They do. They’re great parcels. I’m kind of joking, to illustrate a point.
1 Like
"It seems like they are just trying to align the boosts with what people have already paid. So I don’t think anyone is really getting hurt here, there is lots of upcoming auctions… this has only been the tip of the iceberg. Since we are 2 auctions in, we can see the average market value for boosted vs non boosted. It’s crucial to have these discussions now before realm goes live & majority of the gotchiverse is still left to be distributed.
So unless you went all in the first 2 auctions, the boosted community just has more to lose right now. I also don’t think parcels would be valued that differently in future auctions with these changes. As it’s just trying to align the value already paid. Aside from the small percentage of loaded Kek specious that were clearly overbid as a product of the bid2earn system."
I have to say that proposal 1c seems wrong to me on too many levels.
- There is one major rule in crypto and such projects: DYOR. In this case it didn’t even need more than a couple of minutes to read through the medium articles, quickly do the math, or ask about it in chat. Passing this proposal would punish everyone who did their research.
- There is much more to the value of Realm plots than just how much they can be farmed. Parcels can be valued higher because they are very rare, have aesthetic appeal and thus value. I haven’t seen the 3D Gotchiverse and how a parcel surrounded by Alchemica looks in it, but I am sure it will be much more appealing by itself (without any structures) compared to less or non-boosted parcels.
- Seems to me like proposing that Aavegotchi eyes should count 3x towards rarity for rarity farming because people pay much more for them on the baazaar but do not get much farming rewards. Clearly there are other reasons to pay 5-15x more for a double myth than for another Gotchi with same BRS.
- The value of the boosts have been discussed by Jesse and Coderdan in Hangouts and other occasions multiple times. It was always made clear what they will be. What can we expect from this project in the future when exactly those lead developers now raise such a proposal?
- Imo this proposal would not lead to having the Alchemica rewards aligned with the floor value of boosted parcels. It would however lead to a significant higher floor values for them. So its not just about boosting boosted parcels but rather about boosting floor prices for them. If the floor rises by 2x after passing the vote, would we then have a new vote to boost them even more? Seems totally absurd to me.
So far I really loved this project in almost every aspect of it. By spending time, doing the research and math, one was always able to be more “cost efficient” than others who would just invest their money. Meaning one could e.g. get higher farming rewards compared to the investment. While I believe that it is definitely important that a higher investment would generally yield higher rewards as well, to me the play2earn aspect of the game is thus far essentially provided by the option people have to put in more time and thought and therefore yield a higher reward % or get better deals of the baazaar and so on.
If proposals like this passed, I would personally feel like this aspect of the game would (at least partly) be taken from me, while exactly this was the reason to not only stay with this project since the first haunt but also to not even find the sell button yet!
11 Likes
i feel like the boosts deserve to be buffed but not by 5x, why? The prices are 5x not because of the boosts but also because people speculate on the aesthetics of this being near their parcel.
Alternative?:
We could make boosts feel more like boosts by making them explosions of a very low amount of alchemica to kickstart boosted parcels every reset. And to give a baseline of liquidity at launch so people can trade a bit. Though truth be told i have no idea if it doesn’t already work like this? I read through the old medium posts and it doesn’t confirm or deny how it works.
this may or may not change the max supply a bit. Though personally i prefer the tokens to just have no max supply and just make sure to incentivize burning them. It works for ghst so why not for alchemica.
HOWEVER no one can vote on anything like this unless we know how much is 1 fomo? how much is 1 kek?
What can you build with 1k kek for example? nobody knows so nobody could even vote on the size of these potential alchemica explosions.
I think it is important to include people in the testing so we can all decide what is balanced or not. before setting everything in stone. We can still change a lot at this stage and i would prefer a delayed launch than a broken one.
wether it gives you just a higher minimum and maximum or actually in the way of boosting as i just described.
in my mind an instant explosion would feel more like an actual boost but may be overpowered if it gives too much.
if we choose to buff them normally i would say no more than 2x maybe 3x, 5x is too much.
I honestly have no clue which is the best way to go but i think we should have a more in depth discussion about that + the fact that everyone needs to be allowed to test it first to decide what is balanced.
This is coming from someone who heavily invested in unboosted parcels because boosted did not seem worth it.
I am saying these things because from the game perspective it does not make sense to make boosts as worthless as they are.
2 Likes
Well, in my case, I didn’t personally pay multiples. I was priced out of heavily boosted parcels, because jeeeezus people were paying a lot, but I did accept about 20 - 30% extra in bidding for some parcels with a significant boost, in a sought after district, if I thought it was underbid. I didn’t do any maths, but I did think, if I have a replenishing bonus over someone with a similar amount of upboosted land, I’d make my investment back at some point during the game. I also thought of it as one would think of geological features in real life - industrial structures congregate around resource rich geological features. Plots near visible natural resources tend to have more of those resources - a visible vein of gold on a plot of land increases your chances of finding more gold exponentially. You don’t generally buy a plot unseen and magically have all of whatever you need on it, in real life, logically. I read the document and I spoke with people in the chat who mentioned the benefit would really only be about 5-10% more than the norm… but I also thought, “People are going mental. Perhaps they know something that I missed.” All in all, I simply have a bit less land than I would have, had I known what I know for certain now. I would probably have just literally spent everything on as many spacious parcels as I could, in this case, which I think makes things slightly more boring and less intricate.
The current method for resource distribution homogenises everything. Then, if I have a wad of cash, it serves no purpose do diversify my holdings - literally the only thing I’m going for is square acreage (pixelage?) No accounting for rivers, valleys, mountains - you know, interesting features. It’s all just money in with big plots, and smol players with everything underneath. I envisioned something with a little more nuance and flavour, that’s all.
But, I totally understand the opposition from people who planned meticulously to build an industrial pixel-alchemica empire, so please don’t take this post as attacking those arguments against it.
2 Likes
I also like the original idea of using kinship for channeling. Having a use gives kinship a value beyond rarity farming, and if kinship never gets used then the rarity farming for kinship will never be competitive (unless the other suggestion about “dependability” is implemented, or there is some way to earn potions through gameplay). And using kinship doesn’t “hurt” your Gotchi–it’s like shearing a sheep! It will grow back! 
4 Likes
The more I have been thinking about it over the past few days and I see why 0.1C was raised. For gameplay, especially for those who cannot afford a gotchi/land (which will likely be a huge amount of players) the alchemica boosts make a compelling and fun play experience so I do support the idea behind the proposal. I also think it is likey better for the long term engagement of new players and gives the potential for ‘special events’ like the replenishment of the boosts to produce heaps of alchemica, these events could be used to promote the game really effectively I think without using all of the available boosts on someone’s parcel.
The two things I can’t really come up with a good solution for though is;
-
Having boosted parcels in clearly highlighted areas of the map is cool but also will likey see most of the players congregate around those areas. If there were non-boosted parcels that potentially had more alchemica than some boosted ones due to a lucky VRF roll this would encourage users to actually explore all of the map, potentially finding a gem of a parcel where the owner isn’t very attentive and there is LOTs of spillage from that parcel, it makes it more exciting to explore imo.
-
If we accepted that the boosts were required to make gameplay more exciting, even though the replenishment is already a pretty good change when the literature was clear it was a one-time thing, how do we fairly compensate those who did actually read the available information that was quite specific and off the back of that info, invested heavily into non-boosted parcels? Full disclosure that is exactly what I did, bought as much land as I could afford but no boosts. I’m not saying non-boosted owners have to be compensated but I for one would feel pretty jaded about it and by the looks of the voting currently so would many others.
My current stance is supporting the replenishment proposal, even though it was super clear that the boosts wouldn’t be replenished. I initially was 100% against 0.1C but I do think there is some merit in it the longer I think about it, maybe 5x is too much of a boost though. The non-boosters likely read the material on line and participated in community discussion about it, I’m a bit biased as I am in this group but to tilt the mechanics away from those who took the time to research and engage in the project seems counterintuitive as this group are going to be the early regular players of the game.
3 Likes