@Simoyd, I agree with this point and I’m not sure if it was in support of what I’m saying or against it. But my goal is to suggest a balance to the system to allow footfall to become monetized without encouraging giant slides.
Then that’s the last thing we need right now…we need to retain players, not scare them off. Expiring beacons already has that job & does it well.
Haha! Well I hope I’m doing this in a way that is constructive and helpful. But I also feel some fatigue about it.
I wasn’t trying to say that anyone was saying that. I was saying that using the reason that a person’s hub might be impacted by this change is one of the reasons we should not consider this idea isn’t really a good reason in my view. We should look at the bigger picture here for what the OP is trying to share and propose.
Basically: opting into FF and wear being generated. The wear model is an idea that might be interesting in some ways… at least to me. I’m gonna ask about it on my next call to even see if it is possible…
Why? The devs have said it’s being used in a manner it was never intended. They’re not going to just strip it out so players discussing it in a civil manner of pros and cons to ways to make footfall work ‘better’ and not be abused is exactly what James has suggested. @Simoyd even generously provided that statement, again, as he often does when this convo comes up. Somehow it always gets skipped over that the devs have said its being used in a way it was never intended.
I did not solely mention hubs, I also mentioned my build that is not a portal hub.
So instead of being “Boundless”, being creative, and building anything we like…we’re going to have to severely limit what we build, where, how, and stress about beacon maintenance, and repairs…Yuck.
Thank you all for being engaged, by the way. I definitely WANT there to be a conversation, even if it’s pressure!
I agree it might feel yucky… I am even on the fence here on what it would feel like with all my plots. So I think it is a valid concern you have.
I am not, though, at a point where I will fully discount the idea whether it affects 1 person or tons of people on how that affects them because they chose that responsibility.
I feel wear is a good way to balance the passive free income that is generated from footfall after the initial investment of work. It would have to be a sliding scale in design, though. The more busy, the more work. That way people that are not getting lots of traffic would not have to keep things up much.
I think this might be interesting to consider because with farming we possibly putting in a model where people will have to do upkeep to keep plants alive. I guess we see if the devs want people to just do something once and get infinite returns or if they need to work some for their income.
I only meant that both footfall and p2w were discussed many times and people repeat the same arguments and it all feels like going in circles.
I wish all involved luck in trying to invent something game changing here, and then in convincing devs they should implement it.
BTW - my opinions on the two things are as follow: Boundless have no p2w features, footfall works just fine and I enjoy it.
What if instead of manually going to repair, you could just a specific amount of materials, click repair, and it’d go ahead and fix this.
We would still generate income but it would force either a) gathering your own mats to or b) participate in the market and buy the mats.
That could be an issue depending on market fluctuations though.
I think I would generally be ok with this. Maybe with the caveat that this machine can only repair within a certain range, so larger more elaborate builds need more machines spread throughout them.
I believe the current ff system accounts for prestige and degrades with increased traffic. And requires that the beacon owner visit the beacon.
Question: are we as a community frustrated with ff or are we frustrated with something else and are getting stuck on ff as the only way to solve the problem? I see slides mentioned, and long roads mentioned. Are these what we are concerned with? If so, what about these are we concerned with and why?
I could see going to the beacon and putting in items to do the upkeep or something. I think that is a fine way to do the upkeep for now… Or a machine… but I wouldn’t want many machines like Fire just talked about… I don’t want it too complicated.
I don’t see any P2W comments in this thread? Not sure why it’s being applied to the discussion. Footfall isn’t a P2w mechanic. You literally don’t have to spend any money on it. I was making thousands a day per beacon in October when I had my gimmicky road set up in Finata (today’s slides are a gimmicky version of the roads I used back then)
I spent zero dollars on the game at that time so I agree there’s nothing P2W about it.
It is an abused mechanic however, the devs have stated as such, so when a fellow community member tries to come up with an idea to make footfall less abusable, then I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
Plot degradation to keep footfall would just mean empty plots with a giant gold cube/ (insert prestige block here)that can be easily maintained. Don’t think it’ll encourage better quality just sneaky ways of getting round it.
I feel we have enough to maintain, especially, with the upcoming farming.
Having to ‘maintain’ a build will just be another style of grind to new and current players.
Is it not best to simply frown at those that build to exploit footfall?
When it comes down to it, the land owners are making coin, to which, hopefully is recirculated into the economy and this idea may impede that circulation.
I’d say that the slides and such are just symptoms. Footfall SHOULD be something that people can optimize and increase their rewards for. But it needs to be balanced otherwise it’s too easy to game. Today the ways to game it involve multiple beacons, but if we just scale the rewards to prestige better, and then balance it out a bit with some maintenance mechanics, then we can properly reward players who want to generate coin through tourism and travel oriented builds.
I agree 100% and say same. As you can see, I expressed concern for people that build very useful portal hubs = not me. I try to think about how something will effect others, not just myself.
This is relative though. Some builds may be somewhat build-it-then-forget-it, but I can’t really think of any. I am constantly having to maintain my builds - it’s not passive at all.
The portal hub folks have to constantly field questions, requests, make changes, get oort, maintain portals, change signs, add new planets, update maps, etc. I have observed some players putting TONS of effort into maintaining some builds. I would never want to remove their rewards. I feel like they add a ton of value to this game. I also wouldn’t want to punish someone that builds bridges or roads…I like having an attractive path to run along or use to show new players how to get somewhere.
This is not what happens at all…you should know this. Hubs and markets require almost constant maintenance already. There is no sit-it-and-forget-it or people lose interest and the hub/market dies.
Not sure why some players seem to want to oppress others who have built something that other people enjoy. I think that’s the opposite of what the devs would want. I could be wrong…who knows. (not saying you do Xal, it’s just my thought that I wanted to include in this reply)
I’d argue my suggestion is meant to INCREASE the rewards if the player opts in in exchange for some extra work. A clever enough player could earn ALL their money through footfall, as long as they engage with the system properly and manage their risks and inefficiencies.
Why footfall needs more strict adjustments? It is not taking any of you coin when you visit someone else area. If players sell stuff on reasonable price I believe those footfall coins to come to their shop. Feats are still more problematic than ff.