Feedback: Rewards, long-term Monetisation and the Exchange!


Well the poofed builds give a return of some value and aren’t in the world anymore. People who can buy plots will continue as they are now. People who can’t buy more can reuse theirs over and over while still getting something for them.


my feeling now is that this thread is becoming completely useless, with completeley hypotetical based toughts on wich are based completely hypotetical theories about how the game is hypotetically working.

Hy-potato-call :japanese_ogre:

the biggest money income comes from trading: selling gathered/mined/hunted resources AND selling raw to finished products in shop. not from footfall, not from prestige. stop closing yourself in your world full of hypotesis.

and this is the proof of what i’m sayng:


I’m a little scared about this aspect, as there are as lot of unknowns, such as,

  • Is there a limit to the maximum tax amount? Some unscrupulous overlord could set s massive tax amount overnight without others realising and receive a massive influx of coin.
  • What happens to request baskets and selling plinths if the tax is raised/lowered? Does it affect the overall price of goods (essentially invalidating any signs displaying the price) or does it just take a bigger/smaller cut of the overall sale; completely throwing out any calculations a shopkeeper has made.
  • Does it also include a percentage of footfall, or just transactions?

As I said, a lot of unknowns, so any claims to the viceroy being extremely wealthy are purely speculation at this point.

Potentially… maybe… but that won’t be an income for all builders, or even the best builders. Just for the player with the highest prestige in the settlement/world. But it’s still all speculation at this point, until something is actually implemented.

^this. Until these things are in the game, you have no idea how they’ll play out, so any arguments for/against at this point are based on belief, not fact.

I’m happy for things to be implemented and tried out in their entirety before completely binning an idea.



I agree we should hold back a bit on speculation as it’s not really effective discussing what to do about something that’s as of yet unimplemented… when tax hits the test server I’ll see you guys there and we can check out Steve in the flesh.


5 posts were split to a new topic: Builder Features


It would be nice if a Developer could shed a bit of light on how they envisage the mechanics of this working. If anyone prefers to not be engulfed by neighbouring builds that want your prestige then I might have to practice making some gravel and mud builds as an alternative, obviously that means no chance of getting any settlement status or footfall but at least prestige grabbers would keep their distance :joy:


Whatever you do please don’t take away the number of plots for players who already have them. I think those members should be grandfathered in for being an early adapter. :stuck_out_tongue:

 I do like the idea of players have their own worlds for cash. Expands the game and gets rev the same way.


I don’t get where this “new money come from” idea was generated or so focused on. An economy can have a set amount of coin at a base level and you do not need to “generate new money”. Current “new money” is created by feats and daily objectives. So that should be more than enough to sustain.

Anyone that focuses on this is missing the point completely! You could say there is no evidence that people not getting footfall will negatively affect the economy. The issue is not the amount, if, when, how, etc. It is about the fundamental design and game mechanic.

If people want to play a FAIR game in relation to the economy and have integrity to play fair then they would not want anyone to be able to bring outside money and ease of getting plots into the game. They would want the dynamics of dealing with the economy to be SOLELY inside the game as a whole with not outside influence. They would obviously see that a system allowing purchases of plots that in some form and fashion DO link to income potential is inherently and categorically not fair. End of story.

So people that choose to keep an unfair system in the game, like to take advantage of the system and don’t value the need to have a fair economy system in the game. In other words they enjoy and value that unfair potential and are fine with it. Because if they weren’t they would immediately agree it needs to be removed and a new system designed that is fair to everyone across the board and is kept holistically only inside the game.

Builds do not “have to” generate income. A person needs to generate income from an ECONOMY. “Builders” can do this though many ways not having to be linked to buildings.

Actually income is not even needed yet. We can find and make everything we need in this game and need absolutely no coin. The economy at this point is an option in the game not a requirement. People need to be very clear and honest on this point.

Remove taxes and add Services/Contracts. Problem fixed. Taxes are not needed because we have no design like real world government.

Thank you… all I want is just a real economy model not some easy passive system. It just makes the game more interesting.

I’m talking about MY comments and the thread I created on it being P2W. So sub-thread then. I am not interested in talking economy in my stuff because it isn’t the right area. People want to talk about it because they want to distract and try to prove me wrong on the plot purchasing being part P2W on the economy and income model.

Money does not need to be injected into the economy via footfall. Injection really isn’t needed. Hell if you are going to force people to log in to keep their plots, then start forcing people to use their money or lose it. That would certainly cause people to use their money or destroy the economy which barely exists. But, anyway that is what I don’t want to talk about the economy in a larger context because it’s model is messed up anyway currently and only made worse by plot income.

Who said anything about a “verbal contracts”? The contract I mentioned is an agreement and signed between players. Income for services. Very simple.

You say this over and over to try to deny the evidence. It helps nothing to say this when there are problems.

That is you bringing in a whole set of context, perspectives, and assumptions in on this. Not what I said. You get “reward” for building stuff because it is cool and you should be satisfied yourself and people tell you it is cool. Who says that the reward must be coin.

Fine, you want coin for something you build? Then push for the developers to create a solution where people can charge for someone to enter their plots. Just like we see everywhere in the real world when you visit a museum, amusement park, etc. Then you get the money for what you build through a fee and not using footfall passively. Remove the passive footfall. That would immediately solve my complaint. Discussion over.

it IS relevant. Moebius did not EARN all those plots. The earned some of them and then received a bonus for all the others has because he BOUGHT them through real money. That gives him an advantage over someone like me who has not bought plots bonus. I only get what I earned and worked for.

Plus I don’t get to build multiple huge cities. I have to deconstruct 1 city to build another. So I lose footfall in one location while he gets both locations footfall due to his bonus.

He is just an example of how that bonus gives them a leverage I do not have. Now with “plot purchase” it is basically the same bonus and unfair situation in relation to income.

It isn’t about that… another distraction to try to move us away from the real issue. The work to fill up a plot with prestige is the same for everyone… but at some point I have no more plots to fill unless I P2W to buy them or give more money for a founder bonus.

No this is not the only way to make money. It is an option that could easily be replaced with contracts and event he “plot access fee” I talked about above.

Contracts create this as well. No reason for footfall… many many ways exist to make income if the developer actually took the time to do that instead of just trying to get more money from people…

He has 2, I and others have 1. He has 50, and we have 5. Whatever the number is he will ALWAYS have more because he will always have more plots and POTENTIAL for it. That is the P2W.

Contracts and Services and feats. The developers are pushing MMO and forcing everyone to be in the community. This helps with that. Footfall isn’t needed when other things exist and it will make it fair for people in one way and help give them the incentive to actually interact with the community.

And if they are doing everything themselves and don’t want to be part of the community then they probably won’t care if they have no money.

Injecting money actually causes huge problems. Look at the economy in the US. Anyway if we for people to keep their plots active every 7 days or loose it how about we force people to use their money or they lose. Anything more than 100,000 in your account it taxed at 1% per day. :slight_smile:

Honestly, if people horde their money who cares??? Look at it this way – if people need something they will buy it. If they do not want to spend their money they won’t. So in all situations they will not spend it. If you need something you buy it. If you have no money, then offer a service or sell something to those that want it (request baskets) and then you will have money.

There are many ways to do this “regular generation” without having to link it to plots that people can pay for in real dollars to increase the potential of coin they make in game. You can get what you want by changing the model and design and create a fair playing field.

How are they inaccurate? You have many plots and builds on many planets. You get a bonus for your efforts that I do not. So your bonus allows you to be in more places and have larger builds than I can. I don’t see how that is not accurate.

That is not the basis of my comments or how I stated it was P2W. I clearly communicate in many ways how it is. You can change how prestige is calculated in a million ways but it will not fix the fundamental problem of those plots being linked to income and giving an unfair advantage.

I did not get into this but this should be definitely not allowed if we are having people have plot bonuses and plot purchases. This creates even more of an issue of people being able to leverage real world money and mess up in game money and game economy dynamics. Only if everyone can make the same amount of plots then we could sell them.

I don’t want them to mess with prestige calculation. I never asked them too and especially never brought it up in my posts about P2W. I think the prestige calculation needs to be a different discussion and that we should just not create a Tax = city ranking model. Let prestige stand on it own.

Where did I even say this? You are bringing in things that are your own assumptions on what I said. Nothing I am talking about has to deal with a small beacon competing against a large one.

Please just read the actual first post I did on this subject. It makes it very clear about what the problem is and did not focus on symptoms. I used exampled but showed the clear root cause of the problem. I also said we did not have to limit plots and people could buy them and founders could keep their bonuses. I just said to have that you need to de-link footfall and tax city income.

I would buy my own founders bonus - hell I could buy ALL of them they list on the web page. But I do not now because right now I do not agree with the P2W model they are creating. I want the game to be FAIR not stacked in favor of those that give extra cash especially when we focus on how the economy works.

I agree that is not right really either. But that is a different discussion on how to make sure income happens for people. I’m just trying to remove one thing and then want to spend efforts finding ways to create income that is fair for everyone playing the game. I don’t see at all what is wrong with that and why so many people push back when I said from the start let’s create a real economy model.

We have asked for dungeon and other raiding type things… That would be welcomed by me and still give income in replacement of footfall.

I hear you and I certainly would not want an overly complex economy model in this game. I’m not at all about that. I want simple, easy, but just fair. Where the work you put in during playing the game really gives the reward and not that you can just come in from outside and give yourself a bigger advantage over others. Yes this P2W I am talking about is a small advantage but it can be leveraged and taken advantage of pretty easily in relation to the economy.

You should be… because now the person that can have the larger areas because they purchased plots have a bigger potential to make even more. They could take over smaller towns and earn that income, etc. This is why I posted originally my concern around taxes being linked to city ranking and plots purchases.

Yes we don’t know how it will play out but it is going to have problems and just more code trying to balance it when the link doesn’t need to be there. Taxes in this game are not used the same way in the real world and just aren’t needed.


I do understand your main concerns around the passive income, however I don’t believe reducing footfall coin is the solution. It would be better to simply introduce other ways to earn coin.
The above comment is a terrible idea.


"If people want to play a FAIR game [snip] and have integrity to play fair then they would not want anyone to be able to bring any outside factor into the game. They would want the dynamics [snip] to be SOLELY inside the game as a whole with not outside influence. They would obviously see that both a system allowing purchases of plots and a system where you generate resources with playtime in some form and fashion DO link to income potential and are inherently and categorically not fair. End of story.

So people that choose to keep any unfair system in the game, like to take advantage of the system and don’t value the need to have a fair [snip] game. In other words they enjoy and value that unfair potential and are fine with it. Because if they weren’t they would immediately agree it needs to be removed and all new systems designed that are fair to everyone across the board and are kept holistically only inside the game."

At the end of the day, all of your points reduce down to Real money affecting in-game is P2W, and must therefore be stopped. I picked the most pertinent quote and fixed it for you. You are welcome. My personal observation is that many of the people that strongly argue against real money ever making it into the game and having even the slightest effect on actual capability, however measured, are usually also the people who are capable of dedicating many hours a day into playing, and are happy to enjoy that advantage over those that cannot. Somehow though, they still equate that to fair. That may or may not apply to you personally, but that’s irrelevant. Your argument against real money having any non-cosmetic effects is fundamentally flawed. I don’t believe you should be using fairness as if it were quantifiable when you refuse to even try to measure every aspect of it and not just what suits your side of the discussion.

P.S. Just in case is isn’t clear, I do not advocate trying to balance all possible real-life circumstances so that no-one can invest what they have most of (be it time or money) in the hopes of creating a totally fair game. Where would you draw the line? Balance money and time, but then some people are more skillful, so to make it fair you’d need to balance for that. What I’m saying is, when done with consideration and thoughtful limits, outside money having ‘some’ effect in game is a non issue when seen in the light of any other imbalance the game already has and is deemed perfectly acceptable.


I do see you point of view on this. But to make it viable to completely remove footfall, a workable, tangible alternative needs to be found for builders and explorers to be able to earn coin as a by-product of what they do. Hunters and miners have this already and shopkeepers are all about coin anyway. I don’t think contracts and blueprints would a sustainable source of coin for builders in the same way that contracts would be for miners and hunters.

I also think, to be completely fair, you’d need to remove any coin gain from daily feats too… someone could just buy 10 copies of the game, log in on each and complete the daily feats otherwise.

It essentially equates to the same thing as needing to fill plots with blocks to gain reward from footfall. If anything, doing daily feats on multiple accounts would be a more guaranteed source of coin, as it resets every day and doesn’t generally require any other players involvement than your own.

On a different note, I’d personally like to see inclusion into settlements work differently, along with doing away with the “highest prestige is the leader” scenario. But that’s a whole other subject


This is probably off topic - but that’s not always the case. I like the activity of running a shop and challenge myself by trying to keep it stocked at reasonable prices - which in turn creates a diversity of gathering activities for me to do and triggers all kinds of economic analyses. To me coin is just a means to get stock that I can’t / don’t want to farm myself and to help keep all the shelves full.

To put into perspective: I lost a million coin this week trying to get my buy orders to attract attention - gonna be a lot of hours (± 25) of grinding to get it back :wink:


Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply coin was all that shop keepers cared about… I meant that, by it’s very nature, shop keeping has the most potential to earn coin. You essentially have to use coin as a means to buy/sell products and goods (unless you’re online 24/7 for trading by hand).


Posted in the wrong forum


Just to be clear I don’t think it is THE solution, it is one way to help the bigger issue at hand. I have been clear in other posts that the issue is much bigger than footfall but I don’t think we just ignore that either.

As for the above idea of allowing people to charge for entrance to their “owned” area is a bad thing. I am not saying it is a great idea but it certainly gives people a way to make income in the same fashion that they do now. They are charging for passage it just comes from some magical game component creating money from thin air versus the actual person crossing the plot. Yes it will allow for possible griefing in some form but still that could likely be addressed.


That is a mischaracterization of what I am saying and trying to over simplify it which does create an invalid perspective of my views. Real money can be introduced into the game without it being P2W. Additionally, I never said real money coming into the game should be stopped.

So I will not thank you for trying to boil down my views into a single statement. Your statement is your perspective and the way you perceive what I said. It is how you would reduce my points down and not how I would.

I am advocating that the developers be very careful about how they allow real money to come into the game. I also am bringing up that the current way of allowing plot purchases is in some form P2W in relation to the economy, city ranking, and mayor game dynamics.

I haven’t had this observation but I can see how actually having the time to “play a game” could be seen as an advantage over those that cannot. But since a person can decide to play a game or not and are not being forced to. So if the advantage given to those that “can play it more” is too great for that person, then they can easily choose to go play another game.

Now clearly someone can use what I said against me in relation to the P2W plot purchase model and how it affects the overall Boundless game in many areas of is mechanics. Yes I likely will not be playing the game when it goes live because based on the current trend it will be just as dominated by Founders and fanboys that not many things will be fun and it will feel as hollow as it does now in regards to a full experience. We have seen many new players come and go very quickly over the past year because of the inherent issues in the game. What caused that to happen is still happening and being supported by design decisions. So we will lose a large diversity of players and the game will become niche like so many others out there.

You say this but don’t really explain how.

The fairness is being used in a general context on purpose because trying to dive down into the weeds turns into a debate that moves nothing forward. You cannot try to judge a game holistically on “fairness” because it is a subjective view and not objective. We see that since I am calling certain things not fair and others just think it is irrelevant.

It is a fundamental view that when competing and playing a game you should have a level playing field where possible. In the original post by Jame he stated that the developers are trying to have a flat playing field. So I am using “fairness” in that context and trying to expand upon it to show the areas that the fair model breaks down pretty seriously.

Additionally, there is no way you can look at fairness only because you are right in there are so many different things around it and it really isn’t a great point to make. I made it as an example of peoples value sets they have and how their internal bias and mindset was making it very hard for them to understand my views.

But to be clear I never said I refused to measure every aspect of it or ever used any words that contextualized that way. You’re boiling down my statements into another mischaracterization that I only cherry pick things to prove my points. I am not doing that. I am simplifying a complicated game design into a few points to try to illustrate the bigger problem. Hence my math example of 1+1=2 and 1+1+bonus/plot buy = more than 2. It makes it very easy for people to understand versus a long complex example that can create misconceptions like you have seen.

Overall I would agree with this and we can’t balance every aspect of fairness because of the subjective nature of it. But, I don’t think the “some effect” part should just be deemed “perfectly acceptable” without a greater discussion and attempt by the developers to provide an alternative solution which could meet the same goals.

As my suggestions pointed out they would still get the cash from plot purchases but would not affect the game in the larger context that Founder bonuses already do. It isn’t “some effect” really and is instead across a broad aspect of the game like: income, Mayor status, City ranking, etc that this “plot purchase” can affect. That is a decent area of the game when you take into context the whole thing.


I don’t either… but I think it moves us closer to a better solution than keeping what we have which will hurt other areas of the game too. I want the long term win as much as everyone else does. I just think we need to start fixing some of the core problems along the way.

Yes good point. But honestly I didn’t try to go there because it will just turn into an endless pit of hell. I also stayed completely away from the Founder multiple account issue and how much that will even expand upon the base problem with plots being so linked to the game economy/ranking.

We already see many people that have leveled their other accounts and now own so much more of cities and places across all the planets. They can take all of that and leverage it even more. I can’t stop that but certainly can try to cut down on that advantage with some simple tweaks.

Footfall is a minor issue over the account problem and farming “feats”. But hey you can’t clean up anything unless you start somewhere.

Yeah I agree completely. I’ve seen so many of those fights and fights about people wanting the best plots for the most footfall. Even had one person completely remove themselves from a shared build because they got pissed that I took the Munteen plots they wanted during the “beacon apocalypse”. They said very clearly that they wanted to make me have to use all my plots up to protect the build they were abandoning so that I wouldn’t have anything left. They of course had more plots than me (I think from a Founder bonus) and then could get many more areas after than while I was completely tapped out in plots. So I missed a lot of areas I could have grabbed while so many other Founders just grabbed plots and more plots and more plots across all the cities.

It is what it is but these type of game dynamics just doesn’t make it fun… and imaging how even newer people feel. No wonder we have seen so many people quit after a few months.


Thanks for the reply.
Regardless on whether I agree with the kind of monetisation you settled for I gotta say, that that seems like the worst possible approach to introducing it, if I may say so.

Mainly because many more players are going to join your game before it releases, most of them without joining the forum and thus not knowing about your plans regarding this topic. I’d assume that the surprise of being confronted with microtransactions right into the release won’t be a pleasent one for many of them.
I think what I’m trying to point out is that your plans should be communicated very early on with potential buyers to avoid a :poop::tornado: later on.

Secondly I’d advocate to enable server renting right away (given that the infrastructure is in place).
Not only to generate some money upfront (which is also nice) but also to give a first impression on the expected demand on rented worlds to avoid potential server shortages at release (like on any other release day in the history of gaming)


You’re wanting everyone to have the same number of plots per character? That isn’t going to change anything when someone can spend the time to level up multiple characters across multiple accounts just to have access to all those plots and only log into those accounts to claim more plots. So even if a normal non-founder bonus account has around 500 plots the moment the character hits level 50, that doesn’t mean that person wouldn’t level up another 2 characters on the same account just for another 1000 minimum for-sure plots to use. Add in another 2 or 3 or 4 accounts and that person is able to have what they want for minimum management effort on their part for logging in and out of accounts. I could even argue that doing that way is a lot easier to get access to a larger accumulation of plots than just straight buying them from a cash shop.

I’ve even thought of buying another Pioneer level ($250) account just so I could do this very thing. I haven’t because I just haven’t gone through with the idea and rather spend that money on D&D related things.

If the devs plan on giving founder plot bonuses to plot purchases from the cash shop, that’s pretty BS. I am not okay with that at all and I doubt anyone serious about this game’s longevity would be okay with that either. It’s already unavoidable to prevent someone from buying multiple accounts just for more plots since a new account is minimum of $35 for over 1000 plots. That’s probably going to be a lot cheaper than whatever they charge you for Qubits to spend on plots.

Perhaps your perception is coming from someone who doesn’t have any plot bonus cause you bought the Explorer $35 package and a good portion of us bought Pioneer (+50% plots) and higher. Effectively spending over 7 times as much as you. I get it. It can feel unfair but there are already things in place that allow you to get a similar effect (although less number of plots) to use by having more than one character.

Nothing is stopping you from doing this. It gives you a lot of advantages in having multiple level 50s outside of just straight up more plots. You have another character to build a shop with, another skill build specific to something you want to do, or lets you spread out your extra plots for mini-projects across multiple worlds. If you did that effectively I don’t think you’d have the position you have with footfall.

Even with my main character and his 700+ plots, I’ve devoted pretty much all of them to a single project and I still need more. I am working on another character to get more plots and then a second alt character to get even more.

As far as footfall, I think it’s a necessary thing to have in the game if people who aren’t going to build for others but build up their shops or city hubs can get a little extra for the value they’re providing for visitors. If they charged coin just to step 1 block onto their beaconed area, I probably would boycott the area completely. Plus, it’s basically a toll every time you hit the area after “x” number of hours. It’s basically the opposite of what footfall is. I wouldn’t explore that much if I knew every time I hit someone’s beaconed area I would lose coin. Kind of a bad motivator to do something the game claims to promote. I still think we need multiple ways to make coin and have multiple ways for coin to be sunk and taken out of the game. Having that pull and tug effect makes the economy of the game more robust.

One of the things the majority of the people who play this game and probably all of the new players is how open and free this game lets you be. You can go build if you want. You can craft. You can explore. You can gather resources. You can be social with other players and do any of the other things I’ve mentioned together in a group. When you place things in the game that is so open and free that limits and restricts the vision, is when you start changing the narrative of what Boundless is like to play.


I like some of your ideas, but your ideas on Guilds don’t sit well with me especially this bit: