Chivalry vs. M&B Controls - Doing less with more?



  • First I’d like to give props on all the work done so far; I completely support the idea.

    Second I’d like to rip on Steve Piggot for saying “no other commercial product that focused on melee first” - Mount & Blade.

    Third, I don’t understand why Chivalry employs this control scheme. To compare:

    M&B
    LMB Hold = Chamber weapon (x4 directions controlled by mouse)
    LMB Release = attack (x4 directions from the chamber)
    RMB during attack = Interrupt Attack
    RMB = Block (x 4 directions controlled by mouse)
    Total of 13 actions controlled by 2 controls, entirely by mouse

    CMF
    LMB = Attack (always from the right; to attack from left I need to spam LMB for a follow up “combo”??)
    Mouse Wheel Up = Attack thrust
    Mouse Wheel Down = Attack overhead
    RMB = Block
    Q = Interrupt Attack
    Total of 6 actions controlled by 5 controls, by keyboard AND mouse

    M&B & WoTR employ same control schemes, so why not stick with the program? Also, why allow for control of attacks from top, bottom, and right, but not from left, unless as a combo follow up to attack from the right?

    Please don’t tell me Paradox patented it or something.



  • @BAHO:

    Please don’t tell me Paradox patented it or something.

    :D

    As a veteran Warband player (Been with them from the beta, over three years ago) I can wholeheartedly agree with the OP. Even though I dearly love the C:MW game as a whole the controls are extremely clumsy compared to the variety of Warband, if one wants to make all these comparisons between the two games… Not only are the controls ‘clumsy’ in a way, they are also much much slower. Everything takes a lot more time when compared to Warband, whether it’s attacking, blocking, feinting or weapon switching.

    I’d love to see the blocking directions being implemented aswell as the left/right side attacks and feinting by blocking in midswing. Right now using Q (or any other key, I tried using mouse sidebuttons but it was even more clumsy) takes too much effort.

    To me C:MW is like a game of chess, much moreso than Warband. In Warband you don’t have to plan your actions in advance since the game mechanics allow you to quickly move/switch weapon/attack/block/feint, in Chivalry everything works a lot slower in general as I mentioned earlier… Played Chivalry for 13hrs now and finally getting used to the keys and controls, I feel the game is really enjoyable when you get used to it, when you don’t have to think what button you’re going to have to press to do thing ‘x’…

    I wonder if Torn Banner made the controls the way they are now with purpose, trying to distance themselves from Warband? Trying something different to stand out. 8-)



  • CMW IS the only one that focuses on melee first. Without putting you in armor its difficult to express just exactly why CMW’s combat system has so much better flow of combat. Utilizing your weapons momentum to feign WITH (you didn’t actually intend to hit them with it) an attack and combo into another, often-off side attack, is pretty standard, especially when using a sword. Making off side hits (usually your left) requires building momentum simply because of your grip and body mechanics. And honestly, its not that hard to sub-consciously aim your block toward an incoming weapon, practically instinct. I don’t want to be burdened to do something that simple personally, and would rather focus on outplaying my opponent.

    Now if I could just use attacks to deflect incoming attacks! (overhand to deflect a stab, slash to deflect overhand, ect.)


  • Developer

    Second I’d like to rip on Steve Piggot for saying “no other commercial product that focused on melee first” - Mount & Blade

    I never said that, you have misquoted me slightly. I said most titles tack melee on at the end and that is unfortunate and then went on to explain that in Chivalry it is the main focus. Additionally, in the case of M&B, the system was designed for singleplayer and later ported to Multiplayer - this also holds true for Dark Messiah.

    There is an inherent problem in doing that, in singleplayer you are designing mechanics that feel good to use for the player only. In Multiplayer you must design mechanics that feel good when used against you as well. This is exemplified by the feinting system in M&B.

    To clarify, I love Mount and Blade and really enjoyed the single-player aspect of it, but always disliked the multiplayer aspect because I found it very clunky and felt it had a lot of hidden mechanics that were not presented well to the average player.

    “Why not stick with the program”

    Because we believe we can do it better. And if you don’t believe you can do it better, why are you doing it in the first place? Torn Banner Studios will never “stick with the program”, ever. I feel that sticking with the program is a big part of what is wrong with the games industry.

    Not only are the controls ‘clumsy’ in a way, they are also much much slower

    I find mount and blade to be far slower than Chivalry, so not sure where the difference in perception is here. Perhaps in part the clumsiness comes from you needing to adjust from M&B, although of course there is an inherent clumsiness in learning any new skill, even if you hadn’t played M&B (I remember this especially the first time I played an FPS on console).

    Additionally, all of the timings and elements in Chivalry, because it is a multiplayer game at its core, are designed based on the ability to intelligently react. All timings are set to give your opponent the opportunity to select an action that will allow him to counter or defend the strike you have thrown at him. This means that fights are chess matches and this is exactly what we wanted, blazing fast chess matches with blood flying everywhere and pieces breaking all over the place.

    Further control scheme clarifications

    M&B and WOTR both might seem to have more depth at first, but I believe this is due to poor representation to the player. WOTR tried to solve this by adding a lot of additional HUD elements that I find take away from the immersion. When you first play Chivalry, things are pretty “easy”, you press mouse 1 and you attack, you press mouse 2 and you block. This allows new players to grasp the essential concepts immediately which was a goal for our design on Chivalry. In Mount and Blade and WOTR, you must first “figure out” how things work more, so when you first sit down you say, wow look at all this stuff I need to know in order to play, this is a deep system. I challenge that perspective.

    Take real life as an example, in a real fight it is not difficult to know how to throw a punch. The skill and difficulty comes in your ability to land a punch on your opponent without receiving damage back. It comes from being able to see what your opponent is doing and make an intelligent reaction to that in order to hit him, its about angles and footwork, about knowing your reach and the different strikes available to you so you can execute them effectively. I do not believe it should take skill to throw a strike, only skill in executing it effectively.

    Further, tying strike direction based on movement or mouse direction is something we wanted to avoid at all costs. This is what made M&B feel clunky to me. We wanted a system with freedom of movement, where you were able to perform the action you wanted to without having to move in a certain direction or aim a certain way before that strike came. This also makes Chivalry’s combat far more precise and gives more control to the player. Add in the real time strikes and free form blocking system as well as the fluid combo system and you have most of the elements that make Chivalry’s combat system a mix of twitch-based reflex and tactical strategy.

    Additionally realize that you are a M&B veteran, you have played for hundreds or thousands of hours as you say. You have played chivalry for less than 10 hours. If you saw two drunkards fighting in a bar you might say, real life fighting has no depth! But if you saw a UFC or MMA fight between experts you would realize that is not true.



  • I completely agree with tibberius.
    Warband’s mechanism are sluggish and clumsy, and multilayer duel does not look at all like a medieval fight. More like 2 robot turret with swords attached to a mechanical arm.

    Only a few melee games have been made so far, and there is a huge room for innovation and improvement. I’m clad they have tried a different way that fortunately made combat with more immersion, and more fast paced and realistic than WotR or Warband.



  • @Tibberius:

    Take real life as an example, in a real fight it is not difficult to know how to throw a punch. The skill and difficulty comes in your ability to land a punch on your opponent without receiving damage back. It comes from being able to see what your opponent is doing and make an intelligent reaction to that in order to hit him, its about angles and footwork, about knowing your reach and the different strikes available to you so you can execute them effectively. I do not believe it should take skill to throw a strike, only skill in executing it effectively.

    +1 :D That’s was my main concern with Warband.



  • @Tibberius:

    WOTR tried to solve this by adding a lot of additional HUD elements that I find take away from the immersion.

    If there is one thing that hasn’t been praised enough, it’s the minimalistic HUD in C:MW. It really does immerse the player into the game.

    And regards to M&B/WOTR compared to C:MW. I found myself feeling very “disconnected” with the actions in WOTR, while C:MW puts value and weight behind every parry/attack. This to me is the factor that puts C:MW leaps and bounds ahead of WOTR, at least in my opinion.



  • @Tibberius:

    The skill and difficulty comes in your ability to land a punch on your opponent without receiving damage back. It comes from being able to see what your opponent is doing and make an intelligent reaction to that in order to hit him, its about angles and footwork, about knowing your reach and the different strikes available to you so you can execute them effectively. I do not believe it should take skill to throw a strike, only skill in executing it effectively.

    Quite frankly that quote pretty much defines Warband word by word in my opinion. It doesn’t require any skill to throw a strike in Warband, no more or less than in Chivalry, but put two top clans in a match in warband and you’ll see it’s filled with kickslashes, feints and plenty of skilled fighting all around.

    In defence of Chivalry I have to say that blocking is way, way harder in Chivalry than in Warband which is a good thing. By harder I mean that the time window is a lot smaller and you can’t hold the block button like in Warband. Altough in Warband you have to not only hold the block, you also had to choose the direction, something that doesn’t translate into Chivalry at the moment, even though it’s been said that you should look to the tip of the enemies weapon, right now pressing RMB within the timewindow does the trick as long as you’re somewhat facing your enemy.



  • @sadnhappy:

    @Tibberius:

    The skill and difficulty comes in your ability to land a punch on your opponent without receiving damage back. It comes from being able to see what your opponent is doing and make an intelligent reaction to that in order to hit him, its about angles and footwork, about knowing your reach and the different strikes available to you so you can execute them effectively. I do not believe it should take skill to throw a strike, only skill in executing it effectively.

