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 PART 2 Posted on August 10, 2020 at 12:30:54 PM by Shiva
Hi everyone! As promised, here is the second part of the discussion. Please read through each question carefully, and answer thoughtfully and honestly. If you would rather send us your answers privately, you may send them to our staff email at lostislands.staff@gmail.com. Once we have heard from as many players as possible, we will close this discussion, look through your feedback, and then follow up with a conclusion.
-----
QUESTIONS
1) Do you feel there is enough incentive for players to try to acquire and keep territories through non-violent means (e.g. plotting, scheming, intrigue, making alliances, etc.)? If not, what do you feel could be added to the game in order to encourage this?
Our thoughts: In the past, TLI much more commonly saw things such as alliances and trades between territories. While these still happen, we've noticed that since we integrated the dice roll and battle ranking systems that the site has become much more battle-focused. While there's not necessarily anything wrong with this - after all, games evolve with time - we are concerned that this has had a somewhat detrimental effect to the game, given the amount of debate surrounding battles and territory ownership. We never intended on railroading the path to becoming a territory owner, and we would like to help players feel that they have options other than making their characters as strong as they can be and keeping their territory through brute force. While we do encourage things like making alliances, trading, and taking advantage of the government system, we would welcome any feedback or ideas on how we could improve on this matter, especially in helping make these paths clearer to newcomers, or whether you think things are fine as they are.
2) What are your feelings toward the government system? Do you think it works, should be nixed, or could be improved in some way?
Our thoughts: As excited as we were when we first introduced the government system some time ago, we have not seen it utilized as much as we had hoped for. We feel that part of this is because of the aforementioned point regarding how battle-heavy TLI has become (i.e. less diplomacy = less need for governments), but at this point we are also wondering if it adds anything to the game at all, or if it is just a redundant feature. After all, herds do not need the permission of a government system in order to plot or compete with each other. We would therefore like to ask if you feel it adds anything to the game, if it could be improved, or if you think it would be better off being removed entirely. (Note: even if it were removed, players would still be able to compete to be island leaders, as they did in the past pre-government systems.)
3) Do you feel that we should continue marking RP battles on grammar and spelling?
Our thoughts: We have heard concerns that marking RP battles on spelling and grammar can make RP battles inaccessible for certain players. We think this is a valid concern, as marking for spelling and grammar is problematic at the best of times - after all, standards vary between cultures, experts disagree on what is "correct", grammar correction tools are often unreliable, language is evolving all the time, and "incorrect" grammar can be used for stylistic effect. While TLI is a writing-based game, and some basic knowledge of spelling and grammar is necessary for purposes of clarity and comprehension, we don't want RP battles to be inaccessible or unfriendly to players with disabilities, or those from different cultures or disadvantaged backgrounds, or even players with different writing styles. In years past, spelling and grammar were previously worth a higher percentage of RP battle scores, and we lowered this after similar concerns were expressed. Now we would like to ask if players feel we should lower this percentage even further, or nix it entirely, placing emphasis on clarity, flow, and creativity rather than spelling and grammar. Another option would be to up the percentage of marks given to the other categories (detail/description and accuracy/realism), making spelling/grammar worth less overall. What do you think? Or, if you would rather we don't change the way spelling and grammar are marked, do you have any other suggestions of how we can make the way we judge battles friendlier to players from a variety of backgrounds and writing styles?
4) Do you think TLI is ready for the new territories to be opened? Would you claim one if they were?
Our thoughts: While the new territories are ready to go live, we have been holding off on opening them to see how activity would stabilize after the number of players who quit several months ago. We also understand that many players are excited about the prospect of new territories, but we want to try and maintain a balance between giving all players the chance to hold one and encouraging a certain level of competitiveness, and we usually try to gauge this based on how frequently there are battles over territories, so that no new territories become inactive. Do you feel there is currently enough activity and competitiveness on TLI to warrant the new territories finally being opened? How many of you would be interested in claiming a territory if they were opened?
5) In our previous discussion, several players expressed their support for the idea of utilizing random events for experience (i.e. characters who got involved would gain exp). What do you think of this idea? How would you go about implementing it?
Our thoughts: We are not opposed to this; in fact we think it could be a fun way to gain experience especially for characters who don't battle or raid much. Our main concerns are 1) the additional moderation and revised rule system required, especially if random events were tweaked into quest threads that required active participation from the moderators; and 2) whether it is necessary after the additional ways of gaining exp that we recently added to the game (i.e. escapes and raids, and rp battles gaining more exp). For us these are minor things and we are not opposed to the thought we would need to potentially put into implementing this - we are mainly curious as to whether you think it would be beneficial to the game and whether you would prefer a simple system (i.e. as we currently have, just with exp gained), or a more complex quest-based system (in which there might be multiple steps and more active moderator participation).
6) Do you think that battle limits for the Peak/Lagoon should be lifted or loosened? Specifically, that they should be allowed to issue more than 1 challenge per season?
Our thoughts: We have mixed feelings on this. While we agree that it can be frustrating for Peak/Lagoon members when they would like to challenge someone but their challenge for the season has already been issued by someone else, we are concerned that lifting or loosening this limit (e.g. so that each individual member is able to issue 1 challenge per season) could make the Peak/Lagoon overpowered, given that they are already protected from having to answer challenges individually. Furthermore, keeping a strict limit should, in theory, encourage the Peak/Lagoon to act as a unit and make a unified decision on who to challenge, though we understand this is easier said that done. A compromise could potentially be upping the limit to 2 challenges per season for the Peak/Lagoon as a whole. What do you think?
7) Do you think the minimum and/or maximum height limits should be lifted or loosened? And if so, how should we handle any technical issues that arise?
Our thoughts: Originally the height limits were set in place in order to keep the logistics of battles and breeding from becoming too complicated. While we have no issue with players joining horses of any size per say, there is the question of how we would handle, say, an 11hh pony fighting a 21hh draft, or a similar situation regarding breeding. While it is true that in real life large horses are often scared of/bullied by small ponies, TLI's horses are more complex, and though we don't want to limit the possibilities of character relationships, we also have to consider how we could justify or prevent horses of wildly varying heights breeding with each other. Therefore we would like your opinion: are these technical issues enough cause for concern to keep the current limits in place? Can you think of any ways to handle them while allowing the limits to be lifted/loosened? Or do they not concern you?
8) Do you have any other suggestions to improve the game? Or any concerns you would like to express?
-----
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. Again, 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: