Stop reworking the sabering system

Posts
827
Likes
939
Not going to make this into an Achilles-esque post where I write a 6000 word essay on sabering, but I have just read the proposed sabering changes and I am mindblown once again. Please show support to what I'm saying if you agree with me or obviously if you disagree make it known too.

Please STOP reworking the sabering system from ground zero every time:
For the past 3-4 years or however long it has been, we've been stuck with an unsatisfactory sabering system and people are tired of it, but please do not make the same mistake that you have repeated for the past 4-5 sabering builds. The wrong approach has been taken to correcting and improving the sabering system for each build without fail. Every time you release a new sabering build, you insist on overhauling the entire thing - adding a tonne of new concepts and filling it with new (largely unsatisfactorily tested) ideas. 1.4.9 was a well received sabering build that needed a few tweaks to be made into something 'perfect'. Instead you decided to overhaul the entire thing with 1.5 and broke some of the most basic mechanics in the process which still have not been fixed today (parries, counters etc).

A better approach would be to make small tweaks to what we already have now and clean it up first - keeping it simple and adding on from there in the future:
Take what we have right now, implement the fixes for the inconsistency of counters, hitboxes and collisions which is every player's largest gripe with this build. After that, adjust the damages closer to how they were for 1.5's release. After that, revert the ACM system to the older, simpler system of +1ACC = +1ACM. Keep the core gameplay simple and make sure that it works with vigorous testing and small, feedback driven tweaks.

Once we have a core that is as close to perfect as possible, at that point we can consider adding in some more complexities such as perks for each style, new gameplay mechanics entirely to help balance any overpowered metas that crop up.

Let's give new players a chance of actually wanting to learn the game:
Adding neutral block and perks which favour one explicit playstyle may feel like it's helping 'noob' players to improve - but it isn't. This game is incredibly complex even in its most simple state of attacks, combos, half swings, pbs, mbs, swingblock, parries, interrupts and movement. There is seldom other fighting games that even come close to the amount of learning needed for MB2.

If we really want to protect MB2's lifespan, then the answer is to retain the (small) number of players that come to check out the game. The key word being retention. Keep the game easy to learn and pick up - don't go overcomplicating it with neutral block, manual block defence and then perfect block on top of that. (Seriously, why do we need 4 different ways to just block a swing - oh but wait some of them don't block it fully and some do??). Don't go adding random perks to every style that contain different damage multipliers, methods of achieving ACM or other 'hidden' mechanics that are not easily visible on the UI or in the animations etc. In essence, people shouldn't need to read a changelog just to understand exactly what each saber style has to offer and to learn all of the different numbers and values.
 
Posts
276
Likes
256
Don't go adding random perks to every style that contain different damage multipliers, methods of achieving ACM or other 'hidden' mechanics

Only on this specific section, I will say that it's really nice to learn and you spend way more time discovering & searching. When there is those hiddens mechanics.
I believe moderns games lack to integrate this crucial element, which maintain a strong interest for the players : "This is a vast, complete, complexe world".
 
Posts
827
Likes
939
Only on this specific section, I will say that it's really nice to learn and you spend way more time discovering & searching. When there is those hiddens mechanics.
I believe moderns games lack to integrate this crucial element, which maintain a strong interest for the players : "This is a vast, complete, complexe world".
But do you agree with the overall premise of what I'm saying? That's the important part
 
Posts
276
Likes
256
But do you agree with the overall premise of what I'm saying? That's the important part

1.4.x versions with many "testings" in live builds weren't the best we can all agree on that.
There is nothing to blame in a direction switch we are currently on-going now. I do hope changes will remain on a smaller spectrum after the main build is live.
 

Hessu

Internal Beta Team
Posts
798
Likes
1,308
100% agree, it would have been so much better if the devs did minor tweaks instead of a complete overhaul. They wouldn't have to spend so much time on working on many aspects of sabering at once and the players wouldn't have to wait for the much needed changes for so long...
 
Posts
47
Likes
57
Only on this specific section, I will say that it's really nice to learn and you spend way more time discovering & searching. When there is those hiddens mechanics.
I believe moderns games lack to integrate this crucial element, which maintain a strong interest for the players : "This is a vast, complete, complexe world".
you are trash for years garth idk what you're learning fuck the new saber system
 

Tempest

Gameplay Design
Movie Battles II Team
Posts
740
Likes
1,137
Please STOP reworking the sabering system from ground zero every time:
For the past 3-4 years or however long it has been, we've been stuck with an unsatisfactory sabering system and people are tired of it, but please do not make the same mistake that you have repeated for the past 4-5 sabering builds. The wrong approach has been taken to correcting and improving the sabering system for each build without fail.
I would agree in general that many of the previous attempts at "fixing" sabering have largely had errors because of the same reason: small groups of people with similar ideas that largely just do what suits their own playstyles and flipflopping many parts of the system from one extreme of design to another (the latter being a general issue in most of MB2 historically). I'd assume anyone, including yourself given that you've tested the majority of the changes over the years yourself, would know at this point that what I've been working on has largely been based on discussions and iterating with a sizeable number of people within the community. There are a couple things like NB and the damage clamping based on animation time that I've introduced to see how they could be brought in while actually adjusting them instead of trying to force how they were in the past into what we currently have. I've also made it pretty clear to anyone who's playtested this over the years that anything that doesn't have majority positive reception is open to being thrown out.

Every time you release a new sabering build, you insist on overhauling the entire thing - adding a tonne of new concepts and filling it with new (largely unsatisfactorily tested) ideas. 1.4.9 was a well received sabering build that needed a few tweaks to be made into something 'perfect'. Instead you decided to overhaul the entire thing with 1.5 and broke some of the most basic mechanics in the process which still have not been fixed today (parries, counters etc).
I'm not sure if this is pointed at me or the dev team in general but most of this is covered by the above. I do have a question or two though: Given that I don't know of basically anyone who currently really enjoys the current state of the game, how many small tweaks would it take to shift things enough to be enjoyable for most? What qualifies as being good across the board? Where's the line as far as how many small adjustments get introduced vs things being acceptable?

A better approach would be to make small tweaks to what we already have now and clean it up first - keeping it simple and adding on from there in the future:
Take what we have right now, implement the fixes for the inconsistency of counters, hitboxes and collisions which is every player's largest gripe with this build. After that, adjust the damages closer to how they were for 1.5's release. After that, revert the ACM system to the older, simpler system of +1ACC = +1ACM. Keep the core gameplay simple and make sure that it works with vigorous testing and small, feedback driven tweaks.
As mentioned before, the changes you've presumably looked at have been the result of lots of feedback. Most of the core gameplay is fairly in line with how the current build works. I've also made focused efforts to make things simpler/more intuitive where possible with 1ACC = 1ACM being an actual change that was done that falls in line with those goals.

Once we have a core that is as close to perfect as possible, at that point we can consider adding in some more complexities such as perks for each style, new gameplay mechanics entirely to help balance any overpowered metas that crop up.
Again, how do we determine what's "close to perfect"? The work done was fixing the issues from the live build and then making it more interesting and fun with things like perks.

Let's give new players a chance of actually wanting to learn the game:
Adding neutral block and perks which favour one explicit playstyle may feel like it's helping 'noob' players to improve - but it isn't. This game is incredibly complex even in its most simple state of attacks, combos, half swings, pbs, mbs, swingblock, parries, interrupts and movement. There is seldom other fighting games that even come close to the amount of learning needed for MB2.
I don't really get how this train of thought comes up. The perks can encourage particular aspects of play but they don't lock people into them nor are they designed for helping "noobs". Most of the changes I've done for the concepts you've mentioned are cleaning up broken aspects of the live build that are largely opaque even for vets (try explaining ACC/ACM to a newbie alongside how swing damage multpliers work, it's a mess).

