I think overall this is kind of what I am trying to protect in some form or fashion with a push for planet stores and not a whole universal data pool. More localized data to drive localized consumption.
It is very hard to compete in this game against established players and those that have more time, connection, skill, or whatever. We just need the right balance to give those economy wizards their cake but provide enough incentive for the small person to attempt the “economy game” and be successful without having to make it a full time job.
Would a shop net with expensive coils to access farther reaches of the universe work to do that? Any other mechanics that could be applied?
Or other ideas?
This is not directed at any specific person but a general trend. There have been statements about memory reading and others trying to drive us that way without a correct API. Things like:
“Yes memory reading and MITM attacks work, but it’s a bit janky to have to rely on methods like that. I was only asking if the devs could make it easier to access the data if they’re ok with 3rd parties accessing it anyway.”
From my perspective I don’t think it is acceptable that we are allowing people to hack the game in any way like this and trying to support and encourage it. People use memory reads to get data that is not meant to be available to any person in this game. They then (in very many cases) share that data with only their own friends or select groups.
If someone uses it to read one level of data they will definitely use it to read another level that even pushes the problem farther into dangerous and unfair game play.
On a base level people are cheating to get data that makes it easier for THEM and are taking advantage of it. This puts the average player or someone that plays the “game they have” with the integrity of the system as it exists currently at a huge disadvantage.
It really is very sad and disheartening to see so many in the community putting their interest to get something they want and think they need versus playing the game that we have. Trying to drive “dev sanctioned” hacking that puts the average person in a disadvantaged state and creates a culture and perception of allowing people to cheat will be even worse for this game than P2W conversations.
Here is really a key point that people miss - in business if you don’t sell anything or have the coin to fill your request basket - you shouldn’t be in business.
I am not saying you are saying footfall should only exist for this, but I want to clarify that the scenario you outline is basically welfare and keeping a business open that should not be open.
If are going to have shops then we need to have a business around it on some level. We should be fixing the root issues and removing things that make shops easier especially when that feature like footfall isn’t a distribution every person gets. So a popular shop will get more benefit from it than a non-popular shop. The non-popular shop is being hurt twice in this model - 1) bad economy model and challenges making their shop work 2) no footfall to do what you said above.
If a player opens a shop, and it’s not as big or as successful, I don’t see a need to penalize them and say they don’t deserve to have a shop or footfall. Player A builds their first shop (and they are super proud of their work), Player B comes by to look at their build/shop, and peek at their items, and they get footfall. I don’t see the harm.
We shouldn’t be controlling or micro-managing player’s shops. A player makes their shop, they are happy with it, and they sell or don’t sell as much as they want.
I have placed beacons in the middle of nowhere, and have got footfall, but besides that everyone eventually figures out where to place their beacon/shops for footfall.
—When I first had a shop before the Gyosha Mall, I didn’t have portals, a good location, and I was selling basic noob items (sand, rocks, random items). Yea, some players would come by, but then I saw other shops, and saw how I could make my shop more successful, so I put a portal to it. Then because of the portal, I got more buyers, and more coin to expand, and add more items.
I don’t expect there to be something that is distributed to everyone.
The non-popular shop will figure out what they need to become a popular shop (if they want to make their shop more known) Portals, locations, even making their own shopping center.
That does not guarantee that every other person will have that same experience or that the gain from that footfall is enough to support all the other factors that should be taken into account on whether a shop will or will not be successful in the larger economy and meta of this game as well as any other “coin” requirement a player has in this game on a fundamental level.
Additionally, based on the context of the response, it seems that you might be missing the forest through the trees for what my post was about. It was focused on the dangers of using Footfall as a crutch to support a shop and an economy model that isn’t mature enough whether someone can or cannot figure out how to run a successful shop.
Maybe said another way - if we are justifying and supporting that footfall stay around because we link it to something that helps a shop owner versus the real reason footfall was intended then we have two problems - 1) a system that is not being used as intended and morphed into being used for other things, and 2) a shop/economy system that might not be sustainable.
Both of those problems have questions and solutions that have their own answers and they might nor might not be mutually exclusive.
It’s called an example & relating. Doesn’t look like she missed your point at all, to me.
What was the real reason ff was added?
To help give anyone that builds something with at least 10k prestige an opportunity to gain footfall…right?
Does it matter if someone places an interactive block on their build and that block happens to be called a shop stand? Does that change all other 9950 prestige blocks they built into “shop blocks”? No. It’s still just a build that someone put time & effort into building…just like every other build. Same with portal hubs. Someone took the time & resources to place a few interactive blocks into their build. Does that then change the ID of all their blocks to “portal build”? No. It’s still just an area that someone built with blocks like all the other builds. They chose to build it. If you choose to build in the middle of no where and choose to use no interactive blocks, no portals to give travelers easy access, then you can’t be upset if no one visits or can find you.
The crucial question people are missing is, “What has footfall actually brought the game?”
It promoted a whole ton of angst and conflict when the game launched. It only seems palatable now because the dust has settled.
If this game ever gets marketing or a massive sale again, you can be sure all your builds are going to be swamped, surrounded, and obstructed by new players trying to get that shiny, shiny footfall.
Furthermore, no one has explained why we don’t simply introduce a better, more fair system than footfall? If the goal is to reward the best builds, why is “best” determined by “frequency of use” when it could be determined literally by “favorite”, such that any build you see, anywhere in the world, even from a low level player, could get “footfall” despite no travelers.
The system is flawed, it is a half-baked idea with consequences that are unseen, and there are countless ways to improve it, but people here are so stubborn about changing systems that benefit them it’s harmful to the future of the game.
I’d argue a Universal Basic Income would be healthier for the game than creating a coin tap based around Footfall and the Minter. The current setup favors the rich. The economy is an oligarchy basically.
Well it’s part of the game…if you don’t like shops u don’t need coin ever u just make it…that’s the beauty of it all…No one needs coin if they just do everything the
mselfs
What are u talking about…benefits the rich…we all started the same…with nothing. U can’t go into the shop and buy coins…so what are u talking about…that’s complete bs
My basic original statement - Merging 2 designs into 1 by having FF (1 design) being used to support a shop (Design 2). We need to fix design 2 without the reliance on design 1.
Forgive me but I still see no link in your response or hers about the underlying point I was making and how you agree with it or disagree. It is fine if people didn’t want to respond about that or feel it was relevant, but I’m not sure I should be quoted then to support or counter their discussion when the quote wasn’t about that specific topic.
I wasn’t trying to argue FF (I am beyond that and most know my view that it should be removed or revamped heavily) to exist or not, but talk about the specific comment around it being good because it covers the bad days with shops. I feel linking two primarily independent design concepts together is bad game design versus full feature solutions.
Technically that is incorrect since dailies require work. If we were paid for logging in then yes it would exist. Universal Basic Income is based on you get money as a right of human existence at the age of 18.
She is right @MinerDiggerMan. I think you have to change the argument a bit to get your point across better. People seem to be a bit literal versus the underlying jist that the current system favors those already in good places or having good shops or time or a bunch of things versus the average player or person that cannot dedicate the same effort to the game. This in-balance actually hurts the game more than helps. At least that is how I might approach it… Said another way - current system = rich get richer, poor get poorer.
That’s why I keep saying you have to add economic stimulus across the board. It cannot target a specific area or function in isolation.
Real estate transactions, rewarding collaboration and investment, quests to consume market supply, an AH. These target the weakest points in the economy. Failing to address them only allows the status quo to prevail.
I was partially responding to the OP, not just you.
You post a comment on a public thread someone else created - then tell people not to quote you if you don’t think it was relevant.
My shop is not popular. I have 4 portals going in and out of it. I have a large variety of items. Better designed shops that people spend more time maintaining, than I do, earn more coin. They should earn more. I do not feel like they should be nerfed so that I am given more coin.
My view on footfall to make it more realistic in my own mind-
If you pass through a town in real life, you’re relatively likely to spend some amount of money there on things that don’t exist in the Boundless universe. Stopping for gas etc. Towns along busy roads have more commerce than rural towns, and if someone living on a farm in the middle of the country wants to start a successful business they need to find the right place to do it.
Footfall is perfect as it is. If you want to rely on it as your sole income then you need to draw people in. Simple as that.
These may be possible as player-driven institutions though. The devs should simply add functions that would make them more possible. Like if you could show someone the total footfall of your build and maybe a new ‘average daily ff’ or especially a marginal average showing last 2 weeks or so, what would hold someone back from buying/selling real estate?
Trust issues from player to player are currently avoided by trade cooldowns and the like, but if someone actually has some sort of real estate company set up in the game then they build trust by reputation.
That is not what I trying to do. Sorry but I see many people take quotes out of context and cause problems. Hell, I admit I have done it some and I am trying to help curtail that process so I and others can have a constructive conversation.
I am adding conversation to a conversation. If a sub point is brought up then people can show how it relates and respond to those sub points. But quoting the person and not even addressing the context of what that person quoted leads to confusion and can cause misunderstandings between people. More importantly it makes the person feel dismissed and the views they stated “in relation to that quote” as dismissed.
If I say, “roses are red” and you quote that but then say, “I hate football” how does the conversation move forward? It makes my view dismissed and then maybe think you are trying to say that I said I hate football because of red roses or something.
Good job staying on topic, right?
You have to play the game, to play the game? I can’t just log in and have everything be given to me, in my inventory, without doing anything? Cool 
