#IIP-XX Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and TrainingDex

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

dapper stream
#

Simple Summary

  1. Create the Training Grounds structure in Illuvium Zero. This structure offers a way to passively train Illuvials, allowing them to earn experience. Landowners can utilize Training Grounds to train their own Illuvials or rent any unused spaces out to other rangers.

  2. Introduce the concept of Illuvial staking in Illuvium Zero by allowing landowners to stake Illuvials into the Training Grounds. Staked Illuvials act as teachers, providing an experience bonus to matching Illuvials undergoing training in the same Training Grounds.

  3. Implement a player-driven marketplace for training Illuvials (TrainingDex) where landowners can advertise their Training Grounds, and rangers can easily browse through the available options.

Full Proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT_1sF0CgeeBqg66TuwWxvTeufG1ENtXfgfF_pjxZyNdmi9B4YVBzbUcuVyigIyyFxrrnSlZnIYIEji/pub

Sponsor: @dapper stream

Key Contributors: @unique ibex , @unborn swift , @foggy fiber , @wild gate

image.png
unique ibex
lofty beacon
#

Spoon for council

foggy fiber
#

Very well thought out and organized. Would be a huge win for Zero, OW, player driven experiences and Illuvium economy 🌟
Sure, would not be developed until after OB and things are stable... but def prioritize dev as soon as able.

sudden basin
#

"Maximum amount of structures: unlimited" 😂

#

@unique ibex @dapper stream What's the reasoning for the different interface fees for accessing the Dexs?

unique ibex
sudden basin
unique ibex
sudden basin
#

So it's more like a "real life" orientated decisions?

unique ibex
sudden basin
dapper stream
wanton blade
#

i love the idea!

gloomy dawn
#

I love this idea. I hope it gets some traction with the team and the community.

forest valley
#

🔥 🤝

solar pulsar
#

Great idea! Love the additional possibilities for land owners and the diversity it will create for all land development. Well done working this out!

forest prawn
#

ive uploaded this proposal yesteday
iip-55

somber mortar
#

Love it

dapper stream
gilded acorn
#

Sad, 😔 what was the rationale? I really liked the idea

wild gate
#

They want to vote on basic ideas and without info on how it should function so it can be left to the Dev team to work out.

#

They other training Gyms idea got declined also, even though it had overwhelming support from the community and sub council and members of the dev team.

#

It seems as though some of the members of the main council have a problem with the process they are apart of, not the proposals themselves.

dapper stream
dapper stream
gilded acorn
#

Oh too much specific info. Maybe we go the more general route and try again.

umbral tartan
#

Just as an update. IMC is looking to propose guidelines for game system improvement proposals so that it would provide structure on how its to be written. Feedback from Labs is that community shouldnt be pushing specific features. Allow them to ideate and do research/case study on how to implement the overall idea.

In this case, the proposal can thus be simplified as, create a building structure for IZ to allow illuvials to be trained passively either for their own illuvials or for others while utilizing a staking mechanism. (this is just a rough example). The finer details on how this feature would be implemented will be Labs prerogative and will propose the execution via a GDD/IIP

unique ibex
static fossil
# unique ibex is it me or in the proposal it is clearly said that: "All the names, guidelines...

It's mostly a conflict with how our proposal system works, and how game features work.

Our proposals are built to function like laws. Every line, every detail is important. People go back to proposals to use as references months and years later, to ensure details are enacted properly.

With game systems, they need fluidity. They will need to change over time, whether that means being updated, tuned, changed entirely or potentially even eliminated, if that's what's best for the game. Being locked into laws that dictate X, Y and Z elements must exist, or even just that the feature must exist doesn't make a lot of sense for game features.

#

It's common for game features and systems to check out on a fundamental level, but during prototying or testing for them to not function properly for any number of reasons (could be technical, or economic, or simply that a feature isn't fun in practice). Those systems then need to undergo changes, sometimes fundamental changes, to make the game enjoyable to play. There are loads of examples of this, I'm happy to list some of it's helpful in illustrating this idea.

unique ibex
#

No need for me, it's all good. We just need to define some clearer guidelines for game system proposals then.

#

or have a template regarding proposals of different categories.

static fossil
#

Yeah, it's a WIP. Just hashing out the details right now.

forest prawn
# static fossil It's mostly a conflict with how our proposal system works, and how game features...

i agree that different epoch might have its own preferences. generally, the proposals during an epoch should accommodate the preferences of the IMC members to get an approval.
however, i disagree with saying that's how our proposal system works. we have a few examples of highly detailed IIPs that got approved during previous epochs, for example IIP-44 got like 20+ pages?
and we do have a system to revise passed proposals.

as for game feature proposal, i disagree that it should be vague. my idea of governance is to govern the Team on what to build/improve.
the team do have a say on how to build them and whether it is possible or not based on their expertise and capabilities. But, it is the DAO's rights to decide.
the team might interpret the vague proposal vastly different from what the sponsor intended. i personally would vote based on how good the proposed features are, not how detailed they are. and i would discuss which features should be in or out.
Probably unrelated, but johnny's TCG idea was highly detailed.

#

another point, we do have the Committee, have we discussed the proposals with them?

static fossil
# forest prawn i agree that different epoch might have its own preferences. generally, the prop...

Not vague, flexible. Our current system is not flexible, and IMO passing proposals with the knowledge that they almost certainly will need revision kind of defeats the point. Sometimes revisions are necessary after the fact, but that shouldn't be something we plan on.

IIP-44 is a proposal about how new games are chosen, not a proposal to approve specific game features. It's governance documentation, as opposed to game design documentation. That's the key differentiating factor.

Johnny's TCG idea was highly detailed, yes, and it also wasn't voted on at any point. Just posted as an idea.

What I'd like to achieve is a system where we can pass ideas based on their merit, without being beholden to every single line of specification or ideation someone has posted. We can spend less time combing through for potentially problematic wording or lines, and more time focused on whether the core idea is good. I don't want to have to send proposals like the one for Gyms back for revision multiple times because too many details are specified, I'd like to be able to pass them with the knowledge that we're not tying the team down to those specific details.

forest prawn
#

for some reason i couldnt find the old proposals, cmiiw the illuvium zero proposal was a bit detailed

forest prawn
static fossil
#

IIP-10 included details that a community member couldn't possibly be expected to put forward accurately, as the proposal for IL:Z was fielded by the Labs team. Our governance systems also looked a fair bit different back then. We can do better for community members who want to field ideas without intimate knowledge of Labs' internal operations.

forest prawn
#

what is the best way to get a feature proposal fielded by the team?

#

has the team fielded this proposal and the training gym?
can we have the summary?

static fossil
#

Fielded = put foward, into the community. The team created the idea for IL:Z, which is why they put the proposal forward. Conversely, the community came up with the idea for gyms. It doesn't make sense to ask whether the team has come up with gyms, because the community did that.

forest prawn
#

so basically only team should put forward a game feature proposal? not the community?

forest prawn
static fossil
#

No, we should create a means for the community to put forward game ideas in a way where we can reasonably pass those ideas. For me, that means leaving flexibility for adjustment during development. Labs has professional game designers, a data team, etc. who are more qualified by far than any individual community member to determine specific parameters for implementation. The DAO contracts Labs to build games, and IMO we should let them do so.

static fossil
forest prawn
#

this proposal clearly stated the following : All the names, guidelines, structure details, terminology, and training costs are only suggestions, and it will be up to the team to decide on them."

#

does that sentence from the proposal provides enough flexibility for the team?

static fossil
#

It's obtuse that we require that to be included in game feature proposals. Why not have a category of proposal that covers that ground, so that individual community members don't have to?

forest prawn
#

so we both agree that this proposal is not too detailed and provide enough flexibility for the team?

static fossil
#

I think we might view proposals differently - I view them as laws to be followed. That's functionally what they are, and that format isn't well suited for game feature proposals.

#

We can do something more flexible instead of smashing square pegs into round holes and frustrating everyone in the process.

forest prawn
#

lol i can imagine the team is freaking out reading the proposal with the tables

#

tbh it took me awhile to read the proposal

static fossil
#

It's just pretty open for interpretation. I think we all want the same thing - For community members to be able to think up awesome game features and pitch those ideas, and for the team to build them and make them work in our games. We just need a way to get there without requiring those community members to be experts on governance or proposal writing, while leaving space for Labs to do their job making those systems functional and fun. I'm off to bed, but I'd just request that you wait to see what we come up with for a new format.

umbral tartan
forest prawn
#

but the DAO owns the project and employ the labs

umbral tartan
forest prawn
#

they can give advice on it, and we do have 5 Gaming Committee members too, id assume the committee have some knowledge in gaming. but the decision should be made by the DAO, not the team.
the same question can be asked to the team too, what if the features that they are developing and implementing ends up wrekcing the economy in a way the team failed to take into account for?

umbral tartan
# forest prawn they can give advice on it, and we do have 5 Gaming Committee members too, id as...

decision should be made by the DAO, not the team.

So this is where we overlap. I agree with this statement and how do I see this being implemented? When a general concept/feature is passed the ball then goes to Labs to ideate ways to implement it. Before it gets implemented its proposed to the DAO for approval. DAO approves and/or passes an ICCP if it doesnt align with what the community wants. This process allows the DAO to be the one still deciding on whether the implementation is a good idea or not.