[POLL] Hard to play as vs. balance



  • Do you think classes that are “harder to play” (archer, MaA) should have significant advantages over classes that are “easier to play” (knight, vanguard)? Archers and MaAs are hard to play, but easy to win with.

    I’ve had this discussion many times in other competitive games (being a competitive fighting gamer too) and I hear this a lot. “But this class/character is harder to play so it should be better, that’s balance.” But I don’t agree with that at all. Because what happens is that when you get good and skilled, you feel required to play those classes or characters in order to win and be on “even grounds” with others who will use whatever’s best to win. I don’t think that makes for good competition or fun. I think balance is every class/character has an equal chance of winning in every situation (rather, situations the game is designed to be about for significant time frames, such as 1vs1s team battles, not things such as FFA), where the player’s personal skill (or team skill in team battles) is the only factor in who wins and loses consistently.

    You have things called tier lists, and tier lists are made from matchups. Matchups are very real things in competitive gaming, but can change over time as players discover new technology (AKA strategies, or in some cases exploits) with each character/class. A lot of casual players don’t agree with tier lists, saying that because they can change that they shouldn’t be taken seriously. But anyone who’s played serious competitive fighting games can tell you that they do mean a lot and should be taken seriously when playing for cash in tournaments or money matches. A matchup are the odds of one character/class winning vs the odds of another character/class winning when the two players are of even or close to even skill. When you take the best x player in the world and face them against the best y player in the world, who has a greater chance of winning simply because of what they’re playing, not who’s more skilled. Most tier lists are based off the data reflected and collected over many large serious tournaments over many years.

    What this means is that if you play a game, find a character or class you like, dump a ton of time and practice in it and take it to competitive levels, you’ll start to win or lose a lot simply because of how good that character or class is based on the tier lists in a consistent matter. We’ve all seen some low tiers do extremely well sometimes, but it’s not very often that they win 1st place with a ton of money. When was the last time you saw a T. Hawk win 1st place in a multi-thousand dollar Street Fighter 4 tournament?

    So, now that that’s explained and out of the way, I think most of us can agree that many of the same principles apply to Chivalry. The common opinion is that MaAs have an advantage in 1vs1, but weaker in bigger battles. Personally I believe that Chivalry is about 12vs12s (or less if clan battles), but many different 1vs1s on a macro scale. This means that overall the match is about 12vs12, but the fights don’t come down to 12vs12, instead they come down to many 1vs1s spread across the map constantly. Sometimes you’ll get 1vs2s, 2vs2s, 4vs1s and what not, but for the most part you’re seeking, and coming down to, 1vs1s. Lets face it, no matter what you’re playing, if you’re hanging around 4 other team mates, you’re going to get TK’d a lot, it happens to everyone all the time even in clan battles. It’s unavoidable, it’s necessary, and it’s frustrating. So when someone says “but MaAs suck in big battles” I don’t really see how they suck more than any other class. Yeah they’re squishier but I mean, vanguards still die in 2 hits just the same a lot, and considering how slow knights are if they take a hit then they’re probably 2 hits from death then they’re just an MaA who’s way slower and doesn’t have dodge. This means that every class sucks those situations because the game isn’t made for that in mind. The game is made for you vs your enemy in a 1vs1 situation.

    So do you think MaAs should have a significant advantage in a 1vs1 situation? Don’t most players prefer 1vs1 fights? Isn’t the game designed for 12vs12 but 1vs1s on a macro scale? Should MaAs have their 1vs1 prowess toned down but get better “team fight” potential? I’ve seen plenty of really good MaAs in clan battles, for that matter. What about archers? They can oneshot anyone from any range, regardless of shields or serpentine or anything for very little risk. They were designed to have a strong team fight presence but weak in 1vs1 and melee. Unfortunately because of how they’re designed, they’re also great at 1vs1 (dueling a good archer can be a lot harder than you think, I don’t think most of you know what a good archer is) and they have extremely good melee against other vanguards and knights, especially now that chase mechanic was changed and no more combo feint to parry. They were designed to be squishy and easy to oneshot, but archers and MaAs were designed to never be hit at all so it’s irrelevant.

    So, what do you think? Do you think archers and MaA who have a higher “skill cap” deserve to have significant advantages to those with a lower “skill cap?” I’ve always said archer and MaA are hard to play as, but easy to win with. Should that be the case? What’s your opinion on it?



  • What makes you think that maa is hard to play compared to knight?



  • I think I dont fully understand the question therefore will not vote. However, when it comes to developing mechanics in games the developer should always consider 2 things when it comes to balance:

    A) Making the mechanic not overpowered but useful
    B) Making a counter-play to that mechanic, meaning one should consider not just how does it feels to use certain mechanic but also how does it feel to play against it.



