Average of 500-1000 player base lost



  • I think a lot of us were frustrated with the bugs and so-called exploits that plague in this early version of the game. It is pretty hard to make a bug-free real time melee game out of an engine that is designed for gun play. As a result, about 20-30% of the playerbase has been lost.

    Let’s hope this game’s player count shoots up again. Warband has been solid for a long time with 3000-6000 players.



  • Maybe the reason the player base dropped off quite a bit was because a lot of people got it on a big sale then decided it wasn’t for them or something. I don’t get why so many people get so worked up over this kind of stuff… I could understand if it was suffering a Tribes: Ascend playerbase mass exile, but it’s still a healthy game with plenty of players.



  • Well warband is a completely different game, so apples and oranges.

    If Chivalry supported 128-256 players and had maps to match I think the player count would jump up.

    But I assume that is an engine limitation, not a hardware limitation.



  • @gregcau:

    Well warband is a completely different game, so apples and oranges.

    If Chivalry supported 128-256 players and had maps to match I think the player count would jump up.

    But I assume that is an engine limitation, not a hardware limitation.

    You mean 128-256 players in one game?

    I don’t think that would be a good idea for this game to be honest……I mean things get hectic enough for 32p servers. :|



  • @Darkmoone1:

    @gregcau:

    Well warband is a completely different game, so apples and oranges.

    If Chivalry supported 128-256 players and had maps to match I think the player count would jump up.

    But I assume that is an engine limitation, not a hardware limitation.

    You mean 128-256 players in one game?

    I don’t think that would be a good idea for this game to be honest……I mean things get hectic enough for 32p servers. :|

    Sure, the maps would have to be much larger, respawn points in different locations, etc.

    But I was watching a warband video and while the combat is inferior the simulation of a large scale attack on a castle is very cool. And they had horses lol.

    To tempt the MMORPG crowd - which is a lot of people - getting that feeling of being part of an army is cool, being part of something bigger than just a 15 minute objective is appealing.



  • @gregcau:

    @Darkmoone1:

    @gregcau:

    Well warband is a completely different game, so apples and oranges.

    If Chivalry supported 128-256 players and had maps to match I think the player count would jump up.

    But I assume that is an engine limitation, not a hardware limitation.

    You mean 128-256 players in one game?

    I don’t think that would be a good idea for this game to be honest……I mean things get hectic enough for 32p servers. :|

    Sure, the maps would have to be much larger, respawn points in different locations, etc.

    But I was watching a warband video and while the combat is inferior the simulation of a large scale attack on a castle is very cool. And they had horses lol.

    To tempt the MMORPG crowd - which is a lot of people - getting that feeling of being part of an army is cool, being part of something bigger than just a 15 minute objective is appealing.

    It could work……and yeah I would like horses in this game as well. ;)

    I’m just not sure how it could be pulled off given how much we currently gotta balance and fix for the game. Not to mention how long it would take to make such a map and balance it.

    But I like it…anything for the horses. :P


  • Global Moderator

    Look at the graphics for M&B and chivalry.

    You can kinda see why this game doesn’t have 200 players.

    Though on single player m&b you can get 900 units. 450 per side. Well 902 units including the commanders one of which is you.

    Runs pretty smooth. Though If you have ragdolls on then it starts lagging. Also on nepolianci wars when everybody fires, all that smoke.



  • Planetside 2 level of scale combined with everything else of chivalry. Fun times.



  • @lemonater47:

    Look at the graphics for M&B and chivalry.

    You can kinda see why this game doesn’t have 200 players.

    Though on single player m&b you can get 900 units. 450 per side. Well 902 units including the commanders one of which is you.

    Runs pretty smooth. Though If you have ragdolls on then it starts lagging. Also on nepolianci wars when everybody fires, all that smoke.

    Graphic quality is definitely different but Unreal Engine is not designed for 32+ players. Mount and Blade is an old old game though.



  • I’m really worried about Chivalry health on this moment. I have seen how in the last month the player base has been decreased heavy much day by day.

    A clear example is on our own clan. We have lost several players because of the bugs plague (they have lost patience). Now we have problems to play a match because we are not enough now & recruiting is nearly impossible (we recruit only spanish speakers, because some of our members doesn’t understand english very well, and only a few spaniards still play the game). Even the “die-hard” clanmates play less & less.

    Our server now is always empty (is located in France, that could mean in France situation may be similar) when it was 24/7 full just a month ago.

    Something wrong is happening… please don’t let this game fall in death.

    Now somebody can underestimate my comment. But i’m just trying to alert about my feelings.



  • Remember the free weekend? All the servers full. That was fun.

    I mean, the game seems to be bleeding players, most games i’m in are all r20+s. I think thats a bit of an issue for new people, they’re munched by vets from day 1, no rank based matching system, few rank restricted servers, somewhat glitchy interface. The worst bugs were the server browser ones, luckily that is somewhat stable now.

    I dont know man, its hard to come back from the reputation as a buggy game, even once you get the issues patched out. Thats the price for a paid beta.

    However i stuck with AoC till this game was launched so i’m not scared of an almost nonexistent playerbase. It might actually get fun when all the players basically know each other.



  • Honestly has anyone ever thought it might be content related? I personally can’t stand to do some of the TO maps anymore and often find myself not interested in anything but LTS because I like a little competition. TO is a warmup for the real fun of LTS… and I just wish the 24/7 arena server was still around!

    It would be interesting to see what happens as/if more content is released.

