Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Lord_Sitruc]

In instanced battles, we plan on implementing a King of the Hill system; where a certain zone in the middle of the map should contain the majority of your forces. During sieges, attackers must fight through your forces and reach the monument to destroy it. In this kind of situation, cavalry will not be able to provide a strong foothold on an objective, and that is where infantry can come to play!

I really like most of these changes, but one thing I would like to say is, can we get two points on the sides of the instanced battles instead of one in the middle.

I feel like this would lead to more tactics and historical formations being used since both sides would have an attack and a defend point. I feel like one point in the middle will lead to ugly blob on blob with no really tactics other then to get onto the hill and then stay there as long as possible.

However, with 2 points one for attack and one for defense, I feel like that will lead to probing attacks, skirmishes, flanking attacks, formations wheeling about. All kinds of great things.

Saw this, Loved it, Re posted it in the game forums

[Armstrong]

Ok im the noob here i know, but is this devlog for Your own or MMO? *hides*

[Lord_Sitruc]

Ok im the noob here i know, but is this devlog for Your own or MMO? *hides*

Both, Kinda, generally any of the stuff like combat and farming/building applies to both. Anything about instanced battles and stuff like that pertains to the mmo.

[Sharana]

Because it doesnt give anyone an advantage that is great enough to break the game, and you are trying to limit tactics in favor of others

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_tactics

I've said it before and i'll say it again, nerfing skirmishing tactics does nothing but favor large guilds, who will now have the ability to completely win field battles due to the fact they can park infantry on a hill and GG.

Well it's the same issue as with the facehugging. It's "deep" tactic after all, but the bottom line is that's use of the current unfinished mechanics. You are very wrong to assume that entering/exiting warstance was their vision how to enable hit and run tactics, it's something the community came up with when the devs didn't really care about PvP as it was going to get rework for the MMO anyway. Now after getting the game stable (the MMO crashes) the next step is to develop the war mechanics (instanced battles, sieges, ladders, alighment, politics etc) and rework the combat mechanics themself to make the battles enjoyable on MMO scale, not the YO skirmish levels. So it's kind of under their highlights from now on as we finally came to that part of the MMO development.

As for the hit and run tactics themself - the combat stance is to fight and they use the speed and stamina drain as ballance. Bypyssing them with peace stance was not their intention. Want to be fast and sprint long (for hit and run tactics) - invest your points in both agility and willpower, not Str or Const. They will most likely have to buff the stamina regen when you have many points in willpower and speed advantage for many points in agility, but that would be way better and more balanced then the current entering/exiting warstance for speed and stamina regen. So there will still be hit and run tactics, but inside the warstance conditions that everyone is supposed to use. If someone leaves warstance to run - let him, he is disengaging from the battle (and won't be able to draw a weapon again for like a minute to bother you), let the cav chase him down, switch your attention to someone still fighting instead of chasing him (outside of combat stance) till you eventually catch him

The whole tap firing with the bow thing has bothered me for awhile. Nice to see it finally getting changed. Lerp has a point about buffing the counters to archers over nerfing bows to a certain extent though. When an arbalest hits a shield for 40 durability damage, is it the crossbows too strong or the shield too weak? That being said I do really hate the fact that in the game right now a lower skilled player with a bow can beat a higher skilled player in 90% of situations just due to how mobility functions in game (but thats what they are already talking about with the horse change and combat stance, so nvrmind I guess).

That has bothered many - after all archer is supposed to be in disadvantage when the fight reaches close ranges. It's not impossible to kill such, but if you need better players, tactics and teamwork to kill archer in melee range it's not really working as intended. That's countered with their planned changes to minimal draw (so that you dont enter warstance, spit an arrow in the face of the infantry behind you, exit warstance and keeprunning). In close range they will have to draw a sword/axe/mace whatever and fight with their sidearm. Plus there should be buff to willpower, so that player with agility and willpower build can outrun archer (str+agi build) only because of his stamina rates when no one leaves warstance to bypuss such stuff. The archer can either run (leave combat stance and disengage from the battle for some time), have melee players proteciting him from such chasers or simply try to fight with his sidearm instead of running.

As for the shields - they didn't respond but many groups submitted as feedback that arrow/bold damage to shields should be lowered, so that shieldwall won't be breaking fast and act as counter to archers in the open, allowing to slowly push in the open covering behind the players with large shields. I hope they will listen to that.

I like the idea of there being a timer between stances, BUT we still have (What I think is) a problem with combat stance draining stamina way too quickly while running and being slower than normal stance. It's very hard to catch someone fleeing from you if you're using a melee weapon, and, while it shouldn't be dead simple, in many cases it just isn't possible. Perhaps it would be better if there was no run speed loss in combat stance?

Well many suggested to make the only difference between peace/warstance (like in many many other games) simply the ability to draw out a weapon and the reduced damage inside warstance. Then there would be no problem. But they disagree as the warstance speed and stamina drain is essential for their combat system, so as that's set in stone we have to figure out a way to force everyone fight inside the warstance limitations and not avoid them with the current entering/exiting combatstance. If someone runs, he can't rejoin the fight for some time (like a minute or so), so let archers and cavalry chase him. We speak about combat mechanics suited for 100+ vs 100+ battles after all, not a warrior meeting 2 peasant in the forest and wanting to kill at least 1 of them at all cost.

i hope in a siege i will be defending my castle and not some randomly generated hill with a monument on top!?!

You don't defend your castle in the mentioned instanced battle. It's simulation of open field battle where both armies leave their castles and march toward each other and meet somewhere between their lands on no mans land. So there isn't really a defender and attacker. The result of the engagement simulates 1 army getting defeated and retreating to their castle while the other pursues them and sieges that castle. Of course in the game you will have to win multiple instanced battles before proceeding to the siege which won't be instanced and you will defend your own castle.

I really like most of these changes, but one thing I would like to say is, can we get two points on the sides of the instanced battles instead of one in the middle.

I feel like this would lead to more tactics and historical formations being used since both sides would have an attack and a defend point. I feel like one point in the middle will lead to ugly blob on blob with no really tactics other then to get onto the hill and then stay there as long as possible.

Look at the answer above, instanced battle is not really attack/defense scenario. It's engagement on no mans land, king of the hill suites best for this one. Besides the instanced battle isn't supposed to be something you play for hours which will be the case if there is no objective or 2 points in the planned 200 vs 200 scale. Besides it's not like you don't need tactics to take a position with minimal losses and then hold it for specific amount of time.

[Sharana]

Hardy maybe the base horse for Heavy, but it can be ridden on its own. From the wiki:

30 Cavalry attacks become twice as fast.
Can ride Hardy Warhorses.

As such it is/should be a superior warhorse that could be trained to heavy, if desired.

If the messed up wiki was correct and the horses hp was:
warhorse - 225
hardy - 300
sprinted - 250
heavy - 500
and on top of that hardy was faster (meaning current warhorse speed while the regular warhorse got the hardy's current speed) then it would be completely fine. But that was never mentioned to be the case as far as design goes. So we have to assume regular warhorse is going to stay the fastest and the most maneuverable (out of the combat horses, sprinted is bad at that) and in such case it's simply unfair to provide it on 30 chivalry and 0 mounted fighting mastery and allow it's use on full potential (instead of full sprint bar on 30 as the heavy horse).

[Trir]

Nice to see that you starting understand about situation with horses. For now everybody using warhorses, no reason to use another.

Heavy horses can be stunned by polearm like glavie, easily shooted by archers, caught by lancers cause they slow and everything they can offer instead spead and maneuverability is +200 HP. All this is ruining the idea of heavy cavalry.

I think you should seriously buff heavy horses, especially armored one.
More speed, more HP, can be stopped ONLY by pike, no chance to fly out of the saddle when bumping another horses.
And make in expensive, of course. Very expensive. Change recipe of horse armor, add a lot of linen cloths, leather and ropes there.
Turn heavy horses into the symbol of power and success and let infantry cry when they will see armored cavalry.

[Pcfreak9]

The only feedback I would give is that since the update of spear-shield combo. Shield mastery and sword master should be switched or put Shield mastery as a seperated skill. This makes Spear + shield combination just more common early game since early medieval times it was the most common unit formation.

The rest ideas are awesome!

[Some_Jerk]

The only feedback I would give is that since the update of spear-shield combo. Shield mastery and sword master should be switched or put Shield mastery as a seperated skill. This makes Spear + shield combination just more common early game since early medieval times it was the most common unit formation.

The rest ideas are awesome!

+1 for this. Shield and 1h blade mastery should be switched around on the skill tree. It just makes more sense, why would I have to learn how to use a sword to be able to use a shield? why should shields be locked behind the arbitrary limitation of needing linen rope? Shields should be one of the most basic skills, and pcfreak9 is right in saying that the combination of spear and shield would have been common. The information I've read on the subject suggest spears and shields were have been the most common combination of military equipment for thousands of years.

[Azzerhoden]

There is nothing wrong with a slight bonus for armor types and certain weapons. In the first place it promotes a role. In the second place fighters with any skill will always beat someone with less skill. Third, people are bitching about it without knowing any of the actual details.

Seriously people, let them put in the full package for evaluation, then decide. Unless of course you have some secret sauce you think you discovered, and the idea of a small bonus is going to break it.

[Marquis]

[Azzerhoden]

The only feedback I would give is that since the update of spear-shield combo. Shield mastery and sword master should be switched or put Shield mastery as a seperated skill. This makes Spear + shield combination just more common early game since early medieval times it was the most common unit formation.

The rest ideas are awesome!

A lot of us have been asking for shields to be moved as an independent skill for quite a while.

[Styxwash]

So still no revamp of Shield-bash or removal or reduction of Parry stuns? Also still looking for Shields as a stand alone skill.

Not sure I like the armor bonuses either. Promotes cookie cutter setups. Maybe start by balancing the armor values, cost and weight first.

I suppose the push feature might include a revamp of shield-bash? Hoping.

I like to see that horses will become more expensive and have basic AI!

[Olivemanchester]

Good job and many thanks for pocket ponies fixes!

[Links234]

Leather and padded armor in the game missing not only from a low protection, but above all because of the high prices. The developers have done a rare 3rd armor level, why not go the same way? Why do you need to come up with the magical properties of armor?

[Xkeithstonex]

Can we nerf the fishing pole? Its a silly weapon, especially with the grind where new players will be stuck on primitives for awhile...


EDIT: Also, the ability to use Slings and throwing weapons with a shield.

[Moggy]

OK i understand that for games of past eras Balance, realism, fun all clash. But can't we agree that the idea of armour giving a combat bonus is crazy such as leather armour giving extra armor pen. How? If your arguement is less weight on your arms from plate armour then why not give leather a debuff and make a naked have the highest armour pen?

So please either remove "Hardcore and realistic" from the description of Life is Feudal or completely scrap the idea of combat buffs from certain armors for certain weapons but having both is just crazy. But other then this one topic most other concepts i'm completely fine with but this goes against the idea of realism which is why i bought the game, why i have waited so long for the mmo

[Genral_Kairon]

Hello at all, and if we switch bow and crossbow in the skill tree, making bow less damage at low level skill and increasing crossbow recharging time...(history teach that crossbow was invented for penetrate full plate armour)
Padded - deflect some blunt attack and blade = fast movement and attack
Leather - minor bonus deflection cutting damage = fast movement and attack
Chainmail - huge deflection cutting damage = medium movement and attack
Scale mail - huge deflection cutting damage = medium movement and attack
Plate - huge deflection cutting damage only properly affected by piercing damage = slow movement and attack (necessity to ride a horse)
And it's strange that to make leather armour u need more time than to make a metal one, hystory teach that shield was in metal before armour.

[Linbaba]

I like the kind of arguments you used to justify cavalry being stronger and preferred. You used "realistic" justification, and it means we can discuss that. Since it's easy for everyone to be on the same wavelength.


However I noticed in the beginning of the post that you gave different buffs to different equipments, for example, pate armour would buff 2H sword.

So my question is, why? And how do you "justify realistically" that wearing something or something else will increase.

How does "wearing leather" increases the armour penetration and bow and crossbow damage?

How does chainmail increase mounted combat damage and also how does me wearing chainmail increase horse maneuverability? (if you say because it's lighter than plate, then why does leather not do this too?)

I think you get the idea.

Personally, I'm not a fan of this kind of setup, it's the kind you usually see in action games, and often FPS games, or RPGs that evolve in a fantasy world with magic.

Like "you have found the magic shoes of doom" "they give +4 attack power".

I'm not against the buffs pers sé, but in a role playing game, that (to me) has this level of immersion (that's a good thing), I don't like, and maybe other people may not like, things to not make sense.

We can all take shortcuts, or simplifications, but I would like to finish by stressing that, in my opinion, in this kind of game, it is important to maintain a high level of "coherence" or of "this makes sense".

PS. (which is why I thought celebrating Christmas in game was a terrible idea)

[Azzerhoden]

I like the kind of arguments you used to justify cavalry being stronger and preferred. You used "realistic" justification, and it means we can discuss that. Since it's easy for everyone to be on the same wavelength.

Actually, what was said was

The thing is, it is completely normal that, once two sides meet each other on the vast open plains of the MMO map, they prefer to keep mobile for advantage - and infantry feels itself like a disadvantage. It is actually completely normal and realistic; skirmishes in open plains are typically more suited for light cavalry due to their mobility.

For someone who is so anal about terminology you certainly like to misrepresent when it suits you.

As for the rest, its easy to see why they are adding a bonus. It isn't realistic to use 'hit points' to track someones health. It isn't realistic to use stamina to track someones energy. It isn't realistic to use a FOOD Multiplier, or a SKILL tree, or that you can learn to make furniture by using a knife to make wooden handles or pretty much ANY OTHER GAME MECHANIC in the game.

The slight bonus (which is a quote by the way) is designed to prevent min/maxing, which isn't very realistic either.

Now go away.

[Linbaba]

CONTENTS OF THIS POST WERE HIDDEN DUE TO PROVOCATIVE ATTITUDE

[Azzerhoden]

CONTENTS OF THIS POST WERE HIDDEN DUE TO PROVOCATIVE ATTITUDE

Thank you for the attempted insult. It means you know I'm right.

[Linbaba]

CONTENTS OF THIS POST WERE HIDDEN DUE TO PROVOCATIVE ATTITUDE AND INSULTS

[Azzerhoden]

I guess that says it all.



As I said previously - I like the idea of a small bonus to increase diversity. Good PvPers will still find a min/max combination that will have to be constantly adjusted, but that's true for any PvP game.

In the end these changes will have to be tested out in the MMO, which is why its still in beta.

[Linbaba]

You know, I knew you were baiting me so you could go cry to your friend the moderator. So I was extra careful not to flame, or insult, or be provocative, but that doesn't change anything.

I didn't think it was that bad though. By censoring a message like that, it means it's personal. I can prove that by quoting quite a few messages, including from you that were 10x worse but never got censored.

In fact, my own posts seem to be the only ones I have ever seen to be censored like that.

I'll tell you something, things are going to get interesting when the game gets more players and it's not just a couple fanboys who forked up some cash from the start fighting over what buff or nerf they should get.

You're feeling empowered and entitled by your loyalty to the game, your "age" on the forums, and being "close" to the devs and the mods and I guess that pulls some strings when the community is small.

Most of the player base will come from Europe or the USA (I would imagine), and this kind of behaviour (both from you and your mod friend) won't give good results.

Though I'm pretty sure you both will get that and change on your own.

Cause when there's a lot of players coming from democratic countries, you won't be able to censor everyone.

Not only that, but wait until you see the chat in game lol

[Arrakis]

Let's clear something out, dear Linbaba.

Nobody has come crying to me. I am enforcing forum rules and making sure that toxic users such as yourself won't spark a flame in these civilized, public discussions. Hence the censorship of your messages with no constructive contents whatsoever, but provocations and insults instead. If you have issues to resolve with other users, like Azzerhoden in this case, feel free to send him a private message. Whatever disagreements and quarrels you might have, there's no place for them in public. Further comments regarding this issue will force me to close the thread.

[Linbaba]

Let's clear something out, dear Linbaba.

Nobody has come crying to me. I am enforcing forum rules and making sure that toxic users such as yourself won't spark a flame in these civilized, public discussions. Hence the censorship of your messages with no constructive contents whatsoever, but provocations and insults instead. If you have issues to resolve with other users, like Azzerhoden in this case, feel free to send him a private message. Whatever disagreements and quarrels you might have, there's no place for them in public. Further comments regarding this issue will force me to close the thread.

yeah? Read through this thread then, see how I replied to the OP with a constructive post, then see his reply to me, baiting me and trying to get me to be "provocative" so I can get censored.

I know that game well, I used to do it a lot.

And see the other one where my posts got censored that for every one post I made there were 4 telling me I was an idiot because I said you were lying about the release date thing.

You think posts bating me and telling me to "go away" are constructive?

If you censored the other posts others made that were provocative I wouldn't agree either, but it would at least be fair. But though you deny it, the only way you're moderating me for stuff that is a hundred times lighter than tons of other posts I've seen on these forums is that you're friends with those trolls, or you yourself got pissed off when I called you and the team a liar.

(by the way, I can understand that, if someone called me a liar, I wouldn't like it).

As to the trolls, I couldn't care less about them, THEY can send ME a pm if THEY got an issue but, and the proof is in the threads, any time I spoke to them it was as a reply.

So now your post is making me unsure as whether you're friends with them, you're pissed at me for calling you a liar, I got reported and you just censored without thinking or what the issue is.

Cause it's not that I broke the rules, at least not anymore than tens and more of other people here.

So close the thread, delete my post, hell ban me from the forums, cause if this is your definition of toxic, you got another thing coming when this community grows in numbes.

[Arrakis]

Since the offtopic continues, I'm locking this thread.

Linbaba, please read and understand the rules regarding forum usage so you do not have any further issues when posting.

• http://lifeisfeudal.com/forum/forum-rules-t372