Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Harold_V]

Heyho,

[...]

The fact the devs have done this is a great shame and IMO if they keep this in the game or don't come up with an alternative soon they have killed the Avalon server and any PVPers that want to come to the game which is the majority of players.

Is it so? I must have the new player poll that asked why I came to this game. Maybe we have some hard data "what the community wants" and not only guessing.

Life is Feudal can be both ... the place for PVPer that "love the BRUTALITY", the place for players that like a medieval themed survival game, the players who like to build things and the roleplayers. But decades of roleplaying online have shown, that "roleplaying" and "unrestraint PVP" don't mix at all.

Roleplays like to play a role ... a dimwitted farmer, a rash noble, a tavern wench or a corrupt guard or a highwayman. Many roles that don't need PVP to be played, many roles that work in a meaningful PVP setting. IF someone has a valid reason to attack my character - go ahead, power to you! But play that you're a ruthless robber that likes to mug/beat/kill hapless peasants. Demand something before you strike my char down. Attack my little settlement because you enforce your lords will to strike fear in the peasantry so they will bend the knee to him. Not just because you're bored and you don't see much point in playing LiF aside from PVP.

Don't get me wrong: most ways to play the game are valid. But as with EVE Online, the overwhelming mass of players isn't that content with being the faceless source of "content" for the capable PVPers. Roleplayers and PVE players go well with another and PVP players are certainly not bothered by roleplayers ... they just walk over them if it pleases them. But a few PVPers (a small number, I'm sure most PVP players don't have the urge to 'beat' every opponent or pound them into the mantra "I'm bad at PVP - I don't deserve to be treated as a valid player of this game!") are enough to destroy the game for droves of players that don't have the will nor the skill set to be good - and therefore worthy - PVPers.

It was therefore a good move to seperate the roleplayers from the "everything goes" PVPers. I honestly believe that most of you are nice guys - but everything PVP related descents into unpleasant, frustrating, gamebreaking squabble if not both sides are inclined to that sort of PVP.

So long story short: play and let others play the way that both parties have fun.

- Harry


P.S.: I can't hear the "live with it, because ... feudal!". Feudalism has nothing to do with random killing, burning and pillaging. The peasantry worked the field, so the not so noble lord could by his steed and maintain his mail and sword. Dead farmers have a hard time working the field, maimend smith can't forge a Zweihaender and the 'slightly used' wench couldn't stir the soup any more. Apart from the few higher strata of society (nobles, men at arms, burghers), most people were considered a form of property in one way or another.

[Agathius]

"Feudalism has nothing to do with pillaging, killing and forcing people!"
Are you sure about that?

[VindicteMortis]

"Feudalism has nothing to do with pillaging, killing and forcing people!"
Are you sure about that?

haha

feudalism is literally all about the concentration of power brought upon by exactly those things

[Harold_V]

Heyho,

"Feudalism has nothing to do with pillaging, killing and forcing people!"
Are you sure about that?

I am sure. The "forcing people" is your additon, not my quote. The fear of eternal damnation in hell if one lowly little peasant didn't obey his God given lord was usually a stronger "force" than the fear of death.

But following your argumentation, the Huns were feudal, various dictatorships in the 20th century were feudal, the Mongolian Horde was feudal, Hernando Cortez was feudal, the Atztecs were feudal, the ancient Egyptians and Hittites were feudal, the Romans were feudal, Alexander the Great surely too. And so on.

Interesting though. But slightly off the more conventional definition of feudalism.

I think you confuse the social construct of feudalism with some of it's tools and procedures. You can pillage, burn and force people even as a democracy ...


- Harry

[Tashka]

No one said we want it to be an arena. The zerg is normal, it is the feudal aspect.

Actually no. Unlike real life, zerg in LiF isn't hard to maintain, it doesn't empty your barns and you don't need to take farmers away from their fields so they cannot sow or harvest. You don't need to deal with marauders and deserters. You don't need to care about that extremely vulnerable convoy with food and all that is following your army. You can coordinate your massive forces using discord. You don't care about boring stuff like logistics. You can have your zerg ready for a fight in any moment, and for that you don't need to have them quartered in your own lands which is almost as problematic as having a foreign army there. You basically get all the pro's of having a zerg and no cons.

This goes for sieges, too. You really think some stupid ignot is a problem lol?

[Agathius]

Feudalism is the system of "You bow to me for protection, give me levy or money in peacetime and i give you levies from other Counties".

You said Feudalism does not contain or does not have Pillaging and Killing. Well, anyone knowing the history of the Saxon Kingoms knows how they evolved to the Kingdom of England. Never said Feudalism is anything that kills and pilages. It was you that said it has nothing to do with it, so please remain on the subject. Feudalism involved killing and pillaging, but since it did, and since this game IS feudal or supposed to be, it needs to have the 'killing and pillaging' part.

I am, in full honesty, fed up with talking people that are Carebear and that back their miserable point simply because if they do not they will get overwhelmed by others. If the system of "I will force you into vassalage" or "I will be forced into vassalage cause others want to force me into vassalage" did not exist, then the Feudal system would not exist. I really do not see the point you are trying to make... IF it exists, of course.

And indeed it is the thing of anyone Human to want to kill another Human, finding various reasons like Culture, Religion and Ideology, all made by Humans themselves. But, as well, people in the Middle Ages used Religion to prove legitimacy for their rule to force them to fight with them. That did not happen as OFTEN as the middle ages in any other age, which is why the Middle Ages is a separate age where Politics were shrouded by Religion. But that is absolete in LiF since you cannot really make someone afraid, but the sense of forcing others to bend by Military Actions still exists and should exist.

I think you mistake my 2 sentences of irony for Arguementation as well, but i will not stick to that. Just remember that you are dwelling in details, never making any actual point that can back or prove what you're saying.

[bowlin12]

I am, in full honesty, fed up with talking people that are Carebear and that back their miserable point simply because if they do not they will get overwhelmed by others.
I think you mistake my 2 sentences of irony for Arguementation as well, but i will not stick to that. Just remember that you are dwelling in details, never making any actual point that can back or prove what you're saying.

I don't think you are trying to see anyone perspective but others to jump in here and reinforce your own. It's very easy to try and find common ground between people and maybe find some way to get what you both want.

What do you think needs to be done to keep this game at a healthy population? Actual question and we can talk about what works and why.

[Hodo]

I don't think you are trying to see anyone perspective but others to jump in here and reinforce your own. It's very easy to try and find common ground between people and maybe find some way to get what you both want.

What do you think needs to be done to keep this game at a healthy population? Actual question and we can talk about what works and why.

Here is my common ground solution.

You can keep all of the nerfs to getting over walls currently, and just give us the ability to instance battle people cheaply and with meaning. THEN give us a MUCH cheaper siege totem so we can purge those that are in our way.

Currently it costs more to siege a tier 1 totem than it costs to place one.

[Tordr86]

I'm against mindless PvP, there needs to be a structure as this isn't PUBG or H1Z1. I want wardec to completely replace JH as a game mechanic. Currently, you can declare war on someone without care, this needs to be changed imo. Wardec's should cost resources or coins, how that is handled is up for public discussion. Wardec's shouldn't be permanent like it is now, but should only be for a set time and there needs to be a grace period after the war ends.

That's how Id like PvP to be in LIF, because it makes sense with the current setting of the game.

[bowlin12]

I don't think you are trying to see anyone perspective but others to jump in here and reinforce your own. It's very easy to try and find common ground between people and maybe find some way to get what you both want.

What do you think needs to be done to keep this game at a healthy population? Actual question and we can talk about what works and why.

Here is my common ground solution.

You can keep all of the nerfs to getting over walls currently, and just give us the ability to instance battle people cheaply and with meaning. THEN give us a MUCH cheaper siege totem so we can purge those that are in our way.

Currently it costs more to siege a tier 1 totem than it costs to place one.

If siege totems are much cheaper then wouldn't that result in wars being the solution to every problem rather than any other solution? I agree there must be a way to allow players to get rid of people who settle on "their" lands but how can we do this with still giving smaller guilds a chance to exist and play the game rather than 2-3 "superguilds" that may end up with a much smaller population.

Getting the mats required for totems take ALOT of time, and then if you are the stronger guild you are almost guaranteed a win and destroy their claim. Which usually ends up with people quitting the game or splitting around to other guilds (if only there were more people who were masochists ) So if you can accomplish, potentially, removing a player from the game for cheap then wouldn't that have a high chance of lowering the population faster than if the siege totem was harder to obtain?

What would these other instanced battles be, and what would you gain for winning them?

Also I think that making T1 claims harder to build can stop griefers from taking plots of land from you. But then it makes it that much harder for lets say Steam release players to make any sort of claim without being destroyed early on.

[Hodo]

If siege totems are much cheaper then wouldn't that result in wars being the solution to every problem rather than any other solution? I agree there must be a way to allow players to get rid of people who settle on "their" lands but how can we do this with still giving smaller guilds a chance to exist and play the game rather than 2-3 "superguilds" that may end up with a much smaller population.

Getting the mats required for totems take ALOT of time, and then if you are the stronger guild you are almost guaranteed a win and destroy their claim. Which usually ends up with people quitting the game or splitting around to other guilds (if only there were more people who were masochists ) So if you can accomplish, potentially, removing a player from the game for cheap then wouldn't that have a high chance of lowering the population faster than if the siege totem was harder to obtain?

What would these other instanced battles be, and what would you gain for winning them?

Also I think that making T1 claims harder to build can stop griefers from taking plots of land from you. But then it makes it that much harder for lets say Steam release players to make any sort of claim without being destroyed early on.

War was the solution in medieval times. Very few people "talked" out their issues. If you wanted the land, you fought for it, killed everyone who lived on it, and moved YOUR people on to it.

There is a reason the first king of England was named William The Conqueror, and it wasnt because he was really good with the women.

There is a reason why even a thousand years later we are still writing stories, and making movies about the sons of Ragnar, or Richard the Lion Heart, or An-Nasir Salah ad-Din, and Ghengis Khan. It wasnt because they were great at speech writing, or snappy dressers. Because they were conquerors, leaders, and champions of their faiths.


Siege totems need to be cheaper, right now it makes no sense to put forth the effort of making one if your enemy will just place another tier 1 monument a few hours later.

If IB totems were half the cost they are now, and siege totems were the cost of IB totems then it would balance out a bit better.

[bowlin12]

If siege totems are much cheaper then wouldn't that result in wars being the solution to every problem rather than any other solution? I agree there must be a way to allow players to get rid of people who settle on "their" lands but how can we do this with still giving smaller guilds a chance to exist and play the game rather than 2-3 "superguilds" that may end up with a much smaller population.

Getting the mats required for totems take ALOT of time, and then if you are the stronger guild you are almost guaranteed a win and destroy their claim. Which usually ends up with people quitting the game or splitting around to other guilds (if only there were more people who were masochists ) So if you can accomplish, potentially, removing a player from the game for cheap then wouldn't that have a high chance of lowering the population faster than if the siege totem was harder to obtain?

What would these other instanced battles be, and what would you gain for winning them?

Also I think that making T1 claims harder to build can stop griefers from taking plots of land from you. But then it makes it that much harder for lets say Steam release players to make any sort of claim without being destroyed early on.

War was the solution in medieval times. Very few people "talked" out their issues. If you wanted the land, you fought for it, killed everyone who lived on it, and moved YOUR people on to it.

There is a reason the first king of England was named William The Conqueror, and it wasnt because he was really good with the women.

There is a reason why even a thousand years later we are still writing stories, and making movies about the sons of Ragnar, or Richard the Lion Heart, or An-Nasir Salah ad-Din, and Ghengis Khan. It wasnt because they were great at speech writing, or snappy dressers. Because they were conquerors, leaders, and champions of their faiths.

So what? This is a game and we're trying to find ways to keep it at a enjoyable level of population so it doesn't become darkfall or Mortal who have 200 players.

The main problem with bringing up realism or history to design a game is that it can be emulated only so far at the moment. You cannot expect everyone to vassal to a larger or more skilled guild because there is no fear of death and no real attachment to what they have in game because they can always play or do something else. The only way to retain a large population is to set limitations on what people can and cannot do so that there is a sort of balance between each type of player.

Do you disagree that making siege totems cost less may result in more wiping of smaller claims and lead to less guild and less players.

Also explain your idea of the other instanced battles, what do they accomplish when you win / lose them.

[Agathius]

That is what we are trying, and that is why people want the game to be more PvP oriented. Most of the playerbase wants that.

[bowlin12]

That is what we are trying, and that is why people want the game to be more PvP oriented. Most of the playerbase wants that.

I'd love to believe that but I'm not seeing this or even hearing this. I'm in a guild of 50 people and we've got 2 people wishing the mechanics are different. And I only read so many posts about it on the forums, we've got 1300-2100 players playing and I'm not seeing their feedback.

All I know is that in the past games like DF and MO there are a vocal minority of PvPers that lie about the majority this and majority that. Whom cry about changes that either restrict PvP in some form or another until it gets reverted for the good of the game or worse. So understand if I hear someone say "most of the playerbase" I take it as such.

[Agathius]

I know a LOT of people from DaC, BP, AS, USH That want stuff to change... People are simply so pessimistic and so used to having their playstyle demolished that they do not try to type or do anything anymore. I simply have a different view and so does everyone. No one wants violenence and Rust, but we want content in the game. That is why we supported it. That is why i urged my ex members to buy the MMO, to support it. That is why i haven't quitted so far.

[bowlin12]

I know a LOT of people from DaC, BP, AS, USH That want stuff to change... People are simply so pessimistic and so used to having their playstyle demolished that they do not try to type or do anything anymore. I simply have a different view and so does everyone. No one wants violenence and Rust, but we want content in the game. That is why we supported it. That is why i urged my ex members to buy the MMO, to support it. That is why i haven't quitted so far.

So your problem is with the lack of PvP. Ability to kill those hiding inside castle walls. Unable to destroy your enemies with Siegetotems(because 2 expensive). What is your solution to this problem, should they revert it to a certain point? Or should they add some other mechanic in. Rather than just saying "You are ruining the game!" lets think of a way to fix it.

Also, did you not see any problems with being able to at any time get inside someones walls and kill them? Or is that just how she goes only the strongest survive?

[Agathius]

There should be far less price for totems and less time to prepare. Moreover raiding should have Ladders and everything else needed to scale walls. It is actually really simple

[bowlin12]

There should be far less price for totems and less time to prepare. Moreover raiding should have Ladders and everything else needed to scale walls. It is actually really simple

Lets put price as how long it takes to achieve it. So what in your mind is fair for how long it takes a 60 man guild to get the mats for a siege totem. 1 day, 2 days? 1 week? 1 months? Tell me the number that you find is fair and we can continue.

So ladders, should ladders be allowed at all times or only during JH? And if there are ladders is there going to be mechanics in place to allow defenders to have the advantage (which they should have more than just cover.) so rocks, knocking off ladders where the climbers take fall damage. Boiling pots of oil on the walls. If you get shot when climbing you fall down taking dmg ect. Or are we just saying give people "free" access to anyones base at any time?

[Killa162]

Bring PvP patches.
Bring back bark box or Horseclimb/human ladders (one of them at leats).
Bring actually ladders that can be dropped OUTSIDE of JH times WITHOUT siege totem placement.
Bring worth back to this game as the PvP game you designed in the first place.

This is getting to the point of being worse then Darkfall... and doing such a thing is hard to do. Be worse then DF? That's pretty bad. Small scale PvP like everyone claims to still exist is as follows

Find targets outside of walls
Chase down targets (i.e. crafters/bad rp pvpers)
They get inside their walls and start raining arrows
You leave since small scale event has now concluded since they don't re-engage and come down from the walls

Why would they come down from their walls now, you can't get in, and they can endlessly shoot arrows and widdle you down. Only option is to leave and find another claim to harass. Even if you fight or harass larger guilds, if you're winning the fight, they too will run to walls. It has happened many times where me and some mates kill large claims and they run back to walls. The game is a joke because every claim now can be like the newbie city that's 100% safe. All you need is some drying racks on top of your walls. Poof there you go 100% safe zone. Congratulations RP'ers, you now ruined the NA server.

[Agathius]

Recently, we did a math calculation. A Siege totem is 7200 Flux. 10 Vostaskus ingots. 1500 Irregular Alloy. Each Irregular Alloy is 2 Silver lumps, 1 Gold lump, 2 Steel bars, 2 Copper bars. So a Guild with 100 herb gardens (15 H gather, so every 24 hours, one harvest) would get 500 flux per harvest. Which, in other words, means that a Siege totem solely by Herb gardens takes 15 Days. We do that excluding no one uses 100 Herbal gardens, ofc.

A siege totem against a worthy target like Masons or Askanier or Vanirs would be impossible to win cause when a defensive castle has more than 100 people, they can easily as well heal up over time and replace the defending archers as long as the archers are 60 +. But exclude that. It is simply impossible to win in a siege totem. Ladders ought to be allowed at all times, and Siege totems should be cheap enough to easily wipe someone so as to force people to get into this "Feudalism"we are talking about, seeking protection from the strong.

[Hodo]

So what? This is a game and we're trying to find ways to keep it at a enjoyable level of population so it doesn't become darkfall or Mortal who have 200 players.

The main problem with bringing up realism or history to design a game is that it can be emulated only so far at the moment. You cannot expect everyone to vassal to a larger or more skilled guild because there is no fear of death and no real attachment to what they have in game because they can always play or do something else. The only way to retain a large population is to set limitations on what people can and cannot do so that there is a sort of balance between each type of player.

Do you disagree that making siege totems cost less may result in more wiping of smaller claims and lead to less guild and less players.

Also explain your idea of the other instanced battles, what do they accomplish when you win / lose them.

Currently no one is really bothering with IB totems because they are to expensive and achieve nothing. The way it is SUPPOSED to work is the victor of the IB reduces the size of the opponents claim. After so many instance battle victories the defeated sides claim drops to a tier 1 monument. Which then can be sieged. Once a siege totem is laid on the target claim and the battle is scheduled the claim is locked in its current size until after the battle. If the targeted claim loses the battle their totem is destroyed, their claim is dissolved and the clan is disbanded. ALL of the loot on that claim will go to the siege totem for the victors to get, and the structures destroyed in the siege battle will be destroyed in the real world. Everything else will start to decay at its usual rate.

Only tier 2 monument guilds can declare an instance battle or a siege.

This is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

If you are fighting a tier 4 guild you can blow as much as, 80 gold ingots, and 80 silver ingots, 8 building logs, and 320 positive preparations. THen you have the siege totem which is a further 1 building log, 10 vostock steel ingots, 10 gold ingots, 10silver ingots AND 40 Positive Preparations.

So yeah a bit expensive. Way more than just the gear itself or really anything you may loot off of most of these claims.

Reducing the cost of Instant Battle Totems to half of what they are, 1 Building Log, 5 Gold, 5 Silver, and 20 positive preps, and putting siege totems to 1 building log 10 gold and 10 silver ingots and 40 positive preps with no vostock steel, would make them FAR more attainable for the average guild and WAY less stupid expensive.

It is bad enough to be successful in most sieges you will need siege equipment to win, trebuchets, siege torches, explosive barrels, and others... All of which are expensive, and time consuming to produce.

[bowlin12]

Bring PvP patches.
Bring back bark box or Horseclimb/human ladders (one of them at leats).
Bring actually ladders that can be dropped OUTSIDE of JH times WITHOUT siege totem placement.
Bring worth back to this game as the PvP game you designed in the first place.

This is getting to the point of being worse then Darkfall... and doing such a thing is hard to do. Be worse then DF? That's pretty bad. Small scale PvP like everyone claims to still exist is as follows

Find targets outside of walls
Chase down targets (i.e. crafters/bad rp pvpers)
They get inside their walls and start raining arrows
You leave since small scale event has now concluded since they don't re-engage and come down from the walls

Why would they come down from their walls now, you can't get in, and they can endlessly shoot arrows and widdle you down. Only option is to leave and find another claim to harass. Even if you fight or harass larger guilds, if you're winning the fight, they too will run to walls. It has happened many times where me and some mates kill large claims and they run back to walls. The game is a joke because every claim now can be like the newbie city that's 100% safe. All you need is some drying racks on top of your walls. Poof there you go 100% safe zone. Congratulations RP'ers, you now ruined the NA server.

So I have friends that tell me about how they used barkboxes to get into peoples claims then wait for 2-5 hours just to kill random solo guys logging in before they can react. Do you think that allowing these types of people to continue to wreak havoc on PVErs or even PvPers is healthy for the population. Or large zerg forces that move after smaller guilds and camp them until they quit? Can you atleast tell me if you recognize this as a potential outcome and don't care. Or if not I can explain to you why this is the case.

What is wrong with fighting larger guilds with a garrison that will come out to fight on their lands. And if you win the fight by killing 5 of them and the rest run is that not enough? Do you need to kill all 10-15 players to feel accomplishment from the PvP?

[Hodo]

So I have friends that tell me about how they used barkboxes to get into peoples claims then wait for 2-5 hours just to kill random solo guys logging in before they can react. Do you think that allowing these types of people to continue to wreak havoc on PVErs or even PvPers is healthy for the population. Or large zerg forces that move after smaller guilds and camp them until they quit? Can you atleast tell me if you recognize this as a potential outcome and don't care. Or if not I can explain to you why this is the case.

What is wrong with fighting larger guilds with a garrison that will come out to fight on their lands. And if you win the fight by killing 5 of them and the rest run is that not enough? Do you need to kill all 10-15 players to feel accomplishment from the PvP?

That just tells me that your friends found a guild with poorly designed walls.

I challenge you to get over the double wall setup of my guild, and do it un-noticed. Yeah... good luck on that.

Again this comes down to people not known how to build a proper base and setting up good walls with overlapping fields of fire and killzones... nope... they just throw some walls down and think they are safe.

[bowlin12]

I think that the price of the instanced battle totems should be reduced so that your claim can be reduced in size so that atleast these smaller guilds cannot bite of more than they can chew in a sense. So that at the very least if a smaller guild wants to be their own entity they must be okay with the reduced amount of space they get to own.

Yet the siege totem needs to pricey. Maybe not this expensive but removing the requirement for the steel would make it very easily accessible. So large guilds could take a medium sized guilds work away with only a minimal amount of effort. And continue to raze villages up.

Can anyone atleast respond to my thought that if we make destroying peoples entire base easier will lead to more players leaving the game and ultimately quickening the inevitable 200 playerbase?

[bowlin12]

So I have friends that tell me about how they used barkboxes to get into peoples claims then wait for 2-5 hours just to kill random solo guys logging in before they can react. Do you think that allowing these types of people to continue to wreak havoc on PVErs or even PvPers is healthy for the population. Or large zerg forces that move after smaller guilds and camp them until they quit? Can you atleast tell me if you recognize this as a potential outcome and don't care. Or if not I can explain to you why this is the case.

What is wrong with fighting larger guilds with a garrison that will come out to fight on their lands. And if you win the fight by killing 5 of them and the rest run is that not enough? Do you need to kill all 10-15 players to feel accomplishment from the PvP?

That just tells me that your friends found a guild with poorly designed walls.

I challenge you to get over the double wall setup of my guild, and do it un-noticed. Yeah... good luck on that.

Again this comes down to people not known how to build a proper base and setting up good walls with overlapping fields of fire and killzones... nope... they just throw some walls down and think they are safe.

How many people does your guild currently have? And how active are they, because this will then be the norm for anyone to survive in a world with free entrance to walls.

All this is doing is making the learning curve to this game so steep that a few people can exist, why can't we have players who aren't good at the game maybe aren't that bright and play only 2-4 hours a day able to exist without joining a mega coalition. Who cares what your guild has done or the genius in it's design ( ) does that mean that casuals should be destroyed completely for not doing so? I don't understand this way of thinking, it is very confusing. Do you guys understand that this will hasten the death of the games population but don't care because it'll be a fun ride? Or are you guys misunderstanding "carebear rules" as workarounds to keep this game palatable for a wider audience?

[Hodo]

Can anyone atleast respond to my thought that if we make destroying peoples entire base easier will lead to more players leaving the game and ultimately quickening the inevitable 200 playerbase?

People will leave regardless.

I think you are overreacting just a bit. If people dont understand what they are getting into with a game like this, wont last even if there isnt siege. I have already watched a dozen guilds fold on the NA server already and it hasnt even been 2 months.

If small groups of 10 people think they can build a castle and defend it, they are horribly mistaken. IF they manage to build something of note, they will just be killed outside of their walls until they no longer want to login. IF they make it that far, that is assuming they dont fall apart from the amount of work it takes.

If sieges are in game, it still takes a while to take them down. It isnt one and done with the instant battles, it takes an average of 2 battles to bring down a totem 1 level/tier. If it is a tier 1 totem to start with well they should have became a vassal when approached as they couldnt defend themselves if they had tried.

Most people dont want to drive people from the game, but they also dont want people to just be a thorn in their side. I always give my enemy a chance to surrender and move on.


EDIT- to answer your last question...over 100 people about half are active.

[TheBruce]

During Middle Age, apart from the famous big battles, the majority of the fights were between lesser lords, involving smaller armies of some hundreds of men. I'd like to see smaller fights more than great armies of 300 people raiding around. Maybe creating a totem that, in case of win/lose, make the two sides win or lose a sum of money as a reward, like one side sacked the other city. In this case no one is losing building and stuff but still one have to make a payment to the other. I think that could be a good compromise between free raid and sieges. Of course during a siege walls can be broken and cities raided, but that's a siege, not just a skirmish.

[bowlin12]

Can anyone atleast respond to my thought that if we make destroying peoples entire base easier will lead to more players leaving the game and ultimately quickening the inevitable 200 playerbase?

People will leave regardless.

I think you are overreacting just a bit. If people dont understand what they are getting into with a game like this, wont last even if there isnt siege. I have already watched a dozen guilds fold on the NA server already and it hasnt even been 2 months.

If small groups of 10 people think they can build a castle and defend it, they are horribly mistaken. IF they manage to build something of note, they will just be killed outside of their walls until they no longer want to login. IF they make it that far, that is assuming they dont fall apart from the amount of work it takes.

If sieges are in game, it still takes a while to take them down. It isnt one and done with the instant battles, it takes an average of 2 battles to bring down a totem 1 level/tier. If it is a tier 1 totem to start with well they should have became a vassal when approached as they couldnt defend themselves if they had tried.

Most people dont want to drive people from the game, but they also dont want people to just be a thorn in their side. I always give my enemy a chance to surrender and move on.


EDIT- to answer your last question...over 100 people about half are active.

People will always leave because these games are not for everyone this is a niche game and that means that it is doomed to a small playerbase. The only thing we can do at this moment is staunch the flow so that we can enjoy LiF for aslong as possible. If we allow for cheap instance totems to reduce small guilds claim size we've got balance. If we allow for cheap siege totems we are killing the game instantly.

I used to PvP only in games only look for the kill and never cared about the way the game went aslong as I had fun. Now I've realized that this is unsustainable and ends up with dead games left and right.

I'm also tired of responding so I'll tell you my ideas to find common ground. I may be repeating but this is my last post (I hope).

Reduce instance battle totems to fairly cheap, keep or lightly reduce siege totem cost.

Put JH 2hrs on weekday every day, 4hrs weekend. Remove moving shit onto enemy claim except for siege ladders, regular ladders, defensive spikes, defensive walls(idk what they are called but the small wooden posts with a fire slot that cover a body or 2).

Allow for damaging of buildings in town claim during JH which allow for sabotage of crafting stations or breaking open the doors of warehouses and houses no looting on town claim still.

Still have destruction and looting on realm claim. No destruction, looting or placing any objects on town claim during any regular hours.

Realm claim on regular hours can have regular ladders placed to get over defenses and people can loot boxes and crates that are left in the open but cannot break or damage anything or place anything but ladders.

Remove the ability to place drying racks on walls only archery stands in certain places.

Also regular ladders must be snapped in place (like rust) and not free place like bark boxes n shit.

Also there needs much more like defense objects like knocking people off ladders and burning oil ect.

[IvanGray]

This game is in an extremely sad state. Why try to PvP when there is no way to engage in combat? Why even build walls when you can build drying racks and stack them 2 high as adequate, permanent protection? Disgraceful.

[Cinstea]

the rps and people who don't pvp will quickly find this game boreing, dull and tedious without the constant threat of attack, the way the devs are going may keep the player around for a while, but once guilds have built all they want, and there is no pvp they will move onto another game that has either better pvp or better building mechanics,

i myself bought the game because it was advertises as "hardcore unforgiving, mmo, sandbox" but the way the game is heading it should be renamed to "grindy, pve, mind numbing, carebear"