Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Mark-holt]

As the Devs try to find a balance between pleasing those who don't want to be raided and have their stuff destroyed and those who do, we should consider what would actually happen in the mindset of players if the Town Claim was vulnerable, if not 24/7, then at least during JH.

Big Guilds, Big Battles

Before delving into how players would adapt to a harsher world, it's important to make sure that the game discourages small guilds being formed. Increasing the limit on the number of characters to form a guild would force guilds to merge together and form a big guild. Then these guilds can better defend their property as there's more people on around the clock.

Politics, Intrigue and the Game of Thrones

Of course, not many are willing to give up their leadership but that just adds to the tension in this harsh environment. The leaders now need to be like politicians, pleasing everybody within their guild but not being able to do so. This leads to a lot of intrigue. The bigger the guild, the more inner-politics and questioning of loyalty which is a good counter balance if the guild is winning victory after victory.

The more victories there are, the more that's conquered, the more greedy people get within this humongous and victorious guild. When a new governor is elected, it can infuriate other candidates who felt they were the best person for the job. People act in their self-interests and get upset easily, especially when their pride is involved. This will be a constant theme in all guilds, but more prevalent in the huge guilds who are expanding. Civil wars for example stem from a disagreement of ideas and people switch allegiances for many reasons.

You do not need game mechanics to police and control the situation in the world. People's pride and their greed will be enough to see no 1 guild can ever dominate.

Players Will Adapt and Overcome

What I really want to look into is how the world would adapt if the town claim is vulnerable and the monument can be destroyed in the open world.

The first thing we would see is guilds building bases in landlocked mountainous regions. They would plan the road to and from base and ensure that there are no other ways to get from the lowlands to the castle walls. So they would terraform the mountain they sit on to make it impassable by foot but only by road. They would also make the only road to their castle narrow and straight and very steep. The outer walls would be designed in a way to allow for as many archers to see down that road the oncoming attackers as they try their best to make their way up the road under a constant barrage of arrows.

Other guilds may choose to build man made islands and little bumps in the waters around them in preparation for naval assaults. These bumps would stop boats from approaching the walls. They will be forced to build their castle outside of range of the trebuchet and will want to make the land in front of their gate clear with no cover.

Those who choose to setup on a natural island will be encouraged to terraform their coastlines to make them impregnable. Some islands may be too big for one guild to control and so they will have to rely on their diplomatic skills if they choose not to fight other guilds who have settled there.

We will never see a guild built out in the open. The guild will choose locations that have natural defenses and will put in the time to form man made defenses.

Siege Campaigns

There are many more examples that I haven't thought of whereby players will adapt to a harsher environment. When players know their guild can be destroyed in one attack, they build their bases with more thought, choose their politics with more care and have a harder time whether to attack or defend and choosing how many should stay at the castle when they go on the attack.

If town claims become vulnerable, it doesn't make it any easier to destroy guild property. When bases are designed in a way that requires a full on siege campaign that could take a week to get to their walls, where skirmishes are won and lost based on many factors, where the attacking guild may not have the supplies to continue their assault, then you can be sure that bases won't be destroyed in 1 attack.

[Greendalli]

I think the way the game is currently designed is pretty well thought out. I think the thought process behind the tier system is basically saying when your town claim grows it is more heavily guarded and more difficult to breach (without visually being able to see these guards) in attempt to create a more realistic approach to destroying the town.

Either way, i think guild leaders have to smarten up and really form alliances or merge guilds if they want to survive and thrive. Those who think they can do it alone will struggle without strong diplomacy.

Most people don't understand there are a lot of people out there willing to help them fight.

[Mark-holt]

At the moment a small guild doesn't have to find an alliance or merge with a more powerful guild. The small guild is protected by game mechanics. The small guild can setup their castle out in the open on flat ground.

No one playing alone is struggling. The only difficulty is having enough characters to run the guild as you're a jack of all trades. Player's playing on their own don't need to engage in diplomacy to survive.

So the argument for invulnerable town claims is that it simulates a well guarded base? Invulnerability replaces the need for guards because no guild can defend their base 24/7?

[Jcampbell1733]

Some people enjoy the game without all the BS that goes with being in a mega guild. Personally I enjoy the challenge of a small guild because the division of labor can be severe and to thrive you have to put in alot more work than a large guild. To counter your point of "he cant be raided" you're mostly correct, but he also cant IB and raid you from a 10 member guild very well either. So if hes not a threat to the big guild, the protection has a purpose to prevent 1 big guild from just griefing everyone around them. One problem it seems like the Devs are struggling with is how to increase trading between groups, IMO smaller groups is an answer to that. Small groups generally have a limited reach and less ability to get everything they need, so they trade for more. From my experience Ive seen that the mega guilds just make outpost guilds in other servers to self generate their own regional goods and then dont have a need to trade with anyone. I dont see how thats healthy for the long term life of the game.

[Sunleader]

As the Devs try to find a balance between pleasing those who don't want to be raided and have their stuff destroyed and those who do, we should consider what would actually happen in the mindset of players if the Town Claim was vulnerable, if not 24/7, then at least during JH.

Big Guilds, Big Battles

Before delving into how players would adapt to a harsher world, it's important to make sure that the game discourages small guilds being formed. Increasing the limit on the number of characters to form a guild would force guilds to merge together and form a big guild. Then these guilds can better defend their property as there's more people on around the clock.

Politics, Intrigue and the Game of Thrones

Of course, not many are willing to give up their leadership but that just adds to the tension in this harsh environment. The leaders now need to be like politicians, pleasing everybody within their guild but not being able to do so. This leads to a lot of intrigue. The bigger the guild, the more inner-politics and questioning of loyalty which is a good counter balance if the guild is winning victory after victory.

The more victories there are, the more that's conquered, the more greedy people get within this humongous and victorious guild. When a new governor is elected, it can infuriate other candidates who felt they were the best person for the job. People act in their self-interests and get upset easily, especially when their pride is involved. This will be a constant theme in all guilds, but more prevalent in the huge guilds who are expanding. Civil wars for example stem from a disagreement of ideas and people switch allegiances for many reasons.

You do not need game mechanics to police and control the situation in the world. People's pride and their greed will be enough to see no 1 guild can ever dominate.

Players Will Adapt and Overcome

What I really want to look into is how the world would adapt if the town claim is vulnerable and the monument can be destroyed in the open world.

The first thing we would see is guilds building bases in landlocked mountainous regions. They would plan the road to and from base and ensure that there are no other ways to get from the lowlands to the castle walls. So they would terraform the mountain they sit on to make it impassable by foot but only by road. They would also make the only road to their castle narrow and straight and very steep. The outer walls would be designed in a way to allow for as many archers to see down that road the oncoming attackers as they try their best to make their way up the road under a constant barrage of arrows.

Other guilds may choose to build man made islands and little bumps in the waters around them in preparation for naval assaults. These bumps would stop boats from approaching the walls. They will be forced to build their castle outside of range of the trebuchet and will want to make the land in front of their gate clear with no cover.

Those who choose to setup on a natural island will be encouraged to terraform their coastlines to make them impregnable. Some islands may be too big for one guild to control and so they will have to rely on their diplomatic skills if they choose not to fight other guilds who have settled there.

We will never see a guild built out in the open. The guild will choose locations that have natural defenses and will put in the time to form man made defenses.

Siege Campaigns

There are many more examples that I haven't thought of whereby players will adapt to a harsher environment. When players know their guild can be destroyed in one attack, they build their bases with more thought, choose their politics with more care and have a harder time whether to attack or defend and choosing how many should stay at the castle when they go on the attack.

If town claims become vulnerable, it doesn't make it any easier to destroy guild property. When bases are designed in a way that requires a full on siege campaign that could take a week to get to their walls, where skirmishes are won and lost based on many factors, where the attacking guild may not have the supplies to continue their assault, then you can be sure that bases won't be destroyed in 1 attack.

1.
Guilds already Require 10 People.
A Number which in Essence Prevents Guilds from being Formed entirely.
Usually Guilds Start with 3-5 Friends.
And the only Reason we do have Guilds at all. Is because most of these Guilds got 2-3 Guys which basicly have the Characters for the Guild all alone. And then afterwards got additional Recruits.

Forcing Guilds to be any Bigger than right now.
Would Kill the Game for Good.
Because starting a New Guild would become entirely Impossible.

Let me tell you a thing about Guilds and Players from a Game Design Perspective.
Guilds NEVER Form around a Random Core.
To Create a Guild that actually Survives for more than 1-2 Weeks.
The Guild Requires a Leadership Core of Members which knows each other for Longer already. And thus creates a Stable Center for the Guild which can then be Expanded.
And even now barely anyone will have 10 Guys together for such a Core.
Increasing this even more. Would result in Guilds simply stopping to Exist.
Because to Create a Guild. It would be Required to get a Random Group of People together. This Random Group then has to Share their Stuff with People they do not Trust and which they might Disagree with at any moment a Decision has to be Made.
Without the Core Founding Members being Friends and thus being able to "Lead" a Guild that Expands.
Guilds Cannot Exist.

As such your Suggestion to Increase the Minimum Member Requirement is absolutely Lethal for the Game.
It would not Create Bigger Battles.
It would Create a Dead Empty World where Guilds barely Exist because 99 out of 100 Guilds would be Dead at the Gate.


In Fact.
Guilds should be Reduced to 5 People.
So a Small Group of Friends can Create a Guild Claim and Start actually Recruiting Members.
While the Small Core Continues setting the Rules.
Large Guilds will Form Naturally by themselves the moment Guild Claims can actually be Attacked and Sieged Properly. As then you will Require Manpower to Defend.



2.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Yeah.
Pls tell me More.
Sorry Mate.
But I was Part of the Ruling Guild in older MMOs
In 6 Years we had exactly 2 Uprisings against our Dominance.
Both were Crushed under our Boots.
Because once the Power is Established nobody else could ever hope to go up against it.

Moreover. Politics and Intrigues are never good for a Game.
People which got Betrayed by their own People.
Are pretty much Guaranteed to Quit the Game Forever.
And the Guys which Betrayed a Guild just Once will never again be Trusted by other Guilds causing them to usually Quit Short time afterwards as well.

The Only People Thriving on this kind of thing. Are the same RPKs and Griefers which Thrive on Killing New Players that got nothing but Rags just for the Fun of it. Because they Love to See others Frustrated.
In short the only ones Happy over such Rubbish are exactly the kind of Players that Nobody needs and which only Kill the Playerbase.


3.
Sorry Mate.
But again let me tell you something about Players and Game Design.
Players Adapt indeed.
If they have no Fun in your Game.
They go Play a different Game.
There you go Adaption Done.

Town Claim will become Vulnearble in the Future when Siege Battles are Implemented.

And thats the only time it ever should be Vulnearble for a very Simple Reason.
If Town Claim became Vulnearble during JH.
This would not Result in Big Battles or anything like that.
In Fact it would Result in no Battles at all.
Because all Guilds would be Busy during JH Protecting their Claim from Thieves.
As Single Players would try to Loot the Claims during JH.
Forcing the Guilds to have Guards during each JH and thus not really being able to ever Roam or Attack other Guilds.
Because if they left their Town Claim Unguarded to Roam or Attack another Claim.
They would be Guaranteed that some Random Thief would gladly take their stuff during their Absense


4.
In Fact this has been Proven Wrong as well countless times.
The Reason is Extremely Simple.
When your Town can be Destroyed in a Single Attack.
Guilds will never Exert any Bigger Effort into the Town.
Instead the Guilds will Build mostly Makeshift Defences and Cheap Barrages of Obstacles while keeping the Economy and other Parts entirely in Private Claims outside the Reach of the Enemy.

Instead of an Proper City. You will end up having Cities which are not bothering with any Bigger Walls or anything.
Instead you will have Cities that are basicly 5-10 Rows of Cheap Pallisades which can be Repaired Cheap and Fast after JH.
And which have no Intention to have any Aestethic.
But simply Server as Cheap Delay for the Enemy.




Sorry Mate.
But your Suggestion is not really going to Work.
Making Town Claims Vulnearble during JH.
Would result in RPK and Griefer Paradise and would completely Prevent any Bigger Battles because you would be forced to constantly Guard your Claim during JH.
And Increasing Guild Minimum Member Numbers would simply Destroy the Concept of Guilds. Because it would cause Guilds which are Plagued by Infighting and which likely end up Dissolving after few Weeks with most Members leaving the Game in Consequence.

We already got enough Dead Sandbox Games like this where the RPKs and Griefers Rule thanks to the Mechanics being the way you Suggest them to be made here.

One good Example is Mortal Online.
Check it out.
You might like it.
Except thanks to having these Mechanics you want to bring here.
Its practically Dead....

[Mark-holt]

Ok so it's clear that you disagree with my suggestions. The current mechanics have lead to a stale game dropping in numbers, also partly because of the number of servers there are.

What would your suggestions be on making the game more fun and exciting?

[Sunleader]

Ok so it's clear that you disagree with my suggestions. The current mechanics have lead to a stale game dropping in numbers, also partly because of the number of servers there are.

What would your suggestions be on making the game more fun and exciting?

In General right now this Game has 3 Large Problems.

1.
The Lack of any Content that is Available.

This is the Biggest Issue. Because while the Game is Fairly Fun in the Build Up Phase. As the Guild Basicly Builds up their Fortress and thus has a Minecraft like Gameplay.
Once thats done. There is Literally nothing to do.

I do hope that with NPC Villages and Raids which are Rumored to be coming this May. We might get some Fixing to that.

But in General what we need is more Content.
Be it Bandit Camps to Raid and Cavemen Attacking your Village or whatever.
There needs to be something happening. So People have a Reason to actually be around after doing their Daily Task and have Fun.

This Content could also Include Reasons for PvP.
A Small NPC Kingdom that might be Attacked and Looted thus creating a Reason to Attack and then Fight over for example.
The NPC Country could basicly get a Large Claim for itself.
This Claim would be Hostile to all Players and also remove Alignment Penalties inside the Claim.
Creating an PvP Zone where Guilds could Fight over the Loot after or even before they Sieged the NPC Fortress.

Smaller NPC Villages having Unique Regional Trade Goods.
Which can be Transported between them.
With NPC Bandits that will Generally not be Aggro unless going very close.
But which will be Aggro on very Large Range if you Carry such Trade Goods etc etc.

In General some NPC Enemies that provide Loot and hopefully a Challenge would be Great.
A Bandit Camp near your Guild Claim that starts Raiding your Realm till you Destroy it. Would go a Great way to get People Online in that Guild


2.
The Economy is in Essence Dead.
Thanks to Jewelry being Sold to the Crown at like 10 Silver per Piece.
Guilds with a Gold and Silver Mine could pretty much Print Money.
And Guild Claims were Super Cheap given you had a Gold and Silver Mine.

This however also meant. That Solo Players and smaller Groups which had to Pay the much more Expensive Private Claims.
Could never Buy anything from the Guilds.
Because why would any Guild ever Sell to Players when they can get Unlimited Money from the Crown much faster ?

Worse as we only got Sell Orders and an Extremely Limited Trade Post Storage. Selling Things Randomly is not really Profitable.

What needs to be done here is Buy Orders for Trade Posts. So Larger Guilds can Transport and Sell a Bulk at once to Fill a Bunch a Buy Orders.

And we needed something to Tune down the Money Production.
This was in Fact done already.
The Devs removed Jewelry from being Sold to the Crown.
Removing the Largest Money Making Machine.
While also adding Tons of Ways for Newer Players to Farm Money.
Thus Encouraging Guilds to Sell to Players instead.
Because Newer Players that do not have certain things. Can now Farm some Money. And then Buy Advanced Stuff from Guilds.

Of course for that. Guilds would First need to Catch on and actually Start Selling stuff.

For a Week now I have been Checking the Trade Post Daily.
But do you think I would find any Decent Priced Leather or Blacksmith Outfit etc etc ?
Guilds are so Deadset on just Working entirely inside themselves and Sell to the Crown that they dont even realize that if they Sold to Players they could easily get Money for the Guild Monument.

But thats on the Guilds.
The Conditions are there to Sell to Players Now.
Solo and Small Group Players do now have Money to Spare.
If the Guilds just Realized it and Started Selling the Advanced Stuff. The Market could get going.


3.
The Scars of the World.
This is also a Huge Problem by now.
The World looks ever Uglier.
We need a System that Repairs the World.
Its completely Normal that People Quit Games like this after a while.
But their Scars on the World Remain.
Gigantic Strips of Land Plowed for Skilling up Advanced Farming.
Mountains of Dirt due to Mining Exhaust Materials.
Flattened Grounds and Ditches that look completely Unnatural.

The World needs a System that removes such things after time.
Plowed Land should grow Grass is left open for lets say 10 Rainy Days.
Flattened Ground should return Natural after 10-20 Ingame Days if its not Claimed by anyone.
And Deeper Ditches should be filled slowly like Mines over time if they are not under Claim.
So anything larger than a 0.5 Change in Height slowly is leveled out by time.

Player Buildings that are not under Claim. Should have a 20% Chance to turn into Ruined Buildings instead of just Dissappearing.
Instead of Dissappearing these Ruins would become Permanent so they can only be Removed by Players.
This would give them a nice part in the World and look authentic as the Land around them grows Natural again. Thus leaving them as actual Ruins that Look Cool in the Map.

Going a bit Further. Ruins like that could Attract Bandits or other NPCs like Animals.
Giving Players a Reason to Check on them.






Long Story Short.

We need.
1.
Content to Play when there is no PvP to be had and thus also Reasons to actually Fight each other in PvP.
As right now there is little to do and no real reason to Fight each other either. And there is nothing else to Fight either.
2.
Trade Improvements. Like Buy Orders and Limited Supply of Money.
Some Taverns in the Capitol to Spend Money for Buffing Consumables etc would also be nice.
3.
An Automatic System that Runs in the Backround to Deal with the Players that Leave and Create new Open and Natural Room for new Players to Explore.
So New Players have something to do. And also Find Natural Lands they can Settle on.
Instead of finding a Map thats basicly already a Mess from the Earlier Players.

[Mark-holt]

Some good ideas.

More content is always good but I think that players would always reach the end game quite quickly. It would definitely lengthen the time it takes to reach end game. I'm thinking more of quick fixes to get players back at least quite soon before they move on for good.

I was thinking that if people were losing their bases or running out of supplies after a month or so, that they would never be at the end game. Therefore, there's this constant struggle to survive.

We all want AI and plenty of AI content. Unfortunately, this is a long process to even implement AI, then to get it bug-free. I think we should focus on short term.

You mention that the base building is always the most fun part and this is true for any game. The beginning is always the most fun. What features or mechanics should there be to ensure that there will always be base building and starting new settlements? You mentioned a pvp zone, what about areas of the map rich in certain resources? This has been suggested a few times before. Despite building an outpost/camp there to gather those resources, your camp will always be vulnerable.


I haven't given the economy much thought but you make some good points. Perhaps a working economy system will also make this game more re-playable. Also, if there's some systems in place that allows players to hurt enemy economy's that would also be a fun meta game.


I understand and agree with point 3 but it doesnt address the issues we face now of having a stale game, except the last part where players have to check in to protect against bandits and wild animals. Again, that's more long term.

[Sunleader]

Some good ideas.

More content is always good but I think that players would always reach the end game quite quickly. It would definitely lengthen the time it takes to reach end game. I'm thinking more of quick fixes to get players back at least quite soon before they move on for good.

I was thinking that if people were losing their bases or running out of supplies after a month or so, that they would never be at the end game. Therefore, there's this constant struggle to survive.

We all want AI and plenty of AI content. Unfortunately, this is a long process to even implement AI, then to get it bug-free. I think we should focus on short term.

You mention that the base building is always the most fun part and this is true for any game. The beginning is always the most fun. What features or mechanics should there be to ensure that there will always be base building and starting new settlements? You mentioned a pvp zone, what about areas of the map rich in certain resources? This has been suggested a few times before. Despite building an outpost/camp there to gather those resources, your camp will always be vulnerable.


I haven't given the economy much thought but you make some good points. Perhaps a working economy system will also make this game more re-playable. Also, if there's some systems in place that allows players to hurt enemy economy's that would also be a fun meta game.


I understand and agree with point 3 but it doesnt address the issues we face now of having a stale game, except the last part where players have to check in to protect against bandits and wild animals. Again, that's more long term.

1.
Problem is.
People are easily Frustrated.
If they Spend 1 Week to Build up a Base.
And then its gone.
You can take Bets that 99 out of 100 Players in that Base will be gone as well.
In short this wont make em stay longer.
It will make em Leave even Faster.

2.
The thing is. The PvP Zone I suggest. Is not something YOU Build.
You See.
When in that PvP loot Zone. You get Killed or Defeated. You dont actually lose the Work of Days or even Weeks.
High Ressource Zones would in Fact be entirely Counterproductive here. Especially with Vulnearble Claims.
Because then it would be a King of the Hill Game.
Where Fortifying that Hill takes weeks of effort.
And well as long as your Succesful it will be Fun.
But the moment someone Defeats you and destroys your Base there.
You again can take Bets that all the Players of that Base will sit there and say.
NOPE. Not Starting over. Not going through all that Work again. Screw it. I am out.

Thats why PvP Zones must NEVER be something the Player made massive Efforts into which he then loses.

3.
Well.
The one thing here honestly is.
That usually. This would be Midgame Content.
But there is in essence no Midgame here.
Most New Players Literally cannot do PvP at all.
They have neither Weapons nor Combat Skills.
And till they even get such Weapons and Skills. They are basicly Endgame.
Thanks to that by the time Players actually have the Choice to do anything but Base Building and Grinding. They are in effect through the rest of the Game.

But this also means that there never really is much of Fighting going on.
Because the Guys that can Fight have simply no more reason to fight. As they got everything anyways.

The guys that would have a Reason to Fight. Cant really Fight. Because they dont have the Equipment and Skills for that.


For Replayability. The most Importand thing would be to actually Create Midgame Content.
So Players can actually Participate in the Game BEFORE having Finished the Game.
And thus actually opening new Game Parts before they are in essence through it anyways.

This is another reason why we so Urgently need NPC Enemies.

[Mark-holt]

Ah I see now. You don't like the idea of bases being raided and destroyed. You believe that most players wouldn't like that either. Even if it took full on week long siege campaigns where battles go back and forth, the fact that bases can be destroyed is a huge turnoff for you.

Well I say we should experiment. Let's see how popular or unpopular vulnerable town claims turn out to be. Let's see what would actually happen in the world when players are forced to adapt to the reality that their bases can be destroyed.

I think retention rate would be higher if bases could and are destroyed than if bases are invulnerable. Maybe the devs would need to reconsider the time investment into rebuilding bases such as lowering the number of resources required to build walls, or given double the resources per farm to those who had previously lost their base.

You seem very PVE oriented, preferring to fight AI than enemies. Preferring that AI destroy your base than enemies. That's understandable. So hopefully there will be a place for the likes of you in this game and a place for the likes of me.

[Sunleader]

Ah I see now. You don't like the idea of bases being raided and destroyed. You believe that most players wouldn't like that either. Even if it took full on week long siege campaigns where battles go back and forth, the fact that bases can be destroyed is a huge turnoff for you.

Well I say we should experiment. Let's see how popular or unpopular vulnerable town claims turn out to be. Let's see what would actually happen in the world when players are forced to adapt to the reality that their bases can be destroyed.

I think retention rate would be higher if bases could and are destroyed than if bases are invulnerable. Maybe the devs would need to reconsider the time investment into rebuilding bases such as lowering the number of resources required to build walls, or given double the resources per farm to those who had previously lost their base.

You seem very PVE oriented, preferring to fight AI than enemies. Preferring that AI destroy your base than enemies. That's understandable. So hopefully there will be a place for the likes of you in this game and a place for the likes of me.

Its not that I think that most Players think like that.
I know they do.
I have been Playing Sandbox RPGs since 2000.
And I can tell you for sure.
The Biggest Group of People I ever saw to Continue Playing after they lost their Base which they Worked to Build up.
Was 4 People out of an Guild which had over 60 People when the War Started.
And thats the Biggest Group.
Very often the Guild entirely Left. Not rarely leaving a message of Complaint and Flaming on the Forum.
The most common case is that the Majority of the Guild will Leave and 1-3 People depending on how Large the Guild was.
Will remain in the Game. And most of these few People then Left the Game a Month or Two later.

No Offense Mate.
This is not only not worth an Experiment because the Answer is Obvious and has happened a Thousand of Times already.

And just to make this absolutely Clear.
I am not telling you that there is a Risk that this Experiment might Kill the Game for Good and Doom it to an Small Hardcore RPK (PEEEP) Population.
I am telling you that in the Past EVERY SINGLE GAME WHICH TRIED IT HAS WITH A CHANCE OF 100% KILLED ITSELF or has ended up with an Population of like 50 People Online during the Day.



The most common mistake of People is to Think that I am PvE Player.
Which is Bullcrab.
I play almost exclusively Online Games.
And about 90% of the Games I play are PvP.
Most of which being Purely PvP Arena Games.

But there is two Importand things here.

A.
I do not Consider RPK and Griefer *Peeep* as PvPers.
PvPers look to Fight other Players. Not to Massacre them.
If the Enemy does not Fight back then this is not PvP to me.
Its simply Griefing.
B.
The really most common Death of any Open World PvP Game.
Is to Lift or Loosen Restrictions on PvP by removing Safezones or removing other Protections.

Because there is very Simple Fact here.
Some PvPers will always be Honorful. They wont kill Noobs.
Or in your Example they wont just Raid the small Village Next to Them for the Lulz of it despite knowing exactly that this Group of 10 People could never Possibly Stand to your Fully Maxed out 30 People Group of Warriors.

But some (and they are usually the vast Majority in Games which allow this kind of Rubbish) will be RPKs and Griefers which will simply Kill as much as Possible as often and long as Possible.
In your case.
You can Guarantee. That there will be an hole Number of 50 People Guilds that will just for the Fun of it. Kill and Destroy as many Cities as they Possibly Can.
They will likely not even have an City themselves. Because this would block them from Attacking and Griefing others as they would need to Defend it.
But they will do literally everything they can. To Grief as many Players as Possible out of the Game.

And here the Devils Loop that Kills every Single PvP Game that does not put Heavy Restrictions on PvP comes into Effect.

Players that get Frustrated Leave.

When Players Leave there is less Targets and thus also less PvP.

When there is less PvP. Suggestions (like this one of yours) pop up. And demand that Restrictions on PvP are loosened/removed

When Restrictions on PvP are loosened/removed the RPKs kill as many as they can as fast as they can.

Players that get Frustrated Leave.

When Players Leave there is less Targets and thus also less PvP.

When there is less PvP. Suggestions (like this one of yours) pop up. And demand that Restrictions on PvP are loosened/removed

When Restrictions on PvP are loosened/removed the RPKs kill as many as they can as fast as they can.

Players that get Frustrated Leave.

When Players Leave there is less Targets and thus also less PvP.

When there is less PvP. Suggestions (like this one of yours) pop up. And demand that Restrictions on PvP are loosened/removed

When Restrictions on PvP are loosened/removed the RPKs kill as many as they can as fast as they can.

Players that get Frustrated Leave.

When Players Leave there is less Targets and thus also less PvP.

When there is less PvP. Suggestions (like this one of yours) pop up. And demand that Restrictions on PvP are loosened/removed

When Restrictions on PvP are loosened/removed the RPKs kill as many as they can as fast as they can.


You get the Idea.






See Mate.
I dont know you.
I dont know if your an RPK/Griefer which wants to Destroy and Kill as much as Possible because thats what he is in the Game for.
Or if your an Honorable PvPer which would Play with Honor and Generally Fight enemy Cities and Fortresses and actually wants to Attack Enemy Guilds for Big Battles.

But it does not matter at all.
Because you see.
Any System that allows either of these Groups to Destroy and Kill everything will also allow it to the other.
And while you might be Nice. And not Randomly Destroy that small Village which could never even hope to have even 1% of a Chance against you in a Fight.
There will always be enough People that will Kill and Destroy and Massacre as much as they Possibly can till there is nothing left.

Which is. Why EVERY SINGLE GAME THAT HAS TRIED IT HAS DIED.
You say to Experiment. But this Experiment has happened 100 times already. And its in 100 out of 100 cases ended with the Game losing the Vast Majority of its Playerbase and then either Dying or Crawling around with like 50-100 People Online.


Small Example for you.
Naval Action.
A very Promising Game.
In the Early Access it had Safezones around every Single Port.
Thanks to that we had nice PvP and Wars in the Border Areas.
Then when it Launched on Steam. It removed the Safezones.
Because People complained that they cant Attack others everywhere.
The Game went from 3000 to less than 1000 within the First 6 Months of this Change.
They then added small Safezones around the Capitols. Which stopped the leaving. But Players once left dont come Back.
So while the massive loss stopped. It did only very slowly revert.
And guess what. The RPKs got their will and the Zones where made Small again just recently. And the Population is now like 400.


In General. Games like this one are very bad for PvP.
Because you See.
There is a Big Reason. Why Big PvP Games like World of Tanks.
DO NOT MAKE YOU LOSE PROGRESS ON LOSS.
Because Imagine that each time your Tank was Destroyed. It would be lost.
World of Tanks would not even have 0.1% of its Playerbase.
And if you then would remove the Matchmaking. And allow Tier 10 Players to Fight Tier 1 Players at will.
You can take Bets. The Entire Population of World of Tanks. Would be somewhere around 50-100 Players at best



Sorry Mate.
But get this one Straight.
Your Suggestion would NOT "LIKELY" BUT "DEFINITIVELY" KILL THIS GAME WITHIN 6 MONTHS OR LESS

[C0R0NERcz]

I do not want to be attacked by other players - I want to live in peace and build my virtual home!
To revive the economy, we need the ability to buy/sell goods in any trading posts without having to travel

[Mark-holt]

So then we would have to explore what harsh pvp games like Rust or DayZ do so well that keeps players hooked.

Regarding those number of games you remembered that died due to the large number of complaints about invulnerable bases, we then need to look at what the devs could've done to help lessen the likelihood of their bases being destroyed. For example in Naval Action, there could've been some features to help make the process of destroying a base easier. I can't think of many examples for Naval Action other than AI canons or barrel bombs floating in the water.

The drop in population that you mentioned seems normal. It's what happens to every game. So we don't actually know if the removal of safezones attributed to that but it sounds like it was one of the factors.

I think you're still stuck on the idea that if a town claim is vulnerable in LIF, that it can be destroyed in 1 attack. However, due to the resources that are needed and the work people put into their bases to make them nearly inaccessible, it could take much more than 1 attack. 1 attack could destroy a couple of wall segments.

Some guilds will be more on the backfoot than others, spending most of their time defending due to their unfortunate situation.

The harsh environment experiment for LIF can be experimented on for just 1 server, rather than all the servers.

Correct me if I'm wrong but World of Tanks isn't a base building open world MMO. It's like COD where you don't lose progress if you're killed. It's not relevant to this.

Of those games that have died, which of those required a lot of time and resource investment to attack and destroy a fortified base? Where they couldn't do it in just 1 evening?

[Sunleader]

So then we would have to explore what harsh pvp games like Rust or DayZ do so well that keeps players hooked.

Regarding those number of games you remembered that died due to the large number of complaints about invulnerable bases, we then need to look at what the devs could've done to help lessen the likelihood of their bases being destroyed. For example in Naval Action, there could've been some features to help make the process of destroying a base easier. I can't think of many examples for Naval Action other than AI canons or barrel bombs floating in the water.

The drop in population that you mentioned seems normal. It's what happens to every game. So we don't actually know if the removal of safezones attributed to that but it sounds like it was one of the factors.

I think you're still stuck on the idea that if a town claim is vulnerable in LIF, that it can be destroyed in 1 attack. However, due to the resources that are needed and the work people put into their bases to make them nearly inaccessible, it could take much more than 1 attack. 1 attack could destroy a couple of wall segments.

Some guilds will be more on the backfoot than others, spending most of their time defending due to their unfortunate situation.

The harsh environment experiment for LIF can be experimented on for just 1 server, rather than all the servers.

Correct me if I'm wrong but World of Tanks isn't a base building open world MMO. It's like COD where you don't lose progress if you're killed. It's not relevant to this.

Of those games that have died, which of those required a lot of time and resource investment to attack and destroy a fortified base? Where they couldn't do it in just 1 evening?

1.
You do Realize that DayZ and Rust are Games which are Played on small Servers similar to Life is Feudal your Own.
Their Servers can be Set with Independent Rules.
Including that People have their own Servers which dont allow PvP at all.
Moreover these are Small Scale Games. Most Servers Wipe like once a Month. So nobody Builds up Large Bases in the First Place unless its a Server that due to the Settings allows that this Base will Survive.

2.
Well the Simple thing what they could have done is. Would have been to not Remove PvP Restrictions. And thus not Kill the Player Population so much that there was nobody Left for PvP
A Fairly common thing on such Games.
To make a comment from my Pirating Times. A PvP Game is like the Ocean. If you dont make and enforce Rules for Fishing then the Fish Reserves will be depleted very fast and the Ocean will be Empty.
Its not that hard to be Honest. Its just that you need to Realize that Players are here to have Fun.
And being Killed by someone you have no Fighting Chance against. And on top losing lots of Work. Is something that pretty much Nobody has Fun with.
Hence unless you prevent this People dont Play your Game.
I dont think thats such high Mathematics.
Unfortunately People tend to Mistake Games for something similar to Work or School. Something where People have to be and thus can be Forced into something they dont like.
But thing is its not.
Games are like a Club. You are not only not Required to go there. You are in fact Required to Pay for it if you want to go there.
And while there is certainly some People that Pay to be abused.
The Vast Majority does simply not have such Hobbies.

3.
LOL No.
That was not Normal Mate.
For your Info. This Population was there for nearly 2 Years before the Steam Launch.
I dont see anything normal with the Game losing more than Half of its Population after Steam Launch.

4.
Your the One Stuck there.
Your Stuck on the Idea of two Large Guilds having a War with each other.
Your thinking of two more or less Equal Opponents that have the abilities, manpower and ressources to Fight each other.
But these will not Fight each other.
What will happen is that Large Groups of 30-50 RPKs and Griefers will Annihilate Small Guilds of 10-20 People just for the Fun of it.

5.
And Mate.
Nope.
No Guild will be more Backfoot than the other.
Because thats the thing.
All these Guilds in an "Unfortunate" Situation. Will Simply say Screw you Guys. I am going Home.
End of Story.
And then you can have Fun Attacking the Empty City

6.
Mate.
I am telling you again.
Such Experiments KILL THE GAME.
Even if you Limit it to 1 Server. That means that this Server IS GOOD AS DEAD.
Is that so hard to Understand ?
I mean Sorry but is the Idea of others not having Fun playing Claybirds for you so hard to grasp ????

7.
Mortal Online for example Required Massive Ressources to Destroy a Base.
Hell it took nearly 20-30 Hours of Constant Bombardment to Destroy a Keep.
Take a look at how much Players they got now




Mate you can Argue on this All you Want.
But it all Boils down to a very Simple Question.

How do you prevent that 1 Guild of 100 RPKs and Griefers.
From simply Killing and Raping the 10-20 People Guilds every Single JH effectively driving them out of the Game and thus Killing the Game ?

See Mate.
The Simple thing that you Completely Forget.
Is that Guilds do not Start their Monument with a Massive Fortress around it.
You are basicly only considering the 50-100 People Guilds which are already Fully Set and have 2-4 Lines of Walls around their Base. And which are already Vulnearble anyways because they already got Stone Walls even around their entire Realm Claim.

Thing is. The Game also has to work for that Small Group of 10 People which just Founded their Guild and which at best could Throw up a Pallisade on Day 1 to Protect their Town Claim.

It has to work for that Small Mountain Guild of 20 People which has been Slowly Building up their Claim for 3 Months now and has barely Reached the Point where they got enough Flattened Land on their Hill to get the First Stone Wall around their Town Claim.


If the Game does not Work for these Guys as well.
Then well Have Fun. Because not only will everyone but these guys Leave the Game.
But when these Guys leave the Game at some Point the Game will be Dead.

[Mark-holt]

The core essence of Rust is raiding. So in your mind, what else are people doing other than base building and raiding? Maybe there are some servers that are just base building with no raiding allowed.

I've done my best to be patient in this conversation because it's always possible you can come across somebody who is willing to have an open conversation without bringing their agenda into it. You've made some good points, though the condescending comments inadvertently reduce the credibility of your points. However, I see an adamant stance that there is no way this will work going as far as attributing base destruction as the reason these game drop in player base.

As stated before, huge drops in player base is completely normal. Very rarely does a games playerbase increase or maintain the same level since release. Rust is one example I can think of but I'm sure there are a few more. To then attribute drops in player base to the fact that bases can be destroyed to fit your agenda, leads me to wonder what other points you have left out.

In an open conversation, we take other points and entertain different ideas. Rather than outright reject them, we work on them to make them better. I'm sure you're not like most people online who just stick with their belief without entertaining other ideas. And then imply the person you disagree with is ignorant.

I can understand why some people prefer the idea of 5-10 man guilds being invulnerable. And we will always have servers for the more peaceful and loving. For those who prefer to PVE most of their game time and have a choice when to PVP.

Now we've already seen suggestions from you on the PVE side and I understand that you're primarily a PVE player. You're more than capable of suggesting ways to retain players on the PVP side. So I've suggested increasing the speed in base building and doubling number of resources acquired or maybe reducing resources required to build things. What suggestions would you have?

[Sunleader]

The core essence of Rust is raiding. So in your mind, what else are people doing other than base building and raiding? Maybe there are some servers that are just base building with no raiding allowed.

I've done my best to be patient in this conversation because it's always possible you can come across somebody who is willing to have an open conversation without bringing their agenda into it. You've made some good points, though the condescending comments inadvertently reduce the credibility of your points. However, I see an adamant stance that there is no way this will work going as far as attributing base destruction as the reason these game drop in player base.

As stated before, huge drops in player base is completely normal. Very rarely does a games playerbase increase or maintain the same level since release. Rust is one example I can think of but I'm sure there are a few more. To then attribute drops in player base to the fact that bases can be destroyed to fit your agenda, leads me to wonder what other points you have left out.

In an open conversation, we take other points and entertain different ideas. Rather than outright reject them, we work on them to make them better. I'm sure you're not like most people online who just stick with their belief without entertaining other ideas. And then imply the person you disagree with is ignorant.

I can understand why some people prefer the idea of 5-10 man guilds being invulnerable. And we will always have servers for the more peaceful and loving. For those who prefer to PVE most of their game time and have a choice when to PVP.

Now we've already seen suggestions from you on the PVE side and I understand that you're primarily a PVE player. You're more than capable of suggesting ways to retain players on the PVP side. So I've suggested increasing the speed in base building and doubling number of resources acquired or maybe reducing resources required to build things. What suggestions would you have?

1.
As I said Mate.
Different Game Design.
Games like DayZ and Rust are from the get go much more Combat Oriented.
Bases are much faster and easier to Build.
A Single Player can Build nearly everything alone.
Your losses when the Base is Destroyed are Minimal and so are the Losses when you are Killed.
Because the Server is usually Wiped soon after again.

Your in Essence Comparing Age of Empires 1 with Anno 1602
And this cannot work. Because one Game is laid out to provide a War/combat Match of about 2 Hours.
And the other Game is laid out to Provide an Economic Match that takes about 20-50 Hours.

Sure Both Games allow you to Build up an Economy.
And Both Games allow you to go to War.
But the Scale is Shifted here Tremendously.
In Anno 1602 about 95% of your Time goes into Building and Managing your Economy. And War is an Option for you to get something you want from the other Player. But its not the Primary Goal of the Game.
Age of Empires however is all about War. Every Single Ressource and Building either Provides Units for War or Provides Ressources to Build Units for War.
90% of it is about War. And the Economy Part is solely to Fuel the War.



Life is Feudal. Is by its MMO Settings Clearly the Anno in this Example.
Because lets Face it. You need Tier 4 Crafting Skills just to get Basic Weapons and Armor for Fighting.
You Spend 4 Weeks in the Game before your even able to actually Fight as the smallest possible Rank in a Battle.

And the Consequences of Losing are Tremendous.
Especially if you are Criminal or Evil.

Its Fairly Obvious. That in this Game.
Battles and War are Meant Solely as an Optional Event to take something by Force or Establish your Dominance.
They are NOT Intended to Remove other Players from the Game.

So Allowing Players to Destroy Town Claims is simply not really making Sense.


2.
Thats a Difficult Question Mate.
You Say I am Adamant about it.
But I could just Say your Adamant about not Accepting this Fact.

So Far nothing you Said has even remotely Convinced me to Question my Knowledge in this Matter.
There has so far not been any Argument or Reasoning that would have given me a Reason to even Consider my Stance.

This is not Surprising either.
Because you See.

My Argument is that from the nearly 2 Decades worth of Experience I have Seen Games Do what you Suggest and basicly Die within 1 or 2 Years afterwards EVEN IF they decided to revert course after a few Months. Because Players Lost their Stuff and then Quit the Game for Good never Returning.

And heres the thing.
Your Argument so far. Is that "hey it might be different this time. Lets test it"
You have yet to give me any Solid Reasoning as to why it should possibly go different.
""
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
""
Your Examples of Rust and DayZ are fine in itself. But they are simply not Importand here. Because they are an entirely Different Game Genre.
Of course PvP protection for your Base or Character makes no Sense in a Counterstrike Game.
But this aint Counterstrike
In DayZ you need a few Hours to be Setup and maybe another few Hours to have a Solid Base.
If you get Destroyed you are done for the Round. You wait for the Wipe (next round) and Play again.
But see thats the thing.
There is no Next Round in LiF MMO.
If you get Destroyed and your are done for the Round. Then this in LiF MMO means Goodbye Game because your done with the Game.


3.
Well the Problem here is actually a bit Different.
You See Mate.
Your making this Suggestion. And then make Additional Suggestions to level out or Fix the Problems that I say your Suggestion will Result in.

But I think the Importand Bit is a bit different here.

I am Arguing from a Viewpoint that I want to Keep Life is Feudal as the Hardcore Sandbox RPG and Building Game it is.
And I am of course assessing all your Statements in this Viewpoint.

But your Viewpoint is entirely Different.
You actually want to Change this Game to be more like Rust or DayZ.
You want to Change this Game into an PvP Arena where the Main Focus of the Game. Is not an Hardcore Sandbox RPG.
But more of an PvP Sandbox Survival Game.
You want PvP to basicly be the thing of the Game.


Right now. A Guild City is a Giant Building Project which will take Weeks just on the Building Part and will actually take Months to Develop step by step together with the Economy of the Guild which is Growing in its Center.
We are Playing a Game similar to Anno.
Where War between Factions is Possible as an Means to get an Ressource Point or something.
But where the Actual Game is about Building up your Empire with production Chains and a Large Central City to Support your Empire.

What you want however. Is that Guild Cities are not a Building Project that Grows with the Economy of the Guild over Months of Play.
You want a Guild City to be an Fortress that can be thrown up in maybe a Week and whose Sole Purpose it is to Serve as a Battle Ground.
What you want is Age of Empires. Where basicly everything is just a Means to Fuel the War and PvP Fights.


This could work of course.
If you Reworked the Entire Game to that End. You could have this Game as a Giant PvP Arena.
You would need to Greatly Reduce Grinding Times and Building Times by a Factor of 10 or more.
You would need to Greatly Reduce Skill Learning Times. Especially on the Combat Skills. So Players can Reach or even Choose Classes very Fast and then get into Battle.
And you would need to completely Rework the Crafting and Skill System in General. To make Equipment and Weapons Available very Fast. And where Ressources are not Forcibly Required but instead are Optional and Provide Bonusses.
For example by Requiring a Special Ressource to Produce Steel Weapons and thus have only Limited Spots on the Map that can Produce Steel thus forcing others which only got Iron to Fight for these Spots.
You would need to Reduce Losses on Death to a Minimum and make Buildings really Cheap.
Most of all you would need to Change the Game Tremendously towards Regular Server Wipes so you dont end up with one All Powerful Guild which will just Bash all Newcomers down from the Server.
etc etc etc


But Mate.
This would be an entirely Different Game.
This would not be Life is Feudal.

There is already Some Life is Feudal Your Own Servers which are in Fact Playing like this.
By removing Death Penalty etc etc etc.
But they are pretty Dead.
Because for this Genre there is as said above Far Better Games out there.

[Mark-holt]

Yep so let's consider reducing the cost of building materials needed for each building. The PVP server can adopt a more Rust approach. If the PVP server is twice as fast to grind, then it's Rust: Medieval.

I should've been more clear. I didn't want to change the game, I wanted this idea of vulnerability to be on a PVP server. There are those who don't like PVP and just want to PVE, those who choose when to PVP and then those who want unforgiving PVP. Having a server for each makes the game more successful and widely available.

I haven't however dismissed the idea of purely PVE servers. I want the opportunity to have a purely PVP server.

Since this leaked update it seems the devs are about to implement a much better idea than this. The choice whether you want to setup inside Red zone and defend your base. Or the choice to setup in Green zone and raid bases in Red zone. That's much more dynamic as you can now choose how you want to play and get the best of both worlds.

PVPers will buy building materials from Green zone traders and build bases faster than it usually takes. The PVErs are happy as they now run a business while the PVPers can spend more time PVPIng. It could get to the point where PVE is an option if the PVP guild is wealthy enough.

I think you've made some good suggestions for the PVE side of things, but this thread was mainly focusing on the PVP side of things. Nevertheless, I appreciate your input.

[Sunleader]

Yep so let's consider reducing the cost of building materials needed for each building. The PVP server can adopt a more Rust approach. If the PVP server is twice as fast to grind, then it's Rust: Medieval.

I should've been more clear. I didn't want to change the game, I wanted this idea of vulnerability to be on a PVP server. There are those who don't like PVP and just want to PVE, those who choose when to PVP and then those who want unforgiving PVP. Having a server for each makes the game more successful and widely available.

I haven't however dismissed the idea of purely PVE servers. I want the opportunity to have a purely PVP server.

Since this leaked update it seems the devs are about to implement a much better idea than this. The choice whether you want to setup inside Red zone and defend your base. Or the choice to setup in Green zone and raid bases in Red zone. That's much more dynamic as you can now choose how you want to play and get the best of both worlds.

PVPers will buy building materials from Green zone traders and build bases faster than it usually takes. The PVErs are happy as they now run a business while the PVPers can spend more time PVPIng. It could get to the point where PVE is an option if the PVP guild is wealthy enough.

I think you've made some good suggestions for the PVE side of things, but this thread was mainly focusing on the PVP side of things. Nevertheless, I appreciate your input.

1.
Thats not going to work.
Because your Forgetting an Super Importand Part.

The Regular Server Wipes.
Moreover. We already have an Life is Feudal Variant that goes into that Direction.
Its called Life is Feudal "Your Own" and has exactly this setting with Smaller Servers allowing far Superior Combat Speed as well as allowing Full PvP and Factor 10 Building Speed and Unlimieted Skill Points etc etc etc

On the MMO.
This Approach makes no Sense.
You will never get close to Rust.
Because you simply cannot Provide the PvP Gameplay that you get on 50 People Server onto a 10.000 People Server.


2.
I am not Playing on PvP Server so I cant say I am Involved.
But again Mate.
You are in Fact trying to Change the Game here

The Problem is. Your Trying to Project the Concept of PvP Arena Games onto an MMORPG.
And this cannot work.

Its Simply not Possible on a Technology Level to Achieve the Fast Paced Combat Systems that Rust for example can offer.
You simply dont get these when you got more than maybe 100 Players per Server.
And even 100 Players are really Stretching it.


3.
Just to have this Said.
But if this Goes Life.
I can Guarantee you. The PvP Server will be Dead within 3 Months Top.

The System Idea is not Bad.
But for this to Work they should rather make a New PvP Server as Red Server instead.

So that everyone can Basicly Recruit and Build Base in a Green Server and have their Base their.
And then can go to War for the Red Continent.

Right now all the Avalon Players which are not in a Guild will lose Everything and likely Quit the Game.


4.
I am merely trying to Highlight the Consequences of your Suggestions Mate.
You need to keep in mind that everything will affect everyone.

[Mark-holt]

I'm sure the devs are aware that those in Red who don't like the idea and don't want to restart in Green worlds will probably leave. But due to the games current population decline where just a couple of hundred players are playing at prime time, devs have had to take drastic action. It could turn out more people are attracted to this so you lose some but win more. Or it could be vice versa.

We've experimented with the current state and direction of the game, which clearly hasn't worked. So let's try this new experiment and see what the results are.

[Sunleader]

I'm sure the devs are aware that those in Red who don't like the idea and don't want to restart in Green worlds will probably leave. But due to the games current population decline where just a couple of hundred players are playing at prime time, devs have had to take drastic action. It could turn out more people are attracted to this so you lose some but win more. Or it could be vice versa.

We've experimented with the current state and direction of the game, which clearly hasn't worked. So let's try this new experiment and see what the results are.

Ok then let me make a Suggestion for you as well.
I say if you Shoot yourself in the Nuts its going to have Great Effects for the Potency.

We already know where the current state goes.
So lets Experiment and see the Results.
Have Fun Shooting yourself in the Nuts



Because thats what your effectively Saying right now