Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

What are we currently working on.
User avatar
Arrakis
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: 25 Oct 2013, 14:11
Location: Sparksvaard, the middle world; the world of people.

Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Arrakis » 07 Jul 2017, 17:00

rimg


Hey Feudalists!

During the current CBT #4 test run we plan to release another one of our main MMO features: the Battle System. In today’s devblog we’d like to provide a brief introduction to its key aspects.

First of all, we would like to stress the reason why we think that battles are so important for our MMO and PvP players. The Battle system will be the primary method for countries and kingdoms to brawl for domination of the game world in an instanced battle area.
The fact that it is instanced means that active PvP activities will not be affected by other players whom are not taking part, nor will other players be affected by participants of the battle. By ‘affected’ we not only mean direct game action involvement (looting, civilian casualties, backstabbing), but also performance-wise (to reduce render and network/server lag). Due to separate instancing, we can precisely track and share with players the following statistics: a list of guilds on both sides, initial amount of soldiers, casualties, soldiers that fled and were captured (we plan to implement these mechanics later).

In order to start a battle, the attacking guild should craft a special ‘Challenge’ monument and place it on the defending guild or kingdom’s land. After that, both guild/kingdoms have approximately 24 real-life hours to prepare and get as many players as they can to use this monument and enlist on their side.
Once the battle starts, we cap the amount of players on one of the sides to prevent very advantageous ‘zerging’ (x3 players amount advantage is the maximum). Participants are then moved into the instanced area, which is stripped of any buildings, objects and terraforming, leaving only natural foliage and water in the battle area.

The rules of the battle are quite simple - be the King/Queen of the hill (the area in the center of the map, placed slightly closer to the defending armies side) or you will also be able to eliminate all players of the opposing side.
The winner of the battle gets all the equipment of the losing army that was dropped on the ground during the battle and the losing guild’s monument sustains damage. The damage can even degrade the monument and significantly shrink the radius of the claimed lands around it. Along with the damaged monument, the losers also lose (ha, get it!) the ability to issue battle challenges for the next 3 real-life days.

With these mechanics (and with unit and formation tweaks that are soon to come), we expect players will have a lot of fun clashing face-to-face in the open field/forest environment without walls to use for cover.

Please keep in mind that this is a short explanation of the Battle System mechanics, with many details still being iterated on. If you guys can hold on while we perfect and implement this new feature, you will get answers to any questions you have upon its release!

— The team


User avatar
Khan-
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: 18 Apr 2015, 15:12
Location: France

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Khan- » 07 Jul 2017, 17:01

Disponible en Français : sur Lifeisfeudal-fr.com



yeah !
Last edited by Khan- on 14 Jul 2017, 17:29, edited 3 times in total.
100% French speaking alliance of Royaume Franc : http://lifeisfeudal-fr.com/
Image
Les Témoins de Mérovée Site - Forum - Me contacter

User avatar
Saar
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 311
Joined: 05 Jul 2016, 14:26
Location: Toulouse - France

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Saar » 07 Jul 2017, 17:01

Traduction disponible sur vonCulm.fr
Last edited by Saar on 07 Jul 2017, 17:51, edited 1 time in total.


Vojnomir
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Jun 2016, 08:14

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Vojnomir » 07 Jul 2017, 17:22

Ниже переводик на скорую ручку, русский:

В ходе текущего прогона CBT #4 мы планируем выпустить еще одну из главных фич MMO: система битв Battle System. В сегодняшнем дневнике разрабов мы хотели бы привести краткое описание ключевых моментов системы.

Прежде всего, мы хотели бы подчеркнуть причину, по которой мы считаем эти битвы очень важными для наших игроков MMO и PvP. Система битв будет главным способом для стран и королевств для достижения доминации в игровом мире и в инстансированных батлграундах.
Инстанс – означает, что активные действия PvP не будут подвержены влиянию и участию других игроков, не принимающих участия в битве, и такие другие игроки также не будут подвержены воздействию битв. Подвержены влиянию – означает не только прямую вовлеченность в игровые действия (грабеж, гражданские жертвы, предательства и внезапные удары в спину), здесь имеется в виду улучшенная производительность в битвах (бои в инстансах уменьшают нагрузку на сервер/лаги и позволяют повысить производительность прорисовки). Благодаря раздельным инстансам, мы сможем точно отслеживать и делиться с игроками следующими параметрами: список гильдий с обеих сторон, начальное количество бойцов, список жертв, список бойцов, которые сбежали с поля боя и были захвачены в плен (мы планируем ввести механику плена немного позже).

Чтобы начать битву, атакующая гильдия должна установить специальный монумент «Вызов» /‘Challenge’ и разместить его на земле защищающейся стороны, гильдии или клана. После этого, у обеих сторон есть примерно 24 realреальных часа на то, чтобы подготовиться и привлечь как можно больше игроков, записать их в этот монумент и приступить к битве.
После начала битвы, мы ограничиваем максимум бойцов на одной из сторон, чтобы предотвратить «зерг», дающий огромное преимущество (троекратное превосходство одной из сторон по бойцам является максимальным доступным). Затем участники битвы перемещаются в инстанс, на котором нет никаких зданий, объектов и терраформинга, только природные заросли и вода.

Правила битвы достаточно просты – стань Царем/Царицей горы (область в центре карты, расположена немного ближе к армиям защищающейся стороны), или же перебить всех бойцов противника.
Победитель битвы получает все снаряжение проигравшей армии, которое упало на землю в ходе битвы, при этом монумент проигравшей гильдии получает урон. Такой урон может даже понизить уровень монумента и существенно сузить область заклаймленной земли вкруг него. Кроме повреждения монумента, проигравшие теряют возможность бросать вызов на битвы на следующие 3 реальных дня.

Благодаря этой механике (включая изменения в отрядах и формациях, которые скоро будут внедрены), мы надеемся, что игроки получат море фана от столкновений лицом к лицу в открытом поле/лесу без стен и других защитных элементов.

Пожалуйста, помните, что это лишь краткое описание механики Боевых Инстансов, многие подробности все еще дорабатываются. Если вы, мужики, сможете потерпеть, пока мы допиливаем и внедряем нашу великолепную фичу, то все ответы на свои вопросы вы сможете получить после внедрения!

User avatar
RetroLogi
 
Posts: 124
Joined: 29 Dec 2014, 15:49
Location: Italia

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by RetroLogi » 07 Jul 2017, 17:29

Sounds Good! :x

User avatar
Xzg0
True Believer
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 25 Oct 2013, 15:14

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Xzg0 » 07 Jul 2017, 18:12

XENO TAVERN
TS: ts3.xenotavern.com
http://youtube.com/xenotavern
http://facebook.com/XenoTavern
Zapraszamy umiłowanych w PvP i coop.
Image

User avatar
Un86Rn
True Believer
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 24 May 2017, 16:22

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Un86Rn » 07 Jul 2017, 18:43

Yeah right, because who needs stone walls, moats, archers and trebuchets - you can just go full lancers. Defensive ground, citadels, siege camps - no; obsolete. Just a straightforward field battle, and the lancers not at all have an advantage.


Kildrith
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 98
Joined: 25 May 2016, 22:11

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Kildrith » 07 Jul 2017, 18:52

Un86Rn wrote:Yeah right, because who needs stone walls, moats, archers and trebuchets - you can just go full lancers. Defensive ground, citadels, siege camps - no; obsolete. Just a straightforward field battle, and the lancers not at all have an advantage.


there are still going to be sieges, this is just going to be a something that takes place before a Siege.

Sieges require the defending monument to be level 1, so you have to lower the level of that monument by winning field battles.

also I think you might be surprised at how well and organised force does against lancers.


Aout
True Believer
 
Posts: 113
Joined: 22 Jan 2016, 18:28

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Aout » 07 Jul 2017, 22:25

Yea. Sounds pretty crappy.


Czanrei
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 21 Apr 2017, 17:25

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Czanrei » 08 Jul 2017, 08:15

This battle mechanic sounds like a horrible idea. If "the team" continues on this path of adding any sort of instancing to the game like this mechanic mentioned, I have zero interest in this game any more.

The whole point of a MMO is to be in a persistent world and adding temporary instances is anything but persistent.

User avatar
Butter
True Believer
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 29 Apr 2017, 20:17

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Butter » 08 Jul 2017, 18:23

I do not like this path of instanced game play. One of the major reasons I love this game is the open world where anything can happen and knowing that some battles werent going to be fair. I think not being able to overpower an enemy is just going to drive away people in big guilds. I very much dislike this step and I ask the team to reconsider this step forward.

User avatar
Freshmango55
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 27 Nov 2014, 15:31

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Freshmango55 » 08 Jul 2017, 21:21

Czanrei wrote:This battle mechanic sounds like a horrible idea. If "the team" continues on this path of adding any sort of instancing to the game like this mechanic mentioned, I have zero interest in this game any more.

The whole point of a MMO is to be in a persistent world and adding temporary instances is anything but persistent.


Well sorry to tell you but the servers simply can't handle big 100v100 battles in the open world without spikeing to 1200 ping we've already tested it several times.

The main thing they need to focus on is the damn server transitions tired of losing horses randomly.
Image


Humerox
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 22 Nov 2015, 08:26

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Humerox » 10 Jul 2017, 07:51

Horrible idea. For many reasons. Not the least of which are alliances and diplomacy. Zergs are a natural phenomenon in large MMOs, and can be dealt with in any number of meaningful ways, that don't require stepping on the sandbox.

And that's exactly what this mechanic will do. It takes the sandbox out of battles. It doesn't do anything but make things easier on the servers.

Get better servers. Charge more money. This game is definitely niche, so you're not going to see 10 zillion players. Quality is what you're looking for.


Aout
True Believer
 
Posts: 113
Joined: 22 Jan 2016, 18:28

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Aout » 12 Jul 2017, 14:22

Freshmango55 wrote:
Czanrei wrote:This battle mechanic sounds like a horrible idea. If "the team" continues on this path of adding any sort of instancing to the game like this mechanic mentioned, I have zero interest in this game any more.

The whole point of a MMO is to be in a persistent world and adding temporary instances is anything but persistent.


Well sorry to tell you but the servers simply can't handle big 100v100 battles in the open world without spikeing to 1200 ping we've already tested it several times.

The main thing they need to focus on is the damn server transitions tired of losing horses randomly.

100v100 battles ? Yea, right. At this point I doubt the game will have that amount of players to begin with. Too many bad decisions like this one.

They should have taken a look at Mortal Online. Massive, immersive battles around keeps work just fine. If there are really too many players it lags a bit, of course but I'd trade performance in favor for proper immersion/sandboxyness any day.

User avatar
Brother
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 20 Jun 2015, 05:19

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Brother » 12 Jul 2017, 15:05

Personally, I'm very down with the instanced battles - not only for performance reasons but also for the statistics they'll be able to track and display because of them.

I'll also add this has been a planned feature for a long time now so it's a bit amusing to be reading complaints about it now.

Aout wrote:100v100 battles ? Yea, right. At this point I doubt the game will have that amount of players to begin with

Hmm with 400k copies of YO sold, and all those players having free access to the MMO, I'd beg to differ ;)
Image


Aout
True Believer
 
Posts: 113
Joined: 22 Jan 2016, 18:28

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Aout » 12 Jul 2017, 15:44

Brother wrote:Personally, I'm very down with the instanced battles - not only for performance reasons but also for the statistics they'll be able to track and display because of them.

I'll also add this has been a planned feature for a long time now so it's a bit amusing to be reading complaints about it now.

Aout wrote:100v100 battles ? Yea, right. At this point I doubt the game will have that amount of players to begin with

Hmm with 400k copies of YO sold, and all those players having free access to the MMO, I'd beg to differ ;)

Copies of YO sold is absolutely no indication. I bought YO as well not knowing about those stupid battle instances, premium currency, premium consumables and other shenengians. I know 4 other people that are in the same boat. Now extrapolate.


Hutt
True Believer
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 00:53

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Hutt » 12 Jul 2017, 21:08

Aout wrote:
Brother wrote:Personally, I'm very down with the instanced battles - not only for performance reasons but also for the statistics they'll be able to track and display because of them.

I'll also add this has been a planned feature for a long time now so it's a bit amusing to be reading complaints about it now.

Aout wrote:100v100 battles ? Yea, right. At this point I doubt the game will have that amount of players to begin with

Hmm with 400k copies of YO sold, and all those players having free access to the MMO, I'd beg to differ ;)

Copies of YO sold is absolutely no indication. I bought YO as well not knowing about those stupid battle instances, premium currency, premium consumables and other shenengians. I know 4 other people that are in the same boat. Now extrapolate.


I know 30 YO owners that will hop in game then so I guess that balances the numbers :)


Hutt
True Believer
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 00:53

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Hutt » 12 Jul 2017, 21:10

And I completely support instanced battles. It's the only way to organize huge battles. Otherwise this would go to the "5AM capture all map" like many other games

There is still raiding, robbing, murdering with smaller groups on main map.


Humerox
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 22 Nov 2015, 08:26

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Humerox » 13 Jul 2017, 14:14

Hutt wrote:And I completely support instanced battles. It's the only way to organize huge battles. Otherwise this would go to the "5AM capture all map" like many other games

There is still raiding, robbing, murdering with smaller groups on main map.


