On Chivalry and Competitive Play



  • On Chivalry and Competitive Play
    Chivalry is an exciting and unique game that has had the luck of hype, huge sales and a high skill ceiling: two factors at the base of every competitive game. However, beyond the initial impressions, chivalry still manages to maintain a lack of exposure and has thus, in my eyes, failed to promote a game for the future; are the masses going to be playing half a year from now?

    The cement that binds the length of an indie game is often non existent, but perhaps with a dedicated community it can remain mobile for a time.

    E-Sports/Competitive Play
    I believe that E-Sports, or competitive play is one of the bindings that can keep a unique game like this - in such a saturated climate of modern military shooters and Dota clones - afloat.

    Let’s not get too perplexed by the ‘e-Sports,’ a recent buzzword that game companies aspire to garner sales and exploit a thirsty market. Before e-Sports there was competitive play, we would have leagues and tournaments hosted over the net and, occasionally, someone would be brave enough to organise a LAN event. After that, the game would develop organically; without force - if the community wanted competitive play then they would ask for competitive play, and then they would play competitively until the game inevitably died - either due to age or shoddy development.

    One thing that has always proven to lengthen the competitive aspect of a game is developer oversight. Not only through the process of development and exposure, but through laying down a solid system of rules - ‘This is how the game is meant to be played.’ I’m a strong believer that when a game takes its competitive play seriously, a dictatorship is needed to remove all doubt. Everyone has rules and configurations that they enjoy, which is why a mass of people, on paper and reality, are often incapable of deciding upon a final defining landscape.

    Developer intervention is needed because a dedicated community has its limits and a lack of patience.

    In short, a developer needs to:

    1. Define the game as a competitive title
    2. Lay down the law on the defining game types that prove compatible
    3. Work with players who are useful, those with a passion for the game, who have resources available
    4. Add features into the game that are required for competitive play
    5. Be unafraid of an entitled user base that constantly moan; it happens and has happened with every game in existence

    The features require for a competitive game boil down to a recording feature, a true competitive hub where one can find the best players/teams and recruit, and somewhere for players to learn how to be good, i.e. demos from the recording feature.

    Extra Reading
    Never start your campaign for competitive play, or E-Sports too early. Players have very small attention spans and after a well thought out plan, you have at the maximum two weeks notice before all interest has depleted - and with no hope of ever getting the hype up to that standard again.

    I like these forums for content but the theme is especially unappealing - far too standard and php looking. A fancier design will promote usage as, at the moment, players are more likely to congregate to content aggregtors like Reddit than to post in a traditional forum format.

    And an appeal: If you have no intention of designing the game with competitive play intent then please do not delude us. I and others have been burned in the past by numerous developers that have promised true competitive play but have failed to deliver on every front. The beauty of an indie game is that you can communicate with your players - please do.



    1. Define the game as a competitive title

    I strongly disagree with this statement. It not necessary or required for a competitive game to be labeled as such by the developers.



  • Amount of successful “esports” that had strong developer oversight: 3
    League of Legends
    Dota 2
    Starcraft II

    Amount of successful “esports” that had little or no developer oversight: Hundreds…

    Unless you want Torn Banner to spend $2 million - $5 million a year to artificially help foster a competitive scene like Valve, Blizzard, and Riot does, the hands-off approach is probably better. If the game doesn’t emerge as a competitive title, then it wasn’t deserving of being a competitive title.



  • @Dr.Nick:

    1. Define the game as a competitive title

    I strongly disagree with this statement. It not necessary or required for a competitive game to be labeled as such by the developers.

    They only need to define an aspect of the game as competitive, not the entirety.

    @MUSASHI:

    Amount of successful “esports” that had strong developer oversight: 3
    League of Legends
    Dota 2
    Starcraft II

    Amount of successful “esports” that had little or no developer oversight: Hundreds…

    Unless you want Torn Banner to spend $2 million - $5 million a year to artificially help foster a competitive scene like Valve, Blizzard, and Riot does, the hands-off approach is probably better. If the game doesn’t emerge as a competitive title, then it wasn’t deserving of being a competitive title.

