Here you can chat about life, roleplay, or whatever you like. Please be polite and kind to each other at all times.
Consider joining our Discord Server to chat with other members and receive announcements live. You can also use the @ command there to ping mods and other members.
PLAYER DISCUSSION - FEEDBACK NEEDED! Posted on May 21, 2020 at 03:08:01 PM by Shiva
Hi everyone! As promised, Chaos and I are finally opening up a player discussion about several topics, in response to feedback and concerns we've heard and compiled over the past few months. Due to the number of topics to be discussed, we have decided to split this discussion into two parts.
How this will work: we would like everyone to read through this post and respond to each question/topic with your thoughts and ideas. If you are neutral or have no strong feelings on a particular matter, please say so rather than skipping over it. Please also be respectful to each other at all times. This is simply a preliminary discussion in which we would like to hear your thoughts and ideas on the issues being put forward. Once we have heard from a majority of players, we will close this discussion, look through your feedback, and then follow up with either a conclusion, further discussion, or final vote on each topic. Once this is done, we will post part 2 of the discussion.
Please read through each question carefully and answer thoughtfully and honestly.
-----
QUESTIONS
1) Do you feel that the battle ranking system should be altered to be more accessible to new players? If yes, how so?
Our thoughts: We have conflicting feelings on this matter. Though we understand how it might be intimidating for a new player to join the game and have to compete with characters that outrank their own, the ranking system was not designed with instant gratification in mind - it was designed to reward players who commit long-term to the game and battle consistently. While we definitely don't want any new players feeling like they have no chance at getting their own territory, we also don't want to overlook the players who have put time and effort into the game (especially those who have back luck with RP battles and who have utilized the ranking system to give themselves more of a chance), or for them to feel that their efforts have been unfairly ousted by new players who have quickly power-leveled. Furthermore, currently the worst stakes for a dice roll battle are 1 in 7, which equates to a 14% chance of an unranked character winning against a rank 3, and the stakes are often much lower in an RP battle. Personally we feel this is quite generous for unranked characters, given the huge difference in experience between them and a rank 3, and the fact that dice roll battles require very little effort, but please let us know if you disagree. We are unsure how to alter this system in a way that remains as fair as possible to everyone, so we are open to any suggestions. (See points 3 and 11 for our further thoughts on this matter.)
2) How would you feel about a "beginner's luck bonus" being offered to unranked characters, giving them an advantage in their first battle (e.g. an extra point/side of the die)?
Our thoughts: We are proposing this as a way of making battling less intimidating for new players. Please let us know if you like this idea or not, and whether you feel it is an appropriate way of addressing the issue, or whether further action is needed.
3) Do you feel the length of time it takes to reach rank 3 is too long? If yes, what do you feel a reasonable length of time would be?
Our thoughts: To clarify, the fastest a character can reach rank 3 currently is 7 months. While this is a significant amount of time in real life, this amounts to 2 years in-game, and as we mentioned before, the ranking system was not designed to be a system a character can breeze through quickly. Rank 3 is meant to represent the best of the best, the master fighters, and we had always intended on it being a difficult thing to achieve, because we feel that the more characters reach rank 3, the more the rank loses value, and because realistically it should take a significant amount of time for a character to become a master fighter. We also have concerns that making it any quicker/easier to reach rank 3 would be counterproductive to making the game more accessible to new players, because while it would be easier for them to join the ranks of the elite, it also means that it would be that much more likely for them to join the game and see that all the existing characters are already rank 3. Therefore we are uncertain how to resolve this matter and address any dissatisfaction with the ranking system without breaking it. Any feedback and suggestions are welcome.
4) Do you feel that dice roll battles should be altered (e.g. count for less exp)? How do you feel about dice rolls for practice? Do they add anything to the game, or should they be nixed?
Our thoughts: Some players have voiced concerns that practice dice roll battles are spammy and contribute little to the game, due to the lack of in-character interaction and lack of any significant effect on relationships and plotlines (for the most part). We think this is a fair point, but are unsure how to address it without nixing them altogether (which we feel would slow down the amount of time it takes to reach rank 3 even more, which is not something we want to do, especially given the amount of players who have expressed that they feel it takes too long already). We saw one suggestion that players should be forced to roleplay the outcome of a dice roll battle (whether practice or real), in order to make them relevant to in-character relations and to discourage spamming; however, we're not personally a fan of this idea, as dice rolls would effectively become a different form of roleplay battles, and the main appeal of dice roll battles is that they are quick and require minimum effort. Players are also under no obligation to engage in dice roll battles for practice, and are more than welcome to roleplay the outcome of a dice roll battle if they so wish, or to use them as the basis for RP plots (which we encourage), and we have seen some of you do this; we are just uncomfortable with forcing it. We also saw a suggestion that dice roll battles (practice or real) should count for less exp than roleplay battles (e.g. half a point), due to the fact that they require so much less effort. We are not necessarily opposed to this. What are your feelings on dice roll battles?
5) Should characters be allowed to take on more challenges per season than the current limit allows, as long as they are willing? If yes, how should this affect exp limits?
Our thoughts: We have a few reasons for proposing this and think it could work as follows: answering one challenge per month could remain mandatory, but if a character is challenged again, they could have a choice as to whether they answer it or decline with no repercussions. This would allow players to challenge each other more often, without forcing players into more battles than they are willing to take on. We also feel this could help address the issue regarding co-lead battle limitations mentioned in point 8 below. Regarding experience, we propose that exp limits would remain the same as they are now, i.e. no additional points for any additional battles, in order to prevent power-leveling, but we are open to your opinions.
6) How would you define a "co-lead"? How should we classify them, for the purpose of leader-specific rules regarding battles/raids/territories, etc?
Our thoughts: Thank you to everyone to pointed out that there is ambiguity regarding what constitutes a co-lead; this is something we should have clarified long ago. In our opinion, a co-lead is a horse that, while not the technically owner of the territory, rules it as an equal to the territory owner and shares the same rights and responsibilities. This could be a horse that is a romantic partner, a family member, or a close friend to the territory owner. Initially we intended for a co-lead to be a horse that rules equally over the same herd, but in some cases we have seen co-leads rule over their own sub-herds (which has created some confusion, both in general for players and regarding rules specific to leaders). While we don't want to limit players' creativity when it comes to structuring their herd, we hesitate to call any horse given an elite rank a true co-lead, as not all of these positions are equal. For example, a queen might simply be a romantic partner with only a few rights and responsibilities, played by a player who has no real interest in ruling a territory, and we feel it is especially important to be careful who we designate a co-lead so that we have clear boundaries as to what rules do and don't apply to them. What do you think?
7) Should co-leads/queens/consorts/companions count as high-stakes in battles where they are being challenged for, since the actual territory owner/boss/prime minister is protected from being challenged for, but co-leads and other elite ranks have no such protection? Or should they remain low-stakes, since they are only one "thing" being challenged for?
Our thoughts: We would like to propose that only true co-leads (i.e. horses with equal ruling power to the territory owner) count as high-stakes, but all other positions (e.g. figureheads, queens/consorts with fewer rights, etc) remain low-stakes, for reasons outlined in point 6. As a reminder, high stakes battles are, by default, roleplayed out and cannot be dice roll unless it is agreed upon by both players involved. What do you think?
8) Should co-leads be eligible for being challenged to a battle even if the territory owner has already been challenged for the season, or should they be protected from this as part of the privilege of being a co-lead?
Our thoughts: Personally we feel that employing the aforementioned battle idea in point 5 could help address this, as it would allow a co-lead to take on as many challenges as they wish, but they would still potentially be protected if the territory owner had already been challenged for the season (just as members of the Peak and Lagoon are protected if the Peak/Lagoon has already been challenged for the season). What do you think?
9) Should co-leads be required to share posting duties with the territory owner in order to keep the territory active? If yes, how would you suggest this be enforced, and what what type of co-lead should be count toward this (i.e. just full co-lead, or should queens/consorts/figureheads be applicable as well)?
Our thoughts: While we think this is a fair point, and it makes sense for situations in which co-leads are true equals with the territory owner, it would require a) clear rules about what constitutes a co-lead (which we hope to work out in this discussion), and b) players to be upfront about whether their character is a true co-lead or not, in order for mods to make an informed decision about whether a territory has fallen inactive and become claimable or not. There could also be cause for confusion in situations such as when territory ranks are not updated in a timely matter, or when players do not explicitly state that they have designated a co-lead. Therefore, for simplicity's sake we feel it may be easier to keep the rules as they are regarding territory activity, but please let us know what you think. Finally, as mentioned before, we personally feel that only horses that share duties with the territory owner equally should count as co-leads, since just because a character is in a position of power or a close relationship with a territory owner doesn't necessarily mean they want all the duties and responsibilities of being a co-lead.
10) Should co-leads count toward the player territory limit? I.e. if a player has two characters who are co-leads, should they not be allowed to claim a territory? If yes, how would you suggest this be enforced, and what type of co-lead should be count toward this (i.e. just full co-lead, or should consorts/figureheads be applicable as well)?
Our thoughts: Personally we feel co-leads (even true co-leads that share duties equally with the territory owner) should not count toward the player territory limit, for several reasons. Firstly, co-leads' positions are not taken by force or set in stone: they are a supportive role that is at the mercy of the territory leader, who can strip them of their position or relieve them of their duties at any time (similarly to Peak/Lagoon leaders, who earn their position through the support of the populace and may be overthrown at any time). Furthermore, we feel it would be difficult to enforce, given the reasons outlined in point 9, but also because of how most characters naturally become co-leads through building a close relationship with another character, and not necessarily because they seek power. We wouldn't want to restrict in-character relationships from developing naturally, or prevent players from running their own territory just because they happen to have a couple characters playing a supportive role, which we feel could happen if we set such a limit. What do you think?
-----
Thank you to everyone in advance for reading through this post and responding with your thoughts and ideas. While Chaos and I have outlined our own feelings as part of the discussion, please don't be afraid to disagree with us, as long as this is done respectfully. We truly want nothing more than for TLI to be the best it can be, and for our site to run as smoothly as possible, so we are open to all suggestions. If you feel more comfortable sending us our response privately, please feel free to email us at lostislands.staff@gmail.com.
This discussion will remain open as long as we feel necessary, or until we have heard from a majority of players. Thank you! <3 Replies: