Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Sunleader]

Yes i guess it depends on what you mean by griefer.

For me it is just people pissing other people off for no gameplay reason, which you can do in most games. There will always be griefer, and the only thing you can do is restrict what they can use to grief other players. You cant ban griefer because they are using the game mechanics you created to grief other people with, and it is one of the major issue for devs with cheating / bots abuse, but griefer are not all cheater.

The only point you are making which seems valid to me, is personal claim and ressource steal / lock kind of.

The rest is simply non existent if claim are not destroyed before x days. Or maybe i m missing something.

From what i have seen people lock ressource on personnal claim with walls, that is why i suggested that wall could be destroyed only, the rest cant. Rack wall is a pain too, dont know what to do about that tho without giving to griefer. But being serious, if someone made a rack wall you want to be able to take it down. If you can destroy rack i dont think people with grief other over such a ridicule thing, it still allows griefing so potentially still a problem to be solve.
Maybe terraformation is bad, maybe allow lord guild to use their own item on personal claim instead so they can use ladder to go around wall etcs ...
Another idea would be to give lord guild right to move item ( like racks ) but not out of the claim, and they cant destroy them.
And i just though 5 min about it so i guess you can come up with even better ideas that would solve the problem ( i dont know all the ways griefer use with personnal claim ).

I dont see has many problem as you seem to see, maybe you can be more clear with example, i m probably missing some new or inovative game mechanics people use now to lock ressources.
Everything can be changed to avoid griefing it should not stop developping new interesting mechanics, because most new content / system / mechanics devs create can be abused in some way at first, it is hard to plan for everything right off the bat, but by no means you should stop innovating.

If you like the idea, wouldnt it be more interesting to try find ideas on how to avoid the ways griefer can exploit it rather than just forgot about implementing the idea all together ?

Ok. I.ll Try to Explain this more Detailed.

The Big Problem is in Fact the Size and the Might Granted by this.

Lets take this by an Example.
By the Idea these Fortresses will hold an Area of like 500-1000 Tiles Radius.
Covering an Entire Server with just 4 such Fortresses.

And the System is Supposed to Work so that basicly NO LAND will remain without Ruler.
This means that every Single New Player has to Settle inside such Lands and thus become Peasant to a Feudal Lord.

And Guilds will usually hold more than one Fortress thus Blocking as much as an Entire Server or maybe even Two.


And now lets assume three Scenarios.

1.
If Guilds can Freely Evict Peasants and their Claims with a Two Week Timer.
2.
If Guilds cannot Evict Peasants and their Claims.
3.
If Guilds can Destroy certain things or take Ressources despite them being under Claim by others.


On 1.
On the First Scenario the Problem is really Easy to See.
Lets assume that out of the 50 Servers 10 or so are Controlled by Guilds which Simply do not Allow anyone to Settle and will just Evict and Kill anyone who Tries.
This means that 20% of the Entire Game is Blocked for Players.
It also means that if a Player Settles somewhere and the Land is Conquered by such a Guild. He might end up needing to Relocate an Entire Server away. Leaving behind all his Buildings and Ressources.

Incredible Frustrating.
Incredible Bad for the Game in terms of Player Retention.
Incredible Bad for New Players which might not even know where they Settled and Suddenly get Slaughtered.
And Incredible upshaking for the entire Game because by a Fortress Changing Hands 100 or more Players might all lose their Claims.

Its easy to See that this would lead to Massive Waves of Players Leaving the Game.


On 2.
In the Second Scenario we take the opposite Idea.
As the Lord cannot actually Control who Settles in his Land.
An Opposing Guild might just go ahead and Start Blockading Bridges, Claim Ressources or Block them off, Create Safe Spots near the Enemy Fortress for their Soldiers to Re Equip and Respawn to Harass them etc etc.

This would not be as Frustrating in terms of Players Leaving en masse.
But it would heavily Boycott the entire System itself and there would be Incredible Frustration among the Guilds trying to actually Play this Feudal System.



On 3.
The Problem here is somewhat more Diffused.
Because there is many Different Ways to do this.
Walls are used to Block Spots because they are Cheap.

But even Walls if they can just be Destroyed mean that the Lord can go around Griefing and RPKing People behind their Walls with Inpunity.
Which leaves alot of Frustrated Players leaving the Game.

Moreover it would not even Help the Original Problem because the Walls are only used to Block Ressources because they are Cheap and Fast Build.
If they dont work if someone wants to Block something he will Build something else.
Be it a Dry Rack or a Wall of Barrels.
Worst case they will just Shove Tree Logs into the Mining Entrance.
And this assumes only the things where they need to Block something.
in many cases Ressources can be Blocked Simply by having them inside the Claim itself.
Then this doesnt even Help.

But you cant just allow the Lord to take stuff either. Because then the Lord will use it to just Steal stuff from Everyone not just where Ressources are Simply Blocked.




Dont get me Wrong Mate.
I have been Thinking about this as well.

One of these Toughts Lead to my other Suggestion which allows to Bypass such a Problem by Simply Limiting the Lords Power to a very Small Radius around a City where both Sides Rights are Limited and where the Owner will usually not Suddenly Change.

But even there for a Claim thats not even 1% of the Size of what we are Talking about here. This Problem requires an already very Complicated System to be worked out.
And even then the System is more about Damage Control than about Solving the Problem.
Because you can Still Evict People.
Thing is just that due to the Small Size if you Evict someone he has 2 Weeks to move his Stuff 20 Tiles away.
Not 500 Tiles or even further Away.



As I said.
I Generally Like the Idea.
But I simply cannot Find any Way how it could Possibly Work.
No matter how I turn it around.
It will always be Incredible easy to completely Abuse this System and Ruin the entire Thing.


Thats why I really think this Suggestion should Cut off the Money Taxes and the Influence on the Land.

Fortresses should only Tax Outposts.
Thats all.
And this is enough to be Honest.
Because if you get Daily Taxes from all Outposts in one Server that will likely be quite the Income of Ressources Already.

They should neither Tax Money nor have any Additional Influence on Private Claims or Guild Claims.
To make sure the Fortresses are not Besieged by Private Claims it should get a Small influence Radius similar to a T1 Monuments Realm Claim.
But thats about it.
Nothing beyond that

[Khroma]

On 1.
On the First Scenario the Problem is really Easy to See.
Lets assume that out of the 50 Servers 10 or so are Controlled by Guilds which Simply do not Allow anyone to Settle and will just Evict and Kill anyone who Tries.
This means that 20% of the Entire Game is Blocked for Players.
It also means that if a Player Settles somewhere and the Land is Conquered by such a Guild. He might end up needing to Relocate an Entire Server away. Leaving behind all his Buildings and Ressources.

Incredible Frustrating.
Incredible Bad for the Game in terms of Player Retention.
Incredible Bad for New Players which might not even know where they Settled and Suddenly get Slaughtered.
And Incredible upshaking for the entire Game because by a Fortress Changing Hands 100 or more Players might all lose their Claims.

Its easy to See that this would lead to Massive Waves of Players Leaving the Game.

How is that a problem? everyone should be able to protect their territories if they dont want people in it.

If you give interesting reward for guild to have private claim around most people will use it. Sandbox is about giving players opportunities to create content not forcing them.

If they were no benefits of having claim around your point would be more valid.

About conquest and relocating, enemy will have to hold the fort for 1 or 2 week depending on eviction timer to actually pull that off. Same as above is the reward is interesting people will keep the claim since they will get income from it, in the worst case they have to move away from a warzone server, i think most people will leave even if they are not evicted.

On 3.
The Problem here is somewhat more Diffused.
Because there is many Different Ways to do this.
Walls are used to Block Spots because they are Cheap.

But even Walls if they can just be Destroyed mean that the Lord can go around Griefing and RPKing People behind their Walls with Inpunity.
Which leaves alot of Frustrated Players leaving the Game.

Moreover it would not even Help the Original Problem because the Walls are only used to Block Ressources because they are Cheap and Fast Build.
If they dont work if someone wants to Block something he will Build something else.
Be it a Dry Rack or a Wall of Barrels.
Worst case they will just Shove Tree Logs into the Mining Entrance.
And this assumes only the things where they need to Block something.
in many cases Ressources can be Blocked Simply by having them inside the Claim itself.
Then this doesnt even Help.

But you cant just allow the Lord to take stuff either. Because then the Lord will use it to just Steal stuff from Everyone not just where Ressources are Simply Blocked.

Solution for that can be found like i mentionned.
Allow wall destruction only.
Every item can be moved inside the claim only.
Ressource can be gathered by anyone.

Lords should create wall for their peasant not the other way around.



Your main criticism is that personal claim wont be a 100% bulletproof safe zone.
They should not be. That is why it was removed from PvP server ( aka red ). Safe zone doesnt work in this kind of game.

If player are not 100% safe they will find ways to be safer via politics / economy / warfare etc ...
This force players interactions. Otherwise it is better to play a solo rpg game.

This game is about loosing stuff farming them back up and loosing them again. Look at bandits system, full loot pvp. Why do different for personal claim ? Otherwise go live on server 25 if you want a safe zone, one is plenty enough.

If people are complaining about loosing stuff, this should not be a problem. This is part of the fucking game.
The only problem would be if getting it back is too long specially for low level stuff that new/solo player needs. So this may need to be balanced.

If everything is protected people will stop gathering ressource or interact to get what they need to rebuild recraft trade etc...
The world will slowly die because people become bored hence what is happening on the game since release.


So yes i agree it wont protect them entierely, but this is my point. At least it gives them a place and a role along side the big guilds which is way better than the current system or the personal claim green system.

[SonofKitt]

If Clans can Evict Peasants from their Land this would end Abused as they would be able to just Grief People at will.

Clans can evict personal claims now if they want to, just place a guild monument next to them and wait 3-7 days for it to overlap and delete the monument. That is the mechanism now but how often does that happen? Not often. The dev's think it is fair, it gives time for players to gather there stuff and leave. That why Khroma suggestion of an eviction notice of 1-2 weeks would be better and more accurate (under a land admin system). It gives them more time to relocate.

If I can Block Resources even for Two Weeks and then Send another Character to Block them again. I can still be an Incredible Annoyance to others.

There a plenty of ways to prevent this. As Khroma and I discussed, once an area is evicted, the developers could implement a system where none can claim that area for 1-2 weeks. Problem solved.

Needless to say that Buildings etc cant be Evacuated.

Maybe the developers need to implement a system for evicted private claims where you can "deconstruct" and retain some of the materials. I.e. the expensive materials, Doors/locks/nails/windows etc. People can just cut down new logs. Private claims usually dont have more than one or two buildings. It is the players skills that are more important and more difficult to rebuild.

3.
If the Lord can even Destroy Stuff and Terraform on that Land it opens a Pandoras Box of Griefing Options.

I dont know where you got this from, maybe your voices, but I never suggested this. This would not be fair to solo players.

Griefers should never be Allowed in a Game.

I agree, but how do you police? Impossible.

On 1.
On the First Scenario the Problem is really Easy to See.
Lets assume that out of the 50 Servers 10 or so are Controlled by Guilds which Simply do not Allow anyone to Settle and will just Evict and Kill anyone who Tries.
This means that 20% of the Entire Game is Blocked for Players.
It also means that if a Player Settles somewhere and the Land is Conquered by such a Guild. He might end up needing to Relocate an Entire Server away. Leaving behind all his Buildings and Ressources.

Again, you are make massive assumptions. The system would be designed so that guilds would WANT many private claims in there area as they would gain small amounts of coin per claim in return for protect of their peasants/civilians. They would be worse off if they did not allow anyone to settle in their lands. They would be the Lords of Nothing!!

I can see how you think that everyone is a terrible person and wants to cause misery. But most people play the game in a way which adds to there gameplay. If they make small amounts of coin from tenants, then that will add to there gameplay. At the moment, having extra people in there server only adds to their lag.. so people try to get rid of them. Hopefully with further optimisation and a proper land management system, alliances, guilds, groups and solos can final co-exist in the world better.

If player are not 100% safe they will find ways to be safer via politics / economy / warfare etc ...
This force players interactions. Otherwise it is better to play a solo rpg game.

Nice way of describing it Khroma. I agree.

If everything is protected people will stop gathering ressource or interact to get what they need to rebuild recraft trade etc...
The world will slowly die because people become bored hence what is happening on the game since release.

Nailed it.

At least it gives them a place and a role along side the big guilds which is way better than the current system or the personal claim green system.

Yep, every playstyle should be catered for. It they are not, then things would need to change so that they better cater a playstyle without taking away from other playstyles.

