22030

@stevejock1 You may also report naughty player(s) with any relevant evidence here https://s.team/chat/OOI7tBfJ and an official server admin will take appropriate action. Screenshots and a steam profile are helpful.

38

@intox said in We're missing the "No Archers TO" servers!:

You seem to think that Chivalry Medieval Warfare is about realism, which makes it obvious that you have never played that game on a competitive level thus you are not able to understand the matter.
And as you could assume from my post, there were already “No Archers TO” servers existing, which were made “No Archers FFA” servers so I was asking if they could change it back rather than introducing a new idea.

Lol no I do not think Chivalry is about realism, but removing archers goes too far in the opposite extreme of that.

As for Chivalry on a competitive level, most high ranking players who played this game in the eaports community did NOT play archer. There were a few, but as usually most played knight or vanguard. Why? If archer was such an advantage, why weren’t there more top players who played archer more?

Because archer isn’t a massive advantage. It’s just a class you don’t like dealing with because it introduces too much chaos you can’t directly predict and control.

All that said, more options is usually better, so a no archer TO server is not necessarily inherently bad. But the archer class is already limited to four on official servers as it is (and despite your claims of it being a massive advantage, there are still times when all four archer slots aren’t even taken).