Offhand Melee slams should not knockdown

[Sky_]

Conclave thread

The current state of melee is that - outside a few select combos with great utility / power - melee is best used by not equipping it. That meaning, it's best to leave melee in offhand - only pulling it out to block (in the rare scenario where this is useful). The reason for this came with U21, which gave every single melee weapon the ability to knock down while it is in the offhand. This includes melees that have insanely quick slam recovery times (Staves, for example (Tipedo, Amphis)) where throwing a slam out has very little ability to be punished. Yet landing these slams practically guarantees you a kill - a kill without much risk. Examples below. I encourage you to watch them, and note when the person being slammed is able to react to the knockdown

Spoiler

https://gfycat.com/FrequentPotableKronosaurus

You might tell me this was my fault, and in after thought I guess you could. This is used as an example. I was dead before I was up from the knockdown animation. There was nothing I could do to stop this. It is impossible to know at all times where everyone is, so someone could come up outside your field of view, slam you with a Tipedo, and blast you without you being able to counter at all. 

Spoiler

https://gfycat.com/HopefulCanineCrossbill

From the shooter's / slammers perspective. There was nothing this player could have done to save himself from death here. Absolutely, nothing - and this is one of the slowest slam recoveries in the game

Again, the reason why offhand melee has no place knocking people down - is that it both kills one of the strongest things melee had going for it (On-demand knockdowns) and gives that power to an already strong gunplay side that had no reason to have this power. Melee and gunplay are two different things, and they are meant to work together - but there is far more to melee than just offhand use - and while that does have a place - knocking people down is not that place. It's an extremely high damage move that can nearly 1HKO a player when used right. That is where offhand should go. 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Sky_

[Rabbid-]

I say it's perfectly fine since you can combo both slam and gun together

[Sky_]

3 minutes ago, Rabbid- said:

I say it's perfectly fine since you can combo both slam and gun together

Comboing slam and gun together is fine. The slam knocking a person down when the melee is in the offhand is the problem.

[Nez-Kal]

Yeah, I've been playing Nova in Conclave mostly, and I've noticed that Ground slamming seems to be a thing that EVERYONE does when they're 3 feet from me. Like, all the times we encounter, they Bullet-Jump-Slam as fast as they can. Doesn't help them at all, since Nova prevents these instant kills with her Passive Knock-Down the Knock-Downers. You'd think they'd learn to NOT do this to a Nova, but no. I'm guessing its become so Meta that players just keep doing it out of instinct now.

(Seen quite a few Knock-Down + Strun/Shotgun users too. Seems to be a combo, I guess.)

But I agree. Once I found out this was a common tactic I REFUSED to step out of my Nova for any other Frame, just because of the Cheap Kill aspect of it. They really should make it a Melee Equip only thing, and give a little more balance to an already "Wacky at best" balanced game-mode.

 

[SevenLetterKWord]

Quote

It is impossible to know at all times where everyone is

Technically true, but so what? You don't need to be omniscient to avoid ground slams.
To tell where a ground slam might be coming you, you need only be aware of nearby players, and only those that are above you.

Furthermore, it's easy to minimize your vulnerability to ground slams by simply staying mobile.
Nobody can hit you with a ground slam if you're not on the ground. ^{mindblown.jpg}

I cannot remember the last time I was hit by a ground slam, unless it was a punish for a missed ground slam of my own.

2 hours ago, Sky_ said:

melee is best used by not equipping it.

A non-issue. The fundamental weaknesses of equipped melee should not be interpreted as cause to weaken other mechanics.

Edited August 26, 2017 by SevenLetterKWord

[Sky_]

1 minute ago, SevenLetterKWord said:

Technically true, but so what? You don't need to be omniscient to avoid ground slams.

You are right, you don't have to be all knowing to avoid getting hit by a groundslam. Yet it's still a completely free kill if you slip up at all. A kill that costs you absolutely nothing, that the other person can do nothing about when it happens.

