Life is Feudal Official Forum

[glenncariaga]

On the note about sieges... I thought about one of the first cases of bio-warfare when the army outside the walls would launch dead animals/people into the castle to spread diseases and weaken the defending garrison. Also, the spread of diseases and contagion was an important aspect of medieval times.

One one aspect, it would provide an interesting "feature" of play, where doctors/priests have more utility when combating diseases. It would also provide a mechanic when doing siege warfare.

What I'm thinking diseases would be like:
1. Catch a disease from game or certain territories.
2. Pass on the disease by specific things; some will be by contact, others will be through trade. Some disease can only be picked up by being in an area.
3. Diseases will cause a debuff on the player. This will affect their stats, or some aspect of how they play the game, ie it's slower to move around, or the player gets "stunned" randomly.
4. Diseases will have an expiration date, or can be removed by priests/doctors.

This is probably a terrible idea, but I felt that it was worth a thought.

[larsiam]

i think what alot of people forget that this is a MMO a persistent never ending game world. Disease is a "real" thing but shows no place in a game like this

[finalreview]

No! No! No!

A ) Time, sieges do not work in MMO games by the old "starve them until they surrender" method. They are basically battles with specific goals of the teams other than to kill each other (defenders v. attacker mentality). Thus, the time for catching a disease is insane.

B ) Since death isn't permanent, and the way people interact with others is rather different than historical medieval times, disease would spread to encompass nearly everyone in the game, and you'd have everyone on an equal level except with whatever debuff, thus making the game slower, especially if the disease had exponential growth and affect.

C ) While it is indeed, a terrible idea, it's at least noteworthy that you're trying, and through terrible ideas sometimes you'll get a good one. So keep sharing! P

Great points. I miss the suggestions forum being full of new posts every day.

[fallen_saint]

I think I like the idea of LiF having diseases. Diseases do not always have to kill you. They can rehabilitate or impair some of your stats for a period of time. I think it would be fun to have to search and create a cure before 30 game days.

Medieval diseases did spread to everyone just took decades. MMO's just are going to hurry up the process.

[glenncariaga]

a) that's kinda unrealistic. it's very hack-slashish. i think that would ruin the immersion of the game. what would the difference be between a raid a a siege?

Also, there is the problem of logistics. the attacker will always have the advantage in current scenarios. Travel, however implemented, will be in psuedo real time. that means, getting people to defend a location will eat up a lot of time, and raiders will always win. (thus destroying any incentive to build and produce) After a while, there will be no more places to raid, since no one builds. Thus raiders stop raiding.

We want buildings, thus a fixed, defensive position should be almost unassailable, allowing for reinforcements to trickle in (if it was to happen). And thus, siege. Should be a protracted affair. And spreading contagion could be another method to "starve" out defenders.

b) we KNOW death isn't permanent, I don't see how this affects the existence of diseases. in WoW, when a disease broke out, not everyone caught the disease because people were able to take steps to prevent contamination. and it is this natural process by how we prevent disease and stop contagion that would add a layer to game play.

c) thank you

[finalreview]

Siege rules haven't been released yet so this is all speculation, but if defenders are allowed to re-spawn in their city that will be an insane advantage over the attackers who have to travel.

[Atheas]

Deadly in 100% disease is life.

[larsiam]

a) that's kinda unrealistic. it's very hack-slashish. i think that would ruin the immersion of the game. what would the difference be between a raid a a siege?

Also, there is the problem of logistics. the attacker will always have the advantage in current scenarios. Travel, however implemented, will be in psuedo real time. that means, getting people to defend a location will eat up a lot of time, and raiders will always win. (thus destroying any incentive to build and produce) After a while, there will be no more places to raid, since no one builds. Thus raiders stop raiding.

We want buildings, thus a fixed, defensive position should be almost unassailable, allowing for reinforcements to trickle in (if it was to happen). And thus, siege. Should be a protracted affair. And spreading contagion could be another method to "starve" out defenders.

b) we KNOW death isn't permanent, I don't see how this affects the existence of diseases. in WoW, when a disease broke out, not everyone caught the disease because people were able to take steps to prevent contamination. and it is this natural process by how we prevent disease and stop contagion that would add a layer to game play.

c) thank you

Your further more proving how little you know about game likes this. There is a huge difference from a siege to a raid. And this is not a movie where one side has an obvious advantage in games like this sieges are determined by who has more skill.
I highly highly suggest you read more into this game including the FAQ and search other games.

[LordWiese]

a) that's kinda unrealistic. it's very hack-slashish. i think that would ruin the immersion of the game. what would the difference be between a raid a a siege?

Also, there is the problem of logistics. the attacker will always have the advantage in current scenarios. Travel, however implemented, will be in psuedo real time. that means, getting people to defend a location will eat up a lot of time, and raiders will always win. (thus destroying any incentive to build and produce) After a while, there will be no more places to raid, since no one builds. Thus raiders stop raiding.

We want buildings, thus a fixed, defensive position should be almost unassailable, allowing for reinforcements to trickle in (if it was to happen). And thus, siege. Should be a protracted affair. And spreading contagion could be another method to "starve" out defenders.

b) we KNOW death isn't permanent, I don't see how this affects the existence of diseases. in WoW, when a disease broke out, not everyone caught the disease because people were able to take steps to prevent contamination. and it is this natural process by how we prevent disease and stop contagion that would add a layer to game play.

c) thank you

Have you ever played a sandbox mmo like this? say Dawntide/Darkfall/Mortal/Wurm/UO?

It does not seem like it. Not not trying to insult you, but these type of games tend to put in features that are practical. Disease? come on bro, that is just silly, I don`t want to play a game where I can get sick in the middle of a siege and pass out, and the enemy just comes in and rapes me(literally in some ERP causes) This is much like what one guy suggested for Dawntide. He wanted a jail system, where you could jail people for crimes and the like, hold them for a set amount of time, say 3 hours or so. No one is going to pay for a game to sit in a jail cell. You are looking at this like it is going to be a single player RTS or something. If you want to talk about something that is going to really be in the game, and affect everyone to some degree, lets talk about how sieges are going to develop and play out, it`s really freaken important that a good balance between the defensive side, and the offensive side is struck.

[Dragon Scales]

I'm not so hot on the idea of Disease either. Back in WoW vanilla, their was the Blood of Hakkar incident. Go google it, but long story short, it was game breaking. Couldn't even go near the main cities without catching the blood and dying.