ScientiaExcelsa
Master Knight
Recently, the melee FF setting, in its various incarnations, has become very popular with the Warband community, and nearly every server uses them. I’m sorry to say, I despise it. Now, the reason I am posting this in the Guildhall and not as a beta suggestion is because I’m quite happy to have a choice of which setting I wish to play on. (At least in theory, because right now the only servers without melee FF are DM and the like, where I seldom venture. But that’s another issue for another thread)
My main concern with melee FF is that so many people are fans of it. It’s become the “pro” setting; all the cool kids are playing this way! I feel completely the opposite about it, and I’m here to present an argument on why other settings are better.
First of all, any replies that read to the effect of “you’re just not good enough to handle it” will be ignored. That’s total debate-fail and not worthy of my time. I will also ignore huge quote-posts in which the poster inserts little comments to surgically nitpick at my posts. Not only is that annoying, it’s bad form and unnecessary to good debate.
The big problem with melee FF is that, for various reasons, it’s deconstructive in nature. There are all the issues of griefing, for one thing. Also, it tends to put restrictions on how well players are able to fight in a group and work together. Accidentally killing or being killed by an ally causes frustration and rage, and can sap the fun right out of the game on a bad day. Even under the assumption that melee FF brings any good to gameplay at all, (which I dispute) you cannot deny the problematic side-effects.
There are two main arguments for melee FF, both of which I frankly find ridiculous. First, proponents argue that it is realistic. While I concede that friendly casualties did happen in actual warfare, I still find it completely unrealistic in-game. In the event that you are striking at an enemy and an ally jumps in your way, you are more likely to stay your hand or redirect your blow. This, I feel, is approximated in gameplay much better by attacks merely bouncing off of teammates, something which can be done much better with the new physics system.
The second argument I constantly hear regurgitated is that melee FF “stops people from zerg-rushing/mindlessly spamming/nord-hordeing”, thereby creating more strategic gameplay. I don’t see how anyone can deny that melee FF doesn’t have a certain negative effect on team play, first of all, especially group tactics. Secondly, that argument implies that “zerging” was the be-all and end-all of gameplay to begin with, which certainly is not true. There were always ways of countering that sort of tactic, such as flanking maneuvers and setting up crossfire with ranged troops.
In the hypothetical event of a 4v1 combat scenario (sans melee FF), there are several options left open to the outnumbered player. He’s gotta be able to outmaneuver the other guys, primarily, and his survival hinges on how well he can dance. That was my favorite part of old-school melee. As long as he keeps himself on the move, only one or two enemies can engage him at the same time. They will often act carelessly, and a good player will know how to choose the right moments to counter-attack. Occasionally the player will emerge victorious, feeling like a hero and beaming ear-to-ear. With melee FF, it’s rare to see 4 players daring enough to attack an outnumbered opponent, because often they’ll just kill each other off in the process. Therefore I argue that while in some ways melee FF can create an interesting depth to combat on an individual basis, it hurts combat at a team-wide perspective. Good players can even maneuver enemies into each other and actively cause a TK. That takes skill, sure, but it’s frustrating to the victims and far less rewarding than prevailing against the odds “honestly”.
Now, if despite my arguments you still feel that melee FF is a “necessary evil” that punishes spamming in groups, please ask yourself a question. Does not the improved physics system provide a way to achieve the same effect without the negative side effects? If you can’t swing through an ally, you can’t just spam mindlessly. In fact, that gives the outnumbered player a window of opportunity, allowing him to punish the spammer. And if that’s not enough, why not throw in a short stun effect for FF in place of damage? (I intend to make a thread suggesting just that, if nobody has beat me to the punch) Thereby, spamming is punished, negative effects of FF are removed, and combat depth both old and new is combined.
I don’t see what further arguments can be dredged up for melee FF, honestly. Please enlighten me as to why I’m mistaken, why melee FF is the best thing since sliced bread. Debate on.
My main concern with melee FF is that so many people are fans of it. It’s become the “pro” setting; all the cool kids are playing this way! I feel completely the opposite about it, and I’m here to present an argument on why other settings are better.
First of all, any replies that read to the effect of “you’re just not good enough to handle it” will be ignored. That’s total debate-fail and not worthy of my time. I will also ignore huge quote-posts in which the poster inserts little comments to surgically nitpick at my posts. Not only is that annoying, it’s bad form and unnecessary to good debate.
The big problem with melee FF is that, for various reasons, it’s deconstructive in nature. There are all the issues of griefing, for one thing. Also, it tends to put restrictions on how well players are able to fight in a group and work together. Accidentally killing or being killed by an ally causes frustration and rage, and can sap the fun right out of the game on a bad day. Even under the assumption that melee FF brings any good to gameplay at all, (which I dispute) you cannot deny the problematic side-effects.
There are two main arguments for melee FF, both of which I frankly find ridiculous. First, proponents argue that it is realistic. While I concede that friendly casualties did happen in actual warfare, I still find it completely unrealistic in-game. In the event that you are striking at an enemy and an ally jumps in your way, you are more likely to stay your hand or redirect your blow. This, I feel, is approximated in gameplay much better by attacks merely bouncing off of teammates, something which can be done much better with the new physics system.
The second argument I constantly hear regurgitated is that melee FF “stops people from zerg-rushing/mindlessly spamming/nord-hordeing”, thereby creating more strategic gameplay. I don’t see how anyone can deny that melee FF doesn’t have a certain negative effect on team play, first of all, especially group tactics. Secondly, that argument implies that “zerging” was the be-all and end-all of gameplay to begin with, which certainly is not true. There were always ways of countering that sort of tactic, such as flanking maneuvers and setting up crossfire with ranged troops.
In the hypothetical event of a 4v1 combat scenario (sans melee FF), there are several options left open to the outnumbered player. He’s gotta be able to outmaneuver the other guys, primarily, and his survival hinges on how well he can dance. That was my favorite part of old-school melee. As long as he keeps himself on the move, only one or two enemies can engage him at the same time. They will often act carelessly, and a good player will know how to choose the right moments to counter-attack. Occasionally the player will emerge victorious, feeling like a hero and beaming ear-to-ear. With melee FF, it’s rare to see 4 players daring enough to attack an outnumbered opponent, because often they’ll just kill each other off in the process. Therefore I argue that while in some ways melee FF can create an interesting depth to combat on an individual basis, it hurts combat at a team-wide perspective. Good players can even maneuver enemies into each other and actively cause a TK. That takes skill, sure, but it’s frustrating to the victims and far less rewarding than prevailing against the odds “honestly”.
Now, if despite my arguments you still feel that melee FF is a “necessary evil” that punishes spamming in groups, please ask yourself a question. Does not the improved physics system provide a way to achieve the same effect without the negative side effects? If you can’t swing through an ally, you can’t just spam mindlessly. In fact, that gives the outnumbered player a window of opportunity, allowing him to punish the spammer. And if that’s not enough, why not throw in a short stun effect for FF in place of damage? (I intend to make a thread suggesting just that, if nobody has beat me to the punch) Thereby, spamming is punished, negative effects of FF are removed, and combat depth both old and new is combined.
I don’t see what further arguments can be dredged up for melee FF, honestly. Please enlighten me as to why I’m mistaken, why melee FF is the best thing since sliced bread. Debate on.
The reason is because I feel robbed of the depth that combat had before. I've grown accustomed to the "new" gameplay, but it's far less rewarding for me and far too gamey.
