Long-time Mount and Blade Warband player here. It is good to see such support for the melee side of things in a largely range-oriented game and setting from both the public and Dev team. Certainly welcomed to say the least.

I'm a huge supporter of the view which Freke has expressed:

This is a visceral world, but also one of fantasy/science fiction set in a time far in the future. The various races, though bound to constraints of physiology, gravity, etc., have evolved in such a way that these laws can be bent or bypassed in some ways. Attempting to attach the word "realism" doesn't exactly make the most sense in this case. One counter-point of sorts to this, however, is that ingame time is not neccesarily going to be 1:1 with Realtime, and therefore some level of fatigue/stamina CAN be argued for on that basis - admittedly, I have not searched the forums extensively for details of this time comparison/conversion. I think there are merits for consideration, though it should not be much of a defining factor so to speak.

Regarding the combat, Chivalry is alright, Dark Souls is alright - I'll also state that I haven't spent huge amounts of time with either, though I have played an d witnessed play of said games - but I think they make the combat a bit too "cute". I think including targeting or player assistance would be a mistake. Same with any general rock/paper/scissors method. As has been stated, the game is more about horizontal progression and player skill/adaptation than one particular item or style outmatching another. Elements like that are alright but it should be the player's ability and decision making that dictates the outcome of a fight.

As stated way back, I'm a Warband player, and pretty good at it. Not going to divulge in the differences between Napoleonic and Warband too much, but there is more of a focus on the melee in Warband than NW as there aren't firearms. Left mouse is your attack, right mouse is block. depending on the weapon you have anywhere from 2-4 attack "directions", left and right swing, overhead and thrust. Blocking functions similarly, where you have to "prepare" the correct block to stop an attack (shields you basically just hold down RMB and it will stop the attack, until your shield breaks). The key is associating this directional style with mouse movement to make it fluid, which it is.

The combat itself is actually very simple and can be picked up quite quickly if you dedicate a bit of time to it. Timing is everything, if you slip up you die. There are no gimmicks. There is no special attack that WILL trump anything else. There is no "best style". There are simply the tools and what the player decides to do with them. With enough time spent, a whole realm of nuance is opened up that keeps Warband players coming back (I've played over the course of something like 6 years). Here's an image an old player put together (jokingly, though the true spirit is there):http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6670/53576675.png.

Warband looks like trash, the netcode is garbage, there is a world of things that could have been done differently. One thing that I and all of my comrades never want to see overly change with it is the combat system. They got it (like 97%) right. I can divulge way more on the nuances but this post is long enough. This leads to my main point:

----------------------------

I suppose I can appreciate some individuals being reluctant to work with a system like this (I've seen enough green Warband players play for a bit then leave the game to understand the predicament). The thing is this: shooting is basically option 1 for nearly every "class". If you get caught in melee it should actually FEEL dangerous. One of the best things about Warband is the sense of accomplishment you feel once you start to make progress. If the combat system is dumbed down and made too rigid that sense of reward will be completely unattainable. Keep it simple, I agree, but allow for it to be DYNAMIC.

The space marine multiplayer was just campaign combat but with other players to it. The campaign combat had no nuance to it because it didn't need any. It was just button mashing. Blocking should make sense in that if you only have a combat knife you are not going to block a thunder hammer. It should be that the most effective counter to an enemy melee class charging at you is a friendly melee class jumping in and saving you from being impaled/smashed/decapitated etc.
There should be a pretty steep learning curve for non-close combat classes because they wouldn't stand much of a chance anyway. However if you are skilled enough you should be able to block that power sword with your combat blade. The idea being that with experience you should be able to last longer, not win, against a proper close-combat class.
The SM multiplayer was good if you were pitting an assault marine against a tactical marine because it gave you a realistic outcome even if it was just button mashing. When it was raptor vs assault marine it is very much whoever gets the first couple of hits in. Not always, but when the extent of blocking as a combat roll or legging it on your jump pack it was pretty likely. You almost always knew when you had lost a fight before it had ended. If you mistimed when you left then you would die (unless you got shot anyway). I'm hoping for something with a little more grace.
A raptor should be able to land in front of me and start hacking me to pieces, I should be able to try and do something about it. However when there are close combat classes fighting each other it should be more that just getting the first couple of swings in.

Also some better weapon variation and nuance than SM would be nice.

I think the longer TTK will make all the difference here. This is something that will need BETA to determine. But I'm still not in favor of a complex melee system. You will kill the "up front" success of the game by alienating the people without patience. Believe me I'm on your side of the fence and wish all people had the drive to stick with things and learn to be better. But it's just not the case. I want the game to be HUGE, with a huge player base that enjoys the game and commits to it. Melee needs to be both dumbed down and there needs to be a bit of "spamming" success for the new player trying it out. The learning curve can start there. Then it needs to get complex and vets can show their skill by countering the spam melee with blocks, stuns, ect... I don't think any direction attack system would benefit the game because you're trying to kill someone fast so you can get back to cover. The learning curve for that is NOT good for anyone who hasn't used it already. Now, you're just trying to make EC into the game you're good at with a belief that your system is superior. That system only becomes fluid when you do it ALOT. That's not the system you want for game that you want to attract the easy mode masses with. It's fine for cult hits but not the game we want to make 40k more mainstream.

Who said we want a game for the masses?Who said we want to make 40k more mainstream?I thought this was supposed to be a game for 40k fans,the game people expected for a long time,we dont need to cater for the general public,the 40k fanbase is big enough.
Mount and Blade's melee system has no learning curve AT ALL,you have 4 attack maneuvers and 4 defensive maneuvers,1 if you have a shield.It allows for as many spamming as you require,provided your enemy is as reckless as you.(Havent played the new ones,so if im worng bout this one go easy on me)

That's pretty small thinking in my opinion. And it doesn't work as a good business model. Yes, the game is for 40k fans.. but you need it to be successful in order for it to stay alive. The more the merrier. The 40k fan base is not big enough to provide a stable pay check to the Devs. 50% of the 40k fan base can't afford to field a TT army and will not buy alot of DLC.. just the must haves.

Both Chivalry and Mount & Blade's combat systems are not fluid to the fight. Chivalry is slow and cumbersome. M&B is not fluid.. the multi direction system causes lame angles of delivery and just a non fluid fight. Making melee fluid is far more important than making it more complex. We're power armored, or unrelenting brutish Orks, or fast and nimble Eldar... not weak and tiresome humans.

In real fights you project your movements before you strike and react accordingly. If I'm squared off with my opponent I size of his stance and then come at the angle I determine would take him off guard. Openers... fakes.. ect... and there's a big difference in fists and swords and all that.. so why even bother with the complexity.

So, here's my pitch. Since they're hoping to make this multi platform it needs to be controller compliant.So, I'll use PS3 for my example. It would be easy to make it PC from there because you can map it however you want.

Dumb it down to left side<square>/full front(power)<triangle>/right side<circle>/Block<x>

Have chain combos of increasing damage, debuffs, bleeds, based on the combo string.
Example: Sword Based
<square left side string> upward flare riposte(small push back)-down left swing(small bleed)-right to left cross(attack speed debuff)-Full Power Back Swing (Big Damage)
<triangle frontal power string> pommel strike(stun)-down left strike(damage resist debuff)-upward right strike(big bleed)-decapitate(finish)
<circle right side string>quick thrust(knock back)-upward left strike(slow target)-backhand thrust(armor penetration effect)-twist and pull out(Big Damage)

In order to parry you must break your chain and tap the button of the chain they are using. So you need to learn what each string looks like to effectively avoid damage. Parry would avoid damage while blocking would absorb what it can depending on your armor and what weapon is hammering you. Does this create a rock/paper/scissors effect.. yes. But it's a complex one. It brings fluid fighting rather than choppy technical crap.

I would be slightly disapointed if this game focused on pleasing the global market over 40k fans.Many games lose value because instead of focusing on what they set out to be,they dumb themselves down to attempt to please the bigger market."Thinking big" isn't always advantageous,and sometimes you need to focus on the small things first,like pleasing the already existing fan-base.

I really dont understand why you say Mount and Blade system isnt fluid.Nothing more fluid than pressing the left mouse button,or pressing left mouse button as you turn around,seeing your weapon turn with you to match an enemy who was atempting to flank you.Do you mean the animations?I am sure that with genetically enhaced super soliders we will have faster animations.I would really like if you would develop this point.

I agree with your second point 100% but your first one?

The current number of people on this forum is about 8500. These are 40k fans. There is nearly always half as many guest as members online. So that's around 17000. I would like to point out that the devs are into 40k a lot. They have already stated that they want to stay as true to the lore as possible. What they are going to do is make a 40k MMOFPS. People are going to come on and play a game set in the 40k universe. They have Grahem Mcneil writing the storyline. However it is still a business endevour. THQ is gone. If this fails then the gaming industry will probably shy away from 40k games. We need to make 40k and this game "mainstream" because who ever heard of a non-mainstream MMO? When MMO's fall out of favor with the majority (for any reason) they die. End of. I would rather take a little bit out of the game and have the game exist than not at all.

I'm still not entirely sure what you meant about it going "mainstream" though. Where exactly are they not staying true to the 40k fanbase?

I guess I'm not seeing how a horizontal and an overhead strike are in any way complex. It's two attacks. If there's friendly fire then we need some directional attacks. The Space Marine style of melee would kill your friends as much as enemies. If you have a ton of people by your side then you want an overhead attack. That's just common sense so you don't hit your friends in your swing. Overhead and horizontal are the main attacks with chainswords in the novels and depicted in the art from what I've seen.

Two buttons, man.


Don't start with not wanting to be "mainstream". That's for angsty teenagers. This cold get people in to 40k like never before. We want players. While this forum could sustain the game on release probably, we won't all be around forever. Not everyone has to be a diehard 40k fan. It will attract more of those than WoW attracts actual Warcraft fans but a lot of WoW players I know ended up learning more lore than I know.

The best melee combat I tried was actually in Dark Messiah, a game from 2006. It was a first person fantasy game with a focus on magic and melee fighting. It was a buggy mess, but for its time, no other game came close to having combat as fun as it did.

It had a few basic attacks. A regular swing, a heavy swing, parrying and blocking and then a special attack depending on what kind of weapon you used. You could also empower your weapons with various spells to add even more diversity to your attack. Interestingly they had a kick as well like in Dark Souls which would stagger your opponent if he was constantly blocking. Or it'd put him off balance or simply throw him to the ground.

A system like this isn't complicated but it is super fun and it has enough nuance there for skilled players to rise above the rest if they put the effort into it.

I think if they copy the melee system from Space Marine 100% it will be just a little too simple.

I guess the question is if their servers and technology can handle timed responses like blocking and parrying

I agree on the sentiment of DMs combat being awesome but if kicks make it in this game they should be anything but the ones in DM. There is a reason why its called the Kicking Simulator. Theres been numerous accounts of people finishing that game buy just going around kicking stuff from start to end (with a few minor exceptions).