Make knights armor to have realitic damage affliction



  • When I play Age of Chivalry with an armored class like the knight I stumble across a very persistent problem, in real life a heavy armored knight wouldn’t be damaged by a dagger or things like that, it would need to atack the weak points of the armor, neck, joints, face. What I mean is that, if he is a slow moving class with high damage shouldn’t he also have realistic armor?

    Because every sharpen weapon is letal if used properly, you can kill a knight with one dagger hit in real life if you hit a weak point. Also, the arrow penetration should be lesser because a heavy armor ensures that arrows wouldn’t penetrate so easy your armor, just look at this video and you’ll get what I mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xp56uVyxs

    Every armor should have its perks and disavantages, my ideeas are like this, a light armor would let you run faster and react fast, but is only as estetic, it wouldn’t protect you too much against swords or arrows, but if you equip a heavy armor you would move slow, also react slower and consume more stamina, but get the advantage of having more defense against ranged weaponry and swords. But weapons which bash like the hammer or the mace, shouldn’t they stun when hitting someone instead of making same amount of damage like swords.



  • A lot of threads about things You say was posted before. You also should educate a little before telling something, the test in that movie has nothing in common with medieval armor (ask Lancebringer if You dont believe me). And most of what You say is right, I mean with heavy armor, but its only an arcade game, things should come with balance. Deal with it.



  • I agree with that, but balance can come in many other ways, like making a heavy knight move slow and also be a restrictive class so that a small amount of players can use it, if you had played Red orchestra maybe you had seen that the balance doesn’t come in how the player is forced to play, because some of the classes are made more powerful just for the reason of making it more realistic, in Red orchestra they made powerful classes like the sniper or elite riflemen be in very small numbers, so that they won’t affect so much the gameplay but still be a major part of wining if employing strategies.

    In AOC knights should be much more realistic I mean they should be like a tank class, small numbers but very powerful, so that you will need to use team work to defeat them. Because it is a very slow class it would need some kind of boost or something to make him fight faster for a few seconds I was thinking on an ability like driking a bottle of wine, so that the knight fights faster.



  • @Victhorash:

    I agree with that, but balance can come in many other ways, like making a heavy knight move slow and also be a restrictive class so that a small amount of players can use it, if you had played Red orchestra maybe you had seen that the balance doesn’t come in how the player is forced to play, because some of the classes are made more powerful just for the reason of making it more realistic, in Red orchestra they made powerful classes like the sniper or elite riflemen be in very small numbers, so that they won’t affect so much the gameplay but still be a major part of wining if employing strategies.

    In AOC knights should be much more realistic I mean they should be like a tank class, small numbers but very powerful, so that you will need to use team work to defeat them. Because it is a very slow class it would need some kind of boost or something to make him fight faster for a few seconds I was thinking on an ability like driking a bottle of wine, so that the knight fights faster.

    Nah.
    If there were restrictions to class chosing, what would decide if Player#124 can or cannot be a knight ? First one arrived on the server can get it, fast connection = win ? Skill so that only good players get to be more powerful and steamroll anything but the ennemy knights ? Randomise things so that you have no power on deciding wether or not you shall be a knight ? Each one gets his turn, and you only play other classes (or worse idle) just waiting to play the way you want to ? Voting (equals any of the others) ? Pay some in game currency to get to be top of the list to be a knight next ? I do not think there is any way to make this work properly.

    And even, I am against such game mechanics. Making a player more powerful than the others, at the point where you NEED to be more and use teamwork to defeat it ? Tanks and vehicles in other games tend to work because they cannot go everywhere, make big targets, and are defeatable with some clever weapon use. But here you ask for a knight that, putten in good hands, can defeat any singleplayer opposition, except other knights. How can there be something more frustrating than being killed by the behemot knowing you can’t fight it, just need to flee or mobilize many players to put him down when he is only one man in a team of many ? Yes there is one in your team too, but then the game revolves around a small number of player having much more influence on the battle than all the other combined !



  • On top of that the heavy knight in AoC can take 2hits instead of one and live. It means that he can easily handle every duel without really thinking about it.
    A man at arms, is way faster but he got to think of his moves if he really wants to kill someone, especially a knight.

    If CMW uses the same mechanics, then its already good, a heavy knight will pawn and repawn like a demon before its frenzy ends, and this even if he feels arrows or small dagger. 8-)



  • there’s alot of threads bout balance
    agreed with Jihell
    and i think its already decided that the best balance is "rock paper scissors "
    Basically knight beats man-at-arms , vanguard beats knight , man-at arms beats vanguard… while archers annoy everyone (still each class may kill other four if skilled enough).



  • @evil:

    there’s alot of threads bout balance
    agreed with Jihell
    and i think its already decided that the best balance is "rock paper scissors "
    Basically knight beats man-at-arms , vanguard beats knight , man-at arms beats vanguard… while archers annoy everyone (still each class may kill other four if skilled enough).

    This couldn’t be more wrong :P



  • @SlyGoat:

    @evil:

    there’s alot of threads bout balance
    agreed with Jihell
    and i think its already decided that the best balance is "rock paper scissors "
    Basically knight beats man-at-arms , vanguard beats knight , man-at arms beats vanguard… while archers annoy everyone (still each class may kill other four if skilled enough).

    This couldn’t be more wrong :P

    why :O



  • I also don’t like the pure “rock paper scissors” type of balance since i believe it takes away a portion of the skill ingame and it makes things look predetermined in some extend.

    I haven’t tried CMW so i can’t really say anything specific about the current balance but in general i do prefer the “Pros and Cons List” type of balance as long as those Cons are not designed in a way to be fully exploitable by another specific class.



  • @georgatos7:

    I haven’t tried CMW so i can’t really say anything specific about the current balance but in general i do prefer the “Pros and Cons List” type of balance as long as those Cons are not designed in a way to be fully exploitable by another specific class.

    ugh its called “rock paper scissors” anyway
    My fault for not being specific
    example was about same experienced players(more skill - win).
    You told what i failed to say )



  • @evil:

    @SlyGoat:

    @evil unicorn1:

    there’s alot of threads bout balance
    agreed with Jihell
    and i think its already decided that the best balance is "rock paper scissors "
    Basically knight beats man-at-arms , vanguard beats knight , man-at arms beats vanguard… while archers annoy everyone (still each class may kill other four if skilled enough).

    This couldn’t be more wrong :P

    why :O

    No class is meant to counter any other class (well, except archers having a natural advantage against anyone who chooses not to use a shield) - they’re simply different playstyles. Any kind of counters I assure you will be purely unintentional and a slight advantage at best. If one weapon ends up being a total shutdown of another class, I guarantee you that will be tweaked quickly.



  • A thing I don’t understand if modern shooters have tanks/vehicles which are more powerful than actual soldiers in-game why shouldn’t chivalry have such a class, like the heavy knight would be a heavy armored tank class, moving slow with lots of damage amount.

    That wouldn’t spoil balance if used properly like giving him realistic life-like armor, so that he would be a redutale force. The game hasn’t got any spells or things like that so why not add this class in a limited amount, but make it to be countered differently than AOC like if you use a bow you will require to hit in specific parts of armor, also a knight would have longer time of respawn than the other classes.

    Why not make it easy counter-able by long range melee weapons like pikes, I would like to see in-game vanguards that would have a specific stand to form a formation of sharped spears so that they can hit fast the enemy, my ideea is simple you deploy the pike and only if you deploy it you can fastly stab your enemy, so that a pikemen wouldn’t have an advantage over other class making it a slow advancing class more for a deffense purpose more like real life.



  • Modern shooters also have static counters to tanks in heat seeking rockets that you can fire from heavy cover and mines that the guy in the tank most of the time can’t see until he drives over them and explodes. In Chivalry you’d have to go toe-to-toe with the “tanks” rather than taking them out with subterfuge unless you want every game to devolve into archers vs. knights with the other classes being useless.



  • @SlyGoat:

    Modern shooters also have static counters to tanks in heat seeking rockets that you can fire from heavy cover and mines that the guy in the tank most of the time can’t see until he drives over them and explodes. In Chivalry you’d have to go toe-to-toe with the “tanks” rather than taking them out with subterfuge unless you want every game to devolve into archers vs. knights with the other classes being useless.

    Yep, I agree with this.
    Moreover, tanks in modern FPS can’t go inside buildings for the most part, Knights on the other hand can go wherever the other players can go.



  • Well my point is to make knights realistic make them a redutable force as they used to be don’t make the only medieval fps arcadish make it realistic. A knight is a knight is a force to recon with balance it in other ways, Red orchestra is a good example because you have elite assault class that is in the same place: sniper/assault is the most powerful class but in limited number and defficient spawning time. You can easily deal with it if you know how.



  • And everyone rushes to be whatever the limited class is, and may just leave the server if they don’t get it :roll:

    I would prefer “the only medieval fps” to be a good game rather than realistic.



  • Yes but my point is that the game doesn’t need to be balanced exactly like Age of chivialry you can balance it in other ways like adding a reputation feature that if a player is renowed and skilled players can vote him to occupy a class. Also limited classes have been done in many other games and work like a charm you need many limited classes to suit each player gameplay style, in Red orchestra 2 it works like a charm.



  • @Victhorash:

    Yes but my point is that the game doesn’t need to be balanced exactly like Age of chivialry you can balance it in other ways like adding a reputation feature that if a player is renowed and skilled players can vote him to occupy a class. Also limited classes have been done in many other games and work like a charm you need many limited classes to suit each player gameplay style, in Red orchestra 2 it works like a charm.

    But it goes entirely against what Chivalry stands for (for most of us): the personal aspect of combat. The rush of dueling another player and knowing that the only thing that can grant you victory is being a better player. And what that implies is that the combat system must give any player a roughly equal chance of defeating another, no matter what his class or the class of his opponent is. So instead of making the knight a limited ololol tank class that beats the crap out of everything in its path, the developers have made the classes distinct mainly in fighting style.



  • Exactly that.



  • I agree with you, Narrator.


Log in to reply