Nature of a balance patch



  • How should TB release the balance patch/patches?

    The problem with releasing it as one big patch is that it will be difficult to work out how all the different changes affect each other. Even with proper beta testing (which is unlikely to happen) and assuming no new bugs introduced the exact nature of balance is just that: a balancing act.

    The other option is to release a number of balance patches and see how they work. The disadvantage of that is that it could take a long time and again, we might not realise how the different changes affect each other. However it’s probably a better way to go imo.

    For example release an Archer nerf patch. Test that first.

    Then release the melee weapons balance patch. See how that goes.

    Make sure to release hotfixes as needed asap.

    Then a stamina change patch etc.

    Thoughts?



  • This area is a mine field tbh. I remember a section\team was made up of 3 or 4 coders on each part of a game
    let alone the in house game testers and above that lot the other teams Art/Sound and production/project managers.
    TB is a small outfit and my hat goes off to them. Your ideas sound feasible Dr Zob on paper and look good.
    In practice its usually another story.



  • I think they should do it in 3 separate patches, from the smallest to biggest changes:
    1-weapon balance: Greatsword, brandistock and hws nerf. Longsword buff.
    2-class balance: Archer nerf, maybe a second look at MAA dodge mechanic and knight’s movement speed.
    3-Changes to core mechanic: Stamina and flinch times.



  • They should round up all the players of the classes that are getting nerfed. So any players who main MaA/Archer are brought out to the town square where everyone spits on them and throws rotten food.

    But seriously, no need to come out with a gigantic balance patch. Baby steps to begin with.



  • I think the obvious things like the overly shortened 2h flinch and long time overpoweredness of archers could be addressed without much fanfare.



  • i think we need a strong balance council so i can get a colored name in the forums



  • Yeah flinch increase should go into whatever patch is next, IMHO.
    And a flinch in release fix. It might have been an intentional feature, but it’s no good.



  • And maybe a buff/rework of the Knight’s 1h weapons like Warhammer and Flails…maybe…sometime. :(



  • @MissingNo:

    I think they should do it in 3 separate patches, from the smallest to biggest changes:
    1-weapon balance: Greatsword, brandistock and hws nerf. Longsword buff.
    2-class balance: Archer nerf, maybe a second look at MAA dodge mechanic and knight’s movement speed.
    3-Changes to core mechanic: Stamina and flinch times.

    Problem of this is that everything is related to each other. If you nerf archers you buff vanguards. If you nerf stamina you also nerf MaAs. If you change flinch times you either buff or nerf fast or slow weapons. Probably better to change everything at the same time and beta test until everything is good



  • we need a flinch patch asap either way



  • @zombojoe:

    we need a flinch patch asap either way

    What, you don’t like messer hit trades?

    git gud



  • @Chimpanzer:

    What, you don’t like messer hit trades?

    git gud

    Only noobs combo



  • @afiNity:

    Problem of this is that everything is related to each other. If you nerf archers you buff vanguards. If you nerf stamina you also nerf MaAs. If you change flinch times you either buff or nerf fast or slow weapons.

    I have been saying this since AOC. But instead of doing one big massive patch with a shit ton of changes. I always recommend when nerfing and buffing is to do half of what is suggested. Literally take the nerfs and buffs and cut the changes in half then release it because of buffing one and nerfing another can and does have a doubling effect.



  • Ahhhh well all that is said is good.

    Having big changes hit all at once breaths new life into the game by introducing a bunch of new learning. I would rather big sweeping changes every now and then and keep things fresh an interesting then small tiny changes. I’m a very quick learner so big changes give me considerable advantage until the slower learners catch up (and some eventually surpass).

    As a long term player I really am not fussed if they mix up my game a lot, in fact if they don’t change it much from what it currently is, I fear I’ll end up moving on. I love the learning, the mastering part is good too but not as good as the learning.



  • i just hope TB balances the game mainly around team play and promote loadout/class diversity instead of balancing around a situation that mainly revolves around one single mechanic

    it’d be nice if they changed something about that but it’s too late in the game’s life probably


  • Mod

    All of the nerfs won’t effect the weapons I use, so I couldn’t give a shit either way. It’ll just make the game easier. Unless I decide to go into 400 ping servers with a greatsword again.



  • Chivalry has been dicked around with so much, that it’s wide open to interpretation. The game has proven to be imperfect, which breeds argument, and differentiating theories on how to fix said imperfections.

    The game can never be truly balanced because many of its elements are perception based. Even if everyone agrees now, new players come along with bones to pick. Every change goes against SOMEONE’s idea of how the game should be.

    The only way an attempt at balance could be made, genuinely, is if the developers were the absolute best players of Chivalry, and understood the coding, functionality, flow and balance better than anyone else. You then have a fixed point at the top of the pyramid saying “No, it’s balanced because… and here is us showing you in game.” Or, “It’s not balanced because… and here’s us showing you why in game.”

    The creators need to be the masters in order to make decisions that are beyond reproach. That’s not the case in Chivalry, and it’s not been the case in any online game I’ve played. The community starts getting weight behind a theory, and because the developer doesn’t truly understand the gameplay like the community, credence might be given where it shouldn’t and visa-versa.

    Once the community drives major changes, the interpretation for how the game should play is up for grabs, and this will take you back to the top of my post.



  • Actually the best way would be to have statistical evidence. What class/weapon combo gets the highest scores, which combos feature on the winning side more, etc. Then you can start attempting to balance it out, when all the classes/combo are played and win/lose in roughly equal proportions then it is literally balanced.
    Good luck with TB incorporating statistical data gathering tools when they couldn’t even get weapon unlocks to work probably for over a year…



  • I think that leads to weapon cloning quicker than not.

    Niche playstyles are a real thing, and statistical analysis doesn’t take it into account.



  • Whatever happens, flinch in release needs to be fixed/removed whatever you want to call it and .8 flinch needs to be increased to .9.

    This needs to happen before any big weapon balance. Especially .8 flinch since it has a massive impact on weapon effectiveness. After we play around that for a bit we could then look at the weapons.