I think the dynamic harvester to reservoir ratio adds a level of interest for gameplay. As you simply don’t build 3:1, set it and forget it. you need to stay on your toes and plan ahead, building for the ratio you intend to have in the future based on your intended max levels
That sounds cool but the only parcel that does not have a “ratio” is the spacious. Just having these limits effectively give the smaller sized parcels a somewhat “baked in” ratio if built evenly. Yes you could put 4 of one type of alchemica on a humble( specialized mining) or perhaps 16 of one type of alchemica on a reasonable but these limits could still be looked at as possible ratios.
I still think we should take another look at these lower level parcel limits.
I think we really ought to remove the baked in build caps on parcels and move that number to the maaker. It would greatly benefit the humble parcels which are currently rekt on ROI vs spacious. We’ll be talking about this on the call though so I hope you’re around!
The thing that is 1/32 of the the other thing… it’s not nerfed, it just is what it is… you are paying extra for a smol bite.
lol once i deciphered your message i can kind of see your point because the math does not lie. Maybe we should use the reasonable parcel as the “base” parcel because humbles and spacious are on two opposite sides of the spectrum.
3 Likes
Hi gaang,
I’m pleased to say that the code simulation of the harvesting mechanics is complete (still alpha - possible some bugs will turn up and some bot tweaking may be needed).
The simulation code is on github if you want to nerd out on it: GitHub - mikey-jay/realm-simulator.
The simulation is currently set with the current rules, and there is a csv with results as well as some quick charts I drew up in the “results” folder of the repo. The current simulation runs for 200 days, but a longer simulation is possible and will be ready for the final report.
Please read the readme first:
Here are the results so far for the 200 day simulation with the current rules:
Please take this all with a grain of salt at this time. I am simply sharing this as a progress update- the full final report with findings and recommendations is still to come from Notorious BTC in the coming week.
7 Likes
Hi frens! The time has come! @MikeyJay and I are proud to present the results of our findings.
You can find everything inside of this folder here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WB8L6aEPEdGnEgxcRUD3ysRwko2fjzMU
All of the raw charts as well as the bot simulator are available to you all.
(realm simulator: GitHub - mikey-jay/realm-simulator)
This document helps bring understanding to everything.
7 Likes
Hey frens,
Some things have come up in the Discord with the Recipes.
The total supply of alchemica was initially miscalculated.
Recipe B can be broken where an L4 array can insta build max extraction for quite cheap.
Gltr in its current state allows the player to completely forgo the need of a maker.
I wanted to bring these over here as the information flow is much slower.
Mikeyjay and I have been talking and he’s working to revise the Recipe B with the new considerations.
I also stepped back a bit and looked at everything fresh. I thought about a new recipe. A Recipe C.
This was my thinking:
L1-L3 weak.
L4-L6 medium.
L7-L9 powerful.
**Key Elements **
Insta Building an entire parcel ought to be very expensive
Nothing below L6 should be able to drain an entire parcel in under two years’ time
The maaker cost should be competitive with the insta build price
Build times should be so punishing that a maaker is necessary & pump GLTR
Each tier scales in cost and power.
If everything is insta build:
A full L3 farm takes four years to harvest
A full L6 farm takes two years
A full L9 farm is under one year
Then of course the build time pushes that timeline out further.
So let’s design it as insta build and then scale the yield higher accordingly, afterwards.
This was my initial rationale. The next post will have the recipe and the thought process behind it.
4 Likes
Recipe C
What I did was work backwards. I started with a two year benchmark. How much daily yield is required to extract 100% of a fud supply?
1248.1 per day
Then, how many harvesters of each level are required to hit that number? Going off the logic from the previous post, a full L3 spread’s harvester count needs to be prohibitively high (impossible)
It isn’t until L6 that a spacious parcel can achieve max extraction in two years. I wanted to leave some room above L6 for the players who join late and for the grid lands which are supposed to have more resource.
Build time
I then looked to increase the build time significantly. I wanted build times to be punishing without gltr or a maker. I calculated how many blocks it would take to Insta build the entire harvester array at each level. I factored that into the cost.
My logic was this:
Thanks fren. This was my thinking regarding build time
I cranked the build speed up in order to promote a better gltr market as well as push for a maker. I didn’t look at maaker cost but I believe it also needs to be toned down.
I’m thinking along the lines of the maker serving as a backstop for gltr prices. What I mean is that if it costs 3x more to make the maker than it does to Insta build, people will insta build until gltr is more expensive.
But if a maker is like 10x more expensive, it’s unlikely ever to hit a point where people stop using gltr
Reducing maker costs is something we should also be looking at (later)
Max level logic
I used the harvester level as the max defining level. What that means is the aaltar and reservoir never go beyond the required level for the harvester. You’ll see in the reservoir column the # of same level reservoirs required to hold the alchemica (on an 8h window). If the number is a flat one, that means the lower level reservoir can hold the entire supply.
Reduced aaltar costs
One major limiter for the high level strategies is the exponentially increasing price for aaltars. So, I toned it down a bit. I couldn’t conceivably see any players going for the L9 in its current state. Please note on my spreadsheet the aaltar cost is divided by four (as each alchemica shares this sunk cost).
I know the aaltars are already live, but I didn’t make any changes L4 and below. It’s unlikely many players have moved into L5. Those who have could be refunded the difference (as it’s likely to be a very small amount)
My numbers are quite raw and haven’t been run into the bots, but I wanted to run things by the community for feedback.
It was also brought up by @kuwlness to bring alpha into the equation. I think this is a great idea. As alpha does have some higher costs elsewhere, we could introduce alpha into the recipe at a reduced ratio. (This is all more finesse at the end though as everything in the rough calcs is flattened into fud equiv.)
The tldr is this recipe greatly reduces the power and cost of the harvesters. Build times are increased. The aaltar has been reduced in cost.
What are you thoughts on this recipe?
6 Likes
Your changes affect me 0… My plan from the day the bible hit, still wins(3s and 4s, go slowly), if you are a smol bag player 
Seems legit, except the part where people are trying to make altars be the estate, and where this affects channeling income… that might throw a wrench in the economy a bit?
How do the lines look? Do we have more than just the two crossing yet?
Yep that’s the challenge. The L3/L4 strat is really the only one which is viable across the original recipe, recipe a, and recipe b.
So I went into the logic of what’s happening and worked backwards.
The low level strategy isn’t really a secret and the challenge is it will allow players to cap out their lands immediately and then have two years to sell everything.
It actually greatly favours the whales and big bag holders as they can start with the max extraction and sit back while they sell to the smol guys who buy to build.
As I said, haven’t run the bots. There will be a crossover, however. As the low level builder will eventually outpace the fast builder in terms of roi relative to fud. The aim is for that cross to happen long past the minimum viable point of extraction (two years)
What do you mean make aaltars the estate? Do you mean the other changes proposed to link estates to aaltars instead of lodges?
I mean this thing…
The no math, everything is an estate now, estates cost nothing at all to do, proposition 
Quite the opposite of what you just did with option C… its “monty haul”
Not sure I know what Monty Haul is.
Not to derail the conversation, but I am not sure either Estate option presented is ideal.
Its a Dungeons and Dragons term, referring to campaigns where you end up with magic weapons and multiple levels, on the first session.
And I agree, the solution presented there is highly simplistic, and is a tragedy of the commons. It might as well read “make estates cost you nothing at all”
Now, where’s my Geritol, I just aged 20 more years there
Here is a new recipe that could potentially fix a lot of the issues identified in this thread: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AAXqdj7ZMm4jw1qXguRJ5RtVK5b4-YT_rcdP1-X3B4U/edit#gid=0
- This recipe scales pretty well for the 3 parcel sizes, with an even gap between humbles / reasonable / spacious from my metrics.
- It makes much more sense to upgrade at least to the high levels, i’d be building level 9 on spacious, wouldn’t stay stuck at level 3-4 on a humble/reasonable
- I really don’t think the optimal play would be to build an array of 128 harvesters, less harvesters with higher level can actually yield more & cost less if you’re looking at the same timeframe. Especially combined with the reservoirs spillover rates.
- This recipes scales up the building time & alchemica sink of the optimal play, while still leaving a very good ROI to owners.
- We wouldn’t need to discuss the Altaar price model if this model indeed incentivizes building towards level 9
I’d be interested in having the community’s thoughts on this, especially see how it runs through @MikeyJay & @notorious_BTC simulator
3 Likes
Thank you! Will definitely have a look and run this through our simulation.
1 Like
Seeing the extensive work that our gigabrain community members are putting into optimizing the recipes, running against the clock, wouldn’t be better to formally delay a bit the farming launch and focus first on the integration of Aavegotchi traits? This would provide extra time to reach an agreement on the way forward avoiding rushing into one of the biggest milestones of the Gotchiverse tokenomics. It’s cool to walk around and build up our properties, but personally I really miss the differentiating factor between gotchis. This could unlock a short-term way to introduce fun mechanics and a gamified form of farming, even small competitive events. What do you guys think?
4 Likes
I think the biggest focus needs to be adding value to the game tokens. We need to sort out our tokenomics. Figuring out viable recipes + In-Game Alchemica Sink Suggestions are the keys to that imo.
1 Like
We have had many many months to do this, and the opportunity to focus on these has been there the whole time. Nothing is stopping us, except the fact that its still the same four people trying to make the conversation move, and noone is helping us. If you want to run that stuff forward, simply poke me and Slick and about four others(you, JG1?) and actually help us move it, and you’ll see that we are still rabidly wanting to talk about this, we just got sick of talking to ourselves
WTF needs to show for a meeting and push their wearables sets threads NOW, though. The poor wearables market is floundering like no other these days, and it’s because of the lack of movement in the DAO, IMHO. We have numerous things ready to go, but “summer vacation” kind of but a RL lif damper on progress.
1 Like