Rethinking Chivalry



  • Rethinking Chivalry

    I’ve been thinking for some time about some revisions I’d like to see to the mechanics and balance of Chivalry. There’s a lot to talk about, so I’ve broken it down into sections.

    Teamwork

    Something I’d like to see a lot more of in Chivalry is more team play. I’m sure most people have envisaged engaging in medieval warfare within the game – battle lines, charges, counter charges, rows of spears and shields clashing. All very exciting. Compare it to the reality of the game: people fighting in ones and twos, little mutual support for fear of team damage, clusterfucks of swords swinging through teammates and enemies alike, arrows and bolts deciding the outcome of half the fights. Still fun, but a bit lacking at times.

    When players on the same team go into a fight in Chivalry, they advance as lone wolves who happen to be working towards the same objective. One or two experienced a players let their less skilled teammates draw aggression and arrows. They wait for clean openings to stab people in the back.

    It’s pointless to do as Chivalry players often do, and say “it’s the players’ fault! They should think about teamwork more!” Sadly, they don’t. The game doesn’t drive them to do so. Consider other first person games with a strong team element like Team Fortress 2, or Left 4 Dead. These games make teamwork utterly necessary, natural and advantageous. Chivalry does none of these things, except for spawning teammates on the same end of the map as each other. Let’s consider why.

    Most prominent is the effect of team damage. Unlike in reality, Chivalry soldiers don’t have the same peripheral vision, fine muscle control or any of the other physical factors that have historically prevented warriors from unintentionally decapitating their comrades. As a result, players fighting together in close proximity tend to knock the shit out of each other constantly. Even players of very high skill do this frequently. It’s not fun for the murderer and it’s not fun for the player being team killed unintentionally.

    It forces players to spread out rather than fight as a group supporting each other. We all spread out, losing mutual support, the chance to fight in a group or rudimentary formation, any semblance of teamwork. The closest we get to teamwork is a teammate backstabbing someone you’re locked in a fight with.
    The solution? Reduce default team damage to nothing, or something incredibly low like 5% or 10%. But Omar! I hear you say, Without team damage players won’t be encouraged to fight with finesse or skill! They won’t even care about their teammates! They’ll just bunch up and swing in every direction!

    My answer has two parts.

    1. Nobody gives a shit about team damage already, because it’s simply too hard to consistently avoid when fighting together with a teammate. EVEN IF YOU’RE REALLY GOOD.
    2. Wait for my second solution.

    My second solution**? Make teammates impassable to friendly attacks, in much the same way static objects like walls and the ground are.** This will negate the advantages of reduced/non-existent melee team damage. If you go in as a clump swinging like madmen with no skill, none of your attacks will hit an enemy – they’ll just get stopped when they hit a teammate. No more fights where your enemy shoves a sword through his teammate in order to kill you.
    There we have it – no longer will players fear grouping up, and wild swings into teammates will still be punished, but by negating your attack rather than hurting teammates.
    Let’s at least give it a try. You know I’m right.

    Stamina

    Stamina (mostly) sucks.

    It’s a crutch in Chivalry’s design that Torn Banner threw in to force something decisive in combat, rather than allow skill to dictate the winner of a fight, by wrenching the controls out of a players hands when the yellow bar goes empty.

    It discourages players from effectively fighting multiple foes – I’m parrying three people at once, and the three dorks incapable of hitting me get a free swing when I’m stunned? I beat two people in a row in single combat, and the third guy wins because my character can’t be arsed raising his shield? As warriors we are apparently incapable of swinging a sword a couple of times before becoming so exhausted we’re incapable of parrying an incoming axe to the face.

    On the plus side, the stamina system does prevent people endlessly spamming attacks and jumping around like crickets during a fight, as well as simply parrying eternally and turning combat into an unenjoyable slog.

    So let’s look at a way to reform stamina to make it better.

    I propose a change of name for stamina to Balance. The system will simulate the effects of your warrior’s balance, rather than their insanely short stamina.

    This system will operate (for the most part) in a very similar fashion. Missed swings will decrease balance as your warrior lurches about whiffing the air, parrying heavy weapons with a small weapon will greatly decrease stamina.

    However, Balance will recover much faster than stamina. A player will need only a few seconds to rapidly regain their Balance - the only way to knock someone off balance and stun them is to not let them out of reach, hammering away and they’re knocked over. Give them a moment to recover, and they will.

    This will allow a skilled player to fight multiple foes at once, as well as consecutively. If multiple enemies don’t press the attack enough, they will simply be parried and beaten. If they spam attacks to keep you engaged and deplete your Balance, they will be punished for their sloppiness by a skilled player. You’ll never need to hang around doing nothing catching your breath between fights anymore – a tedious and unnecessary consequence of the slow-regenerating Stamina system.

    Additionally I would suggest changes to the stun following a 0 stamina parry. Currently the player is almost completely immobilised. I propose that the player be able to parry (albeit with a greatly reduced parry window) while still be rooted to the spot and having a very limited turning speed. This will make a stunned player far easier to hit, but not guarantee a hit if the attacker doesn’t apply any finesse or skill.

    Classes
    I’d like to see more variety and usefulness and distinct roles for each class. Presently the classes exist like this: knights are slow and a little bit tougher, everyone beats up on them. Vanguards are a bit tougher than men at arms and have the weapons with the best combo of damage and reach. Men at arms dodge. Archers arch.

    If we take the teamwork reforms I’ve outlined earlier and considering clearer roles for classes, then we can make the team aspects of the game far more interesting.

    Knight: Best troops for close up combat, especially in groups. Dominate enemies with powerful weaponry at close range. Hold shields as well as extremely powerful armour piercing weaponry, allowing them to break through groupings of knights and vanguards.
    **
    Vanguard:** Best troops for holding the line when equipped with polearms and spears, which mostly negate the heaviest knight armour, but are weak up close. Can mutually support teammates with ease due to their reach. When equipped with large swords, become excellent line breakers against other vanguards, and good single combat fighters.
    **
    Man-at-Arms:** Can join in battles when equipped with a shield, but excel at single combat with room to move. Hunt down archers, flank enemies, can be equipped with a variety of weapons for dealing with all kinds of foes.
    A note on men at arms: Can we please have better animations for dodges? They currently look like an MC Hammer-slide. Let’s have the man at arms twist sideways and raise his arms out of the way like a fencer when he dodges sideways, a bit of a lunge stance when going forwards, and sucking his hitbox in when he dodges backwards! It’d bring more visual clarity to combat with men at arms, and I say that as someone who has played about 500 hours of man at arms.
    **
    Archer:** Support class that does damage from range, most useful against formations of vanguards. Weak in melee
    combat.
    A note on archery: I don’t see nerfs to archer ranged weapon damage as being necessary. I do, however, think archers need a serious cut to their mobility while firing. When archers move, they should suffer a serious penalty to accuracy (as the crosshairs currently indicate). When stopping moving, there should be a brief settling time for accuracy to increase. This would make archers more vulnerable to counter-archery, since they will have to be stationary for longer when firing, and make them more easy to counter.

    I envisage team fights as unfolding like so: vanguards with polearms, as well as knights, form a battle line or barrier of teammates and attempt to defeat the enemy team similarly organised. Archers attempt to weaken and break up this formation while men at arms hunt lone players and attempt to flank and harass the larger enemy group.
    For me this would be much more interesting than the current form team play takes in Chivalry. This following section outlines how many of these changes would be achieved.

    Weaponry and Armour
    Greater variety in weapons is definitely necessary to create better and more interesting roles and variations for play styles.

    Currently the only real factors in a weapon are its reach, speed and damage. The most economical combination of these will inevitably be the most used weapon for its class – the broadsword, the greatsword, the messer. I believe that creating more specific roles for weapons would create a more varied and interesting combat system, as well as deeper team play.

    By making the armour system more important, and making certain weapons play into this system, players will have more variety in how they play via what weapons they choose.

