Roles balance in Field battles

General discussion about Life is Feudal MMO and Life is Feudal: Your Own, The main section and backbone of the forums.
User avatar
Ubaciosamse
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 11 Jan 2015, 09:19

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Ubaciosamse » 09 Jun 2016, 14:32

People forget that making all this work balanced is hard, because you are introducing things from real life in some attempt to make it realistic while some factors can never be properly implemented, so you must ajust the ones that are implementable to counterweight the realisam problem.
Same things as these bows are the warcries theres no real fear factor in the game, the stamina/health is quite unreal also, alot of other things are not as real thus we must all contribute slowly into somewhat perfecting the game system insted of giving history lessons and stating somewhat obvious problems that are out there.
Give detailed if possible somewhat short suggestions to the devs on balancing and when we get to the point that they work on it, all we can do is hope that they will take the best out of each idea and make it happen.
Image


Hoshiqua
Alpha Tester
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: 18 Jan 2014, 14:48

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Hoshiqua » 09 Jun 2016, 21:32

I was about to link this old (somewhat outdated) combat design I had made and proposed to Bobik https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IFM ... sp=sharing

But then I saw this :

somewhat short suggestions


So I cried. But I have these files which talk in further and more updated fashion of my armors and damage designs.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16yq ... sp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HQh ... sp=sharing

Read if it is of any interest to you guys. It basically sums up all my thoughts and ideas to make the game more balanced, especially ranged warriors.

A lot of what is stated in the "main" design file has 0 chance of ever getting even considered (for example, the health system deemed "overcomplex" and too long to implement by Bobik).

A short version of my thoughts would be to balance archers not (only) by nerfing simple values such as damage or crafting costs but also by bringing in more commitment to fighting with a ranged weapon. By that I mean, where most infantry has to risk their lives and armor / weapon to do any damage, making it very hard for them to be cost-effective, archers and crossbowmen can just come in, release a few arrows which they're sure will harm anyone pretty badly and just run away, with a horse if possible, all of that from 50m. And even if they're close, they can still tap-shot, instantly switch back to peace stance, move and still aim properly.. the options for them to defeat basically anybody are legion.

To bring that commitment to ranged warfare, or at least a bit more of it, archers should be rooted while shooting (you can't properly aim and keep an arrow drawn AND move at the same time as your legs are what keep everything steady), holding the bow drawn should consume soft stamina the longer it is held depending on the archer's strength, and finally if you use "flee" or draw another weapon, the bow / crossbow should be dropped on the ground if not in the inventory.

That way in small scale, archers can still take advantage of the surprise effect and run away when needed as they do now, but they can't kite forever while taking advantage of the peace stance reduced stamina consumption, and in large scale, carefully placed archer units can be devastating, however, the second they get caught by infantry they lose their advantage and have to flee, or fight in melee.

User avatar
Ubaciosamse
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 11 Jan 2015, 09:19

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Ubaciosamse » 09 Jun 2016, 22:06

Well when i said short what i ment rly was that if you want one thing to be changed in a certain way, submit a suggestion for that thing only, not like "combat suggestion" and then a list of tons of information they have to go trough with things that effect other things that they dont plan on working at the same time, so more specific suggestions i guess :crazy:
Image

User avatar
Dleatherus
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 183
Joined: 10 Nov 2013, 22:23

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Dleatherus » 09 Jun 2016, 22:08

disagree on the rooting, though i'd be fine with limiting archer movement to a walk speed with a drawn bow

agree on soft stamina drain for archers, not for crossbowmen

agree on the flee idea - i have always been of the opinion that in order to get the speed to flee you'd have to dump your armor and weapons
this would also give the attacker the option to stop and loot or pursue and kill and hopefully return for the loot later

one of my big issues (and i speak as somebody who plays an archer) is the use of horses by archers to move fast, dismount, shoot, mount and gallop away

though unlikely to be implemented, i'd be all for an archer not being able to use a horse within 3 minutes of having been in combat stance

User avatar
Ubaciosamse
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 11 Jan 2015, 09:19

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Ubaciosamse » 09 Jun 2016, 22:10

http://lifeisfeudal.com/Discussions/que ... ee-ability
See :crazy:
Made if after discussing it with tolik a while back, I was asked to provide a post for the suggestion page, a simple one but people seem to want to have the flee as it is the peasents.... :no:
Image

User avatar
Azzerhoden
Alpha Tester
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: 08 May 2014, 17:44

Re: Class balance in Field battles

Post by Azzerhoden » 09 Jun 2016, 22:13

Dleatherus wrote:google Agincourt

google Formigny
(or use the link)
| - Alpha Tester and Zealous Believer
Image

Kingdom of Hyperion founding Duchy - A practical RP Community est. 1999 - Apply Today!

