@Soot So you're saying the initial idea would be fine then if I took out the part about levels? Maybe limit it to about 20 stat-gaining hunts per day then? And people can still buy additional hunts for food if they want to.

You have liked this post!

See Bamon2, What I really wish is that they had done something as an option like, First 5-10 skips are 100 SB (Really like, first 5 skips are 100 SB) and then every skip after that is 1000 silver beetles. It would still let people with a ton of money do the silly amount of extra hunting... but it wouldn't be sustainable in the long run. After an extra 1000 stats on a few lions, they'd be broke like everyone else. It would still let people use a few extra hunts a day without being prohibitively expensive, but it wouldn't take away the extra hunts from the people with extra time either.

I for one don't like the three options that DO add added hunts, but I feel like taking away added hunts is a worse decision so I have to pick the best of the worst, in my opinion

You have liked this post!

That could work. Keep skips the same and have unlimited extra hunts buyable [so you can still use established huntresses for better food] but just only have the base 10 of one lioness' hunts give stats each day.

That'd amount to 10 to 20 stats per lioness per day. Which sounds like very little, but if a lioness does full hunts every day from 2 years old up until she becomes unbreedable at 14 years old that is a total of 1440 to 2880 stats, part of which will be carried over to her offspring. it would make stat raising still take dedication instead of money, while not taking away anything from casual players.

You have liked this post!

@Kor I see what you're saying, and I understand how you came to those conclusions. That post does sound pretty obnoxious. >.<

I wasn't actually saying that people who invest in the game have the right to dictate anything. I was saying that a poll wouldn't show 'truthful insight' because I think the viewpoint of only one segment of the site is not a balanced way of looking at the issue, and I was worried that only that one segment would get a say.

"It's because it gives a balanced view of what the voting membership of Lioden thinks for the admins rather than it being skewed by a few people who don't want to lose."

In my opinion, a fair decision will come from balancing the many different game styles and viewpoints people have; not the majority or the people who've invested in the game. C; That just my perspective, make if it what you will.


Back to the topic. I voted for 3 because, like Nny, I think it's the most balanced of the options given. But there are a lot of ideas offered here and I still haven't made up my mind about all of them.

You have liked this post!

Soren: Considering the ridiculous amount of stats/hunts gained by some of the lionesses, I doubt a 1k fee would have much deterred the people buying them. Yes, there would have been less, but it would have still happened, albeit to a slightly less momentous extent. If you have the money to buy a couple thousand hunts + the hunt fees on 3 lionesses with skips at 100, I'm imagining a 1k fee would only lessen the amount of hunts per the amount of SB, rather than prevent it from happening, so it would still be P2W.

You have liked this post!

Why would anyone buy extra hunts for food when they can just buy food, or even better, send off other lionesses that didn't actually hunt yet for food... because then they gain stats too...?
Edit:
@Maulise, if the cost went up by 10 times, then the number of hunts would have gone down by at least 10 times... It isn't like they couldn't do that before when it cost 1 gold beetle, because they didn't.

Plus, if we get rid of a few million silver beetles in the economy just to gain handful of lionesses with 2k stats, I'm totally okay with that. It isn't terribly inflationary and it rids the economy of those excess gold beetles.

You have liked this post!

Option 2 :)

You have liked this post!

@Soren Maybe some people don't want to interact with other players or something. I personally never buy food from anyone unless I absolutely need to. Besides, they could still bring back exp for levels in case anyone wanted to work on that seeing as levels don't really do much anything for lionesses right now other than being a part of the leaderboards. People play the game in different ways, so yeah, if they wanted to they could send out another party for stats, but it's just the fact that they have the option to keep sending their ladies out if they want to.

You have liked this post!

@Griff I share the same thoughts as Soren when it comes to only the base hunts giving stats which is why I've been repeatedly suggesting a cap on how many additional hunts could be added everyday per lioness .

You have liked this post!

I'm hesitant to vote for any of these options because I don't think any of them are optimal. I think with some adjustments, options 3/4 could be a reasonable solution, but the problem is that hunting doubles as stat gain and SB sink. It doesn't work well as an SB sink if the price is too high, it over-functions as a stat gain source if the price is too low, and there doesn't seem to be much room for a balance unless you remove one function.

I like the idea of increasing the price with each use, but it would have to start lower if hunting were to function as an SB sink. It took me a good year to see my first 1,000 SB, and I still don't earn that much very quickly, so I'm reluctant to spend so much in one go; it wouldn't function as a SB sink because no one except the people with lots of money and a desire to pump up their lionesses would use it, which puts us right back where we are now - pay to win. Perhaps start at 200 SB and increase by 100-200 each use, and/or also increase the additional hunt option from 10 SB/extra to 50-100 per extra hunt (+/- increase for each additional hunt)? Or cap the additional hunt number at an extra 10 hunts per day?

What if, instead of gaining stats per hunt, lionesses gained stats per level like males do? Then, the setup that was present before the option 2 setup was made would work nicely as an SB sink and the stat-gain playing field would be leveled out some.
Sure, you could still grind lionesses and level them up a lot, but it would take longer/more money and you'd only be gaining a handful of stats per level (males earn something like 7-ish random stats per level, right?). The EXP requirements for each level could be adjusted to appropriately discourage excessive leveling pretty easily (say, the highest level takes 100-ish hunts' worth of EXP to fill, as an example - 100 hunts x 100 SB each = 10,000 SB for 5-7 stats, vs. the current 100-200 stats for 10,000 SB), and you could even put a level cap after which point lionesses gain fewer stats per re-fill of their level bar (somewhat like impression progress after reaching Dreamboat status) or cease to gain stats altogether.

