4 New class suggestions




  • It was either a blacksmith or an alchemist

    Man of Tricks: Armor: Lightest.Primary: Traps (single dmg, debuff, etc). Secondaries: middle weight 1h wpns. Speed: Archer speed. Can’t use shield. Skill: -25% cooldown on all armaments. Can disarm enemy traps. Role: can lay traps in order to disrupt enemy movement. The traps are the focal point of this class. Some can be single effect nukes that root. Others can be multi-use snares or pitfalls. Some can be temporary walls or area effect debuffs (slick ground or nail carpet). The class focuses on defense for any team. Great for creating choke points or maximizing them. This class requires A LOT of more idea investing if he were to be included as traps are not implemented in this game (beyond the oil pot). [work in progress]

    
    ![](http://digizona.net/images/cache/2011/10/Templario4883-1.jpg)
    *Was thinking a cap, but this can do*
    
    **Duelist**: Armor Light. Primary: 2h sword, 2h glaive, 2h staff (new). Secondaries: moderate 1h wpns. Can't use shields. Speed: High. Skill: Backstep (dodge backwards) + Counterstance: Gain 10~20% damage boost after a successful parry. Role: Lighter Knight. Swings harder than a knight combing zoning with raw power. Glass cannon of sorts able to disrupt groups and quickly get out. Can focus on a single player or gain a powerful attack towards groups of enemies that don't dodge his counter attack. Can put comfortable space between himself and is rewarded for well timed counters.
    
    _past skills: Strikethrough: does minor damage throw a parry (or damage throw a shield. DEBATABLE). Skill: Sleight of Hand: Able to change the type of attack during windup (Slight feint, however continues the attack at the cost of more stamina)_
    
    

    Gambit: Armor: Heavy: Primary: (MaA primaries) Secondaries: MaA secondaries. Note: Both the primary and secondary weapons are equipped at the same time. The secondaries can be switched to the primary weapon while the primary will be held in the offhand. The offhand weapon only serves as a a visual tool along with granting a small bonus to any attack type (thrusting weapon yield a stab bonus. Blunt weapon yield overhead bonuses. Slashing weapons yield swing bonuses). Speed: Above average (slower than MaA but faster than a Vanguard). Can’t use shields.
    Skill: Persistent block. Allows the Gambit to block instead of parry. It functions similarly to a shield in that block can be held until stamina runs out (or killed). The area that protects the user is a small area in the front of the Gambit. Attacks that would normally breach the sides, top or bottom of the shield function the same on the Gambit. The gambit can also sprint while blocking. The gambit still has to aim at the direction of an attack to successfully block it normally.

    Role: Overwhelming enemies. Can take a little punishment but designed for pushing and defending objectives via attacking enemies. His skill can allow him to push throw choke point. Able to charge into the fray and disrupt attacks.

    Past skill: Skill: Advancing strike (Tackle). At the cost of some stamina the Gambit does a short range “tackle” Lunge: Launches Gambit forward and unleashes and overhead attack. Can’t be done stationary. Does as much damage as the equipped primary weapon and is blockable. Offhand attack: "Kick’ is replaced with a slash from the offhand. Functions the same as a kick/shield bash, but does more damage. The range, speed, and power depends on the offhand weapon selected. Furthermore, the slash has a slight 45 degree arch adding minimal AoE.

    
    ![](http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4999892524467568&pid=15.1)
    
    **Berserker**: Armor: Heaviest. Primary: Throwing wpns (axe, knives, sling (new)). Secondaries: 1handers (vanguard armory). Speed: Knight speed. Skill: Wrecker: Any successful hit scored on an enemy reduces their stamina. Role: A short-mid ranged dmg dealer. Useful at mid range skirmishes while being mobile. The knives have the fastest recovery. The axes have the most power, and the sling has the most range. The Berserker is great for team support especially against fleeing or approaching enemies. The axe, knife, and sling ammo count is 15, 11, and 13 respectively. Because the berserkers idea range is closer to the enemy, he gets more armor at the expense of mobility. All of his attacks recover faster than the archers making for an interesting mix of range and power when approach enemies or defending. Meatier than archers, berserkers aren't focused on leaving the battle.
    
    

    Obviously a work in progress, but I would enjoy opinions and suggestions.

    (edited 12/18/2012)



  • (bump)

    I know not a lot of people voted, but by initial reactions, I am humored at the results. I’m still working on more ideas on the traps for Man of Tricks (looking for the lay of the land and even asking players).

    Someone asked me if the Duelist was a samurai. I was going to give him a detail description but was killed by a tker in the process of typing. I then told him “Yeah. He pretty much is.”



  • What about calling the man of tricks a trickster? :P



  • don’t takei t the wrong way, but all your classes’ effectivenesses depend on factors that change massively with game modes, maps and/or circumstance. classes like the gambit would inevitably lead to exploitive and strange player behaviour (run my health down, then i instakill you in a second). i think you’re placing to much emphasis on strategy. Imagine one of your Men of Tricks in duel mode. ;) chivarly combat (as i see it) is not supposed to follow rock/paper/scissor schemes where a certain class in a particular circumstances slaughters another one 85% percent of the time. All existing classes are somewhat versatile and always have a fighting chance against any other. just my 2cents. ;)



  • These classes sound like they should be in a pretty good mod, not really in Vanilla Chivalry.



  • @carrion:

    don’t takei t the wrong way, but all your classes’ effectivenesses depend on factors that change massively with game modes, maps and/or circumstance. classes like the gambit would inevitably lead to exploitive and strange player behaviour (run my health down, then i instakill you in a second). i think you’re placing to much emphasis on strategy. Imagine one of your Men of Tricks in duel mode. ;) chivarly combat (as i see it) is not supposed to follow rock/paper/scissor schemes where a certain class in a particular circumstances slaughters another one 85% percent of the time. All existing classes are somewhat versatile and always have a fighting chance against any other. just my 2cents. ;)

    This got me thinking and I definitely appreciated it. As per the Gambit, I’m having trouble making him different than the MaAs. I was supposed to be more focused on offense than the MaA while being strictly close range. I liked the idea of a “rage” system, however I agree that every class should be always capable of performing to their top ability given non-hp scenarios. The “tackle” ability was going to be a sort of inward lunge that works as an approach/dodging manuever. He was my mainstay idea, but in want to make it more in tune with the game as is.

    I still like the idea of strikethrough, but again I see how it can go against the system in play. The duelist is definitely a fun idea. I wanted to make him a refined version of the vanguard with an emphasis on speed and swordplay than gusto. His skill will be the defining factor. As is, he is faster than the vanguard, but has less resilence. The current skill is a gray area but can make for a more deep combat experience. I also thought of a repose-touche skill. It does a backstep and can be comboed into an attack that will lunge the duelist back into original position.

    The Man of tricks is definitely a game change. No way around that one. He is medieval though =). He goes against the main stay of the game but affects the game similar to an archer. He can safely place traps and stake out the area. I’m on the fence whether he would be allowed throwing weapons. My goal is to make him more of a crowd control class. In duels, he can still lay traps and won’t be much better off in melee than an archer. Ultimate, how he plays is up to the player. I’d still polling players on what kind of traps he could use. Some people have suggested throwing nets. That would be interesting, however for something of this magnitude, I’d prefer a item recovery system where you can pick up spent items. I won’t expect the MoT to have more than one throwing net. I remember seeing something of the sort on Deadliest warrior. Also, MoT could be the trickster. I chose Man of Tricks simply because I like the “man of ___” series of name.
    Those are my updates for now.



  • I’m not saying your concepts couldn’t work, either. but i think some of them belong more in the realm of mods. For example i think a Trapper class could be loads of fun, but it would only work if the game objectives and the maps are designed to handle them, meaning making them useful but not overly dominant. If you do that at the game core it means that you have to redesign a huge part of the game to accomodate the new classes. I’d personally like Chivarly to focus on providing a solid framework for combat and basic modes and leave alternate takes on class composition to mods. And maybe think about reintegrating classes from mods to the core game later. if they really turn out to work better than what god (Torn Banner) hath provided. ;)



  • I would say my primary concern with these ideas is they’re not really realistic. Before you jump down my throat with my own words (as I do maintain the game isn’t focused on realism) the game does have a certain commitment to realism in terms of game setting. The current classes largely resemble infantry types of old, plus foot knights (which may or may not be realistic).

    Maybe other people like them more. But then, there are other concerns which were already pointed out. They feel kinda “gimmicky.” Like they’d fit in PvK2 or so, but not really in Chivalry.