[Sunleader]

On 1.
On the First Scenario the Problem is really Easy to See.
Lets assume that out of the 50 Servers 10 or so are Controlled by Guilds which Simply do not Allow anyone to Settle and will just Evict and Kill anyone who Tries.
This means that 20% of the Entire Game is Blocked for Players.
It also means that if a Player Settles somewhere and the Land is Conquered by such a Guild. He might end up needing to Relocate an Entire Server away. Leaving behind all his Buildings and Ressources.

Incredible Frustrating.
Incredible Bad for the Game in terms of Player Retention.
Incredible Bad for New Players which might not even know where they Settled and Suddenly get Slaughtered.
And Incredible upshaking for the entire Game because by a Fortress Changing Hands 100 or more Players might all lose their Claims.

Its easy to See that this would lead to Massive Waves of Players Leaving the Game.

How is that a problem? everyone should be able to protect their territories if they dont want people in it.

If you give interesting reward for guild to have private claim around most people will use it. Sandbox is about giving players opportunities to create content not forcing them.

If they were no benefits of having claim around your point would be more valid.

About conquest and relocating, enemy will have to hold the fort for 1 or 2 week depending on eviction timer to actually pull that off. Same as above is the reward is interesting people will keep the claim since they will get income from it, in the worst case they have to move away from a warzone server, i think most people will leave even if they are not evicted.

On 3.
The Problem here is somewhat more Diffused.
Because there is many Different Ways to do this.
Walls are used to Block Spots because they are Cheap.

But even Walls if they can just be Destroyed mean that the Lord can go around Griefing and RPKing People behind their Walls with Inpunity.
Which leaves alot of Frustrated Players leaving the Game.

Moreover it would not even Help the Original Problem because the Walls are only used to Block Ressources because they are Cheap and Fast Build.
If they dont work if someone wants to Block something he will Build something else.
Be it a Dry Rack or a Wall of Barrels.
Worst case they will just Shove Tree Logs into the Mining Entrance.
And this assumes only the things where they need to Block something.
in many cases Ressources can be Blocked Simply by having them inside the Claim itself.
Then this doesnt even Help.

But you cant just allow the Lord to take stuff either. Because then the Lord will use it to just Steal stuff from Everyone not just where Ressources are Simply Blocked.

Solution for that can be found like i mentionned.
Allow wall destruction only.
Every item can be moved inside the claim only.
Ressource can be gathered by anyone.

Lords should create wall for their peasant not the other way around.



Your main criticism is that personal claim wont be a 100% bulletproof safe zone.
They should not be. That is why it was removed from PvP server ( aka red ). Safe zone doesnt work in this kind of game.

If player are not 100% safe they will find ways to be safer via politics / economy / warfare etc ...
This force players interactions. Otherwise it is better to play a solo rpg game.

This game is about loosing stuff farming them back up and loosing them again. Look at bandits system, full loot pvp. Why do different for personal claim ? Otherwise go live on server 25 if you want a safe zone, one is plenty enough.

If people are complaining about loosing stuff, this should not be a problem. This is part of the fucking game.
The only problem would be if getting it back is too long specially for low level stuff that new/solo player needs. So this may need to be balanced.

If everything is protected people will stop gathering ressource or interact to get what they need to rebuild recraft trade etc...
The world will slowly die because people become bored hence what is happening on the game since release.


So yes i agree it wont protect them entierely, but this is my point. At least it gives them a place and a role along side the big guilds which is way better than the current system or the personal claim green system.

1.
It is a Problem Mate.
because Simple thing.

Two Guilds with like 100 Members each Fight each other.
The Guild beats the other and takes their Land.
They dont want Claims there so they Evict everyone.
The Land held 300 People.
Bam.
300 People Left the Game.

Sorry but I think this IS a Problem.

This Creates a Situation where basicly 500 Players on the Server have the Power to Ruin the Game for 5000 other Players.

Or in current Scales.
20 Guilds with 20 Members each would Fight over a Territory with maybe 50 People in it.


Sorry Mate.
But this Simply does not work.
It would have an Insane Potential to Kill the Game.


2.
I said my Opinion on this Countless Times.
Allow Players to be Griefed on their own small Home Claim.
And you can Close down Servers because they are all Guaranteed to leave Sooner or Later.

You might not like it.
But others do not Play Sheep for Wolves.

Its like a Tank Battle Mate.
Everyone wants to Play the Tiger. Nobody wants to be the Sherman.

And nobody wants to grind up stuff they lost over and over.
They might do it once or twice.
But after that they are gone and never come back.

If you dont Guarantee the Safety of such Claims you can just as well not have them.
Which is exactly why they were Removed from Red Servers.

the Devs Realized this Problem.
And the Devs know.
Not having a Claim that can be Destroyed is much much better than allowing people to have a Claim and then have em Leave in Frustration because it was Destroyed.

Thats why they didnt make Private Claims vulnearble on Red Worlds.
But simply Removed them entirely.


Sorry.
But then its better this System does not come to Pass.
A System that only ends up Frustrating alot of Players is not a Good System for a Game.

Game Systems need to work to give Fun to as many Players as possibly while Frustrating as few Players as possible.

A System which allows 20 People to Frustrate 100 is a Complete and utter Failure.

[Sunleader]

If Clans can Evict Peasants from their Land this would end Abused as they would be able to just Grief People at will.

Clans can evict personal claims now if they want to, just place a guild monument next to them and wait 3-7 days for it to overlap and delete the monument. That is the mechanism now but how often does that happen? Not often. The dev's think it is fair, it gives time for players to gather there stuff and leave. That why Khroma suggestion of an eviction notice of 1-2 weeks would be better and more accurate (under a land admin system). It gives them more time to relocate.

If I can Block Resources even for Two Weeks and then Send another Character to Block them again. I can still be an Incredible Annoyance to others.

There a plenty of ways to prevent this. As Khroma and I discussed, once an area is evicted, the developers could implement a system where none can claim that area for 1-2 weeks. Problem solved.

Needless to say that Buildings etc cant be Evacuated.

Maybe the developers need to implement a system for evicted private claims where you can "deconstruct" and retain some of the materials. I.e. the expensive materials, Doors/locks/nails/windows etc. People can just cut down new logs. Private claims usually dont have more than one or two buildings. It is the players skills that are more important and more difficult to rebuild.

3.
If the Lord can even Destroy Stuff and Terraform on that Land it opens a Pandoras Box of Griefing Options.

I dont know where you got this from, maybe your voices, but I never suggested this. This would not be fair to solo players.

Griefers should never be Allowed in a Game.

I agree, but how do you police? Impossible.

On 1.
On the First Scenario the Problem is really Easy to See.
Lets assume that out of the 50 Servers 10 or so are Controlled by Guilds which Simply do not Allow anyone to Settle and will just Evict and Kill anyone who Tries.
This means that 20% of the Entire Game is Blocked for Players.
It also means that if a Player Settles somewhere and the Land is Conquered by such a Guild. He might end up needing to Relocate an Entire Server away. Leaving behind all his Buildings and Ressources.

Again, you are make massive assumptions. The system would be designed so that guilds would WANT many private claims in there area as they would gain small amounts of coin per claim in return for protect of their peasants/civilians. They would be worse off if they did not allow anyone to settle in their lands. They would be the Lords of Nothing!!

I can see how you think that everyone is a terrible person and wants to cause misery. But most people play the game in a way which adds to there gameplay. If they make small amounts of coin from tenants, then that will add to there gameplay. At the moment, having extra people in there server only adds to their lag.. so people try to get rid of them. Hopefully with further optimisation and a proper land management system, alliances, guilds, groups and solos can final co-exist in the world better.

If player are not 100% safe they will find ways to be safer via politics / economy / warfare etc ...
This force players interactions. Otherwise it is better to play a solo rpg game.

Nice way of describing it Khroma. I agree.

If everything is protected people will stop gathering ressource or interact to get what they need to rebuild recraft trade etc...
The world will slowly die because people become bored hence what is happening on the game since release.

Nailed it.

At least it gives them a place and a role along side the big guilds which is way better than the current system or the personal claim green system.

Yep, every playstyle should be catered for. It they are not, then things would need to change so that they better cater a playstyle without taking away from other playstyles.

1.
Quite the Difference Right now.
Because Right now can Force someone to move like 20 Tiles.
And only by Building a Guild Monument and Feeding it.
Meaning they need to get 10 Toons in an Alt Guild and then Build a Monument there.

So you need 10 Guys to Ruin the Game for one Single Guy.


Compare that to your System.
Where 20 Guys can Dominate an Area and just Ruin the Game for 50 Others by Evicting them without any Cost.
And you can Evict them into another Server where they might not even be able to Settle because the Lord there might not want them either.


Again your so Blind to the Scale of the things you try to make that you dont Realize how bad they can be.

A Recurring theme with your Suggestions it seems...


2.
Which would be even more Terrible because then the First thing Guilds will do.
Is to have Monopoly on every Good Ressource making it impossible for smaller Groups etc to Play.

great way to Kill the Game.


3.
Oh Nice.
So you want to Implement a Broken System and then in addition Implement further Systems to somehow limit the damage of that Broken system ???

Sorry but then its better the System just stays away.


4.
No Khroma Suggested it.
I quoted him.
So I dont know why you would assume that you were meant.


5.
I know.
And I dont intend to.
I just wanted to make Clear that Griefers are not something to be allowed or invited.
And Mechanics should be made in a way that Griefing is as Unprofitable as possible and as hard as Possible.


6.
Some People will Love being Lord of Nothing.
See Mate.
There is no Benefit in Killing some Random Noob outside the Server 25 City.
You get nothing, you waste Durability and Alignment.

And yet.
People do it every single Day.

Some People dont care about Benefits.
They dont need Tax Income if they can make the World Burn.
and your Giving them the Option to make the World Burn.

I dont think everyone is like that.
But as I said above.
Your System give 50 out of 1000 People the Option to Ruin the Game for 500 People.

Thats why your System is so bad here.

Currently you need 10 Toons to Ruin the Game for 1 other Guy.
So there being 3 ****s among 100 Players is not a Problem.
because they cant cause so much damage that the Game would Die from it.

But in your System if 3 out of 100 People are ****s they can Destroy the Game for a 30 out of these 100 People very easily.


7.
The more Likely Scenario is that they will do what most People did when Bark Boxing was still allowed.
And will Simply Quit the game and leave a Negative Review.


8.
As for the Rest see above.
I already answered Khromas Post after all.

[SonofKitt]

Ha. Yeah sure. I would happily have a debate for weeks with someone with valid arguments that are not fuelled by bias and ego. But alas, this is not one of those debates. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you. Have a good life, as hard as it may be.

[OldmanPete]

Wow dude. These are awesome ideas. I'm in a small group at the moment. We don't really interact with many big guilds which is a shame. They have no need of us.

It would be great to be able to help out and actually be of value to larger guilds. Plus any money to go towards the guild maintenance would be great help. Awesome.


Woooh Sunleader, you need to relax. Your not making any sense..

[Sunleader]

Ha. Yeah sure. I would happily have a debate for weeks with someone with valid arguments that are not fuelled by bias and ego. But alas, this is not one of those debates. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you. Have a good life, as hard as it may be.

For that to happen you would need to have Valid Argments yourself and would need to stop being biased.


Its also Hilarious how just after I am saying that your Suggestion is Bad for Small Groups.
Someone comes up saying he is from a Small Group and Loves your Suggestion.

And its certainly not in the least bit Suspicious that his Account has only Registered Yesterday.
Its not Suspicious that he isnt Registered as Pack owner for the Game.
And its certainly not Suspicious that he came into the Forum only Answering to your two Suggestions before Immediately Logging off again.


Just how low will you Sink....

[Nate884]

I don't mean this at all to argue or take sides, but I have commented once before on this thread I believe and as a solo player, I would actually really like to see something like this implemented as well.

After all, this is Life is Feudal, and in the feudal ages, there was next to no opportunity to live free or without in some way serving some overlord or being told you did.

I agree, like every MMO, you need a degree of griefing protection, because somehow, there are actually people out there that somehow enjoy just ruining it for everyone else, haha

I feel it's pretty safe to say that the developers err on the side of protections rather than griefing potential, so IF they took these suggestions into consideration, I'm pretty confident it will have some protections implemented and possibly even too many

But overall, this would be amazing. I personally prefer playing solo or in small groups because I find it hard to maintain any level of RP or avoid chaos with larger groups. And honestly, it seems that the majority of guilds gravitate toward a super socialist, everyone share everything and hoard 100Q everything and close themselves off from all trade because they don't need anything and then quit from boredom or from having their safety nest destroyed and not wanting to start over.

I am a bit of a masochist I guess, and am good with not having the best or everything I want and then try to trade or buy or make friends to help round me out.

So I would love to see the game make me serve an overlord of some sort, pay some rent or taxes to have some land, and the opportunity in turn to make some land income of my own and more demand to trade or buy and sell.

It may also lead more pacifists like me to either take up arms and defend the castle when attacked to keep a beloved lord in power, or to rise up and overthrow or help the enemy so that I may get a better lord over me.

Perhaps another balance could be along the lines of other suggestions in having a few more 'free cities' or like Crown controlled areas that would not be as good but safer for those starting out or those who want full on safety.

All in all, I can see the previous trade suggestions and now this political suggestions along with some of the feedback it's brought out by others a great direction for the Devs to look into, and could work in the current multi world set up or even in a single world because admin castles and cities could create safe zones for the different play styles while still encouraging trade, crafting, wars and various medieval politics

[SonofKitt]

Nate,

You have a gift with words. I wish I could write like that!

That's the goal of the suggestions. To suggest ideas to make the game interesting and adding more depth/endgame while still accommodating to all the playstyles. Cheers.

OldmanPete. Thanks mate, just ignore Sunleader. Not worth your time.

[Sunleader]

I don't mean this at all to argue or take sides, but I have commented once before on this thread I believe and as a solo player, I would actually really like to see something like this implemented as well.

After all, this is Life is Feudal, and in the feudal ages, there was next to no opportunity to live free or without in some way serving some overlord or being told you did.

I agree, like every MMO, you need a degree of griefing protection, because somehow, there are actually people out there that somehow enjoy just ruining it for everyone else, haha

I feel it's pretty safe to say that the developers err on the side of protections rather than griefing potential, so IF they took these suggestions into consideration, I'm pretty confident it will have some protections implemented and possibly even too many

But overall, this would be amazing. I personally prefer playing solo or in small groups because I find it hard to maintain any level of RP or avoid chaos with larger groups. And honestly, it seems that the majority of guilds gravitate toward a super socialist, everyone share everything and hoard 100Q everything and close themselves off from all trade because they don't need anything and then quit from boredom or from having their safety nest destroyed and not wanting to start over.

I am a bit of a masochist I guess, and am good with not having the best or everything I want and then try to trade or buy or make friends to help round me out.

So I would love to see the game make me serve an overlord of some sort, pay some rent or taxes to have some land, and the opportunity in turn to make some land income of my own and more demand to trade or buy and sell.

It may also lead more pacifists like me to either take up arms and defend the castle when attacked to keep a beloved lord in power, or to rise up and overthrow or help the enemy so that I may get a better lord over me.

Perhaps another balance could be along the lines of other suggestions in having a few more 'free cities' or like Crown controlled areas that would not be as good but safer for those starting out or those who want full on safety.

All in all, I can see the previous trade suggestions and now this political suggestions along with some of the feedback it's brought out by others a great direction for the Devs to look into, and could work in the current multi world set up or even in a single world because admin castles and cities could create safe zones for the different play styles while still encouraging trade, crafting, wars and various medieval politics

Unlikely to say the Least.
Problem is.
This is not Reality.

Its a Game.
If People dont like Serving some Overlord and being abused and pushed around in his Territory (which is very likely an Insanely rare trait among Players)

They unlike Reality. Can simply say.
Ok. Screw you Guys I am going Home.
And bam they are Gone and the Game Dies because nobody Plays anymore.

And well thats pretty much what People do.
I can Guarantee this as well.
The Day I lose my Claim to some **** which conquered some Fortress which I dont even know was Build.
You can take a bet that I have Played this Game the longest Time.

Which is likely the same that most other Players will do



This is not Reality Guys.
And its not Supposed to be.

Its a Game. Its supposed to be Fun for everyone.
And Sorry but People wont Play as your "Subjects"
And gladly you cant force them to do that either.
Because if you try they just Leave and the Game will be Dead

End of Story.

[Sunleader]

The Problem can be Best be Explained by using a Simple Numbers Game.

2 Numbers Games to be Precise. One for Current User Numbers and one with the Assumed 10k Users.

Looking through the Servers there would be about 100 such Forts which Exert Control.
Lets say the Average of these Ruling Guilds has 2 such Forrts.
(Some will have 4 some only 1 etc)
So we got about 50 Guilds.

On Average these will have 50 Members.
So Total of 50x50 Players makes 2500 Players that will be the Ruling Class and Have Fun.

The Remaining 7500 Players will be Enemies and Subjects.
Hence being at the Mercy of these Rulers and Not have Fun because the Rulers can just take away their Stuff or Destroy everything they Build up during their Playtime.

Makes 25% Happy Players
75% Unhappy Players.

Not a Good Choice for a Game I fear.


Currently this would look more like about 10 Guilds Controlling all the Outposts and being maybe 10-20 People each.
Lets say 20 each.
So we got 200 People Happy.
The Remaining maybe 800-1000 Players are not Happy.




See Guys.
The Big Problem you have in this and also in your other Suggestion.
Is that you make a Great Suggestion for a small Part of the Playerbase which likes this kind of Playstyle.
But you Ruin the Game for everyone else which ends up Suffering because of this System they are Forced into.

And Sorry.
But no matter how Great your Suggestion is for the maybe 20-30% of Players which end up as Rulers of some Area.
The 70-80% of Players which end up at their Mercy will be pretty ****ed and likely Leave the Game.



And Your System unfortunately is exactly this.
You create a Great System for the 20-30% of Big PvP Guilds which thanks to that System can effectively Rule the World.
But you end up causing 70-80% of the Players to end up in a Bad Spot where them Playing the Game depends on how Merciful and Fair their Overlord is.


Just not working out for a Game Mate.
Because you see. This is a Game.
Its not Reality.
So these 70-80% wont be enduring their Fate and Play on as Fun Content for the 20-30% of Lords.
But will simply say **** you and Uninstall the Game.

[Khroma]

Ok we got it, you dont agree, you said it a lot of times.

Can you move on ?
So we can continue to speak about how we would like to improve the game hypotheticly.

Can you indulge us this, please ?

[Sunleader]

Ok we got it, you dont agree, you said it a lot of times.

Can you move on ?
So we can continue to speak about how we would like to improve the game hypotheticly.

Can you indulge us this, please ?

If you would do that without ruining the Game for the rest of us sure.
I just dont feel like that.ll happen

[SonofKitt]

Ha everyone just ignore him, let him talk to himself. Hes just trying to fill these comments with negativity to try and degrade the original suggestion, not because he doesn't agree, but because hes made 5+ suggestions on steam/forum voting page and no one has liked them. He just upset that his ideas a bad and no one like them. His goal is not to come here a have a positive discussion, its to make you all angry and get you to respond in anger. That's his game, he hasn't got logic, so he plays the troll game to achieve what he wants. Theres no room in the gaming community for camcerous personality like his. We come here to have fun, he comes here to troll and he thinks hes clever everytime he gets a reaction. Hes probably the same in RL. Sad. Just let him talk to himself.
*And then hel cry the victom of a personal attack when hes called out.

[Sunleader]

Ha everyone just ignore him, let him talk to himself. Hes just trying to fill these comments with negativity to try and degrade the original suggestion, not because he doesn't agree, but because hes made 5+ suggestions on steam/forum voting page and no one has liked them. He just upset that his ideas a bad and no one like them. His goal is not to come here a have a positive discussion, its to make you all angry and get you to respond in anger. That's his game, he hasn't got logic, so he plays the troll game to achieve what he wants. Theres no room in the gaming community for a cancerous personality like his. We come here to have fun, he comes here to troll and he thinks hes clever everytime he gets a reaction. Hes probably the same in RL. Sad. Just let him talk to himself.

There you go again throwing personal attacks and insults instead of finding arguments for your suggestion.
If you cant refute critics and have to attack the person behind them instead it should tell you that your suggestion has problems Mate.

[Khroma]

Ok we got it, you dont agree, you said it a lot of times.

Can you move on ?
So we can continue to speak about how we would like to improve the game hypotheticly.

Can you indulge us this, please ?

If you would do that without ruining the Game for the rest of us sure.
I just dont feel like that.ll happen

A forum post that ruins the game for others. Made me laugh, thank you.

Atleast i tried to ask politely. I expected a wall of text like usual, probably the morning fatigue or whatever.

Anyway the post is close to reaching the third page, should be good enough to be noticed, i m out until the next one.

[Arrok]

Regarding Building Upgrades, how about some building buffs,they would last just a couple of days (so not permanent), done with money and regional resources (forcing players to trade between regions, each use changes the resources) and maybe slaves, one such example could be the mill to increase harvest around it by percentage, and also decrease general harvest gain as right now you can get a couple of weeks of harvests for an entire game year.

Regarding the Fort: was thinking of a new building "Watch tower" in which you can put slaves and notifies you when enemies are around (so you have time to change chars and defend outpost (not getting notification of outpost being taken by enemies and having 10 minutes to come back and defend, like you said ninja style) the more slaves you put in it the higher the range, also if someone is actually staying in to buff the range as well (if someone says that this would break the sandbox than we should stop all notifications, just get back home after a JH and find out your outposts are taken if you don't have someone sitting on them 2 hours to actually watch over them and let me remind you people are using the mod to see when number of people goes up in the server)

Sink the slaves by giving them a chance to escape(either actually escape and disappear from the game, or spawn a npc which you have to knock down to get it back, if you kill it he is gone) and if you don't manage to kill it/enslave it back in a couple of minutes it could be considered that he ran away and could join and buff the npc camps that should be coming soon

The land tax should and land income should be for tier 2 claims and up (upgrade and start paying taxes or stay tier 1 and risk having monument taken down, guess it's a downside for green servers..but hey they are green for a reason "SAFETY".

HAVE SOME OTHER BUILDING IDEAS TO HELP AND BE BOOSTED AND SOME OTHER SINK MECHANICS THAT WOULD STOP ALL THE MATERIALS COMING IN THE GAME AND JUST LAYING AROUND SOON TO COME

[SonofKitt]

Hi Arrok,

Thanks for your Feedback.

I really like your ideas about other building upgrades than act as a coin/regional sink. Your watch tower idea is pretty cool, could work in with the Bell tower sound (they need to make the range of that much greater too. The slave mechanic could be 90% copy pasted from the outposts with how they work.

Yeah, we definitely need more coin and item sinks.

The land tax should and land income should be for tier 2 claims and up (upgrade and start paying taxes or stay tier 1 and risk having monument taken down, guess it's a downside for green servers..but hey they are green for a reason "SAFETY".

Yeah you are probably right, T1s could not receive Land Income and therefore not pay Taxes. As a result, most claims would probably go to T2 so that they received at least some of their Land Income to help them pay there maintenance instead of getting no Land Income with T1. This would also probably prevent troll claims from popping up everywhere as well.

[WestArcher]

Here is a consideration or a suggestion regarding guild claims and private claims.

-> Tier 1 Guild either generate 25% income for the king, OR they are only payable with coins
-> Private Claims grant no destruction protection during JH their function becomes purely rights management and disable decay
-> Disallow private claims to be placed on town claim
-> The tier 1 guilds total claim area extended to 45 radius (20 for the would be town claim 25 for realm claim.) Private claims cannot be placed 35 tiles away from the monument (leaving a dead zone of 15 tiles from the town claim)

Now having that out of the way what if.
-> Players in the guild cannot claim private land.
-> Claiming private land allies the player with the guild. IE: being at war with the guild allows you to kill without alignment penalties (This and the previous point are difficult to think about I don't think this works too well)
-> Private claim income is required to fill the upgrade bar for a guild claim with certain floors in place. ie: you would need a minimum taxable income to begin even progressing towards T3 or T4 (however the tiles do still expand)
-> Private claim income is only collected from private claim monuments that are on the guilds realm.
-> A Private claim monument begins to decay if it not within the influence zone of a guild claim
-> Guild claim radius changed

T1: 1 Town, 45 realm, 45 influence (or 20 town/25 realm for current green mechanics)
T2: 20 Town, 60 Realm, 120 Influence (Total radius)
T3: 20 Town, 120 Realm, 150 Influence
T4: 20 Town, 150 Realm, 200 Influence

The means that private claims are always protected by the previous tier of the guild. IE: it's more valuable to be as close as possible to the guilds monument.

This would need some tweaking of course and maybe someone can come up with a better system than I, but wouldn't concentrating as many small players onto a guild claim as possible and having the guild tax them create a system where not only will you maybe have an active player made town but

Going from the ideas provided by the original post in this thread,
The kings tax the lords of each guild
and the Lords collect tax from the peasantry.

I wouldn't bother worrying about griefing, honestly who cares? You're always going to have it in a game where you interact with people and who are you to condemn what other people do for fun? people grief either because they're bored or they get a rise out of it, just harden up and either kill them or move somewhere safer if they give you trouble.

The healthiest thing to do is to create a system where the games mechanics encourages people to bring in as many people to live on their realm as possible.
If the guild WANTs these players living on them why would they push them away? or mess with them?
Depending on how important the mechanics become you'll have guilds advertising with competitive tax rates trying to bring in as many people as they can.

and once again I'll mention probably one of the easiest coin sinks is to make declaring IBs free but have each signup cost the guild gold coins.
This means having a healthy income and a treasury of as many coins as possible could be absolutely vital in wars


Now another issue in my opinion is creating a system that discourages the creation of all these proxy guilds and a system where guilds want or are required to have all of their players under the same guild. Maybe something along the lines of making a guild a minimum account thing rather than player characters.
However perhaps a system like this might solve that issue

That being said, it's all pointless if the solo player experience never improves. Sure they might have somewhere to live and their landowners have a motivation to keep them there, but then what? Are they going to just watch loading bars to get their crafting skill numbers up? That is not so much fun.

Spoiler

Oh god this became a wall of text too quickly sorry fellows.

[Hanz_knife]

brilliant ideas. This could finnaly make some ingame economy and add missing motivation for playing as well. Life is Feudal....well not ATM... but i hope it will be at some day!

[Nate884]

I agree, if personal claims and small guild's players are what actually generates the income for them and for the lord that controls that area, then it would encourage whomever controls a realm to try to get and keep as many people on his land as possible.

Perhaps a similar mechanic to the way guilds currently work, where the amount of members determine its max tier, could be applied to the land income: Private claim generates x amount per tile for the player and lord, guild claim of T1,T2 etc. generates x amount per tile it controls.

So to bring in income, one would want as many claims and players on his land as possible.

And perhaps a similar mechanic would be required to build and maintain the military outpost/castle- You require x amount of vassals within it's influence zone. That could potentially thwart people doing what they currently do with outposts and just build a million of them and take all the available land.

[Sunleader]

Here is a consideration or a suggestion regarding guild claims and private claims.

-> Tier 1 Guild either generate 25% income for the king, OR they are only payable with coins
-> Private Claims grant no destruction protection during JH their function becomes purely rights management and disable decay
-> Disallow private claims to be placed on town claim
-> The tier 1 guilds total claim area extended to 45 radius (20 for the would be town claim 25 for realm claim.) Private claims cannot be placed 35 tiles away from the monument (leaving a dead zone of 15 tiles from the town claim)

Now having that out of the way what if.
-> Players in the guild cannot claim private land.
-> Claiming private land allies the player with the guild. IE: being at war with the guild allows you to kill without alignment penalties (This and the previous point are difficult to think about I don't think this works too well)
-> Private claim income is required to fill the upgrade bar for a guild claim with certain floors in place. ie: you would need a minimum taxable income to begin even progressing towards T3 or T4 (however the tiles do still expand)
-> Private claim income is only collected from private claim monuments that are on the guilds realm.
-> A Private claim monument begins to decay if it not within the influence zone of a guild claim

Sorry but that would be a Death Penalty for this Game.

Private Claims not Protected during JH means they are basicly not Protected at all.
In Short any New Player will be gone after 1 Week because he loses his Stuff.

This Suggestion would basicly do the exactly same as you have Suggested before.

Force Everyone to either Join a Large Guild or Leave the Game.
Needless to say that vast Majority will leave the Game.


Its a Typical "I want to destroy everything" Suggestion.



If something like this was Implemented the Game would be Dead within 2 Months Tops.



Edit:
I know I am talking to a Brick Wall here which would not Learn this even after having yet another Game Die from it.

But this is a Game.
Its not Real Life.

Others have absolutely no Benefit from Playing aside from having Fun.
So if they dont have Fun they dont Play.

Being a Puppet or Footman for someone else is not exactly Fun to the vast Majority of People playing Games.
So take a guess how many Players would have Fun with such Systems.

Neither is it Fun to spend a Month Building your Claim up and then have some Random RPK Squad Waltz over it and Destroy everything.



If Players in a Game are Forced to either Play as someones Subject or to not Play.
The overwhelming Majority will simply Choose not to Play.

If Players in a Game lose their stuff they spend a Month Building.
And then have the Choice to Build Stuff for another Month knowing it might just be gone again.
The overwhelming Majority will simply Choose not to Play again.


I know that for those of you which have Fun Destroying other Peoples Stuff this Frustration is exactly the thing you want to have from them.
And that you could not care less if the Game dies because of it as long as you got some Fun out of it.


But from the Games perspective this kind of System is nothing but an Expensive Way to Shut down the Servers.

[WestArcher]

PvE Players dont care about other Players that much.
Thats why they can be Perfectly Happy with being far less People.

Well what does it matter? If people leave because of a change like this you will be perfectly happy.
So it's a win-win situation.

[Sunleader]

That's how it's supposed to work, either group up with a larger/better group or get wiped.

Two can Play this Game.

[WestArcher]

I agree with that though. No matter what changes in this game zerging will always be powerful.
It's an MMO, make some friends, get involved with politics.

[Sunleader]

I agree with that though. No matter what changes in this game zerging will always be powerful.
It's an MMO, make some friends, get involved with politics.

Its fine if your Agreeing with it.
But the Fact Remains that this is not a Valid Game Design if you actually want to have enough Players to have Politics.

The Problem with having a System thats based on Survival of the Fittest. Only the Fittest Survive and the others are gone.




And this is exactly what your Systems as well as the Systems Suggested here are running up to.

Your Trying to Establish a fairly Realistic Feudal System.
But Games are not Reality.
And as Ironic as it is. But the Reason that your System cannot work in a Game is the same as why it no longer Works in Reality.

You See. The Feudal System back in the Day worked for a very Simple Reason.
Traveling longer Distances was simply not something your Normal Person could do.
People lived where they lived. And going somewhere else was not really possible.
So you had the Choice. Either you arrange yourself with the Lord Ruling your Territory or you Died.

Thing is. When Traveling became easy and leaving the Territory of a Feudal Lord became something actually Feasible.
This System Collapsed. Because People simply left their Overlords and he ended up with Barren Lands.

Some Countries tried to cling to the System by basicly Preventing their Peasants with Military Power from leaving. Forcing them to stay on their Land no matter what.
But even these have more or less Died out because its simply an Unsustainable System on long term.


And here is also the Big Problem.
This is a Game.

Players can come and leave at their own Leisure.
Players are not Peasants whose Lifes Depend on Working the Land which they are Sitting on.
Players are more like Investors. If you want them to Invest in your Game you need to make sure that their Investment has a Chance to Pay off and is as Safe as Possible from being lost.
Otherwise they wont Invest
As Simple as that.




This System here in the End means that you have 80% Peasants and 20% Rulers.
And hey. Thats certainly far more Realistic than the other way around. Where 80% of the People are able to hold their own in the World.

But the Problem is.
If you got 20% Rulers then these 20% will be very Happy.
And will Love the Game.
Thing is the 80% which are Ruled are not going to be happy that they have to play for someone elses Entertainment.
And guess what.
They wont Play for someone elses Entertainment.

They will simply tell you to go **** yourself and will Uninstall before leaving a Nice Negative Review.

[SonofKitt]

What I have seen advertised;

"Life is Feudal: MMO showcases Medieval life on a grand scale"

"Life is Feudal, a hardcore Sandbox RPG and MMORPG, is set in a realistic Medieval world."

"Realistic-fictional world
Life is Feudal is a mix of historical authenticity and unique additions, creating a truly distinctive experience for the player.

Ever inspired by the medieval ages (from the fall of Rome ‘til the rise of gunpowder in Europe), we really wanted to properly represent this time period with as much realism as possible in our approach to every aspect of our game building process."

"Hardcore and realistic, Life is Feudal: MMO showcases medieval life on a grand scale. Players will use survival skills, immersive RPG features, a thriving economy, community building, diplomacy and warfare to survive and flourish in the unforgiving world of Abella."



What I haven't seen advertised;

"Life is Feudal: MMO showcases the best kindergarten sandbox experience on a unpopulated scale"
"Happy place where middle aged men can escape their sad lives to build little pixel sandcastles and forts so that they can relive there sheltered childhoods"

[Sunleader]

What I have seen advertised;

"Life is Feudal: MMO showcases Medieval life on a grand scale"

"Life is Feudal, a hardcore Sandbox RPG and MMORPG, is set in a realistic Medieval world."

"Realistic-fictional world
Life is Feudal is a mix of historical authenticity and unique additions, creating a truly distinctive experience for the player.

Ever inspired by the medieval ages (from the fall of Rome ‘til the rise of gunpowder in Europe), we really wanted to properly represent this time period with as much realism as possible in our approach to every aspect of our game building process."

"Hardcore and realistic, Life is Feudal: MMO showcases medieval life on a grand scale. Players will use survival skills, immersive RPG features, a thriving economy, community building, diplomacy and warfare to survive and flourish in the unforgiving world of Abella."



What I haven't seen advertised;

"Life is Feudal: MMO showcases the best kindergarten sandbox experience on a unpopulated scale"
"Happy place where middle aged men can escape their sad lives to build little pixel sandcastles and forts so that they can relive there sheltered childhoods"

I think the very same Advertising also talks about being Able to Build Cities in the Sky or even Underground.
But oh well lets have it your way.


Then where did this "Realism" and Hardcore thing end.
https://steamcharts.com/app/700030
Loss of 70% of its Playerbase in less than a Single Year.





After that the Devs Decided to rather have 3 Green Worlds which are more PvE Focused and not as Realistic.


Strange isnt it.
I wonder if maybe the Devs Realized something that you have somehow missed.




If nothing else.
I didnt see any Advertising that said.

"Game for Angry Random Dudes which got no Success in Real Life and now vent their Frustration on whoever is stupid enough to try Playing it"

I also didnt See any Advertisement that said.

"Game for Masochists and Sadist which want to Play Master and Slave abusing each other or being abused"



In that Light.
How about you keep your Fantasies to yourself ?
I dont think they belong in a Game like this

[SonofKitt]

In terms of hardcore;

Its naive to look at steam charts alone for this game as a lot of players have never used the steam launcher (its was buggy initially) and just use the Non-steam launcher - so the graph could look even worse than that.

Plus, the steam charts support my arguement as I think the game hasn't had its Hardcore nature since the start of the year when the game started declining. Buyan used to have 3000-4000 a day, now its 50-75.

See that big downward trend in the steam chart?, that's starts around January, well they removed bark boxing around that time, so that when the hardcore the ended. They have been slowly realeasing more anti pvp anti player driven mechanics, which just keeps nudging that hardcore trend even further down.

One persons summary from the forums sums it up well.

Roaming is dead, there is no resource you can't get from the safety of your claim, which are now 100% safe if you put in any effort (drying rack spam).

This game will devolve into a login for JH/IB/Siege and logout.
Nobody roams this isn't darkfall or MO where you have to go out into the world to get materials. Roaming pvp will never be a solution on LiF because there is no reason to roam.

A lot of players agreed, and slowly but surely there was nothing left for them to do, no reason to leave there bases, nobody left for them to wage war with outside of IBs. It only got worse when more and more people left.

New servers really didnt help.

The worst part is people tried to hold on. The battle with the chinese on Buyan saw regular daily PvP. There was no incentive for it, but both sides wanted the fights. But eventually fighting for the sake of fighting was not enough, without incentives (trade/coin/territory) there is no reason to play the game. Give guilds/alliances a reason to fight OTHER guilds/alliances and it will happen. Its better that guilds are fighting each other than picking on the weak solo players (there only chance at finding pvp atm).
Anyone who appossed guild v guild ingame non-instance daily pvp basically wants these players looking for pvp to target the only current option which is to attack weak/new/solo players. And if you think pvp doesnt belong in LIF:MMO, you are playing the wrong game, do us a favour and head off to LIF:YO


In terms of realism;

A feudal system in a feudal game would equal realism. You cant compare numbers raise/decline because there has been no system like it in game as of yet. To make any predictions on player psychology would be to assume many things (probably with a lot of bias to ones own opinions) but ultimately you wouldn't know until you tried it. And a great time to do that would be in say a testing phase like a BETA.....

Ta