For god's sake don't turn this into an RPG!



  • I know my ranting will probably fall on deaf ears since fanbois and developers always seem to think they know better than me even when their game goes all to hell and the servers become ghost towns but what the hey.

    Don’t turn this into another CoD rip off where you have pointless unlockable items and perks, why? Because it royally screws up the game balance. I was there when TF2 came out and even I had a hell of a time playing the game but the moment they introduced patches which completely changed the core of the game and gave people items that did “10000 points of damage” then everything went to hell and there was mass exodus of players and if you think there are actually people on all those servers in TF2 then boy are you on something because a lot of them are dominated by fake player counts and bots. The ironic part of all of this is that Valve still seem to think they’re actually doing a good job still which I guess is perpertrated by their zealot fanbase congratulating them on every stupid decision they make.

    Developers cannot and never will be able to balance an RPG system for multiplayer and that is because it is purely designed to give an unfair advantage to the players who have stayed on the game the longest. Average and new players do not like that, not because they are noobs ( As I am sure some will immediately think to themselves ) but because you are giving older players an artificial advantage over them which is the equivalent of cheating. Sure, you may have to wait a couple more hours before everyone else to get this cheat but it is still a cheat and will basically make the whole fighting system that you have worked on for so many years go to complete waste.

    Finally I will leave you with this piece of advice, if you intend on going ahead with this stupid and tried idea of progression and customization. Then make it so that the only gains you can acquire are purely aesthetic. Let people have the damn weapons they want let people use everything that they have so that there is an equal and fair gameplay. The game you made before was absolutely fun and I loved playing it until everyone and their mums used the man-at-arms sprint exploit and completely took the fun out of everything and I imagine that’s why there were bugger all players after awhile.

    Also for those who just understood nothing of what I’m talking about, this is what an average RPG system looks like and what Age of Chivalry will look like if it gets turned into an RPG. Replace the icons with swords and maces etc. and you’ll basically end up with something like that, most RPG systems are exactly like rock/paper/scissors games and you always have to make sure you have rock to beat scissors or paper to beat rock in order to win. In a game that doesn’t use this system you of course don’t have to deal with that.

    http://wetflannels.files.wordpress.com/ … issors.jpg

    Makes sense doesn’t it? ( Sarcasm by the way ) Developers will never be able to balance this kind of system, not only because it is just too complex for them to handle but because it is fundamentally imbalanced in the first place.



  • This totally deserved its own thread. I’m so glad loire had the courage to post this.



  • I’ve complained numerous times about them putting ranks and unlockables in various threads that provided the opportunity, I am against these stuff too… I dont care about the ranks because it’s just for the looks and epeen purposes, but unlockables will surely be a pain in the ass… I remember someone asked if there is going to be a fast firing crossbow in this game and a developer told him they might put it as an unlockable. Now imagine, someone plays this game a lot, unlocks that crossbow, and all the other people that have the normal one will complain and some will also call him a hacker :P



  • I was being sarcastic I remember a dev saying it would be purely fluff or rather offer a different playstyle but would not be necessary to be good at the game which I think would be fantastic and is needed in this sort of game.
    Forgive me for this rather poor and hastily put together analogy consider the man at arms who was able to bunny hop. (Wae/Me/booga and others)
    We would do this as the man at arms to jump over an opponents poorly aimed slash and confused him before poking him with are sword. Now this tactic was not exclusive to us and with a small amount of practice and time anyone could adopt this style of play. In itself it was not an overpowered technique anyone could do it was more for show than use a good man at arms need not bother to bunny hop they could save that tiny bit more stamina and block or attack more however it was different to the norm. You can apply this to any class and any style of play using the 2hand instead of sword and shield or the 1 hand instead of sword shield etc etc.
    Consider the current strat people use with the Crusader Gospodin and Satan being very good examples using the limitations of the toe to toe system and who use the reach and speed of the weapons to dispatch foes however this does not mean that there way to play is the only way to play. A crusader using the shield can be just as difficult to defeat and can get just a good a k/d ratio. I say have trust in the players not everyone will go for what are considered to be the “Best or the most powerful weapons” and they will develope ways of playing and using any weapon to achieve that goal just give them more options.

    As long as these unlocks are not impossibly difficult to unlock (by that I mean there is not a massive gap between those with and those without) and do not give to great an advantage over the vanilla equipment I am all for it. I do feel that these types of features need to be in online multiplayers there should be a reward for the long term hardcore player however this should not give them a massive advantage over the casual gamer. They still have one of course purely to the amount they play and you would not impose a maximum playing time restriction to stop them being too good.



  • ‘Reward’ lol. If you want rewards for long term players then give them hats.

    I’m warning you now so I don’t waste my time when the patches are already swarming in, you cannot balance this system for multiplayer. It doesn’t matter what you think it should be used for, fact is, this system simply doesn’t work when players are up against other players, it isn’t fair to reward players with cheats just because they have played slightly longer.



  • Nothing gives more joy than beating some other at teh same or at unfair(towards you) odds.

    Now, having an advantage is boring and dull.



  • Weren’t the possible upgrades supposed to be purely cosmetic?

    Anyways, I agree completely with the disadvantage, and advantages. No fun in beating an opponent without a challenge.



  • Pair of you are totally missing what am saying and come on slash with the length you have played this game killing pretty much anyone with a vanilla weapon can be just as boring. It can be managed loire and I think your over reacting when your saying cheats the changes and alternate weapons we are talking are nowhere near that I think your confused with MMORPG’S.

    If you have played any of the most recent online cod games or even Bad Company 2 the starter weapons are equally as good as the later unlocks. In the highest caliber of gameplay you so people excelling at any type of weapon the difference is CHOICE and USE ( I have capitalised and emboldened the important words.)

    CHOICE-
    It rewards long term players with different visual skins and alternate ways of playing allowing them to display visibly that they have played however long or are however good with that class etc etc.

    USE-
    Choosing how you wish to play the game via alternate weapons, whether you prefer the speed and damage of the sword for stabing but which is not as good for slashing, or if you prefer the broader sword better for slashing and parrying. You could also choose to use the mace instead of a comparably similar speed and damage but for alternative attack, parry, and defensive stats animations and effects.

    These changes are not game breaking i wonder at all if you have ever played age of chivalry for you to even consider this so negatively the age of chivalry devs wouldn’t let this happen or the player base wouldnt support it. The line you currently take makes me think that you wish for there only to be one class and one weapon type and for everyone to use it. Which just incase you where wondering would go against every other version of age of chivalry.



  • MMORPG and RPG systems are exactly the same, the only difference is that MMORPGs are a much longer time frame in terms of how long it takes to get items and the like than the smaller games.

    Yet again, I’ll just repeat myself, you cannot balance this system for multiplayer.



  • Funny how cba is neither a RPG or a MMORPG. Your not getting glaxors instant kill hammer if you play for 100 hours neither will a vanilla hammer be so bad that any alternate will be massively over powered. You can balance this system lots of games have cod2 Bad company 2 are two of the most recent mmofps to have done so. It can be done obviously seems like your stuck in your way and unable to consider the arguments for implementation of this feature. So I ask for now that your opinion of “It cant work, it wont work, it will fail” view is clear you refrain from posting more of the same.

    For other readers I implore you to read my early posts and add to the debate.



  • Yes, it isn’t an RPG or MMORPG for now, but the moment they add in unlockable weapons that can do 100 points of damage it will be.

    Oh and that’s just ridiculous, you picked two of the most imbalanced FPS’ in all history to try and make it seem like this kind of system is balanced? Don’t make me laugh! In modern warfare 2 ( Not to be confused with call of duty 2 sorry but I think you need to get your gaming history read up ) you have ridiculous situations where a player with enough kill streaks can brink airstrikes and helicopters into the game and tear up the entire server and even though I haven’t played modern warfare 2 you get a bloody nuke if you survive long enough. That alone will make me avoid the game completely.

