** Contingent on Gotchiverse Paatch 0.1c failing to pass**
The aforementioned patch has proven contentious and unlikely to pass.
It would have benefitted bidders of specific parcels, while not addressing concerns of bidders of parcels near-yet-not-touching a deposit.
The purpose of deposits that do not touch a parcel has also not been clear to this point.
Many in the community are against revisionist changes to the tokenomics after the auctions have already taken place, and information was widely available about the low amount of boosts.
Alternative solution to explore:
Vote to make current deposits in the citadel permanent as currently shown on map, and farmable by any gotchi in proximity (except maybe deposits locked within the walls of an estate).
Should we make deposits in the gotchiverse map real, farmable and permanent?
I like the idea of giving alchemica deposits utility outside of the boosts nominated at auction. This would not directly go against those that did their research prior to auction and also still helps out those that speculated that alchemica surrounded parcels would have some additional value above the original boost bonus nominated.
Pixelcraft nominated 5x the current boost bonus in sigprop 0.1c. I would propose to keep the boost bonus as per original medium top secret tokenomics report. E.g. each boost square is still equal to either:
1000 FUD
500 FOMO
250 ALPHA
100 KEK
However, instead of retro-actively modifying these boost values, the remaining proposed 4x alchemica can be distributed from boost deposits via sporadic spillage that any player can gain access too. This would effectively still give players that bought into boosted parcels some advantage due to proximity but would now also benefit:
Players that bought near but not directly adjacent boosts,
Players that are willing to explore the Citaadel and visit the high boost parcel areas,
Players that would like to see extra value for parcels close to and around boosts to help differentiate the Citaadel landscape and be more consistent with the UI.
As an example, a spacious parcel completely surrounded by KEK could spill approximately 4x28x100 = 11,200 KEK during Act 1 (approx 2 years). This equates to 108 KEK per week.
Considering the volume of players that will be traversing the gotchiverse and able to gain access to this additional spillage, 108 KEK per week hardly seems game breaking but also gives a slight nod to our frens the apes who were over-eager during bidding.
We would also be left with another interesting game mechanic in which lickuidators would target the high boost parcels due to extra spillage during great battles. This gives extra depth to great battle strategy rather than all licks targeting random parcels.
Whether or not the community would like to see a mechanic like this is up to the DAO but it is important to realise that there is going to be a lot more to this REAALM then just value of boost deposits.
an extra benefit to your proposal, is that the map becomes more dynamic- giving people a reason to travel beyond their own walls.
i understand the real world has most of us locked up within walls during pandemic times, but do we really want the same for the gotchiverse?
Does this mean that the alchemia is not solely belongs to the owner of the parcel ?
PS. I think I mistaken. Alchemia that is spilled over can be farmed by gotchis nearby. That is OK
Exactly! being adjacent to parcel gives you a boost. But if being “nearby” gives you a spillover benefit, from the fact of actually being there to pick it up… that provides great value to all the parcels near a deposit.
Great idea! Spillage from the deposits is the best option imo. It would add naturally to available surface alchemica while providing a location advantage to boosted parcels. The additional foot traffic would also give higher value to the nearby parcels, at least in the citaadel
I didn’t buy any boosted parcels, but if someone bought a boosted parcel how would this benefit them as, if I am understanding this right, any gotchi would be able to come on their land (assuming they didn’t have walls) and take away their alchemica?
Can you clarify what you mean by permanent? Do you mean the boost could never be depleted by the gotchis standing in proximity?
in essence, the deposits you see in the map, would be regions emanating alchemica via spillover as explained above by @SlickBB .
an owner of boosted parcels would get no additional direct benefit, beyond their current boost.
The benefit would come from being near or right in front of these regions. The alchemica spillover would be a public good, but owners of these parcels would get the benefit of being near the deposit to pick it up themselves, plus additional foot traffic.
by “real and permanent”, it means that any deposits you see in the current map, would be the regions that do spillover (according to their alchemica type) and these regions and the map itself wouldn’t change after a replenishment or season, etc.
In the Cutaadels present state it appears that alchemica deposits are completely trafficable (i.e. some parcels are completely surrounded by alchemica). @coderdan could you comment on this?
Rather than a spillover mechanic perhaps alchemica deposits “bubble up” collectible alchemica to the surface. This would ensure these bonus alchemica remain public on accessible alchemica road ways (unless of course nearby owners wall off an entire estate, however this would likely be extremely cost prohibitive initially).
The added advantage of alchemica “bubble up” is potential to give non boost deposits (various ponds, lakes etc not currently attached to parcels) the ability to generate alchemica and draw attention to what will be interesting features throughout the citaadel.
0.1c originally proposed 5x boost (4x additional) so I would propose to leave boosts as are and use the remaining 4x to support bubble ups. Over the course of Act 1 (2 years I believe) you would end up with the following approximate bubble ups per week for each type of boost deposit. I would then split this up into 2-3 completely random bubble up events per week for each individual block deposit.
A slow random release of this alchemica over 2 years would also encourage those who purchased near boosts to hold which I think both sides can agree is a good thing.
I personally think those that voted “no” (including me) over-reacted and over-estimated just how much the 5x actually added. If you took a spacious parcel as an example, boosting the boost increased the average alchemica yield (of all 4 types) from 3% to 15%. This is still a very minute difference and something the pie charts perhaps didn’t convey in the medium post (as the examples were purely boost vs one of the alchemicas and not all).
Below is what the 5x boosted boosts actually look like in terms of % premium for a spacious if you were to loosely convert all the alchemica types into kek.
In a similar fashion 5x boosts for reasonable are approx 50% and humble are 141% assuming they are completely surrounded (which most aren’t of course).
Bearing this in mind, perhaps if the community were open to “Bubble Ups” they wouldn’t mind increasing the bubble up quantity if PC’s proposed 5x was actually conservative?
I agree fren. If the proposed numbers were for the benefit if individual parcels, now that the bubble ups would be a public good, maybe 3X the amount of alchemica (or 15X that of a boost) would be a better number. Bubbling/spawning should be randomized and spread out through the map, enough to encourage roaming and discourage botting.
I think most people are thinking that the proposal is to boost the value of boosts whereas it seems to me that it is more about keeping them in line with the general increases proposed in 0.1a (and which looks like having near universal support)
Love the “bubbling” idea. A nice compromise for resolving the underpowered bonuses issue that may also serve to attract other gotchis to these areas if the parcel has intentions other than just mining. Also, increases actual gameplay and engagement. Not sure what development of this does to the dev team though. Perhaps its something that doesn’t need to immediately drop with Round 1 if the timeline required to integrate this would take too long, but can be incorporated in a later round.
The algorithm seems like it could be a little tricky so the bubbling doesn’t seem predictable:
Perhaps at the beginning of each Round each pixel of boost alchemica generates a randomized release schedule. E.g. if the first round is 90 days long(129,600 minutes), The “bubble boost” would be divided by 90 and then each of these 90 bubble boost amounts is randomly assigned 1-129,600 to determine when the bubble boost would appear. It would also be cool to randomize a “spew” distance(instead of simply appearing above the pixel, but this would greatly complicate the algo. It would assign another randomized spew distance to the pixel(possible changing with each of the 90 releases) and another randomized assignment for location within the pixel range.
Having the alchemica “spew” out at random distances would be cool but seems a bit much at this stage. Maybe its just part of the lore. First it bubbles, and in later rounds begins spewing greater distances? Trouble brewing underneath the Citadel? Seismic? Lickquidator tunneling activity?
Proposing “bubble ups” is a great idea, especially on that point of adding long term value to boosted parcels. Alot of people will benefit from the Alchemica spillover function as it is, with “spillover” that will happen with the early builds of farming structures. Is what you are referring to a bit different? I imagine some kind of “Alchemica Boost Geyser” which would be kind of cool. Tons of people own parcels around boosts albeit not touching them
