#ICCP-XX Airdrop Points Revision

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

scarlet crypt
#

Simple Summary:

This proposal suggests a retroactive modification to the airdrop point value of the Wave 40, Wave 30, and Wave 20 Survival Tasks.

Overview:

This proposal stipulates that the points assigned to the Wave 40, Wave 30, and Wave 20 completion tasks will be adjusted to values that align more closely with similar free-to-play milestones. The exact values are to be determined by Illuvium Labs.

Rationale:

The Wave 40 survival task is currently worth 1 million airdrop points, Wave 30 is worth 100 thousand, and Wave 20 is worth 10 thousand. These point values drastically exceed the effort required to complete it compared to the point values assigned to other free-to-play tasks. The goal of the airdrop campaign is to reward legitimate player gameplay, not to disproportionately reward specific game modes.

While other airdrop point reward structures may also have imperfections, the current structure for the Survival Waves stands out as particularly harmful to the DAO and the players. Therefore, it requires an immediate and retroactive adjustment.

The DAO has responsibility to encourage active players, including those who are free-to-play and particularly those who are paying players. To meet this goal, the alignment of point values to reasonably encourage free-to-play players while not disincentivizing paying players will be better realized through this proposal.

#

Additional Considerations:

IIP-58-R already accounts for exploits and bugs. Utilizing multiple accounts to repeatedly complete Wave 40 is considered an exploit. As such, this is not covered by this proposal, as it can be addressed directly by Labs. Legitimate players should be rewarded for the time they spend completing this task, while illegitimate players should not. Labs is best equipped to determine which accounts are exploiting and which are legitimate, based on their insight into player behavior and activity.

A dynamic version of survival, as a potential long-term solution to survival being easy to replicate by copying other players' gameplay due to the static nature of gameplay, is also not covered by this proposal. Labs is aware of this and is working towards preventative measures to ensure that the multi-account exploit cannot happen in the future at the same scale seen recently.

The remaining reward structures will be reviewed and improved in the next new sub-period, in line with IIP-58-R.

Sponsor: @scarlet crypt
Contributors: @red lily @void radish @burnt ivy

hushed ledge
#

This one is way more reasonable than @finite gate 's. Complete points removal from all survival related milestones is just a spit in the face to legit players who didn't abuse multiaccounting and didn't blindly copy someone's else run

finite gate
# hushed ledge This one is way more reasonable than <@149657130184605697> 's. Complete points r...

Reminder that:
1.) I spent the time to get it also
2.) I do think rewards should be given out, but how do you determine the amount.

What number of points will you be happy with?

5k? 10K? 30K? Based on Paz's message(which I do agree with) here#1267866392057872466 message

It would be based off 30mins of play time. That would need to be around the equivalent in other milestones which would only be around 5K max imo. Hell even wining one ascendant game(which can easily take 30mins especially if you lose) only gives 450points:

I wasn't going to write a proposal that says let me drop your airdrop points from 1 million to 500...

This is a proposal to buy support from people who are upset. At least removing them all means the exploiters get nothing and deserve to have wasted their time.

image.png
weak ferry
#

I will say it's a hard task to do, so giving it in regards to time will not be appropriate. Considering around 30k + multiplier to benefit small and big players

hollow ravine
# hushed ledge This one is way more reasonable than <@149657130184605697> 's. Complete points r...

This was my first thought as well upon reading Cavemans IIP but I have to say that the argument that even legit players would get less in the end changed my mind.
In the end I lose 1M points here as well but my 300k points are worth more in a scenario with deleted survival Milestones than my 1.3 M points in a scenario without that correction. This thought applies to every reduction in points. That means I as a legitimate player would get the most if we just delete the milestones.

scarlet crypt
#

Something to keep in mind is that Illuvium is handling multi accounts by banning them. As mentioned in additional considerations. This Proposal aims to adjust the Point value to ensure fair compensation for paying and f2p players.

#

If someone is interested in it, here I speedrun 2 hours of Community Questions about this topic: https://youtube.com/live/aUvmD2Qgy-Q?feature=share

And here i made a more condensed Video about it: https://youtu.be/CSvSErgiAoA

YouTube
Illuvination
We have to talk about Survival Wave 40 Rewards in Illuvium..

Enter my Referal Code "paz" in your Illuvium Profile Settings to support my content creation! 🤝Sign up to play Illuvium for Free today: https://illuvium.io/...

▶ Play video
YouTube
Illuvination
The Wave 40 Survival Arena Situation in Illuvium

Enter my Referal Code "paz" in your Illuvium Profile Settings to support my content creation! 🤝

Sign up to play Illuvium for Free today: https://illuvium.io/open-beta?alliance=paz

https://twitter.com/illuvination
https://www.twitch.tv/illuvination

Join our Illuvium Guild Phantom: https://discord.gg/Ct8NKCZcqZ
https://x.com/Phantom_ilv

-----...

▶ Play video
void radish
#

Like Paz mentioned, someone making an account, doing 1 survival run and then never logs in again, can be considered someone exploting the system and can be banned as far as I am aware.

So taking all the points from all the legit players away is essentially saying in hindsight we don´t like to give points to any f2p activity.
Which especially due to the in hindsight part isn´t a good precedent by any means and will just aliante users.
We can argue about how many of those users would only be airdrop farmers, who leave and never look back, but I think it is hard to argue seeing usually a wide support for "more f2p, lower barrier to entry" and then at the same time wanting to delete all of the points.

hushed ledge
# finite gate Reminder that: 1.) I spent the time to get it also 2.) I do think rewards should...

You finished it on the day when the full solution was posted, right? didn't see you on the days before when it was possible, imo even easier than with bugged monarch, but no one gave full solution.

Your proposal also includes survival leaderboard points removal, i'm not happy with that when i got #1 twice already, there was no guide when i got it.

I think 30-50k is reasonable as it's as hard as crafting some t0.

Ofc multi accs should be banned, i don't think they are hard to spot.

Change to random waves will lead to who is lucky to have easier waves (bad solution). And even if sth like this is introduced make it on the next season start or sth

rustic rose
void radish
#

I think the amount of points is fair question, maybe we don´t even see a wave 40 again this month.
I doubt one as easy as the 2nd day we had recently.
From the monarch day I heared many spend several hours and still didnt get there.

rustic rose
void radish
# rustic rose True, but such a large investment of time and money early on is a massive commit...

T5 S3 weapons give you 390k points btw, as you get the S1-2 as well.
The weapons can help you with other airdrop options like exp-farming as well.
You get the weapons likely not because they give you airdrop points, but because you want them for playing and points are a side thing? Maybe that is my personal perspective on this, yes they are quests and doing quests is nice, but I wouldn´t wanna spend money for something I don´t want just to get the quest.

T5S3 are also one of most expensive things in terms of fuel and airdrop points, the paid airdrop points aren´t weighted towards X$ will give Y points, that´s a different topic and would need a different IIP if that is something you/community would want.

#

So I don´t wanna say give people some high number for survival, but the comparrison to weapons isn´t a good one.

#

On the paid points, exp e.g. is by far the easiest to get for least time/money I believe.

vital tiger
#

"will be adjusted to values that align more closely with similar free-to-play milestones"
this means non-zero ?
if this IIP is passed does it mean the team cannot completely remove the points from wave 40?

weak ferry
#

only for non multiaccount

scarlet crypt
vital tiger
#

They can change the points to 1 tho

steep zenith
#

I shared my thoughts about this proposal and the one of Cavemans here: #1267866392057872466 message

TLDR: combine the solutions while splitting the Airdrop Pools between Paid and F2P.

vital tiger
scarlet crypt
vital tiger
#

if it was a mistake by the team then a subperiod must be made and the points honored

void radish
#

That´s not how a DAO works, you can always change things with an IIP/ICCP.

vital tiger
#

then change iip-58-r

#

thats how the dao works

#

the one u approved lol

void radish
#

You can make an IIP to change this, yes.
I don´t understand what you want to say here.

vital tiger
#

if wave 40 point was a mistake and the dao wants to pass a proposal to change the points from wave 40, according to IIP-58-R the dao need to tally the points and create a subperiod.
if this was an exploit, we dnt need to tally the points and create a sub period.

#

if the dao doesnt want to follow IIP-58-R, the dao need to pass an ICCP to amend IIP-58-R

#

or the DAO can just disregard IIP-58-R just like it did to IIP-39

#

wont be the first time

brave surge
#

I'm also interested in questions Jaganite asked.
Also, why is this IIP not in voting if it can be? It has enough likes for it.

vital tiger
#

theres a limit for active proposal
but this should be voted next

fickle dome
#

If its going to be changed based on time taken to get id suggest its about 1-3 hours copying (from feedback people fail 1-3 attempts) and about 3-10 hours doing it legit while also considering the majority wouldn't even be able to do it based on skill/knowledge (excluding copying).

void radish
vital tiger
#

meanwhile....

image.png
burnt ivy
#

@finite gate Recommending you read this proposal before you go trying to start fires on Twitter. So much of what you're asserting is false. Apologies if this interferes in your campaign for the election, but it's hardly in the best interest of the DAO to spread misinformation. Clearly you're not happy the IIP-63 was rejected, but that's not grounds to just start fabricating misinformation in the community. Will you correct your statements, or does your campaign matter more than reality?

image.png image.png
finite gate
# burnt ivy <@149657130184605697> Recommending you read this proposal before you go trying t...

Yes I read the proposal. But before calling me out maybe you should read IIP-58-R that you voted on.

You can only revert Air drop structures if a new sub period is utilized or unless it was an exploit.

@vital tiger just mentioned this above.

If you did not want to create a new subperiod then you would need to revise IIP 58-R and then push this proposal.

Otherwise it's is an exploit. it then needs to be noted in the Proposal and exploited points should be nullified, period.

image.png
#

There was a reason I wrote "Exploit" in my proposal.

burnt ivy
#

One thing IIP-58-R does not say is that no future changes to any airdrop system can ever be made by proposal.

#

To be clear: Exploits/Bugs can be handled without proposals, by Labs. Changes to airdrop systems without a new-subperiod cannot be executed by Labs independently.

Proposals can still change anything. This has always been the case, there's never been a proposal passed that prohibits future proposals from impacting the systems specified.

finite gate
# burnt ivy That's incorrect, and not the way the proposal system works. Proposals can do AN...

That IIP does not state anything about specifically targeting Labs. You are saying that IIP-58-R does not apply to the IMC?

This means the IMC can surpass any past IIP(Past epochs)...That feels wrong to me.

I think the process should be to make a revision first(Gain community support for that revision) in stead of just bypassing it. Then gain support for the new proposal, but that is a different topic.

In this case I think we can all agree that its better not to create a sub period so it works, but this allows the IMC to get around al lot of old policy if just because it finds it inconvenient. It would make sense that it would be stated that this is an exception to IIP-58-R then if you are going to supersede it

burnt ivy
# finite gate That IIP does not state anything about specifically targeting Labs. You are sayi...

I'm saying that proposals have never prevented future proposals from changing systems. There's buckets of precedent for this, including Gov V2, Gov V3, revdis mechanisms.

We've never made the move to hamstring ourselves from being able to make changes in the future, because there are unknown unknowns we encounter all the time that require changes to be made in the interest of the DAO. Those changes are implemented through proposals to ensure the community is informed and in favour of the changes.

#

I genuinely like IIP-58-R, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. There's a specific set of tasks causing problems and damage to legitimate players that need adjustment, so this proposal rectifies that problem. I'm not sure what the revision to IIP-58-R would be in this case - An exception clause that stipulates a proposal can take action on potential future issues that arise? That's baked right into the way our governance has always worked, it's axiomatic.

finite gate
#

I have corrected my stance on twitter. As someone who authored several IIPs, Like "Game selection process" I would find it a disservice to the DAO, if the IMC would just supersede those proposals by making new proposal like, "Battle royale for next game"

I understand the need for flexibility, but feel that we should have a different type of proposal that holds the IMC accountable to some processes. These would need to be amended or removed altogether to surpass them. But I'll table that topic as its not meant for this thread.

vital tiger
burnt ivy
vital tiger
#

im in favour of following the passed proposals as law, as u said they are

burnt ivy
#

I don't believe that's in the best interest of the DAO, and that will always be my north star when I'm making decisions.

I'll be in favour of permanence or unchangeability of proposals as soon as we can know the future. Until then, we're going to get served curveballs and we're going to need to respond. Our best tool to do so right now is through proposals. I do understand what you're saying, I just genuinely believe this is the best tool we have available to tackle this particular issue. Doing nothing or implementing a sub-period that rewards cheaters isn't a valid option.

If someone feels this is way out of line, the VONC process exists, and I'd be happy to be the first one on the chopping block. I don't believe this is out of line with precedent or past practices, nor do I think it's against the best interests of the DAO.

vital tiger
#

we can do an iccp to amend iip-58-r.
you have said more than once that u treat IIPs like a law, why change now

#

it is in my best interest to uphold passed proposals.
otherwise we just keep ignoring them, like iip-39

burnt ivy
#

If an IIP is actively going to do damage to our players, to the DAO as a whole, we can implement proposals to mitigate or eliminate that damage. This seems like common sense to me.

vital tiger
#

then amend it

#

we still have time until 25th of july for the season 1 to end

burnt ivy
#

Draft the amendment, I'd be happy to take a look. Unfortunately, this specific set of tasks is actively causing damage to the DAO, and we need to get something clear in place to let players know we're taking action, so "we still have time" isn't strictly true. You've said multiple times this issue is stopping you from spending.

vital tiger
#

so u do agree that the implementation of this IIP will violate iip-58-r?
do you want to add "team's mistake" as an exception to iip-58-r?

#

yes, i stopped spending on fuel because of the wave 40 points. but it doesnt make me, as a council member, want to violate passed proposals tho.

#

kieran, the CEO, has written the IIP to the remove points, and only him approved IIP-63.
i read viper's rationale on the rejection and it says:

  1. need a GFP? wait, why are we following IIP-60 if we dont have to follow IIP-58-R?
  2. No need an IIP to remove the points. why do we need this IIP then?
#

you said "proposals can do ANYTHING", that means IIP-63 can propose a change in game feature without doing a GFP

burnt ivy
#

I think one of the worst things that can possibly happen to a DAO is when people are more concerned with being right than doing what's right. That's honestly what I see happening here. I've outlined my reasoning on how proposals work, and have always worked, above. You're quite keen to argue around the point until you feel like you are right, with very little regard for doing what is right. Right for ILV stakers, the electorate that put us in place. Right for the players who have invested time, energy and money into the game.

The DAO is missing revenue because people are exploiting a task, resulting in legitimate players losing confidence that their time and effort will be respected. Fixing that problem is the highest priority. You can take niche opinions on how you view ICCP and IIP all day, that doesn't change my perspective on what is right and how we can accomplish that goal within the confines of this system.

vital tiger
#

u can already save the dao by approving IIP-63
but u didnt

burnt ivy
#

@finite gate thank you for revising your original post. I just want to make sure we're not causing undue panic and concern in the community, I don't believe that's what is needed right now.

vital tiger
vital tiger
#

ill draft the amendment to iip-58-r to include "major oversight" to the exception
and amendment to iip-39 which allow the team to set the parameters without a proposal or a consult.

boreal cargo
#

you guys really like to make things super complicated

#

remove the damn survival wave points from everyone this season and move on.

#

this game is heavily sided more on pay to play vs free to play, and siding on the FTP exploiters its absolute madness, seriously how in the world can you possibly be on council and side with those guys.

#

removing the points is the best scenerio here. especially replacing it with a multiplier because that will benefit those who ACTUALLY are grinding.

regardless, giving hundreds of thousands of points to literal bots is clearly a bad choice.

#

also, you guys need to be more professional and leave your guild dramas aside when making business decisions.

void radish
#

I am not sure what supposed guild dramas you refer to.
I believe every council member has always given rationales and reasonings for their decisions and comments on this topic, if someone told you otherwise, pls also go and ask the council members, to ensure there weren´t misunderstandings or misinformation.

This proposal has 51 upvotes, not a single downvote.
The one that got rejected had more upvotes, but also almost half as many downvotes as upvotes, we can argue which one is the preferred one by the Tokenholders on that, this one is certainly perceived widely positive, no matter how one wants to rate down vs upvotes.

It is a tough topic, as the interest of the DAO meaning of Tokenholders are the priority, while many players ranging from "how to extract as much as possible form airdrop f2p" to "how to extract as much as possible being a paying player" vary, likely consciously or subconsciously biasing them.

weak ferry
#

Is there a way to ensure not having multiaccounts to just farm f2p points and dilute the rewards? Like it requires to have a minimum games played to ensure it's an actual account?

void radish
#

But leaves it to labs to figure this out, as they have more data and intel.

rustic rose
void radish
#

By that logic all of f2p should be set to 0, further certainly people can exploit airdrop systems with payed milestones as well.
Simply ignoring exploits after „removing survival points“ seems unwise.

#

Allowing no f2p points at all is making the airdrop entirely a rebate for paying players, and it is still heavily open to multi acc exploits, as certain milestones are easier than others in terms of time/money needed.

rustic rose
# void radish By that logic all of f2p should be set to 0, further certainly people can exploi...

You're straw manning here Viper. I haven't read every post but I don't believe anyone has called for the removal of all f2p points.

Since we're on the topic though, yes I'd prefer to see the lions share of available points on the pay to play side. What you call a "rebate for players" I call ROI from marketing. Wave points are far too high when compared to any other mission in terms of time/cost/difficulty never mind pay to play missions.

I fully support wave points being reduced to tens of thousands but if there are calls for them to be set to zero I'll support that too. Because I don't believe f2p players that only grind survival add anything of value. That's just my personal opinion though 🤷‍♂️

brave surge
vital tiger
hollow ravine
#

Hey, since ICCP-19 "Airdrop Points Revision" got approved, I would like to adjust the process in IIP-58-R a little to enable faster reactions to similar problems in the future. I hope to get your likes and feedback on this. Thank you 🙂
#1272495042673508515 message

boreal cargo
#

so whats happening with the wave 40 1M points, please tell me you guys made the right decision and either removed this or lowered the amount a ton.

#

can we please handle this before the end of the season

steep zenith
boreal cargo
#

max 40k wave 40, 30k wave 30, 20k wave 20

boreal cargo
#

either way, keeping the rewards within the people actually putting into the economy is the wise choice.
not siding with the exploiters with brand new accounts whom just did that 1 wave 40 to get the rewards and never to be seen again.

99.9% they will leave the ecosystem.
and 99.9% those who actually are grinding that get rewards will end up putting back into the ecosystem.

personally, i would have just removed the points entirely or did a multiplier.
if actually keeping some point its should be very miniscule because there were hundreds/thousands of exploiters. choose wisely.

void radish
#

we understand your pov, of wanting to support your own bags of paying whale, dw

boreal cargo
#

im the least biased person in this chat

#

if thats what you thought based on what i said tells me you should stick to streaming and competing.
stay away from council.

void radish
#

every time I have chatted with you about this or you made remarks, your idea always aligns with what is most beneficial for you, this doesn´t negate your arguments, but half of the time your arguments are anecdotal or exagerated thesis, saying other people have no idea and they should 100% do this etc., it gets boring to me to not point this out

#

On the topic of these milestones and similar it is very bad for the DAO I can´t be on council and look over them in the future, could have easily seen every singel exploit or poorly choosen amount of points, none of the others can sadly.
It is also very bad for any future competitions or tournaments or e-sport I can´t look over the rules and set-ups and ensure it can´t get exploited and it is competitive, so far we haven´t ever seen such an event or tournament here.

vital tiger
#

u can, as a community member

#

write an IIP

plush flax
#

or as a committee

boreal cargo
#

im sorry but you dont belong in council imo

#

completely lack vision

#

the fact that you cant see what im saying is not for my benefit, but for the benefit of the game itself because youre siding with the people who are actually dedicated in the game and willing to put funds in to help keep the economy going.

#

Viper how would you feel if we said you only pop up in voice when you want votes.
But if you were actually around like we are every day in voice chat with actual gamers, (not the botters you love to support so much)
you will know what people actually think about this situation

void radish
#

You entirely misrepresent what I said to this topic to an extent where it is hard to give you the benfit of the doubt of acting in good faith.

boreal cargo
#

man your ego is beyond yourself

boreal cargo
boreal cargo
boreal cargo
void radish
#

I have said dozens of times in this discord people exploiting should get 0 points and this proposal allows to set points to 0 if you can´t deal with exploiters, I said this to you even directly, so I can with confidence say you lie here.

void radish
# boreal cargo actions > words

Yeah my action of approving this proposal, what?
The election is over, prob a blessing in disguise to soon not having to deal with people who keep misrepresenting reality or lie.

boreal cargo
void radish
#

Telling people you can play this game f2p and get these airdrop points, then telling them nah, you played our game and we had these rules, but we change them afterwards, because the paying people complained is not a good look or precedent.

#

If those rules should have been there to start with is a different point, I´d have opposed lots of values in this airdrop, but it wasn´t run by council.

#

I told you exactly this previously as well.

boreal cargo
#

once again, i dont mind if f2p gets the points.... i dont even know if you actually read what i wrote at this point.
let me put it in all caps.

THOSE WHO MADE BRAND NEW ACCOUNTS TO EXPLOIT THE SYSTEM SHOULD NOT RECEIVE THE POINTS
GIVE THE F2P PLAYERS AND ACTUAL GAMERS WHATEVER POINTS YOU WANT. 1M OR 40K IDC.

void radish
#

I have dozens of times, same as every other council member, in rationales and elsewhere said that people who exploit with multiple accs should get 0 points.

Did you read or listen to anything I ever said?

#

Never once did I say or consider to give more than 0 points to multi-acc-exploiters

boreal cargo
#

caps*

void radish
#

you said personally you´d remove or give multiplier, those are the most beneficial options for you as a person
further you kept misrepresenting what I or other councilmembers said by elluding that multi-acc would get points, so you press the remove all option, which again is most beneficial for you

#

you also keep repeating this even though you personally have been givin the same answers and points, makes me wonder why you do this

boreal cargo
#

thank you for your explanation

#

now, in terms of this whole proposal.
give whatever points illuvium labs decide is just, i can agree with, for as long as the brand new exploiting accounters dont get any.

#

i personally am completely against any decision that involves these botters to get any points from the waves in any shape or form.

#

and as you said, you are as well.

void radish
#

No one has ever disagreed to wanting to give exploiters 0 points, again I hope no one did misinform you about that.

boreal cargo
#

so 1 question remains:
are the 1 day accounters/botters/exploiters whatever we call them, going to receive points from this?

#

because that is the actual main concern of this entire thing

#

correct me if im wrong, but i dont see in the proposal stating that the1-day exploiters/botters should not receive any points.

void radish
#

so you don´t need a proposal for that

boreal cargo
#

in other words, those accounters should be excluded from getting the points at the least, correct?

vital tiger
#

the ToS allows multi accounts as long as u dnt play them within the same 24-hours
im not sure if we have made it official that watching and replicating a video on youtube is an exploit

boreal cargo
#

yeah right now there is no clear indication that the exploiters/1-day botters wont get points for the waves.

#

im totally for the FTP players getting points for the waves if the final decision is that points are to be distributed (obviously)
for as long as the FTP botters/exploiters that just created an account to complete the wave and never to be seen again, dont get a single point.

#

and if we can not do that (finding the way to not distribute points to the exploiters), and only in that case, is where i say just remove the wave points.

#

the whole point of this was to make sure that the exploiters/botters dont get rewarded for the antics.

void radish
#

ToS does not allow using multiple accounts to exploit economical systems like airdrops, has nothig to do with 24h part, I guess Jag didn´t read that correctly

watching and replicating a video has never been considred an exploit in survival before, it was how the game mode works, no one complained in preseason of airdrop-campaign either, replicating others certainly makes it "easier"

#

I remember guilds or groups encouraging to share screenshots or videos between their members in the past to have more of them high up on daily leaderboards, obv outside of pride or pr, there was nothing tangible to gain of that.

vital tiger
#

Read again slower pls

plush flax
void radish
#

part c, I guess jag did read, but not understand it

image.png
boreal cargo
void radish
#

yes people breaking ToS, exploiting economical systems like airdrops should not get airdrop points

#

This was never up for debate

#

only topic to clear was retroactive change to survival milestones, because far easier than the points given for it

boreal cargo
#

good, were on the right track on that than

#

so the new numbers reflecting the accounts should happen prior to this season ending yes? so we know where were at and what to progress etc

void radish
#

It is a high priority to figure those out and let everyone know atm.

vital tiger
#

like the "slingshot"?

void radish
#

It was clearly stated in the rules, that people can play multiple accounts for arena, mark them via names and are given rewards on one.

Very sad to see you didn´t know ToS on this topic, as it was such a relevant one recently.

vital tiger
#

"Determined at our sole discretion" read my comment has the team officialy called it an exploit or not, or as the tos said manipulation

#

we both were told by blickter about this section of the tos lol

void radish
#

I won´t waste my time on you, if you want to sealion someone, won´t be me today, I sadly have better things to do.
(go ahead and keep typing jag, have the chat to yourself)

vital tiger
#

classic

#

pretty clear lol
"To clarify, you may use our Services on one Account across multiple devices and you may own multiple Accounts, however, you cannot play using multiple Accounts in any 24-hour period"

brave surge
#

To be fair Kieran said multiple times that you can play on and use multiple accounts.
It was always of benefit to Illuvium to have multiple accounts playing and it still is if those accounts are paying account. It's another story have multiple accounts and trying to exploit Airdrop points. But that's Illuvium's fault and it was clearly stated multiple times in Voice chats and Interviews that you can use multiple accounts but can't win prizes on multiple accounts like in arena.

vital tiger
#

we need clarity from the team whether using multiple account for the airdrop is allowed. one can argued that the ToS is referring to "earn game assets or items" which ILV token is not, and it's only limiting to 24 hours window

brave surge
#

But how will you enforce something like that? What's the plan there?

brave surge
#

Also, what exactly is the point of 24-hour period?
If somebody wants to play on two accounts he has to play it like:
M: Account 1
T: Day-off
W: Account 2
T: Day-off
F: Account 1
S: Day-off
S: Account 2

How does that make any sense? So instead of somebody spending money on the game every day he has to take 24-hour break period before he can continue on another account?

But even still, I don't know how we want to enforce multiple accounts?

plush flax
boreal cargo
#

ps: whoever thought Auto Scan is a good idea and still is a good idea, should never be on council. kek.

#

and please dont tell me this Automated Drone Runs, is something where you pay money and drone does the runs itself without you going into runs.

plush flax
boreal cargo
#

we really truly are the lazy generation aye

#

why not just put "Max Stat Illuvial" just pay more and your illuvial becomes max statted.
"but its okay because we will charge a lot"

#

at what point does it end where you can say "its okay because it will cost alot"

#

i completely dont like these routes

#

we are completely taking the opportunity for people who dont have much money to make anything playing this game

#

because whales for example wont pay for their stuff cause they will auto farm , auto scan, and so on

#

if i put myself in the shoes of the average player with not so much funds, but time to grind etc this stuff would be a turn off

#

stop with this whole "pay to make runs quicker and easier".

#

the only way runs should be easier while paying for something is someone buying illuvials and weapons etc from marketplace that other players have farmed for

#

otherwise youre just constantly killing the markets

boreal cargo
#

another suggestion:
Prioritize Leviathan modes

#

in due time

boreal cargo
#

@void radish and @scarlet crypt this hate on the HYPE tournaments you guys are spewing is absolute childlike behavior.
Are yall actually this ridiculous? "stream sniping" lmfao bro get good. than complaining about how the tournament was run? dude it was great.
typical Viper behavior, "its good if im winning, but something is definitely wrong if im losing"

getting tired of this nonsense already.

boreal cargo
#

remember when i said you guys need to grow out of this guild fight and act more professional? yeah saw this coming a mile away.

HYPE is running these tournaments phenomenally. You guys just had to try and find something to create the biggest drama out of it.
absolute childlike behavior. i didnt think youd go this low, but man was i wrong, petty petty behavior.

void radish
#

People like you and others in this community who only ever use ad hominem arguments when someone presents a thesis or arguments they don’t like are the most bearish thing in ILV.

Pls point out how any of what I said isn´t true, so far only people with vested interest haven´t agreed with my criticism, and they have done so in ad hominem or anecdotal ways.

#

I suggest you do study on how to present arguments, unless your only goal is to try and insult people with anecdotal/made up things anyways.

Suggesting that these events are run phenomenally seems evidently untrue, pls point out where my criticism is wrong then.

Further no one has ever approached me and asked for feedback on how to make this better or avoid all the mistakes that happened so far, so I assumed they didn´t want help.
I´d have been happy to help on a personal side of things, certainly are discouraged from it now.

boreal cargo
#

Youre never wrong viper, youre always right, you know it all.

#

This guy insults an entire org but points fingers at others kek.

IMG_8892.png
boreal cargo
#

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imsOuRbLsoA

At this point, Phantom has got to be the biggest hater group in illuvium. Absolute disgusting behavior.
@scarlet crypt youre an actual clown for this.

YouTube
Nijafe_Plays GameFi
Screen Sniping Is Fair Game In Illuvium According To These Guys

The GameFi Rundown 52 starts now. Lot's to talk about this episode. Join in live, share your thoughts, ask questions. Illuvium, web3 and GameFi.

Use Code 👉🏽 NIJAFE

Download NOW! 👉🏽 http://link.illuvium.io/Nijafe

🕹 Affiliate Links & Codes 🎮

5% OFF Coupon Code ILV Merch 👉🏽 nijafe5
Illuvium Merch Store 👉🏽 https://store.illuvium...
▶ Play video
#

all just to hate on HYPE guild.

#

cause this guy is jealous that theyre actually doing something good and fun, and might i say much better handled than any phantom events

#

imagine going on this with 2 people who werent even around the event, and barely even around the voice channels these days.

C L O W N B E H A V I O R

#

every other day just when i think you cant stoop to a lower level of a human being, you guys prove me wrong. kek.

boreal cargo
scarlet crypt
boreal cargo
#

you guys are something else.

#

yeah you guys do not belong on council whatsoever

#

0 accountability

scarlet crypt
#

that's not the title of the podcast. it's the clickbait title of a clip of the podcast. have you even watched it?

boreal cargo
#

there is no hope

#

im moving on

boreal cargo
#

still no update on the final solution on this?

#

regarding the wave 40 / survival

brave surge
#

In the last patch notes is says:

Survival:
Randomized Runs: Every run is now random—no more daily patterns.
Wave Challenge: Wave 40 is no longer the final wave. It's up to you to discover what the new final wave is!

I haven't heard anything else about it apart from proposals that were voted on.

native field
fickle dome
#

just the notes

austere turret