Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Elindor]

When the siege ends, both parties will be moved back to the main gameworld. Those who have died or lost the battle will appear naked at their bind spots; the winning team will return to the spot they are bound to, victorious - and very much clothed and alive, of course!
The winners will have one hour of exclusive access rights on both of the claims (Siege Camp claim and the Guild City claim) for looting and pillaging. After one hour, both claims will disappear, letting those who won to decide the fate of these lands and the property on it.

This part could use some elaboration/explanation/clarification
Am I the only one confused by this?

Devs could you clarify this part?

[JohnValentine]

All that whining, RP, immersion and so on, omg...

Let me ask a very simple question - do you honestly believe any game servers can handle unlimited amount of people? Esp games with complex physics where on top of that almost everything is performed server side to avoid client cheating (speed hacks, aimbots, damage changes etc). Let's say they push the technology to it's limit and achieve 200 vs 200 open world battle in playable state (which would be remarkable achievement and impossible currently) - then what? Do you know that the major alliances on the MMO already have 300+ members each (only part of them bought the MMO packs, rest of their members are waiting the OBT)? The defenders will herd all their allies in the server and just crash it or if it survives then the enemy alliance coming for the siege will finish it off. If they do another miracle and manage to hold 600-700 people on a server without crash then those major alliances will recruit even more players - that's a race the devs can't win and they are smart enough to not even try.

Stop flying in the clouds please and come down to the reality - there isn't a single game out there that can handle large scale open world action. There are limits you can't go through and all of them use instancing in different forms. Sometimes it's just harder to spot when you have NPC environment and all the players are spread around in World #1, World #2, World #3, World #4 etc that are copy of each other, it's pure illusion that they are all in 1 world actually. There can be no game without defined limits of players - gameplay always comes first. Let's be realistic - the ones that need "immersion" over PLAYABLE world are better off in a single player game play M&B anyway, it's much better suited for such needs.

Negative responses are natural when leadership proposes a "vision". Questions and concerns follow, which allows the leadership (developers) to see if they've thought it through enough to maintain the support of their following.

[Azzerhoden]

I am completely, 100% in favor of instanced sieges. I hated that in Darkfall some lazy shits could run to a siege naked, loot, run to safety, then rinse and repeat. If you want to jump into a siege fight, then you are going to have to put your shit at risk.

FURTHER - I have never met a game yet that could handle the sheer number of players that show up for a siege, tower take down, or any other large scale battle. EvE finally resorted to some slick program where everyone's actions would purposely slow down so it wouldn't be a complete cluster $%&#. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING will cause players to quit a game like this faster than losing your stuff when you couldn't even log in and defend what you have.

BRAVO to Bitbox for making this call.

Question - How will allies come and defend in an instance siege battle if they lack a bind spot at that location? Or will this, like an instance battle, allow players to 'sign up' to defend?

[Karabas]

questions....questions....
for some constructive:

may be will be possible to split sieges for parts/phases... for more ppl can take a parts.

for example - different instances for different sides of castle = 4 battles instead of one big battle.
SW+SE+NW+NE corners = *4 ppl can fight on different instance servers = less load to each server and more ppl have fun.

OR

field fight outside walls including the outer walls - to allow wall archers to shoot.
and a wall bashing area
and a fight inside walls , what will start IF walls are broken....

many scenarios can be set for ppl -
and the main idea - to let all ppl who want to take parts.

yes, its difficult to set rules - how to detect the winner of all this fun... but some rules can be voted on forum

spliting of IB for monument radius is very simple idea, but spliting the siege is harder..... i understand....
but for now i dont see another way to make pppl satisfied....

just to say "you have 50 tickets" for guild of 200 ppl and alliance of 1000 is kinda a bad joke.

P.S.
talking about idea with SW+SE+NW+NE corners - it seems possible to detecs winner in each corner - and allow to loot this corner.
and the guild monument falling if attackers win 3/4 corners (for example)

[Forresthunt]

I totally agree with Azzerhoden on that one.
I'm kind of surprised about all those complaints regarding instant battles, all coming from Beta testers, people who supposably know about games and computers.
Can you give me an example of engines that manage to handle such amounts of information? Do we really want to reduce the number of players to only those who have supercomputer to play with?
Have you forgot TB3, when finding a good spot for your monuments required combination of resources and least amount of server lagging?
Yes, eventually it will all be possible, maybe even soon, but we are not there yet. Call me selfish but I don't want to wait several more months for the break through.
Many of you are familiar with Bannerlord whose team decided to go en extra step to please gamers. The game is already year and a half past promised release date with no clue when it's going to happen.
Besides, do you honestly think the Devs. like instant battle idea? Think about it, it's actually extra work and planning.

By the way, threatening Devs. with getting refund..., I mean, really... I bet just like most of us here, you have hundreds of hours in MMO; hours that you already enjoyed, plus probably twice as much in YO. The game already paid it's worth.

Devs are asking about our opinion. Let's play the game and give them realistic feed back. We do want this game to be released, don't we?

How big is the War Totem claim or how many tickets each team gets based on what input, well, those are details that can be easily corrected after we try it on.
That's why we call it CLOSED BETA TEST.

[Aout]

More instanced non-sandbox themepark shenengians. Yey.

I totally agree with Azzerhoden on that one.
I'm kind of surprised about all those complaints regarding instant battles, all coming from Beta testers, people who supposably know about games and computers.
Can you give me an example of engines that manage to handle such amounts of information? Do we really want to reduce the number of players to only those who have supercomputer to play with?

Mortal Online, which seems to be staying the only true open world sandbox.

[Eltopo]

Had Bitbox waited to do a graphic update after the release, maybe we could've had bigger battles on the live server. I feel that the current high end graphic has had a negative effect on PVP scales, and performance in general. I personally love the graphic, however I think gameplay trumps visuals in siege games like LiF. In every large scale siege game I've ever played I've had to turn down my settings. Its a pretty standard thing to do for any competitively minded player.

The 150 vs 150 player battles is a hard nut to crack for even a triple A publisher. Its not surprising that a small studio like Bitbox is having a hard time with this problem. I think Bitbox can learn a few things from other studios that have come close to decently playable large scale battles.

Darkfall Series
Darkfall uses a similar server block infrastructure to LiF, and has been rather successful in creating large scale battles in a sandbox open world with action combat. I'd say its the closest to reach the 150 vs 150 ideal. In my opinion Darkfall set the standard for large scale battles in the MMO landscape.

Guild Wars 2
GW2 can run a 300 player WvW battle instances with hybrid action combat. Given the number of objectives on the map not all players are in a same place at once, but performance is rather respectable when huge battles do happen.

ArcheAge
Archeage had instance sieges from what I can remember that can hold 140 players (70 vs 70), and does a respectable job with performance. In open world battles player count got bigger and was still decent for performance.

Black Desert Online
BDO had close to 700 players playing a large instance at the start of the big battles. Performance was bad at the start of the Node Wars, but got better as guilds were taken out. I'd say performance got pretty good around 200 players with decent graphics.

Elder Scrolls Online
ESO had 600 players per PVP instance all doing different objectives, and had decent performance with maybe 250 players on screen. Pretty good with decent graphics.

All of the above games also had particle heavy magic combat, which does stress performance a lot. Given that LiF doesn't have magic combat it should do better theoretically.

The question is why does LiF need instances for siege? Answer that question and maybe we can help u guys better.

[Forresthunt]

All of the above games also had particle heavy magic combat, which does stress performance a lot. Given that LiF doesn't have magic combat it should do better theoretically.

The question is why does LiF need instances for siege? Answer that question and maybe we can help u guys better.

...and that's a good feed back, that's how we should approach the subject to help to make the game better.

[Thisismyworkemail]

[Forresthunt]

The entire game should run like Ark, where there's no judgement hour and you can lay siege on an enemy's castle as soon as you get there, with no 24 hour notice given. If a player wakes up one morning and finds they've been raided overnight, IT'S JUST AN ELEMENT OF HARDCORE SANDBOX GAMING, and they have to get over it and rebuild, or the team has to start again from scratch in a new location, or disband and everyone joins different guilds after they've been wiped out. It's a perfectly fair element of sandbox gaming. It's aught to be a constant struggle to get established and maintain dominance, your monument should be breakable at any time, to create this element of constant struggle/Risk vs reward. If your entire guild leaves the monument unprotected when they're away pillaging, someone should be able to knock down a wall, or jump over a wall at any given time and attempt to destroy the monument, so that the guild has to multitask offense and defense. If a bunch of monuments get wiped out every day, there's this constant turn over of power, and you don't have a bunch of semi permanent settlements that can't be defeated unless you lay siege on them in a polite, organized, and "fair" way.

Many players will disagree with the above statement, however, that is already the reality for me. I'm not in Europe, neither is the US server any better time wise for me. No matter which server will I choose I'll be sound asleep or hard at work for judgment hour or chosen instant battle. If the game would work as Thisismyworkemail describe, it would be music to my ears. I know it's not going to happen; and I still think Devs. came up with a good plan. I'm just in the wrong spot to get the benefits, well, Life is Feudal. Instead I will have to think of some strategies to balance that disadvantage.
It's all about accepting the challenge.

[Gruber]

The entire game should run like Ark, where there's no judgement hour and you can lay siege on an enemy's castle as soon as you get there, with no 24 hour notice given. If a player wakes up one morning and finds they've been raided overnight, IT'S JUST AN ELEMENT OF HARDCORE SANDBOX GAMING, and they have to get over it and rebuild, or the team has to start again from scratch in a new location, or disband and everyone joins different guilds after they've been wiped out. It's a perfectly fair element of sandbox gaming. It's aught to be a constant struggle to get established and maintain dominance, your monument should be breakable at any time, to create this element of constant struggle/Risk vs reward. If your entire guild leaves the monument unprotected when they're away pillaging, someone should be able to knock down a wall, or jump over a wall at any given time and attempt to destroy the monument, so that the guild has to multitask offense and defense. If a bunch of monuments get wiped out every day, there's this constant turn over of power, and you don't have a bunch of semi permanent settlements that can't be defeated unless you lay siege on them in a polite, organized, and "fair" way.

If you want a system like Ark, play Ark. LiF is a whole different game than ark. A defendable castle in LiF takes days or weeks to build up and you should not lose that in a midnight raid on work days. That may not suit you, but usualy paying users work 5 days a week and do not have the time to attend a game 24/7. An alltime JH System would only cause to wipe out the server on the long time.
IB on the other hand is just an performance issue. There is no engine that can handle massive open world pvp. Instancing the battles allow more players to attend them, and big ass battles is something that the players want.

[Azzerhoden]

More instanced non-sandbox themepark shenengians. Yey.

Mortal Online, which seems to be staying the only true open world sandbox.

Mortal Online is an excellent example of how not to build an MMO. That's why players are here and not there.

[Jakeman]

The entire game should run like Ark, where there's no judgement hour and you can lay siege on an enemy's castle as soon as you get there, with no 24 hour notice given. If a player wakes up one morning and finds they've been raided overnight, IT'S JUST AN ELEMENT OF HARDCORE SANDBOX GAMING, and they have to get over it and rebuild, or the team has to start again from scratch in a new location, or disband and everyone joins different guilds after they've been wiped out. It's a perfectly fair element of sandbox gaming. It's aught to be a constant struggle to get established and maintain dominance, your monument should be breakable at any time, to create this element of constant struggle/Risk vs reward. If your entire guild leaves the monument unprotected when they're away pillaging, someone should be able to knock down a wall, or jump over a wall at any given time and attempt to destroy the monument, so that the guild has to multitask offense and defense. If a bunch of monuments get wiped out every day, there's this constant turn over of power, and you don't have a bunch of semi permanent settlements that can't be defeated unless you lay siege on them in a polite, organized, and "fair" way.

If you want a system like Ark, play Ark. LiF is a whole different game than ark. A defendable castle in LiF takes days or weeks to build up and you should not lose that in a midnight raid on work days. That may not suit you, but usualy paying users work 5 days a week and do not have the time to attend a game 24/7. An alltime JH System would only cause to wipe out the server on the long time.
IB on the other hand is just an performance issue. There is no engine that can handle massive open world pvp. Instancing the battles allow more players to attend them, and big ass battles is something that the players want.

i agree with Gruber. for the love of god please no offline raiding like ARK/Rust or anyother survival game that has that bs sorry but its not fun to offline raid and its not fun for the players who put in 100s of hours into their town/base to wake up 1 morning and find everything destroyed/pillaged

[Wanderingsword]

Whats so hardcore about being able to destroy a base just because the defenders have a job they need to wake up for the next morning? That just sounds like an excuse for griefers and NEETs to be able to win without having to compete, all the while jerking them selves over how "2HaRdCoRe4U" they are.

[Davis105]

A few people have made a really good point since the battle and siege systems were announced with their 24hr wait period after the totem is dropped.

What's to stop me, a Canadian from Ontario, from placing down a totem for a battle, a siege or whatever in a timezone I know is very off from mine.

For example, people from the western North Americas are four hours and sometimes five hours behind my timezone. What's to stop me from waking up and placing my totem on the their claim at 9 A.M my time so that it would be 5 A.M their time. That to me is equally as unfair as Rust/Ark because I'm basically attacking when I know most of you would be asleep and all my guild awake/ready to fight.

I think these systems need work in a lot of ways. Overall Life is Feudal has done a good job in EA, making few game breaking mistakes and when they were made, they were fixed. But as of the last 3 months things have gone a bit unchecked in my personal opinion.

EDIT: Just an idea for thought, they have a perfectly good judgement hour mechanic which gives people free rain to raid and pillage everyone/thing. Why not scrap this siege mechanic and battle mechanic all together. Make it so that Guild A can declare war on Guild B by click a button via the Guild UI. Once the war is initiated, the guilds enter a permanent state of judgement hour with each other and can raid, pillage, siege, attack, have battles, loot and burn whenever they deem it strategically pliable.

A few people on the thread have mentioned games like Ark/Rust, and majority of people have been quick to shut them down. I however, think they are getting at something. While those games are total opposites of LiF (other than they share a sandbox theme). I do think a middle ground could be reached between their free warfare systems and our extremely processed method.

I don't know about all of you, but if I was attacking a guild under war terms, the last thing I'd want is them knowing how many people I'll have, the exact time the battle will start and if my allies are joining. These systems take the actual strategic warfare out of the PVP. The only thing that is left with these systems is that you actually need to be a good PVPer and I expected more than that when this game was first brought into the lime light.

[Jakeman]

A few people have made a really good point since the battle and siege systems were announced with their 24hr wait period after the totem is dropped.

What's to stop me, a Canadian from Ontario, from placing down a totem for a battle, a siege or whatever in a timezone I know is very off from mine.

For example, people from the western North Americas are four hours and sometimes five hours behind my timezone. What's to stop me from waking up and placing my totem on the their claim at 9 A.M my time so that it would be 5 A.M their time. That to me is equally as unfair as Rust/Ark because I'm basically attacking when I know most of you would be asleep and all my guild awake/ready to fight.

I think these systems need work in a lot of ways. Overall Life is Feudal has done a good job in EA, making few game breaking mistakes and when they were made, they were fixed. But as of the last 3 months things have gone a bit unchecked in my personal opinion.

EDIT: Just an idea for thought, they have a perfectly good judgement hour mechanic which gives people free rain to raid and pillage everyone/thing. Why not scrap this siege mechanic and battle mechanic all together. Make it so that Guild A can declare war on Guild B by click a button via the Guild UI. Once the war is initiated, the guilds enter a permanent state of judgement hour with each other and can raid, pillage, siege, attack, have battles, loot and burn whenever they deem it strategically pliable.

A few people on the thread have mentioned games like Ark/Rust, and majority of people have been quick to shut them down. I however, think they are getting at something. While those games are total opposites of LiF (other than they share a sandbox theme). I do think a middle ground could be reached between their free warfare systems and our extremely processed method.

I don't know about all of you, but if I was attacking a guild under war terms, the last thing I'd want is them knowing how many people I'll have, the exact time the battle will start and if my allies are joining. These systems take the actual strategic warfare out of the PVP. The only thing that is left with these systems is that you actually need to be a good PVPer and I expected more than that when this game was first brought into the lime light.

im sure sieges will have to take place during the server regions primetime. otherwise we will have 4-5AM sieges and thats not fun. and please dont look to Rust/ARK as inpiration for what LIF should be when rust/ark is a couple hours-24h to get a base up where LIF its 100s this game will die if you could bark box your way over some walls during the night when nobodys on and destroy their monument. also you talk about strategy yet wheres the strategy if you dont need to fight anyone and just destroy the enemy guilds monument while their sleeping/at work? seems like you just wanna steal/grief with no resistence

[Davis105]

im sure sieges will have to take place during the server regions primetime. otherwise we will have 4-5AM sieges and thats not fun. and please dont look to Rust/ARK as inpiration for what LIF should be when rust/ark is a couple hours-24h to get a base up where LIF its 100s this game will die if you could bark box your way over some walls during the night when nobodys on and destroy their monument. also you talk about strategy yet wheres the strategy if you dont need to fight anyone and just destroy the enemy guilds monument while their sleeping/at work? seems like you just wanna steal/grief with no resistence

I never mentioned being able to bark box over walls and destroy monuments, that's just plain stupid. Of course this game isn't ARK/Rust, but I think what people are saying is that this went from an open world PVP to a game where we are going to be loaded into another world, with predefined numbers and our enemy having full knowledge of it, where nobody can interfere. That's not how the medieval world worked, clans clashed, betrayed and stomped out mutual enemies with surprise, cunning and pure military might. Instances remove that possibility. It seems people who keep claiming anyone who opposes it are griefers, and to me it seems like those people are the ones who want unfair advantages because they want everything to go exactly as they plan it.

I also never stated I wanted to destroy anyone's guild monument while they were sleeping, I said that is what people will do unless the current system is fixed. If you're going to try and make a rebuttal, please read what I actually wrote. I'm only trying to make it clear to the developers that these sorts of exploits will be used to ruin the game for other people. And we should all be trying to help them see the flaws in their systems, that's the only way they'll be able to make it better.

[Norsegryphon]

Back in 2003 i played Star Wars Galaxies, when a guild declared war against another, you simply activated a state of "War" that only affected members of those guilds. Housing, players etc, were open season as long as "War" existed. A little work with the mechanics and you can keep open world pvp with the siege aspect. If you want, you can even talk to the people who run SWG today in a private shard. Im sure they can help.

This system allows conscripts or randoms to pvp on a large scale ( without the spoils of war) allows RPers to summon "vassals" who you dont have to worry about stealing after the fight. If your vassal refuses to come, you declare war on them and force them etc. Sort of the same way some server GMs run YO. The state of "war" only changes the aspect of making the parties claims, items etc vulnerable between the parties.

With an instanced siege system, you will end up with a server full of naked bandits, living in a hut, randomly killing people because they dont want to commit to a time and place setting. People will get ganked over and over, quit or join a castle group. Never leave and get bored of lugging logs then quit. Same patterns you see on YO.

Either way, just my thoughts.

[Forresthunt]

as I said, my location puts me out of both servers time zone. For me being at war means being attacked when I'm not in front of pc. However I still think the Devs. idea is better than "free at all times" deal. People will use it as an advantage. In my opinion the system is good. Just need to be adjusted.
I don't know, maybe better mechanics to negotiate the battle time?
maybe it should be up to Defenders to pick on a date and time?
Also I noticed that most of people do not want to attack empty castle. No fun in it after all. Real PvP player want to face the challenge, so given a chance both sides would agree on reasonable timing.
Yes, of course, I realize that not all of the Factions would be honorable enough and would offer unreasonable hours but I have a feeling it wouldn't happen very often.
Even now, there is an unwritten low among the big players to leave small villages at peace. I know that since so far I haven't join any Guild living off my little burning shock and trading potatos with other peasants. Not a peaceful life, bandits are always around the corner, but the big guys are usually the one with helping hand.
thank YOU.
anyway, my point is, a big Guild will not want to make a name for itself in the MMO by "dirty attacks". People like to be proud of they Guilds. I say, let them negotiate, I believe the Leaders will come to honorable battle arrangements within the suggested by Devs. mechanics.
...and Guilds that try to play "dirty", well, why not, let them do so. The word will spread and I bet they will find themselves fighting against big coalition that united to get read of them.

This is Medieval settings game, let's not forget that pride, honor and fair fight was highly regarded in those times. I see no reason why should't we incorporate it into the game. After all you cannot forge your legacy by dishonest play, it just doesn't work that way.
And, yes, we will have bandits, those no good Outlaws threatening my very existence (don't take it the wrong way, it's role playing, I wouldn't have the game without YOU).

well, just an idea

[Thisismyworkemail]

[Yotoni]

After one hour, both claims will disappear, letting those who won to decide the fate of these lands and the property on it.

Would it not be great for the game and the players if "forced vassalage" was systematically proposed to city defenders who lost after an IB siege?
Imagine half the map conquered by a single guild with dozen of vassals who have no choice but to follow your diplomacy and fight your enemies.
Feudalism is also about these codes after all, surrender and serve those noble knights who were superiors on the battlefield.

Defeated guild lead would have the right to accept vassalage (unbreakable from his side) to avoid loosing the claim they had been working on for weeks/months, still the city could be looted for war tribute. If vassalage is rejected, the IB siege winner can finish to raze the city or take it over.
And that is what I'd like to understand by "those who won to decide the fate of these lands and the property on it"

[Gruber]

Feudalism is also about these codes after all, surrender and serve those noble knights who were superiors on the battlefield.

Your point of view about medeival times is too much influenced by hollywood. There was no code nor "noble" knights. Those who were superior on the battlefield usually slaughter their enemys.
If there was a time for diplomacy it was long time before a battle, not after it.

Defeated guild lead would have the right to accept vassalage (unbreakable from his side) to avoid loosing the claim they had been working on for weeks/months, still the city could be looted for war tribute. If vassalage is rejected, the IB siege winner can finish to raze the city or take it over.
And that is what I'd like to understand by "those who won to decide the fate of these lands and the property on it"

The attacker had to win some battles to be able for a siege. The deafeated claim got many opportunities to accept vassalage in the past. At the point of a siege, diplomacy failed many times and there is no real reason to try it one last time. If there is a time to accept vassalage, it is before the start of the siege, not after the claim got wiped out.

Imagine half the map conquered by a single guild with dozen of vassals who have no choice but to follow your diplomacy and fight your enemies.

How is one forced to fight if he is not going to do it by free will? Are vassals automatically dropped on the battlefield, forced to fight by some black magic?
This topic is realy easy in real life, fight for your enemy or die on the spot. Ingame without permadeath, fight or die and respawn? Forcing people by game mechanic is like a hostage situation, it is not going to be fun for everyone and most likely people will just stop playing LiF.

[Yotoni]

Your point of view about medeival times is too much influenced by hollywood. There was no code nor "noble" knights. Those who were superior on the battlefield usually slaughter their enemys.
If there was a time for diplomacy it was long time before a battle, not after it.
The attacker had to win some battles to be able for a siege. The deafeated claim got many opportunities to accept vassalage in the past. At the point of a siege, diplomacy failed many times and there is no real reason to try it one last time. If there is a time to accept vassalage, it is before the start of the siege, not after the claim got wiped out.

Well you are free to have your opinion about "nobility" in this period. But let me remind you what vassalage means: it is a link of subordination to whoever you offer it, and that link is not always a reliable one and in no way an act of freedom. That was a common practice in the Middle Ages and no, it is not explained in Hollywood movies but in History books.
To give you Middle Ages examples, Moldavia was at open war with Ottoman empire then it became their vassals; Russian principalities became vassals to the Golden Horde which invaded them, etc.

Becoming a vassal is not an act of freedom and that comes in a situation of failure most the time. I don't want to make history again but to raise an idea that could fit this IB topic, Lif feudal environment in general and give good war alternatives for lot of players, I would definitely be one of them.

How is one forced to fight if he is not going to do it by free will? Are vassals automatically dropped on the battlefield, forced to fight by some black magic?
This topic is realy easy in real life, fight for your enemy or die on the spot. Ingame without permadeath, fight or die and respawn?
Forcing people by game mechanic is like a hostage situation, it is not going to be fun for everyone and most likely people will just stop playing LiF.

Vassals had to take part in the fight when they were called, so did the mercenaries. In a war (RL or igm), you fight for a cause which is higher than your will and this is valid for the members of your crew when they follow a lead too. That is why we have game mechanic like "Guilds". Even slaves during these times had to fight on the battlefield and of course it was not free will. Black magic is out of topic.

So I think it would be good to have this option ingame and after IB for a guild takes his decisions in his own responsibility whether they convert to the ennemy or die.

Bottom line and for the reason I raised this point as a beneficial option, I think Lot of players will stop playing specifically once they are wiped and that is as simple as that because of the nature of the game. This is a game for builders AND for Warriors, one doesn't work without the other. You don't have to be both types to play, but if you are not a warrior in the game then you will probably quit the game because your personal investment in lost hours will be more dissuasive and bitter. But we don't want that, we need both kind of players and definitely more players.

[Gruber]

Vassals had to take part in the fight when they were called, so did the mercenaries. In a war (RL or igm), you fight for a cause which is higher than your will and this is valid for the members of your crew when they follow a lead too. That is why we have game mechanic like "Guilds". Even slaves during these times had to fight on the battlefield and of course it was not free will. Black magic is out of topic.

So why should a, by game mechanics, forced vassal join a battle? There is absolutly no point to do so.

Bottom line and for the reason I raised this point as a beneficial option, I think Lot of players will stop playing specifically once they are wiped and that is as simple as that because of the nature of the game. This is a game for builders AND for Warriors, one doesn't work without the other. You don't have to be both types to play, but if you are not a warrior in the game then you will probably quit the game because your personal investment in lost hours will be more dissuasive and bitter. But we don't want that, we need both kind of players and definitely more players.

You are not getting it? Siege is not the point where to make vassals, at this point diplomacy failed many times. If the attacker want their enemy to be a vassal, they could offer that after every won battle on the field. There is plently of time to become vassal before a siege.

[Forresthunt]

don't know if vassalage in this game is good or bad idea (I kind of like it personally), but it is well historically established if not in different forms for different cultures. Romans, Macedonians, for example, had foreign troops fighting for them; and it was far from being a free will.
two different ways of becoming such
one, you conquer me and present a choice of being totally extinct or follow your lead.
two, I ask for help dealing with my opponents threatening my existence and you help for exchange of following your war campaigns.
in both cases it has nothing to do with my free will, it was simply survival and choosing more favorable option.

would be easy to implement it in the game.
Winner would have option to vanquish the defeated group or offer vassalage. if they except the winning groups would have option to destroy the vassals monument if they rebel against or refuse following orders. They would have the rights for as long as they themselves are not defited in a battle. If so, all the vassals are free again.
but than again, I'm not sure if that is such a good idea. there would still be ways to go around it. on the other hand, I wouldn't actually mind (as a small Guild ) to be under influence of a powerful Guild. There are benefits to it to.
this however already exist in the game to some extant and the Guild Leaders are free to make such arrangements themselves.
to go any farther with that a poll should be set for players to decide.

[Hodo]

Mortal Online, which seems to be staying the only true open world sandbox.

HAHAHAHA

Sorry, no.

Mortal Online is one of a kind but it is not an example these developers want to follow. Having played MO since Block B beta I can say I have seen that game morph from something good to something meh.

[Gruber]

would be easy to implement it in the game.
Winner would have option to vanquish the defeated group or offer vassalage. if they except the winning groups would have option to destroy the vassals monument if they rebel against or refuse following orders. They would have the rights for as long as they themselves are not defited in a battle. If so, all the vassals are free again.

There are not many players who find motivation in fighting for their enemy. To lose everything while you are not motivated anymore is not that of a big deal. The option to destroy the monument at all time is good idea, but can be abused. At the end, it is only a game, you are not bind with your live to it.

Offering to be a vassal would work better than a forced one.

[Davis105]

I'm going to agree with Gruber here, he's just right

1. Forcing defeated foes into vassalization, where they are going to be forced into other wars via the game script is completely unfair and stupid. Vassals always had the option to revolt and that should be present in this game as well. Not to mention it's a game and like Gruber said if you die you can respawn and start over, and most would rather do that then play with people they dislike.

2. Gruber is wrong in his claim on Noble Knights and the nobility of the medieval world. There were 100% landed knights, except they weren't honorable God fearing men who were kind and handsome. They were feared warriors who were granted lands to hold and raise personal levies for their liege lord. They trained the military of medieval kingdoms and often lead groups into battle (squads if you will). They were savage and definitely didn't dress like you see in movies. You can research it online or via your local library.

3. The current system they have is perfectly functional and there is nothing wrong with it. It could use some more customization (guild ranks, renaming vassal states, maybe changing their claim colors?). But it allows for people to join together or be destroyed, just as it was once upon a time. I have faith people will vassalize when faced with losing 2 months progress.

[Azzerhoden]

While it wasn't stated in this post, it has been stated previously that judgement hour, battles, and sieges will only take place during a regions 'prime time'. I argued that the guild should be able to set when they are vulnerable as some guilds (like mine) have a large Euro presence which made it somewhat unfair. Bitbox disagrees though, and their reasoning is equally as sound. so remains unchanged. There will be some adjustment to the actual siege time though, dictated by the defender.

1. Forcing defeated foes into vassalization, where they are going to be forced into other wars via the game script is completely unfair and stupid. Vassals always had the option to revolt and that should be present in this game as well. Not to mention it's a game and like Gruber said if you die you can respawn and start over, and most would rather do that then play with people they dislike.

Completely agree. Choosing whether to become vassals or not should remain an option for the defeated guild leader, but never automatic.

[Karabas]

Q: - what is the SIZE of defenders battle area, where the tickets will be counted - where houses and keep/tents will give tickets??
in numbers, please !!!
Is it some radius around the guild monyment& or some squer area x*y with center on monument?
clarify this pleaseee !!!!!!!!
numbers "about 120-160"- is not a clear answer ... we dont understatn it was counted with large storehouse+large stables+all set of workshops+walls on it? or only keeps+houses standing wall-to-wall