The WTF has been hard at work trying to bring ultimate balance to the wearables from the perspective of utility and profitability. There’s been some heated debate over the issue and we feel it’s best to reach out to the community and see where you stand.
The data shows negative stat items are least represented as far as items are concerned, but in the bazaar many negative items are the floor for each rarity.
Which stat modifiers would you like to see in upcoming drops?
Please also leave any comments as to which rarity bands you typically equip on your gotchis.
Using price as an indicator for future distribution probably isn’t the best metric since, as was already mentioned, this is influenced by a number of speculative variables(guilds,aesthetics, TRS/ABS, spirit force type, existing wearable brs boost, etc.). The data provided is great btw. Over the long-term I think we should attempt to balance each class(godlike, mythical, etc.) and their item slots(head, face, etc) towards towards a ratio that factors in percentage of each trait that falls below or above 50 for the existing population of Gotchis. This is of course a moving target and would be revisited with each auction as new assets are introduced and eaten. An extreme example for exemplary purposes: looking at a snapshot of currently alive gotchis, if 60% of the total population have energy above 50 and 40% below, using the ratio of 1.5 as the target rate of distribution to guide +/- additions for items impacting the energy rate across each class. So in this case ideal state the energy trait has a total of 150 positive BRS points and 100 negative. As the wearables market grows, in the long-term these ratios could be better maintained across each of the classes and item slots.
Alternative: Less ideal, but in near term, and effective and much more simple approach from a wearable balancing perspective would also be to simply target a net 0 across classes and traits, releasing wearable BRS modifiers that move toward this goal overtime. Issue with this is that over time while the wearable Nets would get closer to zero, it may not match the ratio of +/- traits of total Gotchi poplulation leaving some items less desirable from a purely max BRS or RF perspective. However, this imbalance could also be addressed through other game mechanics instead of changing wearables balancing that would enable this to happen through the markets. A burn mechanism for less popular items could be introduced, providing a way to destroy unloved or low demand items for something else, simultaneously reducing their supply and allowing the market to fix the imbalance. I would just say having cheap items, and a robust market around cheap items isn’t a bad thing. We’ll be strongest and persist if we have strong markets at all income levels.
I took a sampling of two wearables types (rare body & legendary hand) to get a sense of where the market is at regarding demand. My conclusion: aesthetics are very, very important. I would argue aesthetics trump utility, especially in the lower tiers.
Look at the price gap between baby bottle and martini. Both negative stats and both have no set bonuses. Yet martini, due to its great aesthetics, fetches a much higher price.
The alternative approach you suggest is what I’ve been looking at as far as recommendation goes. Strive to move the net stat mods to zero. One thing I would add to the consideration is to see true stat distribution and maybe adjust the targets based on that number. Since H1 gotchis are by glitch higher stats, then we may want to strive more towards a slightly positive net metric.
We certainly have to proceed with caution. Too much dilution and there’s no value appreciation. Too little and there’s no dynamic flow in the game.
One suggestion I’ve proposed is to introduce a way to power up older items over time, giving them an advantage to newer items (but not in an unfair way where they’re just OP). see Introduce XP for Wearables
No doubt aesthetics make a difference, I’m just not sure it’s always the primary driver. For example, are martinis higher to aesthetics, or do holders with GHST to spend have more high BRS gotchis with Neg. energy and Neg. Brain traits they are seeking to modify? Perhaps it because there are more Neg energy Gotchis in general, or perhaps the lack of negative Brain modifying items for Hands above the legendary level is the cause?
Hi frens, this is my first forum post, very exciting) I decided that my bad English should not be an obstacle! I wanted to comment on the price difference between martini and baby bottle. For example, the DEFI DEGEN set gives +46 BRS for a gotchi with NRG- BRN- AGG+ and this gotchi needs a second legendary hand and its owner will most likely buy a martini, because this is the cheapest a suitable legendary hand, but a baby bottle will not work for him. You can say that a baby bottle can also serve as a second hand for Gotchi with NRG+ ACG- SPK- for example, for a LADY suit, but the fact is that Martini and Waifu Pillow give +14 BRS and the second CLUTCH for the LADY suit gives +15 BRS and more than a baby bottle can.
But analyzing the leaderboard and how people dress their gotchi, I noticed that many people do not care about traits and rationality at all - they dress either in what they have, or as they like))
Does the WTF have any opinions on wearables with +1 +1 +1 and weird +1 -1 +1 / -1 -1 +1 distribution? It seems like the lady one combines good only with itself. Wearables with that jack of all trades distribution seem to be the hardest to nail down because of how rare they are and how gotchi traits are unevenly distributed. Other wearables like the walkie talkie and aagent headset do not provide set bonuses when combined with each other. Perhaps if you could custom modify the points to suit your gotchi. Most of these wearables seem not worth the effort to synergize with your gotchi when you can slap a +3 or -3 on your gotchi and be done with it.
My personal perspective on wearables is from having a small number of H2 gotchis which I was lucky enough to get decent BRS on, at least for the lower end of rarity farming when equipped.
