Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Cian]

Not sure why everyone is freaking out...

1 - Instanced battles and sieges were ALWAYS the plan as far back as I can remember and that was before the alpha testing started. They specifically talked about this exact system we are seeing unveiled now.

2 - Sure, is LIF optimized wonderfully? No, it is not. But the idea that any large battles of any kind can happen in the open game world with the terraforming and all that jazz clogging up the server is just out of the question...it will never happen.

1. Instanced battles were. Instanced sieges were not.

2. If they can't run open world battles in and open world game they shouldn't advertise it as such.

The idea that people will confine themselves to these instances for fighting is wishful thinking and will not prevent lag fest combat from being a problem.

[JohnValentine]

This news really asks more questions than it answers. I'm skeptical like many of the other players, but I think it's a natural player response to be concerned that an "artificial" environment wont be able to capture the magic of the "open world" feel, or at least the vision of the magic of open world feel.

The more I've thought about the siege instance vision, the more I feel I understand why this makes sense from a performance and play quality side of yard. Just really curious to see if the developers can "have their cake and eat it to" on this one.

[Jakkus07]

As much i dislike entire idea of closing all the stuff in instanced above everything, im worried about possible exploits that this can create.
So the the question everyone should be asking what happens in the "real world" when defenders are in instance?
What if after battle, siege army will spawn back to the siege (ptfu) monument and there is enemy army just waiting for them?
As much im trying to swallow idea i dont think i can guys.
Answers would be appreciated i mean clear ones.
I might accept it but under condition that everyone can join the instance at any time (im not giving conditions to DEVS so they can appease me or something but, so i can swallow the idea).

[Halauas]

Sadly the instanced sieges not only kill the open world feeling in this game as everyone pointed out, but it also leaves endless questions on how this is gona work properly if it can even work. First of all, the attackers radius is to small to place a proper amount of tents to feed a decent sized force. Second this mechanic gives a huge advantage to the defenders witch they already had for a long time. Thirdly it is not rewarding at all for the attackers, even when the battle is over im pretty sure that every defending claim will still have supplies to keep the fight going on to defend their claim.
And for last i can see this mechanic being abused more often to grief enemy claims rather than starting an actual siege battle.
All you got to is place that totem and start digging up a farm part in the middle of the night for example and never join the battle afterwards.

I am sorry but i cant see something positive for this mechanic as its currently presented.
I can understand that right now the game cant handle big battles in the open world, but if that cannot be fixed at all (witch should be the focus) i could suggest trying to atleast make smaller scale battles more rewarding instead of turning down the open world element of the game.

[KPEBETKA]

guys, you can not optimize IB, and you do by analogy "siege" where will be on many more people + siege devices and buildings

[Jakkus07]

I mean they will optimize it eventually...
First IB was a disaster and second one was playable (to a degree )
Third should be more stable (again should... )
I mean cant they optimize normal game servers so they can handle 100+ or 200+ players?
Is that really only possible solution?
Or are their trying to push the game and that is just easiest solution or less costly one?
Again if they implement some kind of event and many players would come like 100+ they will lock it in instance again? (i can imagine that)

[Sharana]

All that whining, RP, immersion and so on, omg...

Let me ask a very simple question - do you honestly believe any game servers can handle unlimited amount of people? Esp games with complex physics where on top of that almost everything is performed server side to avoid client cheating (speed hacks, aimbots, damage changes etc). Let's say they push the technology to it's limit and achieve 200 vs 200 open world battle in playable state (which would be remarkable achievement and impossible currently) - then what? Do you know that the major alliances on the MMO already have 300+ members each (only part of them bought the MMO packs, rest of their members are waiting the OBT)? The defenders will herd all their allies in the server and just crash it or if it survives then the enemy alliance coming for the siege will finish it off. If they do another miracle and manage to hold 600-700 people on a server without crash then those major alliances will recruit even more players - that's a race the devs can't win and they are smart enough to not even try.

Stop flying in the clouds please and come down to the reality - there isn't a single game out there that can handle large scale open world action. There are limits you can't go through and all of them use instancing in different forms. Sometimes it's just harder to spot when you have NPC environment and all the players are spread around in World #1, World #2, World #3, World #4 etc that are copy of each other, it's pure illusion that they are all in 1 world actually. There can be no game without defined limits of players - gameplay always comes first. Let's be realistic - the ones that need "immersion" over PLAYABLE world are better off in a single player game play M&B anyway, it's much better suited for such needs.

[Paulchatterton]

I have a few questions.

1. The attacker's camp is described as having a radius of 12 tiles, but how much of the defenders' base will be counted? I would suggest that the defenders' radius would need to be much bigger as the permanent buildings are likely to take up much more room than the temporary tents the attacker has. Perhaps the 40 tile radius town claim would be appropriate. This radius is important to know because it will seriously affect castle design.

2. How will this siege system affect the use of bark boxes and bed rolls to scale walls? Will, perhaps, outsiders be prevented from placing anything on the ground in a guild claim except inside a siege instance when siege ladders will be permitted?

3. Will anything be done to prevent people running along the tops of walls, particularly wooden walls? With the way walls are of fixed height and can only be built on flattened ground, it is currently impossible to ensure that walls meet at different heights to prevent people running along the walls around outer defences to get into inner areas, making realistic multi-bailey castles indefensible where they should improve defence.

[Jakkus07]

Let me ask a very simple question - do you honestly believe any game servers can handle unlimited amount of people?

No but I was somewhere told that server were supposed to hold somewhere like 500 players.
And telling the truth i was sceptic o thought it would hold like 200 max and minimum 100 players. For now it cant hold even that.

Here i found it in faq archive:

Question: How much ppl you imagine on your server? 3000 online? 10000? You will use cluster technology or just one-standing server + SQL server maybe? Or one server - one game zone?

Answer: Hard to tell. Of course we currently plan cluster system for our world (like 1 server per 3*3 km block of landmass), but we need to do a lot of optimization and tuning before we ever be able to collect and analyze any performance results. I have an experience from other Torque MMO developers of like 500sh online players per one server. So, in theory, we can have battles of 250vs250 on one terrain block, or 500*47=24 500 players. But it's very rough and i missed a lot of details - real numbers will be way smaller I suspect.

http://lifeisfeudal.com/forum/interactive-faq-t3/page50//

About sieges:

Question: Will there be any instances, like in sieges or can a third or fourth party come and conquer while others are fighting?

Answer: Sieges won't be instanced (everyone can come). But we plan to make territory battles. It will prearranged battles on a fixed territory, where every side should make a list of participants and only those player, who are listed will be able to battle there - rest players will be booted from that territory and won't be able to join battle, until it ends.

http://lifeisfeudal.com/forum/interactive-faq-t3/page50/

IB gonna eventually gonna fix that i get it. Additionally you cant expect that people won't be angry. Especially that they were told it was possible for so long. Although i know every information should be taken with grain of salt, the idea of core mechanic was sold that sieges would be free and etc.

Enough said i accept the idea as it is. If sieges would be open for ALL people or at least allied troops to join ANYTIME just in instance.

[Sharana]

Well the thing is back when there were still players counters we had up to 150 players on our 37 server, but it wasn't lagging as players were spread around in different claims doing their own stuff. At the same stage of development fight involving more then 50 players was causing lags. It's simply different level of calculations when you have 100 players fighting each other, swinging left and right, arrows flying etc in 1 spot and 100 players around the entire server mining, forging, terraforming etc. Holding 500 players doesn't mean playable 250vs250 battle, that's some theoretical possibilities, but as was said in that answer the real ones will be much lower.

I was always skeptical about the open world sieges, because I was more familiar with the community and the big alliances. That's really high amount of players and if flooding the server with pure numbers to lag it to unplayable stage and save your castle from siege only because the server can't handle it was viable strategy those alliances would grow larger then the devs could optimize the code to hold more players. That's a reality and a race the devs can't win. That's why you have to draw the line somewhere and you can't let all your 300 allies to fight for you while the attacker brings all his 400 friends etc. Yes it's unfair for both sides, everyone want to enter with the best he has, but that's impossible. So there is instance with a cap on players and with optimizations progressing it will get bigger and bigger - like 100 vs 100 initially, 150 vs 150 later on etc. If you have more players then that - use them. You can use your numbers to prevent the enemy from building the siege camp they want and give advantage to the defenders (your allies). Or during the siege you can attack some other claim in the enemy alliance to pull out at least part of his forces. The community will figure it out.

[Elindor]

When the siege ends, both parties will be moved back to the main gameworld. Those who have died or lost the battle will appear naked at their bind spots; the winning team will return to the spot they are bound to, victorious - and very much clothed and alive, of course!
The winners will have one hour of exclusive access rights on both of the claims (Siege Camp claim and the Guild City claim) for looting and pillaging. After one hour, both claims will disappear, letting those who won to decide the fate of these lands and the property on it.

This part could use some elaboration/explanation/clarification
Am I the only one confused by this?

Devs could you clarify this part?

[JohnValentine]

All that whining, RP, immersion and so on, omg...

Let me ask a very simple question - do you honestly believe any game servers can handle unlimited amount of people? Esp games with complex physics where on top of that almost everything is performed server side to avoid client cheating (speed hacks, aimbots, damage changes etc). Let's say they push the technology to it's limit and achieve 200 vs 200 open world battle in playable state (which would be remarkable achievement and impossible currently) - then what? Do you know that the major alliances on the MMO already have 300+ members each (only part of them bought the MMO packs, rest of their members are waiting the OBT)? The defenders will herd all their allies in the server and just crash it or if it survives then the enemy alliance coming for the siege will finish it off. If they do another miracle and manage to hold 600-700 people on a server without crash then those major alliances will recruit even more players - that's a race the devs can't win and they are smart enough to not even try.

Stop flying in the clouds please and come down to the reality - there isn't a single game out there that can handle large scale open world action. There are limits you can't go through and all of them use instancing in different forms. Sometimes it's just harder to spot when you have NPC environment and all the players are spread around in World #1, World #2, World #3, World #4 etc that are copy of each other, it's pure illusion that they are all in 1 world actually. There can be no game without defined limits of players - gameplay always comes first. Let's be realistic - the ones that need "immersion" over PLAYABLE world are better off in a single player game play M&B anyway, it's much better suited for such needs.

Negative responses are natural when leadership proposes a "vision". Questions and concerns follow, which allows the leadership (developers) to see if they've thought it through enough to maintain the support of their following.

[Azzerhoden]

I am completely, 100% in favor of instanced sieges. I hated that in Darkfall some lazy shits could run to a siege naked, loot, run to safety, then rinse and repeat. If you want to jump into a siege fight, then you are going to have to put your shit at risk.

FURTHER - I have never met a game yet that could handle the sheer number of players that show up for a siege, tower take down, or any other large scale battle. EvE finally resorted to some slick program where everyone's actions would purposely slow down so it wouldn't be a complete cluster $%&#. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING will cause players to quit a game like this faster than losing your stuff when you couldn't even log in and defend what you have.

BRAVO to Bitbox for making this call.

Question - How will allies come and defend in an instance siege battle if they lack a bind spot at that location? Or will this, like an instance battle, allow players to 'sign up' to defend?

[Karabas]

questions....questions....
for some constructive:

may be will be possible to split sieges for parts/phases... for more ppl can take a parts.

for example - different instances for different sides of castle = 4 battles instead of one big battle.
SW+SE+NW+NE corners = *4 ppl can fight on different instance servers = less load to each server and more ppl have fun.

OR

field fight outside walls including the outer walls - to allow wall archers to shoot.
and a wall bashing area
and a fight inside walls , what will start IF walls are broken....

many scenarios can be set for ppl -
and the main idea - to let all ppl who want to take parts.

yes, its difficult to set rules - how to detect the winner of all this fun... but some rules can be voted on forum

spliting of IB for monument radius is very simple idea, but spliting the siege is harder..... i understand....
but for now i dont see another way to make pppl satisfied....

just to say "you have 50 tickets" for guild of 200 ppl and alliance of 1000 is kinda a bad joke.

P.S.
talking about idea with SW+SE+NW+NE corners - it seems possible to detecs winner in each corner - and allow to loot this corner.
and the guild monument falling if attackers win 3/4 corners (for example)

[Forresthunt]

I totally agree with Azzerhoden on that one.
I'm kind of surprised about all those complaints regarding instant battles, all coming from Beta testers, people who supposably know about games and computers.
Can you give me an example of engines that manage to handle such amounts of information? Do we really want to reduce the number of players to only those who have supercomputer to play with?
Have you forgot TB3, when finding a good spot for your monuments required combination of resources and least amount of server lagging?
Yes, eventually it will all be possible, maybe even soon, but we are not there yet. Call me selfish but I don't want to wait several more months for the break through.
Many of you are familiar with Bannerlord whose team decided to go en extra step to please gamers. The game is already year and a half past promised release date with no clue when it's going to happen.
Besides, do you honestly think the Devs. like instant battle idea? Think about it, it's actually extra work and planning.

By the way, threatening Devs. with getting refund..., I mean, really... I bet just like most of us here, you have hundreds of hours in MMO; hours that you already enjoyed, plus probably twice as much in YO. The game already paid it's worth.

Devs are asking about our opinion. Let's play the game and give them realistic feed back. We do want this game to be released, don't we?

How big is the War Totem claim or how many tickets each team gets based on what input, well, those are details that can be easily corrected after we try it on.
That's why we call it CLOSED BETA TEST.

[Aout]

More instanced non-sandbox themepark shenengians. Yey.

I totally agree with Azzerhoden on that one.
I'm kind of surprised about all those complaints regarding instant battles, all coming from Beta testers, people who supposably know about games and computers.
Can you give me an example of engines that manage to handle such amounts of information? Do we really want to reduce the number of players to only those who have supercomputer to play with?

Mortal Online, which seems to be staying the only true open world sandbox.

[Eltopo]

Had Bitbox waited to do a graphic update after the release, maybe we could've had bigger battles on the live server. I feel that the current high end graphic has had a negative effect on PVP scales, and performance in general. I personally love the graphic, however I think gameplay trumps visuals in siege games like LiF. In every large scale siege game I've ever played I've had to turn down my settings. Its a pretty standard thing to do for any competitively minded player.

The 150 vs 150 player battles is a hard nut to crack for even a triple A publisher. Its not surprising that a small studio like Bitbox is having a hard time with this problem. I think Bitbox can learn a few things from other studios that have come close to decently playable large scale battles.

Darkfall Series
Darkfall uses a similar server block infrastructure to LiF, and has been rather successful in creating large scale battles in a sandbox open world with action combat. I'd say its the closest to reach the 150 vs 150 ideal. In my opinion Darkfall set the standard for large scale battles in the MMO landscape.

Guild Wars 2
GW2 can run a 300 player WvW battle instances with hybrid action combat. Given the number of objectives on the map not all players are in a same place at once, but performance is rather respectable when huge battles do happen.

ArcheAge
Archeage had instance sieges from what I can remember that can hold 140 players (70 vs 70), and does a respectable job with performance. In open world battles player count got bigger and was still decent for performance.

Black Desert Online
BDO had close to 700 players playing a large instance at the start of the big battles. Performance was bad at the start of the Node Wars, but got better as guilds were taken out. I'd say performance got pretty good around 200 players with decent graphics.

Elder Scrolls Online
ESO had 600 players per PVP instance all doing different objectives, and had decent performance with maybe 250 players on screen. Pretty good with decent graphics.

All of the above games also had particle heavy magic combat, which does stress performance a lot. Given that LiF doesn't have magic combat it should do better theoretically.

The question is why does LiF need instances for siege? Answer that question and maybe we can help u guys better.

[Forresthunt]

All of the above games also had particle heavy magic combat, which does stress performance a lot. Given that LiF doesn't have magic combat it should do better theoretically.

The question is why does LiF need instances for siege? Answer that question and maybe we can help u guys better.

...and that's a good feed back, that's how we should approach the subject to help to make the game better.

[Thisismyworkemail]

[Forresthunt]

The entire game should run like Ark, where there's no judgement hour and you can lay siege on an enemy's castle as soon as you get there, with no 24 hour notice given. If a player wakes up one morning and finds they've been raided overnight, IT'S JUST AN ELEMENT OF HARDCORE SANDBOX GAMING, and they have to get over it and rebuild, or the team has to start again from scratch in a new location, or disband and everyone joins different guilds after they've been wiped out. It's a perfectly fair element of sandbox gaming. It's aught to be a constant struggle to get established and maintain dominance, your monument should be breakable at any time, to create this element of constant struggle/Risk vs reward. If your entire guild leaves the monument unprotected when they're away pillaging, someone should be able to knock down a wall, or jump over a wall at any given time and attempt to destroy the monument, so that the guild has to multitask offense and defense. If a bunch of monuments get wiped out every day, there's this constant turn over of power, and you don't have a bunch of semi permanent settlements that can't be defeated unless you lay siege on them in a polite, organized, and "fair" way.

Many players will disagree with the above statement, however, that is already the reality for me. I'm not in Europe, neither is the US server any better time wise for me. No matter which server will I choose I'll be sound asleep or hard at work for judgment hour or chosen instant battle. If the game would work as Thisismyworkemail describe, it would be music to my ears. I know it's not going to happen; and I still think Devs. came up with a good plan. I'm just in the wrong spot to get the benefits, well, Life is Feudal. Instead I will have to think of some strategies to balance that disadvantage.
It's all about accepting the challenge.

[Gruber]

The entire game should run like Ark, where there's no judgement hour and you can lay siege on an enemy's castle as soon as you get there, with no 24 hour notice given. If a player wakes up one morning and finds they've been raided overnight, IT'S JUST AN ELEMENT OF HARDCORE SANDBOX GAMING, and they have to get over it and rebuild, or the team has to start again from scratch in a new location, or disband and everyone joins different guilds after they've been wiped out. It's a perfectly fair element of sandbox gaming. It's aught to be a constant struggle to get established and maintain dominance, your monument should be breakable at any time, to create this element of constant struggle/Risk vs reward. If your entire guild leaves the monument unprotected when they're away pillaging, someone should be able to knock down a wall, or jump over a wall at any given time and attempt to destroy the monument, so that the guild has to multitask offense and defense. If a bunch of monuments get wiped out every day, there's this constant turn over of power, and you don't have a bunch of semi permanent settlements that can't be defeated unless you lay siege on them in a polite, organized, and "fair" way.

If you want a system like Ark, play Ark. LiF is a whole different game than ark. A defendable castle in LiF takes days or weeks to build up and you should not lose that in a midnight raid on work days. That may not suit you, but usualy paying users work 5 days a week and do not have the time to attend a game 24/7. An alltime JH System would only cause to wipe out the server on the long time.
IB on the other hand is just an performance issue. There is no engine that can handle massive open world pvp. Instancing the battles allow more players to attend them, and big ass battles is something that the players want.

[Azzerhoden]

More instanced non-sandbox themepark shenengians. Yey.

Mortal Online, which seems to be staying the only true open world sandbox.

Mortal Online is an excellent example of how not to build an MMO. That's why players are here and not there.

[Jakeman]

The entire game should run like Ark, where there's no judgement hour and you can lay siege on an enemy's castle as soon as you get there, with no 24 hour notice given. If a player wakes up one morning and finds they've been raided overnight, IT'S JUST AN ELEMENT OF HARDCORE SANDBOX GAMING, and they have to get over it and rebuild, or the team has to start again from scratch in a new location, or disband and everyone joins different guilds after they've been wiped out. It's a perfectly fair element of sandbox gaming. It's aught to be a constant struggle to get established and maintain dominance, your monument should be breakable at any time, to create this element of constant struggle/Risk vs reward. If your entire guild leaves the monument unprotected when they're away pillaging, someone should be able to knock down a wall, or jump over a wall at any given time and attempt to destroy the monument, so that the guild has to multitask offense and defense. If a bunch of monuments get wiped out every day, there's this constant turn over of power, and you don't have a bunch of semi permanent settlements that can't be defeated unless you lay siege on them in a polite, organized, and "fair" way.

If you want a system like Ark, play Ark. LiF is a whole different game than ark. A defendable castle in LiF takes days or weeks to build up and you should not lose that in a midnight raid on work days. That may not suit you, but usualy paying users work 5 days a week and do not have the time to attend a game 24/7. An alltime JH System would only cause to wipe out the server on the long time.
IB on the other hand is just an performance issue. There is no engine that can handle massive open world pvp. Instancing the battles allow more players to attend them, and big ass battles is something that the players want.

i agree with Gruber. for the love of god please no offline raiding like ARK/Rust or anyother survival game that has that bs sorry but its not fun to offline raid and its not fun for the players who put in 100s of hours into their town/base to wake up 1 morning and find everything destroyed/pillaged

[Wanderingsword]

Whats so hardcore about being able to destroy a base just because the defenders have a job they need to wake up for the next morning? That just sounds like an excuse for griefers and NEETs to be able to win without having to compete, all the while jerking them selves over how "2HaRdCoRe4U" they are.

[Davis105]

A few people have made a really good point since the battle and siege systems were announced with their 24hr wait period after the totem is dropped.

What's to stop me, a Canadian from Ontario, from placing down a totem for a battle, a siege or whatever in a timezone I know is very off from mine.

For example, people from the western North Americas are four hours and sometimes five hours behind my timezone. What's to stop me from waking up and placing my totem on the their claim at 9 A.M my time so that it would be 5 A.M their time. That to me is equally as unfair as Rust/Ark because I'm basically attacking when I know most of you would be asleep and all my guild awake/ready to fight.

I think these systems need work in a lot of ways. Overall Life is Feudal has done a good job in EA, making few game breaking mistakes and when they were made, they were fixed. But as of the last 3 months things have gone a bit unchecked in my personal opinion.

EDIT: Just an idea for thought, they have a perfectly good judgement hour mechanic which gives people free rain to raid and pillage everyone/thing. Why not scrap this siege mechanic and battle mechanic all together. Make it so that Guild A can declare war on Guild B by click a button via the Guild UI. Once the war is initiated, the guilds enter a permanent state of judgement hour with each other and can raid, pillage, siege, attack, have battles, loot and burn whenever they deem it strategically pliable.

A few people on the thread have mentioned games like Ark/Rust, and majority of people have been quick to shut them down. I however, think they are getting at something. While those games are total opposites of LiF (other than they share a sandbox theme). I do think a middle ground could be reached between their free warfare systems and our extremely processed method.

I don't know about all of you, but if I was attacking a guild under war terms, the last thing I'd want is them knowing how many people I'll have, the exact time the battle will start and if my allies are joining. These systems take the actual strategic warfare out of the PVP. The only thing that is left with these systems is that you actually need to be a good PVPer and I expected more than that when this game was first brought into the lime light.

[Jakeman]

A few people have made a really good point since the battle and siege systems were announced with their 24hr wait period after the totem is dropped.

What's to stop me, a Canadian from Ontario, from placing down a totem for a battle, a siege or whatever in a timezone I know is very off from mine.

For example, people from the western North Americas are four hours and sometimes five hours behind my timezone. What's to stop me from waking up and placing my totem on the their claim at 9 A.M my time so that it would be 5 A.M their time. That to me is equally as unfair as Rust/Ark because I'm basically attacking when I know most of you would be asleep and all my guild awake/ready to fight.

I think these systems need work in a lot of ways. Overall Life is Feudal has done a good job in EA, making few game breaking mistakes and when they were made, they were fixed. But as of the last 3 months things have gone a bit unchecked in my personal opinion.

EDIT: Just an idea for thought, they have a perfectly good judgement hour mechanic which gives people free rain to raid and pillage everyone/thing. Why not scrap this siege mechanic and battle mechanic all together. Make it so that Guild A can declare war on Guild B by click a button via the Guild UI. Once the war is initiated, the guilds enter a permanent state of judgement hour with each other and can raid, pillage, siege, attack, have battles, loot and burn whenever they deem it strategically pliable.

A few people on the thread have mentioned games like Ark/Rust, and majority of people have been quick to shut them down. I however, think they are getting at something. While those games are total opposites of LiF (other than they share a sandbox theme). I do think a middle ground could be reached between their free warfare systems and our extremely processed method.

I don't know about all of you, but if I was attacking a guild under war terms, the last thing I'd want is them knowing how many people I'll have, the exact time the battle will start and if my allies are joining. These systems take the actual strategic warfare out of the PVP. The only thing that is left with these systems is that you actually need to be a good PVPer and I expected more than that when this game was first brought into the lime light.

im sure sieges will have to take place during the server regions primetime. otherwise we will have 4-5AM sieges and thats not fun. and please dont look to Rust/ARK as inpiration for what LIF should be when rust/ark is a couple hours-24h to get a base up where LIF its 100s this game will die if you could bark box your way over some walls during the night when nobodys on and destroy their monument. also you talk about strategy yet wheres the strategy if you dont need to fight anyone and just destroy the enemy guilds monument while their sleeping/at work? seems like you just wanna steal/grief with no resistence

[Davis105]

im sure sieges will have to take place during the server regions primetime. otherwise we will have 4-5AM sieges and thats not fun. and please dont look to Rust/ARK as inpiration for what LIF should be when rust/ark is a couple hours-24h to get a base up where LIF its 100s this game will die if you could bark box your way over some walls during the night when nobodys on and destroy their monument. also you talk about strategy yet wheres the strategy if you dont need to fight anyone and just destroy the enemy guilds monument while their sleeping/at work? seems like you just wanna steal/grief with no resistence

I never mentioned being able to bark box over walls and destroy monuments, that's just plain stupid. Of course this game isn't ARK/Rust, but I think what people are saying is that this went from an open world PVP to a game where we are going to be loaded into another world, with predefined numbers and our enemy having full knowledge of it, where nobody can interfere. That's not how the medieval world worked, clans clashed, betrayed and stomped out mutual enemies with surprise, cunning and pure military might. Instances remove that possibility. It seems people who keep claiming anyone who opposes it are griefers, and to me it seems like those people are the ones who want unfair advantages because they want everything to go exactly as they plan it.

I also never stated I wanted to destroy anyone's guild monument while they were sleeping, I said that is what people will do unless the current system is fixed. If you're going to try and make a rebuttal, please read what I actually wrote. I'm only trying to make it clear to the developers that these sorts of exploits will be used to ruin the game for other people. And we should all be trying to help them see the flaws in their systems, that's the only way they'll be able to make it better.

[Norsegryphon]

Back in 2003 i played Star Wars Galaxies, when a guild declared war against another, you simply activated a state of "War" that only affected members of those guilds. Housing, players etc, were open season as long as "War" existed. A little work with the mechanics and you can keep open world pvp with the siege aspect. If you want, you can even talk to the people who run SWG today in a private shard. Im sure they can help.

This system allows conscripts or randoms to pvp on a large scale ( without the spoils of war) allows RPers to summon "vassals" who you dont have to worry about stealing after the fight. If your vassal refuses to come, you declare war on them and force them etc. Sort of the same way some server GMs run YO. The state of "war" only changes the aspect of making the parties claims, items etc vulnerable between the parties.

With an instanced siege system, you will end up with a server full of naked bandits, living in a hut, randomly killing people because they dont want to commit to a time and place setting. People will get ganked over and over, quit or join a castle group. Never leave and get bored of lugging logs then quit. Same patterns you see on YO.

Either way, just my thoughts.

[Forresthunt]

as I said, my location puts me out of both servers time zone. For me being at war means being attacked when I'm not in front of pc. However I still think the Devs. idea is better than "free at all times" deal. People will use it as an advantage. In my opinion the system is good. Just need to be adjusted.
I don't know, maybe better mechanics to negotiate the battle time?
maybe it should be up to Defenders to pick on a date and time?
Also I noticed that most of people do not want to attack empty castle. No fun in it after all. Real PvP player want to face the challenge, so given a chance both sides would agree on reasonable timing.
Yes, of course, I realize that not all of the Factions would be honorable enough and would offer unreasonable hours but I have a feeling it wouldn't happen very often.
Even now, there is an unwritten low among the big players to leave small villages at peace. I know that since so far I haven't join any Guild living off my little burning shock and trading potatos with other peasants. Not a peaceful life, bandits are always around the corner, but the big guys are usually the one with helping hand.
thank YOU.
anyway, my point is, a big Guild will not want to make a name for itself in the MMO by "dirty attacks". People like to be proud of they Guilds. I say, let them negotiate, I believe the Leaders will come to honorable battle arrangements within the suggested by Devs. mechanics.
...and Guilds that try to play "dirty", well, why not, let them do so. The word will spread and I bet they will find themselves fighting against big coalition that united to get read of them.

This is Medieval settings game, let's not forget that pride, honor and fair fight was highly regarded in those times. I see no reason why should't we incorporate it into the game. After all you cannot forge your legacy by dishonest play, it just doesn't work that way.
And, yes, we will have bandits, those no good Outlaws threatening my very existence (don't take it the wrong way, it's role playing, I wouldn't have the game without YOU).

well, just an idea

[Thisismyworkemail]