Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Lerp8674]

3. Another issue that you guys have brought up a few times is the difference between combat and peaceful stances, and the fact that you can switch those instantly and without any cooldown. While speed, stamina drain, received damage and other such factors of war and peaceful stances are necessary for our gameplay, we do agree that some kind of cooldown would be beneficial in order to prevent multiple stance changes during combat for certain advantages.

I dont see an issue with this. It literally coincides with something you said about light horses. Why should light skirmishing infantry be any different? Besides they take double damage against anything, most people get shot and 1 hit if they step outside of combat stance. No issue IMO

To be fair, if you just run high agi and light armor you'll still be able to be an effective skirmisher with unlimited sprint bar. This change won't really hurt skirms as much as it will hurt hit and run horse archers.

I suppose, I'll read through it but pretty sure someone mentioned making it harder to ride a warhorse. If thats what its trying to counter then I think theres other ways to go about it. Making them only able to ride regular horses to achieve that would be fine. Although I would like to see mounted archery as a thing. The only other thing i can think of is people missing a pike thrust and running.

[Sharana]

They want to allow everyone to ride trained warhorse. Besides the main think they dislike is the hit and run (meaning you are running, enter warstance, hit and exit again to keep running) tacics and the stamina regain (you are low on stamina after few bad swings, you just exit the warstance and in 2 or so seconds you are full stamina). The slight possibility that you will get hit while outside of warstance is not punishing enough. After all one should make his mind - eiher fight or not, why should we allow unrestricted switch between peace and warstance when there are such differences between them?

I'm pretty confused as to why you have to be locked into a specific armour type to realize the full potential of your weapon.

Can't say I like it either. There are some types of armors I find ugly and don't want to see them on me, yet I will have to use them most likely. Depends on how big the bonuses will be...
My guess is they try hard to make each armor viable instead of just making padded/leather one dirty cheap and lighter then they are now. Because when you need almost the same amount of linen cloth why would anyone pick up the leather armors instead of let's say chainmail.

[Lerp8674]

They want to allow everyone to ride trained warhorse. Besides the main think they dislike is the hit and run (meaning you are running, enter warstance, hit and exit again to keep running) tacics and the stamina regain (you are low on stamina after few bad swings, you just exit the warstance and in 2 or so seconds you are full stamina). The slight possibility that you will get hit while outside of warstance is not punishing enough. After all one should make his mind - eiher fight or not, why should we allow unrestricted switch between peace and warstance when there are such differences between them?

I'm pretty confused as to why you have to be locked into a specific armour type to realize the full potential of your weapon.

Can't say I like it either. There are some types of armors I find ugly and don't want to see them on me, yet I will have to use them most likely. Depends on how big the bonuses will be...
My guess is they try hard to make each armor viable instead of just making padded/leather one dirty cheap and lighter then they are now. Because when you need almost the same amount of linen cloth why would anyone pick up the leather armors instead of let's say chainmail.

As torren said, you are probably running with high agility anyway as an archer, so it doesnt really make a difference. And if thats the case make the stamina regen the same. I wasnt even aware that the regen is different. Seemed to be something of the past that doesn't really apply atm.

"(meaning you are running, enter warstance, hit and exit again to keep running)" most people who try this type of strategy get destroyed with the changes between combat and peaceful stance.

"why should we allow unrestricted switch between peace and warstance when there are such differences between them"

Because it doesnt give anyone an advantage that is great enough to break the game, and you are trying to limit tactics in favor of others

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_tactics

I've said it before and i'll say it again, nerfing skirmishing tactics does nothing but favor large guilds, who will now have the ability to completely win field battles due to the fact they can park infantry on a hill and GG.

People focus way too much on 1v1 scenarios

[Hallegra]

The choice of what armour to wear is based off of two factors: speed and protection. Currently, if you go for more protection, you trade that off with reduced movement speed. If you go for less protection, you gain increased movement speed as a result.
What this means is that your armour choice is not relevant to what weapon you're wielding past a certain point. You are able to choose seperately what you want to fight with and what you want to wear.

This meta that is being suggested is where specific armour types offer a straight boost to damage. This makes it so that your choice of both weapon and armour is combined. I'm wondering when this turned into a fantasy game, with magical boosts to damage based on your "armour of +1 pikes"...


You choose your weapon, then you choose if you want to be faster or slower. I choose a poleaxe, do I want to be a quick poleaxe fighter or a heavily armoured lawbringer? I pick a two-handed axe, do I now want to be a naked berserker or a heavily armoured housecarl? By linking specific weapon types to specific armour types, you take that choice away. You are penalizing people who decide to go as a padded sword/board user, or a scale-clad pikeman.

This proposed armour stat boost system is moving life is feudal away from the realism-oriented view and more towards the fantasy realm of specific classes. Not a horrible change, but one that moves away from the life is feudal view.

[Azzerhoden]

Keep in mind that if Bitbox wanted 'realism' they would pick a specific year and folks would be limited to the armor available then. Instead they are using armor from a ra of years, ignoring the technological improvements made to that armor year over year. If they didn't we would all be wearing tempered plate.

So, to avoid a realistic time line of armor development they want to encourage diversity by adding in slight bonuses.

[Lerp8674]

Keep in mind that if Bitbox wanted 'realism' they would pick a specific year and folks would be limited to the armor available then. Instead they are using armor from a ra of years, ignoring the technological improvements made to that armor year over year. If they didn't we would all be wearing tempered plate.

So, to avoid a realistic time line of armor development they want to encourage diversity by adding in slight bonuses.

Thats something that is more or less encouraged by the current skill progression, and in my opinion they are probably fine tuning it so that it is structured that way.

Also adding half handers to mounted fighting mastery doesnt really make sense. An estoc is used to kill plate guys, and was used by shield infantry

[Knar]

I like a lot of these changes, except for the armor bonuses. They are unrealistic and will force people to wear certain armors for the role they want to play.

Maybe make it so heavier armors swing slower or something realistic like that, but don't add magic bonuses just for wearing armor.

[Toren]

To expand on the in and out of combat issue, I do think the change will be nice. Like I said earlier, true skirmishers wont have anything changed with this. The whole issue revolved around the fact that out of combat you have no sprint bar, stam drains slower and regens faster. IMO a simple 30 second debuff that makes it so your stamina and sprint work the same way they did in combat that takes place right after going out of combat stance would be a pretty simple fix that wouldn't hurt noobies who accidentally hit R in the middle of a fight.

The whole tap firing with the bow thing has bothered me for awhile. Nice to see it finally getting changed. Lerp has a point about buffing the counters to archers over nerfing bows to a certain extent though. When an arbalest hits a shield for 40 durability damage, is it the crossbows too strong or the shield too weak? That being said I do really hate the fact that in the game right now a lower skilled player with a bow can beat a higher skilled player in 90% of situations just due to how mobility functions in game (but thats what they are already talking about with the horse change and combat stance, so nvrmind I guess).

For the warhorses issue, I think if a "Troop Horse" was added that had the same speed as a saddle horse but more stam, health, and didnt flinch was added it would help to solve the issue of people being able to get away clean with 30 chivalry and no mounted fighting mastery. Make it so you have to train on this horse until 30 or 60 mounted fighting mastery and rebalance hardy and spirited around this. That way troops could still ride around the map without being hindered by the saddle horses low stam yet they would be outclassed by actual mounted fighters while on the saddle.

I too doubt the whole armor changes part will work that well. Not saying that armor doesn't need some tweaking, but I don't know if this will make it better. As cool as these changes sound on paper, I doubt they will play out how expected.

Final note- Is the Pollaxe going to do chopping or slashing damage? It does have an axe head, and it would make sense compared to the other poleaxes.

[Some_Jerk]

I just want to voice my opinion against combat bonuses for armor types. I can't express enough of how bad an idea I think this is

" Padded - bonus to pikes and anti-cavalry polearm weapons, less damage from impact with horses
Leather - bonus to bows and crossbows and increased armor penetration
Chainmail - increased mounted combat damage and horse maneuverability
Scale mail - one-handed weapon damage bonus, plus bonus to shields
Plate - bonus to two-handed weapon damage and chance to avoid poisoning from one-handed weapons
We want to underline that bonuses will be relatively small and in no way should prevent other combinations of weapons/armor."

Anyone who wishes to play any game on a competitive level will recognize that small bonuses can make a big difference. If you implement this it absolutely will prevent people from using other combinations of weapons and armor. It's not necessary and it certainly is not realistic.. which you folks mentioned is important to you. Please re-consider this.

I like the idea of there being a timer between stances, BUT we still have (What I think is) a problem with combat stance draining stamina way too quickly while running and being slower than normal stance. It's very hard to catch someone fleeing from you if you're using a melee weapon, and, while it shouldn't be dead simple, in many cases it just isn't possible. Perhaps it would be better if there was no run speed loss in combat stance?
On the other hand, maybe not being able to switch out of combat will prevent ranged users and others from being able to escape so easily?

[Bestial]

i hope in a siege i will be defending my castle and not some randomly generated hill with a monument on top!?!

[Lord_Sitruc]

In instanced battles, we plan on implementing a King of the Hill system; where a certain zone in the middle of the map should contain the majority of your forces. During sieges, attackers must fight through your forces and reach the monument to destroy it. In this kind of situation, cavalry will not be able to provide a strong foothold on an objective, and that is where infantry can come to play!

I really like most of these changes, but one thing I would like to say is, can we get two points on the sides of the instanced battles instead of one in the middle.

I feel like this would lead to more tactics and historical formations being used since both sides would have an attack and a defend point. I feel like one point in the middle will lead to ugly blob on blob with no really tactics other then to get onto the hill and then stay there as long as possible.

However, with 2 points one for attack and one for defense, I feel like that will lead to probing attacks, skirmishes, flanking attacks, formations wheeling about. All kinds of great things.

Saw this, Loved it, Re posted it in the game forums

[Armstrong]

Ok im the noob here i know, but is this devlog for Your own or MMO? *hides*

[Lord_Sitruc]

Ok im the noob here i know, but is this devlog for Your own or MMO? *hides*

Both, Kinda, generally any of the stuff like combat and farming/building applies to both. Anything about instanced battles and stuff like that pertains to the mmo.

[Sharana]

Because it doesnt give anyone an advantage that is great enough to break the game, and you are trying to limit tactics in favor of others

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_tactics

I've said it before and i'll say it again, nerfing skirmishing tactics does nothing but favor large guilds, who will now have the ability to completely win field battles due to the fact they can park infantry on a hill and GG.

Well it's the same issue as with the facehugging. It's "deep" tactic after all, but the bottom line is that's use of the current unfinished mechanics. You are very wrong to assume that entering/exiting warstance was their vision how to enable hit and run tactics, it's something the community came up with when the devs didn't really care about PvP as it was going to get rework for the MMO anyway. Now after getting the game stable (the MMO crashes) the next step is to develop the war mechanics (instanced battles, sieges, ladders, alighment, politics etc) and rework the combat mechanics themself to make the battles enjoyable on MMO scale, not the YO skirmish levels. So it's kind of under their highlights from now on as we finally came to that part of the MMO development.

As for the hit and run tactics themself - the combat stance is to fight and they use the speed and stamina drain as ballance. Bypyssing them with peace stance was not their intention. Want to be fast and sprint long (for hit and run tactics) - invest your points in both agility and willpower, not Str or Const. They will most likely have to buff the stamina regen when you have many points in willpower and speed advantage for many points in agility, but that would be way better and more balanced then the current entering/exiting warstance for speed and stamina regen. So there will still be hit and run tactics, but inside the warstance conditions that everyone is supposed to use. If someone leaves warstance to run - let him, he is disengaging from the battle (and won't be able to draw a weapon again for like a minute to bother you), let the cav chase him down, switch your attention to someone still fighting instead of chasing him (outside of combat stance) till you eventually catch him

The whole tap firing with the bow thing has bothered me for awhile. Nice to see it finally getting changed. Lerp has a point about buffing the counters to archers over nerfing bows to a certain extent though. When an arbalest hits a shield for 40 durability damage, is it the crossbows too strong or the shield too weak? That being said I do really hate the fact that in the game right now a lower skilled player with a bow can beat a higher skilled player in 90% of situations just due to how mobility functions in game (but thats what they are already talking about with the horse change and combat stance, so nvrmind I guess).

That has bothered many - after all archer is supposed to be in disadvantage when the fight reaches close ranges. It's not impossible to kill such, but if you need better players, tactics and teamwork to kill archer in melee range it's not really working as intended. That's countered with their planned changes to minimal draw (so that you dont enter warstance, spit an arrow in the face of the infantry behind you, exit warstance and keeprunning). In close range they will have to draw a sword/axe/mace whatever and fight with their sidearm. Plus there should be buff to willpower, so that player with agility and willpower build can outrun archer (str+agi build) only because of his stamina rates when no one leaves warstance to bypuss such stuff. The archer can either run (leave combat stance and disengage from the battle for some time), have melee players proteciting him from such chasers or simply try to fight with his sidearm instead of running.

As for the shields - they didn't respond but many groups submitted as feedback that arrow/bold damage to shields should be lowered, so that shieldwall won't be breaking fast and act as counter to archers in the open, allowing to slowly push in the open covering behind the players with large shields. I hope they will listen to that.

I like the idea of there being a timer between stances, BUT we still have (What I think is) a problem with combat stance draining stamina way too quickly while running and being slower than normal stance. It's very hard to catch someone fleeing from you if you're using a melee weapon, and, while it shouldn't be dead simple, in many cases it just isn't possible. Perhaps it would be better if there was no run speed loss in combat stance?

Well many suggested to make the only difference between peace/warstance (like in many many other games) simply the ability to draw out a weapon and the reduced damage inside warstance. Then there would be no problem. But they disagree as the warstance speed and stamina drain is essential for their combat system, so as that's set in stone we have to figure out a way to force everyone fight inside the warstance limitations and not avoid them with the current entering/exiting combatstance. If someone runs, he can't rejoin the fight for some time (like a minute or so), so let archers and cavalry chase him. We speak about combat mechanics suited for 100+ vs 100+ battles after all, not a warrior meeting 2 peasant in the forest and wanting to kill at least 1 of them at all cost.

i hope in a siege i will be defending my castle and not some randomly generated hill with a monument on top!?!

You don't defend your castle in the mentioned instanced battle. It's simulation of open field battle where both armies leave their castles and march toward each other and meet somewhere between their lands on no mans land. So there isn't really a defender and attacker. The result of the engagement simulates 1 army getting defeated and retreating to their castle while the other pursues them and sieges that castle. Of course in the game you will have to win multiple instanced battles before proceeding to the siege which won't be instanced and you will defend your own castle.

I really like most of these changes, but one thing I would like to say is, can we get two points on the sides of the instanced battles instead of one in the middle.

I feel like this would lead to more tactics and historical formations being used since both sides would have an attack and a defend point. I feel like one point in the middle will lead to ugly blob on blob with no really tactics other then to get onto the hill and then stay there as long as possible.

Look at the answer above, instanced battle is not really attack/defense scenario. It's engagement on no mans land, king of the hill suites best for this one. Besides the instanced battle isn't supposed to be something you play for hours which will be the case if there is no objective or 2 points in the planned 200 vs 200 scale. Besides it's not like you don't need tactics to take a position with minimal losses and then hold it for specific amount of time.

[Sharana]

Hardy maybe the base horse for Heavy, but it can be ridden on its own. From the wiki:

30 Cavalry attacks become twice as fast.
Can ride Hardy Warhorses.

As such it is/should be a superior warhorse that could be trained to heavy, if desired.

If the messed up wiki was correct and the horses hp was:
warhorse - 225
hardy - 300
sprinted - 250
heavy - 500
and on top of that hardy was faster (meaning current warhorse speed while the regular warhorse got the hardy's current speed) then it would be completely fine. But that was never mentioned to be the case as far as design goes. So we have to assume regular warhorse is going to stay the fastest and the most maneuverable (out of the combat horses, sprinted is bad at that) and in such case it's simply unfair to provide it on 30 chivalry and 0 mounted fighting mastery and allow it's use on full potential (instead of full sprint bar on 30 as the heavy horse).

[Trir]

Nice to see that you starting understand about situation with horses. For now everybody using warhorses, no reason to use another.

Heavy horses can be stunned by polearm like glavie, easily shooted by archers, caught by lancers cause they slow and everything they can offer instead spead and maneuverability is +200 HP. All this is ruining the idea of heavy cavalry.

I think you should seriously buff heavy horses, especially armored one.
More speed, more HP, can be stopped ONLY by pike, no chance to fly out of the saddle when bumping another horses.
And make in expensive, of course. Very expensive. Change recipe of horse armor, add a lot of linen cloths, leather and ropes there.
Turn heavy horses into the symbol of power and success and let infantry cry when they will see armored cavalry.

[Pcfreak9]

The only feedback I would give is that since the update of spear-shield combo. Shield mastery and sword master should be switched or put Shield mastery as a seperated skill. This makes Spear + shield combination just more common early game since early medieval times it was the most common unit formation.

The rest ideas are awesome!

[Some_Jerk]

The only feedback I would give is that since the update of spear-shield combo. Shield mastery and sword master should be switched or put Shield mastery as a seperated skill. This makes Spear + shield combination just more common early game since early medieval times it was the most common unit formation.

The rest ideas are awesome!

+1 for this. Shield and 1h blade mastery should be switched around on the skill tree. It just makes more sense, why would I have to learn how to use a sword to be able to use a shield? why should shields be locked behind the arbitrary limitation of needing linen rope? Shields should be one of the most basic skills, and pcfreak9 is right in saying that the combination of spear and shield would have been common. The information I've read on the subject suggest spears and shields were have been the most common combination of military equipment for thousands of years.

[Azzerhoden]

There is nothing wrong with a slight bonus for armor types and certain weapons. In the first place it promotes a role. In the second place fighters with any skill will always beat someone with less skill. Third, people are bitching about it without knowing any of the actual details.

Seriously people, let them put in the full package for evaluation, then decide. Unless of course you have some secret sauce you think you discovered, and the idea of a small bonus is going to break it.

[Marquis]

[Azzerhoden]

The only feedback I would give is that since the update of spear-shield combo. Shield mastery and sword master should be switched or put Shield mastery as a seperated skill. This makes Spear + shield combination just more common early game since early medieval times it was the most common unit formation.

The rest ideas are awesome!

A lot of us have been asking for shields to be moved as an independent skill for quite a while.

[Styxwash]

So still no revamp of Shield-bash or removal or reduction of Parry stuns? Also still looking for Shields as a stand alone skill.

Not sure I like the armor bonuses either. Promotes cookie cutter setups. Maybe start by balancing the armor values, cost and weight first.

I suppose the push feature might include a revamp of shield-bash? Hoping.

I like to see that horses will become more expensive and have basic AI!

[Olivemanchester]

Good job and many thanks for pocket ponies fixes!

[Links234]

Leather and padded armor in the game missing not only from a low protection, but above all because of the high prices. The developers have done a rare 3rd armor level, why not go the same way? Why do you need to come up with the magical properties of armor?

[Xkeithstonex]

Can we nerf the fishing pole? Its a silly weapon, especially with the grind where new players will be stuck on primitives for awhile...


EDIT: Also, the ability to use Slings and throwing weapons with a shield.

[Moggy]

OK i understand that for games of past eras Balance, realism, fun all clash. But can't we agree that the idea of armour giving a combat bonus is crazy such as leather armour giving extra armor pen. How? If your arguement is less weight on your arms from plate armour then why not give leather a debuff and make a naked have the highest armour pen?

So please either remove "Hardcore and realistic" from the description of Life is Feudal or completely scrap the idea of combat buffs from certain armors for certain weapons but having both is just crazy. But other then this one topic most other concepts i'm completely fine with but this goes against the idea of realism which is why i bought the game, why i have waited so long for the mmo

[Genral_Kairon]

Hello at all, and if we switch bow and crossbow in the skill tree, making bow less damage at low level skill and increasing crossbow recharging time...(history teach that crossbow was invented for penetrate full plate armour)
Padded - deflect some blunt attack and blade = fast movement and attack
Leather - minor bonus deflection cutting damage = fast movement and attack
Chainmail - huge deflection cutting damage = medium movement and attack
Scale mail - huge deflection cutting damage = medium movement and attack
Plate - huge deflection cutting damage only properly affected by piercing damage = slow movement and attack (necessity to ride a horse)
And it's strange that to make leather armour u need more time than to make a metal one, hystory teach that shield was in metal before armour.

[Linbaba]

I like the kind of arguments you used to justify cavalry being stronger and preferred. You used "realistic" justification, and it means we can discuss that. Since it's easy for everyone to be on the same wavelength.


However I noticed in the beginning of the post that you gave different buffs to different equipments, for example, pate armour would buff 2H sword.

So my question is, why? And how do you "justify realistically" that wearing something or something else will increase.

How does "wearing leather" increases the armour penetration and bow and crossbow damage?

How does chainmail increase mounted combat damage and also how does me wearing chainmail increase horse maneuverability? (if you say because it's lighter than plate, then why does leather not do this too?)

I think you get the idea.

Personally, I'm not a fan of this kind of setup, it's the kind you usually see in action games, and often FPS games, or RPGs that evolve in a fantasy world with magic.

Like "you have found the magic shoes of doom" "they give +4 attack power".

I'm not against the buffs pers sé, but in a role playing game, that (to me) has this level of immersion (that's a good thing), I don't like, and maybe other people may not like, things to not make sense.

We can all take shortcuts, or simplifications, but I would like to finish by stressing that, in my opinion, in this kind of game, it is important to maintain a high level of "coherence" or of "this makes sense".

PS. (which is why I thought celebrating Christmas in game was a terrible idea)

[Azzerhoden]

I like the kind of arguments you used to justify cavalry being stronger and preferred. You used "realistic" justification, and it means we can discuss that. Since it's easy for everyone to be on the same wavelength.

Actually, what was said was

The thing is, it is completely normal that, once two sides meet each other on the vast open plains of the MMO map, they prefer to keep mobile for advantage - and infantry feels itself like a disadvantage. It is actually completely normal and realistic; skirmishes in open plains are typically more suited for light cavalry due to their mobility.

For someone who is so anal about terminology you certainly like to misrepresent when it suits you.

As for the rest, its easy to see why they are adding a bonus. It isn't realistic to use 'hit points' to track someones health. It isn't realistic to use stamina to track someones energy. It isn't realistic to use a FOOD Multiplier, or a SKILL tree, or that you can learn to make furniture by using a knife to make wooden handles or pretty much ANY OTHER GAME MECHANIC in the game.

The slight bonus (which is a quote by the way) is designed to prevent min/maxing, which isn't very realistic either.

Now go away.

[Linbaba]

CONTENTS OF THIS POST WERE HIDDEN DUE TO PROVOCATIVE ATTITUDE