    The game doesn’t have to have a massive prize pool, just a showing of developer interest so as to gauge the interest of a larger player-base. I don’t think anyone realises the potential that Chivalry has as a competitive title due to lack of exposure.

    Look at how ravaged the FPS scene is: A lack of developer oversight has fostered so many arbitrary decisions and directions that could have otherwise been avoided. I do agree that this community should grow organically, however, no one knows if the seeds are planted or even that our ground is fertile.



  • Sry, but this time i really dont get what you want and why you are writing this…

    This game is competitive, no matter if Torn Banner said ‘hey its competitive from now on’ or not.

    I’m not sure if you want us to stop playing competitive now :/
    Or if you want someone to spend a lot of money on sth. we already have.
    Why is it so important to you that this game is not played in a third party league?

    No offense but im just not feeling you.

    Edit:
    You are claiming that things would go wrong if this or that happened.
    What are your sources?
    Because i have experienced sth totally different during the past 8 years i’ve been playing competitively.



  • @cptdno:

    Sry, but this time i really dont get what you want and why you are writing this…

    This game is competitive, no matter if Torn Banner said ‘hey its competitive from now on’ or not.

    I’m not sure if you want us to stop playing competitive now :/
    Or if you want someone to spend a lot of money on sth. we already have.
    Why is it so important to you that this game is not played in a third party league?

    No offense but im just not feeling you.

    Edit:
    You are claiming that things would go wrong if this or that happened.
    What are your sources?
    Because i have experienced sth totally different during the past 8 years i’ve been playing competitively.

    Sure, a game can be competitive without a developer branding it as such, but it will surely lack an efficient player-base in the long run - due to lack of exposure and doubt from its own community. We have to remember that Chivalry is a new title in a saturated market; it has the power of being unique and fun in public play but has very little exposure to the outside world as a true competitive title. When people think Chivalry they think ‘a fun medieval warfare game that i can play on the side,’ as opposed to a ‘competitive medieval game with e-sports potential.’

    At the time of writing this, the game isn’t being played at a serious level due to the current competitive scene being almost non-existent. By all means, an organic growth will serve players for some time, however, Chivalry will never get into the ‘big leagues’ if it continues to market itself as merely a public game.

    Third-party leagues tend to scatter a community due to separate rule sets and other annoying differences. It can work out if it is run alongside an official league that the developers take an interest to, however, what is the point in a host of separate leagues unless they offer a pay-out?

    Pumping money into the e-sports side would be amazing, but I don’t believe the game is ready for such an endeavor in its current state - and money is useless in competitive play without hype.



  • @CSui:

    Sure, a game can be competitive without a developer branding it as such, but it will surely lack an efficient player-base in the long run - due to lack of exposure and doubt from its own community. We have to remember that Chivalry is a new title in a saturated market; it has the power of being unique and fun in public play but has very little exposure to the outside world as a true competitive title. When people think Chivalry they think ‘a fun medieval warfare game that i can play on the side,’ as opposed to a ‘competitive medieval game with e-sports potential.’

    At the time of writing this, the game isn’t being played at a serious level due to the current competitive scene being almost non-existent. By all means, an organic growth will serve players for some time, however, Chivalry will never get into the ‘big leagues’ if it continues to market itself as merely a public game.

    Third-party leagues tend to scatter a community due to separate rule sets and other annoying differences. It can work out if it is run alongside an official league that the developers take an interest to, however, what is the point in a host of separate leagues unless they offer a pay-out?

    Pumping money into the e-sports side would be amazing, but I don’t believe the game is ready for such an endeavor in its current state - and money is useless in competitive play without hype.

    As a competitive player I obviously don’t have anything against your idea labeling this game as a “competitive game”. I just don’t think it won’t make any difference.
    Also what do you mean with “seperate leagues” or “official league”?



  • @afiNity:

    @CSui:

    Sure, a game can be competitive without a developer branding it as such, but it will surely lack an efficient player-base in the long run - due to lack of exposure and doubt from its own community. We have to remember that Chivalry is a new title in a saturated market; it has the power of being unique and fun in public play but has very little exposure to the outside world as a true competitive title. When people think Chivalry they think ‘a fun medieval warfare game that i can play on the side,’ as opposed to a ‘competitive medieval game with e-sports potential.’

    At the time of writing this, the game isn’t being played at a serious level due to the current competitive scene being almost non-existent. By all means, an organic growth will serve players for some time, however, Chivalry will never get into the ‘big leagues’ if it continues to market itself as merely a public game.

    Third-party leagues tend to scatter a community due to separate rule sets and other annoying differences. It can work out if it is run alongside an official league that the developers take an interest to, however, what is the point in a host of separate leagues unless they offer a pay-out?

    Pumping money into the e-sports side would be amazing, but I don’t believe the game is ready for such an endeavor in its current state - and money is useless in competitive play without hype.

    As a competitive player I obviously don’t have anything against your idea labeling this game as a “competitive game”. I just don’t think it won’t make any difference.
    Also what do you mean with “seperate leagues” or “official league”?

    It’s all about brand loyalty. If a developer doesn’t officially come out and state that a game is designed around competitive play, then how can a community have faith in the game and take seriously its competitive aspects? Many players have been burned in the past and thus are not willing to waste time and money on something that may rapidly devolve into a game catered solely at the casual audience.

    Another aspect is a passionate user-base - those who get involved with cups and leagues - if a developer is unable to define the game as competitive then there passions may be allocated elsewhere.

    Separate leagues are leagues that act outside the official league. A saturation of leagues leaves a community scattered due to different rule-sets and limited time of teams competing - not everyone has time to sign up to several leagues and keep track. If an official league gets going then what is the need for an outsourced league?



  • To me it seems like Chiv seriously lack a competitive game mode. I sure as hell would never even consider playing Chiv competitively if LTS is the preferred game mode in the current scene.

    @CSui:

    … Separate leagues are leagues that act outside the official league. A saturation of leagues leaves a community scattered due to different rule-sets and limited time of teams competing - not everyone has time to sign up to several leagues and keep track. If an official league gets going then what is the need for an outsourced league?

    You said it yourself, different rule-set. You say multiple leagues result in different rule sets used, which means that there is a demand for different rule sets. If there is an official league, the demand for another rule set is still there and thus the need for an outsourced league.

    The best league will triumph over the lesser ones, a competition between leagues. Doesn’t matter if there is an official league or not. What matters is that there is features and game modes that allows players to play competitively, at any level, with ease.



  • Wow Nostradamus.



  • @CSui:

    And an appeal: If you have no intention of designing the game with competitive play intent then please do not delude us. I and others have been burned in the past by numerous developers that have promised true competitive play but have failed to deliver on every front. The beauty of an indie game is that you can communicate with your players - please do.

    ouch.

    /chars



  • Game is fine competitive wise.



  • @lemonator74:

    Game is fine competitive wise.



  • I shall never stop! Its my freedom!



  • @gregcau:

    Greg, that’s not Lemon.



  • Yo All y’all competitive people out there Check the Tournaments Tab and Join [F|C]s Tournament!



  • @Flippy:

    Greg, that’s not Lemon.

    Still funny tho.



  • @Flippy:

    Greg, that’s not Lemon.

    Almost no difference



  • I agree with most of the the first post and I think that this game had the potential to be something like an eSport, absolutely. I also believe that we were completely deceived by TornBanner when they claimed to have an interest in competitive play. Even without TornBanner injecting millions into the comp scee, it could have taken off, with little or no many at all. Perhaps TBS didnt have the capital, but I imagine an anti-cheat system, some proper balance and spectator mode with a few $10,000+ tournaments, this game could have taken off. They were either not interested or not able to do this.


Log in to reply