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.
(⌐■_■) (edited) Posted on July 13, 2024 at 08:57:09 PM by Peach
Better late than never :sweating:
TOPIC ONE
I definitely understand the frustration with having both sets of twins being claimed by twins dibs, and I would be in favor of restricting this as suggested, to ensure one pair of twins is still able to be rolled naturally every season. I'm not in favor of increasing the number of sets of twins to three, as I think this depreciates the rarity and value of them. Additionally, I agree with the other players who suggested that placing a time block on when twins can be rolled for (and/or requiring a certain number of breedings to unlock them) could result in an increase in spam foals. As for the possibility of a death roll, I am personally not in favor of this, even if it requires the player's consent. To me, if it requires the player's consent then we might as well just leave them to make that decision for themselves in their plots (and many players already do use birth as a way of killing off characters). I also feel that such high stakes would feel out of place in a game environment that's overall very relaxed and friendly, and could lead to players creating spam characters that they aren't attached to just for the sake of trying to snag a set of twins. Like I mentioned before, if the goal is to keep twins rare and valuable, I think the simplest and cleanest method is to restrict twins dibs to 1 per season so that 1 set is still able to be rolled naturally.
TOPIC TWO
I do agree that the current system is vulnerable to abuse, and admittedly I think many of us, myself included, have taken advantage of it in the past. I definitely understand the frustration of territories sitting inactive for a long time too. However, I am also wary of making it too easy to *lose* a territory. The reason I say this is because the nature of play-by-post roleplay is slow. A month feels like a long time to covet a territory you have your eyes on, but for busy players, it may not be a lot of time to make progress in your plots. High territory owner turnover is, in my opinion, as undesirable for a site such as TLI as territories sitting inactive. From past experience, it makes it extremely difficult to get plots off the ground and can lead to frustration, arguments, and low player morale. So, the question is then: how do we balance this? How do we prevent high territory owner turnover while making sure away rules are not being abused and that players feel like they have a fair chance to acquire territories?
As for the suggested changes, I worry about the enforceability of any of them. The one I think could potentially work is the PTO-style allowance, though I have concerns about it as well. For starters, due to the fact that not everyone remembers to announce when they return from away, it could prove difficult, time-consuming, and micromanagey to keep track of exactly how much of their allowance someone has used (I am imagining mods and players alike have to scour the tagging channel as well as the boards for evidence of exactly when someone posted IC after being away). I also feel that because TLI is a game, I wouldn't want it to feel more like work, which I think a PTO-style system might make it do so. I personally don't like the idea of players rationing out their away allowance and feeling like they have to push through and force posts just to stay active. I think this could cause burnout.
My suggestion would be, instead, to simply reduce the chunk of time someone can be away for at one time (while having their characters and territories protected) from one month to, say, two weeks. We already have a rule stating that players' territories become claimable after not posting in them for two weeks, so to me it would feel like a natural extension of that. It is not a perfect idea -- it's liable to the same loophole whereby someone could return, post, and go on away again -- but it would allow players to take the time off that they need from the site while also encouraging more activity and theoretically halving the timescale at which territories become claimable. If there were any concerns that 2 weeks was too soon for a player to be considered fully inactive and for all their characters to be placed on hiatus, the rule could remain as it is in that regard -- i.e. after 2 weeks, any territories you have are claimable regardless of whether you're away or not, but you're still allowed to be away up to a month without being considered an inactive player and needing to rejoin on your return. Like I said, I don't think my idea is perfect and would likely need refined in the future to tie up the remaining loopholes, but I think it could be an improvement on the existing system.
I hope all that made sense slakdjaskld I've been migraining the past few days and my brain is all over the place and I'm paranoid my ideas are all nonsense lmao >< Thank you for holding the discussion Love! <3
EDIT: I have seen some players suggest bringing Cimarron back. I have been thinking that site activity is so high we could benefit from more territory space, but I would prefer to see the fifth territories for each island brought back or a new distant island being discovered on the map. I like the value to the site history and lore a sunken island brings. Also, I know TLI is semi-realistic but for me it's a little too magical to raise an island back out of the sea and have it somehow be habitable enough to support multiple large herds. But, like I said, I am in favor of adding more territory space in general. Replies: