Q&A session┃Answers: "Season 1" - an ongoing journey

Feudals,

Thank you for your patience! With the Age 4 out of the gate, we can finally return with the answers to the questions you sent us for the Q&A. Let's not dwell much further, and jump right into action!

❓ The last couple of patches did not apply well - prolonged maintenance time, additional follow-up fixes do not help build trust with the community. What measures are you going to take to prevent similar situations in the future?

We understand the frustration around the recent updates, especially when issues appear after extended maintenance. This is not the experience we want players to have, and we apologize for the disruption it caused.

Some issues only become visible under real live-server conditions, with many players interacting with systems in ways that are impossible to fully reproduce during internal testing. That does not remove our responsibility, but it is one of the reasons why not every bug can be caught before release.

To reduce the risk of similar situations in the future, we are adjusting our release process. Where possible, we will separate technical changes from content updates, give QA more time to review changes before deployment, and perform a clearer risk assessment before each patch. We also want to better prepare the GM and Support teams in advance, so they have mitigation tools and instructions ready if something goes wrong.

Our goal is to improve both stability of updates and speed of our response when problems appear.

❓ There have been voices calling for the dev.team to pivot back to Godenland. Do you have any comments on that?

When we compare MMO and Arden, those two games are designed to provide different experiences. Godenland remains the "classical", perpetual feudal world, while Arden is designed to be a fast-paced "vehicle of change" that allows for faster iteration within the "seasonal" model. We remain committed to this division. Those two experiences can co-exist simultaneously, and players can choose one or another based on their preferences.

Naturally, any forward motion is bound to meet obstacles, yet we believe that persistence will help development in the long run. Performance, crashes, and technical issues are serious concerns, and improving stability remains one of our main priorities. For now, our focus is on stabilizing Arden, improving the update process, fixing the most harmful issues, and making sure future changes are introduced in a more controlled way.

❓ What was the thought process behind the “Food Rations” mechanic? Some players are underwhelmed that the novelty builds upon the already existing things - outposts and knools.

The main goal behind this feature was to create more reasons for players to leave their claims, interact with the open world, and create more points of activity on the map. One of the recurring challenges for game design in LiF is that many important gameplay loops can become too isolated. “Food Rations” are meant to connect PvE production, open-world activity, and potential PvP encounters.

This is also why the feature was connected to knool camps. They already exist as open-world points of interest, so using them allowed us to introduce the system faster and test how players interact with it before considering deeper changes. That does not mean knool camps must remain the only source of “Food rations” forever, or that the current implementation is final.

We also agree that POIs should not feel like a mandatory chore. We have already received some amazing suggestions from the community, including alternative sources of "rations", random chest spawns, universal timers, alternative uses for player-produced food, or changing "rations" into a production boost instead of a hard requirement. All of those ideas are currently being reviewed by the game design team.

The work does not stop after the feature is introduced - drop rates, rare loot chances, the possible effect of luck, the size of knool camp areas - all those things are also being reviewed. The feature may be adjusted based on live data and player feedback.

Inflating PvE elements for "Seasonal Arden" was never our intention. The goal is to create a healthier loop where PvE supports PvP, while PvP creates reasons to control the open world, and open-world activity matters more than it did before.

❓ Many players state that the new mechanic only adds PvE grind, it does not facilitate PvP. What is your perspective on this?

In Life is Feudal, PvE and PvP are strongly connected. Production, logistics, equipment, and territory control all affect the outcome of PvP. The purpose of this mechanic is to create more reasons for players to move through the open world and compete over specific points of activity, instead of keeping most progression fully isolated inside claims.

This being said, we understand that players' perception is an important factor for any new mechanic, as it defines how players will interact with it. Adding more PvE was not the focus of this mechanic. We are reviewing the balance, drop rates, and overall impact of “Food Rations” to make sure the system supports PvP interaction instead of inhibiting it.

❓ Why were the profession-specific outfits moved to “Household” skill? Given that the resources you receive from fighting knools are based on RNG, what if I never see the drop for the outfit I need? Is there any RNG insurance that I eventually get the necessary resource?

Outfits were relocated to “Household” skill to compensate for the effort in looting items to craft them.

Outfits provide a significant production bonus. When combined with workshops, they can make it possible to craft high-quality items even when using lower-quality resources. Because of that, outfits have a strong impact on the economy and progression, so they cannot be treated as a common or easily guaranteed item from day one.

At the same time, we understand the concern about outfits being fully dependent on RNG. In the current version, rare drops are the main way to obtain them, but we agree that a system based only on luck can feel frustrating, especially if a player keeps receiving duplicates or never gets the specific outfit they want.

We are reviewing possible improvements, such as duplicate protection, exchange options, or another form of RNG insurance. We cannot confirm the exact solution yet, but the concern is valid and we do not want long-term rewards to feel impossible or unfair to obtain.

❓ Do "green" zone players have to fight knools to get the new resources for outfits?

No. “Green” zone players are not required to fight knools to obtain the new outfit-related resources.

❓ “Food rations” changes should just be for orange/greenzone, grindy gameplay is not what we want on “Seasonal Arden”. Clue is in the name of the server - "PVP".

We understand that some players may be feeling confused about the direction of “Seasonal Arden” and how recent features connect to the original idea of a more PvP-focused world. This is fair feedback, and we need to communicate the bigger picture more clearly.

