If I understand this correctly this system can be abused every 60 hours right? E.g.
Day 1 - Channel at 0000 UTC
Day 1 - Reset my channel time to 0100 UTC
Day 1 - Channel at 0100 UTC (0 hours elapsed since reset)
Day 2 - Channel at 0100 UTC (24 hours elapsed since reset)
Day 3 - Channel at 0100 UTC (48 hours elapsed since reset)
Day 3 - 1300 UTC (60 hours elapsed since reset) I reset my channel time to 1400 UTC
Day 3 - Channel at 1400 UTC
Thats 5 channels in 3 days right?
What was wrong with just setting a new time and then waiting for that plus 24 hours when you can channel again? e.g.
Day 1 - Channel at 0000 UTC
Day 1 - Reset channel time to 0100 UTC
Day 1 - 0100 UTC arrives but I cannot channel for a further 24 hours
Day 2 - Channel at 0100 UTC
Or if we go âbackwardsâ in time it looks like this:
Day 1 - Channel at 0000 UTC
Day 1 - Reset channel time to 1800 UTC
Day 1 - 1800 UTC arrives but I cannot channel for a further 24 hours
Day 2 - Channel at 1800 UTC
I think people should be able to reset as much as they like (because fat fingering is a thing) and as long as you just add a 24hr wait period to whatever they set their resest time to (when their reset time first occurs) it canât be abused.
Gotchis can still only channel one time every 24 hours. You canât channel at 0000 UTC and then reset it to 0100 UTC. If you channeled at 0000 UTC but want to reset to 0100, you can wait 25 hours, pay your fee, and then channel at 0100. That resets the time so subsequent channel windows open at 0100 UTC.
We donât really need the 60 hour thingâŚthatâs just more to code anyway. If the player gets tired of their window time, they can pay to move it forward, but they canât go backwards.
lol well i guess you didnât really comprehend what i had written earlier.
Believe it or not i am actually on your side on this one. I started a discussion in March to actually use GLTR to adjust your solo channeling time and was told strangely enough that that would negatively effect the tokenomics if it was implimented . However i have grown to like the 24hr window concept.
I also agree with a lot of ppl that say and was confirmed by the team that the âstressâ that the server undergoes from a lot of ppl fomo-ing at reset to channel then rent has actually exposed an actual fault with game itself that was already there. IMO this would have eventually been discovered especially when installations became active because there would have been far more spillage. Just think if UBI âhappy hourâ had this much impact what would it have been when all those reservoirs started spewing alchemica?
Again i am all for the ability to set your 24hr window but to say âhappy hourâ somehow âbrokeâ the game is kind of misleading when in fact it only exposed a fault that was pre-existing. Hopefully this gets fixed before installations are released or we may be back here again trying to extend claiming windows from 3x a day to 2x a day
YesâŚthatâs correct. The wait is to get to the new time you want for the window. If youâre on the current window but already waiting to channel when you wake up at 0605 UTC (rather than when your window opens at 0000 UTC), thereâs no waitâŚyou just pay and reset. However, if youâve been getting up to channel at 0000 UTC and you want to reset it to 0600 UTC, youâd end up waiting 30 hours from the previous channel.
Gotchi window resets aside, ultimately, a playerâs gotchis are tied to their aaltars. If you have a level 4 aaltar with 8 hour channeling, youâre still going to have to space out the gotchis who can channel, and youâre still going to be tied to the slippage of the aaltarâs window.
Hopefully giving the option to reset will help the renters / rentees who are trying to work with resets for various reasons and (most important) space out the midnight rain to help the servers. (Today was much more laggy than yesterdayâŚalso had more than twice the gotchis on there picking up spillover.)
I just want to add my two cents. This should be changed ASAP, the current implementation is terrible and unfair. Game performance issues aside, in an attempt to âsaveâ those with many gotchis to channel, weâve basically punished those in certain time zones or with a less flexible schedule. Unless they own the same number of gotchis and parcels, they are effectively losing in the game, since spillovers and the rental rates are worse after the first few hours of the window.
The worst part is that it was pushed last minute, without proper announcement and without a vote, very far from fair IMO (and yes, Iâm aware that the vote passed after and that it was probably discussed in hangouts and what not, but thatâs just not the way to push something so big, due process and proper announcements are a must).
As for a solution, personally I never saw the flaws of the original implementation as a big deal, but Iâm ok with the GLTR solution as well. The damage is done already, but this should be top priority if we really want a fair game as the current situation makes the gap bigger every day.
It would absolutely be easiest to just to back to the original implementation. Spreading out channeling organically (as the original mechanic did) would solve a lot of problems.
When can we bring this to a Sig Prop? Today? Tomorrow?
Iâll do my best to put together everything so thereâs nothing missed, and to make sure the prop we have going, is tight and well worded, and has consensus, so we can get an up/down vote started tomorrow, after the hangout. That makes it so the vote ends after next weeks hangout, and we have the meeting the next day to loudly proclaim the ânew realityâ and make sure everyone knows. (Iâve been crazy busy at work, sorry for lagging on pushing that to finish line)
Weâre going for the best possible wording of âglitter for move it forward, keep windowâ and ârevert to the bibleâ, right?
Consider this the 24 hours counter on âsqueak up or shut upâ in regards to that one Iâll finalize and post the snapshot, during the hangout, for max eyeballs. If your name isnât on it with a gotchi ID⌠thatâs on you, frens.
I am saddened to see the community once again get caught up in tit-for-tats about âfairnessâ and a generalized angst against holders of several gotchis.
Those proposing âsolutionsâ that are really aimed at making life harder for owners of several gotchis⌠are putting their own negative emotions (such as envy) ahead of whatâs good for the project.
