M&B: Warband just not doing it!



  • Mount and Blade Warband multiplayer just ain’t doing it anymore! As I play M&B, I see more and more (and more) flaws in the combat system and just over all, the game.

    I can probably say for a good amount of people following this game, WE CAN’T WAIT!



  • @SirAgmund:

    Mount and Blade Warband multiplayer just ain’t doing it anymore! As I play M&B, I see more and more (and more) flaws in the combat system and just over all, the game.

    I can probably say for a good amount of people following this game, WE CAN’T WAIT!

    Seconded. It’s gonna be goooooooood shiiit.



  • M&B combat may be flawed, but you also may not have seen why some things are the way they are. As a M&B clanner I’ve played in some scrims and have found that most of the combat systems are designed for big organized fights (single player highlights this as well.) The other flaws may just come from the age of the engine, but we’ve seen AoC suffer that same issue.


  • Developer

    Now, I’m hesitant to reply to this thread because it is in no way my desire to put down another game or to start any kind of flame war, still I will try to state my opinion as objectively as possible and just be honest.

    Games such as M&B: Warband and Dark Messiah had great melee systems and many people have enjoyed them. The problem, or rather, difference, between these games systems and Chivalry’s system is an actual foundational design decision. Games such as M&B and DM were originally designed for the purpose of single-player combat, as such, all of their systems are focused on making the melee combat system feel good to use against others.

    Chivalry on the other hand, is designed, from stage one for multiplayer. What this means is that not only do we have to focus on having the combat systems feel good to use, but we also have to make them feel good to have used against you. That forces us to have a much more robust system and also provide players with real time information on what their opponents are doing to satisfy our design goal. At first the differences might not seem too drastic, but it is something that I believe players will recognize immediately in game with the fluidness and smoothness of the controls that allow you to perform actions when and how you desire in real time as well as giving the proper indications of what actions your opponents are going to make.



  • @Tibberius:

    Now, I’m hesitant to reply to this thread because it is in no way my desire to put down another game or to start any kind of flame war, still I will try to state my opinion as objectively as possible and just be honest.

    Games such as M&B: Warband and Dark Messiah had great melee systems and many people have enjoyed them. The problem, or rather, difference, between these games systems and Chivalry’s system is an actual foundational design decision. Games such as M&B and DM were originally designed for the purpose of single-player combat, as such, all of their systems are focused on making the melee combat system feel good to use against others.

    Chivalry on the other hand, is designed, from stage one for multiplayer. What this means is that not only do we have to focus on having the combat systems feel good to use, but we also have to make them feel good to have used against you. That forces us to have a much more robust system and also provide players with real time information on what their opponents are doing to satisfy our design goal. At first the differences might not seem too drastic, but it is something that I believe players will recognize immediately in game with the fluidness and smoothness of the controls that allow you to perform actions when and how you desire in real time as well as giving the proper indications of what actions your opponents are going to make.

    Sorry for any problems you had commenting on this Thread Tibberius.

    But what you stated above is the reason that I look forward to this game so much. I have no proof, but I have a feeling you and your peers are working hard on Chivalry, and putting real effort into it.

    (I also have a feeling that Chivalry is going to be a center-stone of idea for any Medieval game in the next 10 years, or maybe more.)


  • Developer

    :) , thanks for believing in us we are working hard!



  • @Tibberius:

    Now, I’m hesitant to reply to this thread because it is in no way my desire to put down another game or to start any kind of flame war, still I will try to state my opinion as objectively as possible and just be honest.

    Games such as M&B: Warband and Dark Messiah had great melee systems and many people have enjoyed them. The problem, or rather, difference, between these games systems and Chivalry’s system is an actual foundational design decision. Games such as M&B and DM were originally designed for the purpose of single-player combat, as such, all of their systems are focused on making the melee combat system feel good to use against others.

    Chivalry on the other hand, is designed, from stage one for multiplayer. What this means is that not only do we have to focus on having the combat systems feel good to use, but we also have to make them feel good to have used against you. That forces us to have a much more robust system and also provide players with real time information on what their opponents are doing to satisfy our design goal. At first the differences might not seem too drastic, but it is something that I believe players will recognize immediately in game with the fluidness and smoothness of the controls that allow you to perform actions when and how you desire in real time as well as giving the proper indications of what actions your opponents are going to make.

    I disagree with bolded statement. I feel like M&B system is more intuitive, and is also designed to feel good when used against you. I neither played nor seen DM, so i can’t comment.

    M&B offer way more options when both persons are within weapon’s range, AoC is just too simple. While i feel that shield combat in M&B feel similar (simple, not skill based), manual block system that is both reflex and guessing game looks superior.

    M&B lacks in animations department and hitboxes are off, but i read that AoC have similar problems.

    Also, high mortality of AoC in not really realistic, armors were quite good in protecting, so one hit kills breaks immersion somehow.