I think there are also some good solutions scattered throughout the comments section here, and it might be wise to weigh some of those rather than keep the "these are the 4 options" mindset.

You have liked this post!

@Soren Established huntresses tend to find better food, and it would be cheaper than buying it outright if the price on extra hunts stays the same[and you wait out the time, not skip].

I can see the merits of just having a cap on the amount of extra hunts, but I like the option of letting them hunt for food after the stat gain cap is reached.

Maybe it could be a combination of those two ideas. Only have the first 10 or so extra hunts bought [per lioness] give stats, but still keep extra hunts available after that[at base price] for those who just want to hunt for food.

You have liked this post!

I wasn't actually saying that people who invest in the game have the right to dictate anything. I was saying that a poll wouldn't show 'truthful insight' because I think the viewpoint of only one segment of the site is not a balanced way of looking at the issue, and I was worried that only that one segment would get a say.

"It's because it gives a balanced view of what the voting membership of Lioden thinks for the admins rather than it being skewed by a few people who don't want to lose."

In my opinion, a fair decision will come from balancing the many different game styles and viewpoints people have; not the majority or the people who've invested in the game. C; That just my perspective, make if it what you will.

================================

I completely get where you're coming from. But there is no fair decision here for the poor admins to make. People will be upset no matter what they do, so they have to do what is best for the game. And that comment you picked from my posts was in reference to those with multiple accounts and me hoping they're not using them to skew the vote =/

The vote is just a way for them to get people's opinions. And I think we all agree, if nothing else, that everyone should be able to voice their opinion.

Taking away this 100SB skip doesn't benefit the casual players with little time who would like to see some progress. But increasing the price to 1GB or whatever definitely benefits a lot of others and would, admittedly, make the leader-board less stagnant. But only for those who can afford it.. The point I'm trying to make over all I think is that there is not a solution that will work for everyone. There just isn't.

You have liked this post!

I don't know exactly how to word this, so I'm sorry, but there are some things in this thread I'm not entirely following.

First off, it was supposed to be a luxury, before. That's why people don't want everything lowered to 100 SB in the oasis or free retirements (see: various threads)

Second, I don't really understand this concept of fairness. Everyone has 24 hours in the day. SB doesn't cost money like GB, it's just game currency that anyone can get. In pokemon, you don't say your friend isn't allowed to grind before battling you if you can't, you just say 'welp, I guess they'll have higher levels than me.' If your friend has unlocked better weapons in a shooter because they spend all their afternoons on it, you don't decide that the game should only allow ever weapons you can use. In Lioden, I don't think people who are able to grind explore, trades, etc to accumulate SB should be told 'using the points you spent time getting is unfair to the rest of us.' It just seems silly.

Third, on 2- again, it's a game. What is the point if there is no strategy or challenge, let alone multiple ways to strategize? This option makes it way too easy to exploit, as we've seen, but for the people not doing that, it removes all the challenge anyway. Not only is the top ideal breaking and becoming unattainable for most, the bottom is becoming boring.

You can see from my other posts that I do think things should be done in a way that benefits everyone- I think that is what would actually be fair. I don't think any of these really lend to the argument of fairness, though.

You have liked this post!

LioDen Staff:

As I read the comments on this topic, I realize there are a few things which jump out at me-

1) There is a lot of knee-jerk reaction going on here, and some of the suggestions or arguments come down to 'no, do this instead' or 'if you do x I will leave!' or even the doom-doom-doom if you do number whatever...

2) You implied there was a problem with the change. Was it complaints, or was it stats that resulted from it?

Where do YOU want LioDen to go? What was your intent, when changing it from a GB skip to an SB skip?

I am a daily player with two active accounts (the maximum allowed, readers- so don't think someone is running around voting on ten accounts.) and I don't have much problem obtaining GB, even though I am literally so poor the internet is all I buy for amusement- I would be lucky to afford GB a few times a year, no matter how desperately I want LioDen to succeed financially!

I found the skip useful because I cannot always be 'on all day' like some can, so I found it useful to skip to the next hunt for a fee, and the only difference it made to me was that it drained some SB and I FELT like it brought back less prey, even if it didn't.

I have not used the 'add more hunts' feature, tho I liked it being there, because I always had a second 'team' of lionesses to do ten hunts with if I managed to do the first team's 10 each.

Ask yourself- WHAT do you want, when it comes to this game? Is there a problem with people training lionesses this way? Can you cap it, if there is?

Ask, What do you want more- to have paying players who buy GB in order to have the BIG statted lions, while those who can afford less cannot hope to reach the leaderboards? (In otherwords, do you want NO high-statted lions, or SOME that people 'bought' by supporting the site?)

Asking yourself what you want is the first step in running a successful game.

The very emotional and sometimes manipulative responses, complaints, and threats to leave (or that they and others will leave) Is Not a good thing to listen to. Think it out as if YOU were the player. Consider the different angles, different options... compare them to what You, as Staff, WANT the game to play like!

I will vote, but my singular opinion is not as important as YOURS. Seriously. You got this!

You have liked this post!

Soren: We're not talking about 2k lionesses, more like 6+k, easily. Also, what makes you think players didn't skip hunts before? Just because it wasn't as evident, doesn't mean it didn't happen, not to mention 1,000SB is valued less than 1GB.

Griff: I have to disagree on that one, I have a level 41 girl, and all of my regular hunters are over level 20, and get I still manage to get warthogs, legs, and dik diks several times a day out of 25 hunts.

You have liked this post!