    Knights, possessing plate armour, will be more resistant than they currently are to cutting attacks. A slash from a knife or one handed sword should do virtually no damage to a knight (while still flinching him – we don’t really want to make knights a class of hit traders). A poleaxe or mace, however, will penetrate his armour with ease and require few hits to kill him.

    For vanguards, their chainmail will similarly resist slashes, but be more vulnerable to sword stabs and axe attacks than knights.

    Hence a man at arms with a broadsword will find it hard to crack the armour of a knight, but equipped with a mace will find his task much easier. This will create more variety in weaponry and playstyles, as players choose weapons more suited to anti-knight, anti-vanguard or anti-MAA/archer roles.

    This change would also increase the importance of secondary weapons. Took a mace? That secondary shortsword might come in handy against another man at arms or an archer, but will still put you at a disadvantage if the man at arms took a broadsword.

    I would also like to introduce the concept of different parrying characteristics for different weapons. Currently a bardiche is just as useful for parrying as a longsword, which seems slightly silly and makes combat a bit samey since every weapon as just as effective at extreme close ranges.

    I propose a slightly reduced parrying window for the less balanced and more unwieldy weapons. Iirc, the parry window used to be shorter than it is now, which made for faster paced combat. I’d like to retain the current window for weapons like knight bastard swords, one handed swords, perhaps the claymore. A slightly reduced window for less balanced but still capable parrying weapons – vanguard greatswords, one handed axes, most knight two handed weapons. The shortest windows for weapons like the maul, polearms/spears, etc. Each weapon would likely possess a different parry window.

    Additionally, when parrying a powerful weapon like a polearm or maul with a lighter weapon like a small axe, sword or dagger, there should be a greater Balance drain than currently. This combined with parry window changes will make heavy knight weapons and polearms/spears lethal at range since they can knock players off balance with consecutive hits, but suffer at close range due to their poorer parrying window.

    The following is a list of each class’ weapons and the roles I would like each to fill. Pay particular attention to how they relate to the armour different classes wear.
    Knight Weapons
    Swords: An excellent combination of damage, armour penetration, reach and damage. For the thinking man’s knight.
    Longsword: The epitome of the knight. Less long and powerful than the brutal two handed swords that vanguards use, but possessing the ability to penetrate any armour with stabs. With a low recovery time and large parry window, this sword is excellent in both attack and defence.
    Sword of War: A shorter and faster variant of the longsword. Does less damage, but is still effective against armoured enemies, and its quicker strikes make it more effective at extreme close range.
    Messer: Slightly less effective at parrying than the other swords, as well as shorter, the messer resembles a giant meat cleaver more than a longsword. However, its slashes can penetrate chainmail, and in terms of raw damage, it bests the other swords.

    Hammers: Weapons for smashing armoured enemies apart up close and personal. Not much else to it.
    Warhammer: While it may resemble a carpenters tool, the warhammer is perhaps one of the deadliest weapons at close range. Its lazy, close range swings are difficult to handle, and can smash through any armour. Best used alongside a shield, since it’s not easy to parry with a claw hammer.
    Maul: Perhaps the most powerful weapon any warrior can wield. The maul can cave in the head of any foe with a single blow. When facing this weapon, you should remember to keep calm and avoid its blows. This absurdly heavy weapon has a negligible parry window.
    Grand mace: The slightly more conservative relative of the maul, sacrificing some power and reach for better speed and balancing for parries.
    Twin Axe: Short, fat and deadly. Lighter foes will dance out of range of this weapon, but heavier enemies should beware. Can cleave vanguards in half without much trouble, and do respectable damage to knights.
    Poleaxe: A surprisingly well balanced weapon, despite its heavy steel design. Its confusingly rapid stabs and swings puncture and crush through armour as if it were paper, and it can parry reasonably well in the right hands.
    Bearded axe: An old fashioned weapon suited for cutting down chainmail-wearing vanguards. Its rapid strikes are short but deadly, and a couple of hits should drop any vanguard. It’s lighter construction and good balance preserves some parrying ability.

    Vanguard Weapons
    Swords: A good compromise of power, speed and range, but without the armour piercing abilities to easily beat knights. No match for a polearm at full reach, but dangerous in virtually every other situation.
    Greatsword: A well balanced and powerful sword. Its slashes are particularly effective against men at arms and archers, while its stabs allow good penetration of vanguard’s chainmail. However, it suffers from a lack of penetrative ability when used against knight’s armour. Possesses a parry window close in length to that of lighter one handed swords.
    Claymore: Great for single combat, able to pierce chain with its stab, and with the speed to match men at arms. Fast but less powerful than the other two handed swords.
    Zweihander: Similar to the greatsword but slower and with a longer reach. The undulating shape of its blade allows its slashes to puncture vanguard’s armour easily, but like its cousin it performs poorly against the heavy plate of a knight. If a zweihander-wielding warrior can get close to enemy lines, this weapon will slash them apart with ease. The parrying abilities of this weapon are slightly limited, making it important to use reach, as well as sheer aggression, to overwhelm foes.

    Polearms: The ultimate formation weapon. Powerful and lethal against armour, polearms can outreach knights and crack them like eggs. However they are slow and vulnerable in close quarters.
    Halberd: The weapon of choice for a vanguard holding the line. The weight of the spiked and bladed head of the halberd allows it to carve through any armour with ease. Ideal for killing knights and vanguards before they get too close.
    The parry window of the halberd is quite short though, making a halberd wielder vulnerable up close – it’s best to group up with other similarly armed soldiers for mutual support.
    Bardiche: Longer and more lethal than a halberd, the bardiche can, with its sheer power, bite through chainmail leaving vanguards easy prey. However, it can hardly dent heavier plate mail. With its wide and deadly slashes, this weapon is dangerous even to large groups of warriors. Has a short parry window.
    Billhook: A weapon with a peculiar head based off a farming tool. Shorter than other polearms, and less powerful, but its attacks can puncture chainmail handily. Its unique alternate attack reaches over an enemy’s shoulder, and then is pulled back hard to tear at the head, shoulders and back of the unfortunate victim. Standing in front of a billhook, even with a shield, is generally unwise. (I’d love to make this change real, but it’s a bit of a stretch.)
    Polehammer: Immensely slow and shorter than other weapons available to the vanguard, this weapon is often overlooked. However, its blunt hammering blows can crush through plate armour like paper. The heavy, unbalanced steel construction of the polehammer makes it very difficult to parry with.

    Spears: Excellent zoning weapons that can be hard get close to due to their heavy knockback and fast strikes.
    Thrusting Spear: The longest weapon in the medieval warrior’s arsenal. Its heavy stab can pierce plate armour, though its lighter overhead stab is more suited to penetrating chainmail. Able to outreach polearm wielding vanguards. The length of this weapon makes parrying difficult, but a skilled spearman (or one spearman with a few friends) should be able to hold an opponent at bay and destroy them.
    Fork: A spear for the vanguard who likes to get close. This weapon does less damage than the regular spear and cannot easily hurt knights, but it can do very well against all other classes of warrior. A decent parry, solid damage and rapid strikes allow a skilled user to control most fights.
    Brandistock: An ugly but effective spear. This triple pronged weapon sacrifices some reach and ability to hurt knights in order to gain sheer damage. Its attacks can instantly kill lightly armoured warriors, and cause massive damage if they hit a vanguard. The thick stock and balanced design of this weapon make it better for parrying than the spear, but less so than the fork.

    Man-at-Arms Weapons
    One-Handed Swords: The ideal duelling weapons: fast and good for parrying. Suffer against heavier enemies.
    Broadsword: A favourite for veteran and rookie men-at-arms alike. With rapid combo attacks, solid reach, and a stab that pierces chainmail, this sword always has a place in a battle. Its classic, superbly balanced design allows for easy parrying. Slashing at vanguards and knights with this sword will flinch them, but do very little else.
    Norse sword: A shorter, faster broadsword. Very similar, but less powerful and with faster attacks. This sword is the bane of slower enemies, should its wielder get close enough.
    Falchion: A thick slashing blade than can sweep of the heads of men-at-arms and archers with ease. However, this sword lacks range and penetrating power, so falchion-wielders are advised to avoid armoured enemies.

    Axes: Anti-vanguard weapons that rely on overwhelming slower enemies at close range.
    Hatchet: Fast and powerful, this stubby axe can hack through chainmail (if you get close enough). Not quite as effective against knights armour. Needless to say, a length of wood with a heavy metal head makes for only a mediocre parrying option.
    War axe: The most powerful of the axes, this weapon is designed to be a cheap and short range counter to armoured enemies. Its slashes and stab excel against chainmail, but its slow speed and poor balance make it vulnerable unless its user gets close quickly.
    Daneaxe: More elegant than the other axes, the daneaxe has a decent parry window. Its long, slow slashes can be manipulated to great effect against various enemies.

    Maces: Powerful anti-armour weapons that lack more general abilities. Do less raw damage than axes, but perform much better against knight’s plate armour.
    Flanged Mace: A short but reasonably fast weapon with brutal flanges on its solid steel head. Chainmail and plate armour cannot stand against it. However, this weapon has woeful balance and as such is very difficult to parry with.
    Morning star: A longer and more powerful spiked mace. One of these weapons whirled around in the midst of heavily armoured enemies will reduce them to pulp, though its slow attack speed terrible parrying counterbalance its strengths.
    Holy Water Sprinkler: The poor man’s mace. Very short, and slow to swing, but possessing a deceptively fast stab that can puncture a knight’s armour. Useless for parrying, but then again, your enemies might not even get a change to swing at you.

    Archer Weapons (secondaries)
    Broad dagger: A solid all round dagger ideal for backstabbing. Its slashes can badly injure lightly armoured men-at-arms and fellow archers, and its stabs can cause some grief for vanguards. Don’t bother parrying anything larger than a broadsword with this thing, as you will be knocked off balance.
    Hunting knife: Usually used to carve up poached deer. Does more slashing damage than the broad dagger, and strikes faster, but can’t do anything against chainmail. Useful if expecting to face men-at-arms or archers in close quarters.
    Thrusting dagger: The archer’s go-to anti-armour weapon. While it may be short and useless at slashing, it can do decent damage to a knight or vanguard. Don’t get overconfident though – parrying a heavy weapon will leave you knocked off balance, so try stealthy backstabs.
    Shortsword: Stab-oriented sword with a short range but good speed. A good parrying option, but light enough to be swatted aside by heavy weapons. Can inflict only small damage, but can stab through vanguard chainmail.
    Sabre: A well-meaning anachronism. Fast slashes and good balance allow archers to go toe-to-toe with men-at-arms albeit at a disadvantage. Hitting chainmail with the sabre will only result in a musical tinkling sound, but no damage.
    Cudgel: The archer’s attempt at a maul. Very slight damage, but bashes through all kinds of armour. Requires quite a few good hits to bring anything down, though. Inferior to swords when parrying, but superior to daggers.
    **
    Conclusion**
    Thanks for reading!

    I might post more later.

    Please read carefully, and give constructive criticism, and contribute alternatives if you disagree. If anyone is interesting in modding and testing these changes, I’d be extremely grateful.



  • This post is deleted!


  • Your idea revolving no team damage but the weapons will world collide with teammates seems really interesting.

    Potentially fixes all the clusterfucks in team combat.

    I dont think the stamina system needs that much tweaking, defensive plays need to cost less stamina so a small change like reducing stamina drain from CFTP and or only taking stamina damage from your initial parry and no stam dmg for every subsequent parry into parry could work.

    Reducing stamina regen back to it its original rate and bringing back crouch stamina needs to happen alongside these changes. It just made so much sense, if you wanted to play defensively you would project that to your opponent by crouching so he would know he should be going on the offensive, it just dumbed down the game to remove it.

    The weapon rebalances would make the game too weapon choice dependent, currently what I love about chivalry is how you can pick any weapon (well mostly) and do well against any class, its more of a personal choice for the most part. Of course you have weapons that are very good at countering certain classes like flanged mace vs knight.

    The June patch made everyone go for rounded weapons. The way that happened is that attacking now prevents you from sprinting so all those short weapons with short release times became poop because you need to be in face hug range to be able to actually hit people that use footwork. Only 3 MAA primaries are even used, broadsword, norse sword, HWS. The swords for the reach and the HWS for the bullshit stabs that are nearly as fast as a dagger. The armor system really does not need to be tweaked tbh, if you make some weapons poop vs knights because of their armor people just wont use them because everyone has this 1 weapon mentality lol. If I pick a Maul and I see a MAA coming towards me I switch to my secondary. But this is only an option as a knight because all the other classes get poop secondaries. Whats a MAA going to do with a short sword? or Vanguard with 1h axes that are all terrible. Might as well pick a well rounded primary and fight every class with it. Giving weapons specific roles adds to teamwork and takes away from individual skill and right now individual skill is the reason people play this game.



  • Some of your ideas are good, some are unnecessary, some are bad.

    I’d like to specifically see the teamdamage solution implemented, it was a bummer to me when first starting out how any formations were simply unviable. I’d also like to have much faster regenating stamina, though changing the name is unnecessary. It should only regen rapidly when crouching though, or else MaA will be even harder to beat. By crouching you will regain stamina faster, but will also enable your enemy to hammer your ass more easily. I also agree with the hindranced parry during stamina stun.

    But honestly, you’re putting way too much faith in Torn Banner. Chanches are they won’t even read through your post.

    And that said, it’s not really good to change a game fundamentally so long after its release. Hopefully these mechanics, along with better networking code will be in Chivalry 2.



  • It discourages players from effectively fighting multiple foes – I’m parrying three people at once, and the three dorks incapable of hitting me get a free swing when I’m stunned? I beat two people in a row in single combat, and the third guy wins because my character can’t be arsed raising his shield?

    There is not a single game where fighting multiple people at once is a valid strategy. It might be something you can do to show off against baddies, but that’s about it. And you can take on very many baddies at one time currently. But once you get to the highest levels of play, where skill levels are barely above one another, even fighting 1v2 should not be possible unless the enemy severely screwed up, or at least one of them is in 1-hit range.

    I do like the idea of your stun suggestion though.

    I also agree that classes aren’t as very “distinct” as they could be. Sure, there are great differences that each class holds; for the most part they are subtle (at least for lesser skilled players), but not subtle enough for higher skilled players. It would be neat for more “specialized” weapons to be considered, which may make axes more useful than they are currently. However, the other side to this is that it becomes even more heavily loadout based than I’m sure many people want. Hard counters will exist at this point, and in a game like this, it might not be a bad thing, but it may not be a good thing. This would be something that may be left to a subjective taste in games.

    Also, there is a system to avoid team damage currently. It’s the real-time strikes system. And avoiding team damage is a skill to hone. Mastery of the real-time strikes system is a good thing.



  • Team damage suggestion is bad imo. Team damage should be brought back up to 100% default, team flinch simply MUST be added back, it is one of the most retarded things in this game having team attacks not flinch somebody. Add an auto vote-kick (not a kick) for people with team damage above 40 or 50%, lets say. And i say votekick and not autokick because maybe people are just messing around, auto initiate a votekick so people can make their decision on the player.

    Smart play needs to be added back into chivalry.

    1 vs many used to be extremely possible in this game if they were bad players, now its extremely rare because they can just fucking swing through eachother to hit you, without consequence. Before you WANTED them to swing through eachother, because it would actually hurt them and they would stop eachothers attacks! Come on torn banner, your main playerbase isnt a bunch of nubs anymore.

    Hell you dont even need to program an auto votekick, just add the 100% team damage anyways, people will get used to it and it will be more fun.



  • All this theory crafting those days, thats just to much, the idea of balance if pretty terrible but what ever man, i just hope people that post this kind of stuff and think they can actually discuss about rethinking the game are actually good at the game and understand how it works at high level, i wouldn’t have the pretention to discuss anything like this if i was shit or even medium tbh



  • @Psyfon:

    Team damage suggestion is bad imo. Team damage should be brought back up to 100% default, team flinch simply MUST be added back, it is one of the most retarded things in this game having team attacks not flinch somebody. Add an auto vote-kick (not a kick) for people with team damage above 40 or 50%, lets say. And i say votekick and not autokick because maybe people are just messing around, auto initiate a votekick so people can make their decision on the player.

    Smart play needs to be added back into chivalry.

    1 vs many used to be extremely possible in this game if they were bad players, now its extremely rare because they can just fucking swing through eachother to hit you, without consequence. Before you WANTED them to swing through eachother, because it would actually hurt them and they would stop eachothers attacks! Come on torn banner, your main playerbase isnt a bunch of nubs anymore.

    Hell you dont even need to program an auto votekick, just add the 100% team damage anyways, people will get used to it and it will be more fun.

    But if you have 100% FF, then wouldn’t that make your auto-votekick function instantly vote kick you the moment you team damage someone as let’s say a Vanguard? I agree that we need to encourage smarter play in Chivalry, but there are times when team damage is simply unavoidable and you have no control over team mates who will sometimes jump into your fight, getting themselves team damaged in the process.

    Anyway, there are already 100% FF servers and I’ve found them to not be fun when on TO, LTS or TDM. Team damage isn’t avoidable at times, it’s part of the game and the 50% FF server option mitigates this well. Making it 100% the default seems a bit excessive, too brutal.



  • @Edmund:

    All this theory crafting those days, thats just to much, the idea of balance if pretty terrible but what ever man, i just hope people that post this kind of stuff and think they can actually discuss about rethinking the game are actually good at the game and understand how it works at high level, i wouldn’t have the pretention to discuss anything like this if i was shit or even medium tbh

    ideas are ideas. Even if they don’t understand the little intricacies, it mostly doesn’t matter. It’s also not your usual post about how this or that is OP or buggy or exploity like every other post is.

    This is a big-picture concept, not fine details. While they may not understand certain points ENOUGH to discuss the matter in its fullest extent, they still have the ability to bring something to the table and stimulate discussion among others who may be more experienced.

    He put a lot of effort into this post. While I’m sure there are plenty of things people will disagree upon, there are SOME good ideas in this post that deserve attention. Once again, it’s easy to get lost in fine details. You have to take some steps back to see the bigger picture.

    @DokB
    team damage is always avoidable. It completely depends on the skills of your team. That’s the difference between pubs and playing with friends.



  • @NoVaLombardia:

    @DokB
    team damage is always avoidable. It completely depends on the skills of your team. That’s the difference between pubs and playing with friends.

    I think it’s clear that we (or at least I am) are talking about pubs, seeing as scrims are already played at 100%FF and if you were playing with friends then you would at least be communicating/know where they are relative to you. That’s why I say team damage is unavoidable at times.



  • In response to Edmund, observe that in real-life functional skill at something may not reflect one’s ability to analyze an activity and provide insightful discussion. Many boxing coaches, for example, were not high-level professionals, or even necessarily high-level amateurs (many of which may as well be professionals for the amount of time they devote to their art). That doesn’t make someone like Freddie Roach (who was a pro, but not of the same calibur as those he would later train) any less of an amazing trainer. Nor, for that matter, does skill necessarily qualify one as an analyst. There are those who possess both skill and analytical knowledge, and certainly I would say that ideally one would possess both attributes. However, just as one might not seek out training from Mike Tyson, nor should we solicit the analysis of certain high level players. Their skill in the game, while undeniable, does not translate into reasonable analysis of the game at a wider level. High-level players, after all, advocated for certain changes to the game that many of us now villify, correct?

    I’m not saying I agree with the OP, but I am saying that even if he isn’t a 1000 hour+ player with dozens of scrim win under his belt, that doesn’t immediately DQ his analysis.



  • Thanks everyone for the useful responses. I should’ve been clearer in my original post that I don’t anticipate Torn Banner actually taking any of these suggestions and using them. I’d be more interested in testing some of these changes on an open server. Considering most changes are just alterations to values (weapon damage, class resistances to damage types) I think at least some could be tried out, if anyone with the requisite knowledge of the SDK was interested. I’m more interesting in creating a mod or alternative game mode incorporating these kinds of ideas, rather than hoping for TB to change their game.

    In response to the questions about my knowledge of the game, I have around 600 hours in Chivalry, and I am rank 43 to give you a rough idea. I’d say I’m a fairly skilled player in individual and scrim play, though my knowledge of hard stats (individual damage values for certain weapons, millisecond timings of various actions) is lacking compared to some on these forums. I don’t really consider the latter to be that interesting or necessary for analysing the character of the game.



  • It’s not necessary but sometimes it’s useful. Bookmark this just in case you need it some day ^__^
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkCaqK9JaJDIdEo3NDJKWkk5SVhRY2tEYjBLSk1xbWc&usp=drive_web#gid=102



  • @DokB:

    But if you have 100% FF, then wouldn’t that make your auto-votekick function instantly vote kick you the moment you team damage someone as let’s say a Vanguard? I agree that we need to encourage smarter play in Chivalry, but there are times when team damage is simply unavoidable and you have no control over team mates who will sometimes jump into your fight, getting themselves team damaged in the process.

    You would definitely want to pass a certain damage threshold before it automatically kicked in.



  • 100% team damage is necessary, if its too hard for the scrubs then too bad, they will learn how to play correctly and not hit eachother. Replace all the 100% team damage servers with 50% team damage servers, if they are really so bad that they have to have that. 100% team damage is better gameplay whether or not you get teamkilled more. Its just simply fair. People should be punished for swinging through eachother just to hit one guy. The game used to have 100% team damage, then the casual pewdeepoos of youtube made videos on this game and boom, you have the peal of this games playerbase count, first half of 2013, who whined about team damage being too harsh, and all this led to the shittiest patch ever brought upon us, june patch of 2013. This is chivalry, it used to be the most brutal game out there, with first person deaths, seeing your head rolling down the hill in first person, and unaviodable team killing, because well, shit happens.

    then there is man at arms whos biggest strengths used to be one vs many because he could get the enemy to hit eachother, with 100% damage enabled on all public servers, it being a normal part of the game, to win his battles. Back when maa wasnt simply overpowered because of his stats and you could have multiple fighting styles, with varying weapon setups. New maa is so boring now compared to the old maa.



  • @Psyfon:

    100% team damage is necessary, if its too hard for the scrubs then too bad, they will learn how to play correctly and not hit eachother. Replace all the 100% team damage servers with 50% team damage servers, if they are really so bad that they have to have that. 100% team damage is better gameplay whether or not you get teamkilled more. Its just simply fair. People should be punished for swinging through eachother just to hit one guy. The game used to have 100% team damage, then the casual pewdeepoos of youtube made videos on this game and boom, you have the peal of this games playerbase count, first half of 2013, who whined about team damage being too harsh, and all this led to the shittiest patch ever brought upon us, june patch of 2013. This is chivalry, it used to be the most brutal game out there, with first person deaths, seeing your head rolling down the hill in first person, and unaviodable team killing, because well, shit happens.

    I’m not really concerned with a discussion of 100% team damage in this thread. There’s plenty of other threads about that stuff. It’s old ground trodden over a million times, it doesn’t work, 100% team damage servers are awful. I’m discussing reducing team damage, and weapon collision with teammates.



  • Weapon collision with teammates is a good idea that could be introduced to the current game. Keep team damage setting server side.

    As far as your mod idea goes, I would be interested in playing it. Your vision of the game was similar to what I was thinking when I first bought the game. Start a thread in the mod forum and see if any modders are interested if you haven’t already.



  • I think the weapon collision will add just as much frustration as it removes, especially given this games track record.



  • Weapon collision? Yes please stress this game’s crack-addicted netcode even more.

    Also, lower team damage percentage? I can’t believe how casual that is.



  • Weapon clashing would be great but not weapons bouncing off people when you are too close, fuck that


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Torn Banner Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.