8 minutes ago, SevenLetterKWord said:

I cannot remember the last time I was hit by a ground slam, unless it was a punish for a missed ground slam of my own.

I understand completely that getting hit by ground slams is avoidable - but that doesn't change the fact that this mechanic does not belong in the off-hand. Offhand slams were doing just fine before U21 (They were buffed even without the additional knockdown). They gained something that they should not have, and that should be removed.

[SevenLetterKWord]

12 minutes ago, Sky_ said:

Yet it's still a completely free kill if you slip up at all.

Only if you're being haunted by some sort of ground-slam ghost, always ready to ground slam you at any possible moment.
Which, presumably, is not the case.

The majority of the time, your slip-ups will not be punished.
Even if your opponents notice it, nobody (except maybe Ash) can just teleport to you and instantly ground slam; they must first position themselves correctly.
_{(Unless, you slip-up all the time and players have learned to be ready to ground slam you, in which case you're not really "slipping-up", you're just consistently leaving yourself vulnerable.)}

12 minutes ago, Sky_ said:

A kill that costs you absolutely nothing, that the other person can do nothing about when it happens.

Ground slams don't come free. Even fast weapons will briefly lock you into a completely stationary stance, and you'll have no momentum coming out of the slam animation.
If you miss, the player you attempted to slam will be close by for an easy punish. Even if you land the slam, you've still sacrificed your passive mobility and may be targeted by other players.

It's important, then, for the potential rewards of a ground slam to outweigh the guaranteed risks.
A glancing slam inflicts knockdown, which is decent. A direct strike is more difficult to achieve and accordingly adds formidable damage.
Allow me to remind you that neither of these guarantees lethal.

Overall, ground slams introduce a compelling risk-reward dynamic, they add diversity to engagements that would otherwise be gunplay-only, and their relevance in present gameplay creates a dimension of skillful baiting.

[Nazrethim]

10 hours ago, Rabbid- said:

I say it's perfectly fine since you can combo both slam and gun together

No it isn't. Equipping a melee weapon should have an inherent advantage over using it off-hand. Right now it doesn't because that advatage was Channeling damage and Knockdowns. With those transferred to Offhand (due to melee weapons being buffed to match it's pre-update channeling values) there isn't objectively any reason to equip melee, and never equiping it and using it with the gun is objectively better.

 

7 hours ago, SevenLetterKWord said:

A non-issue. The fundamental weaknesses of equipped melee should not be interpreted as cause to weaken other mechanics.

Except this is a change that wasn't requested at all. Off-hand melee shouldn't be as good as equiped melee. You may argue about combo weapons or whatever, but you cannot quifire a gun from equiped melee and if you want to use your secondary while having your primary you need to switch first. Melee had that incorporated by making quickmelee weaker and not having the utilities (soft CCs) of equiped melee.

This change needs to be reversed. The most effective way would be reducing damage to previous levels, reactivating Channeling damage but not it's cost, and Knockdown/Impair being equiped melee only.

That YOU don't see Sword Alone as a legit fighting style isn't a valid argument. And nerfs are a necesary part of PvP balance, right now the gun-offhand melee is too strong and renders melee obsolete, which is very unbalanced.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Nazrethim

[Witchydragon]

17 hours ago, SevenLetterKWord said:

Ground slams don't come free. Even fast weapons will briefly lock you into a completely stationary stance, and you'll have no momentum coming out of the slam animation.
If you miss, the player you attempted to slam will be close by for an easy punish. Even if you land the slam, you've still sacrificed your passive mobility and may be targeted by other players.

It's important, then, for the potential rewards of a ground slam to outweigh the guaranteed risks.
A glancing slam inflicts knockdown, which is decent. A direct strike is more difficult to achieve and accordingly adds formidable damage.
Allow me to remind you that neither of these guarantees lethal.

