War of the Roses

[jomni]

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.

[Nefaro]

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.

[jomni]

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?

[Toonces]

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.

[Bison]

Or if you are toonces friend you can just click on "join" by his name/game if he is currently playing.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

OK boughtinated.

[Nefaro]

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.

[Gusington]

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.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

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.

[jomni]

What's the ping of the server or your opponent?  Because of poor population, I play in servers above 200.

[Toonces]

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.

[LongBlade]

Thanks, Toonces. Getting more difficult to resist buying WotR.

[jomni]

Chivalry lacks horses and maps are more cramped.  WotR horse-riding is fun and essential in conquest mode.

[LongBlade]

Chivalry is 50% off at Steam today.

[Gusington]

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.