The issue with the way you’re looking at it, is you are labeling the status quo as an imbalance, and considering that Option B doesn’t introduce imbalances or issues of its own, which it would… so an option to avoid those imbalances needs to be present as well.
Option B isn’t as simple as reverting to original implementation, that is misleading.
It is misleading because at a time when everyone is wondering how to introduce alchemical sinks, option B proponents are ignoring the fact that option B negates a LOT of the reasons to spend alchemica upgrading altars… and introduces pain to gotchi ownership past a certain number. Those are issues with balance as well… that are being ignored.
EDIT: On the topic of reducing dev work, an option C to do nothing at all would be the option with the least dev work, not option B.
There are many active threads that all are talking around the same problem: the flaws in the economic design of the game. Whether we’re talking about recipes that don’t quite make sense or the rate of inflation without any sinks in place. Regardless of which option we choose here, alchemica supply is going to continue inflating, bots will continue channeling, and high level altars and harvesters will continue to be cost inefficient. There are ideas floating around to address those specific problems, but those are separate from the problem of solo channeling reset time. Removing player choice over the 24 hour reset window doesn’t fix any of those problems, and the exact timing of the window shouldn’t be viewed as a remedy for those problems, which are the product of separate flaws.
The original status quo — the window based on the time at which the gotchi channels — was quickly perceived as flawed and very quickly changed, at the cost of removing what originally gave players flexibility in the game. Option A can redress this, and I don’t doubt that it would win should this SigProp be brought to a vote. But since this proposal is specifically about demanding Pixelcraft’s time and attention over this problem, when there are myriad other problems to deal with, Option B as the “effortless” solution is a logical counterpoint. Option C doesn’t bring back player choice and ignores the point of the proposal.
And option B doesn’t bring back player choice and introduces pain for a segment of users, so it ignores the point of the proposal, unless the point of the proposal is to pick winners and losers. Is the point of the proposal to address the pain of one segment of users while ignoring another segment of users?
Just because it seems logical to you, doesn’t make it so. Option C continues to be less effort than Option B. They both come with pain for users, which users is the only thing that changes.
Option B would allow players to set their own reset time, as originally designed and implemented before it was changed.
Just to make this clear: I don’t want Option B, I want Option A. The objective of the proposal is to signal to Pixelcraft what we want. There are no downsides to Option A. We should be working as a group to make Option A as close as possible to the system that we want, so that together we can repudiate Option B. Option C is not a viable option, unless you believe that the current system is working fine and doesn’t need to change.
Yes, if they own one gotchi. If they own several, slippage becomes a huge issue over time. This issue isn’t as marked with petting because the pet-all function exists. Will they introduce a channel-all button with Option B? Dont think so… and if they did then it wouldn’t be the least work option as we keep realizing.
This whole thing started over people complaining they cant capitalize on the midnight shuffle because it happens while they sleep or work. If we present a flawed vote that for whatever reason ends up in success for option B, then suddenly out of the woodwork many users will come and complain about slippage. They will be affected having spent altar upgrades towards strategies that no longer work under option B and slippage. The meta can easily become 1 gotchi for each lvl 1 parcel and “dont bother upgrading further”. What will we do then? re-do the vote a third time?
Exactly, consensus is around option A. the sensible vote is whether or not do option A, yes or no, period. Introducing Option B as the way to vote against option A is bad design.
Edit: I suggest the second option on a vote to be worded “Another solution”.
A vote between option A or selecting “another solution” is definitely a vote I can get behind
You are labeling the current midnight UTC reset as ‘the status quo’ and that isn’t completely accurate. The current situation was pushed through and numerous community members have expressed regret about voting for it.
Two questions for you:
Have you been online playing at midnight UTC and thus experienced the lagfest that happens during the peak alchemical drop time? (If not, you should try it this evening for the complete experience.)
What is your motivation for fighting so hard against giving players the freedom to customize their 24-hour windows?
Absolutely. The current system is NOT working fine and DOES need to change. The reality of voting is that too many options may not reach quorum. The choices were crafted with respect to everyone in the community. There are some heavy-hitters who really like the midnight UTC reset, but many others who like the 24-hour window but not that particular time for the reset. Option A allows both desires to coexist.
Voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on Option A is basically a vote that says YES, players can be free to customize their own windows or NO, players must conform to a rushed-through decision that is stressing the servers and is regretted by numerous community members. So if Option B is the less desirable choice here, then so be it. Simply trying to work within the parameters of quorum & the various behind-the-scenes strategic agendas in order to give players a shot at being free to customize their 24-hour reset windows.
Adding this:
The window would be reset to the time when the first gotchi channels after the reset is triggered. If you have 20 gotchis and want your window to open at 6am, you trigger the reset, pay your fee, and channel. Your other 19 gotchis can channel during that same window. You won’t have 20 different windows.
With regard to “channel all,” I know that’s been discussed. Personally, I think it’s lame because you’re missing out on the aaltar animation and the game aspects of it all, but I’m also an organic petter so there’s that. To each their own. Kinda like having the freedom to customize your reset window, rather than being forced to conform to one that’s not a good fit. Nothing wrong with a chance for a do-over with regard to voting on this mechanic.
I don’t see the point in giving an option to vote the whole thing down, when it seems pretty universally recognized in this discussion that the current patch has flaws that need to change. The inverse of fixing those flaws is a removal of the patch, not inaction.
