Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions (For the next world after Godenland)

General discussion about Life is Feudal MMO and Life is Feudal: Your Own, The main section and backbone of the forums.

SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions (For the next world after Godenland)

Post by SonofKitt » 17 Nov 2018, 21:41

Rule-set Transitions

In “Godenland” and probably “Godenland 2” we have Green Zones (protectorates) and Red Zones.

Image

These two zones are meant to work for everyone.

Image

Image


The Play-Style Spectrum


I think most people are not Sheep or Wolves, but a combination of both at some point along the spectrum of playstyle. I have simplified the spectrum to eight types just for simplicity.

Image

Some people have a lot of time to play the game and defend their lands and some have limited time to play and defend their lands. Some people like to only craft, some like to only PvP. The majority like to do both in varying amounts.


Image

And I think guilds, as a whole, also lay somewhere on this spectrum.

Image

Generally, where you are on the play-style spectrum as a player or as a guild will often determine whether you get along with another player of guild.

Image


Positive interactions don’t necessarily mean “friendly” behaviour. The interactions could be of a friendly trading nature or socialising. They could also be positive war/fights interactions where both parties come out enjoying the interaction/fight.


Image




The Current Zones


Image

Image

Image

Currently, we are trying to cram all these playstyles into two rulesets.

Image

Those on the PvE end of the spectrum are happy. But for a lot of people the two rulesets are not enough. The two rule sets are really only suiting 3/8 of the playstyles. Those who only want a bit of PvP can’t escape those that want a lot. Those on the red end of the spectrum want more PvP.

Image

And eventually, you get a lot of players heading to the green zone to play the game in a way they don’t really want to just to avoid the more PvP focused players.

Image


Image


Image



So, what could be done?



Proposal - Four Zones


Instead of just two zones, there should be at least four.


Image

And a possible ruleset layout just for an example.

Image

But then, what would be the differences between the zones?

Image
Image
Image

But then if you add these rulesets, where would the different player types go? Most would go into the first two zones because there is no incentive to be in the orange and red zone. Why make there lives harder for themselves?

Image

So, what can you do to stop this and encourage player-styles to spread out? Reward and incentives.


Proposal – Risk : Reward


Risk and reward is what drives peoples decisions. Some people are happy with playing it safe, some people want more. If you want players to head to the orange/red servers, you need to create an incentive for them to go there. The incentive needs to be proportional to the risk. The risk cant outweigh the reward, and the reward cant outweigh the risk.

Image

Below are some of the things you could do to incentivise players to risk going into the red zones.

There are other things like increased skill point gain speed, decreased crafting time, decreased building cost and a number of other things you could do. This is an example; developer balance would be needed.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


And hopefully you would achieve something like the below.


Image


And why would you want this?

Mainly, player retention. Players are less likely to quit the game if they have more positive interactions and less interactions where they get killed 10 times in a row. If players are around other players with similar player-styles they are going to have a better time than those with quite different play styles.

Happy players = better reviews = more players.


Interactions

Due to the vast distances between RED and GREEN, people from RED servers would be unlikely to interact directly with GREEN players and vice versa.

They would indirectly interact through trade. Players in Yellow servers would interact mostly with players from green and orange server nodes, and players living in orange servers will interact mostly with Red and Yellow servers.

Layouts

I think its important for Red servers to be in the middle, and the Green worlds on the edge. Players that want to PvP should not have to travel great distances to wage there wars. Solo players that just want to relax, build a small claim and trade can just head out to the far corners of the world and enjoy there lif in relative peace.


Here are there layouts options I quickly thought of. There could be a whole lot of better layouts, especially if combined with a new map with different terrain (mountains/rivers etc).

Image

Image

Image



What is everyone's thoughts on this suggestion?

Note* I originally made this post over a year ago and most of the above has been changed slightly to be more appropriate to Godenland. *

Please leave a comment with your thoughts and vote using the link below if you agree or disagree.


Let me know if you guys think it would be good or bad.

Voting Page Link:
https://lifeisfeudal.com/Discussions/qu ... ransitions

Cheers,
Kitt.
Last edited by SonofKitt on 15 Apr 2020, 02:42, edited 7 times in total.


Haseroth
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 01:20

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions

Post by Haseroth » 17 Nov 2018, 23:34

Yes yes yes yes yes massive +1 from me


Esuebara
True Believer
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 29 Mar 2017, 22:03

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions

Post by Esuebara » 18 Nov 2018, 01:24

instead of yield can we do quality where the only way to get high quality stuff would be to farm it from the harsher areas


SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions

Post by SonofKitt » 18 Nov 2018, 13:55

Esuebara,

That's probably a better idea. I'm all for creating resource caps, but many players hate the idea (from criticism comments in my economy post)

I didn't think too hard about the values, its more about the concept. They could do many things to to balance the risk:reward.

User avatar
Monco
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 28 Oct 2017, 19:33

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions

Post by Monco » 18 Nov 2018, 15:30

+1

I would say both yield and quality.


Furc
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 04 Nov 2014, 22:50

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions

Post by Furc » 18 Nov 2018, 22:14

Appreciate efforts to bring an idea, but seriously doubt it would work. Why would me or my mates move to red zone just to get 3x more yield and risk. In this scenario Green zones with no JH will be worth gold. I'd rather make farm 5x times larger and have no JH, but be able raid everyone in Red zone and have fun. Same as it is now but only between worlds. Elpeland is farming zone - Avalon where action happens. Same thing only squeezed in same server

User avatar
Monco
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 28 Oct 2017, 19:33

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions

Post by Monco » 18 Nov 2018, 23:26

Darago wrote:Appreciate efforts to bring an idea, but seriously doubt it would work. Why would me or my mates move to red zone just to get 3x more yield and risk. In this scenario Green zones with no JH will be worth gold. I'd rather make farm 5x times larger and have no JH, but be able raid everyone in Red zone and have fun. Same as it is now but only between worlds. Elpeland is farming zone - Avalon where action happens. Same thing only squeezed in same server


That's why if something like this would ever happen (very unlikely judging by how the game is being and has been developed in this year of OBT) we would need both a quality and yield bonus in "more risky zones" or the risk wouldn't be worth the reward, green zones should be capped at a very low q.


SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions

Post by SonofKitt » 19 Nov 2018, 20:43

Hi Darago,

Thanks for the feedback. I actually didn't put much thought in the risk:reward aspect of it, it was more of an after thought that I didn't include initially. But as Monco says, it would probably make more sense to limit the quality of resources so that Red>Orange>Yellow>Light Green > Green.

You could do many things like:
- Resource yield increase
- Action speed increase
- Skill gain increase
- Quality Capping Orange = 85, Yellow = 70, LG = 60, Green = 50
- Decreased building costs (to offset building destruction)

There could be heaps of other things you could do to balance the risk:reward. Key word Balance. I don't want any of the zones to be better than the other in a significant way, you would want each zone to be risk:reward = 1:1 or 2:2 if you know what i mean. People in green shouldn't feel dramatically disadvantaged by settling in green and same for red, orange, yellow and how ever many zones (rule-sets) they could implement


Ilja
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 14 Jul 2016, 13:34

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions

Post by Ilja » 20 Nov 2018, 20:50

Also amount of resources, green zone having much smaller ore deposits, maybe having only copper (why we dont have bronze, its very sharp) and silver, tho that would require some fixes in blacksmithing. So this way orange/red would be like wild west untoched by man with plenty of wood, ore, very fertile lands(i wish dung would only increase quality of soil by some points like 20, this way ppl would actually search more for good soil to settle around).


Also chokepoints between zones, guilds controling them would have immense power in their hands but at the same time beign a target from all the others.


Mikeydavis77
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 17 Jan 2018, 00:51

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions

Post by Mikeydavis77 » 02 Mar 2019, 01:18

No as you alienate some pvpers who have already invested in their lands. People just need to quit crying and realize a barkbox should never have been able to be used to get up a darn wall much less you also fail to realize yes you cannot place during non JH hours, however, look how many JH's guilds get now. Man you people want everything and i bet 90% of you dont or arent even subbed. And before you say anything, yes i am in a pvp guild.


IamHe
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 26 Nov 2017, 00:13

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions

Post by IamHe » 02 Mar 2019, 20:02

this sounds like awesome solution to pvp problem - just designate several servers as red (same way as several designated as green/protectorate) allow bark boxing and other mechanics that pvp-heavy crowd asks for

this is way WAY better solution then changing rule-set for whole Godenland and will satisfy all players - pve (sheep) will have protectorates, pvp-heavy players (wolfs) will have the red ones and those between those two will have yellow servers (present Godenland rule-set)

if this option would be available on poll i have no doubt it would win by a wide margin


SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions

Post by SonofKitt » 03 Mar 2019, 07:27

Mikeydavis77,

As you say, its probably too late for 0.2.0.

I am just posting for the future, I have been posting this suggestion since November when i heard they were making a combined map.

I was worried that they would have a red ruleset right next to a green ruleset, due too all the obvious exploits possible. The developers assured me that it wouldn't be a problem, but they were clearly naive or sticking their heads in the sand.

Ill change the heading of the post to be for the next world.


Jairone
True Believer
 
Posts: 186
Joined: 16 Nov 2014, 17:18

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions (For the next world after Godenland)

Post by Jairone » 09 Mar 2019, 03:44

Meh. Risk/reward method there will leave a lot of people pissed off and quitting. Especially since your idea of reducing what people get when they just want to be left alone, or see a chance for abuse of the system, is neither going to be a pleaser nor a problem stopper.

I agree that the PvP areas should likely be more clustered in order to reduce the impact of travel with the game. My counter suggestion would be thus... Simplify to a Red, yellow, green layout. Yellow guild area would be less PvP-focused, but small in amount of potential territory. It would exist merely to avoid the whole "Well, fuck the PvP and raid crap" groups settling via private claims instead... because we all know that happens and there's no damn reason why simplifying that for server performance gains is not a good thing! Then adjust the rulesets as follows:

First, instead of a cross shape utilize a layered square system (area for each spot adjusted as needed to make it work.

Second, instead of adjusting the gains on things when PvP players want to PvP and raid... give them an allotment system. Allotment would be free gear based on their choice of login date (aka, starting from the beginning with things that help build a base first then moving toward gear to fight) -or- the in game server time (somebody new joins a guild, their allotment can enable them to fight right away.)

Third, in addition to the allotment system, players in danger areas can have 'advanced' skills system, if they choose to lock themselves to the danger areas (Aka, they get a buff/debuff that removes the ability to flee to safe zones, but in turn they get to reduce the grind and simply pick some amount of skill to increase immediately each RL day). Meanwhile, players who pick to live in any of the non-raid based areas MUST accept a buff/debuff that prevents them from going the other way to raid. Because risk/reward there is just an imbalanced mess so long as that exists (and everyone will just bitch at each other about it, those wanting the safety at those wanting to abuse it to raid getting called cowards on forums and discord, etc.)

Fourth, have different spawn points: One near the center of the PvP area that is not highly built up (and difficult to re-enter at least once you leave). This would be the only dangerous territory 'safe' spot.

Fifth and finally, place some transit systems and rules to make spawn areas less of a hot mess. With regard to the dangerous zone one, roadways around it to make raiding easier. With any protectorate areas, some directional roads that block claims and terraforming (such that people cannot make the area a nearly blocked off hot mess, which has been an issue already).


SonofKitt
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 06:17

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions (For the next world after Godenland)

Post by SonofKitt » 15 Apr 2020, 02:38

Updated 15/04/2020


Sinu
Devoted Believer
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 05 Aug 2014, 20:32

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions (For the next world after Godenland)

Post by Sinu » 15 Apr 2020, 16:03

Very simple solution a Full PvP server and a PVE/RP server like Epeland, End of discussion. I think that PvE players should be discriminated against, no matter in which region you play.


Fabio_marques_
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 18 Jun 2020, 10:52

Re: Feedback/Suggestion 6: Rule-set Transitions (For the next world after Godenland)

Post by Fabio_marques_ » 24 Jun 2020, 09:34

I agree with your idea, reminds me of Eve. One more sugestion, there should be areas for personal claim outside green zones, im not against the PvP, but im forced to the "sheep zones" because if i want to be close to a trading post, i need to be there.

Im not a fan of being in a guild, it sometimes feels like slave simulator. And even them fight for some empty lands just for the sake of it.

My sugestion:
- There should be some "residential fiefs" close to guild fiefs, where guilds can build a public trade post and colect tax (from transactions and claim maintenance), and maybe rent the use of some buildings for the settlers, like mills, warehouses and stables. Then guilds would have so much more to win/lose in their wars, solo players like myself could experience some of the politics, look for better place to settle in matters of tax/quality of resources.

- Get rid of delivery tax, with the public trade posts the players should look for prices variation and the market will regulate, by allowing the hauling, maybe add a skill for this, enabling use of faster/heavier carts. ( I've paid my Albion subscription this way :D ). And maybe even withing the red zones, they should have max quality for different resources. Enabling the Trading/Hauling activity.

In my opinion this will lead to better interaction between guild and solo players. Solo Players will have access to more diverse content, and guild could profit a lot from it.

( Sorry for any grammar error, english is not my main language).

Return to General Discussion