Adjust Adventure Gains based on Popularity

[Garth2079]

It's time BB adjusted the loot and/or XP gains for adventures. It would be easy for developers to measure:

- Count the number of adventures given out over a fixed time period e.g. 14 days
- Count the number of adventures started/completed in the same time period

For adventures that were rarely attempted (SOTV and SE are obvious examples), make them more appealing. Maybe give a bonus 10,000 XP for completing them - the code is already there to do that, Lost Skull pays an XP bonus for clicking on buildings but only if the adventure is completed.

Conversely, reduce the loot for popular adventures like IOTP.

Another easy measure is the cost in the Trade Office. When people can't sell SOTV for 1 fish, but IOTP sells for 300+ gc and Nords for 1600+ gc, it's obvious there's a problem. A developer or designer put in the effort to build the adventure, wouldn't it be nice to see people actually playing it?

Sure, weight some adventures towards XP gains and others towards loot, but make it worthwhile doing them all.

[Icegirl]

Why do you hate us so much?

[Dragonia]

I understand when someone suggest to improve or increase something, but the purpose of asking for 'reducing own stuff' is still secret for me. ...Or its an attempt of other competitive games to destroy this one by suggesting lowering players enjoyment until they leave ?
(Btw i just came here after reading another post which suggest 'decay of your hard earned resources' ... the horror.)

[Garth2079]

Why do you hate us so much?

I don't hate anyone here, far from it. I would like to have a variety of adventures to complete, but some of them simply aren't viable, SOTV being an obvious one. What I'm suggesting won't take anything away from players, instead it will balance the gains across all adventures. So instead of doing the same 4 or 5 adventures because they give the best gains, we can all enjoy doing all the adventures.

There's no point just making the hard ones pay more XP/loot without balancing it up by making the easier ones pay less. Eventually everything becomes easier and there's no longer a challenge.

I'm happy to hear other players' thoughts on my suggestions, and if people disagree I have no problem with that (and might even be persuaded to change my own opinion - unheard of in internet forums I know!) but suggesting I hate you isn't very constructive.

[Garth2079]

I understand when someone suggest to improve or increase something, but the purpose of asking for 'reducing own stuff' is still secret for me. ...Or its an attempt of other competitive games to destroy this one by suggesting lowering players enjoyment until they leave ?
(Btw i just came here after reading another post which suggest 'decay of your hard earned resources' ... the horror.)

As long as the reduction is fair to all, then there's no net loss. For example, if BB reduced the amount of horses given away in loot (I received 3,000 from the Nords yesterday), the price of horses would go up in the trade office and it would be worth my producing horses again. I haven't owned a bowmaker or longbowmaker in months, nor have many others, but I still have so many I try to sell them on the trade office (and usually fail to sell them, even for a few coins per 1,000).

Lowering the loot given doesn't lower the enjoyment. If a game becomes too easy, people will leave. Giving away too much loot floods the market and means an excess of resources. Why do you think the 20th Birthday event is asking players to convert thousands of resources into balloons, in order to win a settlers house that holds 20? It's because BB know there are enormous stockpiles of resources sitting in peoples' star menus (which is another problem altogether).

I'm sorry that my suggestions aren't all about making the game "easier", but personally I don't want to hit level 50 in 3 months and then have nothing to do. If that's what people want, go play on the test system, you get free XP and free gems and level 5 buildings pre-built. Is that more fun than the live system?