User avatar
Ubaciosamse
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 11 Jan 2015, 09:19

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Ubaciosamse » 09 Jun 2016, 22:20

Only two things can be done with horse using and archers and those are, that if a horse is respawned it doesnt get his health back, but due to the design of the game its somewhat not possible and not storing it in your inventory prevents the taming mechanic then :crazy: still a problem, so for that one a visible fix with the current features is not in sight.
The seccond one can only be altered a tiny bit and that is that they cant jump on them from the distance it is now(more like siting you have to be very close to the furnature) and possibly add a longer animation of mounting.
Adding any sort of timer/prevention to get on a horse will result in too many problems.
All other fixes are limited due to the current game mechanics.

Fun fix, Get more good lancers :crazy:
Image

User avatar
Ubaciosamse
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 11 Jan 2015, 09:19

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Ubaciosamse » 09 Jun 2016, 22:23

One way to nerf archers in general would be to add hard stamina drain to arrow draws/shots since the longbow is actualy hard to draw, so an archer can do a number of good shots before needing a rest or resulting into potions and similar but the potions can be nerfed also.
But introducing such a mechanic might work on heavly armored people aswell if you are very heavy you loose hard stamina faster thus needing to take a break if you are going to run far distances or similar :crazy:

Mad Uba Productions Ltd.
Image


Hoshiqua
Alpha Tester
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: 18 Jan 2014, 14:48

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Hoshiqua » 09 Jun 2016, 22:25

It can be fixed I think.. simply drop the bow in the inventory if you mount on a horse. That way archers can be deployed and can retreat with horses, but they can't use them to really fight. I'm thinking this should be done with all big two handed weapons apart from lances.. that would give everyone a reason to have a mace, axe or sword on their hip at all time so they're not TOO vulnerable while they're travelling on horse and thus not yet 'deployed'.

I think I'm gonna write another file about how item equiping should be handled.. I got loads of ideas :D

User avatar
Dleatherus
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 183
Joined: 10 Nov 2013, 22:23

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Dleatherus » 09 Jun 2016, 22:33

one other way of fixing archers abusing use of horses is to give the horses some beefed up version of the code that makes some animals run when hit (obviously to work only in dismounted mode)

have the horse stampede away in a random direction for 30-60 seconds

User avatar
Ubaciosamse
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 11 Jan 2015, 09:19

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Ubaciosamse » 09 Jun 2016, 22:39

There are alot of things that could be changed by altering the code heavy duty, but we should collect all suggestions i guess on the sugg page until they are ready to implement these things, because atm its gona get lost within these pages mostly :Search:
Image


Sharana
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 644
Joined: 06 Nov 2014, 17:03

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Sharana » 10 Jun 2016, 00:55

Ubaciosamse wrote:Only two things can be done with horse using and archers and those are, that if a horse is respawned it doesnt get his health back, but due to the design of the game its somewhat not possible and not storing it in your inventory prevents the taming mechanic then


Well tamed horse shouldn't be ridable (allowing release) as it's not yet trained, so you can carry it after taming. Then drop it in a stable. Have you all noticed the option horseback riding -> get horse button when clicking on a stable? I think that should be the way to get a horse and then return it to the stable where it will eat, rest and heal after some time.
Image

User avatar
Ubaciosamse
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 11 Jan 2015, 09:19

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Ubaciosamse » 10 Jun 2016, 05:33

Sharana wrote:
Ubaciosamse wrote:Only two things can be done with horse using and archers and those are, that if a horse is respawned it doesnt get his health back, but due to the design of the game its somewhat not possible and not storing it in your inventory prevents the taming mechanic then


Well tamed horse shouldn't be ridable (allowing release) as it's not yet trained, so you can carry it after taming. Then drop it in a stable. Have you all noticed the option horseback riding -> get horse button when clicking on a stable? I think that should be the way to get a horse and then return it to the stable where it will eat, rest and heal after some time.

Ive mentioned fixes for the current code ingame, there are soo many fixes like the one you mentioned but that req them to do extra work that we can only expect when they focus on these things and i doubt that we will see such improvements any time soon :no:
Image


Sharana
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 644
Joined: 06 Nov 2014, 17:03

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Sharana » 02 Jan 2017, 23:02

Sharana wrote:...Lancers that are not very popular due to the rarity of open field battles (less skilled players in lancing) but are extremely effective and can really have very big weight in the battles. Players with experience in such battles already know that and lancers are getting more popular lately. When more people start using them in the MMO there will actually be work for the pikemens which are really good against cavalry...


Sharana wrote:The point of the topic is that field battles atm resolve around medieval CS and there are no big melee battles one would expect in such of fights with 60+ players, you get bigger melee battles doing a siege with 10 players teams then open field battle with 30.


Still the case 6 months later and after combat overhaul. Only that more players actually see it work in practice during the 2 weeks wave 1. Infantry is obsolete in it's current form on the MMO if both sides are on the comparable skill level (in both tactics and avarage individual skill on players). Just instead of majority archers the majority is splitted between lancers + (horse) archers now as way more players started training their lancing skills then 6 months ago after they saw how big and open the MMO map is (perfect for lancing). Lancing is not more powerful then 6 months ago, it's the opposite - just more players started using it and the effects are seen. The few melees you actually need on some occasions are 10 times more effective when mounted to just bump enemy infantry or lancers to help their own cavalry. With that 100% cavalry teams are easily very valuable (lancers, horse archers, melee on horses).

Looks like I wasn't theory crafting 6 months ago, it really turned out this way and many big guilds saw it exactly that way and prepared for it giving them a head start over others who still lived in YO and were thinking that infantry and flanged mace or hammers duels can actually win the field battles for them on the MMO (needed to start a siege).

If you aim for the top - Life is Feudal Lance and "horse archery" :)
Last edited by Sharana on 03 Jan 2017, 01:41, edited 5 times in total.
Image


Toren
True Believer
 
Posts: 153
Joined: 14 Oct 2014, 20:00

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Toren » 03 Jan 2017, 00:30

If the game was truly balanced- then the ideal makeup of any group would be 3/5 infantry, 1/5 cavalry, 1/5 ranged based on the skill point distribution currently in game. Unfortunately as you said, archers and cavalry currently rule the game. With archers being able to hold their own in close range without having to switch to melee, or being able to ride a warhorse at 30 chivalry, it makes them considerably stronger than infantry in a group fight.

Lancers on the other hand are much more prevalent now mostly because lancing is so much easier now. People keep saying its stronger now, but its always been as strong as it is now, its just a lot easier to do now. Most people back in the day didn't know how to lance because it was fairly glitchy, so not that many people lanced well. With the addition of horse bumping being able to 1 shot people, it kinda just puts them over the edge.

I would hope that they either make lancing and archery more player skill based, because honestly as they are in the game right now they are way more rewarding than melee for the amount of player skill they take relative to melee. And this is coming from someone who is primarily a lancer, asking them to make it more in depth (as well as make melee cavalry viable somehow). I have to say I HATE how the devs frequently just resort to nerfing/buffing damage values, it isn't always that simple and that is the reason the game has a lot of the issues with combat it does today. A lot of these issues could be solved if they made it require more player skill to lance/use ranged weapons.

The only weapons that I see being used by late game infantry are pikes in combination with naphtha pots, just because they can 1-2 shot horses as well as players, and naphtha pots become incredibly easy to mass produce once the herb gardens are built. Even within melee, there are certain weapons that currently are plain bad, mostly because there is only a few ways to actually fight, without much variety between weapons. If there was more variety between weapons, it would change things. I.E. the addition of stuns was a great new mechanic that gave weapons a purpose besides their base damage values. If the guisarme could trip people and the broad axe could deal massive overhead "wedge damage"(or as chiv called it cutting) through armor, it would give them more purpose- its not always just about damage values.

This games combat has come a long way from where it started, but it still has a long way to go before it is finished.


Sharana
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 644
Joined: 06 Nov 2014, 17:03

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Sharana » 03 Jan 2017, 01:10

Akershner wrote:If the game was truly balanced- then the ideal makeup of any group would be 3/5 infantry, 1/5 cavalry, 1/5 ranged based on the skill point distribution currently in game. Unfortunately as you said, archers and cavalry currently rule the game.


Pretty much my expectations about how the big battles were supposed to look like (50-60%/20%/30-20%) - big scale infantry fights where tactics and formations play role with cavalry and archers (not horse archers...) in the support role - softening the enemy infantry with arrow volleys, breaking the line with cav charges, flank attacks etc.
But the reality is cavalry (both lancers and horse archers) ruling the MMO, because in the rare events of siege horse archers are just a normal fully effective archers needed for a siege, lancers are potent melees, dismounted melee players are regular melees without any sacrifices.

And I'm saying that as full time lancer 9th or 10th month already since the moment I tried lancing for a jousting lance tournament we've build the arena for on a RP server.
Image
Last edited by Sharana on 03 Jan 2017, 01:41, edited 2 times in total.
Image


Oleski
True Believer
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 12 Jan 2016, 23:36

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Oleski » 03 Jan 2017, 01:21

True, something need to be changed.
Especially with a horse ridding or maybe even can make a special hors with less hp and slower (only for working) and for the better horse you need get extra skill point.


Chairman
True Believer
 
Posts: 51
Joined: 06 Aug 2013, 15:25

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Chairman » 03 Jan 2017, 05:14

Ishamael wrote:Point 1: Horses are OP atm because people can insta-heal by riding away and hiding their horse. This can easily be fixed by making horses not heal or not allowing hiding horses. Best way to kill horses atm is to forward stab with poleaxe or grenades.

Point 2: Ive been in quite a few large battles now. Nobody fights in good formations. Usually people dont put in effort if they dont need to. When people realize fighting in formations will give them an edge in large battles, the good teams will adapt and practice formations and tactics.

Environment plays a huge role in victory during big fights. If you dont use terrain its harder to win. Having people carry building components so that a group can quickly build defenses to use really, really helps. Field battles suck for heavy armor, Heavy woods suck for archers and horses, 1h swords suck for nakeds, maces suck for armor, etc, etc, etc. This game is full of little tricks and tactics you learn over playing a long time.

AMEN


Linbaba
True Believer
 
Posts: 222
Joined: 15 Dec 2016, 14:38

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Linbaba » 03 Jan 2017, 13:18

I think this nut is tougher to crack than it seems.

Every MMO I played had a (mostly legitimate) active debate about class balance in pvp, in small fights, and larger scale fights. I think it's the most active and most discussed topic in online games.

Most of the pvp online games I played favoured ranged classes in group or large scale pvp.

I think that one thing that is missing in LIF:MMO and that could help the balance are CCs and "charge" or "sprint" type actions along with evade type actions.

Basically, I can think of two things that can help balance things out in this game :

1. Buff the melee vs ranged fight in melee range. If ranged classes could kill an enemy without that enemy hitting the ranged class once, then if the melee class were to reach the ranged class, he should have a similar advantage.

On it's own , it's a little extreme, but the balance principle is "ranged class stronger from a distance, melee class stronger at close range".


2. Those CCs, movement actions and evade I mentioned.

The main reason melee classes get owned by ranged is that melee classes can hardly reach the range class in the first place, and even when they do, they can't escape if they need to.

Being able to knock down, stun, snare, take away the weapon, being able to charge, sprint or other movement buffs should help balance the fight out for the melees if implemented in favour of the melee class.

Movement buffs to reach ranged class and to escape, but also to hep avoid being hit by ranged class.

Lastly, evade skills that allow the melee class if not to tank the ranged enemy, at least avoid some of its ranged attacks.


This can, and I've seen it help, balance out the ranged vs melee combat in pvp.

However, with this game being a "realistic" type of game, it might prove a lot more difficult than in other games to implement CCs, movement and evade actions.


Toren
True Believer
 
Posts: 153
Joined: 14 Oct 2014, 20:00

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Toren » 07 Jan 2017, 07:54

Part of the problem is with horses is that you can instantly just remount them after dismounting. However, it is pretty easy to dismount a rider even when they have high mounted fighting mastery. I never really noticed a big difference between 0 and 100 mounted fighting mastery as far as dismounts go, the only difference being Iron Grip.

Which gets to poleaxes. Though I've never seen it done in my time in YO, overheads with poleaxes supposedly have "a higher chance of dismounting a rider". I've never seen a stationary rider on a warhorse dismounted ever. It took me awhile to realize that the overheads were supposed to be akin to pulling someone off a horse. Which honestly should be pretty much the only way how high level mounted fighting mastery riders should get dismounted- either being pulled off after being stopped or by having the horse killed from underneath them.

But being able to go in and out of combat instantly and remount a horse instantly after being dismounted is what make the whole issue muddied. If a rider is dismounted, he should have to fight his way out to be able to remount his horse, but should also be much more difficult to dismount at higher levels. But then again, because people can carry multiple horses on them, it also makes it so that they could just pull out another horse and get away.

There should be natural incentive for archers to fall back to their own melee teammates if attacked by melee, or to stand and fight in hand to hand- the game really shouldn't be set up to make it more viable to shoot, hop out of combat, get on a horse, and continue to shoot without having to worry about enemy melee. Also needs to be made so that it is more viable to also switch to melee in close quarters rather than shoot point blank.


Sharana
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 644
Joined: 06 Nov 2014, 17:03

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Sharana » 07 Jan 2017, 14:35

As expected Life will be Lance and Bow for quite some time.

348. The MMO (the countless big open and treeless spaces on the map) highlighted something that was known for quite some time, but was "hidded" in the YO map where there is just no open place for such battles - cavalry and archers rule the battlefield and make the infantry obsolete. Many players don't want to adapt to the new meta as their appeal in the LiF combat was melee which simply isn't suited for the MMO and such melee fights happens very very rarely. Do you consider that a problem? Also is it realistic to expect some kind of either combat effectiveness reduction or economic demand to sustain and field cavalry during wars? Like more expensive warhorses (that need expensive saddle and armor), the need to feed the horses and so on?
  • Answer: I think it is too early to say anything certain about such a balance. Archers and cavalry has its weaknesses too. Northern territories are covered with woods, sieges are not really a good place for cavalry, we might boost Combat preparations to make it easier and faster to deploy anti-cavalry pike walls and mantles to cover infantry from archers. But again, it is too early to judge.
Image


Toren
True Believer
 
Posts: 153
Joined: 14 Oct 2014, 20:00

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Toren » 08 Jan 2017, 06:06

That's unfortunate. Well, as long as it is all better balanced out by release, I guess it doesn't matter. Just hope that the main reason a lot of us play (the melee combat) is viable in the end.


Sharana
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 644
Joined: 06 Nov 2014, 17:03

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Sharana » 08 Jan 2017, 16:14

Toren wrote:That's unfortunate. Well, as long as it is all better balanced out by release, I guess it doesn't matter. Just hope that the main reason a lot of us play (the melee combat) is viable in the end.


Well I have severe doubts that even in balanced game you are supposed to fight a field battle against cav and archers using boar spear, 2h sword or 2h maul (as the majority uses this weapons for melee).
The MMO is not deadmatch arena game, melee only can't be as viable as the same melee players would like to. Covering those big distances you will be riding a horse, won't run on foot for hour. The enemy will do the same, so unless both sides wish to fight melee and dismount the horses it simply can't be melee fight when only 1 of the sides wants it. If you reach the enemy castle you need tons of archers if you plan to do something, with mainly infantry you are totally useless and that's simply normal logic, not bad balance :)
Image


Linbaba
True Believer
 
Posts: 222
Joined: 15 Dec 2016, 14:38

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Linbaba » 08 Jan 2017, 17:03

Sharana wrote:
Toren wrote:That's unfortunate. Well, as long as it is all better balanced out by release, I guess it doesn't matter. Just hope that the main reason a lot of us play (the melee combat) is viable in the end.


Well I have severe doubts that even in balanced game you are supposed to fight a field battle against cav and archers using boar spear, 2h sword or 2h maul (as the majority uses this weapons for melee).
The MMO is not deadmatch arena game, melee only can't be as viable as the same melee players would like to. Covering those big distances you will be riding a horse, won't run on foot for hour. The enemy will do the same, so unless both sides wish to fight melee and dismount the horses it simply can't be melee fight when only 1 of the sides wants it. If you reach the enemy castle you need tons of archers if you plan to do something, with mainly infantry you are totally useless and that's simply normal logic, not bad balance :)



there's a million and one links to this kind of info, it's easy to get.


https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-comp ... ieval-army


No one ever saw an army of horsemen and archers, ever, except maybe the Mongols and American Indians.

Except that the Mongols were a very specific case, were basically only active towards the very end of the medieval times and the American Indians didn't really fight Christopher Columbus and his sick raiders until the the middle ages were finished.

for info :
middle ages 5th to 15th century
mongols : 13th and 14th
Christopher columbus discovers "America" in 1492


You can't defend the position that says that historically armies were composed of bowmen / archers and horsemen with little to no melee fighters, it's simply not true.

And from a gaming and strategy point of view, it also makes no sense at all.

From the beginning of organised warfare up until today, there has pretty much always been a balance, within the ranks of an army, between different roles and types of fighters.

And the constant has also pretty much always been a predominance of infantry / melee fighters (we could consider that modern foot soldiers are melee even if they use guns but if you prefer not to, then this statement holds at least until the arrival of gunpowder)

There's an easy way to check if you are interested in the reality of medieval battles, there's wikipedia, there's all kinds of forums, and youtube also has a number of movie samples that are regarded as being historically accurate.


Sharana
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 644
Joined: 06 Nov 2014, 17:03

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Sharana » 08 Jan 2017, 17:22

Balance that is mainly based on economics, not on actual combat performance. It's much cheaper to have peasant on foot then knight on a horse.
Besides there were tons of pikemans as that's easy to use weapon, in LiF you can count them on the fingers of 1 hand even in larger scale battles. Or the medieval foot soldiers were facing cav without battle line, with boar spears, 2h swords and mauls and flanged maces as that's what LiF melees use and don't want to change as that's working just fine for melee only fight.

On the topic of horse archers that's the case only because of the very wrong ingame mechanics encouraging such use. Why does one use horse archers instead of regular foot archers? Because they use the horse as meat shield to hide from enemy arrows showing up only to shoot themself. Then if they see infantry rushing them they just jump on the horse and retreat back to dismount and keep shooting on the advancing melees (the jump back on the horse and repeat). Then lastly in order to relocate to the flanks fast and shoot the enemy from different angles which is perfectly viable in the LiF's scale of fights where 30 vs 30 is big.

This stupid use of horse archers makes the cav to account for such big amount, if that's fixed in some way then you won't have so much cav. Other then that even in LiF it's hard to provide horses for 60 fighters in the guild and keep the supply rolling to sustain combat losses, that's hard to imagine. Yet the majority of the "daily" PvP one can expect is to intercept enemy raiding party (all mounted ofc for the mobility) which means going mounted ofc to catch them and fight them. That's 10-20 vs 10-20 scale of skirmishes, how do you propose doing that on foot or with 5 cav and 15 on foot in the mentioned scale?

The other big thing making the infantry unusable in mass are the archers that break the tower shields in seconds. For example when you see a shield wall of 4 guys with tower shields in tight formation and other melees behind them pushing 5 archers you would expect that to work don't you? Well not in LiF, because in about 20-30 seconds the shields were down (broken) and that group just ran in different direction after the shields were gone and they started getting hit by arrows and were helpless.

PS: When I open the wikipedia as you suggested I see this:
The rising costs of war
In the medieval period, the mounted warrior held sway for an extended time. Typically heavily armoured, well motivated and mounted on powerful, specially bred horses, the mounted knight represented a formidable force, which was used to effect against more lightly armoured troops. Since only the noble classes could afford the expense of knightly warfare, the supremacy of the mounted cavalryman was associated with the hierarchical structure of medieval times, particularly feudalism. As the period progressed, however, the dominance of the cavalry elite began to slowly break down. The Black Death in the 14th century swept through Europe, devastating the population and resulting in serious manpower shortages. This encouraged more economical use of available manpower, and the infantryman was much cheaper to outfit and maintain than the aristocratic knight. The Crusade era also saw a rise in the importance of infantry, and required large numbers of men and material to be organized for distant battlefields. Such expeditions were part of the growing number of sieges, disputes and campaigns throughout the 13th and 14th centuries that greatly increased the cost of warfare for medieval regimes. The relative inexpensiveness of the infantryman, combined with a shortage of manpower, provided incentives for expanding their use

...

Infantry versus cavalry
Tactically there were only two ways for infantry to beat cavalry in an open field battle: firepower and mass. Firepower could be provided by swarms of missiles. Mass could be provided by a tightly packed phalanx of men. Such tactics were long-established; the Romans used missile troops such as slingers, and the core infantry learned to deal with swarming enemy cavalrymen by forming a hollow square fenced with a solid hedge of iron pila (large javelins). Alexander the Great combined both methods in his clashes with the Asiatic horseman of Persia and India, screening his central infantry phalanx with slingers, archers and javelin-men, before unleashing his cavalry against the enemy. Both mass and firepower could be aided by a good tactical position, such as on a hill or on rough terrain, where enemy cavalry would have trouble maneuvering. These ancient lessons were relearned in the Medieval period; in the Crusades, in the continued operations of forces like the Flemish footman and particularly the Swiss pikeman and the English longbowman.

...
The infantry revolution and the decline of cavalry
Some Medieval specialists elaborated on the idea of an infantry revolution happening early in the 14th century, when in some relevant battles, like Courtrai (1302), Bannockburn (1314) or Halmyros (1311), heavy cavalry was routed by infantry; however, it can be pointed out that in all those battles infantry was entrenched or positioned in rough terrain unsuited for cavalry, like in other battles of the 14th and 15th century in which cavalry was defeated. In fact infantry had been victorious in earlier times in similar situations, for instance at the battle of Legnano in 1176, but in open ground infantry still had the worst, as shown for instance at the battle of Patay (1429) and the battle of Formigny (1450) in which the vaunted English longbowmen were easily run down; however, the experience of battles like Courtrai and Bannockburn meant that the myth of the invincible knight disappeared, which was in itself important for transforming medieval warfare.
More substance has the case for the "return of Heavy Infantry" as Carey has named it. Pikemen, unlike other infantry, could stand in the open against heavy cavalry. While requiring drill and discipline, individual training requirements were much lower than those for archers or knights, and the switch from heavily armoured knight to footsoldier made possible the expansion in the size of armies from the late 15th century onwards as infantry could be trained more quickly and could be hired in great numbers. But that change was slow.


No mentions of fighting cav with 2h swords, mauls and boar spears :)
And that's the "melee experience" big part of the players are looking for.
Image


Linbaba
True Believer
 
Posts: 222
Joined: 15 Dec 2016, 14:38

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Linbaba » 08 Jan 2017, 18:38

I'm not questioning why things are the way they are in the game, I wanted focusing on what the dev team may have as objectives for this game, and basing my arguments on the real world (though I could just as well have used video games as an example).

Every type of fighter (in the real world and in fiction) has strong points and weak points that differ from other types of fighters.

Having one type that is stronger than all others and is never weaker, that's a problem, from all angles.

That's basically what I'm saying.


Relevant to the game : if me and my guild go to war and the only thing I see is bowmen, I will QQ and rage and rant until my skin peals off my fingers !

It might even be a strong enough reason for me to leave the game, personally, seeing as I don't like playing ranged classes to begin with, whatever the game.


Toren
True Believer
 
Posts: 153
Joined: 14 Oct 2014, 20:00

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Toren » 08 Jan 2017, 21:50

All I'm trying to point out is that from a player skill perspective, lancers and ranged fighting are way too easy compared to melee. Melee has way more (frequently broken) in depth mechanics, while lancing and ranged are incredibly simple. Like I said a while ago, I myself am a lancer, but after the last patch combat patch it became so easy that being a lancer wasn't a real skill set anymore. Most people can lance effectively now within an hour of training. Same thing with ranged weapons. Alongside a mount/dismount speed debuff (or whatever to make hopping on a horse and running less prevalent), making these classes require more player skill than melee would make them respectable combat skills, rather than the simple solution to winning fights.

As far as the economic limitations go, we haven't really seen a proof of any economic balance in any aspect of the game. As far as end tier combat goes, naphtha pots and poisons will be mass produced without any issue once people get to herb gardens. Warhorses will be mass produced whether or not they become more complicated to make. Everything that isn't completely dependent on wood or high quality metal will be able to be mass produced from what we have seen for in game mechanics currently permit, especially once herb gardens and massive farms get set up.

I'd rather have the PvP aspect of the game balanced around individual player skill than around an economy system that isn't even in the game yet.


Gruber
 
Posts: 168
Joined: 28 Oct 2016, 23:12

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Gruber » 09 Jan 2017, 11:04

Where is Melee broken, beside the bad netcode and the poor first person view?

Lancers and ranged is not that op. Arrows are not that fast that you cant evade them on long range, same for lancers. You can have a big advantage on lancers when you use the enviorment right.

Speaking about realism. It was a bad idea to move a melee group without shields over an open field against archer or cav. Any kind of a shield was a good option against archers, no shields would result in heavy casulties. Cav was very effektiv against melee only groups on an open field. Even a Speer Wall cant stop the heavy impact. But remember cav was kamikaze when they crush in a organized formations. They will take a lot of lifes with them, but it was very unlikely to get out alive. In europe cav mostly consists of men from the upper class. Men who have the money to buy heavy armor and "waste" a horse in battle. You dont send those men on a suicide mission. Cav usualy came to use when the battle was won already.

In RL the big problems were. You cant carry big amounts of arrows to "waste" them and there were not enough horse available for every men. A horse ready to battle was rare and nothing to waste.

In LiF, breeding horses should take a lot longer, like 4 weeks. And you should not be able to carry 100 arrows and more so easy.


Lord_Sitruc
True Believer
 
Posts: 262
Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 20:22

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Lord_Sitruc » 09 Jan 2017, 15:04

So Just going to spitball a few things here that I had as ideas and see what you guys think.

I think something that would make cavalry more interesting is if the horses didn't regen health naturally. I think it would be more interesting if the healers had to put a heal on them like you have to do to people.
I think that little change will make warhorses much more valuable and more limited, it would also reduce the use of horses as shields and quick getaways by archers as they could only use it for a short time or risk losing their horse. This would also increase the value of armored heavy warhorses causing cavalry to be a bigger investment of points.

I think they should make a new item "quiver" that is required to equip more then one arrow in a stack at a time. Make it take time to load the quivers, and make them heavyish so you only want to carry a few of them on you at a time. This might not reduce the archer spam but it will probably help lead to melee combat after the arrows are spend or force people to plan logistics to keep the arrows flowing which I think would be a nice addition.

Ahh last but not least, do something with formations. They have this awesome mechanic and have hidden it so far down into the weeds that nobody uses it. move it to where people can get it and give it a buff. If a well formed unit using formations got a bonus against being knocked over by cavalry and increased resistance against forward incoming arrows. I bet infantry units would be popping out of the ground like daisies


Toren
True Believer
 
Posts: 153
Joined: 14 Oct 2014, 20:00

Re: Roles balance in Field battles

Post by Toren » 10 Jan 2017, 02:52

Lord_Sitruc wrote:So Just going to spitball a few things here that I had as ideas and see what you guys think.

I think something that would make cavalry more interesting is if the horses didn't regen health naturally. I think it would be more interesting if the healers had to put a heal on them like you have to do to people.
I think that little change will make warhorses much more valuable and more limited, it would also reduce the use of horses as shields and quick getaways by archers as they could only use it for a short time or risk losing their horse. This would also increase the value of armored heavy warhorses causing cavalry to be a bigger investment of points.

I think they should make a new item "quiver" that is required to equip more then one arrow in a stack at a time. Make it take time to load the quivers, and make them heavyish so you only want to carry a few of them on you at a time. This might not reduce the archer spam but it will probably help lead to melee combat after the arrows are spend or force people to plan logistics to keep the arrows flowing which I think would be a nice addition.

Ahh last but not least, do something with formations. They have this awesome mechanic and have hidden it so far down into the weeds that nobody uses it. move it to where people can get it and give it a buff. If a well formed unit using formations got a bonus against being knocked over by cavalry and increased resistance against forward incoming arrows. I bet infantry units would be popping out of the ground like daisies


As far as the heavy warhorse goes, I can't really see it ever becoming useful unless melee cavalry becomes a thing. As it stands, the only way to fight effectively on horseback is lancing, and running lancing and heavy warhorses effectively is fairly difficult and underwhelming. Maybe some nice changes to how horseback damage works along with some horseback friendly swords would change this, but I don't think its being worked on right now.

I like the quiver idea, but every archer in this game finds a way around melee combat if they can, and they probably would find ways around new restrictions as well. I personally don't have any good ideas on how to make it valuable for archers to stand and fight when they are closed in on by melee so I can't really contribute here.

Formations have always bothered me. Right now the only way formations are really valuable is with archers/crossbowmen from a stationary position. Moving a wall formation across a field will just result in everyone being slowed down because of how difficult it is to stay in formation, and these formations just get chewed up by archers/naphtha pots/ cavalry, which is what they theoretically should help against. I think formations just need an overhaul in general, as well as a re positioning on the skill tree as you pointed out.

Return to General Discussion

cron