Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Protunia]

If this is to truly be a sandbox game, as stated before, solo players should have the option to simply defend their claim against the guild that wants to evict them.

That is the only real option if you do not want to work anything out with other people with diplomacy....

It does not mean you get to keep your claim endlessly.

You have the ability to form groups and hire others to take down kingdoms if you wish.

LiF is land control through Kingdoms....that is a Major part of the game.

I mean technically we could say that no land should be offered near the central city for rent and complete protection. What that simulates is the same thing that can happen with different Kingdoms within the game, but the agreement is permanent and not subject to changes for political reasons.

[Cian]

I don't think YOU understand. You can want it to be any kind of game you think it should be. Everyone loves a good fairytale.

Now lets talk REALITY. The reality is these mechanics WILL be used for griefing. If you don't lay down the lay on how they can and can't be used the game will suffer the consequences. You will lose the moderate player base and be left with a population of about 200 hard cores.

Do you want LIF to have a population comparable to wurm? I don't. I want LIF to be successful.

Sandbox is fine and dandy. There still needs to be rules and laws that protect the weaker players from outright abuse of mechanics from the guild's that exist solely to ruin the fun of others only because they can.

There must be a mechanism in place to balance the scales and prevent claims from becoming a tool for grief. All you need to do is play Haven and Hearth, Salem, or Rust to understand the depths of depravity that unrestricted players can sink to.

[Serith78]

I fully agree that realms should be able to evict individual players on their claim without paying an inflated "fee" or the like which doesn't make any logical sense. Monuments should be expensive enough to prevent guilds from dropping one just to boot a couple of players off individual plots.

Land conflict and realms/kingdoms are a central part of the game. If players want to put individual claims outside of the "safe" areas then they should be prepared to make arrangements with a kingdom or join a guild for protection. The whole territory system seems like a farce if players can just "opt out" of danger with their individual claims.

There's already the safe area, players can rent there if they don't want to risk losing territory. The rest of the game should be left open for real territory conquest and warfare. Holding a good area SHOULD involve risk of loss and conflict, it doesn't matter how "strong" or "weak" or "non-combatant" the players in question are.

Edit: Incidentally, if guilds had to "compensate" individual claim holders within their realm to evict them then a great strategy for holding the best areas is getting a group together and covering it with individual claims. Make the area too expensive compensation claim wise for any other group to try and conquer.

[Cian]

Every game developer I've ever seen an interview from has almost universally agreed that cost has never been an effective factor in preventing certain player behaviors.

Things that typically break a sandbox involve abuse of mechanics and off peak asset destruction. If you can limit those two issues then LIF may be more successful than it's predecessors.

I would consider using realm drops just to get rid of player claims as an abusable mechanic. There isn't anything to stop people from dropping a realm claim to evict a bunch of people and then doing it again a day later in another area until people get tired of losing personal claims and quit.

[Prion]

I firmly think that it's better if a bunch of people can show up and shove you off unless you can defeat them/destroy their monument. Whats the point of building up stuff just on your own? Also if guilds cant do this, how can they conquer areas with personal claims that don't have a guild? Say you put your claim on a source of Iron ore, and don't join a guild. If other players want to take that by force, and you can't overtake personal claims with guilds, there is no way for them to conquer that territory, and isn't it in the spirit of the game that you take what you can by force?

[Sting5]

Well one thing we know that claim monument can't be destroyed. So defending Your personal claim by removing it is out of discussion. While the game is only at early stages and there are many possibilities of development, I would suggest not to harshly condemn guild land claims, because first of all they are expensive to build, and nobody would really start building monument for one guy to be thrown away just for trolling. Maybe we should wait and see if this will be abused a lot, then we can decide.
Also even if I hate the fact that my personal claim can be stolen by a guild, these mechanics represent feudal ages - guild comes and claims the land, and You can either go with them, or against them. So this encourages politics and community.

[Protunia]

The entire monument system is explained.....

They are going to have to have 10 players just to form a town with the Tier 1 monument and that does not cover anything else but the town.

Then they are going to have to continue upgrading and building this monument to Tier 2 to have realm lands.

The Realm Lands...are the lands they can control whether a personal claim is allowed.

They can also be defeated and the monument can be reduced from Tier 2 back to Tier 1 and they lose these Realm Lands.

So it is not some simple project to start with and then continue until these 10 players have Realm Lands which can all be lost back to a Plain Town.

I suppose it might be best for Personal Claim Players to group together and make a town then they would not have to worry about losing their land at all to a Realm.

Town Claim

Approx. 3,850 cells wide. Circular areas within a radius of 70 meters from a guild monument

A plot of land that is the property of a guild and its leader. All movable and unmovable objects within that type of claim are protected from any damage and can only be used by players that have received access rights from the guild leader.

In the event of a war, objects within that claim cannot be used or damaged, unless it is during an active stage of an on-going siege.

Trespassing on a town claim cannot be punished with an alignment loss, but still will turn a trespasser into a criminal.

[Archaegeo]

Protunia,

A couple of us discussed this further and we would even be ok if we could attack the monument as its being built to reduce its progress or destroy it. That way we have a chance to defend our homes.

Right now 5 skilled players could wipe the floor of 10 unskilled, yet the 10 unskilled could just make a monument when the 5 aren't online and there is nothing the 5 can do about it, or even 9 player vs 10.

So I FULLY support this being full pvp and conflict game, but make it that way, make it a sandbox.

As it is now, Bobik said you start the monument on a personal claim, so it cant even be touched. Your only hope is to prevent them from getting the resources to it needed to finish it, but you and I both know, from Wurm experience, if the object is safe, it will be finished at some point unless you can mount a 24/7 guard, which is not reasonable.

Just let us attack the monuments as they are being built, that way the onus is on the realm maker to complete the project.

[Thokan]

As it is a long process of building a monument and even longer to actually get some realm-land, it is not gonna happen while you and your buds are offline.

Why dont you build one too, faster?

I see no problem with this system. If you have rival neighbours that are more numerous or effective than you, they should by logic win over you in the long run.

Aslong as you arent parked right next to eachother you have a window of opportunity to siege them until they get a well enough leveled monument to engulf you.

[Archaegeo]

Oh, side note, I fully support ONCE a realm is formed the realm owner getting to control claims on it, or even tax them and if tax not paid, the claim is forfeit or anything ONCE IT IS FORMED.

The issue here is there is no way for you to stop the formation unless you can prevent resources 24/7. Otherwise when you are off-line they will add parts and then just not do it when you and your small group are there.

[Archaegeo]

[quote="Thokan"]

Why dont you build one too, faster?

quote]

Because you can only build one if you are part of a 10+ person guild.

We are discussing the lost revenue from solo and small group (husband wife, small group of friends, etc) who WOULD play the game, but will not if their hard work terraforming can be stolen and made moot because they cannot destroy the monument.

[Thokan]

Well tough luck. Guess you would have to move.

Big guild > You. Anything else would be illogical.

[Archaegeo]

We are NOT saying a big guild shouldn't be better than a solo person.

But why should the monument be invincible during construction?

[Protunia]

Well it would seem the a monument being upgraded should be able to be attacked as it is trying to take over more land.

Perhaps you need to discuss the monument/siege system and what ways are allowed to attack it.

I think more information is needed on Sieges and exactly who can make one and if they can destroy a Town Monument completely.

There is some info on the site as well as a few post Bobik has made.
http://lifeisfeudal.com/mmorpgsandLiF/M ... -is-Feudal

It would not make any sense at all for a Towns monument to be immune to being destroyed back to a personal claim.

[Archaegeo]

Currently by Bobik's words the other day guys should build monuments on personal claims making them safe from attack.

Maybe if the solo/small group was a guild they could declare war and attack it, but that's back to the game being unfriendly (in this regard) to small group / soloers.

[Protunia]

In the event of a war, objects within that claim cannot be used or damaged, unless it is during an active stage of an on-going siege.

This would mean in fact if the town was under siege all things can be destroyed.

Like I said the game is land control and nothing should be forever or permanent.

[Archaegeo]

I agree with nothing being permanent, and am not calling for personal claims to be involiate from takeover.

But, soloers cannot declare war, only guilds can, so they cannot protect their homestead by destroying the monument.

I think if the monument during construction was attackable that would solve a lot.

[Protunia]

I agree with nothing being permanent, and am not calling for personal claims to be involiate from takeover.

But, soloers cannot declare war, only guilds can, so they cannot protect their homestead by destroying the monument.

I think if the monument during construction was attackable that would solve a lot.

It might be that you would have to enlist a guild for hire or even have a friendly guild you know that would siege and you can join in on that siege to destroy the monument.

In other words sooner or later to remove a town you are going to have to be involved in some kind of politics and players will have to choose sides....

And PREPARE for BATTLE!!!

Sieges differ from battles for many reasons. All player made structures remain on the field, sieges are not instanced and there are no player limitations for either side. This means that any passers by can participate in the massive PvP. While killing enemy players will incur no alignment reduction, killing players who have stumbled into the siege will incur penalties.

[Cian]

Well tough luck. Guess you would have to move.

Big guild > You. Anything else would be illogical.

I'm trying really hard not to get angry and resort to personal attacks but the arrogence and stupidity of this statement is infuriating.

So what your saying is that a bunch of no life neckbeards with no jobs and tons of free time should be able to do anything they want just because they can play a game 24/7?

That attitude will doom this game to failure or irrelevence.

Personal claims shouldn't be completely without dangers but smaller guilds should have something to balance the scales against the zerg hoardes. Otherwise large clan politics will dominate everything and you will never see small group battles or pvp.

There need to be balancing mechanisms for small clans as well as large ones.

[Saxxon]

The elegant solution would be to simply have a "tax rate based on claim size" that was fair and fixed globally for this situation.

So a guild encompasses your land then you must pay a monthly tax "fixed amount" this will protect your lands and make it beneficial to the guild that controls the area around your land.

Have an option for the guild to waive the taxes to gain favor from the landowner.

Set up a trade deal that would nullify the tax amount.

Refuse to pay the tax then the guild may force you from your holdings.

You don't like it change it by hiring mercs or lobbying a favorable guild to war dec them.

That is what you call emergent gameplay and spices things up.

[Serith78]

So what your saying is that a bunch of no life neckbeards with no jobs and tons of free time should be able to do anything they want just because they can play a game 24/7?

That attitude will doom this game to failure or irrelevence.

The only reason players with no life that play 24/7 have so much power in territorial conquest sandboxes is badly designed game mechanics. Mostly gathering and crafting mechanics that are based on "time investment" rather then player skill. Such as the traditional "click rock and watch meter go up to mine" or "stare at a bench/furnace for several minutes to process materials".

Another related issue is overly powerful gear and/or items such as warships, seige engines and fortifications that take so much time to make only large zergs have access to them.

Personal claims shouldn't be completely without dangers but smaller guilds should have something to balance the scales against the zerg hoardes. Otherwise large clan politics will dominate everything and you will never see small group battles or pvp.

There need to be balancing mechanisms for small clans as well as large ones.

There's other game mechanics that can balance zerg hordes without ruining the game by giving players "magical" safety out in the wilderness.

Thinking of elements like:

- The instanced battle system limiting the numbers a zerg can bring into a seige.

- Twitch combat that requires combat skill from the individual player. Also crafting that places player skills and planning/logistics above pure time investment.

- Avoiding teleportation systems that allow armies to effectively be "everywhere at once" instead of splitting their forces and planning movements.

- LIF mechanics make players actually live in and use their territory, leaving it undefended to focus all forces elsewhere has a cost that can be enhanced by raiding mechanics. AKA allowing a portion of stored food/materials to be taken without a full seige.

- limiting characters to one per account means the average player won't have extra alts to leave logged out at key strategic points like realm fortresses.

[Archaegeo]

The serious griefers will have Red alts most definitely, but that doesn't have much to do about this issue save that I can see one or two griefer guilds.

What this feels like, from several of the developer statements, is that they still think people will log in to play the game as designed, I once felt that way too when designing systems for MUD's and NWN.

What players actually do is use the systems in ways you never though of, and worse, the small core of players who actively try to grief others not for game advancement but as they put it "for their sweet sweet tears of rage".

If a game mechanic allows griefing, it will be done (it's why I am hopeful about the murder mechanic limited gank killing somewhat, you get red enough and dying will put you back).

As far as stealing claims, if a level 2 Monument (first one that qualifies as a realm) is not too onerous in order to support forming realms and having wars, then you WILL see griefers who go out and find as many claims close together that would fall within that radius and build it simply to cause tears.

If you don't think griefers grief simply to make other players quit, you haven't been playing these games long enough.

Even Wurm's pvp servers which are very much hands off do not allow intentional griefing and harassment. PvP yes, but not griefing someone to the point they quit the game, because that only gives benefit to the griefer.

[Protunia]

Um usually the "Griefers" are not teams of 10 (200 eu) at a time wasting lots of time to grief.

What I see here is completely Trumped up arguments without any evidence what so ever any of this will be a problem with monuments.

If some moron wants to spend 20 eu to grief hes gonna find a way regardless to do it.

If 10 morons want to spend 200 eu to grief they are going to find a way to grief you without building a stupid monument.

So stop using that as part of this grief bit.

There will be much easier ways to grief you than wasting time getting resources and building a monument which can be destroyed.

The Monument system is NOT the problem.

Players wanting to get away from PvP and being part of that world and the dynamics of it seem more of the problem as far as I am concerned.

If 10 guys want to take your area you had better put up a good fight is all I can say because if you fought half as hard as you worried you would be World Champ...

[Archaegeo]

My point (and others) is it doesn't matter if we put up a fight.

They complete the monument, the claim is gone.

[Ernir]

My point (and others) is it doesn't matter if we put up a fight.

They complete the monument, the claim is gone.

Why wouldn't it matter? Fight for the spot, and destroy their monument before it is completed. If you are too few, call the banners.

[Sting5]

No point in arguing about a really time consuming and 10-player-teamplay requiring activity, that can be exploited by griefers. I am sure that Bobik will take care of this matter as soon as this becomes an issue.

[Cian]

Um usually the "Griefers" are not teams of 10 (200 eu) at a time wasting lots of time to grief.

What I see here is completely Trumped up arguments without any evidence what so ever any of this will be a problem with monuments.

If some moron wants to spend 20 eu to grief hes gonna find a way regardless to do it.

If 10 morons want to spend 200 eu to grief they are going to find a way to grief you without building a stupid monument.

So stop using that as part of this grief bit.

There will be much easier ways to grief you than wasting time getting resources and building a monument which can be destroyed.

The Monument system is NOT the problem.

Players wanting to get away from PvP and being part of that world and the dynamics of it seem more of the problem as far as I am concerned.

If 10 guys want to take your area you had better put up a good fight is all I can say because if you fought half as hard as you worried you would be World Champ...

These are not completely trumped up arguments and the fact that you are asking for proof makes me believe you are new to the sandbox mmo scene.

Anyone who has played EVE online, Salem, Haven and Hearth, Xysom, Darkfall, Ultima Online, 10 Six, or Wurm knows what I am talking about.

