Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Sharana]

...

Again based on what I know.
Yes it should happen the way you described it. Then:

1) Each lost battle burns support points, so it's not monument level damage straight away. If you win few battles you win time to regain some of those points or even to be able to upgrade the monument to the next level and gain some extra buffer for more lost battles. While your attacker loses support points on his own monument if he loses the battle. So winning a single battle won't stop/reset the entire progress so far. While the exact values will be determined during the CBT testing let's say it takes 8 lost battles to level tier 3 monument down to level 1. Tier 3 monument support up to 3 defensive instanced battles per day, so if you lose every single one of them you will be down to tier 1 after the battles on day 3 and they can siege you on day 4. If you lose only 2 each day winning 1 then it will take 4 days and the siege will be on day 5. If you lose just 1 while winning 2 daily then you will collapse your enemy's monument faster and you will siege them instead.

2) If it's level 1 they can't attack and can't be attacked with the instanced battle system. But that also means that siege can be started right away as there is no "buffer", so it's not some kind of noob protection


About the instances - many are not fine even with the pre-siege instancing. Also it's a political game and you will need all the friends you ever made to help you defend when it comes to siege which will be time limited event with objectives and during the primetime ofc.
Also it depends on the game optimisation and servers performance. If the game proves it can't handle big scale open world battles then the siege will become instanced event as well with only you and the enemy. But that's double edged sword. Imagine you are alliance of 200 players and the enemy that sieges your guild is 100. In open world siege you can call all your friends and defend with advantage, because when the defenders are more then the attackers it's exponentially harder to win. But in case of instanced siege you will be limited in numbers and the attackers as confirmed by Bobik will be more to have chance to win as well. Won't you feel bad if your alliance of 200 can only put 60 guys to fight 90 enemies (out of 100) in instaced siege?

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?

You are in a mood for turn based battle aka 1000+ ping as last time?

[Ishamael]

Yes, I would have a laggy JH with 100x the people on right now.

The game that nobody is playing except the less than 100 role-players is the game that the RPers want.

The game with 100x more people is the game the PVPers want.

Quite literally, only a few people will play this game without the PVP driving it. I hope the Devs take note about the difference of what works in practice and what works in theory.

Maybe they should consider getting rid of that coward-tower bullshit?

[Elindor]

Sharana - thanks for all the info.

Yeah I am not opposed to open or instanced battles really...
Open world battles are ideal in many ways except server performance. Of course you want those battles to be in prime time so you can be a part of them and use your alliances etc.

My point about the sieges was that I thought that your base should only be vulnerable to your enemy and their vassals/allies maybe....not just the entire server at large.

I also had always imagined that the battle system would have been a series of sieges on your base that the attacker had to win in order to flush you out from the area...not just ONE successful base attack...since really I mean for most people the base is the primary aspect of this game.

[Yotoni]

My point about the sieges was that I thought that your base should only be vulnerable to your enemy and their vassals/allies maybe....not just the entire server at large.

I don't think the siege battle on Tier1 monument will be open to all since you need to build a monument to raise a war and enlist your allies on it to participate as Arrakis mentioned. To me it means siege battle is instanced as well. If battles lag too much on open world, direct sieges will lag as much tbh.

I also had always imagined that the battle system would have been a series of sieges on your base that the attacker had to win in order to flush you out from the area...not just ONE successful base attack...since really I mean for most people the base is the primary aspect of this game.

I agree that one successful base attack on alliances who have only Tier1 monument is bit short to deserve monuments full destruction, thus wiping claims. It is even unrealistic. That will especially be abused on holidays period, Christmas, Valentines day or New Year Eve etc. Imagine your siege battle lands on Christmas Eve and your guild mates are on holiday, what are you gonna do? Call Santa for help?:D

[Elindor]

I agree that one successful base attack on alliances who have only Tier1 monument is bit short to deserve monuments full destruction, thus wiping claims. It is even unrealistic.

Yeah this is my issue too, when you are at lvl 1 monument (whether you've been knocked down to that through field battles or you just were never above lvl 1 monument) - someone comes along, declares war, theres one singular event one night where everyone jumps your base and destroys buildings while you and allies try to defend and if you fail, they destroy your entire base, monument, etc and you wonder off into the sunset to start a new base or ragequit (more likely for most groups after all the work that goes into a base).

For most players in LIF, the BASE - the planning of it, the building of it, etc, is A MAJOR MAJOR aspect of the game....to have the actual defense of something you've spent months building be determined in one event one night is kinda weird.

I always thought the staged battles would be a series of defenses of your base against the attacker, each one reducing the monument, and only after winning a couple sieges over a couple nights could they reduce you to lvl 1 and wipe you out.

Instead, the field battles are how this process is done - which is fine, except that it's definitely in the favor of numbers (in a castle the numbers effect is minimized) and you don't get the enjoyment of defending your base that you've designed and worked on for so long - you only get to do that once.