OK. Who's got this one? I've picked it up because it sounds like the combat is similar to M&B, which I really enjoy.
I'd like to try and setup a Grogheads battle rumble, but it'll depend on how many have the game and can link up at the same time.
Right now I think Saturday night 8PM EST would be a good starting point to look at for a game. By my fly over country math that means the Euro boys would be up after midnight and toones would be frying his morning eggs. However you do get to bash someone with a sword.
Who's interested?
I have it, but I can't make any commitments to play tomorrow.
I'm thinking next week or two
I am interested. Don't have it though.
I own it but stink at it. Also might be tough for me to coordinate specific times to play but if I am available when others give it a go, I'll certainly do my best.
I do not own it, but am interested.
Pretty fun game actually. I hope M&B 2 is as graphically nice.
You all go ahead and see if you can get a game going. Post some impressions. Maybe an AAR. And I'll keep an eye out on the forums for a sale. No idea what M&B gameplay would be like, but a chance to MP with the likes of the current respondents would be aN honor.
Unlocked some custom build options. Not really sure what I'm doing but its definately fun.
Is it a MP campaign structured sort of like Left 4 Dead? Fighting through different environments co-op? Or is it more chaotic?
Melee chaos. However I think that if we were to play as a group then it'd have more of a organized tactical feel. There is not campaign only battlefields. Also you only fight against humans outside of the training ground. No AI bots.
Wow! So many mouse clicks. I fear for my mouse. But I kinda like this game even though I die a lot.
It's definitely a game of skill rather than unlocks. Though experience will let you get to more cool weapons, armor and perks, they are useless if you don't know how to fight. And the basic classes are also capable enough to score some kills.
Spawn and revive mechanics are good for teamplay. MP objectives are simple (conventional deathmatch or conquest). Could have been more complex.
No campaign? That really doesn't wax my carrot. But you guys seem to feel that the melee chaos is fun enough...
It is chaotic, but there is also order. It's like some sort of zen swirly yin yangy thingy majiggy.
OK Confucius.
I blew my money on some high speed heavy armor and helmet. It did not make me better. I will say I cannot play with the visor down on my helmet. It cuts out too much of the view.
Like this in fact;
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1076.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw447%2FRobert_Ellis48%2FP7280044.jpg&hash=8cb4e889451b25680cd53a606ff5dec6fd390bfd)
OK I might have figured out the combat in this game and on the path to being a medieval warrior badass. I had a 9 in a row kill streak going including an epic battle where I was outnumbered 3-1 and managed to kill them all, heal myself and go kill more sword wielding dudes.
Quote from: Bison on October 29, 2012, 08:36:13 PM
OK I might have figured out the combat in this game and on the path to being a medieval warrior badass. I had a 9 in a row kill streak going including an epic battle where I was outnumbered 3-1 and managed to kill them all, heal myself and go kill more sword wielding dudes.
Sweet!
Can any of you guys recommend a good book on the war of the roses? I have Alision Weir's book The Wars of the Roses, but I'm having a lot of trouble sticking with it. A browse of Amazon.com isn't really helping because so many of the books are rated so poorly.
Quote from: Bison on October 28, 2012, 06:44:49 PM
It is chaotic, but there is also order. It's like some sort of zen swirly yin yangy thingy majiggy.
Yup. Just stay in bunches. Go solo and do crazy stuff and you get swarmed by the enemy.
It was a thoroughly choatic time.
Try the article in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's not as clear as we'd like, but it has a good timeline and identifies all the major players.
Actually, in representing the factionalism and changing of sides, the old AH game Kingmaker is not a bad experience.
Quote from: Toonces on October 29, 2012, 11:03:19 PM
Can any of you guys recommend a good book on the war of the roses? I have Alision Weir's book The Wars of the Roses, but I'm having a lot of trouble sticking with it. A browse of Amazon.com isn't really helping because so many of the books are rated so poorly.
Robin Neillands's book is pretty good and readable: The Wars of the Roses, (1992).
It's not an easy war to get a good grasp of, which is probably why you're struggling with Alison Weir's as she is a good writer.
An alternative approach would be to just read about one of the campaigns/battles and then develop your knowledge from there. Bosworth and Richard III have always been of a lot of interest to me.
Guys,
I currently own and play Chivalry, and I like it a lot! The combats are brutal and pretty realistic 1-2 nice strikes and they're gonne for good, and the Team objectives games are great with a nice variety.
Im watching a lot of WotR videos and I can see that the graphics and the overall UI are more polished/professional, bur Im failing to see the combat mechanics and realism on it. All I can see is a lot of spamming where the one who strikes more strikes wins, and usually there's a lot of 1x4 fights......
Well all I'd like to ask are the real strong points about WotR since it seems so arcade and combat wise lacking of realism.......Am I that wrong?
Rio
For me its simple. I find it to be fun. Its in 3d person so you lose the 1st person "realism" perspective, but there are tactics to the combat. You can spam attacks and sometimes win, but more often the one who plans an attack with an aimed strike will win. The ability to spec your character with perks and gear is also pretty awesome. I've got two builds so far. A heavy armor knight who eventually will end up being a mounted knight and a medium armored two handed ax wielding machine. Finally the combat mechanics are very similar to Mount and Blade which is one of my all time favorite games.
Whew! Marathon session tonight...about 2 hours straight and I went from level 1 to level 8 or 9. However, I have about 20-30 hours in the beta, so I have some idea of the mechanics.
I'm a big fan of these drop-in multiplayer games (like this and L4D2). We had a couple of epic battles where we were initially losing big and then came back for the win. One or two matches were done in less than 10 minutes, but a couple went almost to the end at 20 minutes and one full-on timed out at a half hour. Lots of great fights.
I do find the game more tactical than it seemed in the beta. I might just be getting better at it, but I sure seemed to feel like I was controlling my swings more- thinking about what direction to swing based on what the other guy was doing. I had a couple of 1v1 fights that were quite prolonged.
Anyway, I played about half on Crossbowman and then switched to Foot Knight for the second half. The last fight we had, about 25 minutes, I accumulated almost 9k experience....the battle just went on and on and on forever. I'm definitely enjoying this game. They seemed to have fixed a lot of the balance issues from the beta.
This game is damn buggy. It always crashes on me or it gets graphics corruption. Looks like my video card isn't keeping up. But it only happens in this game. :/
Bison are your wins against random bots in an MP game or against other humans? From most of the posts above I still am interested, but I wonder how long everyone else will be. I don't want to take the plunge and then get stuck playing with myself, pun intended.
The only single player mode is a training grounds which is good for learning the combat mechanics. You'll only do that for maybe an hour. The rest is played on multiplayer battlegrounds with usually 20,32,64 man servers. Its just a drop in and play game. There is no storyline that accompanies the game. The cool part is that your gold/experience you earn rolls over from battle to battle with your characters that you spec for combat. Like I've said right now my favorite spec is an ax wielding medium armor build focused on sheild breaking and healing.
Quote from: Gusington on November 04, 2012, 11:23:11 AM
Bison are your wins against random bots in an MP game or against other humans? From most of the posts above I still am interested, but I wonder how long everyone else will be. I don't want to take the plunge and then get stuck playing with myself, pun intended.
I'll join ya Gus, but you gotta play as the black chick.
HAHAHA! Well how can I refuse there. Should I even ask for a comparison between Chivalry and War of the Roses?
Gaming population is not too good. At least for my time zone. I can join a about 1 or two populated US Servers (200 ping) during my play time. Singapore servers only active during the weekend but not all the time.
But the game is sure damn fun when you get into a populated server and don't encounter bugs.
Quote from: Gusington on November 04, 2012, 07:15:24 PM
HAHAHA! Well how can I refuse there. Should I even ask for a comparison between Chivalry and War of the Roses?
I spent 2 hours with Chivalry tonight. I'm stupidly sober and I didn't get motion sick at all, so it might have been the beer the last time I played Chivalry.
Anyway, it's hard to compare the two games because they're similar in concept. Let's see how well I can explain this, keeping in mind that I have about 45 hours in WotR and only 2 hours in Chivalry.
WotR is based on historically correct teams, while Chivalry is completely fictional.
WotR is strictly 3rd person while Chivalry is 1st person. It would be hard to say I prefer one over the other. I find some similarities between the combat in Skyrim and the combat in Chivalry, in the sense that you spend a lot of time dodging, and moving such that you time a dash towards your opponent with your swing. In a sense it feels more tactical. Except, I find that in WotR, due to the 3rd person perspective it's more tactical in a thinking sense rather than a feeling sense. What I mean is that you're looking at your person from the outside, so your perspective of the fight is different and you spend time picking different swings in a more thinking about the fight sense. I don't know if that even makes sense. Either way, they both require you to do more than spam swings if you want to enjoy success.
I've only played team deathmatch in both games. Both feel fairly chaotic, but the maps in Chivalry thus far feel more confined with a lot more hidey holes and alleys and such.
WotR has crossbowman and archers. Chivalry has those too, but also has a bunch of throwing weapons for melee classes. That kind of sucks because you'll be rushing into a melee fight and a knight will pull out a throwing axe and put it in your melon and that's that. I don't think I like all of the throwing weapons in Chivalry, which are very lethal.