Our vision for “Seasonal Arden” goes beyond the notion of “more fights”. We hope to create a world where territory, logistics, production, resources, and open-world activity matter more, because all of these systems eventually support PvP. A healthy PvP world needs reasons for players to move, compete, prepare, take risks, and control important parts of the map. Some of the recent mechanics were designed with that long-term goal in mind.

We also agree that players need better visibility on what is coming. We want to improve how we announce new features, explain why they are being added, and what stage of development they are in. This should make it easier for the community to follow the game's evolution.

❓ Can developers host a poll about the upcoming features?

There are a lot of things that together make the game design process. It goes without saying that community feedback is always taken into account during the design phase. Apart from that, we need to consider long-term balance, technical limitations, and the overall direction of the project. Unfortunately, not every design or technical decision leaves enough space for a poll or a vote. However, we agree that players should have clearer opportunities to give feedback before major changes are introduced.

We believe that every system in the game, including PvE elements, must provide an adequate level of challenge. If new systems create too much extra work or frustration, they require revision and adjustment. The same applies to the “seasonal” structure: We will continue collecting feedback and improving the system. The iterative nature of the "seasons" lets us improve with every cycle.

❓ Why are you adding things mid-season? Last time didn't go well, this time didn't go well, there had better not be a next time!

As for adding things mid-season, we understand why this can feel disruptive. In general, we try to be careful with changes that strongly affect progression during an active “Season”. When possible, larger changes must be introduced in a way that gives players time to prepare. At the same time, some mid-season changes may still be necessary when they address balance issues, technical problems, or sub-optimal parts of the gameplay loop.

Our main takeaway is that we need to be more transparent and proactive in communication. Players should better understand what we are building, why we are building it, and how each feature supports the future of “Seasonal Arden”.

❓ Let's talk about the journey so far. Which changes do you think are working well, and which changes you won't take with you to Season 2?

The season is still ongoing, so we do not want to make final conclusions too early. We are collecting feedback, watching how the systems work in practice, and we will make a deeper review closer to the end of the season.

The things we will be taking a particularly close look into are the duration of a “Season”, the “Ages” system, and the anti-zerg mechanics. These were introduced to give the world a clearer progression structure, reduce early snowballing, and make long-term competition more manageable. Some parts may stay close to the current version, while others may need adjustments before “Season 2”. Reworking the tutorial and wiki is also an important development direction.

We want to keep things that work, polish elements that create unnecessary friction, and remove or redesign parts that do not support the intended gameplay.

❓ Which big changes around siege and territory control do you plan to introduce in “Season 2”?

Work on the siege system has already started, but we are not ready to confirm the full “Season 2” territory control changes just yet. The current “Season” is still ongoing, and we want to base the final decisions on live data, player feedback, and a proper end-of-season review.

That said, siege and territory control are one of the main areas we want to review before “Season 2”. We are looking at how claims, provinces, Judgment Hour, Instanced Battles, outposts, and anti-zerg mechanics work together and how they reflect actual players’ interactions.

❓ Will Wiki get an overhaul? It is full of outdated info, the games are different now, or will Arden have its own Wiki?

Indeed, it is high time the Wiki was updated. We know that many pages contain outdated information. New mechanics introduced with Arden add to the confusion.

Work on this aspect of the game has already started. We're building new tools and processes to make wiki updates a regular part of how we prepare and ship content. This is not only a content task, but also a structure task. We want the Wiki to become more reliable, easier to navigate, and better connected to current game systems. It will take time, yet necessity is the mother of innovation.

Our goal is also to improve the Wiki so players can clearly understand which information applies to “Seasonal Arden”, non-seasonal “Arden”, and which applies to Godenland. This may be done through separate Arden-specific sections, or clearer labels inside existing pages. The wiki overhaul runs alongside our tutorial rework, though they are separate tracks.

❓ Has anyone tried to reach out to any major streamer to get some blood back in the pot here?

Creator and streamer outreach is important, and it is something we want to do more actively.

At the same time, timing is of the essence. Our focus is to improve stability, update tutorials and knowledge base, prepare clearer messaging; once it is done, subsequent outreach can be done in a more structured way. We want to invite not only major streamers, but also smaller creators who already understand the genre and the Life is Feudal community.

Furthermore, feudals are creative, and there is always a chance that a guild video can flourish into something bigger!

❓ What is the status of UE5 transition?

We continue working in the direction we announced before regarding Unreal Engine 5. This is still an active long-term track for the project, but it is not something that can be delivered quickly.

Moving Life is Feudal to UE5 is a very complex technical process, so no ETA can be given in advance. We are also in contact with Epic on this matter, which helps us better understand the available options and requirements.

❓ In the last AMA we reported that the probability to have the new gems was ridiculously low. Why are you making it even harder?

The search for the new gems can be frustrating if the drop rate is on the lower end. If players feel that the situation became even harder after the latest changes, then it is something we need to review carefully.

❓ Any revision on the vostaskus and the ridiculously weird method of smelting it?

Vostakus production had already been reviewed and adjusted: vostaskus smelting process now requires around 50% fewer resources than before. We understand that the original version felt too demanding and unintuitive, so the recipe was simplified.

No further changes planned for this aspect of the game.

❓ Will we ever get more character slots on Arden?

At the moment, we do not plan to increase the number of character slots on Arden.