Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Hodo]

We are aware of this problem with private claims and we're working on certain counter mechanics

And what about the drying rack walls? Or Bark Box walls, or Chest Walls, or barrel walls, or walls of other random crap that can be used that isnt a wall.


Sorry but I and my guild are quickly losing faith in your ability to balance things or fix things. If you fix this, what other things will be broken by the hundreds of loose code ends that will be left?

[Monco]

Current Realm Claim siege meta.



Make a private monument, drying racks or palisade walls, put carts with ammo inside, log off, build treb in JH and shoot nonstop for 2 hours without anyone being able to stop you.
Actually for the pic I showed you could still barbox inside (only in JH if they made the claim larger) and try to kill those shooting, but if the raiders were smart enough they could have made a roof of primitive sleeping bags (or any other object) thus no access was possible in that claim except for those who were already inside / logged off inside.
Invulnerable Private claims are broken and they need to be changed.

Game breaking.

We are aware of this problem with private claims and we're working on certain counter mechanics

Nice to hear that, do you also plan to remove alignment loss in JH?
I think that's the way it should work if I'm not mistaken, and that would be a temporary fix (at least for the JH) for the "professional griefers" which have a good alignment or insurance and work with a guild without being a member of the same guild.
For exemple last JH we were trying to boost inside a base with a stair out of logs and that guy was always coming out naked trying to pick up logs or make us loose alignment, one of our guys lost at least 80 alignment only because of that guy, at a certain point we had to keep one guy on him just shield bashing him constantly to prevent him from picking up logs.
He wasn't a member of that guild so each time we had to hit or kill him we were loosing alignment.
And for the entire week he's constantly working on the claim of his guild without being a member thus preventing us from killing him without loosing alignment.

[Arrakis]

Issues with alignment hits are among our priorities, yes. It's painful, we know, and hopefully, we'll manage to fix that bug soon.

[Monco]

[Agathius]

Arrakis when the lagg is fixed what changes exactly will they be? (if they are) posting this in regard to an old post of yours that spoke that LiF remains a pvp game and that lagg is what limits it's playthrough. Theoritically the game gets stable, what changes are to be done to combat? Of course the game and decisions run all the time, but what is believed to be a sure need to change that lagg now prevents?

[Zohann]

Its a paradox thing with the lag. IBs were designed as a soluton to lags to sustain 100vs100+ group fights on a dedicated server, avoiding such big fights in the open world. But still we have JHs, which still mean that we shall have 100vs100 group fights in the open world and theres no way currently to avoid this or limit this somehow, except for "oh it will be laggy maybe we dont gather that much people".
Lets just imagine that by some divine inspiration this 100vs100 open world battles wont lag/crash server and be 100% playable. Then comes the question: what will be the use of IBs?
Currently people avoid 100vs100 battles because they surely mean 1000ping.
Even 50vs50 battles on a terraformed populated server bring around 600-1000 ping, though some folks still gather for such fights.

But it can be easily forecasted that once 50vs50 battles will have a good ping, people will start gathering in larger numbers (as the only thing that prevented them from was bad ping) meaning 100vs100 will take place, then you fix them and you again have 150vs150 lag problem, and so on. A cumulative effect that will have.

So as you see, the current path of just fixing ping issue is an infinite road to nowhere. A more complex redesign of guild/alliance warfare+claimsystem+resourcedistributionperserver is required to distribute people more across servers.

[Lord_Sitruc]

Its a paradox thing with the lag. IBs were designed as a soluton to lags to sustain 100vs100+ group fights on a dedicated server, avoiding such big fights in the open world. But still we have JHs, which still mean that we shall have 100vs100 group fights in the open world and theres no way currently to avoid this or limit this somehow, except for "oh it will be laggy maybe we dont gather that much people".
Lets just imagine that by some divine inspiration this 100vs100 open world battles wont lag/crash server and be 100% playable. Then comes the question: what will be the use of IBs?
Currently people avoid 100vs100 battles because they surely mean 1000ping.
Even 50vs50 battles on a terraformed populated server bring around 600-1000 ping, though some folks still gather for such fights.

But it can be easily forecasted that once 50vs50 battles will have a good ping, people will start gathering in larger numbers (as the only thing that prevented them from was bad ping) meaning 100vs100 will take place, then you fix them and you again have 150vs150 lag problem, and so on. A cumulative effect that will have.

So as you see, the current path of just fixing ping issue is an infinite road to nowhere. A more complex redesign of guild/alliance warfare+claimsystem+resourcedistributionperserver is required to distribute people more across servers.

Said it before, gonna say it again, JH is a horrible mechanic especially after specifically off loading large scale battles to instances because the servers couldn't handle it. When JH was introduced during CB it was suppose to be a filler till IB were finished and implemented. They need to fix IB, make them cheaper, Make them actually mean something and get rid of JH all together.

If we could have an IB every other day and it would actually remove monument levels as intended then JH is pointless anyways, why go burn down their stuff when I can just lower the monument in a fight and then watch all of their stuff that is no longer on claim burn while I make some marshmallows from saftey.

[Hodo]

Said it before, gonna say it again, JH is a horrible mechanic especially after specifically off loading large scale battles to instances because the servers couldn't handle it. When JH was introduced during CB it was suppose to be a filler till IB were finished and implemented. They need to fix IB, make them cheaper, Make them actually mean something and get rid of JH all together.

If we could have an IB every other day and it would actually remove monument levels as intended then JH is pointless anyways, why go burn down their stuff when I can just lower the monument in a fight and then watch all of their stuff that is no longer on claim burn while I make some marshmallows from saftey.

JH was a mechanic that was supposed to be in game. But mainly aimed at dealing with Personal Claims not realm claims.

Supposedly IB and Siege Battles will be cheaper once they fix the issues with them. But honestly the only way to test them is to do them, and with them being so expensive no one wants to do them.

[Lord_Sitruc]

Maybe I was confused, but even may of last year they made it sound like JH in the mmo was only for tests.

Via quote from may of last year

Why mentioning CBT + JH when talking about the endgame? That doesn't make any sense. JH in MMO is only a placeholder for testing combat. There will be proper war/siege system implemented later. Did you forget?

from this post

post100596/?hilit=judgement%20hour#p100596

Don't get me wrong, I was really excited about having JH in the mmo at the start, but then they came, and they reminded me why the IB along with the sieges had been made instanced.

At this point all I really want is to revive day to day pvp that we had before boxing over walls was taken out, JH to die, and for Sieges and IB to be consequential and for at least IB to be common.

Who knows though, maybe if they can keep the servers stable JH will become fun again, but I will still feel like its a horrible mechanic for the game when IB and sieges can be so much more.

[TastyBeast]

But it can be easily forecasted that once 50vs50 battles will have a good ping, people will start gathering in larger numbers (as the only thing that prevented them from was bad ping) meaning 100vs100 will take place, then you fix them and you again have 150vs150 lag problem, and so on. A cumulative effect that will have.

Im not an expert in servers but why cant it work like this.

Suppose we have just 2 servers, each with 50 players capacity (they can handle 50 players with 0 lags). Total capacity is 100 players. We also have 2 zones, each with a castle with 50 players. Server 1 supports zone 1 and server 2 supports zone 2.

If, say, 25 players from zone 1 go to zone 2, server 1 with switch half of it's capacity to help server 2. So, now we have 25 players in zone 1 and 75 players in zone 2 with no lags (because server 1 helps server 2 to handle zone 2).

This can be easily generalized for 49 zones in game. Servers must switch their capacity automatically. Thus, teh problem of 50x50, 100x100 and 150x150 you just stated should be effectively solved.

[Ovi2745]

But it can be easily forecasted that once 50vs50 battles will have a good ping, people will start gathering in larger numbers (as the only thing that prevented them from was bad ping) meaning 100vs100 will take place, then you fix them and you again have 150vs150 lag problem, and so on. A cumulative effect that will have.

Im not an expert in servers but why cant it work like this.

Suppose we have just 2 servers, each with 50 players capacity (they can handle 50 players with 0 lags). Total capacity is 100 players. We also have 2 zones, each with a castle with 50 players. Server 1 supports zone 1 and server 2 supports zone 2.

If, say, 25 players from zone 1 go to zone 2, server 1 with switch half of it's capacity to help server 2. So, now we have 25 players in zone 1 and 75 players in zone 2 with no lags (because server 1 helps server 2 to handle zone 2).

This can be easily generalized for 49 zones in game. Servers must switch their capacity automatically. Thus, teh problem of 50x50, 100x100 and 150x150 you just stated should be effectively solved.

Servers can't switch thier capacity. That's all problem.

