Ludia Forums

Why Sanctuary Care Points is a BAD Idea

Hi there!

I know that many of you have already taken the survey, but for those who haven’t, please consider the following:

Level 20 sanctuaries are a LOT of work. Many members have invested considerable amounts of money into creatures to level them up for higher sanctuary points. This should not go understated.

So how does this relate to sanctuary care points? You’d think that these players would benefit from their players FIPing on their beast. Yes, that’s true, but this also requires players knowing that placing creatures in sanctuaries gives them less benefit than having level 20s. This proposal make this (somewhat) untrue.

This proposal will create resentment towards those who have max-levelled their sanctuary beasts, it will create competition within alliances and co-ops as to who can place which dinosaurs, and it will ultimately rob players of their “care points” as people will only want to FIP their own creatures. This is a really short-sighted idea, and I’m concerned that people will welcome it with open arms.

The only stipulations I would make is if you allow alliance leaders to remove sanctuaries from their alliances and sanctuary owners to remove rogue placements. Otherwise, this will create a gigantic mess that will cause co-ops to adopt more hard-line stances and create a hostile environment in the game.

The last proposal I felt this sick about when reading about it was boosts. Please think about this before welcoming it.


thanks for bringing this point up.
care bonuses would be a big bonus to those who don’t do the high level sanc thing but i can see how it would cause issues with co-ops.


As a co-op leader, I absolutely agree. We have a hard enough time getting players to FIP our maximum sanctuary points dinos already, the care points system will not only slow the building process down even further, but it will cause more alliance leaders to kick out players for rogue placements


I think it would be a very miniscule bonus if I’m being honest. Namely for one thing I touched on above. Everybody would be petitioning for their dinos to be FIPed, and everybody would just FIP their own.

So we end up with 14 sanctuaries, all level 1-8 and we get 5 extra DNA for it? Pardon my cynicism, but I’ve played JWA long enough to be able to speak confidently that Ludia will screw this up.

It will promote individualism in the gameplay over cooperation. This is the opposite of what we should be petitioning for.


100%. Working on level 20 sanctuaries is a thankless job, and I don’t think people realize how much goes into it. I’m in a co-op of 21 alliances, and we have three level 20 sanctuaries. To maintain access to the sancts, each alliance has to place a creature in each sanct every 48 hours. If someone misses a placement or a rogue steals their spot, it can be difficult to find them a new placement that A) works with their schedule and B) doesn’t result in another alliance losing their spot and therefore losing access. This new system incentivizes placing, which would result in more rogues – or at the very least, more animosity when people feel the placers are being unfairly rewarded.


for my alliance, we’re unorganized. we place what we need and ask if anyone else is willing to place other creatures in the sancs when we need more. a large variety of people fipping a multitude of other players’ creatures over the course of the day. i hit up at least 2-3 others for dodo daily and only place my own if i just need an extra interact on occasion. a bit of extra dna to them and or myself when i place something for someone else would be welcomed.

i can also understand that this exact feature would cause discourse in lv 20 groups and co-ops because theres dedicated placers that get a bonus from everyone and others would want to take advantage of that bonus.

tho i thought the idea of it was a good thing, it wasn’t part of my top 3 choices.


I understand, and I thank you for your very well-thought-out and referenced replies. (I’m only mentioning that in anticipation of some replies I expect the be incoming.)

You make a good point for lower alliances, and while it’s likely some points would be nice, I think perhaps we can come to the agreement that the idea, as it was proposed in the survey, is too underdeveloped. (At least for me to support it.) I support the idea of allowing non-co-op alliances to be able to increase their rewards, but this will have so many unintended (or perhaps intended - because Ludia) consequences, that I feel it needs to be revised and better-designed before it’s something I would be happy to support. I welcome any suggestions for how it could be improved. This is a discussion afterall.


i can agree with that.

no idea how to make it work with both groups. maybe an “opt in” option. creator/ alliance leader/ officer could set a sanc to either give the bonus or not to give the bonus.


