Chivalry E-Sport League Official Open! (Check 7th Page)



  • Hail and greetings Knights, Guardsmen, and Peasants! Currently in production is an e-sport league for Chivalry. We have a website under construction and will have sign ups available once it is published. Opportunity to earn prizes are in this league. Keep a look out on this thread for further information. So, be ready to smash some shields and sever some heads!



  • Sounds awesome! I will definitely be participating.

    We have similar interests; I have started a public server of which I’ve deemed “competitive” (2Mellow Competitive Chivalry). I would love to hear your thoughts on how you will be moving forward with C:MC as an e-sport, in terms of rules and how it should be played.

    For instance…

    Should 3rd person be disabled?
    What should the team size be? 5v5? 8v8? 12v12?
    What game mode(s) will be used?
    What maps should be used?
    Team kill damage percentage?



  • @meze:

    Sounds awesome! I will definitely be participating.

    We have similar interests; I have started a public server of which I’ve deemed “competitive” (2Mellow Competitive Chivalry). I would love to hear your thoughts on how you will be moving forward with C:MC as an e-sport, in terms of rules and how it should be played.

    For instance…

    Should 3rd person be disabled?
    What should the team size be? 5v5? 8v8? 12v12?
    What game mode(s) will be used?
    What maps should be used?

    My personal opinion:

    3rd person disabled. It’s too much of an advantage, and I think the majority of players play in first person and would rather not have to adjust to 3P to play on a competitive level.

    8v8 ideal team size. 6v6 my even be necessary for LAN events; otherwise travel expenses could easily end up cutting heavily into prize pools. For online events it doesn’t matter as much, I think the game plays very well up to and including 16v16, but keeping it to 6v6 or 8v8 would allow smaller teams to compete.

    Team Objective mode is definitely the most competitive IMO. Last Team Standing perhaps has some potential, but I fear it will be far too defensive to be interesting to watch. The way competitive matches were done in AoC was to have both teams play on either side of a TO map, and whichever team defended for the longest won. Of course, that was AoC, where objectives were stacked for offense. With the way Chivalry objectives are currently balanced it would probably be based on how far the attacking team got. This would automatically rule Stoneshill out of competitive play because the final object has no real way to track progress - King’s HP is too misleading; one team may run out of time just after an attack was repelled, leaving the King low but alive, while the other team may run out of time just as their attack reached the king, leaving him unscathed as he’d regenerated from the last rush. I see no problem with the rest of the current TO maps. Ideally maps should become once again stacked for offense, though - a time based system is much easier to call.



  • I didn’t see this before I posted.

    viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3737&p=28206#p28201

    In Age of Chivalry we had a defined way we scrimmed. Here are the league rules we used and they seemed to work pretty well. viewtopic.php?f=54&t=1326
    Most of these rules were designed to make the scrims as fair as possible.

    Obviously most of these don’t necessarily apply to Chivalry since it is a different game. I’d like to see how other teams would like scrims in Chivalry to go down.

    There are a couple of things that our team would like to put forward for scrims we participate in.

    #1 Server locked to 1st person. We believe 3rd person gives a player advantages in several instances. One, you can see around corners without exposing yourself. Two, when fighting multiple opponents you have a much larger field of view and peripheral vision. Therefore you have to do less, “scanning”, for opponents flanking or coming up from behind.
    #2 Team damage set to 100%. I think in competitive mode everyone should be better at not hitting your teammates and if you do there should be a larger penalty.

    In Age of Chivalry we had a 50% rule. Basically no more then half of your team could be any one class. This was promote balanced team versus team play in regard to classes. I think some kind of similar guideline would help make sure teams aren’t fielding all knights. Or all archers. Maybe some kind of requirement to use at least 2 of every class? I don’t know what does everyone else think?

    As far as player goals go, it seems to me a good team versus team number would be 12 versus 12. I’m game to try any other number but I’d rather not do scrims less then 8v8. Ideally not less then 10v10.



