Ludia Forums

Sanctuary improvements needed NOW

Most of you missed a few key words. In the post.

For the first point, the owner should only be rewarded if the fip comes from an ALLIANCE member…not anyone outside of your alliance. I like the idea of booting a dino when they reach some sort of cap.

For the second point, limiting 2 dinos per sanctuary would help to build up more than one shared sanctuary in your alliance. Also, allowing 6 dinos rather than 4 only helps to diversify the offerings and reduces the odds that a given dino someone is trying to fip would be yours.

The thing with co-op sancs is there is a LOT and I mean a LOT of time, effort, and coordinating that goes on behind the scenes. If 7 alliances are willing to work together to achieve a high level sanc they should be rewarded for that. Sanctuaries are meant to be shared, yes, but people also shouldn’t be able to come in and take what others worked so hard for.

5 Likes

What DragonHunter and Piere and a few others have said - no way to #1, and while I’m 100% fine with someone stumbling across our lvl 20 on the map and FIPping the dinos in it, it’s wholly selfish to place their own dino in there and “steal” it for their alliance, who can then try to take it over. Basically it comes down to this: those who work behind the scenes planning the big co-op sancs work very hard. Big sancs don’t just happen. Many other less-involved players understand that and are happy to observe basic sanc rules even if they may not realize quite the degree others are working in order to make the sancs happen. Some have no clue what actually goes into it.

Believe me when I say it can feel like a second full-time job some days. I realize I do it voluntarily, and that’s my choice. But the selfishness of a few people can undo an unbelievable amount of work, planning, and coordination. That is why people get protective of “their” sancs. Getting a few hundred people across many alliances on the same page takes work, and frustration, tears, and so much patience when all you want to do is throw up your hands and give up some days. And yeah, I’d benefit hugely from bonus DNA rewarded for other people FIPping my dinos, and I think it’s a recipe for disaster. As to the other points, I don’t really take issue with them, but I think things are fine as they are.

4 Likes

You can have more then 4 creatures in a sanc. You have to level it. I think the point of only allowing 4 to begin with is to encourage leveling the sanc up, which then increases the number of spots available as well as an increase in DNA per FIP.

2 Likes

After the work put in to level the sanc to lvl 20 every 2 weeks and then the work to cross share with another group, for someone to waltz in park their dino and mess up everything worse still slot rubbish that disrupts the plan isnt fair.

Its easy to say alliances arent entitled to 1 sanc when you dun have to do much work to make them lvl 20 in 50 hours or so. When alliances just piggy back on others to get the benefit without the pain and hard work, its a bit unethical.

3 Likes

THIS. It certainly doesn’t help that it’s almost impossible to track down the owner/alliance of a rogue dino. Because not everyone is malicious; in some cases people probably see a lvl 20, see a slot, and don’t think anything of putting a dino in. In a perfect world, were this to happen, you could at least reach out and try to coordinate a bit so that it doesn’t become a nightmare of slot-sniping and sanc-stealing. But the game doesn’t even allow us that, so you can either end up with a group of somewhat clueless people taking over some slots with random dinos, or an intentional sniping war, neither of which is fair to those who put in a lot of effort to build it in the first place (usually using votes from the players involved so the group of dinos planned for the sanc is tailored to the needs of the group who built it).

Sanctuary building is like a “project” in working life.
A TEAM work weeks out to get the fruits for the company (alliance), then all of a sudden an idiot come by and claim it without dropping a sweat, worst, by then the building team has to keep an eye on this idiot for the next 48hrs.
In PoGo, at least we can activate members to combine force and get rid of that rogue player, in JWA, u fire that idiot with your “mouth”.
If sanctuary is OPEN for public, and nothing can be done for “building teams”, let the sanctuary have 24 open slots with all dinos returning with a fixed amount.
No player in any team want to be involved in the sanctuary building, as it take too much time out from individual private life, those who are involved are players sacrificing, but we shouldn’t tired them out because of how the game designed for it.
WHY? For a very simple reason, a TIRED PLAYER is a player wanting to QUIT.

Only a stupid design cater for such outcome.

The problem is that while your Alliance and another work to get a sanctuary up to a decent level to benefit you both, the point of view that such a sanctuary is “yours” doesn’t work. The reason it doesn’t work is because anyone who lives by that sanctuary or passes it while out for a walk/walking the dog, whatever, doesn’t know that two Alliances are trying to do something with that sanctuary. They see a slot open in a very good sanctuary and of course they are going to put something in there. They aren’t sniping or being malicious, they are just doing what the game allows and is the very reason why I keep saying that Alliances cannot lay claim to a sanctuary just because they have put the hard work into it.

The only way around this is to have a virtual sanctuary under the Alliance tab in the game which exists solely for those players.

1 Like

It’s hard to justify one way or another. There’s quite a few Sanctuaries that never get used, so anyone can take one. But it would definitely be better if Ludia introduced a Allaince Sanctuary. It would fix many problems with snipers.

1 Like

That’s exactly what it is. Every person who walks by sees a high level Sanctuary should know, nobody alone can’t make that high. I have made a Sanctuary to level 7 alone. Fapizating on 4 Epics. The Epic Incubator with 250 Food is the reason I was able to do that.

When it comes to a Sanctuary higher than level 7, players should understand, there’s so much time and effort behind that. It’s not rocket science, it’s simple common sense to understand that. You can’t just place any creature just because you found a high level Sanctuary when you travel. It’s not a good sportsmanship. Almost every creature that’s needed can be found in a high level Sanctuary. You can Fapizice the creatures, but you can’t place some creature of your own. It’s as simple as that.

Regarding OP, I am against #1. What I have in mind is increase the number of DNAs we get when a Creature returns no matter what’s the Sanctuary level.
#2 limiting Creatures per Sanctuary is not a good idea. There’s some players who go solo, limiting affects them. Increased the number from 4 is a wonderful idea.
#3 Super idea.

1 Like

I have to disagree. Not everyone who plays visits these forums to understand that, and even then there is nothing in place to say they can’t drop something in there. Hence why I think there should be a specific sanctuary for each Alliance in their game tab.

Here’s a thought.

And this could be a massive improvement to sanctuaries for all of those who combine alliances to build high level sanctuaries.

Allow for a specific sanctuary unique to the alliance, as Colin says. And in this sanctuary only the leader of that alliance can ok the placement of dinos in it. They can designate up to four other alliance members to also ok the placements.

So if ten other alliances join in, there will always be someone on hand to coordinate placement and there wouldn’t be any sniping or rogue placements.

Each alliance would have the potential to build and share their unique sanctuary, and it would encourage more of this sharing thus improving the experience for so many players.

1 Like

The way you say it, sanc building isnt worth the effort since it is not going to serve the needs of those who built it.

The amount of effort needed for building a level 20 sanc is really not worth it if any random person can slot into the sanc and reap the benefit.

This isnt like a PoGo gym where a few minutes maybe 30 mins can get.you a full level gym plus the required 50 coins.

Virtual sancs would work only if they are shareable if not its just another waste.of time.

1 Like

I didn’t tell anything about visiting Forums. I said about using simple common sense. If something is used by someone, don’t use those. Use another one. There’s no scarcity of Sanctuaries in the map. Build yourself one. Just because it’s open to everyone it doesn’t mean you should use it. I am just saying, show some courtesy.

2 Likes

Respectfully, it isn’t how I say it, it is how it is within the game as it presently stands. Until Ludia add something to the game where an Alliance can lockdown a given sanctuary anyone can use one and that is why I say that anyone can use a given sanctuary, it isn’t just for a given Alliance or two to use for themselves.

You didn’t mention forums but I did as an example. Someone who doesn’t worry about the larger aspects of the game may not know that some Alliances feel they have a claim to a given Sanctuary, and would see what we are describing as an opportunity. I don’t blame them.

Respectfully, yes it does! You, any player or any Alliance do not have a carte blanche pass to claim any sanctuary as your own. They exist for any player out there to use them.

I think it is great that Alliances are working together to get these sanctuaries as high as they do. That is commendable work for everyone involved but, as I said above, until Ludia give Alliances a means to lock a given sanctuary they are open to everyone at the moment.

Anyway… I’m going to call it there otherwise we’ll just go round in circles debating the same thing and not agreeing. Thank you for the good debate and good luck with your sanctuaries.

I know. That’s why said that. Even if you can do something, you have a choice whether or not to do that.

1 Like

I know lots of players don’t have a larger aspects of the game, that’s why I said to have some courtesy when they see a high level Sanctuary. Think about the time and effort players put into building those Sanctuaries.

1 Like

But what’s the benefit of putting “their” Dino in there? They would benefit more from just fipping what’s already in there. That’s the point we’re trying to make. Right now you benefit from fipping creatures. We don’t need even more incentive for placing. Instead, it would be better to educate players on how sancs actually work so everyone benefits in the end.

2 Likes

all good arguments about Alliance’s laying claim to a sanctuary that they are working to build. On one side they are working to build it up for everyone’s benefit. On the other, they are a whole community item and no one actually owns a sanc.

I do feel that those working on the sancs should not have to worry about rogues placing something in that messes up the work. But at the same time, since sancs are a global community based item, even those not in the alliance/ alliance co op should be allowed to reap the benefits of what’s in their neighborhood. Making sancs alliance specific may hurt those new players that are just starting out and cannot get into an alliance yet and are still figuring out the game.

Not sure what kind of creature variety a lv 20 sanc will end up with. Guess that depends on the votes. So what’s in the sanc can or cannot be what that rogue player needs at the time.

To meet the best of both worlds, allowing the player who first placed a creature to lock the sanc to new creatures without permission (also allowing of multiple people they chose to allow or block other creatures) can keep rogue players from placing things in and messing up the growth. But the lock does not block other players from interacting with what is in there. Maybe also a message system so the “creator” of the sanc can say something about it, potentially portraying that they are working to get it to max level and if a creature is placed outside of the coordinated effort, that max lv sanc won’t happen.

1 Like

I’m pretty sure 90% of the player base doesn’t have near the power (both personal and social) to start sniping wars and ruin a handful of extremely well-coordinated alliances’ sanctuary. Maybe I’m wrong because I’m just a filthy casual. Maybe I don’t have enough knowledge of the high-stakes world of level 20 sanctuaries. But that’s just a lot of nonsense I think only a few dedicated trolls and point-grubbers would even bother with.

I’m just thinking of the rest of us scrubs who have to deal with sanctuaries that reach MAX level 8, if everyone happens to really really want mammoth so everyone is sticking theirs in the best sanctuary we have. The alliances where people don’t get how sanctuaries work because, to be honest, it’s kind of arcane, and they’ll just stick in any random dino they need DNA for. For those alliances, getting rewarded for placing a dinosaur that everyone will like and fip is extremely valuable. It won’t net us anything like the insane 32k DNA or whatever that someone up the thread mentioned, but it would make it so much more rewarding, and might encourage people who otherwise wouldn’t pay attention to how sanctuaries work to play with a more team-oriented mindset. If they realize they can stick in a dino that’s hard to get DNA for and that everyone else wants it too, and that means they’ll get more from it, it’ll be easier for the whole alliance to keep sanctuaries valuable, as in, full of dinos that benefit most from sanctuaries and vice versa.

It would just be nice to not have something that could be good for arguably the majority of players excluded because some players on a totally different level would abuse it somehow.

2 Likes