Some ideas about a future change in the system of prestige-footfall-settlements

First, it would eliminate the figure of the Viceroy, and replace it for a classification of prestige by planet, where all the beacons of the planet contribute. The planet with the greatest prestige is considered the capital of the known universe, as the core of our civilization. The capital gives some small advantage such as a 5% reduction in portals fuel, for example.

In this way, we changed the insane interplanetary competition, for a cooperation of the planet and a healthy competition against the rest of the planets, promoting construction, just as it is today.

Second, it would change the system of footsteps-settlements to footfall-planet. The more you contribute in prestige to your planet, in addition to the footsteps for your beacon, an extra is added for contribution to the planetary prestige. This can be balanced by developers.

In the classification and list of settlements, at least the TOP 30 should appear and the TOP 5 or TOP 3 should be highlighted.

While the guild figure represents an organization of players with common interests, the settlement figure should mean an organization of beacons located in the same area or territory. I think that the use of something like a book for settlement control could be a good line of development to give the players more options would be ideal.

Please, this thread is about brainstorming a hypothetical change in the entire prestige-footfall-settlement system. Do not start a discussion about whether it is necessary or not to make those changes. That is up to the developers to decide.

Keep the thread clean to offer ideas, it is not necessary that you think about whether or not you like someone else’s idea. Expose your own ideas, the more ideas, however crazy they may seem, the better.

That’s what this thread is about, doing an imagination exercise and proposing ideas that may be useful to developers if they decide to make changes to these game mechanics.

Edit: If you see writing failures, excuse me. Tell me and I can correct it. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

6 Likes

Now a planetary fight for dominance is a much better system, and one I can agree with. :joy:

As long as no-one person is crowned “leader” of the planets, I’d honestly love this idea to death.

I just hope it won’t cause any rifts between players.

3 Likes

I assume = footfall?

This would be interesting to see. One planet would become veryyyyy popular! lol Actually that could be awesome.

I would hope it’s a T1 and we could taxi all of the newbies there to meet people, to find hunt info, to find a guild they like, etc. It could be a busy, fun place!

3 Likes

Yes, thanks, corrected! :sweat_smile:

2 Likes

Pff I know several T1/2s would fight for the lead. :joy:

Honestly, would be interesting to see all the resources people have piled up, go to a combined effort to make one planet be the leader.

1 Like

Divisions will always be, since we have freedom and we don’t all think alike, it is inevitable.

It is impossible that we are all united but at least we should be able to tolerate each other, with a system that benefits everyone, including those who dislike you, how you reward each one for his contribution, at least, it is a less exploitable and it is a system that It does not encourage world domination but it keeps pushing you and encouraging you to build.

1 Like

I think this could end up 1 planet being overcrowded 24/7 cause it has “buff”.

If i read this correctly

4 Likes

This pretty much used to be called Finata Ultima :rofl:

Well, the benefit of fuel savings for portals was just an example. It could be something else, but I think something that distinguishes those who have struggled to build and contribute to the community is good. The type of advantage or benefit can be studied to be fair and not negative for the game.

One main reason I think this could work is it would encourage players to work towards a larger, combined goal…all beacons count, all beacons help, everyone is important.

Hopefully this would eliminate some of the players going after their neighbors or players consuming/merging small players since everyone would count as a whole. #planetgoals

If there is no benefit tied to consuming/annexing smaller planetary entities, then some of the current negative behavior might stop.

3 Likes

Another possibility would be that instead of just having an advantage the one that has more prestige, it can be a classification and be progressive, for example, the planet with more prestige has a benefit, the second one with more prestige another different or the same but in lesser extent and so… It would be another possibility or idea…

Other classifications could also be made, not only for the prestige. If it is possible to quantify the amount of meteorites that have been solved with successes on a planet for example, that classification could also be shown and give some reward to the planet that more meteorites has resolved for their contribution to keep our civilization safe, etc. This could be extended to the titans and future content.

1 Like

Personally I think a “planetary war” like this would result in the public planets becoming even more toxic than they are now. It would ruin any casual person’s plan to have a small area of their own in the public planets.

Additionally I see no need to have “capitals” or “viceroys” for this game since we aren’t actually creating a society. This is more of a dictatorship or king war type game and many don’t like that. It is made worse because the “ranking” is based on a system of prestige that can be easily used by just placing blocks. There is no skill or actual effort done beyond a basic time/material cost. Not a real way to rank those at the top in my view.

Lastly I would not give ANY benefits to those on the top. Being on the top is enough. Any rewards will just make things worse in the conflict and fights.

Prestige needs to be nothing but a “number rank system” at best. In fact it should actually be removed in my view. It offers nothing in showing the true “value” of a build or “interest.” It results in just people spamming the highest prestige block. Building should just be building.

Footfall needs to be a flat system (at best [removed my preference]) where players get X coin for their beacon no matter the prestige level per day per planet. It should be a flat system.

Settlements should be revisited only when we really understand WHY we need them. If it is for a name then it should be a book that people can join and a way to align their beacon to the city. If it is for something else then I am not sure what that is.

3 Likes

That is what it is about, to encourage collective effort while we do not stop encouraging construction.

I think it is the reason for the viceroy’s existence, to encourage you to build and give you a reward for doing so.

In this case, we change the rewards to be partly collective (the entire planet), partly individual (each beacon for its contribution to the planet). Without the figure of a head of the planet, when entering a planet, I could tell you in what number in the classification the planet is for example.

I imagine entering the planet TOP 50 and thinking that the planet needs some life and some construction just for the sake of seeing it in the last place and would make me want to build something there, or if I am a lonely player this information could be useful. …
You can also give some benefit at least built because it is the largest nature reserve.

In addition to moving the footsteps away from the settlement and linking them to the planet, it is no longer profitable to attach beacons to expand and grow for constructions that are not yours, but since there is some reward for large-scale construction, it continues to encourage us to organize ourselves to make community constructions.

I do not say that things should be done that way in particular, I just want to help give constructive ideas to developers.

1 Like

I believe that your proposal for a planetary prestige ranking would help solve some of the predatory actions encouraged by the current system. The biggest downside is that the capitol of the known worlds would be mostly inaccessible since the servers have caps on how many people can be on a single world at once (no idea if this is still 80, or what the number is now). Which might actually help promote more competition between planets so one is not the capitol by nearly as much since it would become to popular for everyone to be able to log into.

Not to nit pick, but the idea here is to make it so no mater the size or location your beacon is on a planet you get the benefits of the entire planets contributions. I really don’t see how this hurts a more causal player in the least.

Because it is Fun to build cities, it is Fun to have a leader-board, it is Fun to have competition. I am tired, so tired of people (not directed towards one person) just wanting the system to go away thinking it will solve their problems, people will still crowd you even if the leader-board is taken away. We are still human, and competition is going to happen even if prestige was removed. If settlements were taken out of the game, I would honestly quit playing boundless because why am I even playing anymore? It is a necessary part of the universe, to grant something extra to do for the non combat centered people who need more than just a beautiful sandbox. And it is entirely optional, you don’t have to compete.

@anon427297 My question to ask about the proposed idea is, what would be do about the achievement for Viceroy? Not that I mind it being removed if that is the solution, but I am chasing all the achievements for the game and this is one that I believe will likely be one of the last for me to accomplish.

2 Likes

I am using casual in a general tense. They just want to build and enjoy the game and not participate in the competitive nature of hyper build mode that many enjoy. This move would just be an extension of the same dynamics we have now on competition and taking and using other people’s stuff for some other person’s good.

The benefit side is just an extension of the argument used now that it is okay to take over another person’s settlement because the bigger city gives more footfall to everyone. Adding a “bonus” will just expand the bad behaviors we see.

It hurts casual people (I admit it might not be best word choice) because those that don’t like those behaviors and part of the game will not play or leave to creative or anywhere to get away from that stuff.

If people can’t play nicely in the existing prestige design how is making it a “planetary” thing any better. That just doesn’t make sense to me…

And I am tired of some just assuming people want “their competition” in everyone’s face. It is in fact worse because people are doing it to others. If people want competition push the developers to put it into correct isolated areas where your actions are “forced” on other people. Many people get tired of predatory and hostile people.

Killing people, taking away stuff from people is NOT FUN to many of us. Many of us also don’t have to “prove things” by competing. We are fine to just cooperate and build without those things.

The settlement design needs to go away. The need to allow people to “group things together” to be a city or something needs to obviously stay. It is the context and approach that a lot like me are against, not the basis of “settlements.”

Agree
10 chars

1 Like

The issue of achievements, could be replaced by another, for example:

The builder of civilizations. You have managed to be the biggest contributor to the prestige of your planet.

I do not know, in truth these details do not matter to me, the objective of the thread is to brainstorm ideas that help the developers, not to discuss the details of a specific system.

I am sorry but I will not discuss with you, as I have written before, the objective of the thread is not to discuss the ideas of others, but to contribute your own ideas in case the developers want to make changes, they can have a resource from the community.

If you have any constructive idea about how the future system could be, I will be happy to read it, and surely the developers too, and so among all, we can contribute many different ideas and maybe some help developers. I would prefer that we leave the thread without toxic debates, thank you.

2 Likes

Please, I insist again, the objective of the thread is not that you think or criticize the ideas of others. Nor do we have a debate, if you have anything to contribute, any idea of how you would like our system to be, say it, but let’s leave the discussions outside, let’s not try to compete dialectically which idea is better, just propose ideas. Thank you!

1 Like

I did contribute ideas in the first post and clarified things. All that is within the discussion if you are trying to build an actual better system for the game. If you are isolating this into its own system then that is different. But, instead you are still linking things so you cannot in good faith isolate the discussion around it.

1 Like