    Yeah the game has bugs… but are they that bad? I might just be lucky, but I experience very few game breaking bugs.

    Right now the only two bugs that constantly plague me are:

    1)flinched ghost swings- not so bad because it doesn’t interrupt the match, but man does it have me worried sometimes
    2)after I get off a siege weapon I’m useless. This one sucks, I understand it being frustrating. I know that you’re supposed to be able to parry and it fixes, but that doesn’t always work :(.

    Also please note that games just lose players as time drags on. We’ve got the attention span of gnats and new games are always being released that tempt us to other places to do other things. I think there are only so many players out there who find medieval melee based combat to be their thing, and I bet those guys are the ones sticking around. Well, and the archers…

    It is tough for new players to start, but every sale brings a new herd of them. Last sale I’d say 60-70% of the guys I was playing with for a week were level 0-10. While that means 40-30% of us are in for a prolonged snack it also means that the noobs have a good chance to duke it out and learn from each other, and also to learn from us. When I started playing I did okay, and I always saw those top 3 guys on each team and get annihilated by them and wanted to be those guys. I hope they feel the same way about us now. I dare say a sale week environment is a good environment for all, but I could easily be wrong.



  • gWL90wryyOw



  • Yeah the game has bugs… but are they that bad? I might just be lucky, but I experience very few game breaking bugs.

    I am no so sure it’s just the bugs. I think it’s also how parries and blocks are working. Or not working from a newcomer’s perspective. Another problem is how fast old players can attack by abusing in-game mechanics (lookdown, etc.), simply decimating people who don’t know about it. In the end they are frustrated if they can’t fight people on their skill level.

    To be completely honest I have other games I can play so if this game dies it won’t be all that tragic to me.


  • Global Moderator

    @Holy.Death:

    Yeah the game has bugs… but are they that bad? I might just be lucky, but I experience very few game breaking bugs.

    I am no so sure it’s just the bugs. I think it’s also how parries and blocks are working. Or not working from a newcomer’s perspective. Another problem is how fast old players can attack by abusing in-game mechanics (lookdown, etc.), simply decimating people who don’t know about it. In the end they are frustrated if they can’t fight people on their skill level.

    They work fine for me.

    Though I turn to face incoming attacks. Something many people don’t seem to do. I am a wall.



  • They work fine for me.

    That ain’t what I was saying.

    Though I turn to face incoming attacks.

    Take shield for example - people have a big shield in front of their faces and attacks are getting through it. For them it certainly looks that it’s broken somehow and I had exact feeling when I started playing: “How was this possible, I was blocking?!”. I realized later how the shields are really working and still think that the amount of FOV shields take for the amount of protection they give is a huge disadvantage. There are also many other reasons not to use shields (and use two handed weapons), but this is the most important. For people who are starting it simply ain’t fair to be hit through the shield.



  • @Holy.Death:

    They work fine for me.

    That ain’t what I was saying.

    @283shcnt:

    Though I turn to face incoming attacks.

    Take shield for example - people have a big shield in front of their faces and attacks are getting through it. For them it certainly looks that it’s broken somehow and I had exact feeling when I started playing: “How was this possible, I was blocking?!”. I realized later how the shields are really working and still think that the amount of FOV shields take for the amount of protection they give is a huge disadvantage. There are also many other reasons not to use shields (and use two handed weapons), but this is the most important. For people who are starting it simply ain’t fair to be hit through the shield.

    The lookdown mechanic is non intuitive and gamebreaking. it disassociates the actual hit from the animation, makes weapon speed irrelevant, and when combined with feinting makes it all too easy to kill someone. If i were to start the game tomorrow i’d immediately leave out of frustration the second i joined the only populated FFA server on which i get good ping and got facehugswingspeedupfeintspammed to death by a bunch of r30s.

    I was looking at videos of people swordfighting. Granted, maybe techniques have advanced since the middle ages, but none of them spent the fight staring at their feet.

    the only reason the devs wouldnt remove the lean bug is because they cant? Why couldnt they just limit the angle you can be bent over? Or how far you can bend when swinging? Or make people rise up when they initiate a swing?

    Swing delays serve the same purpose as the lean, they vary the timing of your hit beyond what comboing/waiting/feinting does, and they dont make it hit instantly after windup as many sped up look downs do.

    I have the distinct impression that if you slightly reduced the speed of most 1h weapons and dropped their damage a lot, and removed the look down “mechanic” and applied the feint restrictions being tested in beta, the game would be 100 million times improved.



  • Well, that’s another reason why new players shouldn’t play with old players or that something should change mechanic-wise, because losing to people who abuse certain mechanics makes people think the other people are using some kind of a cheat. Speeded up attacks are linked to parry/block problem too.



  • Good players dominate bad players in every competitive game ever.

    Bad players cry and complain about good players in every competitive game ever.

    Don’t try to balance for noobs, you will seriously fuck up the game. People have to learn that sometimes they are going to lose because other people have more experience, or they can feel free to leave. Screwing up the game balance won’t bring back the people that have already left anyway, and it’s likely that 90% of those people left because they were just bored and wanted to play something else, not because they got owned.



  • Making game less counter-intuitive is good stance overall. It isn’t about “balancing the game for noobs”, it’s about improving it so it’s much more intuitive for anybody. Most complaints are made because the game works in opposition to what is expected in many fields and is seen as broken and needs to be fixed. The more it stays in that way, the less people will be convinced to play it after their initial hours.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Torn Banner Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.