TO map observations of imbalance IMO



  • As far as the maps go TO seams wildly imbalanced and the following observations are based on my opinions.

    My biggest gripe atm would be with citadel. the first objectives based around slaves seams fine and pretty balanced, however the defend the door is extremely in favor of the defending team. However should the attackers break the door into king malric’s room the masons are pretty f’ed from there. There is hardly any cover for malric to dodge fire pots and arrows and many open corridors let him be zerged very easily. I’ve seen malric successfully defended only once. However the spawn time and spawn locations are well placed which segways into the next topic.

    The agatha king on stone hill is way to easy to defend, the only times I’ve seen masons win is when the king is either tked or walks off the balcony of the throne. As long as the king ducks under the gaurd rail and gargoyle statues for cover and hides he’s neigh invulnerable. The spawn time and locations are way to short and close to protect the king. Granted that pillaging the village is very easy and seiging the door with the cart is pretty balanced for both masons and agatha.

    Other notable and probably common complains would be Hillside is incredibly hard for agatha to burn the pyre at first but becomes joke easy to siege the trebuchets and boats.

    Dark forest as far as the cart push seams pretty balanced if maybe a slight favor in the defenders, however killing the kings family is super easy for the masons.

    The only pretty balanced TO is battlegrounds on the cart push / assault, the first part almost always is destroyed quickly.

    Side notes - Perhaps the agatha kings weapons may have to do with this as the long sword’s reach and speed helps being defensive, malric is stuck with the slugish maul and messer (compared to the long sword) for power

    My rank for most imbalanced from most to most balanced

    (MVC2) Cidadel , Hillside, Stonehill, Darkforest, Battlegrounds



  • I agree with you that citadel needs some rebalancing. IMO the first objective ( destroy pallisades with balistas ) is way to hard for the attackers, since the defenders can archer-spam while being on the walls, they can use the balistas and have some pretty small chokepoints. After that, it gets easier for the attackers. Freeing the slaves from the cages in pretty balanced, but freeing them from those pillars is to easy for the attacking team. Then again, defending the door is way to easy for the defenders.

    PS: die Vanu-scum, TR rules!



  • Are you referring to pubs (teams of 10+ unorganized mercenaries) or “team play” (~5 organized warriors)?

    Personally I like if the defenders have an advantage. I like challenging but rewarding stages like killing the king on Stoneshill. Hillside was similar - very fun to play - but then Torn Banner decided to nerf the Masons to the ground (removing Treb 3 was a good thing but instead of compensating they also nerfed the other stages) - now its a boring curb stomp battle most of the time (on pubs).

    Citadel has some weaknesses in its basic design:

    1. Its not a fortress. There are so many ways to get to the objectives that it reminds me of a swiss cheese. I hope Malric executed the one who build it. (Why would a king who is even a general even consider residing in such a useless building - during wartime!)
    2. Being unable to climb the wall and use the Ballstias as Agatha after the first objective is done doen’t really follow any logic. The only reason is not screwing up the Masons even more. (Why wouldn’t you use them as Agatha attackers as it only helps your enemies?)
    3. When you have to free the working slaves there is a single pathway right next to the Mason spawn that leads to the last three slaves. This often leads to a “Trebuchet 3” situation especially as the rest is just “swarm and free slaves” and fairly easy.
    4. The Thorneroom has three gates but it doesn’t matter which one you attack as all three get damaged equally. The only reason I can think of is to weaken the Masons the only time they actually got a real defensive position. I would rather see three separate gates but you only need to destroy one.
    5. The Throneroom itself is a deathtrap for the king. You can’t really put up a defensive position as there are (as usual on Citadel) so many paths the attackers can take. The best option is probably to hide at the spawn but in this case you are cornering yourself and if a squad manages to break through you are toast. (Why would a king/general make his last stand in such a room especially as it also surrounded by a non-fortress and located next to a volcano?)

    I consider the king on Citadel nothing more but a decoy as the Mason Order would never been able to rise to power with a leader so stupid to reside there. The attackers don’t even need any siege weapons and even chose not to use the ones they aquired at the first objective. For me the map is overall far too easy for the attackers - its meant to be the Mason Orders last stand after all. Defending the gates is the only stage I would call “okay”.



  • @Evil:

    Are you referring to pubs (teams of 10+ unorganized mercenaries) or “team play” (~5 organized warriors)?

