Competitive Chivalry



  • I’d like to start a discussion on how organized team versus team matches in Chivalry should take place.

    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.

    Thoughts?



  • A similar discussion popped up over at viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3715, if interested.

    I like 50% rule. I think it should apply to team based scrims for sure.



  • think the rules you stated are fine really,

    More to the point is, when would this start up? after the next few balance and bug fixes?

    Or after a Competitive Server Mod / config is made? (Stoneshill King being a Choice option from team members, with choice of weapons, rather than an autoselect with weapons they don’t use)

    Agree with the 100% (though this should be on by default anyhow, demotes slashing for team kills),

    3rd person gives too many advantages atm, so agreed with that, being able to see through walls, doors, etc.

    How would you go about weapon unlocks? is there a way to change server settings so all weapons are unlocked for use? to balance out the playing field for those who don’t play all the time?

    Team Numbers, I’d like to get as many vs as many really, hopefully the game will have more of a playerbase for it xD

    50% agreed too, saves having a team of all MAA rushing :P

    Objective Times currently, maps are like what? 10-15 mins before ending if first objective aint done? would this be increased or?

    Oh. and Last thing, Blocking routes with Pavise Shield should be Allowed, they can be destroyed by a few hits and more often than not, they end up getting destroyed by an ally falling on them (¬_¬)



  • Might be worth it to do no class restrictions until you’ve played a few matches, might even help balance the game out, get a feel for what might end up being a rough combination to tackle, and after nobody can work out a way to beat all knights or something like that, you can restrict it in the league and/or hopefully get the game adjusted to fix any sighted problems.



  • 12v12 and 10v10 are way too large. I can’t really think of a good analogous game to chivalry, but competitive CS is played with 5 players, and tf2 is 6v6. Smaller teams lead to better communication and requires more skill. Not to mention getting 12 decent players together would be a nightmare for smaller clans.

    I support 8v8, with two of each class as the official comp standard.



  • I agree to all of this except the 50% rule. The problem is that it depresses play style; instead of focusing on the balance issues in the game, this remediates the issue by not allowing participants to select their strongest suited class.

    Of course, an army or Archers may not stand against an army of Knights in Chivalry very well, but on the same token league play should encourage balancing your team rather than enforcing class restrictions (in my mind).

    This probably moreso depends on the size of league play, with lower sized teams 5v5/6v6/7v7/8v8, I feel the class restrictions are more oppressive, while in a 16v16 match (or what have you) I see much more legitimate need for a rule like this; just the sheer amount of tankiness on the field would cause imbalance issues.



  • @kman:

    12v12 and 10v10 are way too large. I can’t really think of a good analogous game to chivalry, but competitive CS is played with 5 players, and tf2 is 6v6.

    I don’t think they are not too large. This is not tf2 or cs. I think the chiv maps are perfect for 10v10. However, I’d like to try 12v12. We found that in Age of Chivalry the perfect size for matches was 10v10. 12v12 was just a little too much for some of the map designs. But I think most of the maps in Chivalry accommodate more players better then in aoc.



  • One thing to add on player counts, I think the match size will depend on league participants. If you take warband as an example, the US clan scene I think never really could field that many players, and you saw lots of low players per same matches, while in the EU the player base was much larger, resulting in larger clan games.

    From chiv’s make up, at least in my head, I think you would really start to get more interesting games in that 10/12 range as you said. I think 15s would start to feel a bit spammy and you’d lose some of that finesses player skill/team coordination can bring to the table.

    Not sure if it matters as much, but I find that approaching 30 in game my frame rates drop like a rock and I honestly can’t play as well as I can on a 16 FFA server where my FPS stays up above 40.



  • hai reapy :>

    going to quote myself from the other thread

    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.

    but if people only want to have battles of public clans then I guess 10v10 or higher is fine. But if a game is to stay competitive and have a good playerbase and metagame it NEEDS to have no more than 8 players per team, the less the better. Going by the maps, the objective maps seem to favour 6-8 players per team anyway. Preferably 6 with that 50% rule. Having a lot of players creates problems with how team play actually works. CS for example is 5v5 for a reason, not only because of the map size but because of the tactical depth. Most maps have 3 ways to go to the bomb site so there’s no way to do an even split. So what you get are common plays such as holding on side and pushing tunnels etc, uncommon plays that are used sometimes such as rushes or to counter common plays and not working otherwise, and very rare plays that are either a new creative solution or to throw your enemy off. If CS was played 9v9, you would get the same as you would in TF2 or MnB where it’s all just “pile in that chokepoint, wait to see what they do then pile in the other chokepoint” or half the team goes there, the other half elsewhere. Nothing really team-oriented that you would see outside of a regular server. Who would want to spectate something like that?



  • @gB:

    @kman:

    12v12 and 10v10 are way too large. I can’t really think of a good analogous game to chivalry, but competitive CS is played with 5 players, and tf2 is 6v6.

    I don’t think they are not too large. This is not tf2 or cs. I think the chiv maps are perfect for 10v10. However, I’d like to try 12v12. We found that in Age of Chivalry the perfect size for matches was 10v10. 12v12 was just a little too much for some of the map designs. But I think most of the maps in Chivalry accommodate more players better then in aoc.

    I said this in another thread, but basically the problem with team sizes larger than 6v6 or possibly 8v8 is 1. it restricts small teams - it’s hard to just form a pickup team of 12 players if you want to join a league but don’t want to be in a dedicated clan. 2. if Chivalry becomes a highly popular competitive game, which I think we all hope it will, there will eventually be LAN events for it - travel costs become a factor in this case, as well as scheduling a LAN event for 24 players. There’s a reason why most big competitive games have small teams, and in fact a lot of them are 1v1.



  • I don’t own the game, but I agree that generally the lesser players required the better. If the game works perfectly in let’s say 5on5, 6on6, 7on7, 8on8 and 9on9, you will most likely get a better competitive scene in 5on5. I personally have mostly played 5on5-8on8, and I find that 4on4 (in most cases) and less is not optimal as you no longer feel like a team but just a few players, and 9on9 (in most cases) and more just becomes a mess more similar to public game play.



  • @SlyGoat:

    I said this in another thread, but basically the problem with team sizes larger than 6v6 or possibly 8v8 is 1. it restricts small teams - it’s hard to just form a pickup team of 12 players if you want to join a league but don’t want to be in a dedicated clan. 2. if Chivalry becomes a highly popular competitive game, which I think we all hope it will, there will eventually be LAN events for it - travel costs become a factor in this case, as well as scheduling a LAN event for 24 players. There’s a reason why most big competitive games have small teams, and in fact a lot of them are 1v1.

    I agree. Also myself I prefer small teams for my own reasons lol. The more people that can participate, the better. I believe with smaller teams, you will have more people participate because it is easy to set up and take part in the matches.

    When you try to get lots of people organized in matches then often you have a skewed league where most players don’t participate because they can’t get 5+ people together for a match so it just leaves large clans. Imo the best skilled clans usually have like 5 people or so and large clans tend to just invite anyone.

    Large teams make it so the small clans can’t even participate and if they did, then they would be at a disadvantage playing with random people so they can end up losing even if they have players of better quality rather than quantity.

    With large teams, it will just be the same clans playing each other over and over in their small tight knit little community where they are practically rp’ing that they are awesome if they win.

    Do 5v5 and people can do matches on a daily basis with top players.



  • Well, I just bought the game as I felt the interest in competitive gaming was big enough for me to send some money to steam and torn banner. Will be interesting to see what I will find the optimal player number =).

    Just wanted to point out that I don’t think anyone suggests that we should push 5on5 if it won’t result in interesting game play. I usually tend to enjoy games competitively where a big portion of the player base want 8+on8+ btw =). As I usually manage the clan members I know very well how huge the difference is between running a 5on5 clan and a 8on8 clan.



  • If you’re in Vq, a clan with like 100 players, a 12 v 12 doesn’t sound like a problem, but smaller clans will never manage to get that many players together at the same time. For us, it would mean recruiting indiscriminately. But I would rather have all killer, no filler. 5-8 is ideal for that.



  • i think 8v8 would be fine doe chiv. it’s not tf2 or cs in the sense of play style. it’s not a shooter, it’s a melee game. if it came to online tournaments i think 10v10 or 12v12 would work just as well, but for lan events i think having 8v8 would be perfect. the problem of having lower than 8v8 in AoC was that it took away from the experience of what the game is supposed to be, it didn’t feel like a team when it came down to 6v6



  • Just my thoughts on the numbers.

    I think 12 is the optimum here, but I agree with most of you that 12 is quite hard to get together, I’m currently the leader of The Blood Sacrifice -[BS]- and I’ve only got 9 players at the minute.

    So would it not be possible for 3 leagues of 8 v 8, 10 v 10, 12 v 12?

    Each clan is allowed to field a team for each league?

    As far as class distribution, I think specifying that 2 of each class must be played and no more than 3 archers would work nicely for all the size groups.



  • It would be great to organize some realistic battles ! For example: 20vs20 on Last man standing mode or plain map or other the winning team is first to X rounds win. Imagine a first line of shield and pikemen and behind them the group of bowmen and crossbowmen… ! For my part, I lead a team with 25 guys atm with a bowmen company and an infantry company.
    I’m searching for others teams who are interested !



  • I also think the 50% rule should be held off. Half the fun of games like this is seeing the crazy strategies people come up with to win.

    If something becomes gamebreakingly OP, with no signs of counterplay, then I could understand adding in a rule like that.



  • Don’t know about the rules, but I’m excited at the thought of serious Chivalry matches. Would love to just watch them on a stream too. Ya’ll got that figured out? Anyways if you need help with live streaming any of the matches once you get the league going, let me know. :D



  • 1v1.

    In the field.

    Done.


Log in to reply