Kills are too important.



  • I think one element of the game that keeps it from functioning as fluidly as it could is how important kills are. Games often make the mistake of kills being the best way to track progress. You level based on kills etc. In this game you are ranked, by default in a match, by how many kills you have (or our entire KD ratio. Either way…). Weapon unlocks are determined by kills. Kills kills kills.

    I think the game would function a lot better if there was a way to better track and reward performance. Perhaps through objective completion. Even assists or whatnot could play a role. As it is, when people talk about balance it’s mostly based on KILLS. It’s not based on how their role contributes to the various modes. It makes it hard to truly assign support status to a class/weapon combination because if people can’t get kills they feel “underpowered” even if their class has a tremendous ability to contribute to team functionality (archers) if that class cant get KILLS then people feel they need some sort of buff. A lot of people complaining about the new kick-2-shield stun because it opens them up and doesn’t allow them to stand behind their shield as easily. I wonder if they are considering the entire picture or just “in a fight it is easier to get around my shield.”

    Do people even consider other factors outside effectiveness at killing or being in a position to do so in balance discussions? Having a shield raised up before patch allowed me to, if I played super defensively, keep objectives from getting captured, pushing carts or stalling a bad encounter in order to wait for backup to arrive. Something a Man-At-Arms can’t do in ANY way. Are these things considered? I doubt it. Because people’s attentions keep getting redirected toward kill counts.

    There’s got to be a way for people to better realize what their class brings to the table truly and overall since kills are only a PART of the game. This would open up so much more in the way of balancing philosophy without everyone thinking that their entire purpose is to get all the kills.



  • When I play TO I focus on the objectives, I rarely go for the highest kill count.

    I play to help my team win and I could care less about my current rank ( which is 23 ).

    Personally I would not want my rank increased due to contributing to objectives.



  • This is just my opinion, though I think most of the development team would agree with me - the main objective in Chivalry is killing the enemy team. Many things are put in place specifically to force players to fight, such as the fact that you can’t push/capture an objective if there are enemies near it, and the chase mechanic meaning you can’t rush an objective as a faster class without someone being able to catch you, as well as the forward speeds of each class being very similar in general. And of course, the highly visceral deaths making every kill rewarding. I think that’s the main thing that encourages people to go for kills, not any kind of point or rank thing - most people don’t even know how ranks work and are surprised to learn objectives don’t rank you up.

    Team Objective is called Team Objective for a reason - generally speaking you can only win if your team triumphs in battle over the enemy team, not because one guy was very sneaky all game. The objectives give you something to fight over, something to plan around, and an ultimate goal - but you get there by wading through a field littered with your enemies’ corpses.

    Also, ranks based on points instead of kills would make ranking up in Team Objective far faster than ranking up in any other game mode, especially Last Team Standing, so it would no longer serve as a good indicator of how experienced a player is, rather what game mode they prefer to play.



  • I find the K/D ratio not at all meaningfull. I would rather see a block accuracy and a damage taken/ damage dealt ratio. I often hit people to stop them from attacking so the other team member can finish them off. Archers often hit a target once but dont finish it off so they have a bad k/d ratio but still deal some decent damage. Thats why I think damage dealt vs damage taken is a much better indicator.



  • Gotta agree with the original poster here. This is an endemic problem with most games. More games need to track “damage” and other measures of usefulness rather than how many last-hits a person has gotten.

    Hiding K:D for all but yourself and only showing score is a great way to do it. SlyGoat has a point; killing is why we’re here, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t encourage teamplay over kills.

    Sure, bragging about how awesome my kdr is can be entertaining, but I’d gladly give that up if it meant other people would be less apt to condescend about theirs.



  • I didn’t read the entire OP, but I definitely agree that kills are too important. I and many others discussed this in depth when the game first came out and there doesn’t seem to have been anything done to change this. In TO I constantly see people playing TDM rather than playing the objective, and people care far more about getting uber epix killz than they do actually winning, which is what TO is supposed to be about. It needs to better reward teamwork and playing the objective both. In an objective based game, kills should be a very small amount of your points.

    If you want to focus on kills as a roamer or something to just lower the amount of enemies defending/attacking in general, this can be useful if you get a bunch of kills, but someone getting tons of kills in TO should equal to about the same points as someone who is playing the objective and using teamwork.



  • Completely agree.
    Players will rush in swinging and not worry about hitting teamates because they want tge kill.
    Ive seen games where players completely ignore the objective just to get kills.
    I play a knight. And i will stand in front of archers while they fire on the enemy just to protect them while they get the kills.
    Nobody uses formation tactics. Everyone goes rambo to level up weapons.
    Which is funny because many of the best weapons are the starter weapons.

    I think if Winning and staying alive granted points you would have a much more strategic and maybe realistic game.



  • It would be nice if the scoreboard was expanded a bit to give some more credit where it’s due rather than who can last hit the most. Have it show everyone each player’s assists & total damage given to enemy team.
    The last part would especially be interesting in FFA.

    Perhaps point score should be separated between objectives and kills/assists?



  • The issue is that if I’m going for unlocks or I want to “top the charts” then playing with no regard to hitting team mates or being a detriment to the team is the best way to go. Forget teammates and objectives, I need that sweet sweet kill.

    And if the game is going badly? I’ll just leave.

    There’s really not much incentive to play well. Some say kills is the point but it’s entirely possible to get kills by playing poorly (hitting teammates, focusing on last hits).

    Cosmetic unlocks or something for all sorts of accomplishments would go far as would killing the entire counter-intuitive weapon unlocking system.



  • Now for my 2 cents.

    IMO the importance of kills is what this game is all about, it is the core of the game no doubt.

    TO, and TS games are not about objectives themselves but the players working together to achieve those objectives. To sly’s point on the sneaky player, I think that CAN be a valid example of good team play. The team engages the defending players, pulling them away from the objective, allowing another player to slip in un-noticed to complete it.

    I have seen many a TO/TS game go south because getting the kill is the primary object of each player on the team. That is a play style failure for sure, as these players will usually have a high TK/Team Daamge ratio as they are more concerned with getting the kill for themselvs, than helping the team get the kill. For all practical purposes they are playing for the other team.

    In a TO/TS match the only way to KS IMO, is if you had to go through a teammate to get it.



  • I like ending people’s lives. It wouldn’t matter to me what the primary goal of the match was, I’d still try to kill as many people as I could.



  • This game badly needs an assist counter so people still get rewarded even if they get kill-stolen.



  • K/Dr is the worst thing that ever happened to objective-based games.
    People are foolish enough to think anyone gives a shit about their KD, so the objective becomes a secondary priority.
    Especially in chivalry, all they do is running around, trying to find an injured enemy to finish off, regardless of if they’re going to hit the ally in the process (the very same who did all the job injuring the enemy)



  • @The:

    K/Dr is the worst thing that ever happened to objective-based games.
    People are foolish enough to think anyone gives a shit about their KD, so the objective becomes a secondary priority.
    Especially in chivalry, all they do is running around, trying to find an injured enemy to finish off, regardless of if they’re going to hit the ally in the process (the very same who did all the job injuring the enemy)

    This…

    What brought me to this game and AOC was not the killing. I can get kills in any game. What brought me in was the idea of effective TEAM combat in overcoming goals, that of a combat chess match. In AOC, some of the best maps were those that force team strategies with stacked multilevel objectives and secondary objectives. If you failed to control your own catapults, you should suffer the consequences of getting your spawn catapulted. But instead the Devs went with the KILL KILL KILL mentality and nerfed the complexity of the maps in favor of KILLs. this seems to be true of Chivalry as well. Simplified TO maps so players can get kills… Dumbing it down for the masses. LTS, TDM, Duel, FFA and even Kind of the Hill = dumbing it down. Thank goodness there are TO and CTF maps that require more than just spamming the LMB.



  • @Wangmaster:

    This game badly needs an assist counter so people still get rewarded even if they get kill-stolen.

    Even with this, assists seem really odd in their timing. It’s like you need to do a ridiculous portion of their damage right before they die. A couple sling bullets is generally not enough to gain an assist (but sometimes it is).

    I suspect this would be made obvious if assists was added to the board.



  • @NikolaiLev:

    @Wangmaster:

    This game badly needs an assist counter so people still get rewarded even if they get kill-stolen.

    Even with this, assists seem really odd in their timing. It’s like you need to do a ridiculous portion of their damage right before they die. A couple sling bullets is generally not enough to gain an assist (but sometimes it is).

    I suspect this would be made obvious if assists was added to the board.

    I agree that the way assists is calculated seems weird. Sometimes I have done a lot more damage than I have taken, but I have a low kill count and virtually no assists. Other times I have a high amount of assists. It seems to be a bit better post patch though.

    I agree that there needs to be some incentive not to just run around spamming combos but to actually play tactically.



  • @Retsnom:

    @The:

    K/Dr is the worst thing that ever happened to objective-based games.
    People are foolish enough to think anyone gives a shit about their KD, so the objective becomes a secondary priority.
    Especially in chivalry, all they do is running around, trying to find an injured enemy to finish off, regardless of if they’re going to hit the ally in the process (the very same who did all the job injuring the enemy)

    This…

    What brought me to this game and AOC was not the killing. I can get kills in any game. What brought me in was the idea of effective TEAM combat in overcoming goals, that of a combat chess match. In AOC, some of the best maps were those that force team strategies with stacked multilevel objectives and secondary objectives. If you failed to control your own catapults, you should suffer the consequences of getting your spawn catapulted. But instead the Devs went with the KILL KILL KILL mentality and nerfed the complexity of the maps in favor of KILLs. this seems to be true of Chivalry as well. Simplified TO maps so players can get kills… Dumbing it down for the masses. LTS, TDM, Duel, FFA and even Kind of the Hill = dumbing it down. Thank goodness there are TO and CTF maps that require more than just spamming the LMB.

    I agree with all except your inclusion of LTS as dumbing it down.
    I think LTS puts more emphasis on staying alive, and can lead to more teamwork.
    Now I agree that many games I’ve played didnt work out that way. Many times people run off on their own into a crowd of 5 or 6 enemy units. And then the enmy picks us off 1 at a time.
    But I’ve played on Clan servers where they know how to stick together. That is fun.

    Lets be honest, in a real battle, the object isn’t to kill a bunch of bad guys. Its about being the last ones standing on the battle field. You want as many of your soldiers as possible to live.



  • Please read this as an alternative to the focus on kills:
    viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10508



  • In TO I usually spur the team to fight near the objetives (if you are an archer, go camp near the cart to push instead of in the middle of nowhere!) and most of the times players listen (“a rank 32 is speaking, so better listen to him!” usual thought I feel when trying to give my team some tactic).
    I fight near the objectives myself too, satisfying my blood thirst while completing whatever is needed to do.



  • I agree on the point that LTS promotes teamwork. It’s very different from the resources based team DM as people play more cautiously and communication and coordination to SOME degree is possible.

    I just hate seeing this MMO mentality spreading across gaming where you hop on a game like Chivalry and bam, here are your grinding requirements to get access to more of the game. And not just game elements like cosmetics but core game elements like things you’ll need to be effective. Often resulting in you doing things you don’t like doing (I STILL haven’t unlocked some weapons) and playing in ways that aren’t as effective.

    “Keep people playing somehow, even if it means putting artificial barriers on their fun for the sake of tricking them into playing longer than they would have otherwise with no concern for whether any additional fun is being provided” has somehow become an issue that we gamers who are paying are expected to take responsibility for. I am not against paying off certain efforts so people get that sense of satisfaction. But I don’t want to have to do some mundane task that doesn’t really pay itself off in increased enjoyment just because the developer wants to get me to play longer with no concern for making a more engaging experience.

    And in most cases, kills are the thing. “Get the kills.” Stifle players effectiveness in competitive and or team based games so we can rope them in with their desire to get on even footing with their opponents. That’s a terrible way to drive up play time.

    There’s got to a good way to reinforce good play and pay things off for people outside of “kill X people to unlock X weapon simply so you have something to grind because gamers are idiots.”


Log in to reply