Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Chivalry: Medieval Warfare

DemonKing

Arcane
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
5,958
I didn't realise Freindly Fire was on in this game until I swung my bardiche enthusiastically and decapitated two of my team mates.

I quickly realised that that kind of thing was just expected given the nature of the game/weapons. Good stuff!
 

Multi-headed Cow

Guest
I didn't realise Freindly Fire was on in this game until I swung my bardiche enthusiastically and decapitated two of my team mates.

And with that, Multi-headed Cow's interest went from a flatline to a blip.
 

JrK

Prophet
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
1,764
Location
Speaking to the Sea
Oh man, you should see all the noobs teamkilling because all they can do is press LMB repeatedly. It is quite funny. I used to play Man at Arms and died more to those 'swingers' than anything else.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
28
Oh man, you should see all the noobs teamkilling because all they can do is press LMB repeatedly. It is quite funny. I used to play Man at Arms and died more to those 'swingers' than anything else.
The best part is running into a bunch of greedy polearm users from the opposing team, then suddenly turning away (bonus points if you duck instead) only to see them start swinging and killing their own team mates, coming back and finishing them off one by one.
 

Metro

Arcane
Beg Auditor
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
27,792
So, is it worth it? I expect it to be laggy as fuck due to my untermensch connection, so I probably shouldn't bother... but I've been following the team ever since I've heard of this game. Memories of MP sessions in Dark Messiah are far too good.

Never played. Not really dying to -- I figure it might hit an indie bundle eventually since they make use of the Humble Store via their web site. That deal is back on today for another ten or so hours if you're still interested.

For what it's worth the developers seem to be pretty active with patching despite the apparent poor performance. That said since I'm on a lower end machine it's probably not worth my while at the moment.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
I got linked to this by a friend who keeps going on about buying the game:



I decided to get Chivalry for now.
 

JrK

Prophet
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
1,764
Location
Speaking to the Sea
War of the Roses has bad gameplay. Chivalry has decent gameplay, but is ruined atm by animation/flinch bugs, bad polish and hacker flood.
 

Aothan

Magister
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
1,742
I wouldn't say the animation issues or the flinch bugs wholly ruin the gameplay, mostly because those issues are not so prominent in the more popular game modes. Namely team objective or ffas where the combat is often crowded and too spontaneous for said complications to undermine the enjoyable combat design. However, I do agree that in the long-term improvements are warranted. In my opinion the hit-dragging of thrust attacks is still, thankfully, largely misunderstood and as such not so blatantly exploited by the majority of players. Although I am worried about the foreboding of beta testers mentioning how much more effective feinting has become with adjustable swing directions. Whether those changes exacerbate issues with feinting as a questionable legitimate skill-based combat tactic remains to be seen, on the other hand any improvements that assist with forcing excessively defensive players to become susceptible to side or overheard attacks is a welcome addition.

the best comparison I can think of is with M&M - Dark Messiah. If you were fond of the multiplayer aspect then Chivalry makes a wonderful improvement of that particular design. As I've noted from first impressions I'm eagerly looking forward to this type of game design with fantasy elements.
 

Metro

Arcane
Beg Auditor
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
27,792
Free weekend going on now at Steam. Tried it for about an hour or so and fairly underwhelmed. It's pretty much what I thought it would be: Warband multiplayer with a bit more polish, classes, weapons, and siege. Overall, though, not worth an independent purchase, not even on sale. If you already have Warband just play the multiplayer in that. If you don't and think you might be interested in Chivalry... just buy Warband. You'll get fundamentally the same multiplayer experience plus a sandbox style single player, too.
 

Arcks

Educated
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
90
Free weekend going on now at Steam. Tried it for about an hour or so and fairly underwhelmed. It's pretty much what I thought it would be: Warband multiplayer with a bit more polish, classes, weapons, and siege. Overall, though, not worth an independent purchase, not even on sale. If you already have Warband just play the multiplayer in that. If you don't and think you might be interested in Chivalry... just buy Warband. You'll get fundamentally the same multiplayer experience plus a sandbox style single player, too.

