Few suggestions, ideas



  • Firs of all game look really good, dark and brutal. Idea of a game is ok but it still looks swing and run. I would like to see more tactics and team play. To do that you will need to make classes to more cooperate together so better team wins not individual. Here are some my ideas: (i have others but will leave them for now)

    • make one defensive class with tower shield and long weapon (dagger optional) so that class can protect for instance archer, or when more than one, they can make wall to protect even more players.
      adv. no stamina loss, strong block, can walk with blocking arrows to their left side (or right if weapon/hand swich) at all time, can throw spear (one time only until picked up again), short shield charge…
      disadv. low dmg, and speed, when blocking can’t see shit
      So players who pick this class will have to help other classes more than run for their own. Archer will also love to teamup to them to gain protection.

    Also make few evade moves (double back tap, and same to left or right). It is more easily to evade 2h swords and axes than block them. So if you are lighter (with smaller weapon, and by that faster and more mobile) class stay out of swing range and wait for your opportunity to attack. If hit by heavy weapon there’s a chance to get knocked down even if blocked, so standing player will get 3 choices: 90 degree attack (finishing move) but target can roll left and right on floor; left to right swing (not so fatal one); thrust which target can parry.

    These are only suggestions to avoid run and swing, and to bring more tactics, combat styles, and skill to play = realism. Then you will attract more players, and the game itself won’t get boring so soon


  • Developer

    One of the biggest issues with Age of Chivalry was always that the movement and combat systems encouraged you to “hit and run” as you say. This time around we have redesigned both the movement and combat systems to compliment a melee-focused game. Some of your ideas are also ideas we have had and “dodging” or “evading” as you say is a very important aspect of the new game. We’re also focusing in on having each class fufill a unique role on the battlefield and encouraging teamwork in both combat and to complete the maps objectives.

    Very happy to see suggestions as it allows the team to not only think critically about the game, but also ensure that our ideals and goals are alligned with that of our fans, so the more the better :).



  • I can see that you really care about the game, and are eager to improve it. I wouldn’t spent time trying to think how to improve it otherwise. I am an old gamer, I’ve played D&D pencil and paper for years and know how diversity in classes, tactics, and moves are important to quality of fun (addiction if you like :shock: ).
    So few more ideas:
    Knights should be epic class, only few, and only those with higher rating could roll for knight. So if you want to unlock knight earn some respect (something like americans army - sniper). Knight should be immune to almost all arrow attacks (because of full plate). Arrows could wound him but not kill him. Wounded knight will drain his stamina quickly and can bleed to death eventually. Knights should be the slowest moving class. Also i would like to have limited view (1st Person) because of helmet. That would be disadvantage of heavily armored units, too have that feeling what is like to wear a helmet, to be well protected but with price. Also the sound of breathing under the helmet for even more claustrofobic feeling. Classes with smaller helmets will be able to see more.
    Archers should avoid close combat and only operate from strategic points where they can have unlimited ammo, fire arrows, and cover, otherwise only 10 arrows or so. Archers should be the fastest units and most vulnerable.
    Sappers or engineers, ability to operate siege equipment to fire on enemy strategic positions from a distance and so, also to oil the ground so archers can ignite it, to put ladders and so on.
    Axeman - fast, bezerkered, very deadly, can charge, good visibility, but no real protection, can only dodge attacks.
    And few classes between those.

    • ability for heavily armored units to sustain few attacks, bit to hit slower overall
    • blurred vison vhen wounded
    • a lot of screaming and roaring sounds in battle

    *again just an ideas for you to talk about


  • Developer

    I can also see that you care about the game and are giving suggestions in your perspective to the best interest of the game.

    That being said I think there is some differences in how we’ve approached the class system than how you might have. You seem to favour a “hard-counter” method, whereby being a certain class makes you invulnerable or at a great advantage over other classes. (IE. Knights take no arrow damage). Our philosophy has been to have softer counters, and the reason for that is because of the type of game. Our game is based around the principles of a First-Person Shooter, and has a heavy skill-based focus, as opposed to many other medieval style games based on the principles of a RPG which generally promote a slow-paced tactic focus.

    We wish to have a blend of both tactic and skill-based play for our game and thus individual classes will, in various favourable scenarios, be at an advantage over the other classes but that advantage will never be so great as to be impossible to overcome with skill. That is why we think of them as “soft-counters”, (IE. Knights take less damage from arrows). This system allows for tactic-based selection of classes by a team or by an individual that will benefit the player, but not fully dictate his ability to succeed on the battlefield.



  • You do seem to be pushing the classes towards fantasy-esque, in my opinion, by exaggerating their (assumed) characteristics to the point where I can only describe them as stereotypical. Which isn’t my shtick, to be honest. Armour barely encumbers a trained man, and a knight will be nearly as agile in his full plate than when he’s naked. It’s not speed that gets decreased, but stamina. Doing the same action in armour isn’t necessarily a lot harder or slower, but more fatiguing. Athletic men in full plate armour have been known to outrun unarmoured, less well-trained men. And many knights would spend a good deal of their time training for war. And they’d definitely not swing any slower. Armour on the limbs was generally less thick than armour protecting vital area’s, sacrificing protection for mobility.

    Axes were as good a weapon of the common soldier (or knight, for that matter) as of the berserker, and should definitely not be associated with the latter. Not only were berserkers pretty rare and tied to only a few specific cultures (on which the factions in Chivalry aren’t based at all, from the looks of it), fighting with axes is a lot more complex than popular media makes it out to be. Especially fighting with daneaxes can be quite complex, involving parrying and feinting, just like fighting with swords. Axes also aren’t as unbalanced as many seem to believe, as the axeheads are a lot smaller and less hefty than those in most films or games. An axe in games like Oblivion (or the two-handed axe in AoC, for that matter), or as a member of another forum put it, “a fucking door on a stick”, would be completely useless in real combat.

    Artificially making archers faster than other classes is something I don’t like to see either. Apart from the realism argument that there’s no reason at all to assume that archers would be more fit than the average footman, it’d make the game unplayable. The only dedicated ranged class gets to run the fastest as well essentially means that that class will simply never die, unless attacked by other members of its class. I’d like to see them being not completely dedicated to ranged combat either; archers were sometimes required to fight in melee combat as well and I sincerely hope that will be a valid option in Chivalry too. If not for realism reasons, then for the sake of making the game more melee-centered, which I believe is desirable as that will be the game’s trademark.

    I can understand where you’re coming from gameplay-perspective-wise, but I’m personally of a different opinion. If I understand you correctly, you want to make sure every class has a very clear speciality and role, making it clearly counter and be countered by specific other classes. I can see it working, but I’m not a fan of what I would call ‘forced teamplay’. Teamplay should, naturally, be a central part in any multiplayer game, but one must be careful how to introduce it. The ‘everyone has his own clear role’ approach is one that is flawed, imo. Essentially, you’re breaking the game down into parts to the point where the player no longer has to think. His role is clear: “I’m an archer, so I shoot arrows and run away from melee” or “I’m a guardian, so I stick with archers and protect them from enemies” or “I’m a berserker, so I smash the shields of opponents and engage every enemy in an aggressive manner”. While a lot of variety in classes is added that way, you take away variety and creativity from the player playing that class. You have your role, and you do it to the best you can. But the most interesting teamplay, imo, is in games where players are versatile and assume the role that is necessary or useful while playing.

    The main difference between what you’re suggesting and the way I see it is the feeling of teamplay. In the clear distinction between roles approach, players aren’t really fighting shoulder by shoulder, they’re coincidentally jogging around on the same battlefield, fulfilling entirely different roles. Whereas versatility requires real teamwork: looking around to what your teammates are doing and adjusting your part in that system according to the needs of your teammates. If I’m an archer running along with some teammates, and I see that we’re being overwhelmed in melee, it should definitely be a valid option to support them by drawing my sword and going into the fray. I’d be at a disadvantage, but I’ll be more supportive to my teammates than I would be if I’d jog away to fling arrows. And I should be at a disadvantage, yes, but not so much that a large difference in skill cannot overcome that disadvantage. It’s the fact that I have to make decisions while playing, looking at what my team and the opponents are doing, that is teamplay. The game should force me to think, not think for me once I’ve chosen my class.

    The last point that I’d like to make about this: in my opinion, in single combat I should be able to take on any class if the difference in skill is large enough, regardless of my own class or equipment setup. It’s ok if I’m at a natural disadvantage against a specific class, but no so much that I’m virtually chanceless against that opponent. If I’m better, then I should win. If my opponent is better, then he should win. Every class should have a means to combat any and every other class. Apologies for the wall of text.

    And I guess I could have expected to be ninja’d while writing this :P.



  • If just one idea will help Chivalry gameplay to become better in any way, my mission is successful



  • pretty much he’s saying DON’T MAKE IT LIKE AN MMO; whereas you have dedicated “healers”, “dps”, “tanks” that you should be able to fulfill what ever roll is needed by you, making it so you have to actually adapt and think and use skill rather than depend on the class you’re playing.



  • Yes, that’s an accurate summary.

    One more thing that I’d like to add to address is something in the OP that I didn’t notice earlier.

    It is more easily to evade 2h swords and axes than block them.

    No! Two-handed weapons are, in general, actually faster to handle than most one-handed weapons. That’s quite logical: force = mass * acceleration, and the force gained by using two hands is much greater than the increase in mass, meaning that acceleration will increase, not decrease. Another thing to consider is that using two hands doesn’t just roughly double the available force, but that it’s also a lot better for leverage. If you wish to quickly tilt your sword for a feint, you have to use the muscles in your wrist if you do so with a onehander, whereas you can use the opposing movements of both arms to tilt the blade when using two hands, the latter being faster and less tiresome.

    I’m slightly ticked off by the way they’re way too often depicted as brutish, sluggish weapons in most popular media, while fighting with longswords or pollaxes is often elegant and sophisticated, with entire manuals written on various techniques. While I don’t expect twohanders to be faster or as fast as onehanders in Chivalry, for balance reasons, I do hope the game will not add to the common misconceptions about them by making them feel as smooth as a fucking clownhammer.

    And, naturally, one shouldn’t exaggerate dodging. There is no way you can consistently move your entire body out of the way of an attack faster than your opponent can move his arms alone. Most attacks would be waaaay to fast to dodge reliably. If you’re going to dodge, the only way you can reliably go is backwards. Which makes no sense, because that doesn’t guarantee right of way. Any sensible swordsman would rather parry an attack, I believe. Note that a parry isn’t as simple as films and games make it out to be. It isn’t merely putting your weapon in the way of your opponent, it is actively setting your opponent’s weapon aside by guiding it away from your body with your sword. Parrying requires less energy to perform than dodging, can be performed more reliably and allows swifter counterattack, so there’s little reason to make dodging the primary defense method. It should rather be a surprise move that you pull off occasionally than your primary means of defense.

    Also, the moment you decide in combat that rolling on the floor is a good way to evade an attack, you’re already dead :P.



  • But, Jackie Chan dodges very well :(:(


  • Developer

    Narrator,

    While realism and references to modern day master swordsman techniques are often interesting and valid, they in many cases, cannot be used as the basis for gameplay. The reason for that, aside from extreme realism being in most cases annoying for a player, is because many things in reality are often counter-intuitive.

    Let me try to give you an example, In reality a 50,000 pound rock if dropped from a building falls at the same speed as a 1 pound rock, assuming they have the same surface area/air resistance. This is because gravity is not based on weight, but the everyday assumption for many people is that gravity is based on weight and that heavier objects accelerate towards the ground faster than lighter objects.

    So because we are not all master swordsman, often times it is best to build gameplay designs off of inferences that most people can make, IE. Heavier weapons are generally slower, and deal more damage. Even in instances when those inferences may be different from recorded facts. Since we’re not in the education business but in the entertainment business, some realism sacrifices need to be made.



  • I also never expect a game to fully mirror reality, that is impossible. The medium has its natural limitations which have to be respected. But what I’m arguing for isn’t to portray reality 100% in-game, I fully realize that is not possible, and perhaps not even desirable. I am arguing for not making the game tend towards the fantasy side too much. The reason I am arguing for that is not because I wish to educate people, but exactly because of the example you gave. While making the battle axe a huge, double bitted, brutish monster may look right to many, it looks plain wrong to me. I was honestly disturbed by weapons such as warhammers or battle axes in Oblivion, because I was constantly thinking how much they look like toys, how impossible it is to wield these things with even the slightest bit of efficiency. In the same way that making the heavy rock drop faster would look wrong to me, because I know that it shouldn’t drop any faster.

    So I fully understand it if twohanded weapons are slower in-game, mostly for balance reasons. As long as that isn’t exaggerated to the point where it becomes laughable. There are ways to balance weapons out without making them fantasy clichés. Making the battle axe handle like a sledgehammer is indeed the most straightforward way for a game to balance it out (massive damage, low speed), but I am convinced that it’s perfectly possible to make it balanced and look acceptable to the majority of players by being inspired by the real properties of these weapons. I’m not saying that it should mimic the real life weapon completely, but there can be moderation in all things. For example, the axe could have a slower but acceptable speed, with damage not that much higher than a two-handed sword, but with specific advantages such as ignoring a % or set value of armour and being efficient at breaking shields.

    Then again, you know the combat system you’re designing, and I do not. Many of the things I’ve been saying may have been completely useless if they cannot fit into that design, so I’ll try not to start reality or balance arguments anymore until I’ve actually been able to play the game and felt the combat system myself. I imagine it may be quite frustrating for you developers if I’m spamming your forum with walls of text about medieval equipment and warfare when you know the combat system isn’t designed for that, and you’re too polite to say that what I’ve written is pointless :P.

    In the end, while it’s hard to admit, I’ll have to say that I could be at peace with huge, slow, double bitted axes. I’ll probably not use them myself, as they are very uncool in contrast to the more elegant real life axes, but I’ll admit that it’s not worth fucking up your entire design for more realism. I believe that a combat system can be strongly based on realism and be balanced and fun, but it’s pointless to try to do so by altering an existing design that wasn’t made with that in mind to begin with. You people seem to be very committing to and enthusiastic about your game, so I believe that you will be able to make it enjoyable without full realism. And if it is so, I’ll happily buy, support and play your game ;).


  • Developer

    I completely understand by what you mean with “too fantasy” as this type of thinking is what gives most medieval games their style. For example, shoulder guards that extend two feet above your head and weapons with so many spikes on them that they would likely be more dangerous to wield than to actually use for inflicting damage on an opponent.

    It’s hard to make general statements like this, but I can say that the new game will be even less fantasy based than Age of Chivalry was. A great example of that is the difference between the mason order’s armour and art style. Similarly, weapons that were fantasy-esque in Age of Chivalry (such as the giant warhammer) will be re-envisioned in the new game.

    So we’ve made steps to make the game engaging for people with a more realistic tune (you’ll note that in the game’s pace as well) but at the same time, some elements were simply deemed necessary for gameplay and as a result may not reflect your perspective of reality (such as knights being the slowest moving class).



  • not to sound like an ass, but i think we can write a book with just was narrator has said on these forums <3

    more on topic; i would love to see more realistic armor, weapons, and combat. Seeing someone with spikes coming out of everything, their shoulder pads being bigger than their heads, and swords being just retarded, i agree with mr. narrator to an extent, listed by tibbs above, unless this goes to the next page.



  • @Tibberius:

    I completely understand by what you mean with “too fantasy” as this type of thinking is what gives most medieval games their style. For example, shoulder guards that extend two feet above your head and weapons with so many spikes on them that they would likely be more dangerous to wield than to actually use for inflicting damage on an opponent.

    It’s hard to make general statements like this, but I can say that the new game will be even less fantasy based than Age of Chivalry was. A great example of that is the difference between the mason order’s armour and art style. Similarly, weapons that were fantasy-esque in Age of Chivalry (such as the giant warhammer) will be re-envisioned in the new game.

    So we’ve made steps to make the game engaging for people with a more realistic tune (you’ll note that in the game’s pace as well) but at the same time, some elements were simply deemed necessary for gameplay and as a result may not reflect your perspective of reality (such as knights being the slowest moving class).

    It certainly is a sensible approach to have a degree of realism in aesthetics, while keeping gameplay the first and foremost concern when designing game mechanics. You’ve convinced me, I fully support your view on this. Also, I already noticed the concept art of the two soldiers in the dev blog page, and they look great. And thank you, Vox :).


Log in to reply