I only participated in the most recent wearable auction (APY Vision etc), so have to go to the Baazaar for earlier wearables, and haven’t got anything above Rare. Legendary is too rich for me
So with that limitation, I’ve focused solely on BRS (not aesthetics) and getting the best price/BRS ratio for my gotchis. The wearables recommendation tool on aavegotchistats was brilliant as an introduction to this. Then I wanted to also take advantage of the extra BRS from wearable sets, so made my own tool so I could group sets by gotchi type, and used this to figure out my wishlist.
Focusing on sets while also on a budget puts me off buying individual wearables that don’t fit into a potential future affordable set (e.g. Tiny Crown is a no-go because the Royal Scepter is too expensive for me). This was particularly limiting for my low-stat H2 gotchis which happened to fall into the first two groups:
These types of gotchis have very few budget sets available, as most require rares, and the second type doesn’t even have any all-common sets.
Compared with an all-high stat gotchi, who has a wonderful choice of budget sets:
So personally, I’d like to see this distribution of sets (of all rarities) across gotchi types evened out more. Though addressing specific gaps at the slot/rarity level would of course also be important
Really great feedback thank you fren.
Another question that’s being debated is it better having split rarity sets or sets of same rarity. Arguments have been made from both perspectives.
I posed the idea to have a base rarity for a set with possible upgrades moving one step away.
Ie. An uncommon set of head hand and body also has a rare hand and head upgrade.
The advantage here is you can work within a specific set and upgrade without scrapping your whole suit. A potential downside is that rare item is slightly gimped when it comes to competing with other rares. Wdyt?
Agreed some + pets are in order. I’d recommend to PC to have those pets be a perfect mirror in stats to the current. Otherwise, we just have more holes. A perfect mirror = 100% gotchi representation.
I love the upgradeable set pattern, as we already have for wizards/runners/agents/gamers/etc. It’s both flavourful and economical. It feels a lot more RPG-like, where you are progressing with your character and saving up for the next upgrade.
I didn’t even realize there were sets, and thanks to @eitri 's tool, I suddenly find myself researching how to get to Apex Stani, but it’s kind of a dead end because it’s just a matter of saving enough GHST to buy it directly. If there was a single set and mixed rarity so that you could sart at a Common Stani and progress slowly to Apex Stani, it would add a clear path with depth and purpose, as opposed to a pure economic decision.
Thanks for your amazing contributions! What do you see as the biggest gaps in the upgradeable set patterns? This seems like the one of the most important places to focus that adds value, builds lore, and both creates and captures demand.
I’m honestly not sure - for me the big missing data points are the utility of wearables and different traits in the Realm.
There’s a possibility that our existing sets may become a legacy of rarity farming days, and that future sets may be tailored to realm functionality in a different way.
For example, we’ve been told that AGG- = better spell efficacy (vs AGG+ = more physical damage). This is contrary to the Wizard and Mage sets which modify everything except AGG. If that trait implementation goes ahead, we might see a whole new collection of Wizard equipment/sets with AGG-, for players who want to actually boost their spellcasting in the realm rather than just look like a wizard with the old sets
UX wise, I think that what is missing a visual indicator that sets even exist and that there are implied classes (which stats you are +/- in). So, the gap here is that newer players aren’t even aware that there is a to-do to do. In fact, I’m learning more now about sets just trying to research and think through an improvement that should be baseline player knowledge you can just see from the char stat sheet.
The jumps are also too big. For a wizard set, one of the “starter options” for +NRG, -AGG, +SPK, +BRN builds, you have 4 hats and 2 staffs and you have to jump from Common to Legendary (there’s no middle step at Uncommon/Rare). That’s not motivating once you do the math and I think it makes it a bit inaccessible. If the sets were well-defined and visible and had an intermediate point at every rarity level, I think there would be a lot more engagement.
The way I think through this, a Common Wizard Set is a +8 overall. I’d have a 85 GHST hat (+2), and I’d need to upgrade it to a 1000 GHST hat (+14) as the next step for the Wizard Set in order to retain the +2 set bonus. It would be easier to just upgrade from the +2 hat to literally any +5 or better hat and break the set - lower cost but it would be an incremental improvement. That kind of logic makes sets feel like something just kind of on the side.
On the other hand, if there was an Uncommon Wizard Hat (+4) and Rare Wizard Hat (+8) - now I have a clear path from +2 to +4 to +8 to +14, and I may have locked myself in wizard, but I “get it” and each item change is now on a track which I think psychologically I feel like I “should do”.
Well said fren and I couldn’t agree more. The sets with multiple tiers of rarity and same item slot create a certain gameplay and progression.
We’ve been discussing this in the WTF quite a bit about how best to proceed. As we make more sensible and cohesive sets, especially those with different rarities, we also need to be aware of the OG items and ensure they receive love as well.
Since we are also playing an investment game here, we need to ensure OG items appreciate in value appropriately.
I’m personally in favour of revisiting the older items and building more cohesion and sets around them. As you said, the wizard hat jump is massive. I would wonder how the community would feel if uncommon & rare hats were launched to fit with the OG sets?
If I interpreted the above table correctly… trying to bring the Net-Values of the traits closer to zero(?)… I might think, that sth in this vain could contribute.
