The rest was expected to be decided by player skill and style.Ĭhivalry offers weapons that each feel unique for the most part, there are a few weapons that overlap in usefulness but picking your weapon is also tied to your class, so we'll never see a fully plate armored man with a spear and a dagger. The gameplay itself pushed weapons more towards homogeony in terms of secondary effects where only weight and possibly damage type made real differences.
Fighting a greatsword? Grab a spear, throwing weapons, etc. Probably due to how many choices anyone can get. It was weird but aside from rubber sarradin swords I never felt like anything was out of balance.
It's possible the lesser number of players in a typical game contributes to low populated flanks.įor weapon choices it's a funny thing, a M&B character could have 6 1h swords and all 6 would be different shorter, longer, faster, stronger, etc and all could be deadly if used properly (low damage swords still had trouble with armor) I remember using the khergit falchion to great effect on the dreaded khergit defense maps and it was the second cheapest option. It feels like any wide open map on chiv (for TO) is a bad thing, maybe battleground stage 2 is the exception but for stonesville and stage 3-5 citadel having numerous flanking paths gives the defenders a sense of hopelessness. Honestly I'd like to see some bigger maps from chivalry but I doubt it's in the cards. All the while opening gates or bridges that act as checkpoints throughout the castle. Mount and blade's typical siege (with the exception of some user created (which would be nice to do) maps) are pretty much all the same: Push the tower by your goddamn self, find ladders, or backdoors and flank and push until you make it in. However objective games on chivalry are quite engaging. The games are quite different in their set up, Chivalry emphasizes much smaller, slightly less realistic maps. I have about 600 hours into M&B multiplayer, possibly more.
0 kommentar(er)
