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


ahh of course! this is the key here :stuck_out_tongue:
makes total sense.

for sure, thats pretty much what I figured


As soon as you introduce human input into a system, it gets gamed. I’m not sure the voting idea would end well.


I see your concern… My thinking was to be able to give precident to smaller builds that are still really cool to see. Say you took the time to design a giant “Tree of Life” -like tree. It looks AMAZING… but… it’s isolated… people go see it but it isn’t particularly popular. Well, with this system in place… (albeit with the other systems still in place in a lesser affective manner) you’d gain enough thumbs ups to be listed as a landmark, thus generating more footfall and possibly neighbors. In this case, i think it may actually help “loners” but I definitely can understand how it can get “gamed” as well. A hybrid system may yield better results.


All very valid points! With great power comes great responsibility, and luckily we’ve been able to get a good foot in things. We’ve actually had to talk about this because we want to be able to serve a large portion of the community but we do not necessarily want to take all of the coin away. We noticed some other shopowner’s were doing the 5:10 20:40 flip thing and we were like “naw that ain’t gonna work”. But it was a tough decision implementing these because it’s not how we want to operate. I wouldn’t mind seeing action to counter big shops at all. If controls are put in place that restricts others from taking “too much” profit then hey that takes the burden off of our shoulder ;).


I definitely agree with this. A mechanical system for computing prestige can be gamed through vaults and such, but everyone playing Boundless has the same opportunity to game the system if they choose to. If it is popular vote, then that is more likely gamed by people in guilds or with a strong following on youtube as an example. So the solo player is penalized since he/she is not part of a group or spends a lot of time publicizing their build to get people to vote for them?

So what happens if I take down a portion of my build? Do we have to vote again? Does the voting have to be done on some scheduled basis to take into account new builds or people leaving Boundless? Does a “thumbs up” vote only last a few weeks, days, hours? I am concerned about the time it might take to work out the issues in order for this to work.

A least with a mechanical system, changes to a build are immediately accounted for and if someone builds something new, they immediately get some prestige. This is also already developed and while the developers are making some changes it does not necessarily require a total rewrite. (at least it does not sound like it to me).


That is part of the “prestige bonus” you get. I don’t know why that is being changed though. I have over 1,000 plots invested in my build and I am getting beat by a town with 400 plots and a solid gold cube. They hold capital but I get way more footfall? I make way more coin farming and trading than footfall though. So now my bonus for building huge yet modest is getting nerf?
I dont agree the size of my build shouldn’t contribute to my prestige… if you’re going to do something reduce the amount of footfall period. Don’t mess with how the prestige is being calculated base on the “possiblity of p2w”.

People have a choice on how to play, Xaldafax for example has beacons in every major city and infront of hubs trying to collect footfall but he doesn’t have backer status. Yet I sit on a pioneer backer status, I used ALL my plots in one spot, the footfall my plots generate are from what I built and what I offer not spreading my plots over high traffic areas.


I don’t think it’s necessary to have any game mechanical counters to big shops. Why? The bigger the shop the harder it is to manage. The bigger the shop the more time it takes to manage. That’s a generalization across all players who are building shops of various sizes. That’s something you know first hand. It’s something I am growing more akin to experiencing as I am pressing forward in getting more coin, tech comps and devices, etc. to rework layouts and designs in my own settlement build.

The tax system on shop stand and request basket sales is already a hit towards shop sales. How significant that hit happens to be is another discussion and topic. I do think that tax rates on settlements and worlds can be changed (at least on settlement level) we can have competiting tax rates for people. So if Aquatopia wants better foot traffic, then lowering the tax on shop stands might be a way to do it and might give people a reason to actually use the shop stand plots that Moebius has let people use. A lot of them are empty and some of them are of active players too.

But I just don’t think a big shop (either in plot size or volume of item sales) should be “nerfed” to make them more in line with smaller shops. Other wise players who run shops like yourself, Omni, me (in the future) who are going to have large shops at 1.0 and beyond would find the min-max around any game mechanical counter to a large shop and then just hook everything up with 1x2 or 1x1 portals. That seems like a pretty unnecessary work around for something that is meant to counter big shops.



Yup that’s what I was referring to. Not necessarily like a giant ogre that would come and smash a shop and be like “no, make a new one”. Just a subtle tax difference or something.


Well we’re missing a lot of game features. I think tax settings is going to be one of them. Cause when I rent my public world, I am setting that thing to the lowest possible setting I can set it at and if that’s 0%, for world tax, good. :slight_smile:

I do hope server “owner” overrides Viceroy. In fact, I hope they do something meaningful for Viceroy and not something like collecting taxes off all item sales on a world. That’s a bit ridiculous.



Hopefully server owners can set what they like. So if they want mayors to have full control over tax they can have that or if they want the viceroy to be able to setup a tax free zone they can do that too.


You do realize that if you look at your beacon in a settlement, or whatever that you own that there is a tax setting already? If you are the one in charge you already have the ability to set the tax.


Yeah I think he/she is meaning the ability to override a mayors or beacon owners tax setting, for his/her own rented world.


You can’t change the settlement tax can you? i thought that was a fixed % and not fully develop yet.


Can confirm- not an active feature yet.


That is like saying a bit of CO2 in the atmosphere and a bit of global warming here and there is insignificant. We all know how that will turn out in the long run…

This has nothing to do about the relative nature of a problem. It is about the foundational base model of P2W. So people can try to rationalize their own reasons and make it a non issue but they are still wrong. To put this in math terms:

1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 + (plot purchase or founder bonus) = more than 2.

So no matter what you do the system as it stands (that you all with the bonuses like) will always be more than 2 and unfair to people that can only do the 1 + 1. Some of us like to have a fair playing field. Some don’t have the willingness or care to stand up and make sure we all compete on a fair level. So be it.

@James I have no idea where people are getting the idea that I was talking about plots in the context you put them in. My original message you was pretty clear in the base foundational design around plot purchase and founder plot bonus.

You can enable big builds, plot purchases, and high prestige issues, while still solving the inherent P2W foundational economy issue by just removing footfall and spending time to build contracts and other income means for all players. I will be posting a simplified design suggestion in the next day or two.

My views have nothing with people being allowed to have a billion plots for all I care. The beacon expire was an example like so many others of how bonuses can be used.

There is an old saying: GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. The stuff that is being put into the design still will never solve the problem because it is what is a called: a root cause issue. They need to fix the root issue. Look at the math statement above. You can do the math however you want but the root issue is the +bonus/plot purchase that will mess it up every time. Remove the income link and you remove the issue and as so many people have talked about the various possibilities.

Yeah I want people to have as many plots as they want just not linked to economy. I think we need contracts to help the economy. I said in another post that we need a way for each class to make money for the economy. Builders have contracts, etc. I don’t really know what that looks like. We all need to give suggestions… but at least I know it will be fair. You pick your class and you go earn money. Plots are for building and grief protection… let it stand at that.

Hey we all have our quirks and I know I do too… I would say no monetization of plots but we find a way portal owners can get paid for their services – fee for portal, or other ideas. That would solve my concern around plots but still link to a good economy model based on “goods and services”. I’m not against people earning money for their hard work. I just don’t want people to get an unfair advantage for those people’s hard work just because they came in and bought a few more plots for them and could put portals in more places than they could.

There is no reason we cannot have services or contracts for all the jobs people do. The amount of footfall cash isn’t the issue. It is that we don’t need that and should have a better economy model.

I can respect that change but that is just a multiplier on top of a bigger issue in the income as a whole. Yeah I am at a disadvantage of not knowing all the stuff you all plan to do.

But I am looking at the issue from outside the box. Adding whatever qualifiers and IF/THEN statements to the base functional model of the footfall design to try to make it fair will not solve the underlying fundamental problem of plot = income. We need to scratch the old model and build a more robust and feature rich economy model that doesn’t allow people to purchase things that give them the “possibility of advantage”. It really is as simple as that.

That is kinda close and I appreciate you trying to give another spin on it to maybe help people that still can’t see it. The only qualifier I would mention is that there isn’t a perception of disadvantage, it is a actual disadvantage. I mean this respectfully as I can and think if you look at the top of this post the crude math example shows it. It’s is a foundational design issue.

I hear where you are coming from but that stuff should be discussed in the economy model thread. Not the P2W discussion on plot = income. I intentionally have tried to keep “economy” as separate as possible because we don’t have the data on inflation, income numbers, etc. I’m just focusing on foundation of design in relation to plots and purchasing plots. The amount of coin (even if it was just 1 coin) has nothing to do with the issue around what I am bringing up.

Create contracts and a better economy goods/services model and you have solved your issue. You do not need “footfall” for that. There are other options that solve the problem without promoting a P2W issue I am brining up.

No where have I used words that defined me as anti-big business. Business discussions are to be handled in an “economy thread” and not a “P2W thread”. In fact, I wasn’t talking business at all in that section. I was talking about someone having to pick what they can have while another person has the ability have both. (e.g. “Having your cake and eating it too” versus having to pick between “having your cake” or “eating you cake”.)

It is very relevant to my points and helps prove very clearly the income benefit he and others get over average non-P2W people.

Yes I only have plots in Therka (4 plots), Pixel (6), Aquatopia (1), Munteen, Toxic (4), but no other city and there are many more. You have huge builds on many planets and are able to blow away any level of prestige I will ever get because of the amount of plots you have in relation to me and put the effort in to fill those plots with prestige blocks. Additionally, if I wish to go create a whole new city like you did on Vulpto or Epsilo or Solum, etc I would have to remove a large amount of my plots and destroy areas like Eden to support just 1 of those builds. So while I complete love what you do builder wise and support that, in relation to how it compares to income I just don’t feel they should be linked. Let us both earn money via contracts and economy and not just because I might have a plot in front of a portal or you have 4 huge builds in cities…


I don’t know if you can change it yet, but, the option is there showing that at least in the future we can set it. As for owner of a world I’m not going to worry about it until the time comes I decide whether to get a world. My guess would be that in creating settings you will be able to override, or, you will get the world tax and the city, settlement, or whatever will get that tax and each will be able to set what they want. If I were out to become a mayor, etc. I wouldn’t personally do it on a world where the owner of that world overrides me as mayor. Overriding mayors will ensure no good mayors ever settle on your planet. Micromanagement by national governments has caused the fall of many countries just like micromanagement by politicians has caused many a military to lose wars they could easily have won. Oortian society is no different. Micromanagers will fail compared to those with a more open society.


To piggyback, there is a large difference between coin that is earned through trade and coin that is instanced through footfall. We do have to worry about the amount of coin generated through footfall. The devs have addressed this as well and will most likely be refining values in the future.


Just a question - if coin sinks remain or get expanded, and coin is regularly removed from circulation (through player loss, beacon expiry, heck - throwing stacks of gems into lava…) where will new money come from?

Are there any suggestions to counter a recession?
Do people expect daily activity bonuses to get increased? this would be equally unfair to players who aren’t active daily / can’t be as active as others.
Should there be a socialist system where the universe magically creates a million coin per day and distribute that evenly to each registered user regardless of activity?

How else would wealth be generated if not by some measurement of how builds or player activity attracts more activity?


I do not have an issue with footfall being tweaked, but as a builder, I do not want to have to build a shop or sell to a shop in order to generate coin. There has to be an option other than buying and selling goods to generate a steady income. The suggestion that contracts will offer a income stream assumes a function in the game that has not been implemented or tested. We have no way of knowing if there would be sufficient demand to make this viable as a way to generate coin. I have my doubts that this would work as well as some are suggesting.

I think the people that are concerned, are doing so out of an honest belief that there is a flaw or it can be done better.
However, I am not aware of anyone making so much coin from footfall that they have been able to have a negative impact on the economy. If there is an instance of this, I would be very interested in hearing about it. Until then are we not assuming an outcome with no evidence?

This is a voxel game with building as a major component. I think there has to be a way for builds alone to generate income or there is no point in building anything but shops. Footfall does this


You do raise a good point. What mechanism would introduce new coin into the game? As a player that has reached level 50, I do not get much coin from leveling or from activity bonuses. Taxes take money out of the game, if there is no mechanism for putting it back then eventually coin becomes rare and that will negatively affect the economy.