The fact that Bobik has implemented features from many of the games I mentioned gives me the hope that he knows all these roads to griefing and is prepared to counter them.

If not, then there is a long hard road ahead.

** Also, I'm not asking for a magical protection system to keep people from suffering in LIF. I'm asking for game mechanics to be balanced so that somone who wants to grief land claims has to pay a price to be able to do it. It doesn't matter if it's a gold coin cost, a massive alignment hit, or whatever. There needs to be impediments to check rampant claim griefing just because someone feels they can. People have lives and jobs and if you want to get a population that consists of more than teenagers and retirees then you need to have certain mechanics in place to balance the scales**

[Archaegeo]

My point (and others) is it doesn't matter if we put up a fight.

They complete the monument, the claim is gone.

Why wouldn't it matter? Fight for the spot, and destroy their monument before it is completed. If you are too few, call the banners.

You cant destroy monument till its complete and you are in a guild and can declare war. No way to prevent them taking your claim by fighting for it unless you are willing to join a guild and do so.

Just saying we will lose a lot of potential customers in the solo and small group areana

---

Um usually the "Griefers" are not teams of 10 (200 eu) at a time wasting lots of time to grief.

What I see here is completely Trumped up arguments without any evidence what so ever any of this will be a problem with monuments.

If some moron wants to spend 20 eu to grief hes gonna find a way regardless to do it.

If 10 morons want to spend 200 eu to grief they are going to find a way to grief you without building a stupid monument.

So stop using that as part of this grief bit.

There will be much easier ways to grief you than wasting time getting resources and building a monument which can be destroyed.

The Monument system is NOT the problem.

Players wanting to get away from PvP and being part of that world and the dynamics of it seem more of the problem as far as I am concerned.

If 10 guys want to take your area you had better put up a good fight is all I can say because if you fought half as hard as you worried you would be World Champ...

These are not completely trumped up arguments and the fact that you are asking for proof makes me believe you are new to the sandbox mmo scene.

Anyone who has played EVE online, Salem, Haven and Hearth, Xysom, Darkfall, Ultima Online, 10 Six, or Wurm knows what I am talking about.

The fact that Bobik has implemented features from many of the games I mentioned gives me the hope that he knows all these roads to griefing and is prepared to counter them.

If not, then there is a long hard road ahead.

** Also, I'm not asking for a magical protection system to keep people from suffering in LIF. I'm asking for game mechanics to be balanced so that somone who wants to grief land claims has to pay a price to be able to do it. It doesn't matter if it's a gold coin cost, a massive alignment hit, or whatever. There needs to be impediments to check rampant claim griefing just because someone feels they can. People have lives and jobs and if you want to get a population that consists of more than teenagers and retirees then you need to have certain mechanics in place to balance the scales**

This.

Double-post merged

[Protunia]

You can shout till the cows come home some big bad guild is taking over your claim and it will not do you one bit of good.

Do Not expect this I need protection for my personal claim to be pushed out into the rest of the PvP game even slightly.

IF personal Claims in the PvP realm were to have any kind of status as some of you are suggesting that would be griefed even more so, than any imaginary 10 player griefing force you can come up with.

I would much rather see personal claims have no clout what so ever than to see what will happen if you start allowing these small "Enclosures" protection all over the map.

The bottom line is you have options in place already and can choose to use them or sit here and ignore completely what has been told to you.

At this point its like trying to tell someone with their fingers in their ears screaming lalalalala that their house is on fire, but they never listen and everything burns up.

[Archaegeo]

Protunia,

You are completely missing the point.

Well, two points...

1) I do not want solo people to be perfectly safe from losing their claim, all I want to make sure is that they have some way to fight back without having to form a guild. Even if the fight is futile and they have no chance.

2) Not making it this way will lose the game potential paying customers who just want to see a better Wurm, etc.

Its going to be how its going to be, but as it is right now:

Yes, a Realm can steal a personal claim and the owner of that claim cannot stop directly.