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.
❤️ Posted on August 11, 2020 at 02:00:37 AM by Six
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.
A: I personally don’t mind a more battle-heavy RP but I do appreciate alternative gaming styles, and while I believe the TLI staff has done a wonderful job organizing and developing this game and guiding it as it evolves organically without getting too intrusive into the player’s freedom, I think it would be wonderful to explore those alternatives a little more. Currently, however, I think there are just too few territories; as Love said, there are so many more potential territory owners than there are territories, and I feel that at any given time there are one or two displaced territory owners with developed herds and storylines that have nowhere to go. Not that there’s anything wrong with that - who doesn’t love a tragic plot and heavy IC drama? - but I feel it happens very often, without other options to regain or relocate homes aside from battling.
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.)
A: I’m not sure on this one. I haven’t been around very long since the government systems were introduced, but based off my very vague memories of old TLI, it feels like not much has changed. I think it’s a good idea but maybe needs more structure? I’m sorry if that’s unhelpful; I don’t have much feedback to offer aside from that. I could take it or leave it, I think, but I do think it’s a very neat idea and I would enjoy if it was utilized more.
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?
A: I think I agree pretty heavily with the perspective that grammar policing can be problematic. Language changes constantly and maybe it’s not entirely fair to expect everyone on this site to conform to a very specific, probably outdated standard of grammar. I think flow, accuracy, detail, and imagery is more important in a battle post. That being said, I don’t have a problem with keeping the grammar scoring, but I do think the other aspects on which a battle post is scored should heavily outweigh the grammar portion, if not get rid of it entirely. I think it would make writing battle posts more fun, less stressful, and even the playing field a little bit.
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?
A: I absolutely think the current level of activity would support new territories. I personally don’t have any characters who would claim right now, but I have a few with character growth that appears to be heading in that direction and I would like them to have that opportunity.
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).
A: I love the idea of more random events. I think it boosts activity and character development and is generally just fun. I think if I was going to offer exp for random events, I would have a requirement for a minimum number of posts or threads for an experience point (maybe tag those threads with [event] in the title to clarify) but otherwise the random events would stay the same. With or without exp though, I really enjoy the random events and would like to see more of them!
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?
A: I don’t have any characters deeply invested enough in the Peak or Lagoon to have much of an opinion on this, but I think the idea of 2 challenges per season sounds fair. I agree that individuals being able to challenge would definitely overpower those territories. Maybe the Peak and Lagoon would also be required to answer a second challenge per season, if one was issued after the max was raised to two?
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?
A: I think for breeding, after a certain point the size difference could add to the difficulty of the birth/possibility of a defect. As for battling, I do think it would get more complicated; you could in theory come up with different traits to add points to battle posts (like weight or speed depending on the build of the horse, stacked with their experience points, kind of D&D style) but that would only do so much and I still feel like realism and accuracy would clash with the judgment. Realistically, a 21hh horse with a fiery and aggressive personality would probably win a lot of battles; you could either lean towards accuracy and say that, yes, this character has an upper hand almost all the time, but it might come across as favoritism, or that character has really nothing stopping them from abusing their power. Maybe characters above a certain height have fewer opportunities to challenge so as not to abuse that obvious physical upper hand, and characters beneath a certain height are allotted more opportunities to challenge? It would require a lot of work, I think, and I personally am fine with the current height limitations, but I believe that you guys will find a way to balance whatever new limitations you do or don’t implement. <3
8) Do you have any other suggestions to improve the game? Or any concerns you would like to express?
A: I’m just happy with everything you guys are doing to make this game awesome <3 Replies:
<3<3<3 - By kafkaesqueAugust 10, 2020 at 05:31:40 PM
>>> - By loveinspiredAugust 10, 2020 at 01:41:15 PM