    As for bad company 2 same bullshit, different skin, I can’t believe you actually think stuff like this is balanced. It doesn’t matter how you spin it but the guy with the biggest or most accurate gun is always going to win in these types of games. In Bad Company 2 realistically all I need to do is pick up a tank and that means automatic win for me. Sure, you’ve got claymore and missiles in this time but the reality is all the player with the tank needs to do is show half a brain and keep an eye out for enemies and they can dominate the majority of the time. Then you also have the helicopters as well, I remember on Battlefield 2 how jets and helicopters completely slaughtered everything because the developers not only didn’t think about them carefully enough but they were pretty much the cheats I was talking about earlier in regards to RPGs. The only difference was it was down to who gets to them first rather than how long they’d been playing which causes just as much chaos and imbalance in a game.



  • Again and again you make these comments and all I think is wow who does this guys play with.
    The arguments I have made I have talked about choice and use of weapons as opposed to high level play. Players of a moderate to high skill level who understand the basic of a game and who can work as individuals or a team who use the vast array of weapons and vehicles and to the best of the teams ability.

    Apologies that when I said recent games such as cod2 I used the incorrect acronym, I should of said either MW2 or Call of duty modern warfare 2 but I believed as a somewhat informed adult you would have came to the correct conclusion which of course you did. (good job).

    So lets quickly go over what you dont like about “these worst fps games ever” so we can move on to CBA as I keep trying to.
    MW2 range of weapons unlockable as you progress in ranks by consistently playing well or bad for a short or long amount of time.
    I see you mentioned the k/d rewards in mw2 being overpowered and will admit that (here comes the important part) IF in a high skill level game of s&d or team death match you can get the 25 kills in a row for a nuke, or 8 kills for the stealth missile or attack helicopter WITHOUT DYING and if not ONE PLAYER on the other team has the foresight to use his rpg to shoot down said overpowered bird of win (helicopter) than yes it is overpowered.
    You also seem to harbour the assumption that the latest unlocks in terms of weapons are the best but this clearly is not the case if you have played the game they merely offer players options of CHOICE and USE.
    Ill cover both games seeing how you mention them being terrible and I wish not to ignore your points.

    BC2 Similar to mw2 allows unlockable weapons and items based on how long you play at a skill level, if you play great in a short period of time you will unlock more than say a bad player who will take a longer to get the same unlocks.
    Best accuracy wins well you would think so but thats not always the case if you consider the sniper, m24 sniper rifle bolt action etc etc, decent damage good range great accuracy its counter that is available later in the unlocks is a Highly powerful rifle with extremely damaging power but with a poor accuracy at great range. These rifle while both preforming the same task (point click kill) do so to varying degrees and can be used by SKILLED players equally well. Each weapon in the game has a counter, identifying and adapting to the situation as dictated is part of the skill required. THIS ISNT LEGO
    Quickly you also mention about the overpowered tanks helicopters etc etc, ignoring the possibility to blow them up via, grenades, rpgs, homing missiles, anti artillery, mortar strikes, claymores and c4 you also have your own tanks and helicopters. Not sure on its bearing on CBA but ive addressed it so lets move on to CBA.

    In Chivalry Battle for Agatha the unlockables in terms of weapons COULD (conjecture) have different stats offering for again USE and CHOICE differentation depending on how the person likes to play the game. This is already in the game in terms of the CLASSES HAVING DIFFERENT STATS AND EQUIPMENT AS IS. Its already in the game all am asking is for this to further be implemented among the classes to offer a high degree of specialisation allowing the user to exercise a greater depth of regard in terms of CHOICE and USE of weapon. This need not be imbalanced if implemented correctly widely tested and discussed amongst the community.

    (Disclaimer please refrain from posting if you lack the mental robustness to consider another persons point of view without becoming upset)



  • Loire, are you blind? Sir Doyle already replied clearly to your fear, it will be only unlockable cosmetics and unlockable weapons allowing differents ways of playing but it will not affect in anyway the balance of the game. Stop being so stubborn and open your eyes, you should consider yourself lucky that we take the time to answer your question with the disrespectful way you are behaving… :|



  • if you are going to implement more weapons in a game then they must be properly tested, balanced according to the strengths and weaknesses of the original weapons and immediately distributed to everyone. You also shouldn’t do the asshole thing of making new maps or extra content in the form of weapons and then forcing players to pay for it if it is in the exact same game. Aliens vs Predator 3 did this and it pretty much ended up segregating the community at first but surprisingly the majority just simply didn’t buy it, partially because Rebellion had done such a crappy job of the supporting the game anyway.

    Enough with the RPG crap, no, you cannot force players to accept a system like this, the player base will simply drop like a rock in numbers and yet again as I have seen again and again you will have servers that are nothing more than a ghost town and another game that started out great goes into the rapidly filling pit of failure that is becoming known in the games industry. No matter how you try to spin this doyle no matter what you claim even adding something simple like matyrdom is completely game breaking if you don’t let people have it freedly without having to play the game for a certain number of hours or making sure it is properly balanced.

    As for the helicopters in Modern Warfare 1 - 2 you’ll actually find that you have to already have the RPG in order to use it so that’s one extra death you’ve got added which is why most people just hide. You even kept saying yourself, it’s all about options of choice and use. If you force players to use one particular item in the game because another overpowers everything then all you do is limit that and you are basically ruining the experience for everyone else which is why they all eventually quit these games when something better comes along.

    unlockable weapons allowing differents ways of playing but it will not affect in anyway the balance of the game.

    Unlockable weapons are easily going to effect the balance of the game, please don’t patronize me if you want me to reply to you in a polite manner then :) There is no such thing as an unlockable weapon that doesn’t effect the balance of the game unless it is purely cosmetic but even then I’m rightly suspicious. Merely due to the fact that you say that it will allow “different ways of playing” if it didn’t effect the balance then how come it changes the way you play the game?



  • @loire:

    if you are going to implement more weapons in a game then they must be properly tested, balanced according to the strengths and weaknesses of the original weapons and immediately distributed to everyone. You also shouldn’t do the asshole thing of making new maps or extra content in the form of weapons and then forcing players to pay for it if it is in the exact same game. Aliens vs Predator 3 did this and it pretty much ended up segregating the community at first but surprisingly the majority just simply didn’t buy it, partially because Rebellion had done such a crappy job of the supporting the game anyway.

    Enough with the RPG crap, no, you cannot force players to accept a system like this, the player base will simply drop like a rock in numbers and yet again as I have seen again and again you will have servers that are nothing more than a ghost town and another game that started out great goes into the rapidly filling pit of failure that is becoming known in the games industry. No matter how you try to spin this doyle no matter what you claim even adding something simple like matyrdom is completely game breaking if you don’t let people have it.

    As for the helicopters in Modern Warfare 1 - 2 you’ll actually find that you have to already have the RPG in order to use it so that’s one extra death you’ve got added which is why most people just hide. You even kept saying yourself, it’s all about options of choice and use. If you force players to use one particular item in the game because another overpowers everything then all you do is limit that and you are basically runining the experience for everyone else which is why they all eventually quit these games when something better comes along.

    unlockable weapons allowing differents ways of playing but it will not affect in anyway the balance of the game.

    Unlockable weapons are easily going to effect the balance of the game, please don’t patronize me if you want me to reply to you in a polite manner then :) There is no such thing as an unlockable weapon that doesn’t effect the balance of the game unless it is purely cosmetic but even then I’m rightly suspicious.

    I don’t recognise that quote but ill allow it as if you read fully my posts you see what I am saying is completely different to that. Of course it will affect the balance of the game but you wrongly assume that it will completely ruin the game, If I choose a broad sword that 5% more damage with the stab and 10% less damage from a slash all of a sudden the game is broken. That 5% extra damage has completely screwed over the heavy knight who I still have to stab 2 in the face to kill, even though his bog standard Hammer or Axe can kill me in one blow for two of his attacks. It will also mean that I have a completely unfair advantage over the other men at arms as now i’ve compromised my ability to hit a moving target via the easiest attack the slash and have to rely on the harder to land attack the stab. This choice and use of the sword has screwed the guardsmen, yes he still has twice my range, yes he can still one hit kill me at twice my range, yes he still parry my attacks but if i can dodge his one hit kill attacks, correctly time my ripostes to hit him before or after his parry twice he is dead (he would be dead with my vanilla weapon in two hits but thats beside the point)

    A game shouldn’t be tailored for an audience who are too stubborn to adapt to different styles of play or develop counters to other players its a ridiculous concept. If what you suggest was true then we would not have the current varied classes and weapons.

    To the point I never asked for implementation without extensive testing and varied discussion go back look and see.



  • In case you didn’t notice while it was about as balanced as you can get with such a system the Age of Chivalry system when using the source engine of damage points there were still moments when players were at times even extremely bluntly complaining about incidents such as with the Crusader where the crusader with it’s two handed sword could swing as fast as a one handed sword but do as much damage as a halberd. This falls back to my point that this kind of system simply cannot be balanced. Look at reality, in reality the fact is that most human being can only take one or two well placed hits to the body, particularly with a weapon. That can even turn into merely one hit depending on where you hit because you can of course hit places in the nervous system and at points in the neck etc.

    This is why humanity has come up with a myriad of ways even when using only fists to counter attacks to their bodies. In real life you don’t have weapons dictating how much damage is done to your body and it is pretty much the perfect way of getting balanced gameplay in a game. Just try and play a pure RPG game, you’ll realize how ridiculous it is standing there while doing 10 points of damage to a creature that has 10000 health. If you’re going to dictate how much damage is done to each person then that must be placed on the players rather than the weaponry, the weaponry in a game should usually be just for show though as long as it all does the exact same damage you can of course have different speeds and styles when fighting like in real life. You do not however change it so that the weapons do 1000 points of damage to an enemy and completely destroy any balance there is.

    We simply do not have the technology or code to put something proper in where you have players getting shot in the leg and limping or getting wounded in their arm and unable to use it so having something like this is the best option for balancing a game correctly for multiplayer.

    Learn to debate :P this is varied discussion, might as well do it now while they’re developing the game. I have nothing against RPGs for singleplayer games but I know for a fact they simply do not work in multiplayer PVP just from the experience of playing them for years.



  • Chivalry is not aiming to be an RPG in respect to weapon effectiveness and time played. The best example of the unlock system is comparable to that of Bad Company 2; all weapons will have their own advantages and disadvantages in a number of areas, but ultimately, regardless of the weapon you choose, no one particular set up will be dominant over another set up. It will be entirely up to the player what weapon they choose that favours their preferred play style, and not whether a weapon is deemed ‘overpowered’ compared to another. Essentially, the more time you play as a particular class - the more weapon variations we give you to play the game with for that one class, thus wetting your appetite every now and then. Unlocks will not be more effective, they will simply be different - sacrificing one particular aspect of any of the previous weapons for another, often based on the physical weapon itself and any limitations it would have. You may find one unlock does not favour your play style, and you may find others suit it more, but the last unlock in no way suggests it is better than your first given weapon or your first set of unlocks; you may even prefer your first weapon over all the unlocks for that class - who knows?

    There are no ‘perks’ which you speak of, planned for Chivalry: Battle for Agatha. Traits, which you see in the concept art are purely aesthetic and will simply be viewable to you and others in your player profile, which aims to suggest your particular play style.



  • But the whole unlock system in Bad Company 2 is an RPG! There is no way you guys can guarantee me that this game will be balanced now simply from telling me that you have to unlock it in the first place is pretty much guaranteeing a lost player by itself.

    sacrificing one particular aspect of any of the previous weapons for another, often based on the physical weapon itself and any limitations it would have

    You’re just wording exactly what I said in a different manner, it doesn’t matter how you put it. The moment you start tweaking with weapons like that is where the balance will just fail entirely for multiplayer. That is because you cannot balance this kind of system as I stated in my original post and make it equal for all players. If you want to have unlocks that are purely cosmetic then by all means, throw them around, give people trophies based on unlockable achievements to make people get a false sense of accomplishment for how long they’ve played. However don’t go telling me that you can balance a system where players are going to get unlockable weapons with different artificial damage statistics because I’ll know you’re lying to me.



  • @loire:

    Learn to debate :P this is varied discussion, might as well do it now while they’re developing the game. I have nothing against RPGs for singleplayer games but I know for a fact they simply do not work in multiplayer PVP just from the experience of playing them for years.

    I can debate your just not keeping up with me and why we have bumped heads mainly because you believe this game to be a rpg it isnt a RPG and you seem to not know that the Devs are aiming for Hollywood realism not actual realism.
    Blaines post is a fantastic clarification of everything I have been trying to get across to you in order for us to begin a debate ( I would not clarify it a debate if the other party involved is unable to grasp the principle being discussed.)

    Now that we have clarified that CBA is not a MMORPG which I mentioned no less than 4 times lets move on to the discussion of the varied weapons each class could have, what effect they may have in terms of gameplay.

    To summarise CBA is not a rpg, it will not become a rpg adding unlockable weapons to the game does not make it a rpg just like mw2 and bc2 are not rpg’s.

    So in terms of unlockables to start this discussion lets look at these areas as a basis and add any as they occur to you.

    Should the unlockables be merely fluff offering only a different visual style.

    Should the unlockables merely tweak a class i.e. should it merely offer a plus or a minus to certain stats depending on the purpose of the unlockable.

    Should the unlockable alter the style of play of that class and to what degree should this occur.

    At this stage I realise at this stage the developers will have very certain ideas in mind as to what unlockables to implement and what those will be and how they will affect gameplay. Nevertheless this will allow the devs to see what the community thinks.

    In regards to your latest post right now as the game stands there are 9 different classes each with there own weapon sets each with different stat’s and the game has a balance. As you so clearly seem to be you will know that balance is an ongoing process which is exactly why the game is tweaked. From all that I have read from you at the moment I would not be sorry to see you not play the game if this is your attitude. Your clearly unable to discuss this with your stance of if you don’t agree with me your wrong doubt that you have ever played any of the previous versions.

    Quite frankly your assertion that this game will fail because it goes against your preconceived notions I find highly arrogant.



  • I don’t say this game will fail because of my own opinions, I say it will fail because the developers are using a system that has been designed for singleplayer and co-operative gaming and has failed every time developers have tried to use it for their own ends in player vs player gaming. That’s not being arrogant, that’s called being keenly observant of history, though this isn’t the first time I’ve been called arrogant and even then I just laughed as the games I called out on being failures ended up failing anyway because of the mistakes I’ve pointed out before.

    Also Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2 are actually FPS/RPGs they are not FPS’. If they were an FPS then it would be more along the lines of Half Life 2 and even then it could be argued that the source engine uses a similar system to RPGs because even on CSS I can still find myself shooting an another player in the head and having him turn round and kill me.

    I have played this game, I played it back in late CR1 and my username is Lethn, for some reason the wonderful Windows LIVE DRM went and buggered up hotmail somehow and I’m too lazy to go dig out my account for now.


Log in to reply