Player Island Redesign

Role: Senior Level Designer (Contract) Timeline: April 2025 - October 2025 Team Size: Cross-functional (Design, Art, Engineering) Tools: Unity, Jira, Confluence, Miro

Key Contribution:

Redesigned the island layout and resource placement to increase vendor exposure by ~80%, directly boosting monetization opportunities while maintaining organic player flow.

Worldbuilding and Context

Skyborne Legacy is a free-to-play live-service game inspired by Animal Crossing, with a strong focus on player-driven economy and combat. Player Island serves not only as the main hub to the player, it's the physical manifestation of the player's progression. The core fantasy is building and expanding your personal floating island while exploring other islands via Airshiphip:

Manage farming/gathering resources

Interact with vendors (primary monetization point)

Access missions and social features

Customize their personal space

The Problem

Functional Issues

Previous Player Island didn’t pass through a Level Design filter, so it had critically low monetization exposure, erratic vendor placements and no route planning. Also it lacked worldbuilding, atmosphere and didn’t serve as a game design pillar:

Low dwell time;

Low vendor exposure rate;

The Level Design didn’t present atmosphere, fantasy or theme

Vendors were located in peripheral areas with no organic traffic.

Worldbuilding Dissonance

The Airshiphip as Central Pillar: The Airshiphip as a spawn point, is the symbolic and functional heart of the game loop:

Player Island → Board Airshiphip → Explore distant islands → Return with resources → Improve Player Island → Repeat

The original map buried the Airshiphip in a peripheral location, which hurt player pathing, and undermined the core game loop. Players couldn't see their "vessel of adventure" as a central landmark.

Why This Was Difficult:

Live service constraint: Couldn't disrupt existing player workflows or cause confusion

Monetization pressure: Vendors were primary monetization points, low interaction directly impacted revenue

Design constraint: Couldn't force players to interact with vendors (creates frustration), some visual set dressings and background are blocked by the level editor tools.

Technical constraint: Island size was locked by level editor tools and asset budget was limited.

The Pier as Progression Reward: The original island expansion event had players overcome significant challenges, but the reward was a "silly little bridge" that felt anticlimactic.

I redesigned this as a proper pier where the Airshiphip docks, adjacent to the Town Hall (another core structure). This transformed a forgettable bridge into a meaningful landmark that:

Visually represents player achievement

Creates a natural gathering point for social interaction

Reinforces the aerial exploration theme

Floating Islands Worldbuilding: To reinforce the "floating islands" setting, I added:

Floating rocks in the background (shipped): Subtle environmental storytelling

Planned but not shipped: Shadows of larger floating islands with waterfalls overhead, which would have:

Justified the waterfalls on Player Island (environmental logic)
Created dynamic lighting and atmosphere (visual interest)
Reinforced the scale and wonder of the world (player immersion)

Note: The overhead island shadows were cut due to art team bandwidth, but the concept informed other atmospheric decisions.

Design Philosophy: "Form Follows Fantasy"

Every spatial decision served both function (pathing, monetization) and fantasy (worldbuilding, player emotion):

Airshiphip centrality = functional spawn point + symbolic adventure hub

Pier construction = functional structure + emotional progression reward

Floating islands backdrop = functional context + atmospheric immersion

The Process

Initial Approach

I started by analyzing player movement during watched playtests and session recordings to understand actual player behavior vs. intended behavior. The conclusion was that players followed the shortest path between the Airship (main spawn point) → mission board/location → Back to the Airship, completely bypassing vendor areas unrelated to quests.

The problem wasn't a lack of interest in vendors, but a lack of exposure. Players weren't induced to interact with vendors, important structure distribution such as the Airship that was pivital to the core loop were not central to the level design so players simply never passed near vendors during their natural flow.

Research & Iteration

Phase 1: Reference Analysis I studied hub design in similar games to understand how they create organic vendor exposure without forcing interaction and planned accordingly with our own map needs.

Key finding: Successful hubs place high-value resources along natural paths to vendors, creating "excuses" to visit those areas.

Phase 2: Blockout & Testing I created three blockout variations:

Conservative Approach → Relocate core locations: Reposition Airship to the island center, enhancing player pathing.

Rejected → Improved pathing but didn't address vendor placement, also didn’t improve worldbuilding and ‘flavor’ with verticality and variety.

Semi-Disruptive Approach → Create new terrain block: Alongside reposition the Airship, break down the terrain into minor pieces enhancing vendors theme expression to facilitate identification and enhance player pathing.

Rejected → Improved vendor visibility but didn't solve problems such as worldbuilding, pathing and was not worth the effort ↔ reward on recriating the landscape.

Disruptive Approach → Relocate vendors focusing in mission flow: Move all vendors accordingly to the tutorial flow and linear exposition

Rejected → Created forced interaction that felt inorganic, players resented being "herded" through vendors and the feeling of ‘big tutorial’ level when linear presented to vendors.

Reconstructive Approach → Rebuild the entire map: Complete redesign based on playtesting data and monetization and worldbuilding needs, using farming routes as organic vendor exposure mechanism.

Chosen → Gave players agency and valuable reasons to be near vendors, creating organic traffic without forced interaction.

Phase 3: Iteration Based on Playtesting Early playtesting revealed that players would still skip vendors if farming nodes were too close together. I needed to space resources to create "breathing room" that naturally slowed players down near vendors.

Key Insights:

Players need a REASON to be near vendors, not just proximity

Farming routes should feel like exploration, not chores

Vendor areas need to be "on the way" to something valuable, not destinations themselves

The Solution

Design Overview

I redesigned Player Island's layout around structured farming routes that naturally pass through vendor areas. Instead of placing vendors in peripheral zones, I positioned high-value farming nodes (rare resources, daily collectibles, mission nodes) in strategic locations that create organic traffic flow through commerce points.

Core concept: "Farming routes and player pathing as vendor exposure mechanism"

Players now have multiple farming routes they can follow:

Quick route: 60-90 seconds, passes 2 vendors, yields basic resources

Standard route: 1- 3 minutes, passes 4-5 vendors, yields mixed resources

Completionist route: ~5 minutes, passes all vendors, yields rare/mission resources

Technical Implementation

Repositioned core structures opposite to each others but near the main hub

Created "landmark" visual cues (rivers, landscape vertical differentiation, city centre) to guide players along routes

Adjusted vendor placement to be "adjacent" to farming nodes, paths and objectives, not blocking them

Implemented subtle lighting and audio cues near vendors to increase noticeability

Key Design Decisions

Decision: Use farming routes instead of forced vendor proximity

Rationale: Players would naturaly create the best path from point A to point B enhance this natural routes and placing vendors in key places, insted of forcing players to pass vendors in pre-stablished locations, giving them valuable reasons to be near vendors by using the natural routes that would be organicaly created feels.

Trade-off: Requires more careful resource balancing, if farming is too rewarding, players might ignore vendors; if not rewarding enough, they won't follow routes

Alternative Considered: Daily quests that correlated farm routes with vendor interaction (e.g. grab resource X to vendor A and give to vendor B)

Decision: Repositioned Airshiphip to island center, with Pier and Town Hall as flanking landmarks

Rationale (Functional): Players naturally create optimal paths between key locations, centralizing the Airshiphip creates organic traffic through the hub

Rationale (Narrative): The Airshiphip is the symbolic heart of the game loop (exploration → return → progression). Burying it in a peripheral location undermined the core fantasy. Centralizing it makes it a visual anchor and constant reminder of the adventure cycle.

Rationale (Emotional): The Pier isn't just a structure, it's a progression reward. Transforming the "silly bridge" into a proper pier adjacent to Town Hall created a landmark that feels earned and meaningful.

Trade-off: Required more significant terrain restructuring (higher art cost), but the narrative and emotional payoff justified the investment.

Decision: Multiple route lengths instead of single optimal path

Rationale: Different player types have different time budgets and interests, casual players want quick routes, engaged players want completionist/explorationist routes

Trade-off: More complex to balance and requires more farming nodes

Alternative Considered: Single optimal route (rejected → doesn't respect player time diversity)

Decision: "Adjacent" vendor placement instead of "blocking" placement

Rationale: Vendors should be visible and adjacent to farming routes, but not obstacles that players must navigate around

Trade-off: Slightly lower guaranteed exposure, but much higher positive sentiment

Alternative Considered: Vendors as checkpoints on routes (rejected - creates friction)

The Impact

Measurable Results

(based on A/B testing with QA and playtesting)

Vendor exposure increased by ~80%

Average dwell time increased by estimated ~40%

Player sentiment remained positive (no increase in friction-related complaints)

Qualitative Outcomes

Players organically discovered vendors they previously didn't know existed

Farming routes became a "daily ritual" for engaged players (positive habit formation)

Art team used vendor areas as showcases for seasonal decorations (additional engagement)

Validation

A/B tested with 20% of player base before full rollout

Monitored player feedback on Discord, QA teams and support tickets (no increase in negative feedback)

Lessons Learned

What Worked Well

Data-driven iteration: Session recordings and watched playtests were invaluable for understanding actual vs. intended behavior

Player agency over forced interaction: Giving players valuable reasons to be near vendors worked better than forcing proximity

Environmental Tips: Using environmental to enhance routes, guide players and contextualize worldbuilding not only helped ensure technical improvements but also improved player satisfaction and overall visual quality and presentation.

Cross-functional collaboration: Working closely with Live Ops, Art, and Analytics ensured the solution served business goals without compromising player experience

What I'd Do Differently

Earlier prototyping: I should have created low-fidelity blockouts earlier to test hypotheses faster and further understand tooling limitations and how those limitations would impact the design.

More granular A/B testing: Testing route variations, quest flow, combat sections separately (instead of all at once) would have given clearer data on what specifically drove improvements

Better communication of trade-offs: I could have been clearer with stakeholders about how resources and enemies could impact the game economy and how it was crucial to ensure player satisfaction during map progression.

Earlier creative prototyping: I should have prototyped atmospheric elements (overhead islands with dynamic shadows) earlier with low-fidelity assets. This would have allowed us to validate impact and prioritize or cut earlier, avoiding late-stage scope changes due to art bandwidth constraints.

Project Scope & Competencies

Core Design Disciplines:

Level Design (spatial design, player flow, hub architecture)

Systems Design (economy flow, progression loops, monetization integration)

Player Psychology (agency, organic behavior, habit formation)

Technical Skills:

Unity (level layout, prefab management, scene optimization)

Data Analysis (session recordings, A/B testing)

Cross-functional Collaboration (Art, Engineering, Live Ops, Analytics)

Methodologies:

Iterative prototyping and playtesting

Data-driven design decisions

Post-launch optimization for live-service games

Visuals

Planning