Whose 5am? Using game mechanics to make things "easier" on guild organization is laughable. In a sandbox game, installing theme park design is detrimental to the entire concept of the game. Strong guilds should be able to maintain an effective defense, no matter the time zone. And this game is international, so it's easy to recruit members from all time zones.

When I stop on the main page for this game, it says "sandbox for thousands of players", not "sandbox with some theme park instancing for thousands of players".

I understand your argument. However, the game should be brutal, in all respects. Including popping your fortress at 5am your time because your guild hasn't taken the proper steps necessary to ensure its defense.


Aout
True Believer
 
Posts: 113
Joined: 22 Jan 2016, 18:28

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Aout » 13 Jul 2017, 14:54

Humerox wrote:
Hutt wrote:And I completely support instanced battles. It's the only way to organize huge battles. Otherwise this would go to the "5AM capture all map" like many other games

There is still raiding, robbing, murdering with smaller groups on main map.


Whose 5am? Using game mechanics to make things "easier" on guild organization is laughable. In a sandbox game, installing theme park design is detrimental to the entire concept of the game. Strong guilds should be able to maintain an effective defense, no matter the time zone. And this game is international, so it's easy to recruit members from all time zones.

When I stop on the main page for this game, it says "sandbox for thousands of players", not "sandbox with some theme park instancing for thousands of players".

I understand your argument. However, the game should be brutal, in all respects. Including popping your fortress at 5am your time because your guild hasn't taken the proper steps necessary to ensure its defense.

Exactly
I suppose generation snowflake can't handle proper sandbox games anymore. Unfortunate.


Ragemaster9999
True Believer
 
Posts: 14
Joined: 01 Dec 2016, 17:10

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Ragemaster9999 » 13 Jul 2017, 15:08

Czanrei wrote:This battle mechanic sounds like a horrible idea. If "the team" continues on this path of adding any sort of instancing to the game like this mechanic mentioned, I have zero interest in this game any more.

The whole point of a MMO is to be in a persistent world and adding temporary instances is anything but persistent.


Yeah because I totally want third party armies to show up and ruin a good fight ala eve online


Humerox
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 22 Nov 2015, 08:26

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Humerox » 13 Jul 2017, 17:29

Ragemaster9999 wrote:Yeah because I totally want third party armies to show up and ruin a good fight ala eve online


Allies. EvE is the perfect example of a true sandbox. If LiF wants to follow a good example, that's the best place to look. Preparing for all contingencies is part of good strategy.

All this carebear mentality in a supposed sandbox is surprising.


Ragemaster9999
True Believer
 
Posts: 14
Joined: 01 Dec 2016, 17:10

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Ragemaster9999 » 13 Jul 2017, 21:11

Humerox wrote:
Ragemaster9999 wrote:Yeah because I totally want third party armies to show up and ruin a good fight ala eve online


Allies. EvE is the perfect example of a true sandbox. If LiF wants to follow a good example, that's the best place to look. Preparing for all contingencies is part of good strategy.

All this carebear mentality in a supposed sandbox is surprising.


eve has plenty of faults, I for one look forward to not seeing who brings a better batphone be a part of LIF.


Aout
True Believer
 
Posts: 113
Joined: 22 Jan 2016, 18:28

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Aout » 14 Jul 2017, 19:22

Ragemaster9999 wrote:
Czanrei wrote:This battle mechanic sounds like a horrible idea. If "the team" continues on this path of adding any sort of instancing to the game like this mechanic mentioned, I have zero interest in this game any more.

The whole point of a MMO is to be in a persistent world and adding temporary instances is anything but persistent.


Yeah because I totally want third party armies to show up and ruin a good fight ala eve online

Man, 3way battles are best battles ! Also, unforseen events like allies showing up just adds to the immersion in so many ways.

This battle instance stuff is nothing more than team vs team deathmatch. Yey. Exciting...


Humerox
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 22 Nov 2015, 08:26

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Humerox » 15 Jul 2017, 16:25

Ragemaster9999 wrote:eve has plenty of faults, I for one look forward to not seeing who brings a better batphone be a part of LIF.


The question remains. Why play a sandbox that isn't a sandbox? EvE has very few faults when it comes to sandbox play. The only "faults" are subjective "inconveniences" people want game mechanics to solve instead of utilizing coordination and teamwork. Carebear philosophy.

