How'd we do?


  • Developer

    And let us know why, where we went wrong, where we went right. Some of your most epic moments or moments of failure, we want to hear it all :) .



  • I can only give it a 10/10 really. Most play time out of all of my games, that says something. One can overlook the flaws and bugs when it provides barrels of fun!



  • 9/10: The game has it’s flaws, but it is the most adrenaline-pumping game I’ve ever played. I love the depth of the combat and the fast pace of the battles. Few games entertain me this much this long.

    AoC doesn’t have the flashyness of, say, Call-of-9-year-olds’-duty: Grenade launcher warfare but it has MUCH better core gameplay. Half the deaths you get in CoD are either bullshit (grenade launchers, claymores, campstreaks) or bad luck (Shot from behind, spawnkilled, random grenades, shot while changing weapon, shot while reloading, shot while climbing an obstacle).

    To a hardcore (cough) gamer like me, AoC is the game worth $60, and CoD should be free. If you manage to get the same quality of core gameplay in C:MW and manage to get it advertised well - You could end up swimming in the $$$.

    So yeah, 9/10 because of the animations and the few bugs. But seeing as this mod is completely FREE, I’ll just make that a 10/10 for the heck of it.

    EDIT: I can’t change my vote from 9 to 10 :<



  • 10 out of 10 is the only joust score i can give.

    Simply no other game that can compete with it in terms of hours (850-900-isch played total)

    Even with all its flaws it kept drawing me back time after time.

    No other games of this genre comes even close to the intensity and feeling of the game.

    Everything that is needed is there, Nothing overly coded or scripted, No flashy jumpy-stabby-wahay attacks,ect,ect.

    EDIT X3: Tis hard to even find a fault in the game’s core. Just some animation bugs and such that don’t matter if you have fun.



  • 7/10
    I couldn’t give it any higher or any lower for many reasons. I couldn’t give it any high because of obvious class balance issues, some mechanics, and animation issues. Although I’ve probably played this more than most people on these forums and most of them say “omg amazing game” when you play it competitively the animation issues degraded the playability of the game because of how they worked in some situations where someone would hit you from WAY farther than they should or it looks like your weapon doesn’t have enough reach on it. Some of the mechanics used for shields isn’t the best, how sometimes they just wouldn’t work or other times you wouldn’t know why someone got around it. As well as how it would take FOREVER to break through a shield spammer who also just slashes when your weapon gets deflected then ducks behind his shield again. Lastly how during about the middle of development the classes were all generally equal then at the very end Sergent and Man-at-Arms sprang to the very top, with Knight and Heavy Knight behind them, Crusader and Guardsmen somewhere in the middle, and all the archers at the bottom. The core mechanics of the game were simply amazing though, also how distinguished all the different classes were (i miss the smoke pot like nothing else), and how each class had many different ways of being played and each play style being just as good as others. I love this game, which is why I’ve played it for almost 4 years now and can’t wait for CMW to come out, since i won’t be able to give it any less than a 10 and won’t be able to give it any more than a 10. :)

    Some of my personal epic moments was leading my 5-man team in the dev held tourny (which i hope to see in the new game, or a community run league), as well as helping lead my clan in the many scrims we won and the few we lost. I don’t believe, as part of Vanquish, that i have failed in any way while scrimming or pubbing. :)



  • I’ll give it a 7. Simply because it’s a medieval multiplayer sword-combat game, I would give it a higher score when compared to other games (because I’m simply positively biased towards games that do medieval combat), but I’ll try to be objective and consider the good and the bad parts.

    What was great about AoC was, to begin with: the concept. Multiplayer focused on melee combat, which worked reasonably well. That alone made it enjoyable for me, especially because, at the time I played it a lot, it was the only game of its kind (at least, the only game I knew about). The controls were responsive and mass combat was very enjoyable. The level design was pretty good, the character models were well-made, the game was overall quite immersive.

    The only real flaws, in my opinion, were the ones inherent with the combat system design. There were both technical issues and design issues with it that made it imperfect. I’ll sum the ones I noticed up, although from the looks of it, you got them covered in the CMW design already:

    Basic defense was too easy: The simple parry or block was too easy to perform. Against all but the fastest weapons, you could easily block everything on reflex. Don’t get me wrong: since you’d often be unable to block after attacking yourself, there were a good deal of moments where you wouldn’t be able to defend yourself. But in my opinion, you should be able to break through your opponent’s defense even if he does nothing else but try to defend himself. CMW seems to have that covered with a faster pacing and a form of directional parrying.

    Not enough attack options: Related to the previous point. There were not enough options to break through the defense of your opponent. The parry mechanic might have worked well if it was complemented by a system that allowed a player to perform attacks that had to be countered with another move than the standard parry. This also led to the fact that, the way I perceive it, pretty much all the above-average players base their fighting style on going outside the intended parameters of the combat system. Again, you’ve already mentioned a ton of extra options for CMW, so I think that’s going to be okay.

    Inability to defend yourself at unlogical moments: You’d often be unable to parry after doing an attack with a slower weapon, while in my opinion, taking initiative shouldn’t be punished. It goes against the idea of being able to respond to any move your opponent makes in a logical way as long as you didn’t make a critical mistake yourself (attacking should not be considered a mistake), which (imo) is essential to any melee combat game. Of course, this was necessary in the AoC combat system, as a player would otherwise be invincible, but that issue should of course be solved in a different way.

    Footwork: AoC seemed to be a game with a great focus on footwork, yet it didn’t really have a movement system designed for footwork. This has often made combat look silly and difficult to comprehend for new players.

    Learning curve: An issue that doesn’t stand on its own, but which comes forth from the other points. The learning curve is steep, and while I personally don’t always find that much of a problem, it’s steep because of the wrong reasons. A good learning curve (imo), whether it’s steep or not, allows a player to easily identify his mistakes, but it requires effort to actually learn from these mistakes and progress. In AoC, I always found it very difficult to identify my mistakes in the first place. That could just be me, but I’m fairly convinced that this is what makes the learning curve so steep.

    Animations and hit detection: What you see on your screen often doesn’t correspond with what’s actually happening, and of course, nothing is more important for a close combat game than 100% real-time accurate representation of what’s going on.

    That being said, AoC was definitely a good game, and the basic concept definitely still has a lot of potential left. From what I’ve read, all these issues are already being addressed for CMW, so I really have high hopes for the game.

    (I wrote this fairly quickly, so sorry if my English sounds strange)

    One can overlook the flaws and bugs when it provides barrels of fun!

    One can, but at the same time, one shouldn’t, especially not when creating a sequel :P. I could give Warband a 10 because I’ve been playing the shit out of it since beta, and it’s the most fun I’ve ever had. But although I find its basic design brilliant, it’s still very very far from what it could have been if the developers had more resources, more time, and wouldn’t have made some design decisions that I consider mistakes. It’s a flawed game, equally so as AoC, and I can’t give it much more than an 8, and I’m being generous there. While I’d give it a 10 for fun factor, I simply can’t give a game 10/10 when I can see a hundred ways to improve the game every time I play it.

    Actually, games should get two scores, one for what they’re trying to be, and one for how close they’re there. Call of Duty would get a 5 or a 6 on what it’s trying to be (fairly generic shooter), but it’s a good game in its genre (so 9/10 on that). AoC and Warband would be absolutely fantastic games if they would work flawlessly (9,5 or perhaps 10 out of 10), but both of them are far from their maximum potential.



  • 9/10 can’t really give it 10 because i’m nowhere near as good as some of the proper admins whom have played it since beta and so i unfortunately enjoy can’t enjoy quite as much

    besides, when i give chivalry 10/10 it will make it seem even better :mrgreen:

    p.s. new forum section? :o



  • 1/10

    Seriously, what where you guys thinking?

    Well, after imagining your faces when seeing the score followed by this paragraph, lets move on to my opinion: I willl definitely not rate the game in any kind of numerical way. Giving it a ten would mean its absolutely flawless, and it had some minor flaws, but on the other hand, giving it an 8 would be unfair considering it was made for free by a small team in their spare time, and I dont think under that circumstances they could have made it any better than it was, specially with the source engine. If I could measure how much time I spent playing, it probably would have been for weeks. I had a real blast with AoC. My advice for chivalry is: keep the capital importance of teamwork in competitive games. A map like darkforest, with a main and a secondary objective, brings some interesting tactical decitions. And the flaw that I hope doesnt carry on to chivalry, well, for starters I hope ranged damage isnt too high on release, remember what happened when AoC was released on Steam. Archers kill in 2 shots, lots of people trying the game ragequit. The ideal is to have the game completely balanced, or as balanced as possible on release, but if on doubt with certain stat or attribute, it´s better to have ranged classes slightly underpowered on release, than having them slightly overpowered.



  • As a mod I’d give it a 12/10, possibly higher.

    Seeing as you’re officially no longer a “modding team”, you’re dedicated indie game developers, I decided to rate it on what I’d give it as a commercial release, which is still pretty great at 8/10. The game’s flaws and bugs were hard to ignore, but honestly on pure gameplay and feel alone AoC was one of the best games I’ve ever played.

    Also, it’s sad to see the old AoC site finally officially dead. End of an era, goodnight sweet prince, etc :(

    @Wingy:

    1/10

    Seriously, what where you guys thinking?

    Well, after imagining your faces when seeing the score followed by this paragraph, lets move on to my opinion: I willl definitely not rate the game in any kind of numerical way. Giving it a ten would mean its absolutely flawless, and it had some minor flaws, but on the other hand, giving it an 8 would be unfair considering it was made for free by a small team in their spare time, and I dont think under that circumstances they could have made it any better than it was, specially with the source engine. If I could measure how much time I spent playing, it probably would have been for weeks. I had a real blast with AoC. My advice for chivalry is: keep the capital importance of teamwork in competitive games. A map like darkforest, with a main and a secondary objective, brings some interesting tactical decitions. And the flaw that I hope doesnt carry on to chivalry, well, for starters I hope ranged damage isnt too high on release, remember what happened when AoC was released on Steam. Archers kill in 2 shots, lots of people trying the game ragequit. The ideal is to have the game completely balanced, or as balanced as possible on release, but if on doubt with certain stat or attribute, it´s better to have ranged classes slightly underpowered on release, than having them slightly overpowered.

    Yeah, I tried AoC for the first time on steam and I said “wow this is fucking terrible” because of being killed in 2 hits by archers and having no idea why I was dying. Definitely something to address in Chivalry. Luckily I’m the kind of person who gives things a thorough testing before dropping it, most of the time, so I stuck around long enough to realize playing archer wasn’t sitting around camping with a sniper rifle in CoD like I initially thought it was.



  • 8/10

    Ok I’ill make this one short as there’s too much text in here already and i can’t see it getting any better^^

    pro: consistent,fun gameplay, many very different maps, acceptable class balance

    con: Players and their weapons are not where they seem to be (with some experience you get a clue where they actually are, but this is what makes it so hard for new players), slow weapons too easy to block, people running circles after attacking to avoid getting hit (looks stupid as hell and destroys the whole atmosphere), teamslashers ( and this one is going to get worse in CMW ,because you’ll most likely get a broader audience and thus more new players)

    ps: Why does everyone rant about archers killing in 2 shots?Archer is one of the most diffcult classes in AoC.Hitting a target that is not moving in a straight line at a reasonable distance is anything but easy.



  • @Falc:

    ps: Why does everyone rant about archers killing in 2 shots?Archer is one of the most diffcult classes in AoC.Hitting a target that is not moving in a straight line at a reasonable distance is anything but easy.

    Despite the fact that I didn’t rant about archers for now, I think I can reply to that. AoC was a melee-focused game, and no matter how hard archery was, bowmen are always a nuisance to other players. You can argue that a beautiful shot in a knight’s back from across half the map is a real sign of skill, and you’re correct, but it still feels like bullshit to that knight. The difference is that, if he got beaten by another swordsman, the knight could only be defeated if his opponent displayed superior skill. The skill required by the knight’s opponent doesn’t just have to be objectively good, it has to be relatively better. While a shot from across half the map straight into the back of a knight definitely requires a skilled archer, it doesn’t mean the archer is in any way better than the player he just killed. There was no measurement of the archer’s skill relative to the knight’s skill.

    When it’s a clean one-on-one, it’s a different matter of course. The melee character can dodge or block arrows, which requires skill as well, but it’s possible. The gripe towards archers mainly stems from being killed while you’re unaware of them or when you’re occupied fighting other people (this ability also means that archers should be notably inferior in a one-on-one, imo, but not to such an extent that a large skill difference can’t overcome it).



  • Hm I get your point. But I think if an archer manages to hit someone across the map twice or thrice (knight, seargent and hk), then he deserves the kill. Because after getting hit once, you can raise your shield, move to cover run zigzag etc. so it’s not like you have no chance at all.Tbh I like the ranged classes in AoC as they are hard to play and because of that there are never many ranged classes at once (and mass ranged gets slaughtered by few maa and seargent anyway).



  • In competitive play, Archers are underpowered. In RK clan wars, I’ve only ever allowed two people to play ranged classes, and neither was Longbowman. I only know of one Longbowman who has played in clan wars, Stranger the wolf, and a shield soon put a stop to him. Their melee capability also needs improving in my opinion - there should be a reason archers can change to melee in close quarters, rather than constantly shotgun others as seems to be the norm currently. I prefer to shotgun also when I do play archer classes.

    In public play, people tend to consider archers an annoyance, hence the reason most servers have Longbow limits of 2 and the majority of people would rather be hit by 3 arrows instead of 2. I’ve played on servers with no archer limits and you can end up with 6 Longbows on your team, or the enemy team, and the amount of arrows, both friendly and non-friendly is ridiculous; everyone shoots into people who are already fighting, rather than people who are about to hit the front line.



  • @Falc:

    Hm I get your point. But I think if an archer manages to hit someone across the map twice or thrice (knight, seargent and hk), then he deserves the kill. Because after getting hit once, you can raise your shield, move to cover run zigzag etc. so it’s not like you have no chance at all.Tbh I like the ranged classes in AoC as they are hard to play and because of that there are never many ranged classes at once (and mass ranged gets slaughtered by few maa and seargent anyway).

    I don’t argue with you there, archery can be very difficult and good archers should probably be rewarded. And you’re also right if you say that melee classes have enough options to beat them/avoid them. But, regardless of how well archers are balanced or how much skill is required, games with swordsmanship will always attract players who are mainly there for the melee combat. Even if they are able to defend themselves against archers, many just find it a distraction of what is for them the core of the game.

    Now, I play this type of game mainly for the melee combat as well. Nonetheless, I do think archers are a valuable addition to competitive teamplay, as using them and countering them requires tactics and skill. I don’t always feel like playing competitively though, nor do I always want to rely on teammates to have fun. When I’m in the mood for mindless axe-swinging, I would very much like to see some alternative gamemodes where I can melee with others without having to worry about archers, such as Duel, or deathmatch with a server-option to disallow ranged weapons. It’s already been announced that the game is going to be appropriately melee-based, so either way, I’m not worrying too much.

    In competitive play, Archers are underpowered. In RK clan wars, I’ve only ever allowed two people to play ranged classes, and neither was Longbowman. I only know of one Longbowman who has played in clan wars, Stranger the wolf, and a shield soon put a stop to him. Their melee capability also needs improving in my opinion - there should be a reason archers can change to melee in close quarters, rather than constantly shotgun others as seems to be the norm currently. I prefer to shotgun also when I do play archer classes.

    I don’t know if you would agree with me, but I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea to make ranged classes in general more of a ranged-melee hybrid. And I don’t mean just enough melee power to stand a chance in self-defence, but enough melee power to make charging into combat, in moments where it tactically makes sense (like when you outnumber the opponent and want to be more certain to break through), a valid option. It would be a way to boost the archer’s power without moving the focus too much towards ranged combat. Just a thought.



  • @Falc:

    ps: Why does everyone rant about archers killing in 2 shots?Archer is one of the most diffcult classes in AoC.Hitting a target that is not moving in a straight line at a reasonable distance is anything but easy.

    Not really. Just practice, It was easy in 1.0, when the arrows lost altitude along their flight. And with practice it was easy to hit incoming enemies from the top of one of the towers in outlook. You needed 5 arrows back then to kill an enemy, there were no ranged headshots, and the shortsword was a very powerful weapon (not as much as the later shortsword of doom, but you could block 100% damage and its animation allowed for easymode headslashes).

    Good archers dont miss their shot if the enemy is close enough, and by that I mean about 8-12 meters.

    There is another thing to bear in mind.

    With arrows that kill in 2 hits, there is no chance, absolutely no chance for you to retaliate. No matter if he hits from 50 or from 10 meters, you can´t hit back. You can look for cover or turtle, but the archer is just sitting on his spot raining arrows on you. And he just took away half of your HP without exposing himself to danger at all.

    And long distance warfare shouldnt even be a part of the game IMO. Sniping is ok in a game with firearms, not in a game in wich to hurt your enemy you have to cross half of the map, reach the top of a tower then smash his skull, while the archer has had time to kill you 10 times.

    About archers in melee: the ranged-melee hybrid was the javelineer. And it wass a hell of a powerful class, by far the most entertaining to play imo. Its problem was in melee, it could only match other classes in 1 vs one combat, as soon as you entered a group fight you were down (wich is fair, as it is a hybrid) and in the ranged department he was at a disadvantage against the other ranged classes 8again, this is fair)

    The crossbowman and the archer had the right amount of melee skill IMO. The crossbowman could oneshot lots of classes. the ones that didnt die from the bolt, would die in 1 slash of their shortsword. About archers , they arent supposed to charge the enemy. Even when they do, they can choose injured enemies and reliably kill them.

    What wouldnt make sense IMo is to have a class that can rain on you without any real chance of being injured, and once you reach him he has a nice chance to injure you or even kill you in melee.

    To avoid shotgunning, make it so that touching an enemy archer, crosbowman or javelineer make them unable to use their ranged weapons for a couple fo secs. Like if you pushed them, or just were too close for them to perform the required moves.



  • @TheNarrator:

    @Falc:

    ps: Why does everyone rant about archers killing in 2 shots?Archer is one of the most diffcult classes in AoC.Hitting a target that is not moving in a straight line at a reasonable distance is anything but easy.

    Despite the fact that I didn’t rant about archers for now, I think I can reply to that. AoC was a melee-focused game, and no matter how hard archery was, bowmen are always a nuisance to other players. You can argue that a beautiful shot in a knight’s back from across half the map is a real sign of skill, and you’re correct, but it still feels like bullshit to that knight. The difference is that, if he got beaten by another swordsman, the knight could only be defeated if his opponent displayed superior skill. The skill required by the knight’s opponent doesn’t just have to be objectively good, it has to be relatively better. While a shot from across half the map straight into the back of a knight definitely requires a skilled archer, it doesn’t mean the archer is in any way better than the player he just killed. There was no measurement of the archer’s skill relative to the knight’s skill.

    When it’s a clean one-on-one, it’s a different matter of course. The melee character can dodge or block arrows, which requires skill as well, but it’s possible. The gripe towards archers mainly stems from being killed while you’re unaware of them or when you’re occupied fighting other people (this ability also means that archers should be notably inferior in a one-on-one, imo, but not to such an extent that a large skill difference can’t overcome it).

    100 times this and 100+ score in my book of awesome forum dudes.



  • @TheNarrator:

    I don’t know if you would agree with me, but I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea to make ranged classes in general more of a ranged-melee hybrid.

    I do agree, completely.



  • EDIT: Oopsie, I forgot there was a second page already :X



  • Am I the only one who thinks ranged classes are ok in AoC?Despite the longbowman being underpowered, the crossbowman only being somewhat worthwhile due to shotgunning(which I agree is stupid and annoying (crossbows should only be able to fire from the shoulder and putting them there should slow the user down like drawing a bow)) and the javelineer is a good class imo.

    Then there is this thesis that you are absolutely helpless if an archer is shooting at you from range, but in close combat it’s just the other way round, if you catch an archer (no jav or crossbowman with a loadad crossbow) then he is dead meat. His chance in melee is about as big as yours to kill him with 2 throwing knives from 20 m away.

    In the thick of the fight an archer should be no problem for anyone who knows what he is doing. In all but the most awkward circumstances you are looking toward the enemy spawn and thus you can see the hostile archers aiming at you.It is very easy to get an enemy meleeing you in the line of fire as he cannot see his fellow archers.In contrast it’s hard as f*** to hit an enemy as archer without hitting your own guys and outright impossible if you are more than 15m away.

    Btw. equal skill granted, any melee class besides guardsman and hk (which are supposed to be weak versus ranged) eat any ranged class 9 times out of 10 (10 out of 10 for seargent).

    I have the feeling that most of you simply don’t like being shot during a duel ;)

    Just one last thing to remark….my main class is crusader …why do I have to do this?Where are the ranged players?..If there are any :P



  • @Falc:

    crossbows should only be able to fire from the shoulder and putting them there should slow the user down like drawing a bow

    This is something I really really really want, and I’ve mentioned it a few times on the old forums in a post about revamping the ranged classes to make each one unique and function completely differently. I think the Crossbow would highly benefit from a shouldered position with actual iron sights as in medieval times. That is the Crossbows downside in reality, slow to reload, slow to aim, but it’s packs a hell of a punch, whereas the Longbow is fast firing and has a huge range and the Javelin should be used in melee and thrown without needing to ‘switch weapons’, and also have bonus damage if you’re sprinting and throwing.


Log in to reply