Yes, and I don’t consider this lag reason to introduce option B, and hurting owners of multiple gotchis a valid reason for it. Have we hit peak users? Do we not want to grow and hope our systems can take increasing loads without lag?
I keep saying I do not oppose option A. I strongly oppose option B
Question for you:
What is your motivation for fighting so hard to keep option B in spite of all evidence it hurts a segment of users?
And I don’t see a reason to package option B inside the vote where we explore whether people want option A or not. What is the reason to make one ultimate all deciding vote? Why can’t the issues and motivations behind option A and B have their own separate votes?
Because this proposal is how the DAO can signal its intentions to Pixelcraft. It makes little sense to tell Pixelcraft to “do nothing” when we already recognize the situation is untenable and causes pain for many users.
yeah and again, transferring the pain to others solves nothing. As someone who would be affected by option B, I need options in a vote to protect myself from it, in order to consider it a valid vote.
So again, introduce option C or alternatives for those affected by option B- that is if you care about an ethical vote and not about packaging votes, picking winners vs. losers, and manipulating outcomes with poorly designed proposals.
Given the discussion here, Option A is the best choice for everyone, it alleviates pain on all sides, it is a repudiation of Option B, which was the original condition that was already voted down and will be voted down again by an updated patch. Option C is a needless insertion that distracts from quorum.
Its clear how you want a vote where both outcomes address your perceived issues one way or another. A win/win so to speak.
You keep ignoring the fact that narrowing it down to those two options (both of which you happen to like) is misleading in the sense that anybody opposing Option A has to vote for option B. You are taking it upon yourself to decide that the segment of users affected by option B are an acceptable sacrificial lamb in your quest to solve what you call an “untenable” situation over temporary lag. In a nutshell… as long as your issue with the status quo is fixed, you don’t care if other users or the overall economy/project are affected. Got it.
Your claims of wanting to address the pain in the community lose credence where you repeatedly ignore the issues with option B because they don’t affect you personally.
As a DAO, unfortunately, we cannot declare by fiat what we do and do not want from Pixelcraft. It formally passes through as a proposal. The objective of this proposal is to fix the problems caused by the recent patch.
If given the options A, B, and C, would you, personally, still vote C? If given just A and C, would you, personally, still vote C?
If no, then what is the purpose of C?
If yes, what is so wrong about Option A that you believe, after all of the discussion here, that it would fail a vote against B (which was already defeated by a lesser version of what A proposes) to the extent that you feel forced to vote C?
This is incorrect. At the signal stage, the more options we have, the more chances of meeting quorum and to CORRECTLY signal the truth to pixelcraft. Limiting options does not help at this stage. Theoretically Pixelcraft can see past attempts to manipulate at the signal stage by limiting choices or using confusing or vague language. If we were already structuring a core prop and I was arguing for an option C, then your claim that including more options is detrimental would hold more weight.
People shouldn’t be forced to vote for option B if for whatever reason they oppose Option A.
Let’s say you put forth only option A and B and then Pixelcraft weight in and they convince everyone that option A is bad or not possible at this time etc. People will rush to vote option B then as the only other possible choice. I long ago suggested the vote be between Option A and “another solution” but you guys have insisted on making option B equivalent to the only “not option A” option and that is just a flawed and manipulative design of the sigprop.
There is no timeline implied for Option A. Option A is effectively the “change nothing” vote, as the UTC midnight default will be retained. Pixelcraft is under no obligation to implement the option to customize solo channeling time, and if it is too labor-intensive or impossible then it simply won’t happen. Voting Option A signals that we do not want Option B, even if it means waiting a long time for the ability to set our channel times or potentially never getting that option.
There have been many votes where the outcome was obvious beforehand, it doesn’t have to be complicated and it’s certainly not manipulative to signal an obvious desire instead of inserting unnecessary options.
Your explanations are full of rationalizations and assumptions while yet again ignoring the clear issues I pose about limiting it to 2 votes and insisting on including option B.
I will leave the conversation now, as we will just go in circles because you simply do not care about the risks of an option B outcome, but don’t get too excited… Should manipulation and deceit lead us down the path of an option B being sneakily implemented as a shadow nerf to owners of several gotchi( really doubt it anyway) I will make sure to present an ethical and decent vote to undo the harm
What happened to option C? It had ABC when I started it
Lets hammer it out… the original intent, was to do “set reset time, when channeling, for glitter fee”
B was “Revert to bible”
C was leave it alone.
I propose we use ranked voting. If there are several way we could do this, we should let people rank their choices, and get a proper reading of peoples preferences.
Like seriously… this entire last twenty posts is the EXACT reason ranked choice voting exists.
Option C was deleted after @SlickBB raised some great points a couple of days ago:
Option C would not change anything at all. The literal ONLY difference between Option A and a hypothetical Option C is that Option C traps everyone in the mechanic that exists now - the one that is making many in the community unhappy.
Option A includes both ‘keep it as it is’ AND ‘let players set their own reset timer.’ If Option C goes back in there, it would allow people who want to force everyone else to conform to the midnight UTC reset, for whatever reasons, to have that option and let them pile their votes on there.
I honestly do not understand why this debate is even happening. Option B would never pass. Most people are perfectly happy with the 24-hour window BUT they don’t want the midnight UTC reset. Why is it so wrong for players to have the option to customize?!
ok at least now you admit that you are trying to frame this in a way that prohibits certain voters to voting for what they actually want, based on your own personal moral compass and biases.
If they have the voting power and want to vote for that option who makes you or I the authority to decide their voice/vote is not to be accurately counted?
