#ILZ change is good

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

devout flint
#

I see a ton of fud around the recent ilz change but i think its a good change that was absolutely necessary

I think the feeling comes from having something taken away but in reality its not a nerf because the ratio stays the same

Price of fuel (which affects all assets) as a goal point of about 50% of the top rail. This is where supply meets demand. As we launched, the team had to start somewhere while knowing the supply side while guessing the demand

As we didnt launch the arena competitive scene yet the demand side is much lower than what they anticipated so they have to now adjust the supply side to redirect it toward the goal of ~50% top rail. If the team didnt /4 the supply it means that fuel wouldve been x4 lower than what is the aimed goal

We might produce x4 less fuel but it comes down to the same because we will sell x1 fuel at 4$ instead 1$

The lack of demand compared to supply also made a lot of land owners having difficulties selling their fuel which was a major problem

This is a temporary change to match demand and its normal that the total supply moves around to stick to our aimed goal of ~50% top rail fuel price

When arena starts and the games attracts people ilz will produce much more fuel than what its doing now

stark jasper
# devout flint I see a ton of fud around the recent ilz change but i think its a good change th...

It's not a free market if every time we produce more than we need, we nerf. and every time we produce less than we need, we nerf. How this economic system can work if labs can play with the numbers ?. It's just proving that the system though for the economy is way far to work. and dunno how we can imagine it working in that way.

From your "We didn't launch arena competitive". i'm sorry but we can't create mainstream by forcing a a game to be competitive and reward. It's not healthy for the game. people have to want to be competitive because they have fun and love to play and want to show others they are the best. The carrot that are reward are unhealthy to think it will bring people playing.
I'm exhausted playing games for rewards and not anymore for fun.

sand lynx
# devout flint I see a ton of fud around the recent ilz change but i think its a good change th...

This just assumes that we will have healthy demand at 50% of top rail price.
Also if we adjust the system to hit the target price of 50% top rail, which is around 5.50$ for 1350 fuel, why do we have moving prices anyway? We could just have fixed prices at 5.50$ for 1350 fuel.
ILZ players burn their fuel and get their share of the 5% of the revenue.
At least the advantage would be that every potential player of OW knows exactly how much fuel will be worth.

stark jasper
#

People are early. there are no demand. just let the prices being low and let people early play for cheap. it's their bonuses. now T1 can produce 25 fuel / day? So before they could play a S1 run. now it's every week ? because we need to reduce supply because no demand ?
Makes no sense really.

sand lynx
#

Wrote to longer posts regarding this.
#1272888472570433619 message
#1271821709703385108 message
In the end I don't believe that any feature or any reward can break the wall that makes people think they get too less playtime for their dollar. Ofc. unless the feature somehow give more playtime per dollar.

#

With this change prices will rise again and people (including me) will wait for them to fall again.

quaint plinth
sand lynx
stark jasper
quaint plinth
sand lynx
stark jasper
#

I agree with you. i dont like the only free market and runs could cost hundred dollars or 0.01$.
The entire economy just sux

quaint plinth
stark jasper
#

im land owner and dont care of my land owner generation. the prices to play OW is still way to high my point of view. and they fix it already..

umbral ermine
stark jasper
umbral ermine
acoustic shuttle
heady hill
#

This patch, artifically dictates the fair value price for what fuel is, and what real demand is assumed to be... I can guarantee we will not be mass adopting players at 7$ for a stage 3 run, that's just not realistic, there will be 1% of players who will play at these levels, and then we will find us in a position with a few thousand players, with degrading numbers as cost and barrier to entry are too high

The question is, if you are in the 1% who can afford hundreds of runs, do you really want to play a game where the max amount of active players there will ever be is a few thousand, and you will be competing in a closed door game that nobody knows or cares about

devout flint
# stark jasper It's not a free market if every time we produce more than we need, we nerf. and ...

On your point about free market i agree thats its not so free if the supply side can change but i think its healthly to have an anchor point. The DAO (including land owners) would lose a lot if we didnt have it during this time where supply is far off demand because fuel could get extremely low

About the arena that forcing player to play because of rewards isnt sustainable. The #1 goal here stays to make an awesome game thats attracts player, the rewards is the bonus aspect of being web3 and having it including in our tokenomis. We have this asset to help bring new eyes at the start of our game but long term its not what makes the game great at all

devout flint
devout flint
# umbral ermine you clealy missed the point where this is not about the $ price tag. With curren...

I didnt miss the point. Is it optimal that right now it end up being the equivalent of 1 s1 run per T1 every 3 days instead of the previous 1 s1 run per 18h, perhaps not. Is it acceptable, certainly is imo because its one or the other

If team /4 fuel supply its safe to assume the current supply wouldve met current demand at 1/4 of our anchor point. That means x4 less revenue as fuel is bought x4 cheaper and illuvials are worth x4 cheaper (trading fees). A bit less than x4 as more people would play at lower price but still not a great impact because the ev ROI would be the same and people would play for the same reasons

Now if we have to chose between x4 less revenue through fuel/fees or x4 more fuel to play with for those who want to use their own fuel i certainly find acceptable to have x4 less fuel as a landowner who will use my fuel in OW

devout flint
frozen gorge
#

I think my main issues with it is there were better ways to achieve this, AND tiers were not evenly nerfed (plus they're not giving transparent details about this), AND buildings were not reduced at the same rate in terms of fuel costs- none of those needed to happen if the only objective was to fix the fuel output.

#

For instance changing it so the DAO only prints 5x the fuel instead of 20x, and still keeping 95% of fuel sales for the DAO/revdis would have been a much better solution I think for reducing fuel supply without hard nerfing ILZ lands.

#

End result is the same but delivery is much less harsh/jarring

devout flint
frozen gorge
#

Instead of creating 20x the fuel arbitrarily, just create less but still keep 95% for revdis. It's literally still the same 95/5 ratio as it was before.

#

Seems like you think I'm saying that landowner share should increase to 20%, that's not what I'm saying. You can reduce fuel creation while still keeping their share to 5%.

#

Anyway it doesn't really matter at this point, something had to be done and imo there were slightly better ways to do it, but at the end of the day we have a demand problem and not enough players

devout flint
frozen gorge
#

The problem is DAO heavily overestimated the initial demand for fuel, thinking that printing 20x the amount was even needed. But anyway like I said it's too late now and at the end of the day the root issue is not enough fuel demand

waxen loom
#

I actually don't mind the fuel nerf and understand why it's currently necessary. However, the byproduct of a fuel cut is it cripples landowners from playing OW with their own fuel once that feature is enabled. Allowing landowners to use their own fuel at a reasonable ratio would be a good, also temproary solution for them, until demand rises and fuel production is increased.

harsh ether
#

50% from top rail is not market equilibrium

#

market equilibrium is when supply equal to demand, not some numbers the dev decided

sand lynx
harsh ether
obtuse pivot
devout flint
devout flint
#

Also we knew that the Team could adjust manually the supply in the case where demands is far off the current expectations, this was made clear in IIP-39 #1148000637997555842 message

I think the negative feeling comes from feeling like something is taken away but as the ratio stays the same the only thing that change is that you have less fuel to play with ($ is equivalent)

But its either that or x4 less revenue for us and the DAO while being unable to sell

harsh ether
#

generally i agree that supply need to be reduced.
i cant comment if 4x is excessive, accurate or insufficient without looking at the data.
the issue is mostly the lack of explanation about the numbers

devout flint
cursive jay
#

some warning on a change like the latest patch would have been nice

sand lynx
# devout flint Sure but they had to set an achor point based on expected demand. Now we had an ...

I have to strongely disagree. DAO would make more money with lower prices, because demand would rise. It seems the dao and labs see demand as something that is constant regardless of the pricing. It is comparable to the laffer curve. OW is a game, a pretty grindy one, but a game. You can't price it as a pack opening, because packs are given directly without investing more time. A game takes time and therefore has to be cheaper. Also a million other reason I have listed in a lot of posts by now, but I guess, I try to move a immovable object. Sad to see that the playerbase could grow steadily at the moment, but labs chooses pain. With enough pain we can address this topic again in a few month. Sorry, if I sound to salty I just can't see why we are damaging the project like this for no reason.

#

Even if prices would have been low. We could have used that to build a playerbase. There are a lot of f2p games that make billions. There is no need to exclude 95% of interested people like this

harsh ether
#

i have a feeling that the fuel supply is at an alarming pace. and a cut is badly needed to stabilize the downward spiral

sand lynx
harsh ether
sand lynx
#

Also, there is no feature or incentive that will change this. Prices are too high means prices are to high it really is that simple

harsh ether
#

i mean at 25% or a much lower production rate, the down spiral can be slowed down

sand lynx
#

Even lets say we have cheap prices and attract to many people who don't pay enough. With a big playerbase you will sell a lot more battleboard skins and all of that stuff. That alone will make millions.

sand lynx
harsh ether
#

yea im quite sure we had more players because of the low fuel prices

sand lynx
sand lynx
devout flint
# sand lynx I have to strongely disagree. DAO would make more money with lower prices, becau...

Lets assume the change means that fuel was going for 1.5$ S3 runs and now are back to 5.5/6$ anchor point. While x4 lower might have more demand i doubt its anywhere near close to x4 more demand

As of now people are mostly trying to make a buck and no matter the price point of fuel the EV ROI will be the same at a given time. If right now the ev roi of a run is 80%, even if you lower price by x4 its still 80% so its still basically the same people paying for the run. Sure ev ROI could be higher a little on lower price as you now have to spend 30 mins on a smaller $ pool but still

And i guess for everyone its different, for me if id choose to spend 30mins to gamble on a 4$ with 60% ev roi i would more than 30 mins on a 1$ 75% ev roi

As it was planned from the start to at least have -50% fuel price a lot of people waited to play to but if it wasnt planned in the model to drop they would have played at the start

You are right that the price point is high if we compare to what gamers want but reality is that at this point OW is not a game on its own and we dont target web2 audience. The Team analyzed the data and market to come up with the 5.5$ anchor point, this anchor point could certainly change as OW develops to a game on its own and we start to aim web2 audience

next summit
devout flint
next summit
#

25% of max rail is (for me personally) the start of the 'orange zone'

#

But it was mostly the speed at which it is reached which leads to the change
On which comms should have been much better

next summit
sand lynx
# devout flint Lets assume the change means that fuel was going for 1.5$ S3 runs and now are ba...

Ok, I agree that on shorter time scale it is possible that higher prices can provide a higher income.
But still this is kinda a self-fulfilling prophecy. Web2 won't play anyway therefore we can just make the game expensive. With that we achieve exactly that, every gamer will take a look at the price and run away. Also if just two times as many would play with lower prices we would have a marketing effect through first positive impressions in the web2 world.
So, one day in the future we want to target web2 and have to reduce prices drastically. How will that day feel for early OW players. One day this approach of milking web3 first and gamers later will prove to be difficult.

#

In the following days Illuvium will make an appearnce at gamescom. I really hope nobody will see this, because the prices will burn Illuvium if people notice them

next summit
sand lynx
next summit
sand lynx
#

I hope they are not too long. My main point is that even if OW is an unfinished grindy game it is still a grindy game that can't be priced like packs, because people have to invest extra time, while a pack just gives you what you want.
The truth could be very well somewhere in the middle.
#1272888472570433619 message
#1271821709703385108 message

#

Maybe the 2nd one goes into the wrong direction for your question. So, I guess the first is enough to not waste your time too much

#

Also, I guess all the other compares with for example wow and how much people are willing to spend on a monthly bases are already known

next summit
harsh ether
sand lynx
#

I was the one calculating it via xp needed for all Illuvials. Maybe, you remember that.

next summit
sand lynx
# next summit I see, I would argue it is much lower than that, but perhaps I am overestimating...

Haven't found our old talk about this topic, but that was basically your response last time. I think you can play economically enough to achieve way lower costs, especially, considering that this includes paying for T0 xp, and kinda excluded trading, which would make it easier to fill the gaps. I guess, even without abusing integrity plants from t0 alot you can push it down to like 1500k, maybe? But also note that playing economically and thinking about every move you make kinda kills the fun

next summit
#

6 x 13 T5S1's to catch 80% of the value of 'them all', how long does it take to catch one? 1-2 per S3 run, half an hour if you're not using reveal all?

#

So let's say the answer is 50-100 hours which would mean 2-4x lower than your estimate, is that still too expensive for an European audience?

sand lynx
sand lynx
# next summit So let's say the answer is 50-100 hours which would mean 2-4x lower than your es...

These a two very different approaches to look at it. Because my approach basically doesn't change based on hours needed, because this part stays the same:
"Let’s say the average gamer has a budget of 100$ per month and plays around 100 hours per month (slightly less than 4 hours a day)"
It is just based on how much time I get for my invested dollar, while the model we compare it with is based on a set price for completing the set.

#

So, let me think about this a moment.
50 hours mean around 100 Stage 3 runs, which means around 250$, right?

#

Not that 250$ sound too much. The 50 hours sound to little

next summit
#

And those are being discussed

sand lynx
#

agree, just making this clear again. 50 hours for 250$ sound very brutal. 250$ for completing the set sounds okay if splitted over several month

next summit
harsh ether
#

i already spent almost $1k

sand lynx
#

Therefore, I had this idea with none nfts and nfts. That you have to capture 10 Illuvials to fuse one nft (with prices 10x lower). The counter argument is kinda that the game is too boring, but something like that. More game time for your dollar.