  • Developer

    It was not my intention to state my point of view from Age of Chivalry’s system, but from the new game, CHIVALRY’s system, so sorry for any confusion.

    In addition I did not mean to imply that those systems are not great in mp for some people, just that they were not originally designed for that purpose.

    It is the design philosophy of Team Chivalry and myself that guesswork or “guessing games” should be avoided at all costs, instead we desire to give players the opportunity for intelligent reaction to all events, this way when people die, they will understand what they are doing wrong and can work to improve.



  • Yeah, i feel like single player portion of M&B is hindering the multiplayer as well. Major example was shield system, due to forcefield of doom aspect of shields, there was dire need to add hot-fixes into the system (in form of kick and blockcrush attribute) AND overpower all 2h weapons AND add overpower ranged weapons, all this due to mechanism that was ok in single, but proven to unbalance multiplayer.

    Intelligent reactions, sounds like reflex game where you have more than one option and you have to make a choice. I hope the choice is different than outspeed hit/dodge/use sole defensive maneuver.



  • @UrLukur:

    Intelligent reactions, sounds like reflex game where you have more than one option and you have to make a choice. I hope the choice is different than outspeed hit/dodge/use sole defensive maneuver.

    I don’t see the problem with this system.



  • mount and blade is horrible



  • I don’t think anyone reasonable can simply dismiss Mount&Blade entirely as being ‘horrible’ or ‘just not doing it’. The combat isn’t perfect, but it has the most skill-based, realistic multiplayer melee combat I have ever seen. I’ve played it for a very long time, and now I’m still active on clan events. In my experience, people who react like you have done are either graphic whores or people who have tried the game and failed at becoming any good at it. Apologies if I offend you, but if you have to spew out your critique, base it on something or give valid arguments, otherwise I can only make assumptions why you’re so disappointed.

    I’m not a mindless fanboy though. Many of the critiques that have been mentioned are valid, if a bit out of proportion with what the game does well. Apart from that, I believe it’s appropriate to give the game some credit. It’s the very first multiplayer game that simulates medieval combat in its entirety, with swords, longswords, hand axes, two handed axes, maces, polearms, bows, javelins, crossbows, throwing axes, lances, mounted combat, dismounted combat, shielded combat, unshielded combat, … And it doesn’t do it poorly. Good players consistently beat poor players, so the game is skill-based. It has plenty of learning curve to do before you get to the point where you can say “today, there’s no more for me to learn about combat”. The teamplay aspect works well if you play with a clan, and so forth. So the game works, and it works as intended.

    Obviously, it’s not perfect though. And I’m not blind to its flaws. One of the largest problems is the skill curve, which is incredibly steep at the bottom, but which seems to flatten out at the top. This is quite a bad thing, as it makes the game more frustrating to new players, and it makes it so that top players can hardly differentiate, as they understand combat so well that neither makes any mistakes and the outcome seems to be just random. That’s probably indeed a result of the combat system being originally designed for single player. Other issues include tedious shield combat, rather poor archery mechanics, unrealistic movement in combat (which, to make things clear, has never been done properly in any game that I know of) and the occasional slightly overpowering loadout (fortunately not to the point where a weapon was unbeatable).

    All in all: yes, I like Warband. But I’m also looking forward to see what you people will make of Chivalry. A combat system built from the ground up for multiplayer has a good chance of addressing the issues Mount&Blade had. I’ll probably be playing both Mount&Blade and Chivalry the moment I can get my hands on it, because it’s important to remember that a perfect combat system does not exist. Both games will have a fundamentally different approach on many aspects, depending on the priorities of the developers (teamplay or personal combat first? focus on melee combat or on medieval warfare as a whole? formation warfare or skirmishing? … and so on), so both will hopefully be worth their while in their own unique way.



  • its horrible because….well its not chivalry so its horrible :lol:



  • I’m going to assume that my former assumption that you tried M&B and sucked at it was correct :P.



  • actually i have 200 hours. its just an OK game. i played for so long because i needed a break from AoC for a bit. but MY OPINION is that mount and blade sucks ass



  • btw that whole essay you wrote was pretty pointless just saying :D



  • @JustPlainGoat:

    btw that whole essay you wrote was pretty pointless just saying :D

    Your double post as well :P.



  • naw not really. i wanted to point out your fail argument on a fail game. chivalry>mount and blade



  • @JustPlainGoat:

    naw not really. i wanted to point out your fail argument on a fail game. chivalry>mount and blade

    I find your arguments very compelling. Especially since you don’t even have an idea of what Chivalry will look like, apart from a few pictures of maps and a character or two. You can of course hate Mount&Blade, nothing anyone can do about that (though your lack of any objective arguments hardly gains you credibility), but ‘even’ Mount&Blade could be worse than it is now, so saying that an unknown game will definitely be better than it is just plain ignorant.



  • im talking about of age of chivalry! of course i dont know if chivalry will be better. but i know that age of chivalry is much much better


Log in to reply