One thing to point out is that bonuses only accrue from other people fipping your placed creatures, not you fipping your own. The worry about people building their own sancs instead of shares are misplaced I think since you don’t get any bonus for doing so. It has to be other people. (And groups that already have rules against building your own… :roll_eyes:)

I don’t think it’s a terrible idea personally (I think it’s meant to reward the people who are involved in shared sanc building and also take one for the team during tourneys by having high value creatures locked in sancs) but I can see the downsides also in terms of creating conflict, additional coordination, and incentivizing rogue placements. I do recall that this was a feature requested here at various points since sanctuaries were introduced.

However since the sentiment from alliance mates and the folks involved in managing our co-op is overwhelmingly against it, I’ll be placing it low on the list.


Maybe instead of rewards for fipping they give more rewards for placing creatures. That way the people placing creatures in the shared sancs will get more DNA when they come out, but also if people want to place their own creatures in a smaller local sanc it wouldn’t disrupt the overall building and maintaining of the big sancs. I agree I think this mechanic could cause issues and alliances work so hard to build and maintain the big sancs that at the end of the day benefit everyone in the alliance.


This a problem entirely of Ludia’s own making by not integrating co-ops into the game in the first place–while requiring max level creatures and/or boosts/multiple alliances to achieve an L20.

An easy solution would be to rethink sanctuaries as a whole to make L20 sanctuaries more obtainable without spending money (less xp to level, more xp from fips, increased fip supply, in-game co-ops–doesn’t matter which).

But the status quo benefits only a select few (no matter how many thousands of players are in co-ops [generous estimate BTW], tens of thousands aren’t).

In theory, this would increase the profit for everyone without animosity since co-ops could keep doing their thing to hit L20 even faster without the burden of micromanaging every slot or detail.

It wouldn’t profit Ludia as much, so it’ll never happen but it’s a thought.


It is a thought. If a single alliance could hit level 20, I guess I could see the benefit.

See? This is why I want this discussion, it helps define this idea so that we don’t end-up with buyers’ remorse if/when it is implemented.
I’d like to alert @Ned and perhaps other mods to this discussion if they are not aware of it already.


That’s the dream for any casual alliance.

We don’t need multiple L20s, but working together hard enough to get even 1 would be nice.

I would absolutely support this cause. The value in the extra DNA is so helpful and should be achievable. Granted I still think it needs to include some coordination within the alliance and not something that’s necessarily “easy” but at least allow it to be obtainable.


That’s basically the definition of a casual alliance.

Though our sanctuary coordination amounts to unspoken rules for putting the newest creatures together for maximum effect to help low-level players expand their collections and high-level players unlock hybrids.

1 Like

Personally as a sanctuary builder for coops and as an alliance lead I really hope this doesn’t happen, coordinating sanctuaries so as their is a no waste system (basically so as everyone gets the most out of their FiPs is a strategy in itself, if people keep opening their own sanctuaries those lower lvl sanc’s are going to give them a lot lower lvl Dna per fip causing huge amounts of waste. You can’t have high lvl sanc’s and everyone in an alliance reaping the benefits of placing their own creatures it just not going to work and spells disaster for sanctuaries and the point of using FiPs


Under this proposed system, when someone FIPs your placed creature, you get bonus DNA. My co-op already has an issue with rogues dropping into the 20s because they (wrongly) believe they’ll get extra DNA when the creature drops back out (in reality, you get the exact same return reward whether the sanct is level 1 or 20). I can only imagine the rogues when they know they’ll get extra DNA every time someone FIPs their rogue creature.


I can see it now…

A lvl 20 sanc with 20 rogue Rhinos in it :rofl:


:sob: sounds like something out of my nightmares…
I agree with @Acerglyn and think this is very underdeveloped the way it was described in the survey. on paper it’s not a bad idea and would definitely help people who don’t have overleveled creatures and/or alliances that aren’t in co-ops… but it really needs to be set up in a way that it won’t cause major rogue placements for those alliances that have co-op sancs. I’m just unsure how that would be possible without exploding the game…

No that’s a lvl 20 sanc full of Velo :kissing: :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: