While I like the idea of having soulbound NFTs as a key system, I think keeping spillover turned off for the time being is preferable to rushing out fixes for a very low-level issue on a global ecosystem scale. In my personal opinion, however long it takes to get our devs relaxed, moisturised, in their lane and shipping away happily is how long spillover can stay turned off if need be. Let’s put the game and the investors over the renters and spillover collectors.
9 Likes
You will still be able to do that by dafault as per dan’s original post.
1 Like
if “Burn refund” is removed , example : players should be able to replace their current normal altaar with new golden Le altaar without changing its level ??
I agree with this sentiment. Simply because I choose to hold my assets in one wallet vs multiple doesn’t meant I should be punished in the distribution. I don’t understand why this community continues to focus on how to punish big holders vs rewarding them (or at least playing fair to them!) In another project I’m invested in the founder shared he lays awake at night thinking of more ways in which he can reward long-term holders and believers. It brought a tear to my eye. How I wish that ideology was held here.
I think the console/cartridge idea is clever and could work well. Kudos. However, I would call into question the need for these discounts. It begins to feel a bit pyramid-schemey. Not to mention it brings a whole new discussion on tokenomics surrounding this idea. In my mind it is best to keep this idea as clean and simple as possible. Consoles/cartridges = gameplay access and nothing more. The fewer moving parts it has the easier it is to implement. Let’s settle it and move on.
Also agree with @kuwlness here. Can we please focus on getting some fun gameplay aspects rolled out? We’re so far behind in development it’s incredibly frustrating. I was hoping to be building my lands out in December. It’s now late June and we’re spending our time talking about how to make the spillover game (which to me is quite boring and only leads to extraction) bot-proof.
How about we start talking about pvp and getting some previews of the game we actually want to play? Do we have any pve dungeon mechanics or previews? Even a simple arena to sate our appetites? Harvester release dates? What about more alchemica use-case? Right now it’s a circular economy pointing to zero. Maybe we can gain some insight into how we will be using these resources in game? What about brs balancing? There are literally dozens of other things we ought to be seeing on the horizon.
I cannot lie, seeing our lead dev so focused on this cartridge idea is disheartening. Hopefully we can reach a resolution quickly so his energy can again be channeled into what matters most: building a compelling game which rewards long-term holders and gamers alike.
15 Likes
Could a claiming token help here? For example you get a number of tokens per gotchis and land owned depending on their size. You then use the tokens to claim console(s) already leveled up relatively to the number of tokens you are burning. This should work in a way that you have advantage to pool your tokens together so nobody get an unfair advantage for keeping their assets in separate wallets.
1 Like
-
Do it yesterday. You’ve clearly got this planned and ready to execute.
-
Whatever you think works. Feel free to change it if it’s not set right.
-
Just enough to make sure they even work, at first, then ramp it up so all the big bags can be in full swing as soon as possible.
-
If we don’t get a burn refund, all the harvester modeling we just did will be off, because Liquidated Value was a factor in the balancing of the play styles. Maybe the Console Discount could be on crafting from the recipe book, but not on upgrades. Or, it could be a monthly discount, where each level entitles you to a once a month discount on crafting or upgrading. The discounts would be the same % as the level you get them at 1%, 2%, 3%, … 15% It wouldn’t unbalance anything, and it would introduce a small bit of strategy into the Upgradoor archetype as well as the Craft Collectoor.
5 Likes
As I understand it, we are implementing Caartridges to establish a cool club:
„I dont know exactly, whats in there, but there is a waiting-line, I queue in….“
The Console-Caartridge-system is ingenious:
a Caartridge for Spill-over
a Caartridge for Dungeons
a Caartridge for Quests
a Caartridge for the Aarena(pvp)
…
or
the same Caartridge, but a mechanism to unlock those different Aareas of the Gotchiverse.
I see the scope of the Caartridge-system as much wider than being a mere mitigation of the bot-problem:
it is a way to think about the access-organization, therefore it is rather a pre-condition for the integration of a number of different sub-economies docked on to the Aavegotchi-base-protocol.
It‘s dev-time very well spent.
Ad questions:
- Yes.
- at least floor-price of 1 Gotchi + 1 humble
- go with the proposed model, but make sure to outline a path for big bags, to get to their desired amount quickly by spending reasonable amounts of Alchemica/GLTR
- Why not. Maybe reduce the burn-refund-rate.
2 Likes
To clarify, my thought process behind re-enabling spillover for the Farm Release (together with rolling out the Caartridges) is that parcel owners would likely not be happy if a % of their parcel’s yield was not being made available immediately. Unlike the channeling yield, parcel yield is fixed and depleted over time, so without spillover that yield would not be claimed immediately. But, it would be held for later once more spillover-related activities come online.
If the DAO is OK with that outcome for the time being while we continue working fullspeed on all the other planned features (trait implementation, nft display, PvP, PvE, SDK) etc, then that would also be fine with me.
I still think spillover is a compelling mechanic, but perhaps we are just a bit early in the dev process to enable it fully, and without any guard rails.
17 Likes
Gotchi Gang First,
I think development should be focused on game play that benefits gotchi gang, those that have invested in gotchi assets with the expectation of utility, usability and game play. Scholars are not gotchi gang. They can be incorporated at a later point, imo.
Could keep spillover drops during weekly hangout.
I agree with @notorious_BTC in that
How about we start talking about pvp and getting some previews of the game we actually want to play?
Farming isn’t going to move the needle, imo. It’s necessary for developing the economy, but won’t be a compelling case for keeping players in the gotchiverse. PvP and quests will be. Bring game play to asset owners, gotchi gang first,
This is a winner from @coderdan
fullspeed on all the other planned features (trait implementation, nft display, PvP, PvE, SDK) etc,
7 Likes
You don’t think that farming will bring people to the gotchiverse?.. I agree a game would be a big draw for new investors, but that doesn’t mean that farming and land yields wont either. I think both will compliment each other, some investors will come for the yields and then get involved in the RPG game and vice versa.
Yield farmers probably have more capital to deploy than gamers. I guess the question is if we go ahead and implement yield farming, how soon after should we expect the release of PvP, PvE features. If there is a considerable gap maybe we should postpone yield farming until we have a more concrete release date for the RPG.
Now is the time to build after all.
1 Like
The big question to ask yourself is where does this yield from yield farming come from?
If we don’t have anything which entices players to actually spend money to play the game, then everything is a slow drain towards zero as it’s just cannibalisation from the top down.
I think farming will bring farmers to the game, but it’s a different mindset. The farming mindset looks at the money required to invest and the potential yields. Essentially, building harvesters etc is a fancy way of locking/burning tokens to get yield at a later date. And without an attractive ROI, the farmers won’t farm.
Now if we did have some really engaging gameplay mechanics which also consumed alchemica, then we might begin to see some price stabilisation of tokens as players buy and burn tokens in order to play.
8 Likes
Would it be possible to track the exact cost paid for each craft/upgrade so the 50% burn refund would match the costs?
This is one reason retailers need customer receipts to process refunds in case the purchaser bought the product during a sale and is trying to get a full price refund on a discounted purchase.
Not sure if this is technically possible (off chain, if on chain not possible?) - and it would likely require a purchaser of parcels with crafted assets to know how much they should expect to receive if they were to burn - but this could be clearly stated on parcels listed for sale (?).
If it’s too hard I’d be OK with dropping the discount idea to expedite the roll out of this mechanism, as the share of alchemica earned through activity of the caartridge holder is in effect a discount already, no?
Yea I agree, that’s why i’m saying if there is a considerable gap in between farming and RPG game release we should probably postpone farming. Sustainable yields would definitely bring in new investors as would the RPG game. I’m under no illusions as to where the yield comes from…
Aavegotchi Community Call, 25.06, @58:44, Corderdan verbatim:
„… we do have to realize that if spill-over is n o t turned on for the farming-release, it will definitely be a little bit… I feel like that would be the wrong choice… […] for a parcel that spill-over is actually a part of the Alchemica thats in the ground, so it should be … I believe… we should probably wanna turn this spill-over back on for the full haarvester-release“
meanwhile…
Our lead-developer makes a very clear statement here.
But 9/10 of the adresses with the biggest voting-power (comprising about 1.4m) are of a different opinion.
I have no doubt, that going against his recommendation is based on solid grounds, but I fail to see them.
Could the concomitant implementation of Caartridges be a factor in choosing the option to keep spill-over turned off?
5 Likes
Let me preface this by saying I am on the fence regarding implementing a caartridge model now and turning spillover on at harvesters, but I’m leaning towards it - my reasons for leaning that way are:
-
disabling spillover of reservoirs will deny players the opportunity to collect a significant portion of alchemica that is deducted from their parcels’ limited supply (note that reservoir spill radius is said by PC will be tighter and easier for the parcel owner to collect than channeling spillover)
-
further delaying the development of anti-bot / anti-cheating meaures may hamper the ability to release pvp and other interesting gameplay features as those features may also be susceptible to botting
-
while not everybody finds spillover collection to be compelling gameplay, there are some who enjoy it, and it does give players a reason to spend time engaging with the gotchiverse game
-
having spillover on will lead to increased lending revenue for gotchi owners
8 Likes
I like the idea of the cartridges and the console but don’t feel it is fair to only allocate both to a single address rather than proportionate to the number of gothci’s and or lots of land held by each player .
If a player has invested greater capital in the game, benefits should reflect this .
Particularly given the console will be able to be sold on the open market .
It is a large disparity to reward wallets regardless of the number of assets held .
I have pooled my Gotchi’s into one wallet for ease of management but could have had them spread over 50 wallets why should I be penalised for this .
The market down turn has thumped me enough with aavegotchi asset prices and currency dropping with out the protocol thumping me for having all my assets in one wallet
As a large land holder, I don’t think this is a problem at all. It’s not the total yield that matters, rather, it’s how much my land yields compared to my neighbor’s. We would all be on the same playing field with spillover turned off. The only way to increase your yield is to upgrade your installations which is sensical and productive gameplay. This keeps alchemica in the hands of “real players” and community members while freeing up maximal dev bandwidth for the massive and exciting roadmap ahead.
1 Like
From my point of view its not about the yield that gets held, its about a solution so that one person with botting capabilities doesnt replicate their behaviour with virtual private servers and has a dozen of bots in different wallets without any investment in the game, the caartridge is not a solution to have large players in mind because its goal is to limit the access in comparison to what it available now.
the caartridge solution needs to be either hand-distributed , or very limited so it serves its purpose.
with spillover off, wouldnt people that are currently developing bots just resort to developing bots to empty reservoirs and do channeling , which are much harder ways of detecting botting activities rather than walking towards spillover ?
What would be your proposal of a way to limit the number of players inside the gotchiverse, that someone with 150+ gotchis wouldnt oppose and was still effective- very effective against bots?
1 Like
Remove the incentive for bots: spillover. No incentive = no bots. Only real players remain.
the incentive for bots is not spillover, its free alchemica tokens without an upfront cost or barrier to entry. The console model is being proposed to serve as a barrier to entry, making your whole portfolio more valuable and unique.
i get it that you want to maximize the earning potential from your big portfolio, but taking advantage of people using bots or people with multi accounts should not be acceptable.
How many players have been banned for botting from the Vault Scholars ‘Guild’ ? Would you accept giving 10% of the alchemica produced in your lands towards multi account botters ?
5 Likes