Overall, ground slams introduce a compelling risk-reward dynamic, they add diversity to engagements that would otherwise be gunplay-only, and their relevance in present gameplay creates a dimension of skillful baiting.

Knockdown from quick melee ground slams is unnecessary and reduces the diversity of engagements.

Staying on the ground is already punished by being an easier target. Ground slam knockdown makes these players even more vulnerable and easy to kill, albeit with the caveat that you too are much more killable from a third party, which is not something that needs to be more prevalent. 

With quick melee ground slam knocking down, it reduces the options a player has for close range engagements and forces them to keep their range with more paranoia, else they will fall victim to another groundslam. 

With the great potential that ground slams have, players will undoubtedly ground slam more often, and obviously have been. Players who miss their ground slams die much quicker than those who do not slam at all, and players who land their slams can kill the enemy player much more easily and comfortably. Quick melee ground slams should be weaker so that they will see less usage, not because they are overpowered, but because they make the game less interesting. 

On the other hand, given the current state of ultimate abilities, this may be exactly what the PVP team is going for. 

[SevenLetterKWord]

12 hours ago, Nazrethim said:

That YOU don't see Sword Alone as a legit fighting style isn't a valid argument. And nerfs are a necesary part of PvP balance, right now the gun-offhand melee is too strong and renders melee obsolete, which is very unbalanced.

Equipped melee has always been 95% "obsolete" in skilled matchups due to its crude implementation, which also serves to lower the skill cap of Sword Alone.
No matter how high you pump the numbers (Nikana pause instakill), these limitations relegate the mechanic to highly conditional usefulness.

You could remove all quick melee actions and it still wouldn't make Sword Alone relevant.
So again, there is no reason to use Sword Alone as a standard of balancing.

1 hour ago, Witchydragon said:

Ground slam knockdown makes these players even more vulnerable and easy to kill, albeit with the caveat that you too are much more killable from a third party, which is not something that needs to be more prevalent.

It's a risk that must be smartly evaluated by the player who chooses to ground slam.
When engaging an opponent, a good player should remain aware of both the threat posed by that particular opponent and also of the general threat posed by other players.

1 hour ago, Witchydragon said:

With quick melee ground slam knocking down, it reduces the options a player has for close range engagements and forces them to keep their range with more paranoia, else they will fall victim to another groundslam.

A ground slam is an offensive tool for players to use when they engage opponents at close range; it's an option for players to consider.
How then, does it come to magically "reduce the options a player has for close range engagements"?

I have never felt that my close-quarters options were restricted by the potential of my opponents to ground slam.
In fact, because ground slams are viable but also carry punishable drawbacks, the baiting dynamic has been reborn with greater tactical relevance.

[Witchydragon]

5 hours ago, SevenLetterKWord said:

How then, does it come to magically "reduce the options a player has for close range engagements"?

I have never felt that my close-quarters options were restricted by the potential of my opponents to ground slam.
In fact, because ground slams are viable but also carry punishable drawbacks, the baiting dynamic has been reborn with greater tactical relevance.

Due to the potency and availablity of groundslams, there is no reason to ever stay grounded near any player unless the intent is to die. However, if quick slams do not knock down, then one would be considering the weaknesses of the enemy's equipped weapon and circumstance in that brief instance, instead of automatically staying out of range or going airborne due to the potential threat of an easy slam.

In addition, ground slams tend to end engagements in fewer actions than most other engagements due to one side effectively becoming a sitting duck. Instead of giving way to chases or brawls, one person watches themself die with no retaliation. The way ground slam locks one or more to the ground players is extremely clunky and feels out of place in Conclave. It enforces bad playstyle habits by working half the time, despite ending in death the other half.

 

 

[SevenLetterKWord]

15 minutes ago, Witchydragon said:

Due to the potency and availablity of groundslams, there is no reason to ever stay grounded near any player unless the intent is to die.

