If they implemented this system, I would be on here everyday pestering them to just totally do away with footfall. Not worth the stress/headache.
Then just opt out and don’t get any footfall on your build, right? At that point you’d have a way out. But you could have some beacons making money and some just for you
I wouldn’t want to either, especially with as long as it takes me to build anything anyways. Then going in to repair it? Feh. I’d be more likely so accidentally demo things as a result of trying to maintain
I don’t think I should have to opt out of a huge part of the game when people would still be allowed to access/use it - if people are visiting and causing “damage” to my place that I work hard on everyday – and I’m penalized by having to fix it? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? If you build something that isn’t interactive, not accessible, etc…shouldn’t your build decay?
This element of the argument against doesn’t make sense to me. Either a. you’re building because you love building and you don’t need the footfall because you’re not causing people to come in mass to your build, or b. You want to generate some coin so you make the road leading up to your elaborate and cool castle generate footfall. Since it’s long and high prestige, you generate tons of coin on it, but also need to walk the road once a week to drop in a few blocks here and there to shore it up.
Every other way to make money requires you to remain engaged in it. It’s not a chore, it’s a meta-game in what is currently a flat, un-engaged system.
What happens if ya just a rubbish builder like me? Haha
I would assume that if you opt-out of the FF system, then you opt-out of the damage model. Pretty elegant and easy… either you play that part or you do not.
@Firehazurd there is a difference of enjoying building and enjoying maintaining. You are talking about two different mechanics. One feels rewarding. One feels like work.
@Donmango we can be friends then and start the Rubbish Builders Guild
How would the system be able to tell what is a road, a cool build, something useful, etc? How would the system determine how useful or worthy a build is? We can run on land, roads aren’t necessary. If you don’t want to give someone footfall, run around their road
I was glad you posted this last time @Simoyd . It reminded me of conversations we had back in oct/nov. thank you for always making sure it’s viewable when this discussion comes up.
Evidently it’s @Nightstar whom I’ve seen bring this up a few times, credit where it’s due.
It’s not a penalty, this system could potentially reward you far and above what you can hope to gain today with the current system. With the trade off that you have to keep your cash cow in good health. If you want you’re massive castle to generate coin, it will, but you’ll have to swing around it some to spot the decay.
Alternatively, the decay could occur where the majority of stepping happens, but that seems like a more complicated system.
Exactly, you can be a sandbox builder if you want! Or you can be a tourism builder. Or you can have some beacons are one and other beacons are the other! It’s meant to be a living system!
Agreed! which is why my suggestion allows you to pick whether you want a beacon to be timeless, or provide rewards due to visits!
It works for now, but it does promote some cancerous behavior and building patterns. If footfall is killed, we have to buff the daily playtime coffers and/or the chrysominter.
You are going off of things that are black & white…absolute. What about builds that aren’t just one or the other? I am very busy building, updating, maintaining, changing signs, hunting meteors to get oort - I don’t need to be piled on further by having to also try to run around and fix blocks. Poor @Hashmalash would have to run around and fix blocks on 50 hubs? Yikes.
Yeah, I generally agree with your point here. I don’t want footfall to go away, I think it’s a valuable and fun meta-game. But I think it needs more engagement and the risk/reward balance of it needs to be ramped up to provide more reward but also some expense.
I agree this system might be a bit hard to manage at some level. But, also let’s remember that each person that takes on something in this game made their own decision to do that and could easily choose to not do it. In your example, that person could choose to not run a hub or share the responsibility.
With respect, it is a bad idea to try to use that example as why we should not have the system the OP is proposing. We should not “stop growing and changing the game” because it might impact a person or two or three or whatever…
Yeah honestly, that’s the point. Make your decisions wisely. Maybe PS has hubs they don’t need footfall from. Maybe only the big hub ones are footfall enabled so that they only need to focus on those. Then your end of the line T6’s and your T1’s are footfall dis-enabled. Until you find you have some extra time and want some extra coin. The big hubs should more than make up for the lost coin. I should come up with some math to illustrate the reward aspect of things.
one more discussion on either footfall or p2w and I will go mad
Why would you say that? No one has asked for the game to stop growing or improving.