War of the Roses (50% off on Steam!)

[jomni]

Do you guys have the sprint perk?  Use that to charge on archers and they won't know what hit them.

Re Chivalry:  True,  First Person is still the most accurate way to play.

[Nefaro]

Do you guys have the sprint perk?  Use that to charge on archers and they won't know what hit them.

Re Chivalry:  True,  First Person is still the most accurate way to play.

I always use the speed & acceleration Perk on the Movement->Infantry one.   It definitely helps.

I also found that jumping, once you start running, helps you accelerate faster.  Odd.. but it works.  Perhaps something else that needs to be adjusted. 

My melee skill in WotR seems to have improved, the more I play.  Not so with Chivalry, however.  I must've hit a plateau there or something.  ???

[Nefaro]

Dammit.

There's now some speed hack out for WotR.  >:(  Some douchebag was spamming it on his archer tonight.  They better nip that quick before it kills the thing.

I reported it to Steam but their customer service is... well... I don't expect anything but a copy & paste reply blowing it off.  Hopefully the Fatshark devs are on it quick, with the anti-cheat software, as they've also been informed by other people who've witnessed it too.

This kinda crap just ruins these things.

[jomni]

Hey Nefaro, what does the hack do?  I heard some people suspecting a hacker in my recent game but did not notice anything amiss.

[Longdan]

This how the French started the lovely habit of cutting off the index and middle finger
on the right hand of any English soldier they caught.  So he could not draw a bow.
Thus originated the English reverse "V" sign (those two fingers in a "V" with
the knuckles facing the recipient).  The English equivalent of the bird but with a
humourous English overtone of impending death as well.

[Achilles]

Picking it up now.  Chivalry is a fantastic game and I know these two get compared.  Looking for a little bit more depth.

[Nefaro]

Hey Nefaro, what does the hack do?  I heard some people suspecting a hacker in my recent game but did not notice anything amiss.

It allows someone to spam the Sprint skill with no limitations.  Over & over, back to back. 

I ragequit last night because some d-bag was using it on his archer, so he'd just turn and spam that a few times to warp off out of sight, when anyone started approaching him.  Then pop back up and kill them, rinse-repeat.  I think it's even faster than the charge ability that comes with the man-at-arms, and possibly longer ranged, too. 

I believe the game uses anti-cheat software so I'd expect whomever develops that to be on it in reasonable time, but I'm not sure if it's punkbuster or something else.

[jomni]

I have made two archer hunting vids.  stay tuned while I up load them in YouTube.

[Nefaro]

The Devs just posted a net survey on what to change regarding Squad Leader Spawning:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?656485-Squad-Leader-Spawning-Survey!

Just two multi-choice questions regarding TDM/Conquest modes.

I don't like to see it in Conquest mode, myself, where you have to cap flags and the squad leader spawning tends to magically teleport people right back into the battle, from death near them.  But it's probably not as big of a deal with Team Deathmatch, and they also have a "not allowed near enemies" option in there too so I went easy on that one (some people still seem to like it for some odd reason).  Since you can pick any of the owned flag locations to spawn at, there's not much distance to get back into the fight so disabling squad leader spawning shouldn't be a problem regarding long walks.

Also:  looks like one or two people recorded video of the speed hacker and even reported his Steam profile.  ;D  Must be a dumbass, as the game uses Steam IDs and, technically, Steam can perma-ban his whole account (and the games in it) for using hacks in multiplayer.

[Nefaro]

I have made two archer hunting vids.  stay tuned while I up load them in YouTube.

I look forward to it.

I gotta kick out of joining a game with only a couple players in it yesterday (other low ping servers were full).  One opposing player had just picked up the game (he said when asked) and was playing archer.  So I gave him some tips on how archers usually run away from my Sexycutioner Axe-wielding plate dude that he started to use - most memorably to run up ladders and then turn and shoot me in the face when I'm following up afterward.  The point I'm getting to is that this actually gave me practice in ladder pursuits and bobbing my head up & down, over the side of the wall, to get archers to shoot & miss.  And also that swinging a 2-handed Axe in a close-in area is very difficult to land a hit - to the dagger!

That's one thing WotR does a lot better than Chivalry - the pole-arm and 2-handed weapons.  It's annoying when you're practically nose-to-nose with a Vanguard in Chivalry, and he's swinging his spear/halberd sideways and still connecting for big damage when you're actually inside the head's striking range.  ::)  Hell, I've killed quite a few people swinging my spear sideways and hitting them with the shaft.  (That didn't sound right, did it?  :o)   I suppose that's part of the reason Vanguards are so popular.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Dunno what you're talking about regarding pole-arms in Chivalry.  Must be your lag because it's very easy to get inside their reach where they can't hit you.  I do it all the time and conversely, I've had it done to me a lot when I'm playing as a vanguard.

I find the exact opposite in WOR.  There don't seem to be hit zones and the animations never match up with the action.  Just randomly swing away and sometimes you'll hit even if it looks like your weapon missed by two feet.  Other times you'll see your swing pass right through your target's body and nothing will happen.  I also hate the fact that it'll show a blood splash even if you don't penetrate their armour.

[RooksBailey]

Could someone explain the differences between Chivalry and War of the Roses?  Both look interesting, but I'm not quite sure what the difference is between the two games.  I would like to chose the one that best suits me (I wish both would have a demo or a F2P weekend). 

[Toonces]

"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."

This is what I posted a few weeks ago.  Having spent more time with both games, I prefer WotR over Chivalry for reasons I already posted in this thread.  I can't get over the feeling that Chivalry is more of a fast-paced spam click fest whereas WotR is more of a thinking game.  I know everyone doesn't agree with this assessment, but it's how I perceive it.  WotR reminds me more of Red Orchestra 2 than Call of Duty, if that makes sense.

I love the customization in WotR.  It only takes about two hours of playing before you have enough gold to start customizing, if you play on conquest servers.

I HATE the archers and squad spawning in WotR.  But, as an early player in WotR, crossbowman is a great way to rack up kills and gold quick. 

I was wrong above about the servers.  WotR mostly has 32 player servers.  Chivalry also has 32 player servers.  Chivalry has FAR more players online than WotR. 

You might be best served by watching some videos on youtube.  There is a really nice comparison video- I can't remember who did it but google should turn it up- where the guy compares them side by side on each point. 

[RooksBailey]

"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."

This is what I posted a few weeks ago.  Having spent more time with both games, I prefer WotR over Chivalry for reasons I already posted in this thread.  I can't get over the feeling that Chivalry is more of a fast-paced spam click fest whereas WotR is more of a thinking game.  I know everyone doesn't agree with this assessment, but it's how I perceive it.  WotR reminds me more of Red Orchestra 2 than Call of Duty, if that makes sense.

I love the customization in WotR.  It only takes about two hours of playing before you have enough gold to start customizing, if you play on conquest servers.

I HATE the archers and squad spawning in WotR.  But, as an early player in WotR, crossbowman is a great way to rack up kills and gold quick. 

I was wrong above about the servers.  WotR mostly has 32 player servers.  Chivalry also has 32 player servers.  Chivalry has FAR more players online than WotR. 

You might be best served by watching some videos on youtube.  There is a really nice comparison video- I can't remember who did it but google should turn it up- where the guy compares them side by side on each point.

That was very helpful!  Thanks!  I was just watching some YouTube videos of gameplay for both games and what I saw of the two is pretty much in agreement with everything you just wrote.  Based on those vids and your description, I think I would like WotR better.

Thanks again!  Not sure if I am ready to jump in to either game just yet, but I think I know which way I will jump when the time comes. 

[Nefaro]

That was very helpful!  Thanks!  I was just watching some YouTube videos of gameplay for both games and what I saw of the two is pretty much in agreement with everything you just wrote.  Based on those vids and your description, I think I would like WotR better.

Thanks again!  Not sure if I am ready to jump in to either game just yet, but I think I know which way I will jump when the time comes.

I don't know if you've ever played Mount & Blade, but the combat controls in WotR are very similar.  Although I believe most weapons swing more slowly since they have two speeds - a windup speed and a swing speed so there are two phases to an attack that gives a bit more time to bring up the appropriate directional block.  It's not huge, but I'm finding it easier to parry in WotR than M&B.

They have a new update coming that will nerf shields, re-enable weapon damage (so you can break your sword on something, for example), and improve damage output so that melee combat doesn't take quite so long to be decided.  Not to mention the poll about taking out Squad Leader spawning that's a current possibility.  I already prefer WotR, myself, and after they get these updates in it will be pretty awesome.

Dunno what you're talking about regarding pole-arms in Chivalry.  Must be your lag because it's very easy to get inside their reach where they can't hit you.  I do it all the time and conversely, I've had it done to me a lot when I'm playing as a vanguard.

I find the exact opposite in WOR.  There don't seem to be hit zones and the animations never match up with the action.  Just randomly swing away and sometimes you'll hit even if it looks like your weapon missed by two feet.  Other times you'll see your swing pass right through your target's body and nothing will happen.  I also hate the fact that it'll show a blood splash even if you don't penetrate their armour.

In WotR, I usually get a dull "thump" sound when swinging a long polearm into someone who's too close so I can usually tell if I've not properly connected.  You're right about the hit detection on those long weapons' heads being difficult to connect with.  But I'd rather deal with that than what I believe to be extremely lax polearm modelling in Chiv.  There's just more detail to the weapon modelling.  Hell, I finally noticed that we can rotate some of them around to use the back-side of the weapon, as I was curious as to why my halberd's blade-side wasn't doing any more damage against a plate-wearing enemy over a nice sword hit.  Then I saw some video where the guy mentioned pressing the 'Q' key to flip the weapon around and use the spike on heavily armored targets.  Got some nice penetration that way.  ;D  I don't think Chivalry even has armor penetration modelled, or other such details, and I like that kind of stuff.