#

the idea was the start of this thread if you want to read that (not that you need to - I feel that I am taking alot of your time already) #1272888472570433619 message

sand lynx
# next summit I see, so you'd argue the $/time 'feels' the worst?

one more argument. Now, that you said I should be able to achieve a full set with 250$ I am more thinking about playing.
The prices just scared someone like me away.
For the record I would say I am not bad in this game. I have a concrete plan for OW, took some prices in tournaments and have hundreds of hours in it, AND yet this prices scared me, even while I had planned to invest hundreds early on.

next summit
sand lynx
next summit
#

Part of that is coming with FEX changes and us getting our UI/UX in order to not be mysterious about it

sand lynx
next summit
#

Another part is probably progression mechanics
The main thing we have to agree to disagree on I think is that imo OW should stay a gamified pack opening

sand lynx
#

But thank you for taking the time to address this topic. Was a pleasure to discuss this with you 🙂
Also, it helped to reconsider to start spending again 😉

next summit
#

Likewise, appreciate the detailed responses 🙂

thorny cape
soft flower
#

I see all of this and just wish we actually were a Feee Market. I think it would have been good for fuel to go to 0 rather than use manipulation. Landowners would flip out DAO could say, sorry there isn't enough demand for what you are producing. It would be in our economic interest to do something about it so we could band together and hit social media, giving away our fuel, hosting events, doing marketing for Illuvium. Illuvium could have been player driven not DAO/team driven and I think that would have been fun.

I thought that landowners would make ALL fuel and DAO would take 95% of our $ as a charge for letting us sell on their marketplace but I think what is going on is DAO produces 95% of the fuel? Is that correct?

cobalt path
queen epoch
#

Zero also produces Fuel 'out of thin air'. If you are concerned about the lore think of it like a galactic hub where all the Fuel in the galaxy is going to a central exchange. Player owned land on Illuvium only produces a small amount of that Fuel.

#

The bulk of the complaints (not everyones, but the bulk) resolve to "we aren't making enough money" and that won't be fixed until the demand grows.

#

Regarding the free market, the market will never be free of influence from the game unless you are suggesting that the no new features or changes ever come to the game (or at least not any that impact economy). That would be silly.

It was always understood there would be a period early on where there was a lot of change as balance is established. But long term balance changes should be less frequent, less significant, and come via the ICCP process.

#

To be clear I'm very much in favour of market balance coming via game changes that are are more organic (adding new buildings, features, modes, etc), I wrote this page in Jan 2022 Dec 2021:

image.png
#

I won't bore you with the whole paper, here are some of the examples from it:

  • [+VE] adding a new extractor that has different characteristics like requiring more user action, but which in turn produces more Fuel per time unit

  • [+VE] adding achievements or quests which reward Fuel

  • [+VE] adding global ‘conditions’ which serve as a production multiplier but clearly tie back to the game world Lunar Convergence: Solon production is boosted by 10% for this month

  • [-VE] adding exciting new research and scanning buildings which will take space away from Fuel producing structures

  • [-VE] adding achievements and quests which cost Fuel

  • [-VE] adding highly desirable cosmetic structures which have high-fuel costs

But the kind of changes proposed in this paper won't work in the short term; there was a need to quickly implement a significant change.

heady hill
soft flower
# queen epoch The bulk of the complaints (not everyones, but the bulk) resolve to "we aren't m...

Thanks for the response. Perhaps I don't understand what is going on behind the scenes properly so please correct me where I am wrong. If landowners held 100% of the fuel and gave 95% to the DAO as a payment for marketplace services then landowners would control the price (within the rails). The way we are doing it now the DAO controls the price, for the most part. Let's say I decide to sell my 5 fuel at $1. That means that the DAO then sells 95 fuel at $1. If you were trying to sell yours at $1.05 you would need someone to buy 100 fuel before they would buy yours. If instead I was selling 5 fuel and giving 95% to the DAO then when someone wanted the 6th fuel they would need to buy from you or go without.

I was wondering why people were listing fuel and it wasn't selling, yet fuel was still being sold, people were buying DAO fuel before landowner fuel I guess?

Free markets would always have influences and you are right, if this was done organically by having a meteor crash or something it would be a lot better than just a government body stepping in.

I know some are mad about the $. Personally, I wasn't expecting a return this soon anyway. You are right, more demand is needed. I do care about gameplay. The first time I heard about land I thought it was really cool that landowners driving the economy not the DAO.

I understand that we are in stages of ironing everything out. This is the time when we just have to be patient and wait for things to play out. I still trust that the team has landowners best interests at heart and I do appreciate the work that has gone into Zero.

Sorry about the novel. I am not good at brevity.😬

queen epoch
#

The DAO 19x price is always the same as the sellers price.

#

The DAO doesn't create its own orders or have any capability to undercut anyone.

#

(At least that's how the ERC-20 version worked there is a very small chance the non ERC-20 version changed this but I think it unlikely)

devout flint
umbral ermine
soft flower
#

I know the DAO can't create fuel prices, they match them but don't they match each individual landowner, essentially giving that landowner an outsized influence on price compared to what he/she actually produced?

Basically DAO is flooding the market and landowners are taking the hit by having building production decreases.

soft flower
queen epoch