Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Airco]

agreed , cant burn the house down if u dont know if its gone be made of wood or metal

[Hawkyr]

Meh, it's similiar systems used in predecessors Although IMO, it's a bit too dumbed down in the wrong way.

My issue with the simple shrinking of the claim is that groups that have managed to effectively layer up walls around the outter edge of their claim is at a disadvantage if they lose just once, nor would it accurately reflect losing influence over that land... You have it walled in, lest you sieged their land there shouldn't be any diminishing influence.

My suggestion would be to allow for 3 different types of battles.

Always a 24hr declaration to start them.


1. An honor battle between guilds/alliances to settle claim or monetary disputes

This would be used by alliances and guilds that have touching borders or are rivals. Instances battles in the open field. Would allow the victors claim to spread into the losers claim for 24 hours or until it hits a stone wall. Monetary would have to be held within reason but a scan of a guilds trade post should hold a good idea of claim net worth and what would be a reasonable stake. No alignment or skill loss for participating in honor battles. It's just a way to settling minor matters te feudal way.

2. A siege raid between guild and alliances

an attacker alliance would pay some item/alignment loss to declare a siege on your land and would be able to take 10-20% net value of your claims storage is victorious. Defenders can take 5-10% of the attackers worth and would gain alignment boost on victory for successfully defending their claim. No alignment loss during battle, but stats can be.

Limited to being sieged no more than once a week by any group. No limits to ability to siege others.

3. No quarter warfare between guilds and alliances

The initiator would pay a fee/alignment loss to start the war.( help prevent trolling of guilds just staying in war to stop a real war)

A grand series of open/ siege battles played over a period of time. The size of the series would be related to the size of the monument.
I would say best of 3-5 for lower tiers. Best of 7 for greater and best of 9 for the glorious.

Now when I say best of a series I refer to dividing a battle to a given day. A battle would last 2-4 hours(depending on consenting groups) and would be comprised of a series of skirmishes. Side who wins the most skirmishes during however many are played in 2-4 hours wins the battle for the day. A guild cannot be forced to fight more than 3 battles a week, can fight more than 3 if both sides agree, and more than 1 battle a day if both sides agree. If you lose too many battles in a row, you will end up with a siege battle.

*I.e. 2 battles lost would result in the 3rd being a instanced siege battle on your land. Losing a siege battle would give victors bonus spoils from your claim.

*The potential final battle of the series will always be a siege on the losing sides claim.

*Wars can end in a truce of the attacker fails to win a decisive final battle

*War timer against both guilds is 1 week for a breather. Can still be Raided with a siege or honor battled by other guilds. A guild can chose to forgo protection of the war timer.

*a guild can only be at war against 1 alliance
* an alliance can honor battle another to gain the right to war another alliance ( another way to allow more powerful guilds to have the right away and prevent guilds from hiding behind fake wars that aren't going anywhere).

The victor of the war has option to demand tribute, force them to become a child guild which they may tax all trades and items( either option restores some lost alignment for starting war or gives defenders alignment boost) or destroy their monument and sack their town.

Child guilds would become a vassal state of the victor. A child guild could rebel after a week and must win a 3 series open field battle war.



Sure it's a bit complicated and lengthy but it should play out more fluidly

[Azzerhoden]

My issue with the simple shrinking of the claim is that groups that have managed to effectively layer up walls around the outter edge of their claim is at a disadvantage if they lose just once, nor would it accurately reflect losing influence over that land... You have it walled in, lest you sieged their land there shouldn't be any diminishing influence.

Not true - the walls don't disappear. They are still there. You can still fight from them.

Further, remember that the number of players in an instanced battle is limited. Perhaps it's 30, or 50, or 100. The intent is to prevent massive zergs from using the battle as an excuse to get some free loot.

Limiting the number of players is exactly the right way to go. Too many games have battles decided by numbers alone (or server crashes). Lets make the battles fun and skill based.

[RoboSenshi]

Wow all this pent up hatred. I was previously convinced that assassin bands and guilds would be useless in MMO. I've completely changed my mind. It seems people would be perfectly willing to pay some one to ride across the vast map and kill a dude, just to make his life a living hell. These badmins (love the name btw) better be looking over their shoulder. Hell I might just start a dedicated assassin guild myslef lol

[Unbeaten]

My issue with the simple shrinking of the claim is that groups that have managed to effectively layer up walls around the outter edge of their claim is at a disadvantage if they lose just once, nor would it accurately reflect losing influence over that land... You have it walled in, lest you sieged their land there shouldn't be any diminishing influence.

Not true - the walls don't disappear. They are still there. You can still fight from them.

Further, remember that the number of players in an instanced battle is limited. Perhaps it's 30, or 50, or 100. The intent is to prevent massive zergs from using the battle as an excuse to get some free loot.

Limiting the number of players is exactly the right way to go. Too many games have battles decided by numbers alone (or server crashes). Lets make the battles fun and skill based.

Couldn't disagree more. This is how you make politics not matter, trolling, merging, multiplying, whining, children with 50 people hold a piece of land they should never be able to. Who never respected anyone and by all rights should be sieged off the map. This is a handicap for players like them not anyone else. Its unrealistic its half baked and I pray this isn't it, instances were never part of the early development and instance anything is shit.

[Airco]

its not a easy task, lets first see what dev came up whit, test it out , than give feedback

want it realistic?
wel clan's used to get wiped out becouse other clan's united and overwhelmd the defending clan.
extermination is something humanity is pretty darn good at

is it fun?
at startyes plenty of enemys bhut what wil u do at the end , 2 massive clan's?
heck if that would be the result than u can stick to lif:yo whit 64player limit going 32v32 , wil be the same madness (pretty sure official server have enoph calculating power to handle this, wel i hope so if not )

[Unbeaten]

This is beginning to feel like Tera and instanced sieging, so much for open world. So much for the dream I have dreamed for two years of mid siege your allies ride down like the damn riders of rohan. Already plenty of games with instances mini-game siege. This was suppose to be different the open world measure, where politics matter. Your damn right if your a shit ruler you would be zerged off the map by an alliance that's how it has and should be.

[Unbeaten]

This is beginning to feel like Tera and instanced sieging, so much for open world. So much for the dream I have dreamed for two years of mid siege your allies ride down like the damn riders of rohan. Already plenty of games with instances mini-game siege. This was suppose to be different the open world measure, where politics matter. Your damn right if your a shit ruler you would be zerged off the map by an alliance that's how it has and should be.

I would rather there be some kind of reward if these battles must happen that did not affect the UNRELATED city. Some magical power weakens your city over a field battle, like what? Maybe some kind of stat boost or decrease for Morale, now that, THAT makes since.

[Ishamael]

You guys are getting me more excited for the MMO

I'm going to start raging at the devs soon about timelines and such (not really)

[Azzerhoden]

Couldn't disagree more. This is how you make politics not matter, trolling, merging, multiplying, whining, children with 50 people hold a piece of land they should never be able to. Who never respected anyone and by all rights should be sieged off the map. This is a handicap for players like them not anyone else. Its unrealistic its half baked and I pray this isn't it, instances were never part of the early development and instance anything is shit.

Why should they not be able to hold onto the land? Your thinking is much too limited.

If I was a member of a zerg guild, and I wanted to beat a player with 50 highly skilled players, then I would plan a long, drawn out campaign where they are unable to mine, raise crops, or any other involved activity. I would lay siege to them 24 x 7, knowing that occasionally I may lose a fight, but for the majority of the time I would make their play time as non-fun as possible, so when an instanced battle is launched no one shows up to fight.

Now, if you mean being able to show up with some massive zerg during some artificial 'vulnerability' window to overwhelm the defenders and crash the server, then too bad, soooo sad. That game play has been done to death and those games are no longer around.

[Azzerhoden]

Wow all this pent up hatred. I was previously convinced that assassin bands and guilds would be useless in MMO. I've completely changed my mind. It seems people would be perfectly willing to pay some one to ride across the vast map and kill a dude, just to make his life a living hell. These badmins (love the name btw) better be looking over their shoulder. Hell I might just start a dedicated assassin guild myslef lol

Mercenary guilds are also a very viable option.

[Hawkyr]

My issue with the simple shrinking of the claim is that groups that have managed to effectively layer up walls around the outter edge of their claim is at a disadvantage if they lose just once, nor would it accurately reflect losing influence over that land... You have it walled in, lest you sieged their land there shouldn't be any diminishing influence.

Not true - the walls don't disappear. They are still there. You can still fight from them.

Further, remember that the number of players in an instanced battle is limited. Perhaps it's 30, or 50, or 100. The intent is to prevent massive zergs from using the battle as an excuse to get some free loot.

Limiting the number of players is exactly the right way to go. Too many games have battles decided by numbers alone (or server crashes). Lets make the battles fun and skill based.

Walls may still be there, but they won't be in your claim lol. That was my point. I gave options so you don't need to start total war with them, and a better option at settling disputes. As well as not shrinking their land from ALL SIDES and only the side you actually have conflict with.



and prevent massive zerg? so what? why can't numbers be a thing. Politics and fielding people is a skill as well. Friends is just another way of power.

This system has been done and tried and it works better not being dumbed down to this extent. Battles should take place in the field with whatever power you can muster, but should be limited to a certain area just so that there is actual confrontation.

Why can't we have a 200 vs 200 battle? or 300 vs 300? why limit it? There is no "zerg rush" if its a preordained time. Both sides have the necessary time to prepare and field their the optimal power they can.

[Azzerhoden]

My issue with the simple shrinking of the claim is that groups that have managed to effectively layer up walls around the outter edge of their claim is at a disadvantage if they lose just once, nor would it accurately reflect losing influence over that land... You have it walled in, lest you sieged their land there shouldn't be any diminishing influence.

Not true - the walls don't disappear. They are still there. You can still fight from them.

Further, remember that the number of players in an instanced battle is limited. Perhaps it's 30, or 50, or 100. The intent is to prevent massive zergs from using the battle as an excuse to get some free loot.

Limiting the number of players is exactly the right way to go. Too many games have battles decided by numbers alone (or server crashes). Lets make the battles fun and skill based.

Walls may still be there, but they won't be in your claim lol. That was my point. I gave options so you don't need to start total war with them, and a better option at settling disputes. As well as not shrinking their land from ALL SIDES and only the side you actually have conflict with.



and prevent massive zerg? so what? why can't numbers be a thing. Politics and fielding people is a skill as well. Friends is just another way of power.

This system has been done and tried and it works better not being dumbed down to this extent. Battles should take place in the field with whatever power you can muster, but should be limited to a certain area just so that there is actual confrontation.

Why can't we have a 200 vs 200 battle? or 300 vs 300? why limit it? There is no "zerg rush" if its a preordained time. Both sides have the necessary time to prepare and field their the optimal power they can.

LOL - you can still USE them. There is no bonus for defending from a wall on claimed land.

Zerg guilds can still harass opponents and effectively shut them down.

This biggest advantage to this system is the server stability. No one has fun fighting in massive lag and dealing with server crashes.

[Dragmar]

Why can't we have a 200 vs 200 battle? or 300 vs 300? why limit it? There is no "zerg rush" if its a preordained time. Both sides have the necessary time to prepare and field their the optimal power they can.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do remember Bobik saying that the instanced battles will be 2-300 a side.

So the instances is not done to limit the battle to the 20vs20 we see in YO. It is done so that they can make sure that a massive battle with hundreds of players on each side will run smoothly. They stick us into a instanced off area with only terrain, no crops, no buildings, non of that shit that causes extra lag.

[Sharana]

Why can't we have a 200 vs 200 battle? or 300 vs 300? why limit it? There is no "zerg rush" if its a preordained time. Both sides have the necessary time to prepare and field their the optimal power they can.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do remember Bobik saying that the instanced battles will be 2-300 a side.

So the instances is not done to limit the battle to the 20vs20 we see in YO. It is done so that they can make sure that a massive battle with hundreds of players on each side will run smoothly. They stick us into a instanced off area with only terrain, no crops, no buildings, non of that shit that causes extra lag.

From what I saw the instanced battles will be pretty limited, because when 2 or 3 guilds attack simultaneously the defender will have to split into 2-3 teams and fight the 2-3 instanced battles at the same time. But when the monument reaches level 1 (after several losses) the actual siege will take part on the MMO map ana even random person passing by can take part of it, so you can bring 1 000 players there and zerg if you want. That siege is also the only way to loot the warehouses like in JH.

[Dragmar]

Why can't we have a 200 vs 200 battle? or 300 vs 300? why limit it? There is no "zerg rush" if its a preordained time. Both sides have the necessary time to prepare and field their the optimal power they can.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do remember Bobik saying that the instanced battles will be 2-300 a side.

So the instances is not done to limit the battle to the 20vs20 we see in YO. It is done so that they can make sure that a massive battle with hundreds of players on each side will run smoothly. They stick us into a instanced off area with only terrain, no crops, no buildings, non of that shit that causes extra lag.

From what I saw the instanced battles will be pretty limited, because when 2 or 3 guilds attack simultaneously the defender will have to split into 2-3 teams and fight the 2-3 instanced battles at the same time. But when the monument reaches level 1 (after several losses) the actual siege will take part on the MMO map ana even random person passing by can take part of it, so you can bring 1 000 players there and zerg if you want. That siege is also the only way to loot the warehouses like in JH.

That is indeed how it is planed.

So in theory you can stil be "zerged" down by large alliances, they just have to do it with several battles at the same time rather then one large "zergfest"

[RoboSenshi]

Wow all this pent up hatred. I was previously convinced that assassin bands and guilds would be useless in MMO. I've completely changed my mind. It seems people would be perfectly willing to pay some one to ride across the vast map and kill a dude, just to make his life a living hell. These badmins (love the name btw) better be looking over their shoulder. Hell I might just start a dedicated assassin guild myslef lol

Mercenary guilds are also a very viable option.

Yea I've always thought so as well. Especially since guild wars are instanced. If for some reason you have very little men and the battle is about to start, you can hire a merc guild to make up the numbers.

I see this happening a lot actually.

[Azzerhoden]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do remember Bobik saying that the instanced battles will be 2-300 a side.

So the instances is not done to limit the battle to the 20vs20 we see in YO. It is done so that they can make sure that a massive battle with hundreds of players on each side will run smoothly. They stick us into a instanced off area with only terrain, no crops, no buildings, non of that shit that causes extra lag.

From what I saw the instanced battles will be pretty limited, because when 2 or 3 guilds attack simultaneously the defender will have to split into 2-3 teams and fight the 2-3 instanced battles at the same time. But when the monument reaches level 1 (after several losses) the actual siege will take part on the MMO map ana even random person passing by can take part of it, so you can bring 1 000 players there and zerg if you want. That siege is also the only way to loot the warehouses like in JH.

Exactly. Though I thought the defender gets to choose the times off the battles. Even if it was once a day though, eventually it will get tiring and the defender will wear down.

Then again, that's where mercs come in, as well as allies who attack back at those 2 -3 guilds to put them on the defensive.

[Hawkyr]

Not true - the walls don't disappear. They are still there. You can still fight from them.

Further, remember that the number of players in an instanced battle is limited. Perhaps it's 30, or 50, or 100. The intent is to prevent massive zergs from using the battle as an excuse to get some free loot.

Limiting the number of players is exactly the right way to go. Too many games have battles decided by numbers alone (or server crashes). Lets make the battles fun and skill based.

Walls may still be there, but they won't be in your claim lol. That was my point. I gave options so you don't need to start total war with them, and a better option at settling disputes. As well as not shrinking their land from ALL SIDES and only the side you actually have conflict with.



and prevent massive zerg? so what? why can't numbers be a thing. Politics and fielding people is a skill as well. Friends is just another way of power.

This system has been done and tried and it works better not being dumbed down to this extent. Battles should take place in the field with whatever power you can muster, but should be limited to a certain area just so that there is actual confrontation.

Why can't we have a 200 vs 200 battle? or 300 vs 300? why limit it? There is no "zerg rush" if its a preordained time. Both sides have the necessary time to prepare and field their the optimal power they can.

LOL - you can still USE them. There is no bonus for defending from a wall on claimed land.

Zerg guilds can still harass opponents and effectively shut them down.

This biggest advantage to this system is the server stability. No one has fun fighting in massive lag and dealing with server crashes.

No. you don't understand. if your claim no longer covers your walls then they can be flatten'd into the ground before the siege as your claim will no longer prevent the damage. Anything not in your claim will be flatten'd. The only thing you can do is then shrink the effective size of your walls resulting in relatively wasted space outside your walls.

Server stability I can agree on and I even put out for the battles to be instanced. The battles can just be split into multiple fights and you can get larger wars so that you can actually field 500 vs 500 just split into smaller segments.simultaneously, so zerging would still be a thing this way. No reason to hide behind server stability now?

[Azzerhoden]

No. you don't understand. if your claim no longer covers your walls then they can be flatten'd into the ground before the siege as your claim will no longer prevent the damage. Anything not in your claim will be flatten'd. The only thing you can do is then shrink the effective size of your walls resulting in relatively wasted space outside your walls.

I do understand. These objects are always vulnerable. http://lifeisfeudal.gamepedia.com/Claim

Realm Claim

• 0 tiles with a Tier 1 guild Monument
• Approx. 2,500 tiles total area (Town claim area is excluded): Circular areas with a diameter of 90 tiles (45 tile radius) from Tier 2 guild Fine Monument
• Approx. 7,500 tiles total area (Town claim area is excluded): Circular areas with a diameter of 120 tiles (60 tile radius) from Tier 3 guild Great Monument
• Approx. 18,850 tiles total area (Town claim area is excluded): Circular areas with a diameter of 170 tiles (85 tile radius) from Tier 4 guild Glorious Monument
• A plot of land that is the property of a guild and its leader: There is NO protection for movable and unmovable objects on that type of claim and no access rights can be set. The only advantage with these types of claims is that guild leaders can grant and revoke rights for personal claims to any player on that territory - in other words, a guild leader can decide who can reside on these lands and who can not.
• Trespassing on a realm claim can not be punished with an alignment loss, but still will turn a trespasser into a criminal.

[Hawkyr]

No. you don't understand. if your claim no longer covers your walls then they can be flatten'd into the ground before the siege as your claim will no longer prevent the damage. Anything not in your claim will be flatten'd. The only thing you can do is then shrink the effective size of your walls resulting in relatively wasted space outside your walls.

I do understand. These objects are always vulnerable. http://lifeisfeudal.gamepedia.com/Claim

Realm Claim

• 0 tiles with a Tier 1 guild Monument
• Approx. 2,500 tiles total area (Town claim area is excluded): Circular areas with a diameter of 90 tiles (45 tile radius) from Tier 2 guild Fine Monument
• Approx. 7,500 tiles total area (Town claim area is excluded): Circular areas with a diameter of 120 tiles (60 tile radius) from Tier 3 guild Great Monument
• Approx. 18,850 tiles total area (Town claim area is excluded): Circular areas with a diameter of 170 tiles (85 tile radius) from Tier 4 guild Glorious Monument
• A plot of land that is the property of a guild and its leader: There is NO protection for movable and unmovable objects on that type of claim and no access rights can be set. The only advantage with these types of claims is that guild leaders can grant and revoke rights for personal claims to any player on that territory - in other words, a guild leader can decide who can reside on these lands and who can not.
• Trespassing on a realm claim can not be punished with an alignment loss, but still will turn a trespasser into a criminal.

Why don't you actually read the page you link instead spewing outdated information? There's an update from Bobik himself on a new system saying that the claim system will more or less be exactly like LiF:YO with the addition of personal claims on the exact same page...

No realm claims, No town claims, just the guild claim/personal claims. and proper utilization of a personal claims would lead to invulnerable walls in the old system as well ? 80 people in a single guild could effectively cover an entire tier 4 monument with personal claims anyways.

Also this doesn't stop the fact when the claim shrinks and another claims maps over your walls that they can just use authority to destroy your walls instead of actually using something like trebuchets. Again making those walls relatively useless.

[Azzerhoden]

Why don't you actually read the page you link instead spewing outdated information? Bobik himself stated that the claim system will more or less be exactly like LiF:YO with the addition of personal claims.

No realm claims, No town claims, just the guild claim/personal claims. and proper utilization of a personal claims would lead to invunerable walls in the old system as well ?

Also this doesn't stop the fact when the claim shrinks and another claims maps over your walls that they can just use authority to destroy your walls. Again back to being forced into leaving wasted space.

Arguing about conversations that have taken place through multiple iterations of players is a waste of time. Players are claiming all kinds of things. Including a recent rumor that there will be forced separation of servers by IP address (which was officially debunked).

Everything I have stated have come from published interviews with Bobik, or the Wiki. So until I see something from the "bears mouth" I am going with written, official sources.

Further, there seems to be this prevailing attitude that players will be "safe" behind walls. Nothing could be further from the truth. The original point of this thread was around how players used to having GMs protect them from unwanted conflict where going to be in for a shock when it comes time to play the MMO.

Players who try to hide behind game mechanics always lose - always. I'm looking forward to proving that axiom once again.

[Hawkyr]

Arguing about conversations that have taken place through multiple iterations of players is a waste of time. Players are claiming all kinds of things. Including a recent rumor that there will be forced separation of servers by IP address (which was officially debunked).

Everything I have stated have come from published interviews with Bobik, or the Wiki. So until I see something from the "bears mouth" I am going with written, official sources.

Further, there seems to be this prevailing attitude that players will be "safe" behind walls. Nothing could be further from the truth. The original point of this thread was around how players used to having GMs protect them from unwanted conflict where going to be in for a shock when it comes time to play the MMO.

Players who try to hide behind game mechanics always lose - always. I'm looking forward to proving that axiom once again.

I used the same page as a source and my point is proved using the same exact url? Your saying your own sources aren't valid?

Either system results in walls being invulnerable on a guild/personal claim pre war. Personal claims are large enough that a single guild can fill their entire claim with them.

Either system Pushing your claim onto their claim and using authority to delete their walls or using the system to have invincible walls outside of a war is possible.

That is using the game mechanics to your advantage. And there is no such axiom, I've done it and plenty others win using all available stratageys to win.

You sound childish defending what is potentially unintended side effects that have been over looked and asserting just because you were a bit slighted in the past that everything will go your way? You cry about corrupt GMs but you also cry against a legit strat of using More people to win? Why hide behind game mechanics bro? Can't handle it? Sounds hypocritical.

Either way, I don't want epic sieges ruined by some kid using authority to just delete walls. Sounds pretty lame and anti-climatic. Nor would I like children hiding behind unintended game mechanics.

[Stormsblade]

I'll post images of my conversation with Bobik about the claim system in the MMO to dispel any need for you guys to doubt the authenticity and fight about it. Home in an hour.

[Unbeaten]

Couldn't disagree more. This is how you make politics not matter, trolling, merging, multiplying, whining, children with 50 people hold a piece of land they should never be able to. Who never respected anyone and by all rights should be sieged off the map. This is a handicap for players like them not anyone else. Its unrealistic its half baked and I pray this isn't it, instances were never part of the early development and instance anything is shit.

Why should they not be able to hold onto the land? Your thinking is much too limited.

If I was a member of a zerg guild, and I wanted to beat a player with 50 highly skilled players, then I would plan a long, drawn out campaign where they are unable to mine, raise crops, or any other involved activity. I would lay siege to them 24 x 7, knowing that occasionally I may lose a fight, but for the majority of the time I would make their play time as non-fun as possible, so when an instanced battle is launched no one shows up to fight.

Now, if you mean being able to show up with some massive zerg during some artificial 'vulnerability' window to overwhelm the defenders and crash the server, then too bad, soooo sad. That game play has been done to death and those games are no longer around.

Lol just like wessex mentality, mainly being the trolls if I recall from mortal who was then run off the game. Relying on a artificial battle to hold your hand at the level of douche bags you could meagerly manage to follow your terrible lead? Yeah that sounds more like it. Its not about massive zergs, its about SKILL not Zerg. instances battles of equal odds means little to guilds who thrive on uneven combat. We will never hold a guild over 100 people, we value skill and I want no NEEED you to bring 300. The 100 vs 300 wins are the exact thing you will be missing out on with your Artifical rules / Hand holding from the developers. If it crashes a server when a 2001 Shadowbane server held 2000 player battles with CN without crashing then its a game flaw, and its being dumbed down due to poor resource management.

Bottom line, this system weakens politics, removes realism, removes skill, brings magical elements into the game, provides rules and breaks sandbox mentality. Provides less field battles, as with all those predecessors most that lasted ten+ years some still thriving your allies should be cutting off the likely march route of the enemies thought or spied on that would assist your enemy. Not all of these battles will be Helmsdeep level bunkering. Much of it should and can happen in the battlefield but should happen naturally, the haste to battle, the adrenaline of the march, the unexpected cresting of a hill to see 150 enemies in route. What's next we all sit in our walls and queue for instanced battles, my how sandbox like.

[Stormsblade]

Note, this represents candid conversation by Bobik addressing a planned set of unimplemented features in the game. As always, game design is fluid. The Developers are attempting to make the best game they can, and need to prioritize how much time and manhours need be invested into specific features. For that reason, development designs change. I guarantee you Bobik cares just as much (or more) as you do about Life is Feudal being as good of a game as possible.

The following is the conversation:
http://puu.sh/oWRHE/b072c54b2a.png
http://puu.sh/oWROj/7a016d5d0b.png
http://puu.sh/oWRPB/8495010d09.png
http://puu.sh/oWRRg/114287b6c5.png

[Azzerhoden]

Note, this represents candid conversation by Bobik addressing a planned set of unimplemented features in the game. As always, game design is fluid. The Developers are attempting to make the best game they can, and need to prioritize how much time and manhours need be invested into specific features. For that reason, development designs change. I guarantee you Bobik cares just as much (or more) as you do about Life is Feudal being as good of a game as possible.

The following is the conversation:
http://puu.sh/oWRHE/b072c54b2a.png
http://puu.sh/oWROj/7a016d5d0b.png
http://puu.sh/oWRPB/8495010d09.png
http://puu.sh/oWRRg/114287b6c5.png

Thanks Storm.

The gist of what I said though remains the same. Objects are still vulnerable when a guild is at war with you (which was covered back in the old FAQ, regardless of whether on the claim or off. It will be interesting to see the mechanics of personal claims that had formerly been on the guild claim and vulnerable to raiding, but no longer are because the guild claim has shrunk.

Regardless, the fact remains that the only real safety is in actively patrolling/protecting your claimed lands. Attempts to really on property through game mechanics will fail.

[Azzerhoden]

Lol just like wessex mentality, mainly being the trolls if I recall from mortal who was then run off the game. Relying on a artificial battle to hold your hand at the level of douche bags you could meagerly manage to follow your terrible lead? Yeah that sounds more like it. Its not about massive zergs, its about SKILL not Zerg. instances battles of equal odds means little to guilds who thrive on uneven combat. We will never hold a guild over 100 people, we value skill and I want no NEEED you to bring 300. The 100 vs 300 wins are the exact thing you will be missing out on with your Artifical rules / Hand holding from the developers. If it crashes a server when a 2001 Shadowbane server held 2000 player battles with CN without crashing then its a game flaw, and its being dumbed down due to poor resource management.

Bottom line, this system weakens politics, removes realism, removes skill, brings magical elements into the game, provides rules and breaks sandbox mentality. Provides less field battles, as with all those predecessors most that lasted ten+ years some still thriving your allies should be cutting off the likely march route of the enemies thought or spied on that would assist your enemy. Not all of these battles will be Helmsdeep level bunkering. Much of it should and can happen in the battlefield but should happen naturally, the haste to battle, the adrenaline of the march, the unexpected cresting of a hill to see 150 enemies in route. What's next we all sit in our walls and queue for instanced battles, my how sandbox like.

<YAWN>

Not sure what the point was that you were trying to make, as I stopped reading after your poor attempt at an insult.

I suppose I could spend some time giving deep thought to you writings and then working on a rebuttal, but after visiting your facebook page and your web page, I'm still not sure who you are. Ergo - you are not worth any more of my time.

[Hawkyr]

Thanks Storm.

The gist of what I said though remains the same. Objects are still vulnerable when a guild is at war with you (which was covered back in the old FAQ, regardless of whether on the claim or off. It will be interesting to see the mechanics of personal claims that had formerly been on the guild claim and vulnerable to raiding, but no longer are because the guild claim has shrunk.

Regardless, the fact remains that the only real safety is in actively patrolling/protecting your claimed lands. Attempts to really on property through game mechanics will fail.

lol, nothing of relevance was linked and did not address my point about authority deleting walls or what will be essentially waste space.

If safety is dependent on 24/7 vigilance is required(even just prolonged vigilance), I'm will certainly never install. I don't have the time to bother creating/joining a global guild to field players in all timezones. I have a life/job and I rather the action to actually be contained to a reasonable time and not wee hours. Played enough games like that to know that even if they are kinda fun its not worth bothering.

1. Its not fun even when you dominate
2. It leads to relatively boring fights if not forced to fight head to head.

Honestly mate you need to make up your mind about zerg, no zerg. Because you said no zerg, yet your supporting policy that would clearly favor zerg.

[Ubaciosamse]

This post actualy went away from its subject long ago so its a massive "opinion dump fest"