    Quite frankly that quote pretty much defines Warband word by word in my opinion. It doesn’t require any skill to throw a strike in Warband, no more or less than in Chivalry, but put two top clans in a match in warband and you’ll see it’s filled with kickslashes, feints and plenty of skilled fighting all around.

    .

    No. Just no. Direction attack can be a real nightmare sometime in warband, half of the time it doesn’t even go in the direction you wanted it to go.

    Because of these unresponsive, difficult controls, skilled fighting is limited to people who have invested more than 400 hour in this game = not your average good player.



  • @akarnir:

    No. Just no. Direction attack can be a real nightmare sometime in warband, half of the time it doesn’t even go in the direction you wanted it to go.

    Because of these unresponsive, difficult controls, skilled fighting is limited to people who have invested more than 400 hour in this game = not your average good player.

    I have to disagree respectfully on that one. The controls are totally not unresponsive, 1000 times out of 1000 times the attack direction goes exactly where I want it to go, it has always been like that since beta three years ago when I first started playing the game in question. What makes Warband combat different/harder in a way is also the general speed of things: Swings are a lot faster, archery is faster, reloading crossbow times is faster. In general everything happens in a lot more quicker pace than in C:MW so you have to have reflexes. In Chivalry it’s really not about reflexes, it’s about timing your actions more carefully, in a way, because everything happens slower, everything takes more time. Nevertheless, I’m going to stop the comparison here since it seems we aren’t going anywhere with this bickering about. ;) I do love both games in their own unique way.



  • Warband is not about how it looks but how it plays Akarnir. Clearly if you think it is that hard to do basic attacks in Warband you need a bit more practice or a new mouse. You’re only going to need 400 hours to learn to play if your some kind of vegetable.

    Anyway on the face of it I agree with Sad. It does seem in this early stage that the Warband control scheme is nicer but I do have over 2000+ hours on that game so I am obviously well adjusted to it. However I would dispute that it is clunky or slow and I will defend the feinting in the game as well. Sure it is annoying as hell to fight against but it is an important part of it. You can also trust me when I say there is no problem with freedom of movement in Warband.

    I think the chess analogy and stress on the importance of timing is key though in comparison of these two games. They are wholly different systems of melee fighting. Only time will tell which one is better, for me. Warband is twitch, reflexes and a bit of planning. Chivalry is planning first and reflexes second. They are completely different styles.

    PS Thanks for the reply Tibberius, it is interesting to read your thoughts on this.

    PPS There is nothing wrong with deep systems.



  • @Plazek:

    Warband is not about how it looks but how it plays Akarnir. Clearly if you think it is that hard to do basic attacks in Warband you need a bit more practice or a new mouse. You’re only going to need 400 hours to learn to play if your some kind of vegetable.

    Anyway on the face of it I agree with Sad. It does seem in this early stage that the Warband control scheme is nicer but I do have over 2000+ hours on that game so I am obviously well adjusted to it. However I would dispute that it is clunky or slow and I will defend the feinting in the game as well. Sure it is annoying as hell to fight against but it is an important part of it. You can also trust me when I say there is no problem with freedom of movement in Warband.

    Well at the same time even the clumsiest game can be mastered after 2000+ hour. And I’m not really the only one who thinks the combat in warband does feel clumsy. Most reviewer have stated it (Total Biscuit being the most notable). And each cross reviews warband-Chivalry compare the two combat system that way : chivalry is more immersive, more fast paced and intuitive, warband is non intuitive, takes a lot of time to get around (not friendly to new player) and clumsy/robotic.
    (i can post the link+proof anytime if you ask).



  • I am sure that for every person who claims that Warband is clumsy and unintuitive another can be found who will disagree. Reviewers stating such does not make it a fact, their opinion is no more objective than the subjective opinions of every gamer. So you can hold onto your “proof”.

    Maybe you do not like one of the systems, maybe you find you can enjoy both, or perhaps you like neither.

    Personally I think I will fall in the middle there.



  • If you want Mount and Blade or War of the Roses combat systems, why not go play those games?

    Chivalry is a different game, with a different play style and control scheme; why does it have to try to be those other games?


  • Developer

    In Chivalry it’s really not about reflexes

    What? I feel that this statement pretty clearly identifies that you don’t fully understand the depth in the game yet. I also don’t understand the perception that M&B is faster paced than Chivalry, I think the opposite is true. The only difference is that in warband I find my opponents can make some actions that I have no chance of responding to (mostly due to fienting).

    Warband might be excellent at the top-high end tier of dueling, but I believe its a pretty fair statement to say that Chivalry takes a lot of the clunkiness out of having to learn the game before things make sense. I would say 90% of people who have played Warband did not understand half of the depth. Chivalry is very accessible and still plays great at expert levels.

    Im not saying this to convert anyone or to argue for the sake of it, but I really don’t see how one could say that mount and blade is faster paced than chivalry. Also wanted to thank you for the discussion, glad we can have a good healthy debate without getting overly worked up about it, respect your perspective and really I am replying in hopes of clarifying my perception and coming to understand yours better.



  • blocking in warband is a ping based nightmare. Being a pretty dedicated Mount and Musket (and N.P WARS) regiment, seeing as all the large battles are in american servers, and being aussie myself. i can wholeheartly say it is about 10% skill and 90% ping.

    with 4 directions, thats 1/4 chance that i’ll actually block an attack.
    in high ping settings in CMW i have at least a 1/2 chance to block.

    CMW’s system is better. and will always be better.



  • @Sir:

    blocking in warband is a ping based nightmare. Being a pretty dedicated Mount and Musket (and N.P WARS) regiment, seeing as all the large battles are in american servers, and being aussie myself. i can wholeheartly say it is about 10% skill and 90% ping.

    with 4 directions, thats 1/4 chance that i’ll actually block an attack.
    in high ping settings in CMW i have at least a 1/2 chance to block.

    CMW’s system is better. and will always be better.

    This is exactly my thought, since I live in middle east I always have crappy pings ( never less than 130 in all games) CMW is less ping dependent and I can do very well in 150 ping while in warband still very hard to block even on 130.



  • @Tibberius:

    This is exemplified by the feinting system in M&B.

    I love you! Have a cookie. :king: :jlaff:

    That is what I noticed too. Most people probably think Warband is faster paced, but that mostly comes from the ability to interrupt your attacks more easily and the controls being more “simplified”.
    The blocking system in Warband and later games has the issue that it can be “abused”, so players are basically forced to block in a certain direction, if you start to strafe dance around them. I really enjoyed Warbands combat and trying to make due without the feinting, but whenever I faced someone who used it 3-5 times in quick succession on each move, I felt annoyed, mad and ripped out of the experience of a medieval war “simulation”-ish game. Using the hold-mechanic where you can hold an attack was much fun, you could strike people because they didn’t expect you to delay your strike. And so was chambering, a mechanic I would very much like to see in Chivalry as well, although I do not know how it would affect gameplay. Strikes are slower feeling, so it could be pretty easier to go into weird chambering-combo matches (unless the stamina system kicks in of course).

    While I can see that Warband requires the Feinting mechanic, because it has no stamina system, I think it is not required to be the main focus of CMW. I think it should be stamina its management and its linking to most if not all actions.

    Also Hello Plazek, good to see 22nd still around. :D Don’t worry, I have other things to mutter about in C:MW, notably stamina not playing a big enough role in my opinion. :)

    And to be fair, blocking in C:MW is also ping dependant from what I noticed at the 100 ping mark, it seems to become strange-ish. But the one-button block removes the whole problem of having to manage turning your character to follow an enemy and then still be able to select the right block direction.



  • Well I remember when I started playing Warband and I got about just as frustrated there as in Chivalry. In Chivalry the basics are easier but it’s a tad harder to figure out why you keep losing fights. In Warband you have to get used to the directional system, but because the combat is based on that it’s also easier to tell what you are doing wrong. But when you learn that (some people learn that in a few days, a chimpanzee may take ~400 hours :P) it gets pretty easy.

    The part where Warband is fast-paced is that you have almost full control over your attacks, you can start any attack you want with a short movement of the mouse and a click and then you can stop it to block or feint any time you want. I wouldn’t say either game is faster paced than the other in all aspects, because in CMW you have much shorter time to parry and respond, so fights tend to be over much sooner. I like that about this game and I wish to see those differences remaining.

    The only way in which Chivalry could take on a little more from Warband in my opinion is having a slightly faster attack and reaction time, because to me it feels very odd to take so long with an attack and then not being able to stop it, and that is based on my time practicing medieval combat in real life. But that’s where it should end, because the endless amount of blocking and parrying that can occur with combat based on directional attacks is one thing you do not want in every medieval game.



  • My argument for combat being slower in Chivalry than in Warband arises from a simple duel scenario: Let’s say you have 1 vs. 1, 1h vs. 1h. Within a 10sec timeperiod you’ll get more attacks and blocks done overall in Warband than in Chivalry. That is what I mean by slower. You’ll get 1.5-2 time the attacks/blocks done in Warband compared to 1 in Chivalry within the same timelimit. Archery and crossbow shooting/reloading times are about 2-3x slower in Chivalry than in Warband.

    Where Chivalry is not slower than Warband it is the overall round duration, Chivalry is a lot faster paced in that sense that the rounds only last 1-2min (LTS). This is mainly because the maps are a lot smaller but also the amount of damage dealt by weapons is far greater at the moment, in Chiv you only need to hit the enemy 1-2 times with any weapon to kill the enemy, in Warband it takes more hits unless we’re talking about hits on the head.


Log in to reply