I am well aware that my example is not a real world example. The point I am trying to illustrate is that an increased probability of success in crafting essentially translates in the long run to a lowered cost of production. This sort of mechanic is understandable in single player games. But I can think of no successful multiplayer online game that has implemented a crafting mechanic that lowers cost of production for players that are more invested in the game. To be blunt, it’s pretty ponzi. I would personally never engage in this kind of market, because competition in markets is won at the margins. And the margins will never be in my favor if I am not at the top. Even a small percentage disadvantage is too much in a competitive market.
There are quite a few mmorpg examples for this like runescape and tibia which had very deep development of skills and were also top down MMORPGs. Tibia had a specifically paid component (requiring a premium account) that led to both lower cost of production (less time to accomplish X), increased value of what was produced, and increased success in both PVP and PVE environments. Skill progression was one of the most beloved mechanics of the game and created deep attachment to the characters and significant engagement and stickiness. Many of my friends would log in for years after we stopped playing together simply to keep grinding at their preferred skill.
But I can think of no successful multiplayer online game that has implemented a crafting mechanic that lowers cost of production for players that are more invested in the game.
When you say this, are you referring specifically to a financial investment or time/character progression? Because the financial part may be true as pay to win isn’t usually introduced in that way, but even then I bet you could find some games that give reduced costs for some item purchased. But if you’re talking about leveling up a character skill to reduce costs, I bet I could find several.
In my opinion we are basically building a Gotchi MMO(Massive Multiplayer Online) game. This Forge Idea is blacksmithing crafting skill that would be used in any number of MMO’s. What makes them standout from each other is how each crafting system is implemented in game.
We just need to tailor the skill to represent what we want in the game. I love a good crafting system. These are the kinds of Ideas that need to be added into the game to actually make the gotchiverse a “game”.
The current game loop is not fun and I can’t honestly recommend aavegotchi to any of my normal gamer friends because there simply is no game for them to play. I can only recommend aavegotchi to patient investors.
If we actually create a fun game where gamers want to play the game and be in the gotchiverse, all these problems with alchemica will fix themselves in time. More players that actually enjoy playing the game equal more demand for alchemica for in game item sinks for various items. Constantly seeing only 50 something people logged on is a constant reminder that no one actually wants to stay in the gotchiverse and play the game(since there is no game loop). We just have investors who are managing there farms and UBI from gotchi chanelling.
The Forge could be the starting point for many other in game trades.
Fishing (craft fishing poles, fish used in various recipes)
Cooking (food buffs for world combat and/or pvp. The campfire decorations are excellent for this)
Alchemy (HP Potions, run speed potions and many other ideas)
Add some alchemica into all the recipes that get zapped back into LP.
We can think of Alchemica as our in game gold. With PC implementing combat soon, if we could add stuff like this we will finally start to see a game where people actually want to be in the gotchiverse besides just channeling and managing farms.
For the most part we are waiting on PC, because once combat is added. The gotchiverse will slowly start to look like an actual game.
Thoughts on Aalloys names:
Since there won’t be any conversion of Aalloys and Alchemica, The aalloys can be named totally different so they are not confused with alchemica.
Could use metal names
Palladium, Gold, Silver, Copper, …
Or actually use alloy names
Bronze, Steel, Iron, Brass, …
Or mixed and call them “Wearable Elements” instead of aalloys
Gold, Silver, Steel, Iron, Wool, Cotton…
Would be awesome to go on a quest, beat a boss and win some Steel which would be used to craft a Common wearable if I had a wearable pattern and the rest of the elements from melting down existing wearables. As more ppl join the game and wearables get expanded.
Wise Words, I completely agree with you sir !!
This is the meat of what this conversation needs to include, imho. Whatever we do here, has to be done in a way that assumes that it is just the first bit of crafting and and is designed to be built upon, not to be a stand alone thing that exists in a vaccum.
On thursday and Friday, I’ll start trying to make some proper diagrams of what everyone is suggesting here and come up with a way for people to interact with them on the meeting.
Something noone has brought up yet is how bottable the mechanic is… if it is done on a way that is just transactions, we can expect the majority of the rewards to go to the gotchiscriptsquad, just like almost every new thing so far has… spread the components out, mix them in with the arcade and with quests. Anything that is simply token based will be abused.
Why going this difficult?
6 Alloys x number of slots, this much of tokens to be created?
Let’s make it more simple:
Found the script\scroll - identify it up, with the alch, on da table via crafting.
Script is on, ok, you can see what is it about - what is inside - now you can build it.
I was thinking about the rule here:
First scripts will be only for new wearables, that can be found only on the grid.
Second, when the new scripts will be crafted - the scripts for the burned old wearables could come up, like with some % of chance.
We got a script: says - Torchlight, uncommon - for this we can use only alch + number of the uncommon hand slot wearables (for ex. 2) or 1 rare, or higher if we want the odds for stats to be up, or\and to get a higher % of the successful craft.
I’m worried you aren’t understanding the proposal.
I think we will be able to implement the Forge with as few as even three alloys total. The idea is composability in the wearable system. You can forge your own path from a common set to godlikes by melting down wearables and forging new ones. Or you can smelt one of your high rarity wearables to outfit more of your gotchis. Either way, alloy, the base component of all wearables, is burnt which adds a deflationary mechanic on the wearable market. This deflationary mechanic affords introduction of new wearables via sales. Additionally, schematics allow abstraction of variety and stat diversity from slot + rarity tier. Anyone could introduce “schematics” via a defined process similar to FGCs. Additionally, schematics could be raffled to finish off FRENS or serve as a rolling, monthly raffle employing a new GLTR=>raffle ticket system. Alchemica has no role in this protocol asset aside from a relatively small, fixed cost for firing up the forge. We cannot tie the value of BRS-modifying wearables to alchemica with its volatility and high emission rate. Alchemica could play a future role in non-BRS modifying wearable creation.
Below is a graphic explaining where we are at in theory-crafing this proposal.
Schematic: The recipe and instructions for crafing the wearable. Provides variety.
Frame: The mould or skeleton for the forging itself. Provides a lever for scarcity.
Alloy: Base component of all BRS-modifying wearables. Allows composability
Cooldown: Time between forging ± smelting before you can attempt again. Linear. GLTR reduces.
Burn Rate: Extra alloy required to forge. Current models at 10%. Lever for deflation.
Essence: The life force of gotchis. Required for pets/godlikes (omitted from diagram below).
This process allows granular control over variety and scarcity. We can control introduction of Frames with a shared “Framework” defining goal numbers of wearables per slot. This framework will be produced as part of this project. We can be more liberal with schematic distribution as no asset holder is being diluted. None was not feasible with prior wearable distribution events but is with the Forge.
I read the docs in your proposal, you have my vote now.
Seems to be solid.
I hope alch sinks will be stronger then what we have on the recipes for crafting the land, cuz it wearables will affect brs(RF) and future battles and etc. Should be a tangible cost. Imho ofc.
But I’m against the essence drop to the sacrificed gotchis, cuz for ex:
Some one made lots of sacrifices and sold the gotchi.
New owner will not have an essence, otherewise the drop of essence will be needed to the gotchis that had received the sacrifice (mb better mech that way?)
I really like how this would play out… the forge would have a roullete wheel vibe, with people always hanging out around it .
This was put to proposal way too quickly. Aavegotchi is already a race to the bottom and now we want to add 6-11 new tokens? Without creating a sink for Alchemica? THE most important task we should be focusing on is creating sinks for alchemica.
I like the idea of crafting at the forge. But we absolutely do not need more tokens to accomplish this. 1 at MOST. Just make breaking down wearables give one type of ‘alloy’ then augment the rest with alchemica.
I also like the idea of the blueprint system - when new wearables are released, just release the blueprint so they need to all be crafted at the forge.
Please know that, if implemented incorrectly, this could completely break our ecosystem. Please proceed with caution.
I’m pretty sure it requires alch to forge.
makes sense to me that the idea of essence would make more sense as the one thing coming from wearables and from burned gotchis. way less implementation overhead.
and removes difficulty of balancing availability of “certain” kinds of alloy against one another when coming up with wearable creations.
keep it simple stupid
in order to craft a wearable a simple essence and alchemica to craft recipe could work.
it’d be good to have a very very small percentage chance of loosing an alloy (or more) so there’s the “WDYM FAILED??? …oh thank god I only lost the alch”, but then we’d need to consider happens to that alloy and whether it is it brought back into circulation somehow or burnt.
I think we are scared to make a game because we are invested in it and we have to constantly consider what the markets will do. Creates a whole lot of rigid gameplay. I don’t want the Gotchiverse to feel like an aimtrainer. I recon I’m already on bot pace emptying my reservoirs :')
or do game mechanics naturally create ponzi schemes when money gets involved?
buying pre-leveled effort required characters in MMOs is lame af and that’s usually Ebay territory, wallet tied helps unless people start selling wallets which idk if thats a thing. its already suggested that its possible to speed the process up by paying soo… its already available to the rich, just takes a bit more effort.
I think the only thing we need to fear with skills (aside from balancing, expenditure(time, money, effort) | reward) is end game player experience, what do you do when you’ve done it all. Although this skill reward will likely be passive, so it is just profit potential based on times tried, ya
but that’s the reward for doing it right? which is why there also needs to be more risk involved, see my above opinion on loosing on small chance of loosing aalloy. Isn’t this whole mechanic driven off a players desire to get a wearable they want?
This is a game right? keep the mechanics in the game haha don’t need more websites. Otherwise we are gonna need a load of plugins in order to retain immersion which is clunky and is only increases required development time. What is the issue with having an installation? with the smithing skill I see no reason to have installation levels though.
I’m slightly confused by your diagram. Could you get a Pirate hat schematic with custom stats and combine it with a godlike frame and create a godlike Pirate hat with custom stats? basically… are schematics rarity locked? If yes, then, why do we need frames?
I couldn’t love @Zombobreaker 's post more.
THIS… instead of simply waiting for your Forging to be complete, outside the gotchiverse… just like upgrades, why don’t we demand interaction overtime like with petting? for example; adding alloy to the process over time. Idk but we need to be more creative than either wait outside the gotchiverse for something to be done or pay for it to be done immediately. In Pokemon Go in order to hatch an incubated egg you need to walk/move your phone with a max speed over a certain distance . I expect most will disagree with this because lazy and investor, not gamer.
“templates” instead of “schematics”? this is fashion design guys
idk if this is how you dao, but fuck it dude.
edits: removed waffle | added last quote onwards
I like the term Template! We should vote on preferred nomenclature in the next 1-2 weeks as this does seem like a nicer term.
Schematics can only be used to create that single, specific wearable. There can never be more schematics than the initial release- there will only ever be 1000 fireballs. BUT there can be thousands of schematics, nearly infinite content options, and massive opportunity for community or famous artist creations. Frames are used to tightly control the number of potential wearables that can actually be forged. Frame issuance will be determined by the “Framework”, an economics document outlining dilution plans and target wearables per the 36 rarity/slot combinations.
There are currently only 5 Godlike Face items (beard of wisdom). With the Forge, you could Smelt one of those into its Alloy, the Beard of Wisdom schematic, and the Godlike Face Frame. You could buy or acquire one of the new Godlike Face schematics at an upcoming GBM sale, raffle, or event and use your Frame + your alloy (+10% acquired from market/melting other wearables) to make the new wearable. You would have your beard of wisdom schematic left over in case you want to sell it or reforge it. In this way, new schematics can drop every month without diluting the market.
step 1 baleet frens & raffles
step 2 cap wearbles
step 3 jk make wearables favor ur big sunk cost in harvesters & big staxx of alchemica u cant dump. cuz honey 50k per pair aint gon be enough
step 4 pay urself $55k & bunch parcels 2 do simple tasks
step 5 farm G O D L I K E S
step 6 crush the unworthy in pvp (based)
I’m just going right to step 6 ser. Don’t need a complex plan for that
- Enjoy the lamentations of their ROFLs
On deep diving into implementation details I realized that there is a huge simplification we can make, namely in the alloys. Instead of 4 or more we can simple have one single alloy element, supply/cost of which is determined by item rarity level. Then we can simply make costs lowest multiples of 10, ex: 10 for common, 20 for uncommon, 50 for rares, etc.; this way on smelting users simply get 9 for common, 18 for uncommon, 45 for rares etc.
This still provides deflationary pressure on wearables over time as intended, and schematic supply is really the thing that determines what possible stat distributions are available in either the original idea or this simplified one.
Edit: I was too hasty in thinking about costs, greatly underestimating the practical strength difference in the higher rarities and not taking into account market dynamics. @stedari 's model of using item cap ratios (referenced in the recipe model and google sheet) is much more practical imo.
Wearables that modify 3 traits are less valuable than wearables (of the same rarity) that modify just 2 traits, which are a lot less valuable than wearables that modify just 1 trait.
This difference in value comes from two mechanics: 1. The more traits that are being modified, the fewer Gotchis are a perfect fit for the wearable. 2. The fewer traits are being modified the more fine control you have over your Gotchis archetype in the verse.
How, if at all, is this difference in value - based on the number of traits that a wearable / schematic modifies - being addressed?