If we really want to protect MB2's lifespan, then the answer is to retain the (small) number of players that come to check out the game. The key word being retention. Keep the game easy to learn and pick up - don't go overcomplicating it with neutral block, manual block defence and then perfect block on top of that. (Seriously, why do we need 4 different ways to just block a swing - oh but wait some of them don't block it fully and some do??). Don't go adding random perks to every style that contain different damage multipliers, methods of achieving ACM or other 'hidden' mechanics that are not easily visible on the UI or in the animations etc. In essence, people shouldn't need to read a changelog just to understand exactly what each saber style has to offer and to learn all of the different numbers and values.
You want more flavorful and interesting mechanics but also don't want anything that can't be conveyed through the UI or otherwise straight off the bat. These are largely conflicting ideas at their base but not entirely impossible to coexist. More indicators have been added and most of how things trigger are either easy enough to observe (e.g. stagger with red or not taking damage with parries with cyan) or are tied to other existing mechanics (PB, Mblock). I don't know of any other game that has any reasonable amount of depth that doesn't have some amount of mechanics that are entirely learned with experimentation, reading guide(s), or being explained by experienced players.

100% agree, it would have been so much better if the devs did minor tweaks instead of a complete overhaul. They wouldn't have to spend so much time on working on many aspects of sabering at once and the players wouldn't have to wait for the much needed changes for so long...
One particular reason why so much has been put into one patch in this manner is because of internal discussions (though I'm sure there's been plenty of external mentions, at least by Viserys) that wanted to get away from constant micro adjustments, both of sabering and for other parts of the game as well.
 
Last edited:
Posts
276
Likes
256
(try explaining ACC/ACM to a newbie alongside how swing damage multpliers work, it's a mess).

It is difficult to explain, yet very satisfying to do for the outcome in interest is significant when the mechanic isn't only one number going + or -
I believe in both ACC/ACM to be decent, and improving it would drastically changes the meta on certain aspect.
Wether or not you will decide to keep this system or change it, is I assume merely a result of the rest of the changes ?
 

MaceMadunusus

Level Designer
Donator
Movie Battles II Team
Posts
1,912
Likes
2,672
A better approach would be to make small tweaks to what we already have now and clean it up first - keeping it simple and adding on from there in the future:

That is what kind of got us into the current problem with the current saber system. Which is what we are trying to avoid. It isn't being built from zero but it is being handled more carefully this time.
 
Posts
827
Likes
939
That is what kind of got us into the current problem with the current saber system. Which is what we are trying to avoid. It isn't being built from zero but it is being handled more carefully this time.
Haven’t had time to go through Tempest’s response yet, but this just isn’t true? The reason we’re in this state is because of the fact we’ve constantly overhauled new builds rather than tweak them.

How do you reply to a thread which’s core argument is that ‘mb2 sabering builds need to be improved by small tweaks rather than big overhauls’ with the unsupported assertion that: ‘actually small tweaks are what got us here’. ???
 

MaceMadunusus

Level Designer
Donator
Movie Battles II Team
Posts
1,912
Likes
2,672
How do you reply to a thread which’s core argument is that ‘mb2 sabering builds need to be improved by small tweaks rather than big overhauls’ with the unsupported assertion that: ‘actually small tweaks are what got us here’. ???

Because that is just factually wrong if you think what you got was actually some form of overhaul. Just shows a basic misunderstanding of what an overhaul of the saber system would actually entail.
 
Posts
827
Likes
939
Because that is just factually wrong if you think what you got was actually some form of overhaul. Just shows a basic misunderstanding of what an overhaul of the saber system would actually entail.
And once again I give up reasoning with you. Why would my post have gained so much support in a small period of time if I was wrong lol. We have no chance of getting through to you if every time the community supports an opinion you just say ‘no, u’.

We literally havent had a single tweak to the current sabering system for 3-4 years.
 

MaceMadunusus

Level Designer
Donator
Movie Battles II Team
Posts
1,912
Likes
2,672
We literally havent had a single tweak to the current sabering system for 3-4 years.

Yes, I am talking about the period before that, which caused so much turmoil that lead to the 3-4 year break.
 

FrenzY

Chaos Connoisseur
Moderator
Movie Battles II Team
Posts
592
Likes
543
Things are not Final, Noel. You yourself should know this by now as you have been a part of the team and a part of the process.

There are a lot of aspects which can be removed and stripped depending on how it goes. From what I have seen, some devs think it needs to be simpler as well, thus the delay and process in setting up the Open Beta in the first place (that is one of the reasons, not the only reason).

I do think the perks system will be hard to master and understand for many, and personally have my gripes with PB as well (I'd rather it be mostly removed or integrated with mblock more), but if we are somehow able to strike a happy medium between it all and come up with a clear and concise way to explain the saber system via a video, tutorial or guide upon final release, perhaps it could work out.

We shall see...
 
Posts
17
Likes
39
20220618_142830.jpg

I concur with your statement.
 
Posts
827
Likes
939
Yes, I am talking about the period before that, which caused so much turmoil that lead to the 3-4 year break.
The period before that was consisting of wild beta builds from Stassin and Tempest. From 1.3 to 1.4 a tonne of features were added and subsequently removed (pb counters, semi pb, perfect parry). From 1.4 to 1.5 basically the entire meta was changed in what would’ve been a decent build with a few tweaks, unfortunately the build breaks counters and collisions etc and never gets touched for three years for pretty much no good reason.

What am I missing? Stassin’s answer to 1.5.x was that bizarre but at least creative over the top overhaul containing vastly different defences for each saber style. Tempest’s answer was a convoluted system with NB, weird varying per style ACC meta etc which isn’t 100 miles away from what we have now.
 
Posts
827
Likes
939
I would agree in general that many of the previous attempts at "fixing" sabering have largely had errors because of the same reason: small groups of people with similar ideas that largely just do what suits their own playstyles and flipflopping many parts of the system from one extreme of design to another (the latter being a general issue in most of MB2 historically). I'd assume anyone, including yourself given that you've tested the majority of the changes over the years yourself, would know at this point that what I've been working on has largely been based on discussions and iterating with a sizeable number of people within the community. There are a couple things like NB and the damage clamping based on animation time that I've introduced to see how they could be brought in while actually adjusting them instead of trying to force how they were in the past into what we currently have. I've also made it pretty clear to anyone who's playtested this over the years that anything that doesn't have majority positive reception is open to being thrown out.


I'm not sure if this is pointed at me or the dev team in general but most of this is covered by the above. I do have a question or two though: Given that I don't know of basically anyone who currently really enjoys the current state of the game, how many small tweaks would it take to shift things enough to be enjoyable for most? What qualifies as being good across the board? Where's the line as far as how many small adjustments get introduced vs things being acceptable?


As mentioned before, the changes you've presumably looked at have been the result of lots of feedback. Most of the core gameplay is fairly in line with how the current build works. I've also made focused efforts to make things simpler/more intuitive where possible with 1ACC = 1ACM being an actual change that was done that falls in line with those goals.


Again, how do we determine what's "close to perfect"? The work done was fixing the issues from the live build and then making it more interesting and fun with things like perks.


I don't really get how this train of thought comes up. The perks can encourage particular aspects of play but they don't lock people into them nor are they designed for helping "noobs". Most of the changes I've done for the concepts you've mentioned are cleaning up broken aspects of the live build that are largely opaque even for vets (try explaining ACC/ACM to a newbie alongside how swing damage multpliers work, it's a mess).


You want more flavorful and interesting mechanics but also don't want anything that can't be conveyed through the UI or otherwise straight off the bat. These are largely conflicting ideas at their base but not entirely impossible to coexist. More indicators have been added and most of how things trigger are either easy enough to observe (e.g. stagger with red or not taking damage with parries with cyan) or are tied to other existing mechanics (PB, Mblock). I don't know of any other game that has any reasonable amount of depth that doesn't have some amount of mechanics that are entirely learned with experimentation, reading guide(s), or being explained by experienced players.


One particular reason why so much has been put into one patch in this manner is because of internal discussions (though I'm sure there's been plenty of external mentions, at least by Viserys) that wanted to get away from constant micro adjustments, both of sabering and for other parts of the game as well.
I personally do not want a flavourful or more interesting patch. Thats what I’m trying to say. I want a good, basic patch that allows you to be creative and play in many different ways even with one style (i.e yellow or red). 1.4.9 almost had this. You could play aggressive as spamming was still effective, you could play ACM and use movement, you could be defensive with mbc or you could mix it up and create whatever system worked for you.

ACC and ACM in its current state is confusing - but ‘hit, don’t get hit and you will do more damage over time’ is not a hard to explain or weird concept. The only thing that makes it weird is when you make it weird by adding weird ACC requirements instead of just making it like 1.4.5->1.4.9 ACM.

As for your questions about who enjoys the game - there is still a decent dueling community active in EU even with this broken build. That within itself shows you the core gameplay is actually still enjoyable. Maybe you could make a poll and see for yourself whether people would enjoy this build with some small changes. I already provided what tweaks would be required to fix the current build:
- Fix hitboxes, parry window, collisions etc like you have done in the beta so they’re more consistent as per 1.4.9 etc.
- Up the overall damage multiplier again.
- Put ACM back to its simplest form of +1ACC = +1ACM. Damage starts building from +3 ACM or something.
- Add in as many QoL or cosmetic changes as possible (all saber colours in duel is a great change which has been long requested).
 

Hessu

Internal Beta Team
Posts
798
Likes
1,308
I think 1.4.9 would have been a good baseline to work on. It had a lot of issues but nothing too big or time consuming to change/fix. Mainly increasing base damage and tweak some dmg multipliers, perks and either remove or nerf mblock counter.
 

Tempest

Gameplay Design
Movie Battles II Team
Posts
740
Likes
1,137
I personally do not want a flavourful or more interesting patch. Thats what I’m trying to say. I want a good, basic patch that allows you to be creative and play in many different ways even with one style (i.e yellow or red). 1.4.9 almost had this. You could play aggressive as spamming was still effective, you could play ACM and use movement, you could be defensive with mbc or you could mix it up and create whatever system worked for you.
While many would say that 1.4.9 was the last non-janky build, I think many would also say that having perks and such being removed was a pretty big hit to enjoying the system. A lot of the styles have also felt largely samey aside from red which I think is a sad part of the system that never really stood out much until more recently.

ACC and ACM in its current state is confusing - but ‘hit, don’t get hit and you will do more damage over time’ is not a hard to explain or weird concept.
The ironic part here is that this is not how it's ever worked. Hitting more has not ever given you an ACM advantage because of the way that chaining/comboing works as far as first body hit factoring into whether you can get ACM or not. This more or less just proves my point about it being convoluted historically and as is.

The only thing that makes it weird is when you make it weird by adding weird ACC requirements instead of just making it like 1.4.5->1.4.9 ACM.
I'm making it so ACC and ACM are 1:1 and that swings besides the opaque combo vs chaining mechanic also factor into it so that it actually is as you incorrectly described before. Hit more = always building ACM and getting hit more = always losing ACM.

As for your questions about who enjoys the game - there is still a decent dueling community active in EU even with this broken build. That within itself shows you the core gameplay is actually still enjoyable. Maybe you could make a poll and see for yourself whether people would enjoy this build with some small changes. I already provided what tweaks would be required to fix the current build:
- Fix hitboxes, parry window, collisions etc like you have done in the beta so they’re more consistent as per 1.4.9 etc.
- Up the overall damage multiplier again.
- Put ACM back to its simplest form of +1ACC = +1ACM. Damage starts building from +3 ACM or something.
- Add in as many QoL or cosmetic changes as possible (all saber colours in duel is a great change which has been long requested).
I know plenty of people who still play but don't like the build. Those are two separate things. The majority of what's in the build is QoL aside from perks, NB (which will likely be getting removed anyway with adjustments to other things), and a couple adjustments aimed at making 1vX more feasible (such as Mblock defense). Fixes to collision/parrying windows and other things as you mentioned + making things like ACM less opaque is more or less what you've brought up multiple times. All of those will enable more playstyles and variety that's been needing to get revived.
 
Top