#Implementing GIP’s

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

noble wedge
#

Sponsor: @noble wedge
Key Contributors: @weak plaza, @light mirage

Definitions:
GIP: Game Improvement Proposal
GSC: Game Sub-Council

Simple Summary:
GIPs are a replacement for the normal IIP/ICCP process for all in-game parameters.
Henceforth GIPs will be the only way for the DAO to modify in-game parameters, which will not be permitted as IIPs or ICCPs.

Full Proposal 👉 https://docs.google.com/document/d/11QLjCDeUsYlCegu4YBWFNd2k6p0y6ljGp7_K2IMfZyU/edit?usp=sharing

Townhall on <t:1696505405:F>
We will be answering FAQ’s that we see in the proposal chat and then go into answering any other questions that the audience might have, we look forward to seeing you there
👉https://discord.com/events/760344898200666112/1158443991721840752

We look forward to any Questions and Feedback you bring Atlas_Yeah
We ask that we keep the chat respectful, on-topic and constructive Atlas_Love

Google Docs
Implementing GIPs

Proposal for the Implementation of GIPs Sponsor: Vetemor Key Contributors: SJUD, Blickter Definitions: GIP: Game Improvement Proposal GSC: Game Sub-Council Simple Summary: GIPs are a replacement for the normal IIP/ICCP process for all in-game parameters. Henceforth GIPs will be the only way for...

sharp nymph
#

IMC veto is just a verbal veto and would not be on chain, correct?

#

I noticed the supermajority of 4/5 gsc members being needed to approve. Is this a unique requirement within the governance system at this point?

#

Supermajority does make sense for in-game changes. Clear and obvious improvements instead of things that might be better left in its current state.

lilac mica
#

Proposal looks like a step in the right direction for Illuvium DAO governance. 👍

noble wedge
noble wedge
noble wedge
sacred lichen
#

Great proposal. It demonstrates clear guidelines, process and procedure.

There was one thing I didn't understand.

#

What does this mean?

Screenshot_20231003-1925292.png
#

I don't quite understand the meaning of 'In design'.

lilac mica
sacred lichen
#

like game design?

lilac mica
#

yea. or as the proposal puts it, " ideating solutions is work best completed by the Illuvium Labs team"

sacred lichen
#

Thanks Adrian.

lost fjord
weary dome
#

I'll pass my opinion on this one... it's whatever, Councils are being elected based on popularity/viewership rather than actual skills or proven record of doing anything.

The least responsibilities they get, the better imo.

lost fjord
#

GSC can create GIPs from their own feedback or from community feedback that has not reached the required upvotes at their own discretion. All feedback that has reached the required upvotes, GSC are required to discuss this feedback with the Labs team.

Id like to clarify if the GIP process doesnt require GSC to post a feedback in discord. They can raise their feedback to the team in their meeting directly without need of a thread and/or waiting for 50 upvotes.

Current numbered process seem to indicate that only when there is a community feedback would the whole process of GIP start. The above quoted provision only provides that GSC does not need to wait for 50 upvotes for them to bring it to the team and get a GIP solution drafted.

Also, id hope that the in-game feedback and other platforms would also course through GSC and not just what was posted in discord.

All in-game parameters that have been identified by the community or GSC, which Illuvium Labs has not acted upon, or has no intent to act upon.

In-Game Balancing (Eg. Underperforming Characters, Feature Additions, Skin Requests.)
Quality of life improvements usually stemming from community demand or ideation.
Feature changes usually stemming from community demand or ideation.
Content or Expansion topics usually stemming from community demand or ideation.

I am not in favor that the exception to the usual proposal process includes "all in-game parameters". This is too broad while from the list, only in-game balancing would merit such deviation from the usual proposal process. The reason being that in-game balances affect the overall game and including the financial implications. It would not do well for the community to know beforehand that a nerf or buff is going to happen to an illuvial, armament, or augment. Community will front run and in the worst cases wreck the economy with the advance information.

While Quality of life, Feature changes, and Content/Expansion topics typically does not affect gameplay, game mechanics, or the financial aspect of the game. As such, these subjects should go through the public proposal proposal to be transparent while still maintaining the same ethos identified in the proposal: "delegating responsibility for solutions to the Illuvium Labs team".

Side-note: Im not sure why there is a 50 upvote threshold when its completely arbitrary as the GSC can act on it without waiting for the 50 upvotes or even without a feedback thread posted.

Wouldnt it be best served for the DAO that the GSC reports on them after a set period of time? Or better yet do a monthly report on the in-game issues they and the community has identified. These can be done simply by having a table showing the following: Feedback/In-game balance Topic --> Status

Conclusion:

I applaud this proposal as it places a process where in-game proposals are being streamlined and acted upon swiftly. However, due to the broad scope and agency given to GSC I am inclined to vote no.

light mirage
# lost fjord > GSC can create GIPs from their own feedback or from community feedback that ha...

All sub-councils are free to raise issues with the Labs team independent of proposal processes, and frequently do so. You're correct that GSC can (and does) bring feedback to Labs in their meetings directly, and that does not require any process in place, as it's simply part of the role of a council member.

The idea behind a threshold of 50 upvotes is that this parameter is:

  1. Independent of normal proposal processes. By extension, it can be adjusted as we have more players for our games, without needing to modify the threshold for IIP/ICCP upvotes. Currently, it's 50, but certainly as we have more and more players, it will need adjustment to 500, 5000 or 50000. It can be sized such that the most critical feedback is reaching Labs.
  2. The threshold is public facing, and mandates that topics be raised in a meeting and, at minimum, addressed in the thread, once they've reached the threshold.

Currently, it's absolutely possible to consider every single piece of feedback for Illuvium's games, regardless of upvotes, but there will be a point at which this is wildly impractical. Systems to aggregate feedback will be required, and the upvote requirement does just that. In-game feedback is explicitly mentioned in the proposal as well, under "Additional Clarifications".

#

The IMC veto exists as a protection against GIPs being applied too broadly. If, for example, a GIP were to try and mandate the development of a new title, the IMC could veto the GIP and direct the topic through normal proposal processes, as new games are NOT in-game parameters.

I will contend that there are absolutely features, QoL changes and content that may need to be changed or added that would not fall explicitly under balancing, and for which GSC is best equipped to work with Labs on, independent of CSC/IMC interaction and input. This is why in-game parameters is chosen to describe the scope. Not all in-game parameters will be appropriate for GIP processes.

I need to note that having a framework for the DAO to act quickly is NOT a goal here. Proposal processes are not fast, and any topic can become contentious. Time sensitive balance topics need to be deferred to Labs, with the DAO tackling mid to high level changes. I'll provide a few examples of how I see this working.

  1. Geyyser is drastically overperforming following a balance patch, which is detrimental to competitive play and deck diversity.

  2. Games are taking too long to conclude, as evidenced by data indicating players are quitting games or going AFK during the late stages of a match, and through community feedback related to match length.

  3. is absolutely, hands down best addressed by Labs, with the DAO taking a reactive approach to the changes after the fact. This ensures the change can be made quickly, with no opportunity to have the play experience compromised by the problem for long periods of time while waiting for council to decide on a specific solution.

  4. is a topic that would be appropriate for GSC to tackle with Labs via GIP. While it's likely that Labs would already be aware of the problem and working on a solution, this GIP process does mandate that GSC raise the issue in a meeting, and that Labs or GSC respond to the community about the problem.

lost fjord
#

All sub-councils are free to raise issues with the Labs team independent of proposal processes, and frequently do so. You're correct that GSC can (and does) bring feedback to Labs in their meetings directly, and that does not require any process in place, as it's simply part of the role of a council member.

The idea behind a threshold of 50 upvotes is that this parameter is:

  1. Independent of normal proposal processes. By extension, it can be adjusted as we have more players for our games, without needing to modify the threshold for IIP/ICCP upvotes. Currently, it's 50, but certainly as we have more and more players, it will need adjustment to 500, 5000 or 50000. It can be sized such that the most critical feedback is reaching Labs.
  2. The threshold is public facing, and mandates that topics be raised in a meeting and, at minimum, addressed in the thread, once they've reached the threshold.

This seems to pose more issues than answers.

While council can provide feedback to the team currently, this process does so in a proposal/formal action that skips over a crucial aspect: IMC voting. This begs the question, why is it necessary for such a big scope to be delegated to the GSC when what the current proposal is merely doing is to trigger GSC to "respond" after a threshold is met.

To put it simply, what is this proposal trying to solve?

Currently, it's absolutely possible to consider every single piece of feedback for Illuvium's games, regardless of upvotes, but there will be a point at which this is wildly impractical. Systems to aggregate feedback will be required, and the upvote requirement does just that. In-game feedback is explicitly mentioned in the proposal as well, under "Additional Clarifications".

I agree that in the long run it would be too unwieldly for any council to track every single feedback but at the same time I dont see a reason to mandate a council to respond after an arbitrary number. Like I recommended, just have a monthly report on what GSC is tacking on with a status. If your feedback is not in there then it shows that GSC deemed it a low priority as an example. If community feels that GSC is not prioritizing the correct items/issue then they can vote for someone else next epoch.

Currently, if the motivation is to enforce GSC to respond to every single gaming thread that hits 50 and I find this unnecessary. Especially since GSC can even act on a thread without hitting the 50.

The IMC veto exists as a protection against GIPs being applied too broadly. If, for example, a GIP were to try and mandate the development of a new title, the IMC could veto the GIP and direct the topic through normal proposal processes, as new games are NOT in-game parameters.

I agree with this and was the one who suggested it. But just because we have a veto process in place doesnt mean we give broad strokes to the GSC to operate outside the regular process for every single in-game feedback/proposal.

I could not glean from the proposal the intetion or rationale why QoL, Feature Changes, or Content/Expansion topics should be an exception to the regular proposal process. If you can shed light on this, id appreciate it.

  1. is a topic that would be appropriate for GSC to tackle with Labs via GIP. While it's likely that Labs would already be aware of the problem and working on a solution, this GIP process does mandate that GSC raise the issue in a meeting, and that Labs or GSC respond to the community about the problem.

On your example, I fail to see why this scenario would need to skip the regular process. If you just wanted GSC to act on a feedback that garnered X upvotes. Thats fine. I can get behind that but why make the response an exception to the proposal process? I dont understand the rationale of that.

opaque owl
#

Increasing complexity should not be taken lightly, should be purely evidence-based, overall simplify the process, make it easier to track, and participate and increase a core value (gov v2 increased decentralization).

light mirage
# lost fjord > All sub-councils are free to raise issues with the Labs team independent of pr...

This proposal solves the issue of community and council taking on granular game design elements when those elements are best ideated and proposed by Illuvium Labs, while still providing a meaningful way for the community to provide feedback and identify problems with gameplay systems. Additionally, it ensures a scalable system exists to incorporate feedback in an efficient way.

As an alternative, let's say we do nothing. Instead of focusing on holistic design, the team and council could end up in a situation where we're dealing with proposals to make minor, granular changes (+1 damage at Atlas, +85 HP to Titanor, 10% CDR to Geyyser) that may not fit into the overall design philosophy. If you don't believe that there will be too many proposals and too much feedback to parse through normal proposal processes, I'd suggest going and visiting any major game's feedback forums. The volume is not practical to tackle through normal processes.

A core premise of game design is that players are good at identifying problems. They are often better than game designers at this, simply because players vastly outnumber designers and internal testers.

Another core premise is that players are NOT good at identifying solutions to those problems. Game designers are better equipped to take an identified problem, and find a solution to that problem.

This proposal creates a framework where each group can play to their strengths.

opaque owl
#

That said - I think there are valid concerns this proposal is trying to solve.

Namely - are community concerns getting delivered to the team effectivly.

light mirage
opaque owl
#

This is a process/organization issue. Where we should be looking at workflows and technology (gated by nfts or tokens) where the community can do this work effectively first.

I'm not saying something doesn't get formalized down the line, but go build it first.

#

We are not ready to solidify this with governance is what I'm saying - we havn't even tested this out in any capacity.

It would not be hard to start this and work on it in an informal way first.

I'd be happy to participate and help with that.

opaque owl
#

like there is all kinds of thinking and tooling for this stuff.

Let's test it out!

light mirage
# opaque owl ------------ This is a process/organization issue. Where we should be looking a...

Can you elaborate on what workflows and technology you're referring to? The community generally doesn't have a role "performing work" with regards to game design topics, unless you're referring to playing the game and identifying problems in the process of playing.

I'd argue this has been tested. The Wave 2 Illuvitars proposal is a situation where the DAO would have been better served by tasking Labs with finding a specific solution to some identified problems, and then ensuring the solution proposed adequately fit the criteria. The Battleboard proposal is another example of this - A format to identify the problem and allow Labs to find solutions that are within their capacity and able to be slotted into their development pipeline would have been preferable to a specific, granular solution.

#

It's important to keep in mind that Labs performs the work, while the DAO provides direction. The DAO's role is not to be performing work in developing Illuvium's products, it's to be providing high level direction as to what work is being performed.

An analogy I use pretty frequently is a construction contractor. In general, you don't need to be telling your roofer what nails to use, or how to overlap shingles. You do need to choose a colour, and decide if you're roofing your house AND your garage, or just your garage.

opaque owl
#

I'm saying it's not working currently and the real problems are not solved by this proposal.

Discussions in discord are linear only. Required IMMENSE reading for 90% arguments for 10% content. Also as a community we are operating by reaction only, bc there is no organization and it's awful to do 'work' in discord.

I believe there is a much better way for the community to collect ideas, work on then collaboratively, and present them to the team effectively.

This proposal only adds processes without consideration for how it would actually work practically (workflow) and if they are any better places (token gated platforms) for this work to happen outside of discord (or parts of it).

#

At this moment - what is stopping us from designing a better way of doing this? Do we need this proposal to do that?

No one is stopping a group of people from being like 'hey, we don't really like how the feedback/direction process is working - we are going to build a workflow on some tech to test this out and anyone in the community can participate.'

#

once we have something that the team and community really like - I'd be thrilled to formalize a process of some kind

light mirage
# opaque owl ----------- I'm saying it's not working currently and the real problems are not...

Options outside Discord have been considered, but since they would require pulling Labs off of game development to implement, they were deemed not a priority for the near future. That's why this process is focused on Discord, because currently, and for the near future, this is where governance discussion happens. Agreed that there are theoretically better platforms for governance topics as a whole.

This proposal is focused on in-game parameters specifically. What would you propose for a better alternative to gather and implement in-game feedback, while allowing Labs to have sufficient autonomy to create a holistic plan for Illuvium's games?

opaque owl
#

We don't need much

light mirage
opaque owl
#

it's not a governance solution - it's a community collaboration solution.

light mirage
#

It is, certainly. If we wanted to hire developers, we'd need a budget in place, which would detract from overall runway for the project. It pretty quickly gets to a point where I'm questioning whether the DAO would derive value from tackling it in the short term, or whether what we have is sufficient.

#

Building collaborative work tools for DAOs isn't a core premise of what Illuvium is creating. It's an interesting problem, certainly, but what is our priority?

opaque owl
#

there are out of the box solutions

light mirage
#

That's not even to mention - Is a system where the community genuinely performs game design work desirable? Conventional game design wisdom would say no.

#

A system to integrate feedback and mandate responses and transparency around identified problems is (IMO) exactly what we need.

opaque owl
#

I'm not trying to increase the scope for what the community can do - I agree the community is limited in what it can do

light mirage
#

So moving from that premise - What benefit would the DAO derive from having a platform where the community can perform collaborative work some percentage more efficiently?

#

If we're talking about identifying problems, upvotes/downvotes seems like a fairly reasonable metric. An optimal solution might look more like reddit than Discord forums, with the most upvoted topics rising to the top for visibility.

opaque owl
#

Poll the community and ask ppl if they feel like the way things are working in discord is effective and that adding more governance steps to contributing feedback will help.

#

maybe a separate platform isn't necessary, but a real practical solution is needed.

light mirage
#

It's the same steps as exist now, except there's actually processes in place on the DAO side to handle feedback.

Community member has a problem with some element of gameplay, goes to #1020759212172775464 , looks for a post or creates their own.

Currently, something might happen. There might be a response to their problem. Nothing is mandated.

With GIPs in place, after 50 upvotes, the feedback is a mandatory topic in a GSC meeting, and responding to the post is mandatory.
If no solution to the problem exists, Labs is tasked with finding a solution, which is then passed as a GIP.

#

This seems vastly more practical than what is currently in place.

opaque owl
#

So with 50 upvotes - we can get the team to work on something by force

idk that seems gameable if you ask me

light mirage
#

It's not - This is right in the Governance Process section.

image.png
#

You're guaranteed to get a response about the problem with 50 upvotes.

opaque owl
#

Okay, that's different than what you said, so excuse my confusion, we can move on.

I guess fundamentally, I'm saying that the community needs to get organized in its own process first. I don't think we should build a governance process that enshrines the current process more formally.

Do you feel people in the community feel that things are working well right now and that formalizing the process would make things better?

light mirage
#

I know for a fact that the community is not happy overall. IL:Z players are frustrated that Beyond has rewards associated when land for IL:Z came out first. People waiting for PvP are not happy about the timeline for PvP launch to be pushed back.

I think that can pretty easily get conflated with Governance processes not working effectively.

I do think that as a council and as the community, that should not stop us from ideating and implementing processes that will make feedback and governance processes better in the future. We should always be focused on what value we can provide.

#

I do respect your opinion if you feel this isn't going to be an improvement, or that a different way to define roles in gathering and implementing feedback would be better. It's possible this isn't the right approach.

What I do feel strongly about is that doing nothing is inviting a nightmare scenario for game design, potentially as soon as PvP does launch, and absolutely after Open Beta is live. Our current processes aren't equipped to handle the volume of gameplay feedback we should be expecting.

opaque owl
#

I mean so we agree.

#

I think we need a better workflow that will lead to higher quality ideas from the community.

#

Not a formal process for the current system everyone hates

#

like we just had a decent conversation about this idea, but we could summarize all the points in two sentences probably.

But right now everyone has to read all that, no offence to us, bullshit, just to pick out the couple places we said something relatively valuable.

#

it's miserable and why on earth would anyone who is good at any of this stuff, suffer through that consistently.

it's not worth the effort.

if that's the case, then I want less ability for the community to distract the team. So less governance that is going to distract the team in any capacity.

bc if we are honest the value the community can drive is still very low.

#

the community needs better ways to

  1. define priorities
  2. Work on solutions with like minded people pre constructive feedback
  3. get feedback from those that disagree
  4. iterate
  5. Put the pros and cons together in one presentation
  6. Present to the team
  7. (probably other things)

We need an effective way to do that type of thing.

Said another way, we should earn the respect of the team, not demand they listen to our complaints via governance.

light mirage
#

Talking about governance processes isn't for everyone. You're interested and concerned, so I did my best to answer your questions about this proposal as best I could. It's worth the time spent if it creates a more straightforward user experience.

A normal player won't see this discussion. They'll see:
50 upvotes on a piece of feedback and we get a response about it, or even a balance change if the team isn't working on it already.

I think that's a pretty good premise, and one that can be effective.

I do think the community has a lot of value to add, we just need to identify what that value is and ensure we're not overstepping our means as a DAO. I really do think this proposal does that.

opaque owl
#

I see I have wasted my time

light mirage
#

I think I understand you pretty well. You hate governance, because you think our current governance system is ineffective at providing ways for the community to ideate specific solutions, even though you acknowledge the community isn't going to be inherently good at creating solutions. You'd like a new governance system that's more direct and allows more interaction from the community.

You think we shouldn't distract the team with 100's of proposals, but we should also have the community ideating solutions to problems and creating presentations for the team.

Many of your ideas are at odds with each other.

I apologize if you feel you've wasted your time. I'll still be here if you want to talk about this proposal.

opaque owl
#

I don't think the community is currently able to effectively contribute because the current workflow is not working.

I do think the community can provide value and that a good system that allows people to contribute effectively is the primary roadblock to not adding governance, that benefits people who are most willing to play politics.

#

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

You and vet recognized an issue. Instead of doing discovery with the communty, you went behind closed doors and developed a proposal that fixes your issue, getting a response from the team.

Not the community issue - which is contributing to ideas and being heard.

#

To be heard we need the community contributing to the creation of high quality ideas.

light mirage
#

This is discovery with the community.

What would you change?

opaque owl
#

Fix the issue the community is having - not the issue you are having

opaque owl
light mirage
#

I'm not married to anything, I just think this is the best solution available after discussing with council members. Present an alternative that solves the problem, doesn't involve development time, and is actionable within our current framework. If our current framework isn't to your liking, present an alternative.

#

One of the roles of council IS to find solutions to problems and present them to the community. In general, it's easier to talk about a specific solution than about a set of criteria, but I'm happy to strip this back to the base level to talk about where we could go.

Our DAO framework is mostly necessary for us to continue being a DAO. There's room to change it, but it's been developed this way for a reason.

As a DAO, we have proposal processes to implement changes. There are currently very few limiters on these processes.

Gameplay elements are an area that the Labs team, with dedicated employees with verifiable experience in game design, has more expertise than the DAO to ideate and present.

We still need a way for community feedback to be incorporated and meaningful.

noble wedge
opaque owl
#

all while discouraging smart ppl from participating.

noble wedge
# opaque owl Fix the issue the community is having - not the issue you are having

This proposal (or something like it) was known that it would be needed this epoch to both clarify the role of GSC and the way that community engages with in-game feedback and contributing towards shaping the game

Moreover the main focus for most Sub-Councils this epoch is dealing with any pre-launch issues that need resolving (such as Fuel, Rails and such) and further improving Governance so that its prepared for once we launch

“Fix the issue the community is having - not the issue you are having”
This really echoes whats become somewhat common community sentiment and it’s tough for Council Members to see since the “issue the community is having” is issues that Council Members ALSO HAVE and they’re things that Council Members CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT, even if we want to and we certainly do

The issue being that the project is delayed again and has been delayed so many times and were in a bear and prices are down right now, that about sums it up…

This however isn’t our fault and isn’t something we can solve either, I also don’t think its fair to blame any Team Members about it either, they’re doing their job and a good job at that…
the Team’s Leadership alone are responsible imo, they present public timelines and oversee development etc.

Council Members cannot solve this and are equally affected by it, so what are we doing? The best with what we have and making the most of it to do work in preparation for Launch to put us in the best possible position for when it comes!

light mirage
#

I fully encourage anyone smart or otherwise to participate. Proposals are posted for public review for a reason.

It's a practical concern involving absolutely everyone in ideation of a proposal, similar to how it's a practical concern to involve everyone in ideation for game design. Smaller groups can just get things accomplished in a realistic time frame, and the majority can audit their work and poke holes, or come up with alternatives.

#

I would hope fellow council member can attest to that - Even within council, trying to utilise and incorporate every piece of feedback or opinion results in stagnation for proposals. Sub-Councils exist for that reason, and sometimes smaller working groups align on a single proposal or topic to get something completed.

noble wedge
#

We have governance and feedback channels where someone can take issue with any aspect of governance or council members or whatever

This chat specifically is for the discussion of this specific proposal, lets please keep it on topic to specifically this proposal, thank you Atlas_Love

And if anyone wants to discuss the methods of council members or give feedback on governance structures in general then please start a post in #1020759212172775464 or if you have a more developed idea in #1126838877429182506

opaque owl
#

I have to go. Again, there is a ton that could be done to fix the problems we are facing. I think we learned one today.

It's strange that council members hear concern and then rush to develop a solution in isolation and then try to get it approved based on zero feedback in the earlier stages of the process.

There should be discovery by the council to hear the concerns of the community around possible solutions.

What are the pros and cons of solution a

what are the pros and cons of solution b

What are the pros and cons of soltion c

noble wedge
# opaque owl I have to go. Again, there is a ton that could be done to fix the problems we ar...

Council Members have tried both

Working on a solution behind closed doors to work out the kinks a bit before submitting it to community feedback has proven a far more effective and less chaotic strategy (as often small issues with a proposal can be spotted internally before contact with the community and thereby streamlining the process)

But once again, this is not relevant to this proposal, if you have some concrete feedback please share it in #1020759212172775464 or if its in a more actionable for perhaps in #1126838877429182506

opaque owl
#

then council members' votes should not count for approval bc you all just agree on something behind closed doors and generate half the votes needed to pass it.

like make it make sense.

#

Again it's not working bc the current process doesn't work, not bc the team isn't giving feedback when you want them to

opaque owl
noble wedge
opaque owl
#

So that’s a no. Got it.

#

A question about other solutions to solve the problem your trying to solve with this proposal is not off topic.

lost fjord
# light mirage This proposal solves the issue of community and council taking on granular game ...

If the primary intention is to prevent the DAO from pushing granular game design changes then this proposal is not the proper way to do it. We would just pass a proposal that provides a guideline on the form and content of proposals.

I agree that the GSC would be both a conduit of DAO's feedback as well as its own expertise. While the 50 votes is not a big issue and I am okay to leave it as is, it doesnt make sense why theres an expanded scope under GSC that skips a major part of the usual proposal process.

At the core of my issue with this proposal is merely that the scope delegated to GSC is too broad.

light mirage
#

We have a specialized group for this purpose, we should be using it.

#

I'll say again though - I'm happy to look at alternate solutions. I understand that you feel the scope being allocated to GSC is potentially dangerous. I think it's not remotely dangerous, considering the IMC can still veto. Under this structure, we can have an expedient feedback loop, where the majority of in-game changes are being evaluated by the Game Sub-Council, but retain the ability to decide if certain topics exceed the intended scope for GIPs.

It's fairly difficult to accurately scope everything that should be a GIP, but that is an alternate approach we could take. Only A, B, C, D... through Z are valid to be handled by GIP processes.

lost fjord
light mirage
#

I still think you're underestimating the volume of feedback that will exist, likely by an order of magnitude. Separating gameplay related proposals from general purpose governance proposals IS desirable.

#

Thresholds should be different for moving those elements to a proposal, and the way those topics are handled should be different as well.

lost fjord
# light mirage I'll say again though - I'm happy to look at alternate solutions. I understand t...

It seems the crux of the proposal is just about GSC giving feedback and while I agree that theres a mechanism that enforces that I dont agree that it needs to be an exception to the usual proposal process.

I do however, understand that topics that affects in-game balancing/mechanisms as well as financial aspects of the game requires confidentiality and less council members knowing of the changes is best. I dont see this exception to apply to the others such as QoL, content, etc.

light mirage
#

QoL changes are a great candidate. This proposal does acknowledge that QoL changes, or content, as broad categories, could fall outside of the intended scope for GIPs. There's a veto that exists for that very purpose. If the content in question is, for example, a completely new game mode, or an expansion to one of our titles, it should not move through the GIP process.

If the content in question is a minor adjustment to a single game mode, it should absolutely be handled by GSC.

#

All of this with the caveat that most game design will be done by the team. The council exists to identify problems that have fallen through the team's net for gathering feedback.

#

It's strictly undesirable to have the council weighing in on every change the team wants to make to the game. Our focus, and the focus of the community, should be on things that are not working for players.

#

Within that framework, I fail to see how having more fingers in the game design pot is in any way a good thing.

#

We'll just have finger flavoured soup.

lost fjord
# light mirage I still think you're underestimating the volume of feedback that will exist, lik...

While I agree in the future there will be a staggering amount of varying feedback, I trust that the GSC is able to properly filter this and prioritize while aligning with the team.

In the same vein, im sure that the team would be proactive in working on changes that affects the broad spectrum of this proposal. So I dont see why these topics would be a proper subject of a GIP or even a regular proposal. We've seen @serene elm provide updates across all the game modes on the modals and bugs that the team is working on.
Id just have GSC coordinate with Nick and provide a monthly update on things that was worked on that month and that status of other "feedback".

light mirage
# lost fjord While I agree in the future there will be a staggering amount of varying feedbac...

It's not just about GSC filtering and prioritizing the feedback - That can happen already. This is about making a public facing process for feedback. The community needs an outlet, other than just creating proposals for granular changes, by which they can provide feedback and receive responses to identified problems.

There's value in knowing that if a feedback item gets to X upvotes, it gets formally reviewed by GSC, and that, at minimum, a response is required.

lost fjord
light mirage
lost fjord
lost fjord
light mirage
#

One just has more voting on Snapshot, and more waiting to give the team the go-ahead to start work on whatever solution is proposed.

lost fjord
#

Tbh, its just the expanded scope. I see value in the exception for in-game balancing since it affects the game and has financial aspects. Less heads knowing is good for the DAO.

I appreciate you engaging and providing your side of this discussion, Blick. I think I have suffeciently expressed the only issue I have with it which is scope and Im willing to leave it at that and allow the DAO to make its decision through our representatives.

noble wedge
sacred lichen
#

I'm thinking about it know. As I a lot of the responses have led me to question the expand scope.
For instance. Is there anyway the GSC could go over the IMC and have the proposal voted on?

#

Like can the GSC have something voted on and implemented if the core team really doesn't want it?

Can you explain in the AMA how the majority vote in GSC can't be abused?

#

I'm unsure now. Yet happy to wait for the AMA. I think there are nuisances here I don't quite understand.

noble wedge
# sacred lichen Like can the GSC have something voted on and implemented if the core team really...

GSC can only make a GIP using a solution that the team provide,

GSC bring unaddressed problems either from the community or from themselves to the Team and the Team give them possible solutions that they can action (or give them a reason why its not doable)

GSC cant go over IMCs head either, IMC has veto rights on every GIP

GSC also needs 4/5 votes to make a GIP happen (rather than the usual 3/5 minimum for an IIP or ICCP)

A lot of blocks in place to prevent any abuse of power occurring…

noble wedge
#

Also if anyone else would like any detail covered more specifically in the townhall just let me know and I’ll add it to the list

The plan is to go into the reasoning for this proposal first, expand into the different details and explain any specific points of contention and then open it up to further questions from the audience Atlas_Yeah

sinful dust
#

My starting point for any proposal is to clearly define "What problem are we solving?"
To be very direct with the community, the problem is that players do not have a clear way to request game changes and get feedback on those requests. We are solving a problem that doesn't exist in a major way right now by defining a process taht will work after open beta launch. A few core premises for why a process to address this problem is essential:

*Today, there is very minimal feedback on game design, balance, QOL, etc. issues because our player base knows the team is still constantly changing things. That will change by easily 2 orders of magnitude and maybe 3 at game launch. Even in small Web2 games, there are hundreds of posts weekly requesting fixes, reporting bugs, asking for rebalancing, complaining about nerfs/buffs, etc.
*We add the fact that there is real-world monetization behind our assets, and the emotions will be even higher for gamers. The incentive to request a buff to a specific character that you just got a holo for is massive.
*For maybe the first time in gaming history, this is a gaming ecosystem that can theoretically REQUIRE the development team to build a change to the game that the community wants via a decentralized process. This is an incredibly powerful message. It's also incredibly dangerous if the process isn't clear and it is abused.

I'm comfortable with this as a first process knowing that it will require tweaks when the game comes out. What is NOT acceptable is for us to not have a defined process going into open beta. We would have a completely avoidable communication nightmare and the team, councils, and player base would wonder what the hell we were doing with this delay. I've shared this with some of the councils but in my opinion this was the literal most important aspect of Gov V2. Having a Gaming sub-council that can effectively action player sentiment and not __just __ILV holder sentiment.

#

A couple of quick examples:

  1. A Threat Example: Only 2% of the player base gets a Rhamphyre. It turns out to be very strong but it pretty in-line with it's rarity (in this example it's not OP but is the strongest in Wave 1). The vast majority of players in the arena don't like getting rekt when they go up against one as it turns out to be a top meta deck. Angry gamers who don't want to grind for or pay for Rhamphyre decide to post an IIP to nerf it. It quickly crosses the vote threshold requiring CSC to vote on it. It’s wildly popular with the community but a terrible long-term decision for the DAO. If the Illuvial isn’t broken, then a nerf is popular with many but signals a willingness to weaken an ultra-rare asset just because most don’t have it. CSC is forced, without the requisite knowledge, to decide if they should support community sentiment, if the unit is actually overpowered, and if a change is a good thing at all.
  2. An Opportunity Example: Illuvium Labs implements a new solution for storage that results in a negative experience for gamers. It’s very difficult to keep track of your deck in-game. It’s part of a new UX design that is being rolled out. The player base hates it. They flock to discord to complain and ask for a fix. An overhaul is possible, but it will take 120 person-hours. Labs doesn’t want to spend the time as it comes at the cost of an additional feature that they prefer to implement. However, the issue is a major pain point for the community. Today, there is no process short of a full-blown IIP to push for this change to be implemented.
sharp nymph
#

I’m not unhappy with this proposal. The beauty of our governance system is that it allows iteration. We need something. There aren’t other improvements on the table. Not yet.

noble wedge
sacred lichen
#

It looks like I've been locked out of voting. I can thumbs up or down. Lol

lucid beacon
noble wedge
opaque owl
opaque owl
lucid beacon
# opaque owl doesn't work on either for me

looking into it, thanks for confirming. Makes it easier knowing there are multiple cases of it not working. Are you able to add any additional emojis above or just not react to the current ones?

sacred lichen
sacred lichen
frigid ferry
lucid beacon
frigid ferry
#

18 thumbs up + 7 thumbs down
25 emotes and no more

lucid beacon
#

26 now

#

not sure if it's because I started the reporting or not lol but I have no issues on my end

#

Let rich know and between him and Jeremy I am sure they can figure it out

warped bridge
warped bridge
#

And 1 fraggy

frigid ferry
#

Yeah I'm wrong about the 25

opaque owl
frigid ferry
opaque owl
#

still not workin

frigid ferry
#

Only difference between us is the staker role

warped bridge
#

Have you tried on desktop/mobile? The opposite basically

opaque owl
#

Ya neither work

opaque owl
frigid ferry
#

Holder role should be enough

opaque owl
# sinful dust My starting point for any proposal is to clearly define "What problem are we sol...

Fundamentally, I disagree with your assessment of the problem. The issue is not that we don't have a clear way of requesting game changes and getting feedback.

It's the low-quality nature of the feedback that is the issue. Does anyone have evidence of very high-quality feedback that has surfaced to the team (feedback-ideas or governance-ideas) and been dismissed?

This proposal will only increase the volume of low-quality feedback that the team needs to respond to from the community.

What must come first is a community-operated process (council-led) to develop priorities where we are educated enough to provide high-quality feedback and a workflow to support.

Once we can actually do high quality work as a community then, yes, let's formalize a process to deliver that feedback to the team.

#

We are already WAY more transparent and open to feedback than ANY other triple game. So I'm not sure we are 'behind' in our transparency and openness to feedback and should only accept a real solution.

Not rush something through that could cause people to game the system to try to force changes that benefit them.

A guild of 50 people could brute force this on a daily basis.

warped bridge
sinful dust
# opaque owl Fundamentally, I disagree with your assessment of the problem. The issue is not ...

I think we agree on more points than not in this case. I (and I think all council members I’ve heard from on this) believe that the level of detail of feedback from our gamers will be pretty minimal. Most won’t create a well formatted presentation on the imbalance of Phyri. We’re looking to give them an avenue where that’s ok. Taking the stance that the gamers need to educate themselves on the process better is a losing proposition. Our goal should be to create a simple process where they can give their feedback and, where there is sufficiently strong sentiment, then it will always be run through the council and team to evaluate that feedback and respond appropriately. Sometimes that means that a change will be made to change something in game and sometimes not.

Just to be clear, the alternate structure (and what exists today) is that every game change requested in governance that gets 25 upvotes has to go through the entire IIP/ICCP process and be either passed, amended (by the CSC, not GSC), or rejected. From your comments and concerns about low-quality voting, I think the current process is way worse than this particular proposal regarding those risks.

opaque owl
# sinful dust I think we agree on more points than not in this case. I (and I think all counc...

I'd compromise and say that this is fine if we remove In-game balancing from the scope of GIP's.

-Quality of Life
-Features
-Content

Only those.

I'm sorry but this is a more complicated process where we are adding to an already complex gov v2 process - which will discourage authentic gamers from contributing (as you acknowledge albeit in the opposite direction).

Again - because it goes around the other councils it's an 'easier' process for more motivated groups/teams. With 50 votes you can get the team to come up with a solution based on feedback that will be ideated on and voted on.

Today - it takes broad support from the community to get something through all the councils.

#

In-game balances definitely should require the broadest support possible from the community and should be hard to pass.

opaque owl
#

That said this doesn't solve the community alignment issue and believe that people will want to provide very detailed and valuable feedback.

On example being the IZ interface, I'm sure the team is working on it, so it's not really an active issue. But there was clear support for reducing the clicking/UI in general.

The council should support some process to turn all that thinking and effort into something valuable to present to the team.

I'd say there is a lot more value in doing that well vs more governance that will get the team to look at something that has enough votes.

https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1116402720258142238

We can't expect the team to be forced to read through this and figure it out - in which case the GIP would be effectively 'hey the IZ UI isn't good, can you fix it?'

I'm sure they will be like 'Oh wow, tell us something we don't know'

idk I swear I'm making sense.

normal hemlock
#

I've voted thumbs down because I feel it's unnecessary to implement such a thing at this time during this stage of development, creating unwanted pressure for the team. Let them create all the Illuvials and revisit it when it's closer to the assets being on-chain. I would expect there to be minor changes after this happens.

I'm not going to say it's a bad idea moving forward on how things like this should be dealt with, but there should also be some boundaries on the proposal regarding what type of in-game balances the GSC is allowed to push forward with a GIP.

Maybe it would be a good idea for GSC to have access to in-game feedback reported by the community (keeping it anonymous) so they would be able to assist in identifying the most common "issue" and if it hasn't been resolved, use the data-driven feedback to have it resolved through a GIP. To be honest, I've made reports and seen changes implemented/resolved, so personally, I have no issue with the current system in place at this time.