ICCP - Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters

[shy monolith]

Simple Summary
This proposal adjusts the pricing, tier weights and Alpha sale duration for Illuvium: Beyond. It will also introduce in-game unlocks and monthly raffles as added benefits to Beyond collectors.

Abstract
Multiple changes are outlined, all with the intent to position Illuvium: Beyond as a product that is accessible to everyone, while retaining the ability for players with more spending power to differentiate themselves. Changes include a 24-hour Alpha sale with unlimited minting, increased drop rates for specific tiers, in-game unlocks and exclusive bonuses, monthly raffles, and revised pricing. Many modifications and additions are discussed in this proposal, rationale will be provided alongside each item to improve clarity.

TL;DR:
T1 Weight Reduced, T2-T5 weight increase. Rationale: This improves the experience with the product.
Prices: $5/$30 Extended Run, $10/$90 Alphas
In-Game Unlocks incentivize smaller collections

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lc300A9vCEsp_qNu61xNciNzNHxdaTu9-NJtMOlP9Pc/edit?usp=sharing

Finding an approach to Beyond that satisfies everyone has been a challenge, both within the council and within the community. There are multiple ways to interpret sales data from Wave 1, and there are different demographics we can target with this product. With this proposal, we've tried to include as much of the reasoning behind each change as possible. Where decisions could be informed by data, we've tried to reference that data. However, the discussion is primarily about target demographic and who the product is for. We feel these price points are accessible for gamers, with $5 Standard D1SKS and improved drop rates. This should ensure the average D1SK opening is a more positive experience. We also feel there is sufficient room at the top end for rarity.

Currently, we're approaching a point where we're starting to hold up development, and as a DAO we need to provide direction to the team so they can implement Wave 2. Delaying this proposal further presents risks of interfering with future products.

This proposal is a compromise that's been made on all sides, and any changes need to be backed by strong reasoning and clear in their intent and the information that has informed those decisions.

I do want to thank the community for their feedback, and look forward to responding to any concerns about this proposal and answering questions about the intent and rationale behind this proposal.

[foggy void]

Awesome work @shy monolith and Council Members. The time and effort that has gone into debating these changes cannot be understated.

[wet escarp]

Great work taking the Community feedback into account Team and Council Members, thank you.

[onyx hawk]

I'm supporting this one. I think a lot of effort was put into to this. And before we have actual data it'll be a waste of team/council time to dig deeper into this.
The 1:9 ratio in alpha disks was something that stood out. However I think it might be the best compromise we can make in order to allow people access to alphas but allow for a high end option for hardcore collectors.

Godspeed.

[still grove]

Thanks for the re-work, the additional details and for outlining the rationale.
I am overall in favour of this proposal and have voted YES because it is indeed a balanced compromise with a very accessible entry price and product (Standard disk).

I still have some reservation on the increased 6x multiple of Standard to Mega and the 9x of Alpha Standard to Mega but I can live with it. I feel like only relying on sales of wave 1 to make that decision might be a mistake because:

i. the new proposed odds get illuvitars from Standard disks closer to that 1250 guaranteed rare threshold obtained from megas

ii. the fact that standards sold twice as much as alphas doesn't mean that the ratio was wrong. To the contrary (it's not because something is 5x cheaper, it has to sell 5x more). Those are slightly different products. Alphas megas deserve a higher multiple but not sure about 9x either

Anyways good work! I am very supportive 🙂

[random hare]

Thank you ILV team, council members, and community for the all work.

Very curious to see how wave 2 pans out after all the discussion. I was fine with the direction and previously proposed pricing but I understand the “need” for change after all the controversy.

Hopefully ETH and sILV2 burnt surpasses wave I and community brings beyond market back to life.

[shy monolith]

This is a fair point, appreciate it!

One of the other positive elements of the 1:6 ratio is the ability to hit that $5 price point, but you're right, we'll have much better data to utilize after this Wave, and Standards don't need to sell at a 1:5 ratio, if people prefer Megas that's not inherently causing any issues.

[still grove]

Absolutely! I like that $5 price on standards, it's a really good entry point (my comment was more around megas staying at 5x that or 6x).

Someone would need to run the probabilities to check on my point (i), but I don't think the 6x ratio is off to an extent that will push ppl to mostly buy standards. So all good. In any case, like you said data after the wave will help re-adjust if needed 😉

[fathom shoal]

I think it's a good proposal, but I have problems with two things.

1. like Amino already said. I don't link that we are decideing on 6x and 9x based on how much people were buying the products. That's not how it should work. Expecially when Alpha Mega compared to Standard Alpha are worth less than Regular Mega compared to Standard.

Also, with changes to drop rates. Megas could have only lost in value, and not gain more value.

At the very least, pricing should be considered and talked about at least a bit more. I agree that $5 price point for entry is probably the best idea for now, but Mega and Alpha Mega should be reconsidered

https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1130840446109761627
I have a proposal here that would change how the Megas work and then it would be much easier to price them write.

2. I don't like that we are changing only Illuvitar Tier drop rates.

We want to keep T5 to be a special thing that is only for special whale collectors. But why aren't we doing it differently and was it ever considered. Why not up % of each tier a bit more. But change other things as well.

Making it harder to get Holos for example, making it harded to get Rare Expression or better background, making other things a bit harder. That way - special whale collectors and fighters for the leaderboard would have more initiative to get higher rated Illuvitars because they are harder to get at every tier, but in the same time. Regular collector that is having fun and not spending 3k per Wave can collect all of the Illuvitars and maybe some of the Tier 5.

I think this should also be considered. Make it easier to get all the Illuvitars. Make it harder to get good Illuvitars with high power at every tier.

3. Just a question. Do we expect to have more Illuvitars in Wave 2 compared to Wave 1 with this price point?

[shy monolith]

Can you explain your reasoning for why Megas lost in value with the rarity adjustments?

[fathom shoal]

It's easier to get higher power in Regular D1SK. Mega D1SK works exactly like Regular but you reroll Illuvitar if power is below 1250. Therefore. There will be higher average power rise in Regular compared to Mega D1SK.

[shy monolith]

I reckon the adjustments to odds are pretty impactful. Disregarding price adjustments, there would be 25% more T5's with this change (0.4 to 0.5).

I also think that the addition of In-Game Unlocks (Collections) creates a narrative that's different than what a lot of people have been thinking. The "goal" of many people was to complete the collection (i.e. to collect all Illuvial types within the Wave).

Smaller, more granular collections that have soulbound rewards create a system where people can collect what they choose to collect, whether that's favorite Illuvials, or aesthetically appealing battleboards etc.

There's also some risk of getting data that is difficult to interpret if we've changing too many variables at once. I think there's merit in changing up some of the other parameters if there's compelling reasons to do so, but Tier is a factor everyone can understand.

[shy monolith]

3. It's not possible to determine this in a meaningful way.

[shy monolith]

After the threshold is applied, the rarity changes still apply to Megas.

You can look at the Mega threshold two ways, and my understanding is that they are equivalent mathematically.

Reroll until over the threshold.
-or-
Eliminate everything under the threshold, then roll.

Either way, the higher rates for T3/T4/T5 still apply to Megas.

[fathom shoal]

The main reason we don't want lower prices is because we want whales to be able to collect something. And that is Tier 5 as it was mentioned a lot of the times.

But making Holos harder to get, making rare expressions harder to get, making better background harder to get will make so that whales have something to collect. Something that is more rare, something that is worth a lot more and something that gets you more points on the leaderboard.

[fathom shoal]

You are not correct. And I will try to prove it to you with an simple example. Just give me some time. Example won't be good but hopefully you will get my point.

Also. It can't be either or as I don't see bottom working. That can't be done.

[shy monolith]

Roger that, we still believe there is room for there to be plenty of 1/1 assets at the top end with this proposal, but we don't necessarily want to overshoot.

I do understand the base idea - You're suggesting to make T5's substantially more common, but to have expressions, finish, backgrounds provide the rarity elements. That was considered, but I don't believe that will pass through council.

[sharp depot]

We had discussed that on the MSC level at least and I think the consensus was that it introduced too much complexity this late in the game, but could be re-evaluated for wave 3

[fathom shoal]

Like Kieran said, it would be so boring to have 14 Rhymphyers.

But if none of them is Holo, if none of them is a Rare Expression, if none of them is good background. Is it really boring or you want that 15th one and you are hoping for good one this time?

[shy monolith]

Happy to check the example, but this is the guidance we've received on the matter. This isn't my napkin calculation.

I should note - The Mega threshold is something the team is looking into, and it might need to be adjusted based on the team's testing. It's important to get it right, but I have confidence the team will get it right.

It's deliberately not mentioned here because we don't have exact parameters for it. Every change in price and tier weight adjusts the calculation, and it's desirable to have the team complete the work required to determine the threshold once, not 3 times or 5 times or 10 times.

[fathom shoal]

Like I said in another proposal/idea. Threshold is not a good idea and it brought us a lot of problems this wave. We should get rid of it as soon as possible.

But I guess that's not the topic here.

[shy monolith]

Correct, it's a separate issue that I'm happy to explore separately.

[compact cloud]

I agree with most of the comments that the alpha mega multiplier doesnt make sense to me. Hopefully I am wrong and that is the sweet spot.

Just one question regarding pricing. I assume the pricing will be in eth? and will it be the same price in eth for the entire sale? Ex - if eth goes up or down 50% will the price be adjusted accordingly throughout the sale (on a daily, weekly or monthly basis)?

[fathom shoal]

It wasn't adjusted last time around and it it went from like $7,5 to $11 at one point. (not 100% on the numbers, but somewhere around that)

I expect it to be the same this time around.

[sharp depot]

same this time around ^

[grim basalt]

i think its a good change and if it goes through like it is its prob ok but i would still like to see the same ratio for alpha standards/megas as it is on the normal ones, thats why i voted thumbs down

[compact cloud]

Great job council. Much better proposal then we originally started with. That is all we can ask for. Im not happy with everything but can live with this proposal.

[fathom shoal]

I'm sharing this ugly spreadsheet because I don't want to spend more time making it prettier. But in short.

This calculation only takes tier, stage and expression of the Illuvial. It doesn't take into account background and holo finish. But even if it did, the final result would be the same.

I'm sure there are people on the team that can confirm that what i'm saying with this stupid little example is correct.

So...

First "box" we have the power of each Illuvial as certain tier, stage and with expression. At background of tier 1 stage 1 and it's non holo.

Second box is how many you would get of certain Illuvial in a million with old values above, and new value below.

Everything else is calculation that is pretty simple but not important.

Story is:

Average power from Regular D1SK in Wave 1 is 475.
If we look only at those with power 1250 and above (so like Mega) the average would be 1403.

New values are 566 and 1379.

Like I said.

The value of Regular D1SK is now bigger as you will be getting higher tier Illuvials.
The value of Mega compared to Regular D1SK is now lower as there is more Illuvials closer to 1250 so there is a bigger chance of getting a low power Illuvial.

Therefore - making it now 6x for no reason apart from 'megas were selling better' is silly because Megas are now actually worse.

Also, there is literally no reason that Alpha Mega is 9x compared to 6x of Regular Mega. If nothing, it should be lower as it's worth less compared to it's Standard D1SK counterpart.

[shy monolith]

The remainder of the message you responded to is also important.

[fathom shoal]

But than we are doing it the wrong way around. We are first deciding the price just by making it up. And then afterwards we’ll try to fix it with changed threshold.

Also that doesn’t change the fact thresholds are broken. Also doesn’t change the fact that Alpha pricing is just silly.

Also, this was just an answer to your question about why ‘megas lost value with rarity rebalance’.

I’m really not trying to be rude or anything. I’m just trying to voice my opinion on something I think is really important.

Also, thank you for taking the time to answer and consider those.

[shy monolith]

The threshold would potentially have to be adjusted at any price or tier weight change.

Prices are all made up, it's stated pretty clearly that this is about product positioning, we can't determine an optimal price on the basis of A/B testing because we have a single data set at a single price point. What was done was an analysis of what were deemed to be comparable products, and while this pricing isn't 100% in line with those results, it's also a proposal that has a better chance of passing through the process. It is a compromise.

I'm not taking it as rude, for the record. I'd like to take a closer look at your spreadsheet so I can understand the underlying calculations.

[fathom shoal]

Feel free to dm me if you want to talk more about it or take a look at it. Don’t be surprised if I ignore you for the next 10 hours. 😴

[timid sage]

DMs are scams

Mods and Team members will never DM you.
Never trust advice or links received in DMs.

Beta access, giveaways, and promotions are not given out via DM. Scams are designed to trick you into installing malicious software to gain access to your wallet or to convince you to enter your seed phrase into a website. Never give your private key (12 to 24-word seed phrase) to anyone.

Support is not provided via DMs

Support is handled publicly, or in threads within the Illuvium Discord. People offering support via DM are scammers.

Please follow the instructions pinned in #report-scammers to report bad actors so we can remove them from the server.

[still pivot]

How did y’all land on 6000 disks for marketing? That seems like a lot.

[shy monolith]

It's the same as the proposal for Wave 1. It's more than necessary for Wave 2 marketing efforts, but we want the DAO to retain some d1sks to utilize for marketing over the long term. An event at say, year 3 or year 5 that can offer a Wave 1 d1sk as a prize, reward or incentive is a compelling marketing tool.

It ended up being about 3% of the total supply for Wave 1.

[still pivot]

Thanks for the clarity. I can get around that.

[idle whale]

Great Proposal imo

good middle ground to the other options previously presented

[foggy void]

I'm in agreement with this proposal, for me it aligns with Illuvium's mission of bringing the latest tech to a traditional gaming audience.

It leaves room for the higher end players to min-max the game and create Collections with the best finishes, expressions and highest points.

It allows & encourages the casual audience to participate and work towards completing collections (even if the collections are full of low value Illuvitars and may be missing some of the rarer wave Illuvitars).

[candid escarp]

The lower prices will make me spend a lot less than I did in Wave 1. However, I really hope I am in the minority and that this is a very successful sale for Illuvium. On the upside, I should be able to pick up what I specifically want more cheaply on secondary. 🙂

Just to confirm, Gold Alpha is for Wave 1 only correct?

[shy monolith]

Gold Alpha stamps is still pending with ICCP-11, it's with the Game Sub-Council for voting right now

It's separate from this proposal though.

[candid escarp]

It's separate but without that going through, I am definitely thumbs down on this. It's a small difference but it's at least something and imo imperative before any price changes should happen.

[shy monolith]

That's fair, I can understand it being contingent for you.

[brave umbra]

Just to share a different perspective, I was always hesitant to dump more eth into beyond because I knew from the beginning I'm priced out. It felt daunting that I can pour hundreds of dollars into this and come out barely completing albums so why bother.

But with this new pricing and enticed with better drop rate spread, I feel that I have better opportunities to complete albums and get lucky. This makes me more confident to drop more eth into beyond.

Again just personal perception giving a different viewpoint.

[candid escarp]

We will get to see how it pans out.🙂

[true moat]

👍

[onyx hawk]

If changing the odds is something that is done on the blockchain side of stuff, won't it mean it will affect wave 1 disks?

If not it would mean that wave 1 disks will keep their lower odds of T5s. Which is fine if it's the intended behavior.

[fathom shoal]

It's probably a separate thing all together as you won't be getting Wave 2 Illuvitars in Wave 1 D1SKs. So the odds are also different in Wave 1/2 D1SKs. So we should be good there.

[idle whale]

NFTs are on the blockchain, they have metadata, the beyond app reads that metadata, wave 2 disks will have different metadata

Un-Opened Wave 1 disks will be unaffected and will work the same as before, worry not

[sterile anvil]

DAOmocracy at work. Love the Passion and care shown by everyone. Thankyou Team and Council, Wrangling into a working proposal. Thumbs up.

[onyx hawk]

I'm pretty sure the odds are not written on the nft. They are in the loading smart contract. Which will need a big "if" statement on how to handle wave 1 and how to handle wave 2 disks. And a few more waves in it'll be prone to bugs.

[idle whale]

We've been through all the details in council, I assure you that the odds for wave 1 unopened disks will not change if the odds are different for wave 2 disks...

[onyx hawk]

You might be correct on this. But bloating the loading(minting) contract for illuvitars with different odds per wave is prone to errors. So I was just raising a concern.

And I'm really sorry to open this up again, but in previous threads there were discussions about making it up to alpha wave 1 buyers and now intentionally we're leaving lower odds on wave 1 disks, thus making wave 1 disks both more expensive and with lower odds. Will there be another proposal on how to handle alpha 1 investors in order to not fill this thread with the same stuff from prevous ones?

[idle whale]

Any proposal for something like this could be made if someone felt this was necessary.

Wave 1 illuvitars were more expensive and had worse odds, they will however always be the first ever wave and that gives them unique value. I believe there is also a proposal that has gone up to council to give wave 1 alpha a superior alpha stamp to all future waves alphas, I'll let someone else comment on how thats coming along that is more aware, pretty sure @shy monolith knows

[shy monolith]

Updating Wave 1 odds would cater to only a very specific subset of Wave 1 - People who didn't open disks. It's a really dangerous thing to do to modify Wave 1 odds from where they were for the whole Wave and should continue to be.

Wave 1 odds should remain Wave 1 odds, suggested Wave 2 odds are what they are.

[idle whale]

So as far as the blockchain contract goes for minting, these changes will not change the size of that contract or "bloat" it in any way.

A common misconception is that a lot more of this is on the blockchain than it actually is, some of the very early blockchain gaming projects stored more on the blockchain and did struggle with bloat a lot more than the solutions that effective games are using now and in the future

[onyx hawk]

Music to my ears. I'm glad it's done in an optimised manner and considered.

[hardy laurel]

@onyx hawk this is the ICCP for the "Visually distinct Wave 1 Alpha Stamp" - passed at CSC level, about to be passed at GSC level and then onto IMC for final voting

#📰〕governance-news message

[foggy void]

@onyx hawk @idle whale drop-rates are handled in a JSON on the backend - no issues. Set 1 Wave 1 remains unaffected

[onyx hawk]

Thanks for providing concrete details ❤️

[fathom shoal]

when can we expect more details on if threshold is going to change and how? does that need to be voted on?

did we really went with 9x for mega alphas?????????

[shy monolith]

Edits can be recommended at the marketing sub-council level per ICCP-10.

[fathom shoal]

Who’s the sponsor?

Was that answer about threshold or about alphas?

[shy monolith]

I'm the sponsor. ICCP-10 applies to all edits, so the answer was to both threshold (which could be adjusted) and to alphas (which could also be adjusted). I can't speak for what changes Marketing might wish to incorporate, but I will say that I'm flexible and willing to work collaboratively to get this proposal passed.

[fathom shoal]

The more I look at the data, the more I'm indecisive about Mega Pricing.

With current threshold for Megas:
T1 - 12,4% chance
T2 - 23,7% chance
T3 - 31,6% chance
T4 - 27,6% chance
T5 - 4,7% chance

Average power of Rare in Mega D1SKs will be around 1551, while average power in regular place will be around 704.

In Wave 2 the average was around 1530 and 612.
Also, there was around 34% chance of getting a T2 in Wave 1 in Mega D1SK in rare spot.

While Megas now do have much better chance of getting higher tiers, the average power you get from them will improve by only a little. At the same time average power in regular D1SKs will rise about 15%. But you do get a regular Illuvitar in Mega D1SK as well. So.... I don't know. You do at least get almost 10x more chance of getting a T5 with Mega.

Not sure that's worth 6x more now. But I'm sure it's not worth 9x more.

[shy monolith]

Mega threshold is something that I'm 100% sure is being reviewed, I just can't speak to what the specific recommendation will be. There are more qualified people than myself to make that recommendation, and I won't oppose those recommendations.

[gleaming furnace]

it is

[cerulean wind]

This looks like a good proposal and it seems like all this debate was worth it.

My main issue with the previous version was the assumption that the primary target audience of Beyond was NFT collectors. I believe we have much more people who are Illuvium believers first (and choose to collect Illuvium NFTs) rather than traditional NFT collectors. I also believe this will continue to be the case and the $5 price point of the normal d1sks will allow a lot more future players attracted by the main games to also dive into collecting illuvitars.

At the same time, the higher price points of megas and alpha megas ensure that we retain rarity at the higher tiers, so the wealthier collectors can still find rare flex pieces to buy, catering to a wider audience overall.

Thanks for the effort from everyone involved!

[sterile anvil]

100% Doooom. Well said.

[gleaming furnace]

This has been rectified, we are figuring out the finer details now. But Perry is literal magic

[flint yacht]

was never a fan of alpha which is a forced collectible, it dont become collectible because it cost more... i dont see it as a flex... rather have a random chance of getting an alpha in a pack... other than that.. make alpha cost whatever, i dont think i'll be buying one, and definitely not at 5x

tier weights need adjusting... have 900,000 players come in and having 5 cards available, just isnt going to create a marketplace, thre's a feeling, knowing you have no chance at collecting the set, not small chance, but NO CHANCE, kinda kills the project

so basically, its like this.. early community members could be rewarded having a long term hold of tier 4, tier 5 cards, but they are so rare, that no community member really prospers, only the rich peopleThe rest of us get to spend a few hundred bucks for perhaps an unknown border in game or a skin or something...

i think the problem is the genre has changed due to store bought packages, which have changed over time, because of the foil issue..

there use to be randoms, but people got out their micro scales and stood in stores weighng card packs, so they could see the weight differences to get that COLLECTIBLE FOIL

not sure why something collectible "taking alpha" like that wouldnt be a random to any sale

final statement... i look at the stats of backgrounds and it seems that tier 4 drops were 3.14% but tier 4 BG drops were only 1.7%, thats a significant pct.... could be just luck of the draw, but thought I should point that out

also tier 5 was 1.13% and tier 5 bg was 0.56%, why are the bg's coming out 50% it seems less

oh, one mroe thing, as far as marketing, i think alphas if they must exist should be targeted to be 100% sold out fast...if they dont sell quick, no hype for the project, no people putting down their tasks to take a peek, no growth

[rotund dune]

This proposal puts forward a 24-hour Alpha sale with unlimited minting (so always considered sold out after 24hrs)

[spark yew]

@gleaming furnace why the thumb down ?

[fathom shoal]

backgrounds get less impact from mega d1sks, therefore their drop rate is pretty accurate to what it should be
on the other hand, tier 4 and 5 are heavily impacted from mega d1sk, for example there is 15x more chance of getting tier 5 in mega d1sk.... therefore their drop rates are bigger then it should be

[gleaming furnace]

Odds are overdone. We are adjusting things now and deliberating. More importantly the mega threshold isn't in this proposal and the two go hand in hand

[proper otter]

I really appreciate how the council is listening to the community feedback and trying their best to deliver the best product ever. Really makes me even more bullish on this project. Refining the mega disks threshold is the cherry on top for this proposal.

[sharp depot]

Hey guys and gals, thanks for the continued feedback. We’re making some final recommended tweaks clear at the MSC level, then will present that feedback here for you guys to review. We’re working with Perry to nail down the odds/threshold balancing as has been noted above.

[wet escarp]

Thanks for the update JP

[wary cedar]

Nice job with the process here. Three things that weren't mentioned in the town hall or in the discussions that I've seen and am wondering about are:

1. How was the date determined? Is this with a 3rd wave in mind to be released around the time of game launch?
2. What is the expected impact to land prices of this proposal?
3. What are the raffles? How do these work?
   Thanks ahead for any insights here!

[fathom flint]

1. The mid August date was not something the Marketing Sub-Council came up with, it came from the core team.
2. Why would Beyond pricing impact Land pricing?
3. The Marketing Sub-Council has not been informed how raffles will work, perhaps @ripe berry or @untold wyvern can answer this question.

[wary cedar]

It's a bit concerning to hear that the marketing sub-council did not even consider the impact to land values when launching an additional NFT project targeted towards a similar audience before game launch, that now has immediate rewards and incentives, while land holders are left waiting.

[brave umbra]

Not sure how lowering the prices and adjusting drop rates have to do with land. First, Beyond was launched already. This is a continuation of the NFT project. So its not "additional". Second, the rewards being set up for Beyond will be weighed in connection to Land. In the same vein, Marketing is not the proper SC to oversee this. This would most likely fall under Strategy as it involves inter-game economy. And lastly, land owners are guaranteed 5% of all in-game revenue. Not sure why youd want to compare any immediate rewards of Beyond with IZero.

[wary cedar]

There is more in the ICCP than prices and drop rates, which I specifically mentioned above. Wave 2 is most certainly an additional NFT sale ahead of the game launch. You can not buy NFTs from Illuvium right now, but this ICCP is proposing to start a new sale on August 15th. The ICCP "Changes include ..., in-game unlocks and exclusive bonuses, monthly raffles, and ...." so the decision that certainly impacts land holders is to begin further rewarding beyond players ahead of game launch and ahead of any ROI for land. I'm actually SHOCKED that I need to point this out to anyone.

[brave umbra]

You're zeroing in on in-game unlocks which 1) aren't determined yet and will need an iip. 2) if any rewards are to be given its aligned with the same ethos of illuvium not giving an advantage. 3) promise was land gets 5% of in game revenue that's still on track.

I do note your concerns which is why I want to hear specifics as this will help us ensure we're still maintaining the same promise to land owners.

[wary cedar]

Specifically, with this ICCP I expect that some land holders will want to sell their land to participate in wave 2 because land will not produce anything for another 4+ months, while beyond will. I've seen many comments from people that they don't have as much funds for wave 2 as they did for wave 1 now and land is not yet producing. I'm just hoping this won't devalue land too much.

I didn't intend this to be a hard question, just wanted to hear "yes, we considered land holders and..."

[still grove]

Hi Mozeen, I own some land plots but I see IZ and Beyond as 2 separate & very different products / investments. What would shock me is to actually see the council providing guidance as to how land prices could be impacted by wave 2. Because it would be very speculative and potentially misleading from them to do so. I can guarantee you that no one can accurately predict how people will manage their liquidity for example (so many other parameters that can be totally outside of the ILV ecosystem can impact this e.g. market environment etc.). Also, certainly not all land owners are part of Beyond. You're right that some might sell for liquidity but impossible to estimate the overall impact imo

[fathom flint]

If land holders sell their land they lose their blueprints they have found. Might be a reason we hopefully don't see a bunch of people selling land for wave 2

[sharp depot]

To be clear, we did consider it and are continuing to look at it, but they are two separate products with largely two separate demographics, so we don’t feel it’s too much of an issue.

The marketing sub council in cooperation with Perry have put together a recommendation for tweaks to the proposal by community.
We believe there is incredible value being delivered by the increase in drop rates for T2-T4 and therefore more people will be able to complete their collections. This is great and improves the overall fun & experience for the product. However, with this in mind, we feel the price decrease has swung slightly too far compared to Wave 1. It’s important that we maintain a measure of rarity to each Wave and with these new drop rates, users are getting much more bang for their buck even if we tamper the price decreases slightly. A price decrease to the proposed $5/$30 would have been fine without drop rates increasing, but we believe strongly that the increased odds leads to a more enjoyable opening & collecting experience, therefore we recommend balancing the two by modestly increasing price to $6/$36 (pegged to ETH).

We are on board with the odds increase as mentioned above, but would like to slightly tweak after review with Perry regarding balancing. This middle ground will accomplish the desired enjoyment bump while still maintaining a degree of rarity and alignment with Wave 1/other games. The recommended odds are: [577, 280, 110, 28, 5]

As further compensation, we’d like to apply these new drop rates to accessories and backgrounds as well. The improved odds for accessories and backgrounds will help provide more enjoyable variety, especially for new players.

Lastly, we feel that there is cause for modifying the Mega Threshold slightly to compensate for the increased odds which Standards benefit more from. We recommend 1450 Mega Threshold.

TL;DR:

• Increase price from $5/$30 to $6/$36
• Tweak odds to [577, 280, 110, 28, 5]; applied to accessories & backgrounds as well.
• Modify Mega D1sk Threshold to 1450.

Additional:

Wave 1:
T1: 66.9%
T2: 26.3%
T3: 4.8%
T4: 1.6%
T5: 0.4%

Original Proposed Revision:
T1: 53.1%
T2: 28.9%
T3: 13.2%
T4: 4.3%
T5: 0.5%

MSC Recommendation:
T1: 57.7%
T2: 28.0%
T3: 11.0%
T4: 2.8%
T5: 0.5%

Baseline Odds

<@&1107754780744487002>

[onyx hawk]

Please give the current weights for comparisson. Thanks.

[hoary pollen]

the percentages in the proposal are a promille of the odds.
So, it would be 57.7%, 28%, 11% and 2.8%

[hoary pollen]

Will the odds be tweaked once more based on the Tiers and stages of Illuvitars in the wave? or is this the final tweak?
As in, are the MSC recommended odds the base odds, or the final versions of the odds

[sharp depot]

Perry will be converting proportionally to adjust for Wave 2. Presented are the base odds.