I enjoyed Chivalrys multiplayer much, much more than warband's, so I have to disagree. Warbands combat just feels so... disconnected. Maybe because it's third-person. So I'd recommend at least giving chivalry a run.
 

Metro

Arcane
Beg Auditor
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
27,792
It's possible to play M&B in first person of course it's not terribly efficient.



Edit: Played a bit more and controls seem woefully unresponsive especially compared to M&B. Surprised they have so much trouble optimizing Unreal engine.
 

Tycn

Savant
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,852
Location
Prosper Land
I've played a fair bit of both and totally disagree with the statement that M&B and Chivalry are fundamentally the same. They're both pseudo-medieval multiplayer games but that's just about where the similarities end. I strongly prefer Chivalry as well.

The controls aren't unresponsive, it's more that your attacks are slower and you have to commit to them after the windup ends, whereas in M&B you can chamber attacks allowing you to release them more quickly and can cancel mid-swing.
 

Metro

Arcane
Beg Auditor
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
27,792
I've played a fair bit of both and totally disagree with the statement that M&B and Chivalry are fundamentally the same. They're both pseudo-medieval multiplayer games but that's just about where the similarities end. I strongly prefer Chivalry as well.

So what are the major differences? And I don't mean the minor things I've mentioned like a couple of siege weapons (which seem pointless) and firepots and whatnot.

The controls aren't unresponsive, it's more that your attacks are slower and you have to commit to them after the windup ends, whereas in M&B you can chamber attacks allowing you to release them more quickly and can cancel mid-swing.

No, that's not what I meant. Unresponsive in terms of when I input an action and there's a delay before it follows through. And it's not latency as I tried on 30ish or lower ping servers.
 

Multi-headed Cow

Guest
After playing a tiny bit I pretty much agree with Metro. Which isn't to say Chivalry's particularly BAD, and it has the advantage of having a bigger pool of players, and I do get a kick out of the gore, but eh. Certainly not worth $10 to me. Would enjoy it if it hit an indie bundle though.
 

Tycn

Savant
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,852
Location
Prosper Land
So what are the major differences? And I don't mean the minor things I've mentioned like a couple of siege weapons (which seem pointless) and firepots and whatnot.

I'm not sure where to start with the combat, they're more different than they are similar. As I mentioned earlier the ability to chamber attacks in M&B and the ability to cancel your attack mid-swing means that you never have to commit to an attack, and the only reason you'll ever take a hit is because you didn't react fast enough (there's a slight recovery if you complete an attack, but it's tiny). I think this leads to the "disconnected" feel mentioned above. If you've watched any "pro" players duel, the only strategy used is nonstop feint spam and even then it takes some time for someone to die because every attack is telegraphed and you'll only take a hit if you fail to respond quickly enough. Furthermore, due to the slow movement speed and especially slow backpedal speed distance is close to irrelevant, it's near impossible to disengage and footwork doesn't come into play much.

In Chivalry you can only cancel your swings during windup and there's a recovery period after each swing, meaning that if you make mistakes a decent player can exploit it. Movement and positioning is much more important as a result - attack while out of range and they can duck in and hit you after you miss, wait too long for them to close in and you might end up taking a hit first. Naturally this depends on the class and the weapon they're using, which are fairly well differentiated. Parries being timed as well adds another element to capitalise on and it's possible to redirect swings to bypass them. Shield hitboxes accurately correspond to the models compared to M&B where they provide much more coverage than they should, and it's possible to get around them with either melee or projectiles. Due to the more responsive and class-based movement speed it's much easier to control the distance between you and your opponent and the distinction between longer and shorter weapons is more evident.

The classes are well differentiated in Chivalry in terms of loadout, movement speed and ability, whereas in M&B there's no reason not to go for the best armour and weapon you can get - it might slow you down but since backpedalling is useless it won't matter once you engage someone. As a result they actually play differently, instead of the rapid feint spam that constitutes the only viable melee playstyle in M&B among anyone with a basic understanding of the game.





This video shows some of the stuff you can do, pretty much all of which isn't applicable to M&B.

As well as the fundamental difference in combat mechanics the game revolves around a proper objective-based game mode, with different objectives for each map. I think this is much more interesting than the deathmatch and battle gamemodes which seems to be what most servers n M&B ran. Can't say the fluff with violence and VOs hurts either.

No, that's not what I meant. Unresponsive in terms of when I input an action and there's a delay before it follows through. And it's not latency as I tried on 30ish or lower ping servers.

Fair enough. I can't say I've experienced this.
 
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,875,975
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
Been playing for two hours. I get that delay too. I guess it could be lag but most fights I've seen / been into degrade into the two guys dancing around each other flailing their swords, expecting one to miss a swing to stagger him with a combo. It's actually kind fun but I imagine that's because of the sheer amount of people fighting, the combat itself isn't as orgasmic as videos made me think.

I hope War of the Roses gets a free weekend soon.
 

Metro

Arcane
Beg Auditor
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
27,792
In Chivalry you can only cancel your swings during windup and there's a recovery period after each swing, meaning that if you make mistakes a decent player can exploit it. Movement and positioning is much more important as a result - attack while out of range and they can duck in and hit you after you miss, wait too long for them to close in and you might end up taking a hit first. Naturally this depends on the class and the weapon they're using, which are fairly well differentiated.

While that sounds all well and good in theory in practice feint-spamming is pretty common in Chivalry, too, from what I've read. So usually you just end up in a standoff like CK mentioned above.

The classes are well differentiated in Chivalry in terms of loadout, movement speed and ability, whereas in M&B there's no reason not to go for the best armour and weapon you can get - it might slow you down but since backpedalling is useless it won't matter once you engage someone. As a result they actually play differently, instead of the rapid feint spam that constitutes the only viable melee playstyle in M&B among anyone with a basic understanding of the game.

I don't disagree. And I mentioned the classes were an area that they polished/improved upon. But still, to the average player I don't think this warrants a separate purchase. To someone who would put in a hundred or more hours to a game like this, then probably so.

As well as the fundamental difference in combat mechanics the game revolves around a proper objective-based game mode, with different objectives for each map. I think this is much more interesting than the deathmatch and battle gamemodes which seems to be what most servers n M&B ran.

The objective based maps in Chivalry don't really play out any different than standard deathmatch or battles. It's essentially just a series of maps tied together versus one. I didn't notice any modes other than CTF, last man standing, raid the castle and kill X person (which M&B has... or at least I've played some modded server that has it), and time-based 'score attack' in terms of kills. Also the problem with the bigger maps/team sizes is that eventually it just turns into a cluster fuck. Sure you can avoid them but then it almost boils down to dueling and you already touched on the issues there.
 

Tycn

Savant
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,852
Location
Prosper Land
While that sounds all well and good in theory in practice feint-spamming is pretty common in Chivalry, too, from what I've read. So usually you just end up in a standoff like CK mentioned above.

Nowhere near the same extent. You can only feint out of the windup so you have to commit to your actual attacks for starters. Furthermore you can be punished for feinting if they call your bluff and attack whereas in M&B you can switch to a block instantaneously. The fact that movement is important and you can and orient your swings to get around blocks means that the game isn't dominated by a single viable strategy.

Although I can understand why you might think otherwise if your brief experience with the game is with free weekend slash-spammers.

I don't disagree. And I mentioned the classes were an area that they polished/improved upon. But still, to the average player I don't think this warrants a separate purchase. To someone who would put in a hundred or more hours to a game like this, then probably so.

I think having the option to play the game in more than one way is a pretty damn fundamental difference. Even different weapons within a category, such as the claymore and zweihander, play very differently. This is completely different to M&B.

The objective based maps in Chivalry don't really play out any different than standard deathmatch or battles. It's essentially just a series of maps tied together versus one. I didn't notice any modes other than CTF, last man standing, raid the castle and kill X person (which M&B has... or at least I've played some modded server that has it), and time-based 'score attack' in terms of kills. Also the problem with the bigger maps/team sizes is that eventually it just turns into a cluster fuck. Sure you can avoid them but then it almost boils down to dueling and you already touched on the issues there.

Sure, every gamemode in an action-type game is going to boil down to killing each other. That doesn't stop the objective maps from being more fun, and more conducive to creating interesting situations within the limitations of the killing each other-based gameplay.
 

Multi-headed Cow

Guest
Been playing for two hours. I get that delay too. I guess it could be lag but most fights I've seen / been into degrade into the two guys dancing around each other flailing their swords, expecting one to miss a swing to stagger him with a combo. It's actually kind fun but I imagine that's because of the sheer amount of people fighting, the combat itself isn't as orgasmic as videos made me think.
To that end, reach weapons seem to be king. Ranged weapons seem essentially useless since A: archers can't hit shit (Think I got shot maybe once during my entire play), and B: if they do hit shit they do fuck-all damage. Going sword and board seems less useful then big honking two-hander since you have to get even closer to your enemies to hit which makes dancing around more difficult, and requires you focus on your target even more which means some jackass with a two-handed you didn't see will chop your head off at along range anyway as you're focusing on your single target. The jackass can of course be a friendly or an enemy, it doesn't matter.

Reach weapons were mostly better in Mount and Blade too, but the positional blocking made defending with them way harder than in Chivalry. Blocking with a greatsword in Chivalry isn't much worse than using a shield unless you're getting ganged up on, and even then a shield isn't likely to help you much. The faster swing speed of one handed weapons also gave them an additional benefit in M&B since you could spaz out easier if you get up close, and in M&B it's possible you can't swing a weapon if you don't have room, so in a crushed up close range fight a shorter weapon has an advantage.

I DUNNO BROS. I think I kinda like M&B's combat system more, but I still enjoyed Chivalry 'cause the maps seem better made to encourage fighting, the aesthetics are more pleasing for silly MP shenanigans, and it has a ton of people playing it so finding games is easy. At least during this free weekend, but I'm pretty sure it has high numbers even without. Just didn't like it enough to wanna spend much if any money on it.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
28
To that end, reach weapons seem to be king. Ranged weapons seem essentially useless since A: archers can't hit shit (Think I got shot maybe once during my entire play), and B: if they do hit shit they do fuck-all damage. Going sword and board seems less useful then big honking two-hander since you have to get even closer to your enemies to hit which makes dancing around more difficult, and requires you focus on your target even more which means some jackass with a two-handed you didn't see will chop your head off at along range anyway as you're focusing on your single target.

Ranged weapons are very powerful, but most of the players right now are from the free weekend, and archery requires some practice (and requires the last bow unlocked). Reach weapons might seem great, but they are only good in FFA (which is a clusterfuck, unless you're playing on a duel server where FFA is not allowed) where they have an advantage because you can rack up score by stealing kills at a safe distance. If you see vanguards with reach weapons, you just run around them and watch them flail around and kill each other. They are probably the best weapon for new players especially AGAINST new players, since they won't block well. The only exception to this rule is the unbalanced mess that is the halberd, but that's getting fixed, and generally has nothing to do with its reach. Otherwise you just block, close the distance and attack. If you are playing man at arms, you can also dash in to instantly close the gap.

The faster swing speed of one handed weapons also gave them an additional benefit in M&B since you could spaz out easier if you get up close, and in M&B it's possible you can't swing a weapon if you don't have room, so in a crushed up close range fight a shorter weapon has an advantage.

In Chivalry this works when objects are blocking the opponent's weapon path, but not people. Particularly funny if you lure a pole arm user into a tight spot. Otherwise, quick weapons can stop a large weapon from attacking by flinching him. This works on some slow weapons, but smart opponents will start their swing out of your reach, or use thrusts which are faster. With quick weapons the key is footwork, strafing around your opponent up close so that he can't see the tip of your weapon, and thus rendering his parry ineffective. Once you have a single blow in, combo it right away, which will cause him to panic and attempt parries in a row, all of which will be too early (because he will parry right between the gaps when you're not attacking) and he'll most likely die if he doesn't stop and pause for a second before parrying.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom