Leaders in battles

Have a suggestion or an idea for Life is Feudal: MMO ? Post it here!

Hoshiqua
Alpha Tester
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: 18 Jan 2014, 14:48

Leaders in battles

Post by Hoshiqua » 11 Oct 2014, 21:15

So, I was thinking about something, and people told me that it is a good idea, so I'm gonna describe it here :

Basicly, for you guys that do not know, there is going to be instanced battles and siege events on the MMO, on which people will have to elist in order to participate (not sure for the sieges, since these ones won't be instanced).

I was thinking : Leaders of countries, kingdoms or any people that have been given the right to do it, should be able to choose a general for the battle, amongst those who have enlisted. It's simple : the general would be able to issue orders to his units, just like a simple unit commander. The difference here would be that, his orders would be way more effective, because of moral boost bla bla bla. Of course, that would mean he had to go on the front, and fight himself in order for that bonus to work. And that would mean he could die !

And here is the most interesting part of the idea :

If the general of the battle dies, he respawns, but his troops would suffer a malus in battle, due to moral loss bla bla bla, and that would actually give a BIG value to the general's life, just like the generals in games like Total wars or others like that.

So, generals would have a choice : either be brave, and be on the frontline, BUT give a very good bonus to their army, with the risk of dying and make their units worse than before, or just stay behind the fighting and have less risk of dying, but not enjoy the bonus.

As you may have understood, the bonus for orders and shit is here to draw generals to the fighting and actually face death, so this whole idea would have a meaning, other than kingdoms having their general way off the battle.

This idea can evolve : the bonus to orders could change to a general bonus to nearby troops, or ANYTHING that can draw the generals to fight.

For example, another good thing would be that, if a general uses "flee" ability in battle, the troops nearby would loose moral, and more than if he died (leading to generals fighting to death with an epic clash rather than just flee like chickens).

What do you guys think ?

User avatar
Sparky
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 28 Sep 2014, 19:39

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Sparky » 11 Oct 2014, 21:32

Is this Total war we're playing?
and stop using the shitty emoticons to take this thread seriously


Hoshiqua
Alpha Tester
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: 18 Jan 2014, 14:48

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Hoshiqua » 11 Oct 2014, 22:23

Sorry for the smileys, they are here all the frickin time when you type a colon, which I do a lot in my posts.

We're not playing total war here, but this would add a dimension of epicness, and the life of the leader would actually be a valuable thing.






.... in some way, this game can be anything : Minecraft, Total war, Stronghold...


Syeed
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 09 Oct 2014, 12:44

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Syeed » 11 Oct 2014, 22:49

I think that the less the devs interfere with how battles go down the better. Players will already select war leaders without any game mechanics built around it. Left to their own devices, they will get a more authentic sort of morale benefit from effective leaders and penalty from poor leaders.

There is no need to complicate player generated content with unnecessary mechanics. Balance the PvP system, balance weapons and armor and skills, and epic battles will occur organically.

Personally, the only real problem I have with LiF as it has been proposed is the idea of instanced battles. There should always be the possibility of uninvited third parties turning up.


Hoshiqua
Alpha Tester
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: 18 Jan 2014, 14:48

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Hoshiqua » 12 Oct 2014, 00:42

I think this would be a good mechanic, because, right now, commanders and people will just (I think) respawn and keep battling, and people won't give a damn about their commander falling or running, because they think rationnaly, and know this is a game. But this game's aim is to recreate a (close to) realist Middle age game, and I don't think this mechanic would affect a lot of players' freedom to act as they wish. But just, give a value to the commander's life, and reward its bravery since he'll be targeted.


Sunguardian
True Believer
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Sep 2014, 01:55

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Sunguardian » 12 Oct 2014, 09:52

I like the idea. I do have to say instanced battles are kind of a let down, because battles, aside from being a fight are suppose to be messy and at times inconvenient to the surrounding area.

One thing I would maybe change is instead of having the general be the major bonus to the troops I would have it be a "Champion" that the general chooses because the champion is suppose to be the baddest warrior in the ranks that others would look up to.

Generals in a "realistic" battle would stick by the archers so he could have a better look on the battlefield, and they would hardly ever go into the fray unless victory was within their grasp to which they would then come in with the Calvary to break the enemies ranks and show their might.

Good idea all around though, I like it.


Viik
 
Posts: 131
Joined: 20 Sep 2014, 20:05

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Viik » 12 Oct 2014, 12:33

Why exactly fighters are suppose to care about generals? Where do you get an impression that they ever cared in battle about such things? Generals had bodyguards, care about him not dying is their job. Regular soldiers fought for their life and life of their friends, many of them never even saw generals in person.
Unit mechanics encourages people to keep formation, what this mechanics is suppose to do?


Hoshiqua
Alpha Tester
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: 18 Jan 2014, 14:48

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Hoshiqua » 12 Oct 2014, 16:09

This mechanic is supposed to reward brave commanders in battle, but at a risk of course.

User avatar
Sparky
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 28 Sep 2014, 19:39

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Sparky » 12 Oct 2014, 16:23

Hoshiqua wrote:This mechanic is supposed to reward brave commanders in battle, but at a risk of course.


How about having no "generals or commanders " Because if that one guy fucks up everyones pretty much dead.

Keep the game simple

Syeed wrote:Personally, the only real problem I have with LiF as it has been proposed is the idea of instanced battles. There should always be the possibility of uninvited third parties turning up.


No, never again. Wurm online already was hell, because of this. People after fights being de-mounted and low on hp. Then a 3rd faction comes in and just takes everything. No fun.


Hoshiqua
Alpha Tester
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: 18 Jan 2014, 14:48

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Hoshiqua » 12 Oct 2014, 16:36

Well, there will be commanders in battle, simply because the men will need organisation :)

The instanced battles actually have a purpose ! If the attacker win the battle, the city monument will decrease in level, and make it closer to being siegeable.


Syeed
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 09 Oct 2014, 12:44

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Syeed » 12 Oct 2014, 20:47

Sparky wrote:
Syeed wrote:Personally, the only real problem I have with LiF as it has been proposed is the idea of instanced battles. There should always be the possibility of uninvited third parties turning up.


No, never again. Wurm online already was hell, because of this. People after fights being de-mounted and low on hp. Then a 3rd faction comes in and just takes everything. No fun.


I've never played Wurm, but EVE Online has no instances and battles work out great. One party leaves an asset in a vulnerable position, another guy sees this and attacks. Both sides batphone their friends. Random passers-by join in the carnage, and before you know it hundreds or even thousands of people are battling.

Even in your Wurm scenario, admitting I know nothing about the game, it sounds as if it must have been lots of fun for the 3rd faction.

Hoshiqua wrote:The instanced battles actually have a purpose ! If the attacker win the battle, the city monument will decrease in level, and make it closer to being siegeable.


Sounds like a glorified capture-the-flag match, not open world sandbox PvP. In a sandbox, anyone should be allowed to attack or to seige each other at any time. Wars should be won by devious tactics and diplomatic surprises (as in, "suprise! I showed up at the battle with an unexpected 3rd party ally" or "surprise! your third party ally turned their coats") as much as they are by pitched battle.

User avatar
Sparky
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 28 Sep 2014, 19:39

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Sparky » 12 Oct 2014, 23:26

Hoshiqua wrote:Well, there will be commanders in battle, simply because the men will need organisation :)

The instanced battles actually have a purpose ! If the attacker win the battle, the city monument will decrease in level, and make it closer to being siegeable.

Yeah there is, but don't make it a special thing what gives boosts when youre near him or when he dies you literally lose because the one guy gets focused first and dies or just fucks up


Viik
 
Posts: 131
Joined: 20 Sep 2014, 20:05

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Viik » 13 Oct 2014, 09:26

Hoshiqua wrote:Well, there will be commanders in battle, simply because the men will need organisation :)
What is the value in commander if he goes into PvP instead of observing battle and giving orders? Organization, communication skills and leadership are way more important for leaders than their individual PvP skills.


Famousbwd
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 19:05

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by Famousbwd » 14 Oct 2014, 00:18

Syeed wrote:I think that the less the devs interfere with how battles go down the better. Players will already select war leaders without any game mechanics built around it. Left to their own devices, they will get a more authentic sort of morale benefit from effective leaders and penalty from poor leaders.

There is no need to complicate player generated content with unnecessary mechanics. Balance the PvP system, balance weapons and armor and skills, and epic battles will occur organically.

Personally, the only real problem I have with LiF as it has been proposed is the idea of instanced battles. There should always be the possibility of uninvited third parties turning up.


You nailed it mate


VindicteMortis
True Believer
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 29 Sep 2014, 13:51

Re: Leaders in battles

Post by VindicteMortis » 14 Oct 2014, 00:29

Syeed wrote:I think that the less the devs interfere with how battles go down the better. Players will already select war leaders without any game mechanics built around it. Left to their own devices, they will get a more authentic sort of morale benefit from effective leaders and penalty from poor leaders.

There is no need to complicate player generated content with unnecessary mechanics. Balance the PvP system, balance weapons and armor and skills, and epic battles will occur organically.

Personally, the only real problem I have with LiF as it has been proposed is the idea of instanced battles. There should always be the possibility of uninvited third parties turning up.


this

Return to Suggestions and Ideas