    I usually play with pubs but have done 4 man teams with 3 friends. Even with 3 friends (a 4 man squad) having knights in front and an archer behind to snipe Malric still gets steam rolled hard.

    I suppose if every one charges the agatha king at the exact same time and i mean pretty much every one it’d be possible to over run the king but he can hide and move across the balcony while he waits on respawns. 4 of us weren’t enough to break meat shield wall of knights and vangaurds he has around him.

    Granted i Haven’t played in a large organized team



  • @VanuTycon:

    @Evil:

    Are you referring to pubs (teams of 10+ unorganized mercenaries) or “team play” (~5 organized warriors)?

    I usually play with pubs but have done 4 man teams with 3 friends. Even with 3 friends (a 4 man squad) having knights in front and an archer behind to snipe Malric still gets steam rolled hard.

    I suppose if every one charges the agatha king at the exact same time and i mean pretty much every one it’d be possible to over run the king but he can hide and move across the balcony while he waits on respawns. 4 of us weren’t enough to break meat shield wall of knights and vangaurds he has around him.

    Granted i Haven’t played in a large organized team

    You can’t decide map balance based off of pubs and pub stomping.



  • @Jstorm:

    You can’t decide map balance based off of pubs and pub stomping.

    Why not? In pubs, defense typically has the advantage because it’s much easier to bring randoms together for cohesion and teamwork on defense since you spawn next to the objective and the only objective you do is kill people near it. In organized play, attacking has the advantage because the game seemed to be designed around attacking team having the advantage when there’s coordination and teamwork.

    The vast majority of Chivalry players now just solo pub stomp, so I think TBS should balance Chivalry around solo pubbing while Pro Mod should balance around clan play. Though I’m scared of that since TBS ruined Chivalry so badly last patch. I don’t want them to get under the impression they should balance around noobs and not us 1000+ hour pros (again).

    At OP: you just said Battlegrounds was the most balanced map… when even the guy who designed each level and map said Battlegrounds was the worst balanced map and pushing the cart past 75% is nigh impossible without coordination unless defense is terribad.

    In general, you should notice when solo pubbing that the times you lose on defense is when the attacking team actually used teamwork and coordination. The times you lose on attacking is when your team didn’t use any teamwork or coordination and the defending team always had 4+ defenders camping the objective. When you’re on defense, you pretty much find your self spamming “cart cart cart” while you’re on attacking you’re spamming “wait in spawn for a large group and go as a big unit.”

    Depending on others/being forced to use teamwork = not fun, last patch made lone wolfing much less effective qq.



  • The vast majority of Chivalry players now just solo pub stomp, so I think TBS should balance Chivalry around solo pubbing while Pro Mod should balance around clan play. Though I’m scared of that since TBS ruined Chivalry so badly last patch. I don’t want them to get under the impression they should balance around noobs and not us 1000+ hour pros (again).

    I’ve given up on TBS at this point but I’ll still state my opinions. I want them to screw up the game more and make the game noob friendly(not too much so, though) because I want the noob to be happy in live and competitive players can have promod for competitive play. It would also increase the urge for competitive players the play promod.



  • @SOC:

    The vast majority of Chivalry players now just solo pub stomp, so I think TBS should balance Chivalry around solo pubbing while Pro Mod should balance around clan play.

    Yes to the latter - would be a joke if Pro Mod would balance around pubbing. I disagree with the former as Pro Mod is not the competitive branch of Chivalry but a mere mod.

    Maps should be balanced in a way that coordinated teamwork (not just sticking together and rushing) favors the attackers but otherwise the defenders should have an advantage. In pubs this should balance out as a lot of the defenders just fool around going for kills anyways. In “team matches” it favors teamwork and prevents a bloody stalemate in case both teams work well together. The last stage of a map might even be a little harder giving each team an equal chance to succeed with equal teamwork and individual skill.

    Also balancing maps according to pubs is not a bad thing as competitive matches should also include a side switch for better comparison making the map balance not a big factor.



  • In team objective based games, the maps should be balanced around a 50/50 win ratio for pub play.

    The reason being is because comp play is more about playing against time[in chivalry]. The maps don’t have to be balanced 50/50 for comp play because of this, similar to how CS maps are rarely ever balanced 50/50 for comp play, they almost always favor one side. This doesn’t break comp play because, like in Chivalry, each team takes turns playing both sides.

    Then why would evenly balanced map around pub play be good? Pub play isn’t balanced around teams taking turns playing each side. People like to think they have an equal chance to win a map, based on map balanced; if a map is balanced around comp play to be 50/50 win ratio, then it won’t be balanced for pub play. In other words, for the game to be balanced for comp play and for pub play, the maps needs to be balanced with a 50/50 win ratio in mind for pub play.



  • I could get into it… yawn…

    but for pubs the maps are just fine, having played it 1000 times and I have no real problem with the attackers having a slight advantage - because its fun to play all the objectives. Battlegrounds is the hardest for attackers but for almost the rest, on average the attackers will win.



  • Oh look, another thread that gets de-railed into a pro-mod debate.



  • @NoVaLombardia:

    Oh look, another thread that gets de-railed into a pro-mod debate.

    I think the pro-mod team are realizing the challenge is much greater than they thought.



  • @gregcau:

    @NoVaLombardia:

    Oh look, another thread that gets de-railed into a pro-mod debate.

    I think the pro-mod team are realizing the challenge is much greater than they thought.

    It is indeed extremely challenging to balance any of the maps when we have absolutely no uncooked versions to change them. But, continuing our endless nagging, we’ll get there eventually!

    On-topic, I think the objective balance is really all over the place. I would like to see every objective as a viable objective to defend and attack. I don’t think saying “the first objective is really hard to it’s OK for the rest to be easy” is a good way to go about it. The most popular (I would say) competitive map - Darkforest - nails this pretty good I feel for both pub and comp play. Even maps like Stoneshill I’m put off playing because of that final damn objective that can be very frustrating, even with an organised team.



  • I like it that not each stage is balanced.

    The map as a whole should be balanced, but some stages should give advantages to the defenders while others give them to the attackers.



  • I said this back in like November, but I think I should say it again.

    Spawn timers should be dynamic based on the map and the objective, not just the same universal for every single map. For example, defenders should respawn faster on the first objective in Stoneshill but longer in the final objective. Defenders should respawn faster during the burn the farm objective in Battlegrounds but longer during the push the petard objective. If I’m not mistaken, 18 seconds is the longest possible respawn, and not every single map and objective should have that.

    Things that should be taken into account for how long a respawn should be, and it should be dynamic and changed based on all of these things:

    1. Attacking team or defending
    2. How many players on each team/in the server (Shorter/longer respawns if there’s fewer/many players in the server? A 32 server having different timers from a 24 when full? Shorter/longer timers if the server is a 24 but only 6 people currently playing? Would this allow TBS to balance around pubs and clan battles?)
    3. What current map is being played
    4. What current objective is being played
    4a. How much of the objective has been completed (Should there be longer respawns for defense, or shorter for attacking based on how far the petard is pushed in Battlegrounds? 75%+ should make defense have longer respawns/attackers have shorter than when it’s only 25%?)

    I think this would be the best way to balance the objectives for each map. It really needs to be dynamic based on these factors. Does anyone else have any other ideas for respawn timer factors?



  • ^That’s a lot of variables. It would require a fair bit of programming, but the really hard bit would be balancing all of that.

    We wouldn’t want TB to introduce something only to introduce more glitches would we?



  • Citadel isn’t too hard. The first objective is he hardest but even in pub games you just tell everyone to all go one side. And that gets at least a few people going on one side. 3 people on one ballista with one firing is good. And don’t stay on the ballista. Fire and get off. Then get on and fire again. You aren’t supposed to get all the shots on the wall in one go. Its happened before we managed to proceed in the first wave in under two minutes. We took both ballistas at once and held them.

    I think hillside is the most unbalanced map. It always has been and its gone through the most changes. All its done is swapped it from the defenders winning all the time to the attackers steamrolling all the time. But they are close with hillside. The changes in the thread about it in ideas and suggestions would balance it out more. So its harder for the attackers but it they can still win. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16505&p=173819#p173819

    Just making it more of a challenge rather than a cakewalk win.



  • @Dr:

    ^That’s a lot of variables. It would require a fair bit of programming, but the really hard bit would be balancing all of that.

    We wouldn’t want TB to introduce something only to introduce more glitches would we?

    But if they programmed it correctly and there weren’t any bugs with it, is that the ideal solution to spawns?


Log in to reply