  • @CRUSHED:

    What makes you think that maa is hard to play compared to knight?

    Inherently it takes more effort to play as an MaA than a knight because you have to use dodge and great footwork. Unfortunately once you get that effort down, it takes little effort to beat others with it, thus making it harder to play but easier to win with. I agree that knights also need great footwork, and are hard to win with, but inherently are easier to play than MaAs.

    @funthomass:

    A) Making the mechanic not overpowered but useful
    B) Making a counter-play to that mechanic, meaning one should consider not just how does it feels to use certain mechanic but also how does it feel to play against it.

    Currently, the counter-play for archers is to play counter archer. I think that itself is pretty OP, forcing someone to play that class just to beat that class. The counter-play for MaAs is to come at them in groups, which I think is also OP, forcing multiple resources on a single target, and honestly that group is at the disadvantage because of TK’ng and lack of coordination (in non-clan environments) so MaAs can even thrive on that chaos easily as well. Or you can play archer to counter-play MaAs.



  • All based on playstyle.



  • @SOC:

    Inherently it takes more effort to play as an MaA than a knight because you have to use dodge and great footwork.

    I don’t think having more tools available (dodge, ranged attacks) strictly equates to requiring more effort, besides if a MaA can exert effort by using dodge effectively then anybody fighting an MaA could exert their own effort by performing actions that deal with dodging, many would argue dealing with someone dodging requires much more effort than actually dodging. You could say the same about Archers and their ability to use long range projectiles.

    The answers to this question are too linear for my taste, without having abilities which are easier for the same or more effectiveness in certain situations and skill levels, there is little point in having classes in the first place, there should be some instances where easy methods work well as that’s what give classes their distinctions.



  • A higher skillcap should give you options not straight advantages. If you pull the maximum out of you class you should be about the same overall strength regardless of skillcap. But there should be a reason to pick a high skillcap class. Some tasks they are just better at without being overall more powerful than easier classes.

    Lets consider Vanguards easy and Men at Arms hard to play. Then a new player will probably stick to the Vanguard. Doing this he abandons some tasks the Man at Arms is better at in favor of easier gameplay. On the other side a highly skilled player should still have a reason to pick a Vanguard over a Man at Arms if he is able to use both at their full potential.

    If the Man at Arms is simply better above a certain skill level its not balanced. You should be able to do cool things an easier-to-use class cannot (like being better in duels) but you should not be able to perform better at everything.



  • @SOC:

    @CRUSHED:

    What makes you think that maa is hard to play compared to knight?

    Inherently it takes more effort to play as an MaA than a knight because you have to use dodge.

    :D



  • Yes, but very, very, very slightly, just to counteract it’s extra difficulty.

    If a perfectly played MAA was equally strong to a perfectly played knight, the only MAAs in competitive play would be from players who just like MAA better. Everyone else who wants the best chance of winning would choose knight because that takes less concentration and skill, therefore giving yourself less chance to screw up. MAA should be slightly stronger so there is a reason to put in the extra skill required to be good at it.

    However, it shouldn’t be much stronger, or else it will be mandatory for high level players to get good at MAA so they can play the clearly better class.

    There’s a middle ground that is good balance. If MAA takes 30% more skill, then they should be perhaps 5% stronger than other classes to compensate.



  • @SOC:

    Currently, the counter-play for archers is to play counter archer. I think that itself is pretty OP, forcing someone to play that class just to beat that class.

    Tower shields and smoke. Don’t say its not enough, because we use it effectively on our team if we use it. We end up using only smoke unless the enemy is running an archer heavy team, then we pull out the shields.

    The counter-play for MaAs is to come at them in groups, which I think is also OP, forcing multiple resources on a single target, and honestly that group is at the disadvantage because of TK’ng and lack of coordination (in non-clan environments) so MaAs can even thrive on that chaos easily as well. Or you can play archer to counter-play MaAs.

    That’s the point of a MAA, harassment and a chaos controller.

    The counter play is to make sure someone is zoning the MAA from flanking the main line, finish the main-line first. Or just like how MAA wait for mistakes, capitalize on a mistake from a MAA. MAA dies a lot faster from 1 mistake than vanguards and knights.

    Vanguards are also good at fighting MAA as well as controlling them, especially with spears.

    If you can catch a MAA at melee holding his firepot out, you basically caught him with his pants down.

    Also archers can take them out, especially if you are running a heavy xbow, a MAA’s worst nightmare. If he ends up going shield, you win, because now he doesn’t have a firepot to support with.


Log in to reply