The arguments seem to center about the âfairnessâ of some people missing out on the gimmicks surrounding the reset. AFAIK, a lot of these gimmicks are currently surrounding exploitation of vault gotchis⌠So âTimmy gets to rent and channel someone elseâs vault gotchi while Iâm sleeping. That is not fair! So lets nerf and make it a pain to channel several gotchis!â
Not only do I fail to see the connection⌠I fail to see how making individual timers for each gotchi helps anything except providing the joy of nerfing othersâŚ
If we go back to nerfing and campaigning against the holders of several gotchis, how does that benefit the project? Do we want more gotchis getting dumped? Do we want to give people less reasons to spend alch on upgrading their altars ?
I support a reset mechanic or alternating times, or anything that makes it easier for those that feel affected by the current schedule, but strongly oppose going to individual timers simply to make it harder for owners of larger gotchi stables on the grounds of âfairnessâ.
Option B is silly and a non-starter. Putting it as an option completely ignores the vote we already had and all the clear problems with a simple cooldown.
This process may be going slowâŚbut we are still rushing this decision because some people feel strongly that the current system is terrible. Fineâthen letâs aim to solve the problems of the current system without choosing other equally bad or worse problems.
If we must keep an option we definitely donât want and has objective problems, I would ask we also add the option to âkeep it how it isâ and let people choose their poison. But this proposal offers one solution and one non-solution, not a real choice.
Well said fren! In my last post, I failed to clarify that Iâm not criticizing the vault and Iâm aware theyâre going to be implementing different fees whether the gotchi is channeled or not. It should be fairly obvious there will soon be plenty other automated solutions (through the rental manager function), to maximize or rent out or delegate your channeling- without affecting your sleep or work or profits or anything else.
The scholars I know were capitalizing on rent+channel are now complaining that âthe bots are beating themâ to every single listing. Whether itâs bots or just crazy rental demand from humans, or both, no idea.
What Iâm saying is people in different time zones feel they are missing out on perhaps more than they really are, and the issues with the current system will not be having as much of an impact anymore- so why rush a proposal to negate a previous vote passed with overwhelming majority?
Why think that the way of helping a small set of users is to make it harder on an even larger set of users? We need constructive solutions everyone is happy with, rather than trade in pain-equity⌠making sure everyone suffers equally and âfairlyâ is not the way.
Letâs be better than thisâŚ
After seeing the actual impact of the change, numerous community members expressed regret about their vote. We see the technical issues caused by the change. Revoting seems like the best option.
As an owner of a lot of gotchis, Iâve expressed mixed feelings about charging per gotchi to shift the time. Charging once would benefit me, but creating a sink for $GLTR would benefit the project as a whole soâŚIâm down for paying per gotchi.
Thank you for sharing your thought process fren.
I agree we need sinks for alchemica⌠but Iâm not sure introducing pain (and introducing an alch sink as a remedy) is necessarily the way to go.
We should acknowledge the community members that feel affected by the status quo, and seek to eliminate their pain, not seek to impose it on others. Choosing a new reset time for a fee in alchemica seems as a possible solution. Anybody who feels impacted enough by the status quo should not mind paying the fee to choose something closer to their individual wants/needs, which lets be honest⌠has been the driving force behind this push to re-vote.
The path of⌠âlets purposefully introduce pain to owners of multiple gotchis, because âfairnessâ and because we can use more alchemical sinksâ is just very ill-conceived no matter how you slice it.
We need to operate more objectively and maturely as a DAO, instead of rushing initiatives to impose schoolyard-like notions of âfairnessâ against others in the community.
I agree. The thing is, people rushed the change from the original mechanic to the 24-hour window with unexpected consequences and then regretted their choice. Under Option A, the default reset time of midnight UTC would still be in effect. Nothing would change in that regard, meaning no one is being punished. However, Option A will allow people to pick a different reset time by spending a small fee. Right now, no such customization exists. Option A would enable it, without inflicting any additional pain on top of that already inflicted by the original rushed change. This would grant players freedom to make their own timing decisions, instead of all being forced to use midnight UTC permanently.
The suggestion of a blanket fee (rather than having a no-cost first change) was put in place as a measure against address-hopping to circumvent paying.
I have no issues with option A, nor with a proposal that is basically whether or not to implement option A.
Where Iâve had an issue is with the takes and the framing option B as the âfairestâ or some sort of reparation for harm done, which is pretty ridiculous and divisive.
I will agree with @actaeon that if option B is to be included, then an option C to do nothing at all should be included as well.
Overall, we can make a simple constructive proposal whether or not to implement option A, or go with including punishment and divisiveness and revisionism with more choices such as Options B & C.
From the way I look at it, the discussion here is over whether Pixelcraft should expend effort coding a new feature (time resets) or just go back to the original implementation, which would take no effort on their part. Arguments over perceived fairness and retribution I think are a distraction when weâre talking about game mechanics, where the original implementation allowed for player choice, but was inconvenient for large channeling volumes. Player choice I believe should be a priority in game design, so either we modify the existing paradigm to bring back the option of customization, or go back to the original one to save Pixelcraft the effort, at the expense of convenience for some.
The cost here is whether we believe it will be worth it for Pixelcraft to spend time coding a solution. I think the answer is probably yes. For those who disagree, there is Option B, which would simply negate the gameplay patch responsible for the current imbalance. A hypothetical do-nothing Option C does not provide a solution to our problem.
. However i have grown to like the 24hr window concept.
Iâll finalize and post the snapshot, during the hangout, for max eyeballs. If your name isnât on it with a gotchi ID⌠thatâs on you, frens.