Although to be honest, I'm not sure the incremental approach to Sarah quests is crucial. Maybe just change the cut-off amount for the quests to be <10m for Sarah and >10m for Saggi (but obviously coded properly so that having exactly 10m doesn't let you do both).

Then you could link the two so that you could do 10-15 total quests in any combination of Sarah/Saggi that your sP levels allow, rather than "probably 10-15 of either but possibly 20-30".

They could share a line on the quest widget and each be linked by their name - if you had too much sP and you clicked Sarah, she would tell you to go see Saggi. If you had too little sP and you clicked on Saggi, he would tell you to go see Sarah.

I don't think that's super-necessary because the quests have always been kind of tacitly linked rather than explicitly linked, but I also don't see the harm.

That's to stay in character, since Sarah feels like you need less of her help, you can do less of her quests

I like raising the ceiling for Sarah/Saggi, since I'm one of those people who joined but made a ton of sP very fast and so was almost immediately shut out of Sarah's achievements. I second what said, it's kind of ridiculous when I earn 1 mil sP most days by just doing all the quests (often without doing Saggi). And yeah it might have been useful to have a warning so that at least I could have known when I was no longer going to be able to access Sarah's quests. I don't know; I have a lot of scattered thoughts but mostly agree with OP.

[edit] Kind of going off what said, but shouldn't it be possible coding wise to make it so that if you done Sarah's quests that day you can't do Saggi's, and vice versa? That would eliminate the problem of having people making extra sP/gaming the system by doing both.

If people want to game the system for 130K profit and a couple quest points, let them? With the scaling option, people in a position to do both are not a majority.

Most people aren't going to lend each other money so that they can do Sarah, because she has pretty much the lowest payouts.

Sarah's fifteen quests is the equivalent to a 16th quest for Saggi. People seem to overly worry about how much money she brings in.

I agree, and it doesn't really matter to me; I was just proposing that for people who are concerned about that issue (although, as you've said, it has a negligible effect).

Sarah's 'profit' is going to be such a fart in the wind I don't see the issue, the few thousands you'd get from her you stand just as likely a chance of getting just from happinstance from Saggi's quests, finding some on the ground etc... Sure, some people might swap money around to do them both but how many really? How many are going to bother to drop however much sP onto another account just to get 30-130k sp? Considering how the questing process has already been streamlined because all the button clicking and multiple tabs before was time consuming for the lazy user cough me cough.

I fully support the OP.

Sounds good to me.

Also just a note but a MASSIVE sP sink was just released and I think around 6 bil vanished from the site on the /day/ it got released. Sarah ain't gonna make a dent in paying 20 mil for a pet slot. Oooh, 150k closer. Great. Still another 19,850,000 to go. And that's for one slot alone. ;)

So overall, who cares if someone goes to do some Sarah? That's gonna buy you like one super rare. If that. You could potentially lose that 150k gambling on Saggi anyway haha

So because a sink was released we can stop caring about any extra sP in the system? And just because you lost that sP to Saggi doesn't mean it left the system, it just went to a different user while the prize money you get is brand new.

Keith stated he does not understand raising Saggi to 10 mil.

That isn't at all what I said. I said 150k from Sarah does not matter in the long run when many, MANY users are dropping 300 mil on new pet slots. That sink is getting plenty of sP out of the system, so what exactly is the big deal with a FEW users doing extra Sarah quests?

Actually he stated that he didn't understand the point of raising the minimum threshold and increasing the rewards, neither of which suggested.

"Sarah is a quest for starting players with above-average rewards to help new users get used to questing, and give them spending sP!"

it's more of a matter of principle. Sarah's quests aren't meant to be done along side Saggi's, and they're meant for newer players. I don't see any harm in making sure this is the case, that no one can do both of the quests in the same day. If you're to this point, you obviously are used to questing and aren't a new user any more. If you're just doing it for the achievements, you can sacrifice the sP you'd make from Saggi to do Sarah's quests.

in case anyone didn't read it on the other thread.

Yeah, she wants him to be more exclusive because it doesn't make sense to set the point at 750k.

The way I read 's response was that all he focused on was the idea of raising the rewards, plus only limiting it to rich people. I've been a member for a while, but 10 million doesn't really seem like an unfair obstacle, or limiting it only to the richest people.

as far as I can tell, returning the rewards to how they were before and increasing his base from 750k to 10 mil is doing just that. 10 mil isn't "rich" on the site, but it just puts a bigger gap in between the poorer people who cannot do Saggi and the richer people who can. I don't see how this benefits people on a large scale, and I think it just supports saving up 10 mil that you never spend, which isn't good for the economy.

I really hate how people keep bringing up how Saggi is exclusive. He's a regular quest for most users. If he were to suddenly become "exclusive" like people think he is, it would probably piss off most of the users who actually do his quests regularly because they suddenly can't do his quest. If we want him exclusive, put him in the blue building so that actually has a purpose (I know this is getting revamped eventually though)

The Blue Building idea is actually really neat! It would be a nice replacement for the really strange quests that are already there.

I think most of the people bring up the exclusiveness is because of the fact that there is a restriction in the first place. Why not just remove it altogether?

I would not mind the removal of the restriction. any increased restriction just makes it so richer people are getting more of a reward, which makes no sense. but with that, I don't think Sarah should be allowed for older members. sorry if that means the achievements aren't available to everyone though.

it depends how the blue building gets revamped, I know it has something to do with trophies or something? but if it was not getting revamped, I think moving Saggi in there would be sorta fun and actually worth unlocking the blue building

If nothing else, I feel like we're learning that Sarah's quest description is no longer accurate.

That's what I see as a player who can't do her quests. I'm not sure what her actual quest-giver text is if you are eligible to do her quests, but if it says the same kind of thing, it's very misleading.

Not about being for starting players, but advertising her rewards as "above-average". I think the Wizard usually asks for generally inexpensive items and you get great sP AND tokens from doing his quests - that seems pretty "above-average" to me. In comparison, Sarah's rewards are pretty mediocre.

See, thing is, I didn't really know about achievements until well after I couldn't do Sarah anymore, and I wasn't about to spend 20 mil just to do a quest. I don't agree that Sarah shouldn't be for older members, because as newbies, many don't even realize that you CAN quest much less that Sarah has a restriction.