Hey frens, let’s discuss aspects of the Gotchiverse BIble Chapter 2 in this thread!
6 Likes
Question about alchemica: when we destroy an installation, we get 50% of the alchemica back, but where does that alchemica come from?
2 Likes
Currently It’ll come from the Great Portal, which acts kind of like a bank for Alchemica. If everyone tries to destroy their installations at the same time it may revert due to low balance, but this is something I’ve been thinking about.
1 Like
Aaavesome 2 Chapter <3
Experience levels have an impact on Aavegtochi traits, but does kinship also have an impact?
1 Like
The VRF variance for Alchemica seems crazy high & disincentivize surveying parcels at all (getting extremely unlucky means losing up to 80% of farming value on the spot). Does this follow the same distribution curve as BRS / what range are most parcels gonna be in?
7 Likes
One thing that may mitigate this variance is that we reroll after each great battle, so each parcel can expect to get both lucky and unlucky over its lifetime. There will be some very disappointed people, however, who roll very low amounts several times in a row.
8 Likes
imagine having 5 parcels and all of them have 20%. I am the lord of poo poo town.
So is each of the alchemica a seperate survey? Like lets say I survey my humble parcel, will I get a different alchemica % for KEK compared to FUD? Or are all the alchemica the same %?
If it would be different for each alchemica, could we not make it like the portals? Give a choice between a few of them. It would at least improve your chance of having at least an average between the choices
4 Likes
I like this - it would add another gameplay element where you can choose which alchemica profile to go with, e.g. one choice might have higher kek but lower total. Maybe only 2 or 3 options, to hopefully avoid someone being super-disappointed with 20% for all types, but not result in every parcel having high levels.
Thematically it could be something like possible “mining plans” suggested by the survey.
3 Likes
I read the name of GLMR will probably be changed.
Since GLMR tokens will be used to expedite Alchemika installations
I would like to suggest CNBR (cinnabar).
in alchemy, mercury is found in many formulas
Since mercury as a name is taken, i thought cinnabar (like coderdan’s github handle - cinnabarHorse)
Cinnabar is a red sulfide found in nature that mercury is extracted from.
CNBR would be a way to keep with the alchemy theme of the tokens.
8 Likes
I agree with concerns about the extreme VRF variance. I would imagine most people buying land for the yield prospect would prefer to view that as a relatively predictable and stable source of yield.
I like GhostyFever’s idea of adding the portal choice mechanic, though I would be satisfied to simply reduce the variance. A min/max of 50/150% is probably the most I’d argue for, but would be content with somewhat less, e.g. 65/135%.
4 Likes
Definately… we all love some degen action and variance, but I don’t feel like this is the place to do it, unless it’s balanced in other ways. This benefits whales too much and regular folk are going to be disappointed when they roll a dud bit of land (for that round at least), and not good for the ecosystem IMO.
Personally I would be against choosing from several options, as I just think it’s overkill and that’s best saved for Gotchis. Just lower the variance significantly, IMO.
4 Likes
And at some point down the line alchemica invested in installations is going to be more than double the 1% capacity of the great portal correct?
Option A - Keep Reserves in Individual Addresses
Is it possible to lock 50% of the installation costs in each of the individual contracts (portal, PC, DAO & burn) as per the original cost proportions to support a mass liquidation event (as unlikely as that is)?
Option B - Create a “Burn & Refund” Address
Or perhaps the burn address also becomes the installation refund address? So upon purchase of an installation:
- 52.5% goes to the “burn & refund” address
- 17.5% to the great portal
- 15% to PC
- 15% to DAO
I’m lumping the burn & refund address into one here as the 50% installation refund is kind of a “faux” burn as it may never actually be reclaimed.
A major issue with both these options is the funds available to support further gameplay incentives, PC and DAO initiatives is completely halved! So far from ideal.
4 Likes
This is a good question which I don’t think has been answered yet. We’ve been talking about the min/max of the range, but the distribution within that range is also important to know as that has a big effect on the end result.
If it’s like gotchi traits, then the distribution for each type of alchemica would be flat, i.e. every number within the range has an equal probability of occurring. A quarter of parcels would be in the bottom 25% of the range, a quarter in the top 25%.
But many people probably have a mental modal of traits being on a bell curve/normal distribution (due to the way it’s presented on the aavegotchi website, and a lot of tutorial material) even though that’s untrue. With this distribution, extreme values are less likely to occur than values in the middle. Much less than a quarter of parcels would end up in the bottom 25% of the value range for a single alchemica.
Which is it? Or is this something that’s also open to discussion?
2 Likes
I notice that no one has had any issue with the distribution of the spent alchemica. I don’t really understand why this resource needs to be so heavily fed back into the ecosystem via the DAO and PC studios. With the DAO and PC both already getting a significant portion of the spent GHST in the ecosystem, I don’t really see the justification for giving most of the spent alchemica back into the ecosystem.
At the end of the day, this is supposed to be a game for people to play. There are no other games that pay the studio that created it every time a person interacts with the game as intended. Microsoft gets no money for you building something in Age of Empires, Runescape isn’t taking a cut of the materials used to build items. Resources like this should not be fed so heavily back in, this makes no sense from a game perspective.
I feel that far more of the alchemica should be burned, at the very least 25% if not far more. Ideally I’d prefer to see 50% burned to a wallet that can issue a refund of 50% of what you spent should you remove the building, as discussed in prior comments, 35% to the Portal as stated 10% to the DAO and 5% to PC as part of their incentive to continue working on the project with less restrictions on how it can be used.
Pixelcraft Studios , the Gotchiverse’s dev house, also receives 30% of crafted Alchemica. These Alchemica balances can quickly be put to work in any endeavor supporting the growth of the Aavegotchi protocol and Gotchiverse game. Besides just diamond-handing, user acquisition, strategic allocations and marketing initiatives are some of the ways Alchemica can be put to work.
I also question the entire justification here for the funds being allocated to PC, things; like marketing, user acquisition, and strategic allocations are jobs for the DAO and the various committees being created with specific goals and budgets in mind. I also dislike the vague wording for things like strategic allocations as that sounds exactly like the purpose of the new committee currently being voted on, the one that will strategically place treasury funds to grow. I won’t even mention the obvious and misplaced joke about the devs diamond-handing better than a literal DAO treasury or burn wallet, that reason should most certainly not even be listed and shows a certain level of unprofessionalism that’s out of place considering the sums of money being abstractly talked about in this paper.
I feel like far too many of the members of this DAO and the devs over at PC are constantly forgetting that this is a partnership between the DAO and PC. PC decided that a DAO was the best way to govern the development and administration of this project, there are many benefits PC gets to reap from this from both a tax perspective and a financial liability perspective. This is not PC being gracious and accepting input from the community. If we were to compare this relationship to more traditional game development, it is similar to when one company publishes a game through another studio. This studio does not own the game in any form and must run all major decisions past the company that hired them. They don’t worry about marketing, they don’t worry about user acquisition, and they don’t worry about strategic allocation. Their only focus is creating a game that will make the people paying them happy and result in continued business.
6 Likes
Could it be considered that spillover is used to boost the bubbleups instead of distributing it to the vicinity of the harvester?
It is possible to misunderstand the Eye shape mapping list. “Mytchical High Collateral” referring: If you have mythical high eyes then you get collateral specific traits. Can be undestood: If you have collateral amount at the “mythical” tier, 100 usd value equivalent or more then you get the trait… attleast I did as I bought couple of rare highs thinking this 
Maybe the word collateral should be removed from the chart.
1 Like
I was also initially confused with this. It’s not a good sign if I have to ask what something means.
The simplest fix would be to just put a picture of a gotchi with money eyes next to the words. Nothing is changed, just copy paste a picture of a GHST gotchi with GHST eyes onto the page. This sort of thing could be done even more elegantly, if you do it as a watermark. Any time you feel someone might misunderstand what a page is about… use an appropriate gotchi or symbol as the watermark.
Or… jost add the word eyes after collateral. It may seem redundant, but there is two ways to interpret mythical collateral, at first glance.
Option three is making those words a link so that if you click it it takes you to the other chart so you can have your AHA moment.
Well, it’s crystal clear to me that this is referring to collateral eyes getting a specific type of boost, based on the type of collateral.
1 Like
Will dungeons and bubble ups be live in the first Citaadel launch or will these come later?
1 Like
I still think it is a problem we have not discussed why PC feels the need to feed themselves so much of the currencies that are burned in this game. Everything PC has stated they want to do with either GHST or Alchemica is something that should actually be handled by a DAO committee. There is no need for PC to pay for advertising, there is no need for PC to pay for events or promotions. These are all things that should be handled by the DAO. With this in mind, I have a huge problem with the Alchemica distribution as it stands and I think this is something we need to discuss.