Rethinking Chivalry



  • @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



  • @H:

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

    You’re pretty much against any changes to gameplay at this stage yeah? It’s not a bad position to take for a number of reasons, although I think writing off any change due to “this games track record.” is a little unfair. The devs are just people and people make mistakes and people generally only learn from mistakes.



  • @Dr:

    You’re pretty much against any changes to gameplay at this stage yeah? It’s not a bad position to take for a number of reasons, although I think writing off any change due to “this games track record.” is a little unfair. The devs are just people and people make mistakes and people generally only learn from mistakes.

    It’s not just the games track record, I think it will cause problems. In the land of restrictions and freedoms, this is another restriction on the player, and one that could be out of his control depending on how OTHER people choose to play on his team.

    Our swings currently fly free, and it’s been that way since the beginning. So if this were implemented, I’d consider it a step backwards.

    And this games track record is more than enough reason, especially for those that have been here since release day and before.



  • Things to think about for the next game. I also wouldn’t want to implement drastic gameplay altering features. Small things here and there, yes. Paradigm shifts, no.



  • New in the conversation, just read OP, sorry but I basically disagree with everything you said except the fact I’d also like to participate in more organised battles and since Chivalry is the best medieval combat game I know of I’d like to experience it in this game but I think there are other ways to achieve it with even less work.

    For one, good players will overhead or attack forward when in a tight group to avoid friendly damage. I love the friendly damage, much more realistic experience despite the occasional traitor that can quickly be dealt with.

    What about clan battles? Are there any videos? Did they fighting like we want?

    About realism, I can only base my opinion from movies and books but the combat in Chivalry seems as realistic as the actual technology can give us as far as I can tell.

    Let’s keep in mind it’s all small skirmishes, it’s not battles of armies with hundreds or thousands on an open field or forest or a large city.

    If I would have to bet I’d be pretty sure that when two group of footmen represented by the period covered in Chivalry came into contact it was pretty much a bunch of 1v1 in a very loose line/formation, we’re not greek hoplites fighting in phalanx or a roman defensive turtle.

    I’m a big dreamer, I like to imagine a lot of modifications to the games I like but this game is pretty damn good already!



  • @Monsteri:

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

    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.

    I completely agree with Monsteri on this. Some of these ideas are very good and interesting, and others are unnecessary. Implementing all these ideas would change the game drastically, it could create a total new game that is completely different. Imagine the player base’s reaction to this too, it could go many ways. Good or Bad. This is also just your idea of what needs to change in the game, there are many other ideas to be thrown around and thought on. I believe the game is good, and the developers are trying to supply the player’s with what they want, and there is always fixing that needs to be done.


Log in to reply