Things can always be changed or fixed imo.
I like their idea too (especially the scaling part), but plots are tied to cubits which are directly tied to irl $ right now. I think that would get ugly real quick.
Things can always be changed or fixed imo.
The ugliness can be limited by the fact, this system will be on top of the current system, not as a replacement, you will still need to build in the plots, you will not be able to just put down plots with very little in them and get the full amount of footfall, the system i propose is just designed to suppress the footfall gain for tiny plots,
And by the fact the scaling is quite limited, Once you get to around the 4x4 area mark, you will get the same footfall as an 12x12 area, the system will mostly be designed to punish people who build 1x1 builds and 2x2 builds for footfall.
The system will not count plots that are stacked on top of each other to prevent people from abusing the system by making an 1x1x20 area of plots. it will only see such stacking as a 1x1
So while people can scream pay to win with this, it is very quite limited I feel, You get 10 plots for every 1 level up post level 50, that alone is enough to make a 3x3 area to build in, and that will be large enough to the point you are not getting next to nothing. but not quite the full amount either.
And this idea can of course be adjusted as needed as people or the devs feel fit, but that is the basic idea of what I propose.
The only main downside I see with my proposal, is it can maybe harm the footfall generation for shopping centers where everyones store is a small plot, but the way I see it, if you are running a shop, then most of your profits and concerns should be from the items you sell, and not foot fall.
How about a 1x any number?
That is something other people would need to decide on, because abuse can happen with 1x10, the PS hunters court yard is rigged for footfall using rows of 1x20 or so, I will not make the suggestion about that, I will leave that up to the community. for what they feel is fair in that regards and I do not want to be too punishing either.
It’s a trap anyways.
This suggestions breaks nearly every mall or market in game, and damages many other styles of (not necessarily footfall oriented) co-op build.
Yes, but in my book, shops should be more concerned about the products they are selling and/or buying, not foot fall, however I know many people might disagree and that is fine.
I do still like your idea, but it seems very restrictive…
The thing with these particular builds, at least what I did, is they do take some effort to build. It’s not for beauty or anything. It’s to reach certain prestige trigger thresholds. My trick to make it look like nothing was building underground and I’d chisel gleam back then to really boost it, but as far as anyone else knew it was a simple road.
People gravitate to roads in games. It’s a fantastic social excitement. I’d love to know why, but nevertheless putting these builds it and alternating the plots jacked up the footfall (hey back then aoe hammers ran like 35k and a noob had to grow)
But you say hey you did this work so you should get the footfall for it, and I agree!! But because you can alternate plots in a road you’re able to ramp this problem up exponentially.
I guess ultimately the fix would be to get rid of alts and that would solve it to a smaller extent except in the case where it’s a co-op which I have nothing against at all, but you then run into the problem of people still staggering their beacons with friends instead of alts.
Would another solution to this be to only allow 1 beacon in a predefined radius to gather footfall, if they are placed too close together?
I had a big long post, but I realized this conversation is kinda like everyone telling you a lion is attacking. So you go to help and you see 10 some odd people staring at something like this discussing the best way to deal with it:
Sure its a lion…but is it really a lion? I get maybe a few hundred footfall per week (if I get to log on in said week), and haven’t seen anyone come up with a good replacement idea that isn’t either highly restrictive or blatantly pro or anti someone (or group) in the game. I’ll keep an eye to the sky and an ear to the ground and report back if I ever find something. Good luck folks!
Sorry man, was proof reading and though to myself, “Meh, whats the point?” LOL
I am not 100% sure what part of the quote is restrictive. What I am saying with what you quoted from me, is, buying alot of plots and just placing them down with nothing in them will not get you foot fall, you will still need to build something in them, to get the 10k value to enable footfall.
Maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to point out / question?
Hmm. No bueno. Builds that are tall or 1x1, 1x2, 2x2, also serve a lot of purpose.
Can be the case yes, but I do not see any other way to prevent abuse of this „Meta“ otherwise. If people are keen on getting full footfall from 1x1 plots, then they also need to get used to the fact that this Meta has happened as an result.
and this is the reason I am able to argue against p2w…because we have this now. You don’t get ff from just buying/placing plots…you have to build and get your prestige up.
I don’t think it’s a good fit for BL to start telling people what to build, how, where, what size, etc.
This game is called Boundless not Bound
No one is telling people what to build or how to build it, you can build it any old way you want, the requirement of 10k value IS to prevent it from being even more P2W then it is now.
Tell that to the mining bomb nerf… … …
Yes, there is already a check in place. We don’t need to add a size restriction imo. Small places deserve love too.
Two wrongs don’t make a right
Then you will have to accept this is the meta and it is here to stay, I don’t care either way. My proposal is just a way to break the current meta. I am neutral about the situation because I don’t really see it as too much of a problem.