  • seems to me like this 50% rule will be problematic with this 8v8 style, archers are really strong with that many people, maybe even 6v6 is too strong and it should be 50% or over so no more than 2 of the same. Not to mention 8v8 is really pushing it in terms of tactical play and the number of teams that could have that many players. Speaking of teams, since someone is already planning on starting a league I assume there are teams? I don’t even see a competitive section in these forums…



  • @NeoRussia:

    seems to me like this 50% rule will be problematic with this 8v8 style, archers are really strong with that many people, maybe even 6v6 is too strong and it should be 50% or over so no more than 2 of the same. Not to mention 8v8 is really pushing it in terms of tactical play and the number of teams that could have that many players. Speaking of teams, since someone is already planning on starting a league I assume there are teams? I don’t even see a competitive section in these forums…

    viewforum.php?f=50



  • I find this game unplayable in first person after switching to third person X)



  • 4v4 or 5v5 TO, LTS
    -No 3rd person
    -2 max class restriction
    -100% teamdamage
    -map-pick by each team, play 2 maps and have a LTS on Arena if tied after second map.



  • I hope there will be no class restrictions. I dont understand this. Restrictions needed only with rock-paper-scissors balance, and in Chivalry: MW everything is equal, its a matter of playstyle. So why making rounds more predictable with restrictions? :?



  • RK have been considering:

    • Minimum 6v6, maximum 12v12.
    • 3rd person disabled
    • 100% team damage
    • ~33% class restriction for the 4 classes, as opposed to the 50% in AoC with 3 class types:
      6v6
      Maximum 2 per class
      7v7
      Maximum 2 per class
      8v8
      Maximum 2 per class
      9v9
      Maximum 3 per class
      10v10
      Maximum 3 per class
      11v11
      Maximum 3 per class
      12v12
      Maximum 4 per class
    • 6v6 or 7v7:
    • No more than 1 of the same primary weapon per class, no more than 1 of the same secondary weapon per class (so 1 cudgel on an Archer and 1 cudgel on a Vanguard is permitted).
    • 8v8 or above:
      No more than 2 of the same primary weapon per class, no more than 2 of the same secondary weapon per class (so 2 cudgels on Archers and 2 cudgels on Vanguards are permitted).

    We feel this because it’s too easy for a team of 4 Knights to pick say the Sword of War and run around stabbing, or all of the Vanguards in a team to pick say the Claymore, or whatever is considered the most overpowered weapon for each class (regardless of whether balance is achieved, there will always be one weapon that caters to more situations). This game is split not into classes like Age of Chivalry, but classes and weapons which is the basis for the above.



  • I think that making different rules from how the game is typically played is bad.

    If part of the point of matches are to show who is better at the game, then why would you change aspects of how the game is typically played.

    If you win, it just shows that under random rules and gameplay changes (such as 100% team damage) that you did better. While you can go back to a normal server, play against the same team and possibly be beaten easily.



  • If there were no restrictions, we’d be fielding an entire team of Knights, half with Swords of War, half with Norse Swords/Bastard swords and shields. Requiring one additional hit in competitive play is the difference between a win or a loss. There have been seconds between wins or losses.



  • Then they game should be balanced better. With such restrictions I dont even see sence in clan fights, there will be no any interesting tactics and formations.



  • Keeping competitive play as similar to public play is indeed valuable for obvious reasons, but you need to make sure that a match is interesting to play. Especially if the scene is supposed to be active for year(s).

    100% team damage is imho in most cases very crucial to competitive gaming, as it forces you to be more careful and is perfectly logical. Logic is important in a competitive game, what you see is what you should get etc. The need to think of many things at the same time is another as it increases the skill cap. SC2 made many things easier compared to SC1 for instance, and to keep SC2 competitively interesting they had to add features to encourage micro.

    Competitive play for smaller games like Chiv is in many cases just a representation of what many people wish public play was.



  • @Martin:

    If there were no restrictions, we’d be fielding an entire team of Knights, half with Swords of War, half with Norse Swords/Bastard swords and shields. Requiring one additional hit in competitive play is the difference between a win or a loss. There have been seconds between wins or losses.

    Lol. Do you have any proof that all knights would be oh so powerful? I am led to believe they are actually easier to kill in many instances because of their slow movement but that is just a trade off that makes them balanced.

    From what I am have seen thus far:
    You can’t just spam knights and pull magic out your ass, you actually need people that know how to play them well.

    Same for other classes. You can have all archers and they all do nothing because none of them know how to shoot. All Man At Arms and they are just very gimp melee’s because they do not know how to use their movement properly. Etc.

    Honestly I would happily accept a 5 v 5 where the other team agree’d to be all knights for the entire duration.



  • Personally i think it’s way more interesting to have these types of battles with a decent amount of players on both sides (12v12 or a bare minimum of 8v8) and no up to minimal weapon/class restrictions whatsoever.
    If a clan wants to field 6 knights with longswords and there’s nothing that can be done to counter that , than like the poster above me mentioned , the game is unbalanced. I , however, believe that it’s not THAT unbalanced (at least at this point), so the more options for different team setups and different tactics the better.

    The only restriction i might agree on would perhaps be the limit on ranged weapons per team.



  • @[Adoria:

    Ujin]Personally i think it’s way more interesting to have these types of battles with a decent amount of players on both sides (12v12 or a bare minimum of 8v8) and no up to minimal weapon/class restrictions whatsoever.
    If a clan wants to field 6 knights with longswords and there’s nothing that can be done to counter that , than like the poster above me mentioned , the game is unbalanced. I , however, believe that it’s not THAT unbalanced (at least at this point), so the more options for different team setups and different tactics the better.

    The only restriction i might agree on would perhaps be the limit on ranged weapons per team.

    My gripe with having a requirement for large teams is that it makes this play inaccessible to many that do not have a large team. There are many small clans that specifically play with a small 4-6 people of much better skill.

    Large games are just a clear advantage for large clans.



  • So far it just looks like these are pigeonholed rules, and so wildly different from normal game-play that I don’t see this being on any radar in the future. You should be working with the game’s version of balance, not trying to create your own.



  • @[Adoria:

    Ujin]Personally i think it’s way more interesting to have these types of battles with a decent amount of players on both sides (12v12 or a bare minimum of 8v8) and no up to minimal weapon/class restrictions whatsoever.
    If a clan wants to field 6 knights with longswords and there’s nothing that can be done to counter that , than like the poster above me mentioned , the game is unbalanced. I , however, believe that it’s not THAT unbalanced (at least at this point), so the more options for different team setups and different tactics the better.

    The only restriction i might agree on would perhaps be the limit on ranged weapons per team.

    I’ve found this to be mostly true its player skill more than what class they play. Yes archers can hit you from range but when you close the distance they collapse under the weight of your mighty axe just the same.

    The lan 6-8 team format was brought up a bunch in Tribes Ascend which I was part of a competitive team there. There was one match ever where people were flown around and then the esports scene collapsed. This was a game designed for esports so going with that I’d say make this more free form. With the diminished rule-set the game became boring to watch and casters and sponsors never joined the scene killing it before it had a chance.

    Less rules or rules set up by the team captains before the scrim would be an idea. Nothing should be set in stone until after different scenarios are tried out. Especially casted matches, if they are boring nobody will watch, no sponsors, etc.

    And with that I throw my hat into the ring for the “Riders of Brohan”



  • @~X~:

    @[Adoria:

    Ujin":z30bucaf]

    Large games are just a clear advantage for large clans.

    I see your point , but it’d be great if those larger clans could also use their resources. I really find bigger scale battles (especially when both teams have coordination and teamwork) a much more interesting perspective than a “our best 6 guys vs your best 6 guys” type of battle.

    I don’t think it’s a big problem if let’s say a bigger clan that can field a steady 12 men crew meets a smaller clan that cannot, than the match can just be scaled down to 6-8 vs 6/8. Obviously i still find 8 a much better minimal number, but probably that’s only when the community is big and organized enough.


Log in to reply