WotR flashes little numbers when you score damage. Chivalry does not, so you don't know how badly you've wounded your opponent when you hit him. However, rarely does it take more than two good hits to kill someone in Chivalry so you generally know if you've hit the guy once he's on the ropes.
Chivalry has far more graphic deaths with arms and heads coming off, blood spurting, etc.
WotR has cool execution animations.
WotR definitely has more customization of your character. You can edit your coat of arms, change your helmet, armor, etc. Chivalry seems to have a lot of weapons to unlock but less armor and helmet modification, if any.
I'm playing weekday evening about 12-2am EST and I played on a handful of 32 person servers. WotR feels a lot more busy with 64 player servers vice 32 players (32 per side vice 16 per side). With the cap at 32 it seemed like there were more servers at less than max capacity. 8v8 fights are fun for a while, but not as boss as the slugfests with 32 on each side.
Chivalry has auto-balancing between rounds; WotR does not (although you can't pick red if red outnumbers white and vice versa).
WotR has bandaging while in Chivarly you regain health over time. I like the bandage mechanic much, much better. Also, in WotR you have the opportunity to "revive" a fallen teammate before he is executed, while in Chivalry dead is dead. The revive mechanic can lead to some serious slugfests when teammates and enemies begin to cluster around their fallen comrades.
Overall I am enjoying both games. I can't really recommend one over the other...I think the 3rd vs 1st person is the biggest difference and could drive a decision if you had to make one. There aren't that many of these types of games, so getting both is a great option and nothing to be ashamed of! I suppose my personal opinion is that WotR is more of a thinking man's game, but I might be biased since I have so much more time invested in WotR than Chivalry.
Hope that helps some.
46 hours of WOTR under my belt and I am beginning to see a dwindling online population. During my play time 8-10 pm GMT +8, I only see one populated server with decent pings and it's a team death match server with a stupid dueling house rule. There's a server with 200 ping that I usually go to but that becomes full in no time. A few 300 ping servers that I don't dare join. They implemented ping limits now and I can't join any decent game anymore! This sucks.
Here are a couple threads in Paradox about the death of WOTR:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?646894-Game-is-dead-long-live-this-game-(not)
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?646899-Refund-for-people-outside-of-europe-and-north-america
How's the population in Chivalry? Does it have bots to compensate?
Yeah I started to see some dwindling populations too. Still can get into a game but the number of populated servers is limited to a couple at a time.
WotR has a couple of new maps out, and some new geedunk for your dude.
I spent a few hours with the new maps tonight and they're pretty nice- very wintery.
The server I was playing on wasn't saving XP/Gold, so that kind of sucked but it was still alot of fun. Some really good fights, too.
I went ahead and spent some money and got two new custom builds going.
Guy one is a straight up knight, hospitellier red armor, warhorse with horse racer perk, war lance, black castillion sword with milan style perk, shield and shield expert perk.
Guy two is more of a footknight, same armor but in polished steel, two-handed Scottish sword, black castillion sword, milan style sword perk.
Both builds are pretty fun. Cruising around on the field spearing dudes with the lance is a blast, but I'm not very good at it yet.
Quote from: Toonces on December 19, 2012, 09:17:13 PM
Cruising around on the field spearing dudes with the lance is a blast.
Let's hope no one takes that out of context...
Quote from: Toonces on December 19, 2012, 09:17:13 PM
I went ahead and spent some money and got two new custom builds going.
So WotR is a pay-to-play model? I'm not sure how this thing works.. do you purchase the game and then have to pay extra for each 'character' you create past a certain limit?
You earn "in-game gold" after every battle. It is the currency to buy customization options and additional soldier slots.
They may be able to sell it for real money but I don't know if that's implemented already.
You get experience and gold every match, based on damage dealt to the enemy and whether you won the match which gives you a higher multiplier.
Also, if you play Conquest mode, you get XP and gold for capturing strategic points.
My horse-mounted knight cost about 30-40k gold. On average I was picking up a good 3-5k per match in Conquest mode yesterday, each match maybe 10-15 minutes long. It doesn't take too long to get enough money and experience to start customizing.
I haven't spent any real money on the game since I initially bought it. There might be some DLC down the road at some point I suppose.
Quote from: Father Ted on December 20, 2012, 05:21:58 AM
Quote from: Toonces on December 19, 2012, 09:17:13 PM
Cruising around on the field spearing dudes with the lance is a blast.
Let's hope no one takes that out of context...
lol - if I was drinking tea, I'd be spitting it everywhere!
Quote from: Toonces on December 20, 2012, 08:30:28 AM
You get experience and gold every match, based on damage dealt to the enemy and whether you won the match which gives you a higher multiplier.
Also, if you play Conquest mode, you get XP and gold for capturing strategic points.
My horse-mounted knight cost about 30-40k gold. On average I was picking up a good 3-5k per match in Conquest mode yesterday, each match maybe 10-15 minutes long. It doesn't take too long to get enough money and experience to start customizing.
I haven't spent any real money on the game since I initially bought it. There might be some DLC down the road at some point I suppose.
Oh. That's pretty cool.
Thanks for the tip. Perhaps I'll keep an eye out for a sale on
WotR.
I'm just afraid that it'll be yet another first-person/over-the-shoulder game that gives me a headache when I play. Although I can usually set it to 4:3 display ratio resolution and they are okay..
if it supports anything besides widescreen (which some console-ized games like
WH40K Space Marine do NOT.)
WotR is on the Steam flash sale 50% off, or $15. I think that's a pretty good price if you're into it, but only if you're actually going to spend some time online hacking and slashing.
Chivalry is also on sale for $15. Given that there aren't too many medieval fighting games, I picked up both a while ago, and I think they're both a lot of fun.
I'll see if I can grab some screenshots the next time I play WotR.
I picked up WoTR with the flash sale. I want a piece of you Toonces.
Both are fun and has their own strengths.
But since both are online games the community is important.
Chivalry has loads of players compared to WotR.
Quote from: jomni on December 20, 2012, 06:07:48 PM
Both are fun and has their own strengths.
But since both are online games the community is important.
Chivalry has loads of players compared to WotR.
But
why does Chivalry have more than War of the Roses, I wonder?
From what I've gathered, WotR sounds more fun to me.
No it is not fun according majority of the gaming population.
The biggest immersion-killer in WotR is the squad mechanic where you can spawn near your leader like EA's Battlefield. It can spoil a really good melee match. It may be good thing for shooters but not sword fighting. Because of this, more situation awareness, more communication, more thinking is required. In Chivalry you spawn as waves from the back, similar to Red Orchestra. Since you can't always depend on most people to cooperate in a public multiplayer match (since they mostly do their own thing), WotR can be pretty frustrating.
Chivalry is more about individual combat skill. WotR also has good combat mechanics but team play is really important. Chivalry's simplified swing, thrust mechanic with no "charging", means less mouse clicks and more emphasis on timing. In WotR on the other hand, you can charge up your strike for bigger damage, or click away for light strikes. More often than not, players are lightly clicking quick and weak strikes against thick armor. This results into an insane click-fest.
Speaking of armor. This is where WotR excels. It matters where you hit the opponent, with what weapon, and what kind of strike. It is more realistic. Hitting a heavily armored knight in the face with his visor up will deal a lot of damage. I usually go for this type of hit. In Chivalry, though armor has an effect on speed and survivability, it's very easy to kill anyone with any weapon (including your bare fists).
So maybe you can say Chivalry is Call of Duty and WotR is Battlefield. Which more popular?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 20, 2012, 05:02:58 PM
I picked up WoTR with the flash sale. I want a piece of you Toonces.
I'm going on right now on the Central US server. Sort by players and it will be near the top.
On any map that allows some freedom of movement, I usually play on horseback, red armor with green antler looking things, red shield with a white fluer-de-lys or however you spell it.
My foot knight is the same, but polished steel armor and sometimes a two-handed sword.
Or if you are toonces friend you can just click on "join" by his name/game if he is currently playing.
OK boughtinated.
Quote from: jomni on December 20, 2012, 06:28:11 PM
No it is not fun according majority of the gaming population.
The biggest immersion-killer in WotR is the squad mechanic where you can spawn near your leader like EA's Battlefield. It can spoil a really good melee match. It may be good thing for shooters but not sword fighting. Because of this, more situation awareness, more communication, more thinking is required. In Chivalry you spawn as waves from the back, similar to Red Orchestra. Since you can't always depend on most people to cooperate in a public multiplayer match (since they mostly do their own thing), WotR can be pretty frustrating.
Chivalry is more about individual combat skill. WotR also has good combat mechanics but team play is really important. Chivalry's simplified swing, thrust mechanic with no "charging", means less mouse clicks and more emphasis on timing. In WotR on the other hand, you can charge up your strike for bigger damage, or click away for light strikes. More often than not, players are lightly clicking quick and weak strikes against thick armor. This results into an insane click-fest.
Speaking of armor. This is where WotR excels. It matters where you hit the opponent, with what weapon, and what kind of strike. It is more realistic. Hitting a heavily armored knight in the face with his visor up will deal a lot of damage. I usually go for this type of hit. In Chivalry, though armor has an effect on speed and survivability, it's very easy to kill anyone with any weapon (including your bare fists).
So maybe you can say Chivalry is Call of Duty and WotR is Battlefield. Which more popular?
Thanks. That was quite a detailed comparison.
Do we have enough people here with either game who play enough to warrant a buy? I'd rather not play with the dregs of the interwebs.
I played through the tutorials and a couple of rounds of MP.
It seems really, really clunky to me. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between weapon animation and hit detection, especially with the polearms. It seems like some swings pass a foot in front of the enemy yet the game still records it as a hit. Conversely, what looks like a direct hit which was not blocked will often seem to miss completely.
I only played the Chivalry demo but from what little I played of it, it seemed that the combat seemed more fluid and the maps and objectives were much more interesting than WOR.
What's the ping of the server or your opponent? Because of poor population, I play in servers above 200.
Alright, I have about 27 hours in WotR and about 2 hours in Chivalry, so that certainly impacts my thoughts. However, I booted up Chivalry for a bit tonight and I have to say that of the two, I strongly prefer WotR.
I called WotR more of a "thinking man's game" before and I am going to stick with that. The combat mechanics in Chivalry are certainly nice, and more visceral because of the first person perspective. But I'm just not buying the two swings and the enemy is dead mechanic at all. In WotR, like jomni stated, you can click quickly with a weapon for a short swing, or hold your mouse button down to load up for a heavier swing. Where you swing and hit your opponent matters a lot. Even with the extremely powerful weapons like a polearm, with a good solid hit, is unlikely to take out a guy in full plate with his visor down with two hits. Maybe two hits if you really connect. With any type of sword you're going to have to connect several times. It makes for a much longer combat with more of a tactical feel even though it's 3rd person. In WotR you spend a lot of time sparring, looking for an opening and timing a good attack with your opponents opening. I just don't see that in Chivalry where it seems that the best way to win a fight is to just be the first to get two hits in and if you take time to start dancing around you're just going to get clobbered by somebody.
I also spent some time doing tournaments in WotR this weekend where you basically go onto a tourney ground and duel with other people. There were griefers occassionally, but for the most part it was pure one on one fights where you found and opponent, signalled to each other you were ready, and then people pretty much stood by and let you alone until the fight was over. I had a ton of fun jousting for a while, definitely a highlight.
Conversely, I just got done with a Chivalry mode which was pretty much a free-for-all every man for himself for 10 minutes to see who could get the most kills. I just didn't see the point in it at all, there was no real skill and I just haven't even seen an equivalent game mode in WotR.
I guess in closing it could just be that I've spent more time with WotR and so I'm more comfortable with the gameplay, and I'm getting half decent in it. But I'm trying to be objective and I definitely think WotR is the more appealing game of the two. The customization in WotR is just icing; I think the gameplay is much better regardless. If there's a discrepancy in the multiplayer numbers I'd suggest that WotR is just harder to get good at and survive at. When you get on a map with cavalry, archers, and infantry, you really have to have some SA to survive. I haven't felt that Chivalry has that same combined arms feel.
Thanks, Toonces. Getting more difficult to resist buying WotR.
Chivalry lacks horses and maps are more cramped. WotR horse-riding is fun and essential in conquest mode.
Chivalry is 50% off at Steam today.
Crap I'm not home...There are horses in WotR?? giggity
Before buying though I want to take a measure of the longevity WotR ahs with the guys here...I don't want to play with strangers.
I haven't played with another GH'er so far, so if you're looking only to play with folks you know, this isn't the game for you.
I don't want to get in-game and then take a pole arm through the head because I'm playing a bunch of 7 year olds, you know...
Quote from: Gusington on December 24, 2012, 02:29:23 PM
I don't want to get in-game and then take a pole arm through the head because I'm playing a bunch of 7 year olds, you know...
Seriously?
You know they're a bunch of fat, middle-aged dudes posing as nubile 18 year old hotties.
Why can't it ever be the other way around?
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on December 24, 2012, 03:11:39 PM
Why can't it ever be the other way around?
I can be, sweetie. Just deposit another $600 in my account...
Quote from: Gusington on December 24, 2012, 01:39:07 PM
Crap I'm not home...There are horses in WotR?? giggity
Before buying though I want to take a measure of the longevity WotR ahs with the guys here...I don't want to play with strangers.
The gaming population of WotR is quite small so there's a big chance of bumping into someone you know. :)
I don't know about longevity though, they seem to be continuously improving the game despite the low player count.