[Ovi2745]

Said it before, gonna say it again, JH is a horrible mechanic especially after specifically off loading large scale battles to instances because the servers couldn't handle it. When JH was introduced during CB it was suppose to be a filler till IB were finished and implemented. They need to fix IB, make them cheaper, Make them actually mean something and get rid of JH all together.

If we could have an IB every other day and it would actually remove monument levels as intended then JH is pointless anyways, why go burn down their stuff when I can just lower the monument in a fight and then watch all of their stuff that is no longer on claim burn while I make some marshmallows from saftey.

JH was a mechanic that was supposed to be in game. But mainly aimed at dealing with Personal Claims not realm claims.

Supposedly IB and Siege Battles will be cheaper once they fix the issues with them. But honestly the only way to test them is to do them, and with them being so expensive no one wants to do them.

If on IB, guilds will fight for real land, (when part of defender's claim will transfer to neibor enemy's claim, if enemy win), it will be normal price for IB totem.

[Hodo]

If on IB, guilds will fight for real land, (when part of defender's claim will transfer to neibor enemy's claim, if enemy win), it will be normal price for IB totem.

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but IB dont work like that.

In an IB you have two sides, side A, and side B. Side A wins the IB, then side B loses "x" amount of tiles off of their claim radius. If that reduces the number of tiles below the current tier of their totem, it will reduce the totem tier one level, to a minimum of tier 1. Once a totem is down to tier 1 an enemy guild can place a siege totem on them, and lay siege to their claim. If side A wins the siege battle, then side B's totem is destroyed, their claim is removed, and their stuff becomes open for grabs. Anything destroyed in the siege battle, will be destroyed in the open world.


It is a pretty simple system honestly. I just wish it worked completely. Then perhaps the issues we are having in game wouldnt be issues.

[TastyBeast]

Servers can't switch thier capacity. That's all problem.

Why?

[Walone]

I dont know what to do now, the big guilds has already their base safe and in this huge map i dont find population enought to encounter people outside the walls and the game doesnt has nothing to do useful outside so it is bored a lot ... I thought to just log in in JH but the server crashes everytime and is unplayable with a lot of lag. I feel that i loose several time in game.

Solutions: I played a lot of years another game of this kind with the exact size of map and pvp full loot and was needed to put PvP objectives OUTSIDE the player cities, that game was without lag in the servers with a lot more population, so try to fix this asap cos something is wrong in your system.
This game hasnt Pve too so people hasnt things to do outside the walls .... fix that before its too late, the people is reaching their grind of skills so...

TLDR: In this state pvpers need things to do outside the safety of the walls cos we get bored

[Hodo]

I dont know what to do now, the big guilds has already their base safe and in this huge map i dont find population enought to encounter people outside the walls and the game doesnt has nothing to do useful outside so it is bored a lot ... I thought to just log in in JH but the server crashes everytime and is unplayable with a lot of lag. I feel that i loose several time in game.

Solutions: I played a lot of years another game of this kind with the exact size of map and pvp full loot and was needed to put PvP objectives OUTSIDE the player cities, that game was without lag in the servers with a lot more population, so try to fix this asap cos something is wrong in your system.
This game hasnt Pve too so people hasnt things to do outside the walls .... fix that before its too late, the people is reaching their grind of skills so...

TLDR: In this state pvpers need things to do outside the safety of the walls cos we get bored

What server are you on? Because on Buyan last JH it ran smoothly for those of us on 31, and surrounding tiles, except 38.... (but 38 is trash)

And what was this other game? DFO, LOL no....
MO... HAHAHAHA.. what that game is 8km by 8km.
Wurm Online, Or as I call it GRIND FEST ONLINE.

There are always people outside their walls, you just need to look for them. I am constantly outside of our claims walls, and I always see people riding by my claim, which is just fenced off with a wattle fence. I wave at them when they ride by, even the Chinese hordes that we are at war with I wave at also. No point in being mean, they give good fights sometimes.

The thing this game needs is sieges, and we are waiting for Bobik and Arrakis to figure that out so we can actually FIGHT wars.

[Lord_Sitruc]

I played shadowbane, it was large had open pvp outside of like 2-3 safezones, but it was also incredibly boring at the launch of the game, super long grind times, nothing to really fight over, just alot of ganking. pretty boring after about a month.

Came back a few years later after it no longer had a subscription, the company had given up on it but they had put in resource nodes all over the map that you could fight for I think daily or every few days, I think there might have been a rotation so you could have fought over them every day if you wanted, and the grind was completely removed, if you played smart, you could get a max level character in 3 days to a week.

Turned that game into one of my favorite games of all time, led to awesome fights and a lot of interesting experimentation for group builds because it took no time to try a different build.

I am hoping this game becomes as good as that one. I think we need at the minimum a mechanical replacement of bark boxing, and IB and Sieges fixed.To add to that, some resource nodes to fight over that perhaps produce naptha, or flux? or really perhaps any base material at high quality. If there was a mine that dumped out 90q ore every few minutes I think alot of people would be down to fight over that.

edit: In reality end game is pvp, but right now its empty pvp, nothing to gain nothing really to lose, it has also become to consensual for a pvp game, Consent was given when you joined the game. There needs to be a way to force it.

[Walone]

Lord Sitruc has the right idea of what this games need at this state.

DFO LOL no...

Did u even played it for appreciate the similitude of the need to put rewards outside the cities for make pvp happen and people enjoy it?? childish attitude

[Hodo]

Lord Sitruc has the right idea of what this games need at this state.

DFO LOL no...

Did u even played it for appreciate the similitude of the need to put rewards outside the cities for make pvp happen and people enjoy it?? childish attitude

Yes, I did play it, and no it didnt impress me much the first time. I tried it a second time when someone else put out a version of DFO last year... again, not that exciting, same basic problems. And now there is a new version which looks JUST like the other 3 versions.

Sorry but the idea of tab targeting, and the afk macro grind for days just to be combat viable, and the pretty bad graphics dont inspire me much.

It had some cool concepts but ultimately is a bad game to me.

[Walone]

Are u trolling or just the way u are? DF doesnt had tab target xd and i macroed in lif for days afk too btw, confirmed, the developer said that there is gonna be changes in pvp outside. sorry Hodo about u wanted lif as it is now... non pvp in hours and just in IB or killing farmers

[HolyAvengerOne]

But it can be easily forecasted that once 50vs50 battles will have a good ping, people will start gathering in larger numbers (as the only thing that prevented them from was bad ping) meaning 100vs100 will take place, then you fix them and you again have 150vs150 lag problem, and so on. A cumulative effect that will have.

Im not an expert in servers but why cant it work like this.

Suppose we have just 2 servers, each with 50 players capacity (they can handle 50 players with 0 lags). Total capacity is 100 players. We also have 2 zones, each with a castle with 50 players. Server 1 supports zone 1 and server 2 supports zone 2.

If, say, 25 players from zone 1 go to zone 2, server 1 with switch half of it's capacity to help server 2. So, now we have 25 players in zone 1 and 75 players in zone 2 with no lags (because server 1 helps server 2 to handle zone 2).

This can be easily generalized for 49 zones in game. Servers must switch their capacity automatically. Thus, teh problem of 50x50, 100x100 and 150x150 you just stated should be effectively solved.

Servers can't switch thier capacity. That's all problem.

Yeah, that's a deeply different way of architecting the whole server deal. Unless they've been working on that/planning for it, I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen in any foreseeable future.

Servers can't switch thier capacity. That's all problem.

Why?

Because it's a very complicated software engineering problem.

[Ovi2745]

If on IB, guilds will fight for real land, (when part of defender's claim will transfer to neibor enemy's claim, if enemy win), it will be normal price for IB totem.

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but IB dont work like that.

In an IB you have two sides, side A, and side B. Side A wins the IB, then side B loses "x" amount of tiles off of their claim radius. If that reduces the number of tiles below the current tier of their totem, it will reduce the totem tier one level, to a minimum of tier 1. Once a totem is down to tier 1 an enemy guild can place a siege totem on them, and lay siege to their claim. If side A wins the siege battle, then side B's totem is destroyed, their claim is removed, and their stuff becomes open for grabs. Anything destroyed in the siege battle, will be destroyed in the open world.


It is a pretty simple system honestly. I just wish it worked completely. Then perhaps the issues we are having in game wouldnt be issues.

Yep. It's a pretty simple system, but it's stupid. It lead's to play meta: put 4 totems (from side "A", side "B", side "C" and side "D") with 100 attackers on 20ppl's guild (side "E") in one day all week, after that siege and destroy their base. No matter where they live.

I suggest a simple and more logical system: side "A" and side "B" have much more big claim (have vassals and solo players personal claims on their land's for taxes), and have borders. Side "A" build a totem on border. If side "A" wins IB, they will conquer part of side "B" claim and can loot any personal claims on that land. When claim "A" will border town claim of side "B" or their vassals, they can build siege totem and conquer that town claim.

[Hodo]

Yep. It's a pretty simple system, but it's stupid. It lead's to play meta: put 4 totems (from side "A", side "B", side "C" and side "D") with 100 attackers on 20ppl's guild (side "E") in one day all week, after that siege and destroy their base. No matter where they live.

I suggest a simple and more logical system: side "A" and side "B" have much more big claim (have vassals and solo players personal claims on their land's for taxes), and have borders. Side "A" build a totem on border. If side "A" wins IB, they will conquer part of side "B" claim and can loot any personal claims on that land. When claim "A" will border town claim of side "B" or their vassals, they can build siege totem and conquer that town claim.

LOL stupid?

So you are telling me that a larger force should not have an advantage in a war? That they should always be fought in even sided battles? LOL, read a book, really read a history book. That rarely if ever happened.

I can think of a few major battles where the sides were evenly matched on paper... Battle of Hastings comes to mind first. But even then William the Conqueror had an advantage in cavalry and in trained soldiers. Most major wars have been won by the larger side. WWII, invasion of Poland by Germany and Russia, the Polish military had roughly 1mil men at that time, the combined forces of Germany and Russia was well over 1.5mil men, and almost 3 times the number of tanks and aircraft.

During the first siege of Acre in 1189, the crusaders brought a force of over 25k men, vs a defensive garrison of 6,000 men... that is a 4 to 1 advantage.

Battle of Hattin, 20k Crusaders vs 30k Saracens.... Saracen forces won, quite decisively.

Now those are a few examples of "period" wars that were fought and won by superior forces.

If you as a guild have 20 men total and you cant defend your lands then you should have considered subjugating to a larger more powerful kingdom for protection. This is why there is the vassal system in game.

Not to mention, there is always a chance those 20men win a few battles against that much larger force. They may not win the war, but they could make it painful for the larger force.

[AfLIcTeD]

Agree with the OP 100%. Not even played the game a week yet and I am already bored. Pointless doing all that grinding and building to end up doing nothing.

No point in PVP as you lose more than you gain 9 times out of 10. Even if you win.

I don't know why there are so many rules in this game. There shouldn't really be any rules, it should be pretty much anything goes. If there are any problems ingame between groups, then it should be settled in game. Not come whining on here that your base got attacked 3 times, or that someone got into your base and killed you while you were afk grinding. Go find some a strong group do some major ass kissing and ask them to go kick their asses.

When it comes to claims I think that if it is not nailed down then it should be fair game, can be moved and looted. Obviously buildings and walls would be protected. Even during JH, buildings should be able to be damaged enough that you can open doors/gates. Not total building destruction though, that should be for sieges only.

I don't know about others, but that is what I was expecting when I got this game. A harsh medievil sandbox mmo.

Funny, the people that have supported this game form the very start are now getting screwed over because some new players who have probabily played it less than a month are moaning how hard it is. So they get their way.

We're supposed to be testing the game, but what is their to test? PVP? next to non existant. IB's,Sieges? Does anyone actually do these? The only thing we seem to be testing here is our patience.

[Hodo]

Agree with the OP 100%. Not even played the game a week yet and I am already bored. Pointless doing all that grinding and building to end up doing nothing.

No point in PVP as you lose more than you gain 9 times out of 10. Even if you win.

I don't know why there are so many rules in this game. There shouldn't really be any rules, it should be pretty much anything goes. If there are any problems ingame between groups, then it should be settled in game. Not come whining on here that your base got attacked 3 times, or that someone got into your base and killed you while you were afk grinding. Go find some a strong group do some major ass kissing and ask them to go kick their asses.

When it comes to claims I think that if it is not nailed down then it should be fair game, can be moved and looted. Obviously buildings and walls would be protected. Even during JH, buildings should be able to be damaged enough that you can open doors/gates. Not total building destruction though, that should be for sieges only.

I don't know about others, but that is what I was expecting when I got this game. A harsh medievil sandbox mmo.

Funny, the people that have supported this game form the very start are now getting screwed over because some new players who have probabily played it less than a month are moaning how hard it is. So they get their way.

We're supposed to be testing the game, but what is their to test? PVP? next to non existant. IB's,Sieges? Does anyone actually do these? The only thing we seem to be testing here is our patience.

No offense but if your losing more than you gain in a fight that you win... then you are doing it wrong.

But you are right about everything else.

[AfLIcTeD]

Hard to gain anything when most people pvp naked with a weapon.
Or they have nothing at all because no one well equipped is outside their bases.

[Hodo]

Hard to gain anything when most people pvp naked with a weapon.
Or they have nothing at all because no one well equipped is outside their bases.

LOL not where I am at. Except for the odd Chinese farmer or griefer running around with some believers tools. They will come out in mass with gear when we threaten their main bases. It is like kicking an ant hill. Loads of fun actually.

But honestly why should you run around in gear when you are doing simple tasks outside of your walls? Why should you wear your gear all the time anyway? I have armor, and weapons, they sit in my weapons rack in my house 90% of the time. I break them out for JH raids, but for my day to day activities. I run around in my Jarls clothes, with a short bow, 155 arrows, 31 bodkins, war axe and a skinning knife. Total weight 20 stone, plus my horse. (usually the lowest ql horse in my stable.)

Sometimes I go out with a hat on... depends on the weather.

[Ovi2745]

LOL stupid?

So you are telling me that a larger force should not have an advantage in a war? That they should always be fought in even sided battles? LOL, read a book, really read a history book. That rarely if ever happened.

I can think of a few major battles where the sides were evenly matched on paper... Battle of Hastings comes to mind first. But even then William the Conqueror had an advantage in cavalry and in trained soldiers. Most major wars have been won by the larger side. WWII, invasion of Poland by Germany and Russia, the Polish military had roughly 1mil men at that time, the combined forces of Germany and Russia was well over 1.5mil men, and almost 3 times the number of tanks and aircraft.

During the first siege of Acre in 1189, the crusaders brought a force of over 25k men, vs a defensive garrison of 6,000 men... that is a 4 to 1 advantage.

Battle of Hattin, 20k Crusaders vs 30k Saracens.... Saracen forces won, quite decisively.

Now those are a few examples of "period" wars that were fought and won by superior forces.

If you as a guild have 20 men total and you cant defend your lands then you should have considered subjugating to a larger more powerful kingdom for protection. This is why there is the vassal system in game.

Not to mention, there is always a chance those 20men win a few battles against that much larger force. They may not win the war, but they could make it painful for the larger force.

Larger forces MUST have an advantage in a war. But now it looks like many forces fight and fight again, on same plains and win nothing...
Your examples are not applicable to this issue. Hastings, Acr, etc. they never repeated again and again. There you will fight again and again to "reduce claim radius". Think William or crusaiders don't fight for "reduce claim radius", they fight for the land.

[WestArcher]

One of the silliest things is trying to do anything as ground infantry with the movement mechanics the way they are
Ground melee only ever happens if both parties are actively trying to hit eachother otherwise you just have people doing their silly little jog for who knows how long and since everyone is usually relatively equal in speed even if you're faster you're close on stamina and might not even be able to make the swing, if you're lucky you have enough stam and can hit him.
It's extremely silly you see this constantly everywhere, especially in the instance battles both for ground and lancers. Lancers often get dismounted and get hit once or twice followed by playing ring around the rosy as they look for a chance to remount the horse, even when you have someone dedicated to trying to block/smack the horse it's pretty easy to remount and be on your way as if nothing happened

What makes it worse if you're out looking for ganks and catch someone unaware hit them once for nearly everything and their bot/script instantly puts their character to dive into the water or something stupid.

Probably the easiest way to fix this is to take a lesson from counterstrike and apply a short,stacking move speed debuff (50% for something like 1-2 seconds) on being hit by melee, and of course have successful parries not reapply the debuff.
That way if you are hit and plan on running you need to actually defend yourself long enough to remove the movespeed debuff
It would also help if wound mechanics were expanded on

Right now playing melee kind of sucks as any kind of combat has to be consentual on both parties
There's a reason why everyone is either lancer or dipping just enough skill points for xbow

[Agathius]

Lancers are supposed to be what rules in the field though. But field is not per original supposed to be all in the game. In sieges and bad terrain lancers do not do. Otherwise ofc they should, they are designed so by the game. Melee is good where it's supposed to be good at