[shy monolith]

<@&1107754344499122206> MSC has been in contact through the process of recommending these changes. While it's at the edge of what I consider in line with the intent of this proposal, the adjustment to utilize the baseline odds for backgrounds and accessories is consistent with Beyond being a better experience to interact with. The adjustment to Mega Threshold is appropriate for the new odds, and the team has been consulted on these changes.

As this is now a time sensitive proposal, I see no value for the DAO in debating parameters any further, and I approve these recommendations.

[fathom shoal]

Things to consider but I guess it's too late now because everything is done behind the scenes without community involvement...

• community voted thumbs up on one prices, now they are 20% higher

• stage 3 lynxes will be extremely rare if this numbers are final, more rare then umbre or rhamphy

• you can't get Ophisto with T1S1 background in Mega D1SK

• Mega D1SK's rare Illuvitar is still going to be Holo 40% of the time

[shy monolith]

It's not an ideal situation to be in, but any further delays start to interfere with long term plans for the DAO as a whole. Additionally, the original proposal wouldn't matter if it weren't to pass the specialized sub-council level, which was looking to be the case for the proposal at $5/$30 without modified odds. Making the baseline odds apply across backgrounds and accessories is in line with the intent of making the D1SK opening experience more varied.

Note that these are baseline odds, and for every Wave, there will need to be minor adjustments made. The specific Wave 2 odds are not necessarily the baseline odds, though they will always be derived from those odds.

I understand that you dislike the threshold system, and we can explore alternatives more, but holistically this proposal needs to make it through the process, so that we can carry out the Wave 2 sale, fill the Safety Pool, and have some semblance of consistency with product launches as we move into the future.

[fierce turret]

With that odds update are Alpha's adjusting as well or staying at the 10/90 from the earlier proposal?

[fathom shoal]

I'll add another concern

• Tier 1 Stage 1 Illuvials will be even more common in Regular D1SKs

[fathom shoal]

What's the difference between baseline odds and specific Wave 2 odds?

[shy monolith]

As you mentioned with Stage 3 lynxes, there is variance in the specific contents of each Wave. My understanding is that each Wave's specific odds will change by a small degree to account for that variance.

Wave 2 odds are still being evaluated by the team, and are left up to them entirely, but they will be derived from the new baseline.

[fathom shoal]

Are those odds a secret?

What were the odds of Wave 1, were they different to ones shared with us?

[shy monolith]

No, they aren't a secret, they are still being determined.

They will be the publicly posted odds prior to the sale, just as they were for Wave 1.

This is covered in the proposal as well, for reference.

[fathom shoal]

It was my understanding that those wave to wave odds changes will have to be voted on by the council each time.

[sharp depot]

We can also tweak the threshold slightly if needed. We recommend 1450. Maybe 1400 makes more sense.

[shy monolith]

This isn't the case, and it would be encroaching into territory that, frankly, the team is much more qualified to make determinations about.

The DAO should generally not get too involved in day-to-day specifics and other areas where a level of technical expertise is required. Perry is an expert, and is completely capable of making Wave to Wave adjustments to reflect the specific Illuvials within that Wave. This proposal just moves the baseline as an overall approach to making Beyond a more accessible and enjoyable product.

[shy monolith]

Alpha multipliers haven't changed, but the base prices have.

[fathom shoal]

I'm actually against that. It's actually my bad. It's T5S1 that's under that 1450 mark.

But changing that number to 1400 or even 1450 would make things even worse. Less T5 and non of the other problems are solved.

I actually just hope we can fix lynxes somehow, holo odds in mega's are just silly and tier 1 stage 1 50% of the time in regular d1sks.....

also, 9x for Alpha Mega still baffles me

[wanton steeple]

• True, the view in the revisions is that the new odds being applied to backgrounds and accessories more than make up for the 20% higher price
• Not true, Stage weights in a tier are all relative per wave. Since there is no Tier 2 Stage 1 in this Wave, effectively the weight of T2S2 is 3 and the weight of each T2S3 is 1, the chance of getting ANY T2S3 (5 options) is therefore higher than the chance of getting ANY T2S2 (there's only one), this relative system was mostly put in place to not make Tier 2 feel weird when the S1 Lynx wasn't in
• Not true, Ophisto's Power by itself takes it far above any threshold discussed, therefore a T1S1 background is also above any threshold by a significant margin
• Not true, I ran the probability for Holo vs non-Holo and the total aggregated Holo odds for Mega D1SKs come out at significantly lower than what you present here, but it is definitely higher than 5%, most of that comes from lynxes. Around the T5S1/T4S2/T3S3 threshold do holo odds start to diverge from 1:20 but they are still 1:20 where they 'matter' (Ophisto, Umbre, Synalph, Rhamphy is really close). Lynx holo's are however indeed quite common as we discussed in your proposal and as I said there, I can totally see your point of view where that feels odd

[wanton steeple]

Compared to what? Wave 1?
When you compare the new baseline to the old Wave 1 odds this is actually true (but very close) and it will likely be adjusted for Wave 2 to be more true. But this is because there are relatively low amounts of illuvials in the tier 1 bracket for Wave 2 and it's heavily weighted to Stage 1 (monkeys though! ), this will balance itself out in future waves
That said, there will be ~50% more non-T1s on the baseline which I think is an excellent change for variety
My current proposal for Wave 2 specific odds shows ~43% more non-T1s

[wanton steeple]

Why do you think it will make things worse? It will bring in slightly more T5 per $ spent and per D1SK (equal per Standard, slightly more per Mega) and most of the other problems you mentioned are (I think) based off a model with wrong assumptions given your points above
Except the lynx holo spam, which I actually fully agree with that it feels a little off

[sharp depot]

thank you sir we appreciate your expertise

[gleaming furnace]

To be clear while it seems like the odds changed drastically because we upped the mega threshold we actually returned the value back there considerably. The mega d1sks look very similar with these adjustments and although the standard d1sks are way better than wave 1 still they became a tiny bit more predictable.

[gleaming furnace]

The baseline goal and the actual wave 1 odds were both shared in the same document. Because of the different distribution of illuvitars there always needs to be baseline odds and a slightly adjusted variation for each wave to keep things similar. Eg in wave 1 we had 2 T5 S2 in adoredo and goliant. Most waves won't have this and so they needed slightly different odds in wave 1

[fathom shoal]

So what you guys are saying (and what I already asked before) is that this shared numbers were not correct for Wave 1?
Because there was 2 T5S2's in Wave 1 the odds were not 0.000924 of getting a T5S2, they were actually bigger? And therefore, the actual numbers were never shared with the public?

[wanton steeple]

The weighting is still correct, the D1SK effective % for Stages only applies when a Tier has one of each option, but the weights are the same
This 'stage within tier' system was discussed a lot in this Discord upon the release of Wave 1 by Aaron amongst others and therefore shared with the public (ask @gleaming furnace )
Perhaps we should have published a deep dive article to reiterate the points discussed in Discord? That's fair feedback. This article was a middle ground between clarity without diving too deep in the weeds
The odds for ANY T5S2 is indeed higher in Wave 1 (0.0015), but the odds for A T5S2 OPTION are lower (0.00075), because there are two options

[fathom shoal]

I’m sorry but I’ve never seen, read or even heard of that. And trying to understand now…
That means that tiers are always consistant and only stage odds within tiers are changed based on number of options?
That would mean that if the odds of getting each stage were the same, and there is two options for stage 2, stage 1 and stage 3 would automatically have less chance of being loaded?
That would also mean that if we haven’t changed odds this time around, we would still have more T5S3 in Wave 2 just because there is less T5S2?
In reality that would mean that for Tier 5 in Wave 1 the chances weren’t
0.692 - 0.231 - 0.077
but instead
0.562 - 0.375 - 0.063
or like you said, a total chance of 0.0015 of getting any of the T5S2?
(that now makes things more clear about why my Rhamphyre math was wrong - because odds weren’t as they seemed)

[fathom shoal]

I think I understand how odds work now so I guess I can answer to your questions from yesterday now.

• numbers of Rhamphyres is actually pretty close to the expected number, in the end it was that we didn't really have the real numbers presented (apart from discussion in the discord i guess)
• new odds for accessories and background maybe really do make up for 20% higher price, but as you know I'm not a fan of that, the proposal and coucil stated that we want to give whales something to collect, and now we are making everything more accessible, like I said, i would like illuvitars to be more accessible, and background and holos harder to get, but that's a whole other story and not about this proposal
• i was wrong about stage 3 lynxes being extremely rare, on the contrary - they is like 56% chance of getting a tier 3 lynx in the mega d1sk, and like 67% chance of getting a lynx
• i was wrong about Ophisto's power and I corrected myself that I was looking at Rhamphy with T1S1 background, and said i don't think it's a problem
• correct, as i didn't know how the odds work, i was wrong, the correct math should be almost 34% chance of getting a holo in a mega d1sk, also if you get T2S2 Lynx there is a 68% chance it's holo in rare spot in Mega?
• i guess we are both correct in this one, odds of getting T1S1 are basically the same as in Wave 1, but you do have a lot more chance of not getting a T1 this time around, still, we're getting monkey in almost 50% of the Regular D1SKs
• you are right that we will have a slightly more T5, but only T5S1, we will actually have less Stage 2 and Stage 3 Tier 5s, which in my opinion is not ideal as there will be less people being able to fill the album, I would rather have more people being able to finish the collection rather than more Tier 5's

[fathom shoal]

There are already 3 members that voted on this proposal on Specialized Sub-Council level, but we haven’t heard from any of you. I would, and I’m sure the community and the stakers would love to know your opinions.

I’ve also raised some concerns about the current numbers, but it seems that none of you want to share their opinion on that topic or answer any questions about that.

It was mostly Blickter that answered most of the questions, and we mostly haven’t heard from any of you. Will we get anything apart from google docs?

[potent crater]

<@&1107754344499122206> 👆

[fathom flint]

I've cast my vote, and I appreciate Perry's expertise in interpreting the numbers since I find them a bit overwhelming. I'm grateful for your valuable feedback, which I've been carefully reading through. While I'm not well-versed in the concept of rarity numbers, I trust that the insights shared here will be instrumental in making informed decisions.

[gleaming furnace]

I will be posting my reasoning soon

I take personal time on the weekends so I apologise. And although it might seem like I haven't been responding if u saw the discussions behind closed doors you might think otherwise.

As for the odds. I did lots of mental and mathematics gymnastics to wrap my head around it and put forward all of my suggestions. With the assistance of Perry we went through many variations. The ultimate conclusion was a mixture of what we thought would improve the product. What we thought the IMC and community would accept and what we believed wouldn't have too much impact on overall revenue. Although you are asking a lot of questions im not quite sure what your actual concern is? If I have missed it I apologise.

@fathom shoal

[rich tapir]

We can’t have it “expensive” now because web3 peeps are willing to pay because later when we have more web2 gamers it will be too much for them to consider so we will likely adjust it later for them.

Make it cheap and keep it that way is my suggestion.

[fathom shoal]

I never said none of you are doing anything, I’m sure there is a lot of work going on in the background and I’m sure no one is doubting that. But also, there is other part, community one. Where we would like to know all of yours opinions. So while there is work in the background, there should only be work at the front. Perfect example is Gaming Sub-Council and their latest proposal. All of them have actually engaged with the community in a discussion and answered all of the concerns and questions community had. While this proposal and this discussion feels a whole lot different.

[fathom shoal]

That was one of the ideas but in the end we aren’t going that route because we need as much money as possible atm and the best way to get it is with higher prices. There will probably be more price adjustments in the future.

[rich tapir]

Ok that makes sense. Though I hope the people that pay extra don’t ask for more handouts or custom avatars because they paid more.

[fathom shoal]

And to finish answering to Scoriox. Concerns are pretty easy:

• 67% chance of getting a lynx in mega d1sk
• 34% chance of holo in mega d1sk
• stage 2 lynx 68% it’s holo in rare spot in mega
• monkey almost 50% of the time in regular d1sks

And while I understand this is not and easy fix and maybe/probably is the best compromise for now and for this wave and probably is the easiest solution. It’s still a concern. And while I don’t expect for it to get resolved or fixed or changed. I’m just asking what are your opinions about that. Are you concerned about those numbers, do you think we can’t do better, do you think they are totally fine, do you think they are perfect…. ?

[gleaming furnace]

Its worth noting that this is the third iteration in this channel. Eventually everything that's been said has been said

[gleaming furnace]

I don't think they are perfect. And I am not sure we can improve it. I saw your proposal in the other channel for independant Mega odds but at this stage we have all hands on deck for PvP. We are doing everything in our power to minimise changes and localise them to simple things to avoid taking people away from the other parts of Illuvium. The big one I agree with is the huge jump in Holo odds, but you are right that I am not sure it's fixable without doing an entirely different odds split. Then how do u do the non rare slot and accessories etc. There are so many things at play and collecting the backgrounds would be way more difficult too. If u make them more likely then u have the opposite issue of T4's and T5's only appearing with rare backgrounds.

As for the monkeys I like to treat them separately. They are 3 individual illuvitars and like Aaron says, if people feel like they got the same thing then we haven't done our job properly. That being said I would have liked to separate them across the different waves. I am not sure how you concluded 67% chance of a Lynx in Mega D1sk? its 28% base odds, then 1450 threshold. I guess you are discussing stage 3 lynxes but I am not sure that is the case. But I agree with Perry that maybe we should provide a deeper dive analysis for the wave. Even if Illuvium doesn't I personally will on the channel.

[fathom shoal]

I’ll try to improve my proposal when I find some time as I have ideas how to improve Mega D1SKs (maybe if it works). But as we are not in a rush atm, we have time for that.

67% for lynx is both stage 2 and all of the stage 3, and considering you get 2 illuvitars in mega d1sk….

As for the monkey, I don’t think the problem is that they look similar, more of a problem I see is that it will feel less exciting opening mostly monkeys and lynxes depending on the d1sk you buy.

But thank you for your answers.

[gleaming furnace]

No problem at all

[MSC] ICCP-12 Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters Approved

So this has been the most difficult proposal I have ever discussed in my time on the council (including last epoch). Firstly I wanted to apologise to everyone as the Marketing Sub-council should take responsibility for that initial proposal going to the community. The discussions were far from concluded and it should never have been shown without better alignment between the individuals of all the councils (especially the IMC).

Although this seems like a simple price/odds change it goes way deeper than that. The discussion was all about what Illuvium Beyond is meant to be. Half of the aisle said that it should be for Web 2 and half of the aisle said that is was for Web 3. Many also suggested that it wasn't as fun as it could be with the high T1 odds (comparing it to Gamestop) and lastly it is currently the only product generating revenue for the DAO and has the potential to start the Revdis flywheel.

I hate to tell everyone a long story but it is important I am transparent. We consulted the experts early and gathered that the data clearly told us the sale was successful by many metrics, the key one imo being that D1sk sales were consistent the entire 3 months, which feels unusually positive. For all intensive purposes this means that the D1sks were priced appropriately. We also identified that whales made up a large majority of buyers which isn't good or bad but does identify that it currently serves Web 3 much more than Web 2 in its current form. The question moving forward was if we wanted to keep it that way. We noted that any reduction in price and improvement in odds would harm the bottom line of revenue given how much easier it would be to compete on the leaderboard, complete collections and buy off the secondary. Although I still wanted Illuvium Beyond to become more fun, dropping the price too quickly was never an option.

The biggest reason for the price change is that the value given out is not worth the $50 price point for the Mega D1sks, since the data told us they were wildly more popular. Quantifying that was extremely difficult and the Strategy sub council did some work into similar products in the space, the problem being that we are truly unique in so many ways. I wanted to calculate this price proposition and when it came down to it, the cosmetics people can obtain from completing collections was the only true selling point for Web 2 gamers. For wave 1 from rough estimates I could deduct that the lower cost cosmetics would cost $30-40 on average if u didn’t consider the secondary. And $15-30 if u did consider the secondary. Comparatively this value proposition feels out of place in gaming.

With a combination of a better experience and slightly reduced price I can see this value be much better aligned with what gamers can expect while still having lots of high rarity things for whales and collectors to strive for. I still expect short term revenue loss for the DAO than we would have had if we didn’t change the price. But I am now confident that we won’t drop the price too quickly and miss out on our chance to have Illuvium Beyond priced correctly to maximise new players and collectors entering the ecosystem for years to come.

A worthy trade off.

[keen bane]

@fathom shoal

You’re correct, someone added it to GitHub incorrectly

And then that’s what I put in snapshot

[ripe berry]

Always look for the simple solution. But first figure out the problem: There are not enough illuvitars per wave.

You can’t “solve” what you want to solve without removing mega altogether or increasing the selection.

I pushed to double the wave size but we are just a bit away from wave 3 so we couldn’t.

The next wave I will attempt to make 50. That is the simple solution.

Future sets aren’t planned to have waves.

[fast thicket]

I support this message

[rich tapir]

I support this message

[autumn torrent]

what does Aaron mean by we are just a bit away from wave 3? Isn't wave 3 next year?

[fathom shoal]

Means that Wave 3 isn't ready yet so that why we can't have 50 this time around as not all Wave 3 Illuvitars are ready.

[autumn torrent]

was the intention to take some wave 3 illuvials to pad the wave 2 number to 50?

[fathom shoal]

i guess so... we don't know much more than what Aaron said above...

[hardy laurel]

@fathom shoal and @autumn torrent
I believe he might have meant wave 2 which is expected to launch Mid-August per the IIP