"Deadland" vs "Woodland" - lack of trees in the south

Have some feedback for Life is Feudal? Post it here!

Wolforus
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 27 Feb 2017, 08:21

"Deadland" vs "Woodland" - lack of trees in the south

Post by Wolforus » 01 Mar 2017, 19:48

Hey everyone,

I was playing on the MMO for some hours now and explored the map by walking for hours. Despite that I was constanly watching at the Livemap (https://lifeisfeudal.com/billing/status.php). Yesterday I had some concernes about the map, which may influence the gameplay a lot:

I think we all agree, that the landscape LiF:MMO offers is amazing. The desert parts of the map as well as the snowfield in the north. When I was walking around and watching the Livemap I realized, that there is a very string correlation between people in a sector and the amounth of trees in this sector. The lands in the south are nearly dead, no trees and nearly no players - the green stripe in the north - the "Wood-Sectors" ae full of it.

This is because the buildings are requiering a lot of wood. Because of that I see three problems:
1) The place people will be (and especially stong guilds)
2) The fail-quote in the south and
3) the lack of good quality of trees in the south

1) As now, I assume, that after the start of the MMO, many people will build their homes in the north, and nearly noone in the south. So big clans are taking posession of the upper regions. New players, who will enter the game after 2 or more weeks, do not have a chance to stay there, because all the spots are occupied. In return, the south will stay nearly empty because of lack of important ressources.

2) Because of this lack of ressources, player in the south will be slower than the one in the north. Another problem is, that if player cut down the trees in the south and stop playing, because of this lack of ressources, there will be no trees for other people later on.

3) which leads us to the third point: less trees leads to lower chances having a high quality tree. Which means the search for a tree with a quality of 92 or higher (which is acceptable in midgame), requires much more time. Despite that, because of lack of trees, people will hve to take thoes in order to build someting. which leads to less quality in any case in the end.

Based on this 3 points, I will guarantee, that the big fights will happen in the north, there will be around 70% of people and the rest is somewhere spread on the map. In my opinion it is just a matter of time, until the whole south is a dead zone. Because of that I would recommend the Game designer to place more trees in the south, to make bigger woods, so people have a chance of surviving there and that it is worth to give a shot so build up something.

Discussion is open


Lord_Sitruc
True Believer
 
Posts: 262
Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 20:22

Re: "Deadland" vs "Woodland" - lack of trees in the south

Post by Lord_Sitruc » 02 Mar 2017, 18:38

I think its fine, The players will remake the map, nobody intentionally cuts down a high quality tree without getting all the sprouts from it first, so guilds will have high quality trees growing relatively quickly and once they do they will likely be a hot commodity to trade high quality tree sprouts.

User avatar
Elindor
True Believer
 
Posts: 195
Joined: 20 Dec 2013, 18:48

Re: "Deadland" vs "Woodland" - lack of trees in the south

Post by Elindor » 02 Mar 2017, 21:04

A long time ago, the devs mentioned that there would be the option to build structures with varying materials, such as clay walls and houses, etc...that would be more readily found in the southern area, making it viable to live there.

However, I agree that if that sort of thing does not get implemented, then the south is pointless currently...


Wolforus
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 27 Feb 2017, 08:21

Re: "Deadland" vs "Woodland" - lack of trees in the south

Post by Wolforus » 03 Mar 2017, 10:01

"I think its fine, The players will remake the map, nobody intentionally cuts down a high quality tree without getting all the sprouts from it first, so guilds will have high quality trees growing relatively quickly and once they do they will likely be a hot commodity to trade high quality tree sprouts."

I guess you assume that there will be just experience players. With the open Beta many new people will joyin the server, who may not be that experienced. Despite that, you need a T3 skill (Forestry) on a high level to get good saplings. So the first people there won't be on this level.

The other point is, that, If you ask yourself, will people with a high foresty skill really go to dead lands, just to plant trees for new players? I don't think so.

So if there is no other way to build without wood, it is in fact dead land.


Eaodengr
Devoted Believer
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 17 Nov 2016, 13:49

Re: "Deadland" vs "Woodland" - lack of trees in the south

Post by Eaodengr » 03 Mar 2017, 10:30

I agree that there is a lack of trees in the south. Also the tree growth timer is really long in the south. However, the south is perfect for crops. So in essence people from the south will need to trade crops (Flax, vegetables etc for Wood and vice versa. This will encourage trading because no one really can be compltetely self sufficient and nobody should be. In the real world you need to interact with others.
In addition, trading routes can be a target for criminal player guilds and maybe at some point mercenary guilds for guilds that don't have a strong army. I am currently in the south and unfortunately we have no trees for big buildings. However, the crop yield and time is really quick and we never run out of good food and flax for armor and ropes.
In the long run I think the whole situation of trees will shape the politics of the map.


Daynosdenory
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 06 Feb 2017, 18:48

Re: "Deadland" vs "Woodland" - lack of trees in the south

Post by Daynosdenory » 03 Mar 2017, 13:46

Eaodengr wrote:I agree that there is a lack of trees in the south. Also the tree growth timer is really long in the south. However, the south is perfect for crops. So in essence people from the south will need to trade crops (Flax, vegetables etc for Wood and vice versa. This will encourage trading because no one really can be compltetely self sufficient and nobody should be. In the real world you need to interact with others.
In addition, trading routes can be a target for criminal player guilds and maybe at some point mercenary guilds for guilds that don't have a strong army. I am currently in the south and unfortunately we have no trees for big buildings. However, the crop yield and time is really quick and we never run out of good food and flax for armor and ropes.
In the long run I think the whole situation of trees will shape the politics of the map.


I'm agree with you!

And I'm also agree with the fact that new players / trolls would cut trees without replanting anything. Or it can even be a strategic target to weaken our ennemis: cut their trees!

Later we will talk about TK (tree killers) like we talk about PK :D


WeeFraser
True Believer
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 17:02

Re: "Deadland" vs "Woodland" - lack of trees in the south

Post by WeeFraser » 13 May 2017, 09:05

I agree with you. Very few players are like myself, learn the forestry skill. It takes an extra long time to skill set to 90 in Natures lore. This can allow up to 60 in farming and forestry. I think. The 60 level is required for tree sprout picking of the major hardwoods. It would take about 3 to 4 months grind to get to the stage where a simple "player" not a GM to plant Oak. To get to Grandmaster Forestry would exceed the number of hours required to play in game to many thousands of in-game hours of experience. I do not mind grinding away. This level of commitment is ludicrious. One post said players would pick the sprouts before cutting High Q trees? How? You have to have high forestry skills to pick sprouts.


Sharana
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 644
Joined: 06 Nov 2014, 17:03

Re: "Deadland" vs "Woodland" - lack of trees in the south

Post by Sharana » 13 May 2017, 12:40

WeeFraser wrote:It takes an extra long time to skill set to 90 in Natures lore. This can allow up to 60 in farming and forestry. I think. The 60 level is required for tree sprout picking of the major hardwoods. It would take about 3 to 4 months grind to get to the stage where a simple "player" not a GM to plant Oak.


Why would you need 90 in Natures lore? Also players were planting oaks (90 skill) in 1 week of CBT #1 start. And you don't need oaks only, the other trees that grow faster are more important in the beginning and groups were planting trees on day 2-3 already. The release speed was 2x faster, so add x2 to those numbers.
Also the north has lots of trees + the game's forest algorithm works on it's own and replants (spawns new trees) when their amount drops due to players actions.
Image

User avatar
Azzerhoden
Alpha Tester
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: 08 May 2014, 17:44

Re: "Deadland" vs "Woodland" - lack of trees in the south

Post by Azzerhoden » 13 May 2017, 15:24

LOL, if folks want to see true desolation, they should spend some time up in the true north (where the snow is). My god, it was beautiful and horrifying at the same time.....
| - Alpha Tester and Zealous Believer
Image

Kingdom of Hyperion founding Duchy - A practical RP Community est. 1999 - Apply Today!

User avatar
Forresthunt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 31 Dec 2016, 11:48

Re: "Deadland" vs "Woodland" - lack of trees in the south

Post by Forresthunt » 14 Jun 2017, 22:52

LOL, if folks want to see true desolation, they should spend some time up in the true north (where the snow is). My god, it was beautiful and horrifying at the same time.....


EXACTLY, well stated; the map offers great variety of terrain, landscapes and challenges. Paradise for PvE players. makes it a very unique and truly worth exploring. Luck of resources force players to move around and trade. Makes the game dynamic.

Based on this 3 points, I will guarantee, that the big fights will happen in the north,


you are absolutely right, however, isn't that exactly what the PvE players may want?
challenge the harsh surroundings? stay out of big Guilds and raiders harm? Build yourself a fortress in the middle of a wasteland and good luck to anybody who want to attack it. Extremely hard yet rewording.

For the opposite, as you rightfully mention, all the PvP players can wage wars to their heart content choosing to stay in more favorable and full of resources terrain. Exactly your point. Big Guilds WANT and CAN survive constant battles.

I agree about the new incoming players. it will be more and more difficult to find a good spot. But that is always a problem no matter how you design the map. Unless the map is computer generated and ever expanding as we play.
on the other hand I pretty much sure that in few month time there will be quite a lot of abandoned villages or maybe even unfinished fortresses for the new guys to reposes.

Return to Feedback Section