Get rid of the fertiliser/improvement points system on land areas

Oleg

Mutated
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
19,406
Location
Leeds, UK
Avatar Name
Oleg Oleg McMullery
I posted this in another thread but it was tangential to the topic there so I'll give the idea its own thread.

Currently land owners need to use energised fertiliser to maintain the mob spawns on their LAs. Adding fertiliser to the land creates Improvement Points, and these points are used up whenever they change the maturity or density settings, and every day when a DNA is locked at a particular maturity or density setting. This discourages land owners from trying out different setups as it costs them money with no guarantee that they'll recoup their costs from tax.

My suggestion is that we completely remove fertiliser and the improvement points system from the game, thus allowing LA owners to alter their settings at will and maintain good spawns without having to worry about losing money. That would make LA ownership much more attractive, would help to increase the diversity of mobs available to hunt, and would create more interesting possibilities for events.

There would be some market impact on the materials of course, but I don't think making dung worthless is going to bankrupt anyone, and growth molecules are already TT food, so the negative effects on the economy would be minimal, and certainly much less than certain other changes over the last 2-3 years.

Land ownership on Calypso used to be a popular investment option and good land areas were always in demand. In recent years the demand has decreased drastically and in the main I believe they are no longer seen as a good investment. A lot of the LAs are not maintained properly by their owners, because it's not seen as worthwhile to do so. Removing the maintenance costs would do something to address both of these issues.

I don't own any land and don't intend to acquire any, so I have nothing directly to gain from this change. However as a hunter I would very much like to see this happen because of the more diverse hunting possibilities it would create.
 
allowing LA owners to alter their settings at will

This raises the possibility of entering an LA expecting to find a spawn that doesn't agro easily or that you can handle and finding Argonauts that are a higher level than you can handle. Quite an unpleasant surprise.

I agree that LA owners need an economical way to manage their estates, but there does need to be a cost. Otherwise the LA spawn will be whatever the owner wants to hunt that day.

Of course, if the owner wants to surprise hunters, that's his (her) business decision.
 
I approve this message.
(Oleg's)
 
This raises the possibility of entering an LA expecting to find a spawn that doesn't agro easily or that you can handle and finding Argonauts that are a higher level than you can handle. Quite an unpleasant surprise.

I agree that LA owners need an economical way to manage their estates, but there does need to be a cost. Otherwise the LA spawn will be whatever the owner wants to hunt that day.

Of course, if the owner wants to surprise hunters, that's his (her) business decision.

You think anyone hoping to make good business would keep changing after they've found a good balance?
 
Oleg makes business sense from a LA owner's standpoint but MA would lose out on money from the Fertilizer.. If you want MA to go for this, there needs to be something in there for them to re-coop that revenue..

MA ain't changing shit if they lose money on it.. :wise:
 
Oleg makes business sense from a LA owner's standpoint but MA would lose out on money from the Fertilizer.. If you want MA to go for this, there needs to be something in there for them to re-coop that revenue..

MA ain't changing shit if they lose money on it.. :wise:

Depends on which layer you peel it back to.......

Sure MA wouldn't get the fertilizer fees.
But... more active aggressive land owners competing with each other for hunters would in turn increase hunting activity and some of the competitive spirit needed to keep the game alive.

x% of 0 is always still 0.
 
Depends on which layer you peel it back to.......

Sure MA wouldn't get the fertilizer fees.
But... more active aggressive land owners competing with each other for hunters would in turn increase hunting activity and some of the competitive spirit needed to keep the game alive.

x% of 0 is always still 0.

very true and an un-maintained LA gives 0 revenue to MA either way while a properly maintained one boosts activity
 
I approve 100% ! :)
 
Depends on which layer you peel it back to.......

Sure MA wouldn't get the fertilizer fees.
But... more active aggressive land owners competing with each other for hunters would in turn increase hunting activity and some of the competitive spirit needed to keep the game alive.

x% of 0 is always still 0.

And when they release a new LA for sale they'll get more money for it.
 
Back
Top