long time, and getting rid of that incredibly unbalanced near-invulnerability you enjoyed is one of the best changes being made to PVP moving to MO2. In a skill-based game you should, of course, be able to successfully take on better armed/armored opponents of lesser skill, and you should even be able to take on a few decent players, but once it gets past a certain 1vX, no matter your skill level, you *should* be getting your ass handed to you regularly. This is not carebear, this is fixing a long overdue game imbalance that was never addressed in MO1 because the Dev's played alongside you, and unduly listened to a selfish, highly vocal minority. When half a dozen halfway decent guys are absolutely helpless to stop a single solo player who can regularly kill them all without even worrying about running out of stamina, much less needing even a single heal, you have an imbalance so bad, that people stop playing the game, not because it's too "hardcore" but because limiting factors like stamina are desperately in need of tweaking, and the Dev's were listening to all the wrong people, much to the detriment of MO1, RIP.

Skill should win, numbers should matter, and gear should be a distant third factor; skill should not convey near-invulnerability. You are *supposed* to lose fights where are you wildly outnumbered. This is not MO1. Stop trying to bring that selfish, game-destroying garbage back.

/soapbox off

What are you talking about? I don't think anyone can kill half a dozen decent players, because then they wouldn't be decent players

I'm a much stronger 1 v anything in MO 2 actually because I didn't know how to parry shit I couldn't see in 1, I was a very strong group fighter in MO 1 imo but solo killing everyone? No.

I feel as if I was strong due to my ability to play support, call, and sticky/get finishes as well as having strong game sense (aoeing groups) and now I have those skills on top of easier combat where i'm one of the few people who actually CAN do damage to someone.

Whatever anyways look, you have two choices promote individual skill or promote zerging. You know what side of the fence I land on and we know what side of the fence those with less individual skill land on. Why shouldn't I be able to multi frag if I have the skill for it?

Better question how are you gonna make the game not boring if you take out all the individual skill? Would anyone want to play something that they can't truly get better at, maybe marginally better but nothing significant? A game where you can never overcome your enemies because they just have more numbers than you? I doubt it. Thats why zerg oasis and life is zergy were flops that burned out very quickly.

What you are saying makes 0 sense, numbers do convey an advantage, the other players assuming fair play have access to the same character creation, dmg, life pools, support healing, pets, you name it anything. To suggest that numbers convey anything but an advantage is foolish. What you on the other hand are advocating for is a guaranteed win if you have say 12v8, which in MO 1 you could very possibly but with great difficulty win that fight if you had the 8, but MO 2 is looking impossible and that is what you are cheering on because it means you never have to get good, just get a zerg.

 

[Kaemik]

Whatever anyways look, you have two choices promote individual skill or promote zerging.

I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as that. I can partially agree that there are mechanics like frequent stuns and knockdowns that are very pro-zerg as they leave even the most skilled player sitting there helpless as they get wailed on by multiple people. But there are also mechanics which are both anti-zerg and anti-skill. For instance, I'm not super proud of the fact I could 1vX certain groups in ArcheAge as I realize I was entirely gear carried. No way I could 1vX those people if we all were running equivalent gear.

Even in a pure skill-based system though, I would stay there are still 1vX mechanics that are a bit unskilled. Like if you have a super low time-to-kill getting the drop on someone is such a huge advantage you might be able to take out multiple players before they can react so I think long time-to-kill is especially important in open-world environments where people aren't constantly looking for attackers like they are in an arena FPS or something. I think we all can agree if say, you had magical invisibility plus a 1-shot-AoE effect that would be super broken and nobody should respect your mad skills just because you popped out and killed 5 people (Though I'm sure anyone who did that would still expect everyone to). The same holds true to some extent in my mind, for any game where the TTK is too fast. If I can come charging in and have 2-3 people down in like 5-10 seconds I don't think skill is really why I'm pulling off that 1vX.

MO1 always seemed to have a super low grind and stat disparity between higher level and lower level players compared to most MMOs and a highly skill-based system. It seemed like a game to me where people really had to earn their kills. But I never played it enough to say that with great confidence and I would definitely disagree that that pro-skill and pro-zerg are polar opposites that have no overlap or pro-skill and anti-zerg are always the same thing.

 

[Eskaldar]

1) I don't think you should touch it, because even now you have all the advantages, if the opponent missed you with a blow, why add some extra penalty? 2) Push, allows you to push the enemy away from you, whether it should cause damage, the question is twofold. If there was a special skill for this, then I would agree with it, but as it is, I think it is superfluous.
3) I already said that I think about the push in point "2". It's the same here. If there is a special skill, then good, otherwise not.
4) I think at the moment the weapon is balanced very well and should not be touched. It's just always worth considering what kind of armor your opponent is in, what kind of armor you are in, and based on this, use all the pros and cons of weapons/ armor.
5) I Don't know about you, but I noticed that if you put a shield under the HitBox of a weapon, the damage is always minimal, even if you put the wrong block. I think this is correct.
6) Stamina is restored in different ways, depending on the weight of your armor and the character without armor will have an advantage in terms of restoring stamina and will receive maximum damage. So here everyone chooses their own path. Either you are in heavy and well protected armor and with poor stamina recovery or you are in poorly protected armor but with fast stamina recovery.

 

[Teknique]

I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as that. I can partially agree that there are mechanics like frequent stuns and knockdowns that are very pro-zerg as they leave even the most skilled player sitting there helpless as they get wailed on by multiple people. But there are also mechanics which are both anti-zerg and anti-skill. For instance, I'm not super proud of the fact I could 1vX certain groups in ArcheAge as I realize I was entirely gear carried. No way I could 1vX those people if we all were running equivalent gear.

Even in a pure skill-based system though, I would stay there are still 1vX mechanics that are a bit unskilled. Like if you have a super low time-to-kill getting the drop on someone is such a huge advantage you might be able to take out multiple players before they can react so I think long time-to-kill is especially important in open-world environments where people aren't constantly looking for attackers like they are in an arena FPS or something. I think we all can agree if say, you had magical invisibility plus a 1-shot-AoE effect that would be super broken and nobody should respect your mad skills just because you popped out and killed 5 people (Though I'm sure anyone who did that would still expect everyone to). The same holds true to some extent in my mind, for any game where the TTK is too fast. If I can come charging in and have 2-3 people down in like 5-10 seconds I don't think skill is really why I'm pulling off that 1vX.

MO1 always seemed to have a super low grind and stat disparity between higher level and lower level players compared to most MMOs and a highly skill-based system. It seemed like a game to me where people really had to earn their kills. But I never played it enough to say that with great confidence and I would definitely disagree that that pro-skill and pro-zerg are polar opposites that have no overlap or pro-skill and anti-zerg are always the same thing.

Yeah you got some good points, some things can be anti skill and anti zerg simultaneously, like an invisible instant kill like you pointed out. But I think that's both a rather extreme example and quite easy to balance, and of course every rule has exception right.

Generally speaking though its going to be the way I described. Take a shooter game for example with extremely low TTK 1 shot to head and you were tasked with a 1v3 clutch, it would be doable. If that somehow became 20 shots to the head you're never going to be able to win that because the enemy player will call for back up in that time unless the skill disparity between you and them is that much wider. I can't see why the same logic doesn't apply to MO 2.

 

[Kaemik]

Well in the FPS example I can defiantly speak from a bit of experience. I am very much capable of 1vXing in the older Halo titles even though they have a much longer average TTK than say, Call of Duty which I won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

The way I would 1vX in Halo is tactics. I knew every weapon, knew what situations they really shone in and what situations they didn't, I knew the maps, knew were to find the good weapons etc. So I would set myself up in good positions for the weapon setups I had and use them appropriately for the type of kills they were good at. Could I go and kill a whole group of them all at once? Probably not but I could kill a couple at once and I could methodically cut to pieces an entire group.

The high TTK actually made this easier on me because I knew how to saw through them quickly while not really presenting myself to them long enough for them to get a kill with most weapons. I would take out on or two, get out, recharge shields, do it again.

I could NEVER do that in a Call of Duty title because a passing leaf carried on the breeze could kill me if it has too many drops of water on it. I took damage nearly every time I killed one of them. I just knew how to press a quick kill and get out before they could kill me.

I feel like the importance of game knowledge and tactics goes up as TTK goes up. To a certain extent at least.

 

[Teknique]

Well in the FPS example I can defiantly speak from a bit of experience. I am very much capable of 1vXing in the older Halo titles even though they have a much longer average TTK than say, Call of Duty which I won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

The way I would 1vX in Halo is tactics. I knew every weapon, knew what situations they really shone in and what situations they didn't, I knew the maps, knew were to find the good weapons etc. So I would set myself up in good positions for the weapon setups I had and use them appropriately for the type of kills they were good at. Could I go and kill a whole group of them all at once? Probably not but I could kill a couple at once and I could methodically cut to pieces an entire group.

The high TTK actually made this easier on me because I knew how to saw through them quickly while not really presenting myself to them long enough for them to get a kill with most weapons. I would take out on or two, get out, recharge shields, do it again.

I could NEVER do that in a Call of Duty title because a passing leaf carried on the breeze could kill me if it has too many drops of water on it. I took damage nearly every time I killed one of them. I just knew how to press a quick kill and get out before they could kill me.

I feel like the importance of game knowledge and tactics goes up as TTK goes up. To a certain extent at least.

Fair point but halo is an x box game with 0 movement recoil, sticky grenades and laser swords. It’s not a skill based game to begin with and I think is actually a better example of a casual game. Hardcore modern warfare on the other hand while much easier than say counter strike is going to favor the person with better aim.

Also game mode matters a lot here. Casual game modes will allow you to camp a corner or something.

A competitive game mode will usually force you to both attack and defend at some point.

Mo has objectives too, don’t let all your teammates die that’s where a baiter/camper becomes useless very quickly.

Baiting for frags is actually a very low skill play

 

[Kaemik]

Hardcore modern warfare on the other hand while much easier than say counter strike is going to favor the person with better aim.

Precisely why I hate it. Reflexes and aim aren't everything. Some people are just a bit slower than others. Sometimes the server for the game you play is in EU but you're in west coast NA. Halo didn't reward raw twitch skill the way COD does but I feel like tactics and game knowledge were vastly more important than they are in a COD title.

Halo might seem more "casual" in that it's gameplay is a bit slower but I think it's more hardcore in that someone with adequate game knowledge and tactics can tear people with more raw reflexes apart. Depends on what aspect of gameplay you emphasize when you use the term "hardcore" and "skill" because I notice almost everyone uses those term differently.

 

[Teknique]

Precisely why I hate it. Reflexes and aim aren't everything. Some people are just a bit slower than others. Sometimes the server for the game you play is in EU but you're in west coast NA. Halo didn't reward raw twitch skill the way COD does but I feel like tactics and game knowledge were vastly more important than they are in a COD title.

Halo might seem more "casual" in that it's gameplay is a bit slower but I think it's more hardcore in that someone with adequate game knowledge and tactics can tear people with more raw reflexes apart. Depends on what aspect of gameplay you emphasize when you use the term "hardcore" and "skill" because I notice almost everyone uses those term differently.

Well if you’re saying 100% skill base with no esports reaction time than you truly have transcended the mo 2 debate world and achieved godhood

 

[Kaemik]

Not at all. I'm not arguing twitch skill needs to be removed from the game. If I wanted that I'd be playing a turn-based RPG, not even games like Halo. I'm just arguing a game is not more hardcore or "better" simply because it places a huge emphasis on those elements. I personally find game knowledge and tactics to be a more meaningful set of skills to place emphasis on. A game where you can consistently 1vX purely because you're better at finger gymnastics isn't one I'd play. A game where you can 1vX because of superior game knowledge and tactics is precisely the kind of game I look for though.

I want a game to engage my brain, not just test my finger speed.

 

[Buffallo]

Not at all. I'm not arguing twitch skill needs to be removed from the game. If I wanted that I'd be playing a turn-based RPG, not even games like Halo. I'm just arguing a game is not more hardcore or "better" simply because it places a huge emphasis on those elements. I personally find game knowledge and tactics to be a more meaningful set of skills to place emphasis on. A game where you can consistently 1vX purely because you're better at finger gymnastics isn't one I'd play. A game where you can 1vX because of superior game knowledge and tactics is precisely the kind of game I look for though.

I want a game to engage my brain, not just test my finger speed.

Again, more deliberate blocking is not a twitch skill. It allows for better positioning which is a choice over time element which is not currently in the game for the offender.

 

[Kaemik]

That comment is not really directed at you. I'm not really clear what changes you want at this point man.

 

[Buffallo]

That comment is not really directed at you. I'm not really clear what changes you want at this point man.

Lol what a laugh.

 

[Kaemik]

We had a conversation in another thread where you seemed to be advocating for a delay between parries. Which I opposed on the grounds that it's too nice to button mashers like me. If there is a parry delay I will just charge at my enemy in berserker mode and swing wildly with a fast-attacking weapon assuming about half my hits will get through to the enemy.

Now you are saying "slower blocking" which would seem to me indicating you want the speed required to block to be slowed down and lower the skill cap? I guess I like that as a high latency player but that seems the opposite of making parrying harder? Or do you mean "less frequent blocking" like you were talking about before? In which case I'm going to stand by my previous statement with the caveat that I PERSONALLY would like that system a lot because I'm terribad. But I feel it would kill the elegance and skill of the current system.

 

[Buffallo]

What I tend to see is much grandstanding and little that helps the new player in the intermediate to long run.

We had a conversation in another thread where you seemed to be advocating for a delay between parries. Which I opposed on the grounds that it's too nice to button mashers like me. If there is a parry delay I will just charge at my enemy in berserker mode and swing wildly with a fast-attacking weapon assuming about half my hits will get through to the enemy.

Now you are saying "slower blocking" which would seem to me indicating you want the speed required to block to be slowed down and lower the skill cap? I guess I like that as a high latency player but that seems the opposite of making parrying harder? Or do you mean "less frequent blocking" like you were talking about before? In which case I'm going to stand by my previous statement with the caveat that I PERSONALLY would like that system a lot because I'm terribad. But I feel it would kill the elegance and skill of the current system.

It wasn't nice to button smasher in mo1. I refuse the grounds that people make here because they are plain for all to see in mo1. When it's gone I'm just going to post videos of mo1.

 

[Buffallo]

We had a conversation in another thread where you seemed to be advocating for a delay between parries. Which I opposed on the grounds that it's too nice to button mashers like me. If there is a parry delay I will just charge at my enemy in berserker mode and swing wildly with a fast-attacking weapon assuming about half my hits will get through to the enemy.

Now you are saying "slower blocking" which would seem to me indicating you want the speed required to block to be slowed down and lower the skill cap? I guess I like that as a high latency player but that seems the opposite of making parrying harder? Or do you mean "less frequent blocking" like you were talking about before? In which case I'm going to stand by my previous statement with the caveat that I PERSONALLY would like that system a lot because I'm terribad. But I feel it would kill the elegance and skill of the current system.

"Lower skill cap" no. It's going to increase skill cap for both defender AND offender as they oscillate between the two sides. Right now defense is hilariously low. I said it and will say it.

 

[Kaemik]

Ok so are "slower blocking" and block delay the same thing or are we arguing two separate subjects here? I would definitely advise you to use the term "block delay" or "delayed blocking" from now on if that's what we are arguing as "slower blocking" conjures an entirely different idea to mind for me.

And I could be wrong, sometimes ideas don't play out on the field the same way they do on paper. But if there is say... a point .5 second block delay after a parry I don't see why I wouldn't just grab the heaviest hitting weapon with a .5 second swing timer and run-up in your face and just go:

And if there isn't a weapon with a .5 second swing timer or less I don't see what a .5 second block delay is going to accomplish as I couldn't get in a hit while the delay is up.

 

[Buffallo]

Ok so are "slower blocking" and block delay the same thing or are we arguing two separate subjects here? I would definitely advise you to use the term "block delay" or "delayed blocking" from now on if that's what we are arguing as "slower blocking" conjures an entirely different idea to mind for me.

And I could be wrong, sometimes ideas don't play out on the field the same way they do on paper. But if there is say... a point .5 second block delay after a parry I don't see why I wouldn't just grab the heaviest hitting weapon with a .5 second swing timer and run-up in your face and just go:

And if there isn't a weapon with a .5 second swing timer or less I don't see what a .5 second block delay is going to accomplish as I couldn't get in a hit while the delay is up.

Because other weapons are faster and you mess up management of the other aspects of the game like stamina etc but very importantly here POSITIONING, and camera, and don't commit your blocks at the right time then you GON DIE.

Yeah I suppose I tripped. Fast animation but not every 2ms

 

[Buffallo]

Ok so are "slower blocking" and block delay the same thing or are we arguing two separate subjects here? I would definitely advise you to use the term "block delay" or "delayed blocking" from now on if that's what we are arguing as "slower blocking" conjures an entirely different idea to mind for me.

And I could be wrong, sometimes ideas don't play out on the field the same way they do on paper. But if there is say... a point .5 second block delay after a parry I don't see why I wouldn't just grab the heaviest hitting weapon with a .5 second swing timer and run-up in your face and just go:

And if there isn't a weapon with a .5 second swing timer or less I don't see what a .5 second block delay is going to accomplish as I couldn't get in a hit while the delay is up.

Block delay was never tied to striking in mo1.