Development News #93 — PVP Improvements and New Battle Challenges

What are we currently working on.
User avatar
Arrakis
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: 25 Oct 2013, 14:11
Location: Sparksvaard, the middle world; the world of people.

Development News #93 — PVP Improvements and New Battle Challenges

Post by Arrakis » 02 Mar 2018, 17:29

Image

Hey, Feudalists!

Get ready for a patch we’re really excited about and are planning to release next week, which we believe will really turn up the heat in PvP! Across the continents in Life is Feudal, the consequence of potential asset destruction in Instanced Battles should certainly keep you on your toes.

Check out what we plan to introduce:
  • An increased penalty for losing an IB - 10 tile reduction of the Guild monument Realm claim radius
  • A ‘Lesser’ IB Totem - It will be 2x cheaper, limited to 50 vs 50 people per battle, the losing side will only lose 5 tiles of Realm claim radius if defeated
  • Influence Zones - which you may remember seeing in our previous [devblog] here
Roll up your sleeves and prepare for action, incoming IB challenges and potential asset destruction - especially if the assets are too close to the influential Tier 3/Tier 4 Guild monuments!

– The team



Gemme
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 28 Oct 2014, 03:04

Re: Development News #93 — PVP Improvements and New Battle Challenges

Post by Gemme » 02 Mar 2018, 17:35

How will influence zones act around ally/friendly realm claim borders?

User avatar
DiddlyDale
True Believer
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 30 Sep 2014, 12:45
Location: Behind You

Re: Development News #93 — PVP Improvements and New Battle Challenges

Post by DiddlyDale » 02 Mar 2018, 17:39

Just wondering if we still can have the ability to discuss the amount of lost tiles from server to server?

I know its a pain in the butt, however I do think that a lot of us are different in what our concept of loss is from server to server.


Koizumi_Hattori
 
Posts: 30
Joined: 25 Nov 2017, 11:42
Location: Austria

Re: Development News #93 — PVP Improvements and New Battle Challenges

Post by Koizumi_Hattori » 02 Mar 2018, 17:39

Arrakis wrote:[*]A ‘Lesser’ IB Totem - It will be 2x cheaper, limited to 50 vs 50 people per battle, the losing side will only lose 5 tiles of Realm claim radius if defeated


Lol..why not do this for T2 or some smaller Guilds? So a T4 for example can only put a small Totem to a T2 Guild?

Sincerly Koizumi

User avatar
Hodo
 
Posts: 658
Joined: 08 Dec 2017, 23:17

Re: Development News #93 — PVP Improvements and New Battle Challenges

Post by Hodo » 02 Mar 2018, 18:49

RGGDale wrote:Just wondering if we still can have the ability to discuss the amount of lost tiles from server to server?

I know its a pain in the butt, however I do think that a lot of us are different in what our concept of loss is from server to server.


No, No NO!!!!

Come on people grow a spine. If you cant defend your stuff dont build it.

Koizumi_Hattori wrote:Lol..why not do this for T2 or some smaller Guilds? So a T4 for example can only put a small Totem to a T2 Guild?
Sincerly Koizumi


Again, NO!!!

If you cant defend it then dont build it!

If you are outnumbered by a bigger guild, make friends or surrender and become a vassal.
Don't build what you can't defend- Rule number 1.


DeddoTenshi
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 16 Nov 2016, 18:27

Re: Development News #93 — PVP Improvements and New Battle Challenges

Post by DeddoTenshi » 02 Mar 2018, 20:05

Again, NO!!!

If you cant defend it then dont build it!

If you are outnumbered by a bigger guild, make friends or surrender and become a vassal.[/quote]

I agree on this, this is the hole reason why there are mayor alliances all over the map. w


OlavGreyshoulders
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 05 Mar 2018, 05:42

Re: Development News #93 — PVP Improvements and New Battle Challenges

Post by OlavGreyshoulders » 05 Mar 2018, 05:46

Hodo wrote:Come on people grow a spine. If you cant defend your stuff dont build it.
...
If you are outnumbered by a bigger guild, make friends or surrender and become a vassal.

I agree with the above sentiment, though to dismiss any disagreement with the proposed IB changes as spineless is rather shortsighted.

IB's offer an interesting opportunity--the field battle concept is novel, and ostensibly helps to limit the lag that ensues when hundreds of players attempt to fight it out on a single regular server. Our experience has been exciting so far and has given us the chance to test different strategies and field compositions.

The announced changes are intended to produce more conflict, and bravo for that. Current mechanics don’t discourage turtling up when raiders come along and are rather heavily tilted in the defender’s favor. Too often while roving the lands, we’ll encounter a group that retreats to their town claim, which is untouchable under any circumstance short of a siege. This can be maddening, though I’m not certain that this change will disincentivize town-claim-only building, only that it will result the distribution of assets onto multiple town claims.

Expanded IB's render the advantage of building defenses and terraforming much less meaningful and eliminate the geographical advantage of building on any particular part of the map--as attackers and defenders can join remotely. Alliances with one's neighbors become meaningless--get enough people in on the wrecking ball, regardless of where they might be, and you’ve got yourself a party.

Under the proposed change, potential attackers need only put up a scant amount of steel, gold, and preparations to place a totem, and lose nothing other than the equipment they may bring into the battle if an attack fails. The lack of ‘skin in the game’ will likely lead to a proliferation of scheduled instanced battles—many if not most of which the attacker has no intention of appearing at, and will only serve to induce fatigue on behalf of potential defenders, who must show up every time to ensure their claim is not trimmed down. A potential remedy? Match the tiers of attacker and defender (e.g. Tier 4 guild may drop a totem on any sized claim; Tier 3 guild may go after tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3 claims, and so on), and institute a ‘loser-pays’ system, in which the attacking group will lose tiles if its attack fails. In this case, selection of one’s target becomes much more important.

Judgement Hours, subject to the variations of server stability as they may be, have been very fun so far, as I’m generally a big fan of open world PvP . Ambushes, third-party involvement, forward operating bases, sabotage—each of these make for compelling combat, and riveting gameplay. Instanced Battles, however stable, are also more sterile. The map suddenly seems a bit smaller, and Life is Feudal MMO leans closer to Life is Feudal: Arena. Some will see this as a feature, rather than a bug—your mileage may vary.

Return to Development News