    My post probably comes across as grumpy, and plead you take my opinions with grains of salt.



  • I figure that is a point of these classes (referring to gimmicky). Look at the archer. 50% BS dmg. MaA, a dodge. Vanguard, the charge. Knight…. being the noobcannon ;). The gimmick is what will draw people to play them. I’m am receiving these comments with open fists.

    Idk what PvK2 is.

    The funny thing is, I bet had these classes been introduced at the default and I were suggesting the existing ones (especially the archer), this would be much the same thread ;)

    If I could find a way to model these classes, I so would. I already have all but the MoTs in my mind.



  • Should rename Duelist to Men at Legs. When I think of berserkers, I think of the Germanic ones without armor and tear people up. Low life spans though. They should be a glass cannon type class. Max power for very little defense.



  • @NikolaiLev:

    The current classes largely resemble infantry types of old, plus foot knights (which may or may not be realistic).

    Sorry, gotta ask. What’s unrealistic about foot knights? Medieval times are plastered with battles where nobility fought on foot. Especially true for scandinavia, even noblemen who rode to battle on horseback would dismount to fight.



  • @tlbww:

    quote

    Debateable; the archer’s 50% damage gives him an opportunity to be a supportive force aside from his ranged weaponry. The MaA is supposed to be a mobile fighter, but I can agree the execution is a little wonky. The Vanguard is a little gimmicky, but it serves the purpose of him being an initiator in fights. The Knight has staying power, that’s part of his role.

    I suppose you could argue that the special abilities you mentioned would equally add gameplay. But (and this is very subjective) they feel like they belong more in a MOBA or MMORPG than Chivalry.

    PVK2, or Pirates Vikings Knights 2 is a Half-Life 2 mod that doesn’t take itself seriously; as you can imagine, it’s a silly yet fun melee combat game, not quite as deep as Chivalry, but faster paced and filled with more comedy.

    @carrion:

    @NikolaiLev:

    The current classes largely resemble infantry types of old, plus foot knights (which may or may not be realistic).

    Sorry, gotta ask. What’s unrealistic about foot knights? Medieval times are plastered with battles where nobility fought on foot. Especially true for scandinavia, even noblemen who rode to battle on horseback would dismount to fight.

    I said “which may or may not be realistic” because my own knowledge about the concept of footknights is limited. The possibility of footknights existing, however, supports my argument that Chivalry’s classes are all largely realistic.



  • Berserker: Armor: Heaviest. Primary: Throwing wpns (axe, knives, sling (new)). Secondaries: 1handers (vanguard armory). Speed: Knight speed. Skill: Wrecker: Any successful hit scored on an enemy reduces their stamina. Role: A short-mid ranged dmg dealer. Useful at mid range skirmishes while being mobile. The knives have the fastest recovery. The axes have the most power, and the sling has the most range. The Berserker is great for team support especially against fleeing or approaching enemies. The axe, knife, and sling ammo count is 15, 11, and 13 respectively. Because the berserkers idea range is closer to the enemy, he gets more armor at the expense of mobility. All of his attacks recover faster than the archers making for an interesting mix of range and power when approach enemies or defending. Meatier than archers, berserkers aren’t focused on leaving the battle.

    I like the idea of Berseker type, a heavy warrior….
    More idea suggestions needed,



  • I don’t think this is a very good idea nor would it add that much more depth to gameplay. It would make the game far more gimmicky, and reduce the seriousness of the game.

    Instead of adding new classes to the game, how about weapons that give you special abilities at the expense of another? Want to be a beserker? How about a 2-h sword that has those kind of abilities on a Vanguard.

    New classes won’t be implemented any time soon, but a few well designed weapons just might!



  • @NikolaiLev

    Got you thinking huh? I posed my “what if” argument for the very point of showing that this game is already gimmicky. Along such lines, while this futuristic argument isn’t the case as is, I would imagine had we had the Man of Traps and berserker instead of the archer and vanguard, and suggested the latter classes, the forum would be in an uproar (people already hate archers and some people don’t even see the point of vanguards… ). You at least admit that this game is gimmicky. We can work from there :3

    @margiexian

    Thanks for the kind words. The berserker (which was my last, somewhat throwaway idea) is shaping up to being the more popular.

    
    I'm organizing my thoughts around these classes.
    
    With the duelist, I've been thinking more about the sleight of hand skill. Sleight of hand is interesting, however, I don't think it adds that much to the feinting system. It's definitely gimmicky, but I currently can't wrap my mind around a scenario where I would change my attack type versus feinting and changing it. What I'm thinking instead if having a counterstance skill. All this skill does is give a 10~25% damage boost to attacks after a successful parry (applicable to 1 attack in a 1~1.5 second window after a successful parry). I'm still thinking of giving the back dodge back to the Duelist since the duelist is a light class. I need opinions though.
    
    I really liked my Gambit idea. Alas, he isn't to popular in the polls. I'm not sure if dual wielding is his fault and/or his skill. Tackle was something I thought of since I scraped the "rage" skill. An alternative to tackle was a lunge skill which is similar to the charge, only what it does is launches the player forward and does and overhead attack. The skill doesn't need to be down while running, but can only be done while moving.
    
    ~~~~
    I'm suggesting movement based skills since there are so few of them in the game (dodge being used by only the MaA and charge which can't only be used after sprinting). I like the idea of deeper evasion mechanics in combat over the guessing games we have to do. I'm no master of the guessing games, however, which the limited options, it's very easy to read people especially based on class, spacing, remaining hp, and "battle presence" which is what I call having a reputation due to people knowing your skill or the knowledge of knowing one's situation is advantageous or disadvantageous (due to but not limited to the listed factors).


  • @tlbww:

    @NikolaiLev

    Got you thinking huh?

    I’d like to think I gave your posts a sufficient amount of consideration. I’m afraid you haven’t much swayed my opinion, though. I only conceded the game is a little gimmicky, but not by much. What few gimmicks do exist serve roles in a practical manner.

    I say your suggestions are gimmicky because they don’t particularly add any roles or gameplay. The classes largely seem to be hybrids of existing classes; and while that’s fine, they begin to instate balance complications. For instance, why pick the Vanguard or MaA when you can play the Duelist and get the best of both worlds? Combining speed with high damage and reach weaponry sounds very problematic, especially with a dodge.

    So, lack of clear roles plus balance issues means my vote’s still against it. But, you needn’t really look into this more than “I don’t like them” because that’s all it is.

    I’m sure it could be tweaked and balanced and made to work. Aside from how, the question to ask is: Is it worth the effort? Let me ask you this (since it makes the idea more realistic): if one, but only one of these classes could be implemented, which would you want it to be?

    Believe it or not, my vote’s on the Duelist because it would probably be the easiest to tweak down. The others have tons of issues: the Gambit’s stats, plus his unblockable strike seems horridly OP; Berserker doesn’t seem like an actual berserker, and mixing ranged and heavy armor isn’t a good idea; and the Trickster’s mechanic (traps) are probably too alien to the game to make them comfortable to add.



  • And odd twist you could do is make parry a counter. The LMB can’t be used to attack but can be used to parry and make your opponent head a certain direction. Like being kicked to the side like motion due to the parry throwing your weight away. Better on knights and vanguards but less so on MMA and archers.



  • I hate it.
    Don´t take it personal, it is my usual, strict reaction to unauthentic* stuff in this game.

    *This is no fantasy game, it is meant to be semi-realistic. A simple “minus the wings” dont cut it.



  • @Yoshiblue:

    And odd twist you could do is make parry a counter. The LMB can’t be used to attack but can be used to parry and make your opponent head a certain direction. Like being kicked to the side like motion due to the parry throwing your weight away. Better on knights and vanguards but less so on MMA and archers.

    I didn’t want to add too (m)any game-play mechanics that change the core game. Obviously the MoT goes against this (along with some old skills). I’ve been using these suggestions and polling people online to get their take. Counter-stance is similar to what you are mentioning, but only adds boosted damage on a successful attack after a parry. This doesn’t affect the enemy much more than it normally would as they have the same options as before to use.

    I’d like to know about peoples opinions on stamina drain for the Zerker. That isn’t in the game at all. I figured it would add a layer of support for a class that doesn’t have any kind of melee advantage save for having high defense (which I am debating on lowering).

    I changed the Gambit’s skill again. I think it’s in a better place now. I’ll probably renamed him. I could switch the Gambit name with the Berserker. I also changed the pictures as the old ones were placeholders until I changed the classes around. Good feedback so far. Definitely could be a pretty sweet mod.


Log in to reply