Question about class restricted weapons.



  • I guess I can’t seem to figure this out from any of the videos or other topics, so if I can, I want to pose a short question.

    What weapons will be restricted to what classes, if at all? Are there certain weapons only a particular class can wield? Or can anyone equip any weapon?

    I hope for the latter, because that could make some interesting combinations, like fast guys with heavy weaponry or tough guys with quick attacks.



  • Weapons will be class restricted. It may sound interesting to have every class able to use every weapon, but it would have serious balance implications. Classes would have to be rebalanced and end up less unique because their strengths aren’t balanced out by their available weapons.

    Put simply: the man-at-arms is extremely mobile but only uses short ranged weapons. If he could poke you with a spear all day while dodging backwards, no other class could kill him let alone touch him, and the game would be awful :D



  • Yeah. That makes sense. Ok then.



  • @SlyGoat:

    Weapons will be class restricted. It may sound interesting to have every class able to use every weapon, but it would have serious balance implications. Classes would have to be rebalanced and end up less unique because their strengths aren’t balanced out by their available weapons.

    Put simply: the man-at-arms is extremely mobile but only uses short ranged weapons. If he could poke you with a spear all day while dodging backwards, no other class could kill him let alone touch him, and the game would be awful :D

    Archers could kill him, and the plate armour could be more powerful. Sure speed and poking would be OP in duel situations, but when shit gets gritty and chaotic it is nice to have that plate armor. But well, wtf do I know, I haven’t played the game.



  • @Fuhrerjehova:

    Archers could kill him, and the plate armour could be more powerful. Sure speed and poking would be OP in duel situations, but when shit gets gritty and chaotic it is nice to have that plate armor. But well, wtf do I know, I haven’t played the game.

    The idea behind Chivalry is that you should be capable of beating any other player if you are more skilled. Some classes/weapon combo’s might have a natural advantage over others, but that is not intentional and you can always overcome it. The game will (and should) never use a rock-paper-scissors approach to balancing: every weapon should be viable in any situation, if the wielder is skilled enough.



  • @TheNarrator:

    @Fuhrerjehova:

    Archers could kill him, and the plate armour could be more powerful. Sure speed and poking would be OP in duel situations, but when shit gets gritty and chaotic it is nice to have that plate armor. But well, wtf do I know, I haven’t played the game.

    The idea behind Chivalry is that you should be capable of beating any other player if you are more skilled. Some classes/weapon combo’s might have a natural advantage over others, but that is not intentional and you can always overcome it. The game will (and should) never use a rock-paper-scissors approach to balancing: every weapon should be viable in any situation, if the wielder is skilled enough.

    Not every weapon is made to be efficient against everything. Even the devs said in one of the videos that “this guy is trying to counter me”, and did so by changing class and/or weapon. Some arrows are more efficent vs heavy armor then light armor, the same goes for melee weapon, so that is kind of (but not fully) rock-paper-scissors.

    I think tweaking weapons and armors is a better way to achive the whole thing. Sure, the guy have a spear and is light, so he can back off, but he shouldnt be able to walk backwards as fast as, say a person in heavy armor, can walk forward, so he would have to turn around and run, as long as the armored person pressed on.

    The reason i think you should be able to chose weapons and armor free, is that you would be able to have mor advanced team tactics, and make of for new ways to use different combinations. Would it be hard to balance? Yes. Is it impossible? No. Should they do this for release? No. Should there be a mod for this, later? Yes!



  • The problem with “Pressing on” against a guy moving back and jabbing you in the face with a spear, is that your moving forward simply makes it easier for him to jab you in the face with a spear ;)



  • @Fuhrerjehova:

    Not every weapon is made to be efficient against everything. Even the devs said in one of the videos that “this guy is trying to counter me”, and did so by changing class and/or weapon. Some arrows are more efficent vs heavy armor then light armor, the same goes for melee weapon, so that is kind of (but not fully) rock-paper-scissors.

    Alright, you’ve got me there :). To be honest, I very much dislike the fact that you’ve got arrows that are good against knights and others that are good against men-at-arms, and I don’t understand why that’s in the game.



  • I feel the same way. It feels like just filler to give archers more weapon customization to me. Would be better IMO if they got more creative with it - like giving the option to take a limited number of fire arrows or heavier arrows that deal more damage but have significantly shorter range, etc. rather than just passively being better against X class or better against Y class.

    Either way - any class can still kill any other class, but some weapons are obviously better in some situations, and some players will be much better than others in the same combat situation because of the way they play. For example, as a Man-at-Arms I find getting in close and just trying to avoid stabs and keep hitting far more effective against a polearm user than waiting to block and try to counter, because the heavyness of a polearm will knock you backwards when you block it which means you will struggle to close the distance afterwards. I’m not a block-and-counter style player, so I find it a lot easier to fight against polearms than I do against two-handed swords when I face a vanguard, because they’re easier to block-and-counter and more difficult to dodge.



  • What? I thought the different arrows thing was kind of unique. :(



  • @Blindga:

    What? I thought the different arrows thing was kind of unique. :(

    Yeah me too



  • @SlyGoat:

    I feel the same way. It feels like just filler to give archers more weapon customization to me.

    I was actually thinking exactly that :). The different types of arrows sounded to me like customization for customization’s sake, it doesn’t feel like it fits the design philosophy at all. It’s not a game-breaker or anything, it just feels like it shouldn’t be there.

    I like the alternative you suggested btw :)

    @Blindga:

    What? I thought the different arrows thing was kind of unique. :(

    It is unique, but “unique” and “good” are not the same thing ;).

    The reason some of us have a problem with it is that, from the start, one of the strong points of this game was that it would be skill-based in every tiniest bit of its design. We’ve always been under the impression that the game will emphasize the personal aspect of combat: you only win when you are the better player. If that is the case, then every class/weapon combination should have a roughly equal chance against any other class/weapon combination (within reasonable deviation). Having equipment choices (for example broadhead arrows) that severely impair your ability against one class (knights), while increasing your chances against another (men-at-arms), seems to go against this basic principle of each individual being roughly equal to any other. Before the fight even started, the balance is already shifted in favour of one of the combatants. I cannot see that as a good thing.

    Of course, it only affects the archer, a class which already defies some of the design principles of a melee game. But even then, I would have preferred to see the archer also trying to follow this principle, or at least not taking obvious and avoidable steps away from it.

    Some may argue that focusing too much on the personal aspect of combat will hurt teamplay, that it reduces the role of tactics, but I don’t believe it does, or at least not in such a way that it hurts the game. I think the best teamplay is emergent teamplay. Rather than having a form of teamplay that’s entirely planned out by the developers (as is the case in all games that use rock-paper-scissors-balancing), there is a different form of teamplay, teamplay which emerges from a combat system that is designed primarily for individual combat. Then you get players having to find their own way of fighting together, they have to get creative and find ways to work together so that they are no longer, say, 10 players, but rather a small army greater than the sum of its parts. By overdesigning teamwork, you lose this experimentation, this freedom in finding out how to work together yourselves. Some people may prefer very tightly designed forms of teamwork, but I prefer a game that gives players the freedom of creating their own style of working together, rather than telling me that I should counter X with Y. (not talking about Chivalry anymore, btw :P just kind of in general)



  • @TheNarrator:

    The reason some of us have a problem with it is that, from the start, one of the strong points of this game was that it would be skill-based in every tiniest bit of its design. We’ve always been under the impression that the game will emphasize the personal aspect of combat: you only win when you are the better player. If that is the case, then every class/weapon combination should have a roughly equal chance against any other class/weapon combination (within reasonable deviation). Having equipment choices (for example broadhead arrows) that severely impair your ability against one class (knights), while increasing your chances against another (men-at-arms), seems to go against this basic principle of each individual being roughly equal to any other. Before the fight even started, the balance is already shifted in favour of one of the combatants. I cannot see that as a good thing.

    Of course, it only affects the archer, a class which already defies some of the design principles of a melee game. But even then, I would have preferred to see the archer also trying to follow this principle, or at least not taking obvious and avoidable steps away from it.

    Some may argue that focusing too much on the personal aspect of combat will hurt teamplay, that it reduces the role of tactics, but I don’t believe it does, or at least not in such a way that it hurts the game. I think the best teamplay is emergent teamplay. Rather than having a form of teamplay that’s entirely planned out by the developers (as is the case in all games that use rock-paper-scissors-balancing), there is a different form of teamplay, teamplay which emerges from a combat system that is designed primarily for individual combat. Then you get players having to find their own way of fighting together, they have to get creative and find ways to work together so that they are no longer, say, 10 players, but rather a small army greater than the sum of its parts. By overdesigning teamwork, you lose this experimentation, this freedom in finding out how to work together yourselves. Some people may prefer very tightly designed forms of teamwork, but I prefer a game that gives players the freedom of creating their own style of working together, rather than telling me that I should counter X with Y. (not talking about Chivalry anymore, btw :P just kind of in general)

    I don’t know. How much of a difference does it make? I think it offers some unique tactical options.

    I understand that you think varying equipment choices take away from the game’s skill requirements by having scenarios in which one opponent is better geared against another… but that’s probably better. Without that, the game would essentially play like a 2D fighter, each fight would be just one guys moves against another; pure skill. Not that pure skill games aren’t fun, because I do enjoy those as well, but other people might find these kinds of games ‘hardcore’ or even ‘flat’. Plus, given the current trend in modern gaming, the FPS tactical elements and varied equipment choices will draw in more of a crowd than anything else.

    I do agree that this probably screws teamplay like you said. I would have really like a system in which the power of a team is based on the skills of their members, not just the roles they play. but, as a casual gamer, I almost never see good coordination between random people on public games. Casual gamers like me would never be able to fully enjoy the game because we would be hobbled against well coordinated experts, and lone experts on a team of newbies would be dragged down by incompetent teammates.

    But that’s just my opinion.



  • @Blindga:

    I don’t know. How much of a difference does it make? I think it offers some unique tactical options.

    I understand that you think varying equipment choices take away from the game’s skill requirements by having scenarios in which one opponent is better geared against another… but that’s probably better. Without that, the game would essentially play like a 2D fighter, each fight would be just one guys moves against another; pure skill. Not that pure skill games aren’t fun, because I do enjoy those as well, but other people might find these kinds of games ‘hardcore’ or even ‘flat’. Plus, given the current trend in modern gaming, the FPS tactical elements and varied equipment choices will draw in more of a crowd than anything else.

    I do agree that this probably screws teamplay like you said. I would have really like a system in which the power of a team is based on the skills of their members, not just the roles they play. but, as a casual gamer, I almost never see good coordination between random people on public games. Casual gamers like me would never be able to fully enjoy the game because we would be hobbled against well coordinated experts, and lone experts on a team of newbies would be dragged down by incompetent teammates.

    But that’s just my opinion.

    Haha, I think our opinions on what this game should be are kind of incompatible :P. Nothing wrong with that, but I would in fact like to see a game that is ‘pure skill’ as you call it, or at least a game that features skill based combat prominently (I do not doubt that that will be the case with Chivalry).

    It seems to me that if a developer says the game will feature “a wide variety of tactical options”, it’s some kind of secret sign for everyone to start salivating all over the game or something, without giving one second of thought about whether the options are actually meaningful or truly add freedom. And different types of arrows is not a meaningful tactical option, because a feature like that actually limits freedom. Why? Because it makes you more dependent on teammates. Picked broadheads and facing a knight? The only thing you can do is to try to get to a friend who has bodkins or a melee weapon that can hurt knights.

    You may think that that is a good thing, but I find that people often wrongly believe that dependency is the only way to get good teamplay. It’s in part true: making you dependent on your teammates to accomplish anything meaningful is the easiest way of getting people to work together. If you can’t move on without a medic watching your back, you’ll automatically start communicating with the medics on your team, I admit that. But it is far from the best kind of teamplay. It is essentially what most class-based games do: you create X number of roles which are complementary and you very meticulously define the playstyle of each role, each of them entirely separated from the other roles. The effect of that is that you get several people playing an entirely different game. I do not call that true co-operation. You’re so focused on your role that you kind of stop caring what your friends are doing. You only notice your mates when they fuck up. All you want from them that they fill in their role adequately, how they do that stops being your concern. Contrast with that the feeling of co-operating in a game where there are no such clearly defined roles. Such as, say, Chivalry or Warband. You’re standing side by side with a mate, he’s wielding sword and shield and you are carrying a polearm. The two of you differ in fighting style, you have different strenghts and weaknesses, but you’re both directly trying to accomplish the same thing: to kill the guys coming at you. And you know that you can each fight as individuals, or you can try to complement eachother’s strengths and weaknesses to be more than just the two of you, to be a team. That’s when you start caring about what your friend is doing. That’s when you actually coordinate.

    I will admit that this doesn’t work in pub servers, but I don’t think we really need to strive for advanced teamwork in pub servers. Pub servers will be good enough when they just offer the joy of multiplayer swordfighting in a cinematic setting, something which no other game does. For advanced teamplay, there is always competitive play. I’d rather have rare but truly powerful experiences of teamplay than constant meaningless dependency on teammates.

    You may be wondering what my idea of meaningful tactical options is. It’s what’s already being done. Weapons with different fighting styles. Choosing between a mace to be a faceberserker or a polearm to stay at range and jab at people. It entirely changes the way you play while still giving you the freedom to develop your own fighting style. And the immense number of possible combinations when you start gathering an army of different people with different fighting styles and different weapons, that is meaningful tactical freedom.



  • I agree with what Narrator says.
    Not that I think complementary-class-based games are bad, far from it actually, but different classes HAVING to rely on each other to be efficient is not the real definition of teamwork.
    Teamwork is when a group of players is more efficient by paying attention to the others, helping them when they need it, being supported to avoid bad situations, try to stick to the objective, and be more efficient than a mass of fighters just running at the ennemy.
    In that, class-based games often offer an artificial sense of teamwork, just like TheNarrator said, like being the team’s medic may mean you help the team, but that’s working FOR the team, not WITH the team.



  • That all sounds extremely over exaggerated. Is it completely impossible to kill someone with a different arrow? Or is it the difference between 2-3 shots and 1-2 shots?



  • The damage difference is enough to be noticeable but obviously you can still kill anyone with any arrow type. This thread got really off-topic :P

    Anyway, my basic complaint was simply that +damage against X class or +damage against Y class doesn’t feel like the same level of loadout customization other classes get. Like choosing to take throwing weapons, a fire pot, a light shield or a heavy shield - that’s a lot of options that fit a lot of different styles.



  • @Blindga:

    That all sounds extremely over exaggerated. Is it completely impossible to kill someone with a different arrow? Or is it the difference between 2-3 shots and 1-2 shots?

    Of course it’s exaggerated, I know very well that you’ll still be able to kill a knight with broadhead arrows if you can stay out of his range long enough. It’s just that it’s easier to illustrate a contrast when you compare extremes.


Log in to reply