Life is Feudal Official Forum

[CrypticKiller]

I agree, that you should focus your time and efforts into balancing the game mechanics itself, and implementing key features. After the game is stable and solid, then start polishing the graphics and details.

I think if the graphics are too demanding - it will prevent a lot of players from being able to play. I'm on a pretty beast i7 laptop, though not every player is as fortunate. If the graphics are too intense then a lot of players will shy away from the game due to having to spend $1000+ in order to be competitive and be able to join the game.

I hate when the screen is tearing and FPS constantly is dipping.

Either way, very excited for this game. Prioritize what's most important and something like graphics can always be upgraded later on. "He/she who is everywhere, is actually nowhere at all"

[Siegbert]

What's demanding is the polycount. You could do alot by improving texture quality for instance.




Looking at this screenshot, what strikes me most is the poor quality of gras sprites. It's too big, the texture is to blurry and the alpha map too strict, meaning there is no soft border.
That's something that could well be improved at some point of the development, it's not top priority.
However the sooner something like this is changed the sooner screenshots of the environment will look pleasing and gets people's interest.
Same could be said for the gras texture on the ground. It's good for now but needs to be improved at some point.

Character models already look pretty decent.
I'm a bit unsure about the foggy bloom you chose to implement. I think it would look better without it.

[banok]

Yes. The challenge in graphics, is not just making them look better but doing so with limited poly/textures

basically graphics can be improved and look more polished/professional without hurting performance, its just more difficult for artists to do.

but should this process take prioty in LiF? not in my opinion, I think they look fine. If the gameplay is really strong it will not stop the game being successful.

Lods and stuff for large battles/sieges are important tho

[Sargon]

A better graphics could give relevance, as it is atm, I think is pretty good. Graphic is only the crown of gameplay and all we want is video of deep-in-combat

[Metal]

Not so much in opinion. Gameplay -> Graphics for me. I was unable to play WURM becouse the graphics where to the floor, coudnt really go on with it.

[He-man]

I dont think having high graphics is that important in a MMO. Except the players that have the ultimate pc, most of the gamers put their graphics settings in the lowest to improve FPS.

More graphics would mean more work and will take more time of development. Plus, if you leave it at decent graphics you can invest your time and work in improving the other aspects of the game making it more rich in content than visuals.

For example look at Dwarf Fortress, 0 graphics but the most complete game i have ever see about managin a city xd

Having decent graphics but not great ones would be the perfect feature xd

[Protunia]

From what I have seen so far the Graphics in the game look very nice. How the game plays is more important to me and how fluid the feeling of the PvP combat is.

So... Yeah it's not Super Duper Hi res fluff, but I am not here because of Fluff.

[Occultus]

Gameplay is important and should be priority one!

Pri.1 - TODO list:
1. Sieges with 200 to 300 players at once without lag.
2. Load lag
3. Hitboxes is accurate in fights with 200 to 300 players simultaneously.
4. Smooth animations.

Pri.2 - TODO list:
- Lots of content. Launch new content every month after release. Very important!

Pri.3 - TODO list:
- Graphics

[Azarah]

Graphics are very important but one has to draw a line when it comes to sandbox mmorpgs with no instances. Since its a open world with sieges that could maybe have up to 200+ players on the screen one would expect to have a bit lesser quality graphic wise when compared to modern games today on the market.

I would rather have a bit worse graphics but smoother overall gameplay so I dont die and lose my loot due to lag/low fps.

[xalanger]

I do belive that animations are more important then graphics.
The Alpha graphics in my opinion are good for now.

[Occultus]

As I tried to write in the post above - graphics should be fixed in the very, very end!

Use all your time on animations - and generally smooth gameplay overall, hitboxes and server optimizations (Large Sieges/large amounts of players in the same area without any lag) - Then Content

[Shealladh]

I can run Crisis 3 no dramas, but not the first thing I look at in a game.

I begin with the game mechanics and balance of all the things you will be doing on a day too day basis.

Then you must be able to feel natural in all that you do, animations and the flow of the actions your character does. Otherwise you break the immersion and makes things feel fake.

Next is no matter the graphics, is the world interesting for a multitude of players. There should be landmarks that put you into natural perspective to your surroundings. If you have a mountain way off in distance, and you know to your left is forest, you know which direction you are heading and you build a mental map of your region.

A lot of things matter, AAA graphics are on the bottom of the list for me.

No matter the above levels, it must be fun with plenty of things to do and while I'm at it, the people you game with in any MMO are a big contributor as well.

[MrZeppo]

I personally think the graphics is good as they are.

[MangiaCadaveri]

In a pvp game it's really important the animations, the hitbox quality, the general perception of clashes and body collisions. Personally i like a lot M&B and less MO coz mortal online combat isn't that accurate.
I care less about general texture environment and shadows and stuff like that.

[SirWinston]

Once you get a good polished game with a gameplay that is fun and works well, then you can focus on upgrading the graphics.

By the way, how come there isn't a kickstarter campaign for this game ? You could add a stretchgoal to hire more people to work on upgrading graphics.
I don't know how advanced is the current alpha version, but at least you got something to show. That's more than most kickstarter campaigns out there (such as Star Citizen).

[Siegbert]

By the way, how come there isn't a kickstarter campaign for this game ? You could add a stretchgoal to hire more people to work on upgrading graphics.
I don't know how advanced is the current alpha version, but at least you got something to show. That's more than most kickstarter campaigns out there (such as Star Citizen).

There was one but it failed massively sadly. But it did gain the attention of me and many others.

I too think that a fresh crowd funding campaign will be viable at some point but you have to show off some progress first. I think when you show footage of two massive armies charging at each other and fighting it out with well working combat mechanics and polished animations and then say something like "100% PvP massive battles on a large scale" in the trailer... that will convince people.
As of now I think most people think: "Well, we haven't seen an MMO so far with kickass combat like this that actually works. So, why should this unknown Russian developer handle it?"

But on topic:
I think you rephrased the questions. I didn't think at all the graphic was "bad". Actually with newer screens I'm quite happy with it. There can always be some polish but overall it's looking really nice. So I chose the 2nd option.

[Frontal]

The crowd funding failed mainly because it was indiegogo.

[Siegbert]

The crowd funding failed mainly because it was indiegogo.

Why should that be? People know about projects by word of mouth and third party websites, rather than simply browsing through projects on the crowdfunding site itself.
If anything it should have worked since Indiegogo supports PayPal while Kickstarter needs you to pay via creditcard.

[Cian]

I want to see the performance with 200 vs 200 battles before anyone talks any graphics upgrades. The game is designed around Realm vs Realm. If the GFX can't support massive battles it makes little sense to upgrade them.

[Siegbert]

I want to see the performance with 200 vs 200 battles before anyone talks any graphics upgrades. The game is designed around Realm vs Realm. If the GFX can't support massive battles it makes little sense to upgrade them.

Is that even realistic? 200 in total sounds like a pretty big number. Warband starts lagging at 150+ players.

[Cian]

This is an mmo not warband. There were times in Darkfall where we routinely had 200 v 200 or even 500 v 500 battles. Sometimes they lagged badly, sometimes they didn't.

There will likely be realms large enough to contain several hundred people. The servers should be able to hold at least 75% of the maximum size of two realms fighting each other in a single battle.

[SirWinston]

I want to see the performance with 200 vs 200 battles before anyone talks any graphics upgrades. The game is designed around Realm vs Realm. If the GFX can't support massive battles it makes little sense to upgrade them.

Is that even realistic? 200 in total sounds like a pretty big number. Warband starts lagging at 150+ players.

If they can manage it on planetside 2 with tanks and planes and bombs and laser canons and all those shiny special effects, then it should be possible on LiF.

[MrZeppo]

But then again, planetside is a laggy mess.

[Siegbert]

PlanetSide is not lagging for me, at all. But I can't say I've seen 400-500 players in one battle. Hard to tell, though. It might be around 200 in a larger battle.

However Planetside has a way higher budget than LiF and it took them quite some time to optimize everything so you could get a solid performance (fps wise).

Being an MMO doesn't mean you magically eliminate every problem that comes with many players on one spot. Especially when combat is reaction based as it should be the case in LiF.

I never played DarkFall, but seriously? 500 vs 500?
That sounds really exaggerated

[Thokan]

It's all in the netcode. Warband starts latency-lagging at 150+ because the original netcode was knocked for 120 man servers at tops.

Planetside 2s cause of lag is mostly bad optimizing joined with too many things on your screen. I believe the netcode is pretty guud.

Difference.

[Siegbert]

Well, lag usually refers to delayed data packages and things like warping. Haven't experienced any of that in PlanetSide2, ever.

Back in beta I did have bad performance in terms of low fps though, if that is what you're talking about.

[Thokan]

Well, lag usually refers to delayed data packages and things like warping. Haven't experienced any of that in PlanetSide2, ever.

Back in beta I did have bad performance in terms of low fps though, if that is what you're talking about.

Precisely. My point exactly.

I usually differentiate lag from latency lag.

[SirWinston]

I don't get any lag either on Planetside 2, but I heard they had quite a few issues at launch that's true.

I never played DarkFall, but seriously? 500 vs 500?
That sounds really exaggerated

I don't think there was ever a battle involving a thousand players in Darkfall, but definatly over 500 which is already a huge number.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI42k0J99GE
hint: There's a lot more people than you can actually see on screen.

[Thokan]

I cant play the game at all. But that is totally cause of optimization. It ran perfectly smooth through beta and launch up until some patch where it went to shites.

They crashed the area server node when they tried fighting with thousands of people

[Siegbert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI42k0J99GE
hint: There's a lot more people than you can actually see on screen.

Want that for Lif!

Man, imagine such a zerg with realistic non-shitty optic. bad ass