<:note to self:> fold up the philosophy and tuck it in a pocket <:/end:> lol
1 Like
Like that comment both ways lol
1 Like
My Finata shop in the capitol used to make 3k a day from footfall in first weeks after game release. It gradually went down to 600-800 a day (hitting a thousand on a good day sometime). In most of days footfall would still be higher than my sales.
After new footfall rules entered the frame, I didn’t see much difference in footfall, if any. So, my clients visits patterns ( which I can’t observe and analyse due to lack of In-game statistics tools) seem to belong to the category that doesn’t get hit by changes.
However, in last three days my footfall was higher and reached around 1.5k a day. It remains to be seen if it’s connected to further tweaks in footfall logic or to cycle of visits (resets of visit clock).
1 Like
Second day of testing, results are in:
| Test Subject | Footfall | Repeat | # in 5 days | Test Subject | Footfall | Repeat | # in 5 days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 120 | no | 1 | 12 | 84 | no | 1 |
| 2 | 120 | no | 1 | 13 | 84 | no | 1 |
| 3 | 30 | yes | 2 | 14 | 84 | no | 1 |
| 4 | 24 | yes | 2 | 15 | 84 | no | 1 |
| 5 | 24 | yes | 2 | 16 | 84 | no | 1 |
| 6 | 24 | yes | 2 | 17 | 84 | no | 1 |
| 7 | 24 | yes | 2 | 18 | 84 | no | 1 |
| 8 | 24 | yes | 2 | 19 | 84 | no | 1 |
| 9 | 21 | yes | 2 | 20 | 84 | no | 1 |
| 10 | 21 | yes | 2 | 21 | 18 | yes | 2 |
| 11 | 84 | no | 1 | 22 | 18 | yes | 2 |
Same test parameters as last time, with a mix of new visitors and repeated visitors this time. No footfall was generated between tests so the test beacon remains sufficiently out of the way to help remove variables.
The first two visitors today were interesting, a whopping 120c! So definitely a buff there for infrequently visited beacons.
Then a bunch of repeat visits that started yielding a little bit less than half of the pre-211 amount (which would have been 60c). It was the second day in a row for those visitors.
A few more first-time visitors yielded an increased amount, but reduced compared to the first two. The average seemed to be 84c.
At this point I would consider the hypothesis that there’s a buff happening for the first few visits in a day, that gets progressively reduced as more visitors come in, and a second component of diminishing returns for repeated visits that clear the 24 hour timer, but are still within the 5 days timer.
I have a feeling that, if the new visitors continued uninterrupted by the repeated visits, I’d have seen more 120c / 96c entries before hitting the 84c average. Also interesting that the ‘ceiling’ for new visitors last test had been 96c and the floor was 72c (for 20 new visits). This time around, the ceiling seemed to be 120c with a floor of 84. I suppose some of my alts that had permissions and generated 0 may have counted to bring down the ceiling a bit for the last test, before actual visitors started coming in (or some random people may have visited before I finished construction and fully sealed the place, I didn’t take notice of how much footfall it had before I cleared the balance for testing).
Any thoughts or suggestions for further testing? 
Tomorrow I’ll try to get third-visit repeats, second visits in non-consecutive days, and perhaps a few more new visitors mixed in.
On the good news side, it seems that the ‘bonus’ for lack of visits either resets daily or incrementally increases thru the day for periods without visits, which could be a buff for more out-of-the-way beacons with infrequent visitors, as the beacon apparently wasn’t visited at all by anyone other than the owner for over 24 hours.
Edit: Let’s also do a comparative running total for each day because I like tables:
| Post-211 | Pre-211 | Pre-211, 24d | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | 1680 | 1200 | 1200 |
| Day 2 | 1308 | 1320 | 720 |
| Total | 2988 | 2520 | 1920 |
4 Likes
Well actually some of those may well have been 0 coin pre-211 since until last hot-fix it was always ‘time since last visit’ not ‘time since last payment’.
also, users with permissions somewhere on your beacons within the settlement wont generate footfall, but also wont count as one of the payments in last 24hr so wont skew any results.
1 Like
That is excellent to know, thanks (that number of payments in the last 24 hours is one of the variables) 
Anything you want me to keep an eye out for in case you think there’s anything amiss between what I’m seeing and what the system in a bug-free state would show? 
(I assume it’s bug-free now after the various hotfixes to 211, but you never know)
Edit: And also, I know that you guys don’t like confirming/denying certain things, but does the change to ‘since last payment’ means that now there’s no issue if the visitor visits a beacon where they have permissions, and then a beacon where they have no permissions, with the same owner in the same settlement? Now they would generate footfall at the second beacon then?
(If you can’t say anything that’s fine, would take like 5 minutes to set up a test for it )
Edit 2:
(and then a year of trying to convince people of the findings because of lack of a dev post to point to)
1 Like
Ahhhhh. I was wondering how I had 50c in my store beacon, which is part of the mall settlement lol. Gray must have ran through there.
I remember reading a dev post that the design intention is that any permission on any beacon within the settlement disables any foodfall from that character on any beacon within this settlement.
The rule of thumb is “visitors generate footfall not residents”.
But it would be very interesting to test if it actually works that way right now.
Thank you for testing and sharing the numbers, they are very insightful.
Yeah, I’ll probably set a quickie test area to confirm this tomorrow in addition to the week-long test that I plan on doing on the beacon that I’m posting the results for. 
I’m mostly curious to see if the 5 day timer included in the patch notes resets after 5 days no matter what, or if the visitor has to stay away for 5 days for it to reset.
1 Like
Well, I don’t speak for my guild but most of us are in agreement that footfall has been reduced for the Average Joe. Just know this, and take into consideration that footfall is currently reduced when considering further tuning.
Also, that 5-day buff is ONLY going to happen ONCE from characters that play regularly, and then moving forward you may never get another full 5 day toe touch out of them again - only the reduced rate.
Without using the word nerf, we can either acknowledge that footfall has been reduced, or simply play the fiddle while Rome burns. The economy was finally in a good place before the patch, so we shall see how this plays out.
1 Like
What 5-day buff?
1 Like
Looks like those who have not visited in 5 days give you 50% more footfall… minus your daily total payouts penalty.
Those who have not visited in 5 days give you the full 100% that is based on settlement size, minus the high traffic penalty.
1 Like
It looked like the payout for an 80c beacon was 120c from other players’ testing though. For someone who hadn’t visited in 5 days.
That is correct (I’m one of the people testing).
The 5 day thing is still a bit of an unknown - it could reset after 5 days even if the person visited daily, so at least for me it’s too soon to tell that it’s only once and then reduced rate forever.
Either option is possible at this point, that’s one of the things that I’m doing the week-long test to check.
And it was 120c from a 60c settlement, so the buff seems to cap out at double (so far).
1 Like
I guess if you get 1 double payday per week with a 5 day reset that makes it not sting so bad… but I doubt it works like that.
Finished setting up and doing a quick test for the “time since last payout” clarification. Here’s the methodology:
A straight row of 4 beacons, the red-stripe ones owned by Character A, named Test A1 and Test A2, and the purple-stripe ones owned by Character B, named Test B1 and Test B2:
All beacons were built using the exact same blocks and started with the exact same prestige values, 11271, and then I replaced some metal blocks from the ceiling of Test B1 with sand, until it had only 9548 prestige. The settlement itself fell into the pre-211 40c per visitor category, with a total of 321000 prestige or so.
Each beacon-room also had a side door near the center to avoid cross-contamination when examining the beacons after the test. That way, the owners never stepped foot inside each other’s beacons. All of those were absolutely pristine new beacons, never visited before by anyone.
Then I called a friend to volunteer and gave that friend full permissions only to Test A1.
The friend subsequently walked in order thru each of those beacons, first A1 then B1 (9548 prestige) then A2 and finally B2.
No footfall was generated at either A1 or B1, as expected, since the friend had permissions to the first, and the second had fallen below the 10000 prestige threshold. The interesting part would be, of course, A2 and B2.
As I had expected, A2 also had zero footfall, proving that if a character steps foot first into a beacon where they have permission, then he will not generate footfall at any other beacon owned by the same character in that settlement.
However B2 surprised me: the beacon had 80c (in a pre-211 40c settlement). So it appears that there’s no interference with footfall in subsequent beacons by the same owner in the same settlement if a visitor first enters a low prestige beacon.
I’ll run the tests for the third day of the week-long test shortly, and post the results as usual
Edit: Incidentally, this was also a good indicator that the ‘maximum’ for footfall generation post-211 is double of the pre-211 values.
4 Likes
Very intersting.
Now it would be interesting to know if that friend would generate any footfall if they step into beacon A2 first.
(The one without permissions, but within the same village as the beacon (A1) with permissions.)
1 Like
Easy enough to test that. I’ll post results shortly, didn’t tear down the testing rooms yet.
1 Like
Interesting.
They did not generate footfall when entering A2 first.
(obviously it was a different character this time, so as to get around the cooldowns)
2 Likes