If I know that my opponent doesn't use ground slams, I might choose to remain grounded, sacrificing passive mobility for ease of aim.
If I know that my opponent often uses ground slams, I might still choose to remain grounded, in order to bait out and capitalize upon a missed ground slam.

15 minutes ago, Witchydragon said:

It enforces bad playstyle habits by working half the time, despite ending in death the other half.

Alright, we're seriously exaggerating here.
A successful ground slam does not guarantee a kill; a missed ground slam does not guarantee a death.

15 minutes ago, Witchydragon said:

In addition, ground slams tend to end engagements in fewer actions than most other engagements due to one side effectively becoming a sitting duck.
Instead of giving way to chases or brawls, one person watches themself die with no retaliation.

From the receiving perspective, ground slams are perfectly well avoidable.
From the delivering end, slams constitute a calculated risk.

No player using slams is ever forced to "become a sitting duck"; this is a choice that player made.
Every player getting slammed had reasonable means to avoid that slam.

Do ground slams sacrifice mobility, thus limiting the extent of chases? Yes, of course! That is the point!
Sacrifice some of your own elusiveness in an attempt to deprive your opponent of much of his.
Many abilities also sacrifice mobility. Will you be arguing next for the removal of casting animations?

And finally, an engagement ending in "fewer actions" doesn't mean that gameplay is somehow worse.
Confrontations involving ground slams may occur faster than guns-only confrontations, but there's nothing wrong with that.
In fact, I think slams offer meaningful gameplay diversity, and I find that engagements incorporating ground slams are often more entertaining than only gunplay.
_{(https://gfycat.com/UnimportantVioletHyracotherium)}

15 minutes ago, Witchydragon said:

The way ground slam locks one or more to the ground players is extremely clunky and feels out of place in Conclave.

Is it?
I think this use of ground slams demonstrates the kind of skillful positioning, timing, and strategizing that truly embodies the nature of Conclave.
_{(https://gfycat.com/daringreliablegopher)}

[Nazrethim]

10 hours ago, SevenLetterKWord said:

Equipped melee has always been 95% "obsolete" in skilled matchups due to its crude implementation, which also serves to lower the skill cap of Sword Alone.
No matter how high you pump the numbers (Nikana pause instakill), these limitations relegate the mechanic to highly conditional usefulness.

Wrong. Before this change Sword Alone was actually on par with having a gun equiped because SA was more powerful than Quickmelee. We only needed Channeling moved to it's own bar or the cost flat out removed if a stamina bar wasn't possible. The change made quickmelee just as good as equiped melee, which means equiping a melee weapon is a handicap by comparison.

A good way to fix this is to revert damage on melees to previous values, reactivate channeling multiplier but not the cost (for the time being at least) and remove knockdowns from quickmelee.

Or speed up Sword Alone maneuvers to Devil May Cry levels of mobility and offensive potential.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Nazrethim

[Witchydragon]

6 hours ago, SevenLetterKWord said:

Alright, we're seriously exaggerating here.
A successful ground slam does not guarantee a kill; a missed ground slam does not guarantee a death.

Admittedly, in trying to justify why I think ground slams specifically should not knockdown, I may have overreached.

The main problem I have with slams knocking down is the knockdown as a mechanic, not slams knocking down. I would think differently of slams if they did not cause a knock down, as knock downs often end in stolen kills, as well as feeling absolutely horrible on the receiving end compared to simply dying.

It's very common to be killed by a third party while knocked down. While this is always a risk in FFA, knockdowns strip you of all control, so there is no way to deal with these situations without knowing where enemies are beforehand. This is problematic because FFA has random spawnpoints, and is otherwise balanced around being able to immediately adapt to the situation. The few seconds in which knockdown strips the player of all control may not seem like much, but in game it is definitely not insignificant, given how common it is to die to others while knocked down.

Additionally, having absolutely no control while watching several people effectively fight over your soon-to-be-dead body can become infuriating.

Knockdowns should not be made any more prevalent, and slams should have something else to make them worth using. Alternatively, knockdown could grant damage immunity for the time it takes away control. This way it would still disrupt an engagement, but ensure that the player does not take damage without being able to react.

[Stormdragon]

I think that instead of removing knockdowns, we should be at least able to cancel them by rolling in the proper direction. For example: a knockdown from the back will make you fall on your face, but being able to do a front roll quickly should be able to override the knockdown and get back in battle quickly. Something similar with knockdowns from the front, but this time with a backflip instead since those would drop the player on their back. This way there's no need of nerfing quickmelee. 

I entirely agree with Witchy, losing control on your frame for a short time and being killed during that snall time window is frustrating, there's people that relies too much on knockdowns (not only from melee) + burst damage weapon combo due to how it increases the amount of kills they can get with minimal effort, reason why I think a skilled way to cancel knockdowns as described above would be a good idea.

[Nazrethim]

3 hours ago, Stormdragon said:

 This way there's no need of nerfing quickmelee.

What about the "not making Equiped Melee redundant or worthless" aspect?

[SevenLetterKWord]

56 minutes ago, Nazrethim said:

What about the "not making Equiped Melee redundant or worthless" aspect?

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this, so I'm just gonna start quoting myself:

"The fundamental weaknesses of equipped melee should not be interpreted as cause to weaken other mechanics."

23 hours ago, SevenLetterKWord said:

Equipped melee has always been 95% "obsolete" in skilled matchups due to its crude implementation, which also serves to lower the skill cap of Sword Alone.
No matter how high you pump the numbers (Nikana pause instakill), these limitations relegate the mechanic to highly conditional usefulness.

You could remove all quick melee actions and it still wouldn't make Sword Alone relevant.
So again, there is no reason to use Sword Alone as a standard of balancing.

 

[Sky_]

4 hours ago, SevenLetterKWord said:

"The fundamental weaknesses of equipped melee should not be interpreted as cause to weaken other mechanics."

I'm not asking to make offhand slams completely and utterly useless. Current implementation of them, minus knockdown, has them cleaving over half an opponents total Health + Shields in a single strike (Certain weapons will one shot players). I think that fulfills the risk-reward nature of them perfectly. The knockdown that complements them currently, however, gives too great of a reward when we consider the fact that you will be able to fire at them before they have recovered from the knockdown. Before this, the only way for a gunplayer to knock you down was with an ability - which costs them a resource, energy. (I'm not going to discuss the nature of amount of energy gained in a match, that's not the point here). 

Spoiler

https://gfycat.com/FickleCharmingEel

Opponent is dead before they have a chance to get back up and counter.

 

Will every single knockdown from an offhand melee strike guarantee a kill? Absolutely not. But enough do net a kill that leaves little to no room for play on the other person's end - and that makes it a problem in my eyes. 

[SevenLetterKWord]

On 8/27/2017 at 9:57 PM, Sky_ said:

Current implementation of them, minus knockdown, has them cleaving over half an opponents total Health + Shields in a single strike (Certain weapons will one shot players). I think that fulfills the risk-reward nature of them perfectly. The knockdown that complements them currently, however, gives too great of a reward when we consider the fact that you will be able to fire at them before they have recovered from the knockdown.

Yes, it's possible that quick melee in general deals too much damage.
It did benefit, perhaps unintentionally, from the 50% buff that occurred when channeling damage was made innate.
No, this is not what makes slams viable, and it's not what should make slams viable.

It is important that slams are able to knock players down.
The player performing the slam is rendered stationary whether or not the slam hits an opponent.
If the slam doesn't also knock the opponent down, then even successful slams can be punished.
This is why, prior to knockdowns being restored to all slams, quick melee slams were largely irrelevant in competitive play.

Quote

Will every single knockdown from an offhand melee strike guarantee a kill? Absolutely not. But enough do net a kill that leaves little to no room for play on the other person's end - and that makes it a problem in my eyes. 

You're thinking too late into the situation and ignoring all the possibilities of counterplay before the slam is actually delivered.

In your clip, Loxyen had ample opportunity to maneuver away. Instead, he chose to remain standing still on the ground to shoot at you.

Presumably, he felt that he had a reasonable chance at killing you before you reached him. He did get very close, reducing you to 33 health.
This is the gamble that he made - sacrificing all mobility to focus solely on aiming - and it played out poorly for him in this case.
But contrary to your claims, he did indeed have room to counterplay.

(We can see Loxyen also attempted to roll away just before you struck him. It's too late for him to avoid the damage at this point - you were already in the slam animation - but had he simply jumped, he would not have been knocked down.)

Quote

I'm not going to discuss the nature of amount of energy gained in a match, that's not the point here

No, the point is apparently that you dislike how few options a person on the receiving end of a knockdown has.

However, melee knockdowns are the most reasonable form of knockdown, as they are clearly telegraphed, significantly limited, and severely punishable.
To knock down your opponent with a ground slam, you must maneuver to melee range, you must be in the air, your opponent must be grounded, and if you miss, you will become a stationary target.

^{(Actually, you'll be a stationary target even if you hit. But the knockdown will protect you from immediate retaliation, so you don't get punished for your own successful maneuver.)}

---

18 hours ago, Nazrethim said:

Very well, then Sword Alone needs to be buffed instead at a mechanical level.

annesullivan.jpg

18 hours ago, Nazrethim said:

Ideas that come to mind are

These ideas belong in an independent thread.

11 hours ago, Nazrethim said:

Now check this madness:
[Ridiculous Super Rock-Paper-Scissors Diagram Here]
And that is just 15 variables.
Now try to apply THAT to Warframe, which has over 30 warframes (including Primes), and f^cktons of weapons, not to mention the varied tiles (and each part of each tile).

That diagram is perfectly balanced.
Every option defeats exactly seven other options and is defeated by exactly seven other options.

Were you trying to make some sort of point?

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by SevenLetterKWord

[Nazrethim]

15 hours ago, SevenLetterKWord said:

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this, so I'm just gonna start quoting myself:

"The fundamental weaknesses of equipped melee should not be interpreted as cause to weaken other mechanics."

 

Very well, then Sword Alone needs to be buffed instead at a mechanical level.

Ideas that come to mind are to buff it's mobility (not the stat), like I said, to DMC levels. Like making it dual key (E&R) (or triple, considering RMB is in place) and removing the wind-up from the RMP combos, as well as giving equiped melee aerial and wall attacks the same momentum as bulletjump.

Or make Sword Alone make the player inmune to knockdowns while attacking.

Or buff Blocking angle and allow damage reflection to work always instead of only when Mortal Conduit is active.

 

Or add a "Quickfire" function to the equiped melee's unused R key that instantly fires the Primary or Secondary weapon on the loadout at full potency (albeit as a hipfire, which would make Snipers nigh useless)

Edited August 28, 2017 by Nazrethim

[_GoodLuck_]

...and make melee more useless. It's your problem, dude, because you stood on the one place (1st gif). You could make one jump to avoid knockdown. =/
 

Spoiler

 

Conclave Life:

1. DE makes <something> useful in Conclave.
2. Whining players give feedback.
3. DE nerfs <something>.
4. see <2>, because <something> is a trash and useless
5. see <1>

It will never ends. =/

 

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by _GoodLuck_

[Nazrethim]

31 minutes ago, _GoodLuck_ said:

...and make melee more useless. It's your problem, dude, because you stood on the one place (1st gif). You could make one jump to avoid knockdown. =/
 

  Hide contents

 

Conclave Life:

1. DE makes <something> useful in Conclave.
2. Whining players give feedback.
3. DE nerfs <something>.
4. see <2>
5. Then DE make <something> useless
6. see <2>
7. see <1>

It will never ends. =/

 

 

Well, to be fair, making Warframe completely balanced is pretty much impossible as the balance process gets more complicated the more variation you apply.

Take for instance a perfect balance game: Rock Paper Scissors. You have 3 options. On a 1on1 duel you have 6 different outcomes (Rock-Rock, Rock-Scissors, Rock-Paper, Paper-Paper, Scissors-Scissors, Scissors-Paper).

Now check this madness:

And that is just 15 variables.

Now try to apply THAT to Warframe, which has over 30 warframes (including Primes), and f^cktons of weapons, not to mention the varied tiles (and each part of each tile).

 

What we can hope at best is that something doesn't make something (or everything) else worthless by comparison. The buffs to Quickmelee were uncalled for, as that made equiped melee redundant. So either equiped melee needs buffs or quickmelee needs nerfs.

[Nazrethim]

On 28/8/2017 at 4:39 AM, SevenLetterKWord said:

These ideas belong in an independent thread.

Agreed.

On 28/8/2017 at 4:39 AM, SevenLetterKWord said:

That diagram is perfectly balanced.
Every option defeats exactly seven other options and is defeated by exactly seven other options.

Were you trying to make some sort of point?

That Warframe is never going to be balanced due to the many MANY variables it has. The best we can hope is a never ending cycle of rebalance and fixin obviously broken stuff.

[2035]

I like the off-hand things, what I dislike is the lack of options presented in a pratical sinario.

There are many instances a slam is seen incoming and apporpiate actions are taken with instant god-like kitten reflexes but to be knocked, melted by a not so after image or treated to an imposing presence.

With the arriaval of flant melee 3.0, the team decided to make the melee oppressive, moves harder to defy, I feel that the lack of reliable, skillful and realistic manuvers that do not involue avoiding potatos like the plague is the real issue.

Up til alittle after Lunaro, slams and staggering blows could be dodged or metagated via dodging and even guarding or counter-swinging to an extent. Then came an age of tyrany. Lack of choices in stance, simular atributes across the board, a long series of gradual changes were made that would force the melee onto people. Changes to stagger so they would not be able to escape. Distance coverage paired with melting mutipliers. Etc.

In the event one is knocked down: Armored Recovery, Valkyr.... But work around as theses are stupid. It's not fun to do so and deprives people of style. Besides a complete overhaul, I feel that having off-hand melee perform at a reduced pace and weapon recovery would "allevage" some sinarios whiling being maybe fair. Sometime simple as that is not going to do much with Tipedo + new fury that applies off hand anywho.

 

Off-Topic:

I also dislike the channel changes but not the same way others have said. Yes it does undermind on-hand vs off-hand in some sinarios but I welcome increased off-hand swings being more viable. What I dislike is that the change makes melee reqiure less presion as in when to channel and at no expense witch promote flanting. The old equation was terrable as it was very bias but the removal was not the awnser.

Originaly, melee stances in conclave where not like today. They were hardlocked simular to the aireal swings of a scythe. This was changed with the addtion of spinning neddle and Okina. A change that would unlock all stances in co-op and conclave as of now. 

To those that may say that off-hand melee has no disadvatage, there kinda (Almost) is. The simple-minded 3 combo movesets that have been imposed onto us just so slighty after arriavl have a trend, one of the greatest cringes is the basic one. It was clearly intended to punish off-hand quick melee with it's reduced swing rate and reduction in movement. This is nulled simply going stanceless or in-fact, alot of ways.

[.Zel]

On 8/26/2017 at 7:07 AM, Sky_ said:

Yet landing these slams practically guarantees you a kill - a kill without much risk.

It's just as bad as Soul Punch in practice, altho soul punch is worse as it can be used at a range but regardless both allow players to get easy kills which feel very cheap. This also gives little incentive to people for using main hand melee. Tipedo being commonly used by the majority of players for moving around the map faster, it's often seen that if someone is aim-gliding over you and don't notice it, it's basically a death sentence.