Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Krevente]

I agree regarding the notion that you should probably prioritize differently. The money has to come from somewhere to pay for the servers and the developers as well as any initial investment that made the whole company 'go' in the first place. Where that money comes from is going to either be shifted onto a group of players or spread evenly throughout the playerbase.

Hmmmm ... sounds way too familiar from life in general ...

If there was a premium system I'd be okay with making it necessary for Realm and Kingdom leaders to be premium in order to to hold those positions. Then again, it sounds like it's going to be straight B2Play anyways.

[Thokan]

What is all this fuzz about one account, one character, anyway?

Is it just funded in the fear of PKers? Cause ya'll know, this game is supposed to be hardcore.

[Dailato]

What is all this fuzz about one account, one character, anyway?

Is it just funded in the fear of PKers? Cause ya'll know, this game is supposed to be hardcore.

Game is also supposed to have some semblance of realism. Tell me, how many people were going around randomly murdering people for fun in medieval times? less than 1% of the population at minimum?
You wanna know why? Consequences.

PvP in this game is supposed to have consequences, especially random PK-ing. If everyone can have as many characters as they want, who cares if one of them has a shit reputation and alignment? His purpose in life is to eat the alignment hits for the rest of your characters and murder whomever you somewhat dislike or just for killing people when you feel like it.

That's not consequences. That's the goddamned same as every other MMO, where the world is filled with sociopathic homicidal maniacs.

You want hardcore? Man the fck up and take the consequences for your actions, how's that for hardcore?

Yours truly -The Pope

[Thokan]

What is all this fuzz about one account, one character, anyway?

Is it just funded in the fear of PKers? Cause ya'll know, this game is supposed to be hardcore.

Game is also supposed to have some semblance of realism. Tell me, how many people were going around randomly murdering people for fun in medieval times? less than 1% of the population at minimum?
You wanna know why? Consequences.

PvP in this game is supposed to have consequences, especially random PK-ing. If everyone can have as many characters as they want, who cares if one of them has a shit reputation and alignment? His purpose in life is to eat the alignment hits for the rest of your characters and murder whomever you somewhat dislike or just for killing people when you feel like it.

That's not consequences. That's the goddamned same as every other MMO, where the world is filled with sociopathic homicidal maniacs.

You want hardcore? Man the fck up and take the consequences for your actions, how's that for hardcore?

Yours truly -The Pope

But there is already consequences coded into the game. The alignment system is there for a reason. There is no need to limit people to one character.

You make it sound like a PK-character would be untouchable. That people are by definition defenseless. Jeez.

You really think people would spam characters for several euros each just for a few easy kills?

Have you taken a look at the skill trees and how many points it takes to be proficient in one school? There is gonna be a surge and need for additional characters. Why prevent people from that?

If you wanna man up, then just effin kill the PKer and grind his skill points to dust. Easy as that. These homicidal sociopaths you speak of would already have a low alignment and thus show red.

[finalreview]

The way I look at it:

Combat and Crafting both have 600 skillcap. I'm not sure how many masters you can have before cap but for this argument lets say it's just one. A server with a population of 10,000 players with perfect distribution 400 masters of each profession. If the developers choose to allow unlimited amount of characters and the average player has 3 characters the numbers jump to 1200. Realism of medieval economy is ruined. From a war stand point imagine fighting 500 enemy cavalry vs your 500 siege force. After your victory you push forward to the castle walls, where after a quick relog you are now facing 500 bowmen on the castle walls. Then as your reinforcements come riding in you finally push into the castle walls. As you finally see the (what ever it is you destroy to capture a castle) 500 heavy infantry load in....

As for player reputation, if you have multiple characters the only consequence to negative alignment is higher skill loss. With the mentoring skills negative alignment will be a joke. 5 max skill cap -100 characters, 1 mentor, rotate them out as you die, fresh stable as long as you don't die to often. Especially with several +100 characters earning through "legal" means. As majority of positive alignment players will not trade with reds. With multiple characters you destroy any need for red cities or black markets with risk involved.

This is a sandbox game, with a simple + PAUSE - skill system. If you were locked into a class permanently I would advocate multiple characters. The more realism the better, try something new.

[Krevente]

Game is also supposed to have some semblance of realism. Tell me, how many people were going around randomly murdering people for fun in medieval times? less than 1% of the population at minimum? You wanna know why? Consequences.

Ummmm, really? I would love to know your sources and/or reasoning on that. There was a reason it was called the Dark Ages. Most feudal lords didn't garrison troops within cities because of the difficult time they had controlling their own soldiers from doing stupid shit to the commoners. Logistically it would have been easier to have everything close together, but realistically most military leaders kept their soldiers separate from the populace to avoid the random stupidity, such as killing for fun... and this is 'friendly' forces on 'friendly' citizens, mind you. Machiavelli even writes a bit on it in regards to Renaissance Italy. Hell, it happens in modern times. A lot of it you don't even hear about.

Furthermore, not all PKers kill for the lulz. A lot of them kill to gain resources and not go through the grind of harvesting and crafting, which is pretty close to why bandits do bandit things.

The vast majority of combat in the medieval ages was actually done through raiding and skirmishing, not the sieges and major line battles that are romanticized in novels and video games.

[Arthua]

I too am an advocate for multiple chracters (at fee of course. The fee for making another character is enough of a deterrent.

@whoeverusedareallife example: There are many "random" killings in the world today. Much more than 1%. Heck there are teens in the city that would blow your wig off quick, for saying the wrong thing. With that said, we cannot compare modern day to medieval times. If one is compare the state of civilian murder, atleast use countries with less order. The reason people dont kill 'randomly' as much these days is ,because the cost benefit is so high. Today you will probably get caught, and besides there are too many obstacles to carrying out a murder.

In feudal times there is little to no consequence if a murder occurs outside of jurisdictions.

Conclusion: PKING IS synonymous to a fuedal world. If relieved of modern day shackles, will surely resort to Pking irl.

Cmom. You need some PKing to make the game a tad bit dangerous. More than 30% of the population in LIF needs to be ready to kill, for there to be any semblance of danger and feudal society.

Wars cannot be the only time players murder one another. Otherwise no one would be fearful of wandering alone. You need suspense and random encounters with tentative outcomes.

This aint the Sims. I want to be afraid of the 'psychotic' killers of the wild.

[Demonic]

I may be wrong, but this looks like another of those RPers VS PvPers discussions/arguments.

One side wants their metagame and moar characters (i.e. I want more characters, because I don't want to suffer for alignment) and he other side wants only one charr per acc (you should suffer for what you do, it's unfair if you just switch your charrs whenever you want to kill).

And I fear my dear gentleman that we are moving nowhere with this discusion.

Let's look at this realistically. If the account will be limited to one charracters, two things happen.

1, Players who REALLY want to have two charrs one for PKing and the other for other things, they will make two accounts. No matter the cost.

2, The ones who want two charrs but they can't cause the cost is too high and they can't afford it / don't want to pay it will leave or they won't play the game at all.

And I fear the number 2 will be happening more offten. Which means less money for the dev's which can eventually lead to the end of The Game...

[Arthua]

I may be wrong, but this looks like another of those RPers VS PvPers discussions/arguments.

One side wants their metagame and moar characters (i.e. I want more characters, because I don't want to suffer for alignment) and he other side wants only one charr per acc (you should suffer for what you do, it's unfair if you just switch your charrs whenever you want to kill).

And I fear my dear gentleman that we are moving nowhere with this discusion.

Let's look at this realistically. If the account will be limited to one characters, two things happen.

1, Players who REALLY want to have two charrs one for PKing and the other for other things, they will make two accounts. No matter the cost.

2, The ones who want two charrs but they can't cause the cost is too high and they can't afford it / don't want to pay it will leave or they won't play the game at all.

And I fear the number 2 will be happening more offten. Which means less money for the dev's which can eventually lead to the end of The Game...

You truly think it's that black and white? Pvping vs rping is never that cut a dry. Some players like to play as a mixture of the two (I for one am one of those players).

By your logic, if you're such an rper, then you should be advocating a turn-based combat system.

Let's be truthful. A gamer can understand the urge to start afresh. We do it all the time, when we play RPG games like Skyrim and Fallout. If you've ever RP'ed on a roleplay sim, you'd see players change characters/personas frequently to get a taste of different perspective on the world. Or they may want to distance themselves from past in-game relationships, etc. Tons of a reasons one wants to change characters, besides player-killing for the lulz.

Alignment isn't the end-all. Who will drop actual real-life money just to waste the account on player-killing? (I'm exaggerating, of course players out there would do so, but that couldn't be the majority). If someone gets a thrill from PKing like Rambo, then they will on their main character (heck they may even want the renown of being a ravenous murderer). It's a game, people will PK = alt or not. But the monetary deterrance is enough to stop a majority of would-be griefers. The ones that DO actually play for an alt, will atleast PK with more scope (Maybe create a gang of murders, or try and perform skill murders that require precision, etc).

I don't know why wanting mutiple characters automatically equates to griefing and PKing - geezus.

Lets not exaggerate. But yeah lets debt this conversation, as I'm anticipating elitism with a slight chance of "we're-the-true-RPERS-screwtheCODfanboys" circlejerk.

[trashman]

I agree regarding the notion that you should probably prioritize differently. The money has to come from somewhere to pay for the servers and the developers as well as any initial investment that made the whole company 'go' in the first place. Where that money comes from is going to either be shifted onto a group of players or spread evenly throughout the playerbase.

Hmmmm ... sounds way too familiar from life in general ...

If there was a premium system I'd be okay with making it necessary for Realm and Kingdom leaders to be premium in order to to hold those positions. Then again, it sounds like it's going to be straight B2Play anyways.

Ahhh! I rather like this idea. I was advocating for some kinda of "premium" or some steady flow of income for the devs and server upkeep, but I thought it would deter alot of players. I also had a concern with the reward of what the premium would be so there is no P2W. The idea of only allowing premium member to hold large plots of land(Countries) is a great way to bring in money as the players who are willing to establish a country are already interested in the game enough to pay for it.

[Skudster13]

I would have to say that I wouldn't mind paying for each additional character as long as I can login with more than one at a time. If I can only use one at a time, than the only thing the additional characters are doing is taking up a few lines in a database and not actually causing the game server to do anything extra, which in my eyes would be the reason to pay for each additional one.

I do see how this would prevent needless PK-tards from running around, but it's at the cost of the people who are behaving themselves. The costs you have setup are reasonable though.

[finalreview]

I hope no one misread my posts as being PRO RP. I hate role playing and will never participate in it.

Multiple characters ruin more things then it improves. Please reply with the positives of multiple characters because I'm drawing a blank trying to list examples.

This thread is also dead, any left posting in it will not change their opinion.

[Demonic]

You truly think it's that black and white? Pvping vs rping is never that cut a dry. Some players like to play as a mixture of the two (I for one am one of those players).

Nah. Nothing is just black and white, we all know that. I was just trying to point out the fact, this discussion is probably pointless xD

[Thokan]

I hope no one misread my posts as being PRO RP. I hate role playing and will never participate in it.

Multiple characters ruin more things then it improves. Please reply with the positives of multiple characters because I'm drawing a blank trying to list examples.

This thread is also dead, any left posting in it will not change their opinion.

FREEEDOOOOOOOOOM

Multiple characters dont ruin shizzle. Im still astonished why people are so afraid of PKers. I'd happily welcome such easy targets.

PKing is an aspect of the game, people should not be limited from it. It is enough of a bend-in to have a economical deterrent in place.

Same goes for crafting and combat.

If I am specialized into a school but want to do some digging, I should be able to create a worthless latrine-digging alt.

If I am a crossbowman but feel the urge to play cavalry now and then in set battles, then I should be able to create an alt and level it up to become a cavalryman.

Just because you got a +/- system doesnt take away the always-found need for alt characters.

I think paying for alts is a stretch, but I am willing to give in to the reasoning. There is none however in restricting people to one character.

[finalreview]

I love playing red PKers. That doesn't mean I don't think there should be challenges to playing them. I've listed several problems with multi characters in my above posts.

[Proximo]

You guys keep talking about pkers like it relates to how many characters you can have somehow.

Pking will only effect clanless people. Prepare to get killed often when a clan war decs you. Majority of people will be in a clan and you gain alignment from praying so players will be able to afford a few murders when they come across that clanless harvester.

Making 1 character per account changes nothing about pking.

[Kossako]

You guys keep talking about pkers like it relates to how many characters you can have somehow.

Pking will only effect clanless people. Prepare to get killed often when a clan war decs you. Majority of people will be in a clan and you gain alignment from praying so players will be able to afford a few murders when they come across that clanless harvester.

Making 1 character per account changes nothing about pking.

I think the problem is that most people here haven't played games with full loot free PvP game.

Btw. Check alignment penalties. Killing someone would get you -10 alignment. That's 10 days of praying before you can kill another person without consequences.


If you could have free alt then what would prevent you and couple of your buddies to run around with level 1 fresh character and killing whoever you want?

Create character, equip with simple sword/bow and go on killing spree. If you would pack with more people you will be able to take down even fully equipped player. Even if you whole party will be wiped then all you would loose is some simple sword/bow.

So you get reward without any consequences. This would render whole alignment system pointless and would allow killing anyone you want where ever you want.

Other games with full loot PvP counter such problem with having one character (EVE, Darkfall) while having monthly sub to prevent large amount of people from making PK alts.

How it will be done in F2P game I have no idea. And even if you would have to pay once 10 Euro per character it's nothing. I can spend 30 euro a month on game (my personal limit) and I bet there are dozens of people without such a limit.

[Thokan]

You guys keep talking about pkers like it relates to how many characters you can have somehow.

Pking will only effect clanless people. Prepare to get killed often when a clan war decs you. Majority of people will be in a clan and you gain alignment from praying so players will be able to afford a few murders when they come across that clanless harvester.

Making 1 character per account changes nothing about pking.

I think the problem is that most people here haven't played games with full loot free PvP game.

Btw. Check alignment penalties. Killing someone would get you -10 alignment. That's 10 days of praying before you can kill another person without consequences.


If you could have free alt then what would prevent you and couple of your buddies to run around with level 1 fresh character and killing whoever you want?

Create character, equip with simple sword/bow and go on killing spree. If you would pack with more people you will be able to take down even fully equipped player. Even if you whole party will be wiped then all you would loose is some simple sword/bow.

So you get reward without any consequences. This would render whole alignment system pointless and would allow killing anyone you want where ever you want.

Other games with full loot PvP counter such problem with having one character (EVE, Darkfall) while having monthly sub to prevent large amount of people from making PK alts.

How it will be done in F2P game I have no idea. And even if you would have to pay once 10 Euro per character it's nothing. I can spend 30 euro a month on game (my personal limit) and I bet there are dozens of people without such a limit.

You can't get away from that a new, naked pk-alt is utterly useless. If you get killed by a swarm of them you only got yourself to blame.

Spamming easily-killed pk-alts just isnt worth the effort. Especially not if they cost 10£.

Playing alone in this game will have consequences. Play in a group and you should be all just fine.

[Dailato]

You guys keep talking about pkers like it relates to how many characters you can have somehow.

Pking will only effect clanless people. Prepare to get killed often when a clan war decs you. Majority of people will be in a clan and you gain alignment from praying so players will be able to afford a few murders when they come across that clanless harvester.

Making 1 character per account changes nothing about pking.

I think the problem is that most people here haven't played games with full loot free PvP game.

Btw. Check alignment penalties. Killing someone would get you -10 alignment. That's 10 days of praying before you can kill another person without consequences.


If you could have free alt then what would prevent you and couple of your buddies to run around with level 1 fresh character and killing whoever you want?

Create character, equip with simple sword/bow and go on killing spree. If you would pack with more people you will be able to take down even fully equipped player. Even if you whole party will be wiped then all you would loose is some simple sword/bow.

So you get reward without any consequences. This would render whole alignment system pointless and would allow killing anyone you want where ever you want.

Other games with full loot PvP counter such problem with having one character (EVE, Darkfall) while having monthly sub to prevent large amount of people from making PK alts.

How it will be done in F2P game I have no idea. And even if you would have to pay once 10 Euro per character it's nothing. I can spend 30 euro a month on game (my personal limit) and I bet there are dozens of people without such a limit.

Technically EvE lets you have 3 characters, but then EvE has high low and null sec with varying levels of protection, and the pvp-ers (outside of some suicidegankers) stay in low and null sec. Low-sec is mostly random ganker guilds, and null-sec is true politics and warfare guilds (fighting over territory).

LiF basically only has null sec. Some people in EvE want there to be no protection in high sec (outside of maybe a few newb areas). There reason for this is "everyone should be at risk" or "high sec has too much to gain from it to be protected".

What they fail to see is that about half the population of EvE rarely leaves High-sec, spending most of their time socializing, crafting, mining, w/ever, though they still need to keep an eye out for the suicide gankers.
By killing high-sec they would be killing off half the subscriber base, because alot of people that really like sandboxes, really don't like getting constantly randomly murdered, and having to consider every other ship in the universe their instant enemy. (and Null sec is still vastly more profitable than high sec)

To be frank, if the alignment system does not prevent the vast majority of the population from randomly ganking any and everyone they come across, this game will not just be "pvp-centric" it will be unloved by anyone not massively into pvp.
This will lead to completely ignoring the other aspects of the game such as city-building, terraforming, crafting, trading etc. as anything more than a means to acquiring gear and stats for murdering more people.

You can say "just join a guild lol u scrub", but guess what? The vast, vast majority of players (talking 90% here) will play a game and decide whether or not to keep playing it long before they go looking for a guild.

If their first few hours of the game (asuming they got out of newbie island) are: Get ganked, get ganked, get ganked, get ganked, how many do you think will even bother looking into the game?
Oh, but the people that gank them might offer them to join their guild you say? Well I'm sure the boo-ing and jeering at the new player being more interested in crafting or building than ganking everyone will be most encouraging.

Not only will the game be much more limited in effective scope with only pvp being a viable path, it will also be much smaller in audience (even more so than just from being a sandbox game).

I would prefer this game to be good and be succesful, thus, as outlined above, I prefer a very strong alignment system, either account bound, or with account limited to one character.

Yours truly -The Pope

[PrimusPalus]

My opinion from what I understand of the concept (put in place to prevent spammers and such)... I would like to see players pay a fee to leave the starting area but have it be account bound.

I know the income in that regard would be low for the developer... but I'd be irritated if I paid a bunch of money for this... a bunch of money for that... and still had to pay more money to bring a character to the mainland because I screwed up the way he looks, didn't like his name, or made the mistake of killing someone that pushed into that point of no return.

I have a problem with games that have player humanity levels but don't account for the hostile player. I explained it on the Breaking Point mod forums as this:

Here's the solution to this problem which I have YET to see in a game. I mentioned this for the War Z developers way back who disregarded it. You have the following types of people:

- Heroes
- Bandits
- Civilians
- Armed Hostiles

This is how it works:

Civilian: Unarmed person running around without a weapon in their hand. They haven't shot, armed themselves, or swung a melee weapon in the last 2 minutes. This does NOT take over the hero or bandit status but define how points are earned. Killing a civilian gives you negative points.

Armed Hostile: This is a civilian who is armed or has used a weapon in the last 2 minutes. This covers someone shooting at you, and leaves them tagged even if they try to drop the weapon. Killing an armed hostile does not give you negative points. It also does not give you positive points either.

Hero: This is a person who has consistently killed bandits or engaged X number of zombies. As a civilian (Armed Hostile), killing a hero gives you negative points. As a bandit, it gives you additional negative points towards your banditry.

Bandit: This is a person who has consistently killed all manner of people and/or engaged X amount of zombies. An Armed Hostile (Civilian) will gain considerable positive points where a hero will gain additional points for killing a bandit.


Basically... the "Armed Hostile" is a flag where if you are armed or in combat you're "fair game". This will make it so that if people see you and you threaten them (point a gun at them) you don't get dinged for it. I've never seen this done in any game I've played and I find that silly.

The problem is games never account for the act of self defense. Someone attacks you even hitting you, and you kill them... but the game accounts only for you killing them. So, naturally, just defending yourself you eventually become a bandit or bad guy by default in an open PvP world. It sucks. There are ways like above, to remedy that.

[Krevente]

The problem is games never account for the act of self defense. Someone attacks you even hitting you, and you kill them... but the game accounts only for you killing them.

Darkfall Online, Mortal Online and others account for this through a 'flagging' system. This genre of games that LiF is a part of have accounted for that for years and it will adopt some form of it. The problem is that people tend to abuse the system.

In MO you go 'grey' if you hit someone and then they can in turn kill you without penalty. It was the same way in Darkfall. The abuse comes from people jumping in front of you killing mobs flagging you as grey and then killing you.

No matter what system you hard code into the game there will be those who abuse it. It's a matter of finding a less abused system and shoring up the rest through GM involvement or player driven consequences.

[Aiyeris]

I understand this is an indie project and money is a necessity, however, my take on this fee is that it doesn't need to be so large. 20 Euros is a lot of money just to enter another world. I suggest to lower it because if a botter wants to join they definitely won't pay 20 euros, but they also probably wouldn't pay 10, or even 5 just to bother other players. I suggest that the fee be lower, but again, that's my take on this poll, and I'm sure my single vote won't make a difference.

[PabloX]

I was curious as to whether the game will allow players to have more than one character playing at once. I know in other MMOs, individuals like to have harvesting alts that they can play simultaneously as there main who may be roaming for PvP or doing more intensive activity.

In regards to pricing, I have been used to subscription based models for my MMO experiences, which were typically $12-15/month. This adds up to far more than what is being presented my LiF currently, which I feel is fair. In other games if you want another character, you have to buy the entire client at full retail price and sign up a subscription too, heavy investment needed. This sounds a lot cheaper than what past models have sought out.

[Cloud]

I was curious as to whether the game will allow players to have more than one character playing at once. I know in other MMOs, individuals like to have harvesting alts that they can play simultaneously as there main who may be roaming for PvP or doing more intensive activity.

In regards to pricing, I have been used to subscription based models for my MMO experiences, which were typically $12-15/month. This adds up to far more than what is being presented my LiF currently, which I feel is fair. In other games if you want another character, you have to buy the entire client at full retail price and sign up a subscription too, heavy investment needed. This sounds a lot cheaper than what past models have sought out.

I don't really believe this game should be a monthly subscription, but I don't mind having a 'starter' island.
If you want to leave the starter island with a new character you pay 10euros.

[PabloX]

But will you be able to play your second character at the same time as your first character?

[Cloud]

But will you be able to play your second character at the same time as your first character?

Hopefully not.

[Bobik]

But will you be able to play your second character at the same time as your first character?

Hopefully not.

Not.

[Cloud]

But will you be able to play your second character at the same time as your first character?

Hopefully not.

Not.

Thank you!

[Marck]

I think paying for additional slots for creating new characters is not a problem, and to transfer characters between server must be charged to be a limitation to avoid market (in-game) interests.

[PrimusPalus]

I think paying for additional slots for creating new characters is not a problem, and to transfer characters between server must be charged to be a limitation to avoid market (in-game) interests.

I'm ok with this if we're talking about one server. But if the game exploded and found itself with a million players... I imagine there will be multiple servers. I may want to be on a different one, or someone in my house may want their own character.

It would be ridiculous to pay for EACH character to advance. I don't recall a single game where this happened. But I know a ton like Lotro for example, that you pay to unlock access for the account.

Planetside 2 you pay on each individual character for goods like certain weapons and such (they are not account bound). For goods I'm ok with that thought process. Access... not so much.

I'd much rather pay $50 for a retail copy of the game, and have my account bound than to pay $10 each for 5 characters. That's annoying.

I say... limit the number of characters per server. But pay a single fee to allow all characters on that account (regardless of server) to step out of the starting area. Charge for each character slot too for all I care (I usually only have one anyway). But not the access.