Personally I am using different portals after the floor leading to the portals was removed. Now you are force to run through a maze and go around, if I use it I usually grappler across the giant hole. Some folks may have the same mentality as me 
This is true, it was unintentionally stealth nerfed… and now the devs are like, “Hey that’s a good idea we should nerf footfall instead of fixing it.”
Can’t win 
️
I don’t think this is accurate. Plenty of artists make money or they wouldn’t do it. Graphics designers make a ton of money.
2 Likes
Not true.
The common message post launch from many community members (also those contributing to this thread) was that we should be extremely cautious when making changes that effect balance. For example, we fixed a bug in the last release and were accused of nerfing boons. With the help of the community we’ve discovered a longstanding bug in the footfall which we will fix. But I think we should at a minimum take some time to evaluate what effect it will have because it definitely will change the current balance. We need to make sure that the fix achieves the balance we originally want - also taking into account the values that were being generated since launch.
Yep - we can’t…
14 Likes
Quote liberally altered to make a point:
Man. What a world we live in. 
I agree 100% with the idea, but I would argue for an alternative method for its implementation. Since regular server crashes were a part of the equation (due to clearing the footfall cooldown each time) the data needed for a balance pass is going to be very inconsistent. Particularly in comparison to the current situation, with much greater server stability (yay! thanks for working on that 
).
In my opinion, the most practical way to get consistent data with which to balance footfall generation would be with a predictable (fixed to 24 hours as originally intended, or perhaps 48 hours) cooldown.
And in the meantime, a temporary (or, if needed permanent) cap can be put in place to maximum daily footfall generation (probably based on the already existing numbers) so as to not interfere with the economy until that balance is achieved.
As it stands, the numbers will fluctuate too wildly depending on whether the servers crashed / were taken down for maintenance / were reset, or not, with the current accidental 24 day cooldown.
Edit: It might also be a good idea to make the cooldown persist after resets if the code allows for that.
Some Oortians enjoy a healthy breeze. I don’t judge. 
2 Likes
Isn’t footfall already capped by prestige?
Not in the sense I was talking about.
You get X coins per person per cooldown period (in theory 24 hours, but right now 24 days). The X is determined by prestige rank (20 for outpost, 30 for hamlet, 40 for village, and so on)
I’m talking about introducing a hard cap to how much a beacon can generate in a day (say 300000 coins maximum, or whatever number the dev team thinks would make sense to preserve the economy). After getting enough visits to hit that cap, the beacon would then stop generating coins from footfall for the day.
That is, just as a precaution to preserve the economy since the dev team is probably considering that “hey, with 24 days cooldown there’s already people making X coins a day”
So, instead of delaying fixing the cooldown, they could just set that cap to X to make sure there isn’t a large influx of coins after the fix, and then they can balance from there as needed.
Doesn’t the amount that I can hold it any one time Though? I thought it did anyway
More (worthwhile) money sinks instead of just cutting footfall will still be the most positive spin you could put on the beacon/footfall situation. Another blindfolded, ham-fisted nerf is the last thing Boundless needs right now. A few hundred less coins a day won’t make or break me, but those portal networks are the ones that footfall will either bankrupt or make into millionaires. So ultimately, you may need to look at portal networks as the depth gage for where footfall needs to be.
Could just make footfall a 48 hour cooldown for now, I won’t like it but it’s fair in the name of balance. Or could make footfall follow a curve, with a full payout for the first 30-50 players to cross the beacon and gradually drop the coins per player after that.
I would like low to mid-game players not catch the short end of balancing stick again, and also don’t want to see portal owners throw in the towel - new networks or the corporate portal giants like Ultima and Portal Seekers.
Whatever the devs decide please try to be nice 
The problem is, the longer this takes, the more likely places like Ultima Hub will run out of coin to keep the portals going.
1 Like
Use coin to be able to increase the level during forging. 100k to increase durability or damage by 1 level 
Its def been nerfed, Ive noticed losses of around 60% on my beacons.
2 Likes
If they do that change, then they should also remove the one person per day rule.
My footfall income has halved. I’m down to 8k from 15-16k. Something happened. My prestige is unchanged, so it’s not that. A completely unrelated beacon on a different planet with no connection has also been halved… Odd.
EDIT: Looks like we’re significantly down population-wise… Yikes. Went from around 500 in October to 300 in November even after the Halloween update. That could explain the income drop.
1 Like
As explained before,
Apparently the dev team is postponing fixing the broken cooldown until they rebalance footfall generation.
1 Like
“24 Hours * 60 minutes * 60 seconds” is a day, not 24 days.
“BeaconSettings.footfallDelayHours * HoursToSeconds”
equals
One day multiplied by “BeaconSettings.footfallDelayHours”
If the delay is 24 hours long then it is true.
Edit: I guess that is what he means with the config value. 
It’s saying there are 86,400 seconds per hour instead of seconds per day?
Whilst there is an unintended bug in the footfall calculation this doesn’t account for the recent footfall changes. The bug has been in the game for many months. As @Lyrical is proposing, the drop in footfall is most likely a result of reduced player visits.
We’re currently reviewing the algorithm to make sure that it’s a little bit more resistant to player variations.
4 Likes