User avatar
Elindor
True Believer
 
Posts: 193
Joined: 20 Dec 2013, 18:48

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Elindor » 18 Jul 2017, 18:22

So these questions are directed at Arrakis or anyone else who *actually* knows something (has seen it from devs or something).

A couple questions about the battle system and how it works.
For starters though, I understand why you are doing instancing and have always planned to - both from a server performance stance and from a gameplay balancing stance. I think it is good that it takes multiple successful attacks to wipe someone out of a location.

QUESTIONS:

1 - You have talked about open field battles here, where your town/castle is not present...are there going to be sieges as well where those things are present and you get the chance to defend them?

2 - Someone mentioned that you fight field battles until your monument is reduced to lvl 1 and then the next battle is a siege and then you defend your base, is that correct?

3 - Why not if someone attacks you, you get to defend your base against their attack instead of open field battle?

4 - In these open field battles, is the terrain basically the stock terrain of that server square? If so, how does the computer decide who starts where? Seems like that could be problematic.

Just looking for some elaboration on how all this is going to work. Seems like a shame right now to have these cool medieval towns/defenses and not be able to use them when it counts.

User avatar
Arrakis
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: 25 Oct 2013, 14:11
Location: Sparksvaard, the middle world; the world of people.

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Arrakis » 18 Jul 2017, 18:36

Please direct such questions in FAQ (mmo-tests-interactive-faq-t19456/) so we can keep them all in one place and answer.



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

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Sharana » 18 Jul 2017, 19:57

Elindor wrote:...

As Arrakis said the best answer you can get in the Q&A topic when Bobik takes a look at it.

I will answer you based on my conversations with Bobik mainly:

1) Yes, your castle will be there for the siege when it comes to that. The instanced battles are like a buffer battles before your castle comes in danger. It's simulating the 2 armies marching towards each other lands and the lost retreat to their castle while the enemy closes in and starts a siege.

2) It's not the next battle, but the enemy can and probably will start a siege at that point.

3) It's answered in 1. When it comes to the siege part (where your castle is in danger) you can defend your walls the same way you would during JH atm. The IBs just give you buffer, you can ignore them (technical defeats) and defend your castle when the monument drops to level 1.

4) The maps will be some themed parts of the MMO map. Also Bobik said that it depends on the guild locations, algorithm will be checking the land between the guilds in war. For example it's only flat field between our claim on 37 and one of our enemies on 24 for example - in such case forest battle is out of the question and we will have flat field instances.

Other then that I tried to put most that I know about the system based on conversation with devs here:
what-we-know-about-the-planned-mmo-war-mechanics-t22008/
Image

User avatar
Elindor
True Believer
 
Posts: 193
Joined: 20 Dec 2013, 18:48

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Elindor » 18 Jul 2017, 20:30

Sharana - Thank you for sharing that info...

Some of that makes sense but it leaves me with some concerns.

So it sounds like what happens is this:

- Attacker declares war on Defender and an instanced field battle is scheduled
- They fight and if the Defender is defeated their monument is downgraded or just suffers damage
- If they lose enough of these open field battles their monument is degraded to lvl 1 and then the Attacker can initiate a siege mode on Defender's base and they (and all on server) can damage Defender's base as they please, this is open to all and lasts X amount of time, it is not scheduled.
- If their monument is destroyed they are done in that area and have to restart somewhere else.

So, questions / concerns, maybe you can answer:

1 - What happens if the Defender wins some of these instanced field battles? Does it stop the forward progress of the Attacker or no?
2 - What if the Defender's monument is ALREADY lvl 1 at the beginning, then do they not get to do instanced field battles at all? Does the Attacker get to go directly to open siege on their base? (along with the entire server)

CONCERNS:

The field battles sound fine, but it seems odd that the most important battle, defending your own base which you've spent tons of time on, is non instanced and non capped and open to everyone on the server (which is gonna be a shark fest disaster). Shouldn't ONLY the Attacking group be able to damage/loot? I hope this open siege period has a pretty short timeline that is in primetime.

User avatar
Ishamael
Alpha Tester
 
Posts: 430
Joined: 07 Feb 2014, 21:55

Re: Development News #59 - ‘Battles Inc.’

Post by Ishamael » 18 Jul 2017, 20:47

The game is a bit boring without judgement hours, so I hope this gets done soon for testing. Maybe we can have a JH this weekend if the battle system will take a while?
"Yes, Betrayer of Hope. They gave me the name to revile me, but I will yet make them kneel and worship it."
—Ishamael

Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.

Return to Development News