#Simplify the "Fuel Problem"

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

sharp zephyr
#

This image is the common mental map of Illuvium as an interconnected set of games. Yes, many proposals for skins, gyms, and other relationships have been floated, but we all came to this game with the understanding that Land leads to Fuel which leads to Illuvials which fight in the Arena. This is the top-level meta, if you will. You can participate in all or part of this system. Example: Shooters make you motion sick. Therefore, you can replace the Overworld portion of this chain with Marketplace transactions by selling from Illuvium Zero to the market, then collecting Illuvials from the marketplace in return.

According to @white steppe 's "3rd Option" posted under "Modifying the 1:20 Fuel Exchange Ratio," a way to solve the current "fuel problem" is to push all Illuvium Zero fuel into the same "market" with 5% of the revenue generated by all fuel sales back to Illuvium Zero fuel sellers weighted by their participation in the previous period.

4️⃣ My suggestion is to do this AND:

  1. Cease the exchange of the three fuels in the Marketplace (Fuel Exchange). All three fuels are sold to "The Leviathan Refinery." Overworld players buy "Overworld Credits." These names are placeholders that should be changed to line up with the world/lore in some way. Fuels would be sold in bundles of each fuel (1:1:1). Ex: Zero Player One has 200 Crypton, 150 Hyperion, and 75 Solon. The Refinery will only buy up to 75:75:75 from that plot.

  2. "Overworld Credits" can only be spent at Sanctum Mesa and are not ERC-20 tokens or anything that complicated. They are in-game currency which can only be bought from the Refinery. 5% of the proceeds are sent back to Illuvium Zero players who can accept their portion of the sales as ETH, ILV, or "Overworld Credits." Credits carry a bonus to the normal value like 50% more value than the ETH price or another incentive not to bleed extra cash from the treasury, directly. The Refinery should set "Payday" for the same time every week (I like getting paid on Friday mornings).

  3. Overworld is simplified to remove references to Crypton, Solon, and Hyperion. This prevents Illuvium Zero players from feeling like they are producing "20 runs/day" from their land, but getting only 1 to play for their effort. Or feeling like the DAO is stealing our production value. Or future "fuel nerfs" akin to the recent one. It prevents a LOT of bad vibes all around by creating a simplified abstraction between Fuel Producers and Illuvial Hunters. As Aaron noted, "The devil is in the details." Yes, but User Experience matters when playing a game. A simple experience often has unseen complexity in the code or architecture just to keep things moving or make an interaction more "fun."

  4. The pricing of Overworld Credits would be backed into by setting targets for the output of ILLUVIALS from Overworld. All other in-game MacGuffins would continue to exist (shards, essence, ingots, etc.), but you would pay for use of the Forge in Overworld Credits. You pay for using the Obelisks in Overworld Credits. You pay more to do a scan of the zone in Overworld Credits. If you don't play Illuvium Zero, you never see the word Solon again.

  5. The price should remain fixed on a per-season basis. If too many Illuvials were minted last season, the price should nudge up a bit. If not enough were minted, a sale could be announced for the next season. I strongly discourage manipulating prices to play DURING the season. A slight alternative would be that the prices and payouts could change weekly after "Refinery Payday," but most players would probably prefer getting to the end of a season before such changes happen.

I know this is crypto and that some of you are "free market always wins" people in spite of watching a market failure play out before your eyes. "Fuel" cannot be a free market if the game is to succeed. It needs to be run like a public utility or co-op. It is the water or electricity of this ecosystem.

image.png
sharp zephyr
#

Long story short: These games will not see mass adoption while being a successful player also requires being a successful "Day Trader" for three arbitrary commodities. It is already a little fraught with going into a higher tier to get shards ... and seeing Illuvials you have no chance of catching because you have no shards. There are so many "wasted" opportunities and resources that I have logged out of the game angry just as many times as I've logged out happy. THAT is not a good thing.

broken shadow
sharp zephyr
broken shadow
#

they gonna learn that web 3 gaming aint about fun god dam it its about making money and being a man

void wave
#

Simplify ILZ: The land NFT is a failure due to technical limitations with IMX Starkware and compromises that need to be made. The Land NFT now is nothing more than a general stake position in ILV with labor and no voting rights. It creates a derivative voucher for paying players, which is minimal at this stage. Since there are no fungible commodities, I think converting land to ILV tokens and letting people who want to generate variables impact cosmetic upgrades and illuvial stats play ILZ for free for onboarding. Aligns all interests and eradicates this failed fuel experiment.

ruby berry
#

But the team seems keen on having the 3 fuels and everything and I'm not sure we've given it a chance just yet either

subtle notch
#

@sharp zephyr and @random cradle how do you see your ideas as similar? We had a good discussion thread in nASTY's thread but it didn't get a lot of thumbs up

subtle notch
sharp zephyr
# subtle notch <@363733969016979456> and <@486884982028238849> how do you see your ideas as sim...

Yes, similar. I'm an Option 3️⃣ voter, so these are somewhat similar. Mostly, this is a response to the "it's complicated" comment about how much there is to balance. Complexity isn't "depth" or "meaningful" automatically. BG3 is "deep" not because there are thousands of widgets, but because there are so many choices of what to do with them. OW has no real connection to the three fuels. It's just complexity. What about Arena? Will there be places for Solon vs Crypton choices, there? That's why I put up the diagram. If the concept doesn't easily flow through the whole meta, they should dial it back.

gaunt valley
#

doesn't each fuel have it's own function in the OW?

random cradle
subtle notch
#

Seems like option 3 was the most popular selection. So curious why you are saying people seem to like keeping it as is

random cradle
#

Interesting

void wave
dusky minnow
ruby berry
sharp zephyr
# ruby berry Yeah like you said the 3 fuels was kinda the whole point. I am open to it too bu...

Let me ask it to you this way: I have outlined the benefits of a single fuel system. (1) Simplified selling mechanism to control the supply from IZ to OW for both sellers and land-owning players. (2) Never have to worry in OW about buying Crypton, then buying Solon for a "scan" to protect your Crypton investment, then coming back to the Forge and realizing you need to buy Hyperion for your freshly harvested shards. The number of times we're sending people to buy something different in OW is a major detraction. (3) Maintains the gameplay progression and continuity of Illuvium Zero's design without making T1's useless.

What do you see is the key advantage for having 3 different fuels aside from being "quite novel?" What is it that makes it "worth" continuing to try moving in this particular direction?

ruby berry
# sharp zephyr Let me ask it to you this way: I have outlined the benefits of a single fuel sys...

Oh I never really thought it was worth all the overcomplication of our systems.

We definitely have the issue where those who speculated on land for things like crypton/hyperion/solon now having paid more or less for something that is retroactively being changed. But the team planned on balancing them anyways so it doesn't really make sense anyways.

It would be nice for the 3 fuels to all mean something significant, but at this time they are just making the game harder to play. Wouldn't be opposed to the 3 fuels still existing in some meaningful way, but the payments happening later in the cycle meaning its all automatic and hidden.

sharp zephyr
#

There are infinite other places to add lore, depth, and richness. I just don't see this as being a good place for it. The best games have high "Tetris Value." Simple to learn, but difficult to master. Having a game that is difficult to learn cuts back the audience/mainstream adoption severely.

Hopefully, the team is weighing all this seriously. Thanks for your response.

lyric breach
void wave
sharp zephyr
# lyric breach if we did a mass refund and not get land sale price from minting pricing, but in...

Sometimes, vision doesn't line up with technical limitations. They way I see it, this is one of those places where they had a "Grand Vision," but delivering on that vision is going to be nearly impossible. I bought into the hype of the size of the dev team and the people they were bringing on. I had faith they could make these kinds of things work, but now that we have some deliverables in-hand, my faith in the project has reached more realistic expectations.

Many successful businesses live by the mantra, "Do one thing, and do it well." To this end, I'd rather see SOME part of the Illuvium ecosystem be done well than continuing this impossible shotgun approach. There needs to be simplification across-the-board to make these products more accessible. If it never grows beyond the investor base, then whether it's a "rug pull" or not won't make any difference: The financial loss will be identical.

lyric breach
#

eh after all that to me it would. Illuvium,m is the only crypto game i haven and may play. If you go to the Zero chats 80-90% only care about their ROI.

I game for fun, the money aspect is/was a bonus. So if 80-90% i am interacting with only want to farm me....well i just go game somewhere else. so the issue is Demand/lack of consumer experience aka fun imo as the root cause which hurts fuel.

sharp zephyr
#

The ROI should be 5% of fuel sales. That was what we were offered. At present, that piece of the bargain feels broken. Simplifying the relationship between Zero and the fuel market brings greater transparency to the process. Zero players would still sell all three fuels to the "refinery" or whatever mechanism serves as the new fuel market. Then we get 5% of the actual sales per week or per day depending on the set up. That makes keeping the promise easy.

Then we can worry about having a better OW experience to bring in more people to buy fuel - which is really the root of the problem. The other stuff is just noise that gets in the way.

subtle notch
fallen sorrel
# sharp zephyr This image is the common mental map of Illuvium as an interconnected set of game...

The way you have the refinery only pick 1:1:1 for each fuel is limiting to the current game design of land.

Each land has a unique amount of fuel sites. Some T2s have three crypton sites, others have three solon sites.

Now you want those plots that create a lot of specific fuels, to convert everything back down to the other resources before they can send it to the refinery?

That is my main pushback here. You push each owner to rewire their plot and make it way less optimal just to get the 1:1:1 ratio. Some start with 3:0:0 while others start out with 1:1:1. It is not fair to the majority of landowners.

random cradle
# fallen sorrel The way you have the refinery only pick 1:1:1 for each fuel is limiting to the c...

How so? It may seem less optimal for the current system, but not in something like this. As long as you have converters with 1:1 ratio, how is it unfair? You still produce the same amounts of fuel. It may impact some plots slightly more than others, but that goes for any balancing you try to do. It's impossible to please everyone and it should be viewed from birds eye view what's best overall for the project.

fallen sorrel
random cradle
fallen sorrel
# random cradle I thought about it in the original post where OP got the idea from, but thought ...

It would require a lot of balancing to make that happen i think. @dusky minnow would have more accurate insights into whether each plot could convert to 1:1:1 production from the hand they have been dealt. Maybe certain plots have am advantage at this point.

I would however prefer to see the fuels remain seperate to accentuate the differences between plots. This way there can be future updates linked to the various fuel types in a kind of Rock-paper-scissors type of gameplay.

With guilds, you could have an interesting dynamic if fuels were used to produce units or other aspects. If fuel production were tied to a fixed 5% revenue rather than listing said fuel, you could easily tie fuel into the gameplay after all.

random cradle
# fallen sorrel It would require a lot of balancing to make that happen i think. <@4833794369017...

That's a good point, but the land output can always be modified to meet certain requirements, shall the demand arrive. For example 80% of the fuel generated goes to the refinery, and the other 20% goes to this new features. I also think we should release many normal gameplay features that don't require money to play, before releasing anything paid. For the ones that will be pay walled, we can either modify our lands to use our own fuel, or use the currency which is already in the game - credits.

And last, the 3 types of fuel remain the same within zero, so gameplay features can still be tied to them. It only converts to one fuel for playing the OW.

dusky minnow
# fallen sorrel It would require a lot of balancing to make that happen i think. <@4833794369017...

I don't know, i don't have max buildings yet since i just started with 2nd wallet support.
I guess it might be possible, but most player get forced into certain builds to some extend instead of having a free hand to build whatever they like.
Zero got the first taste of this with the building limitations this idea would be the next step, future "improvements" could lead the gameplay more in that direction where we end up in the most boring citybuilders existing, where the game dictates what you have to build and you are just brainlessly clicking.

I don't see why 3 fuels are too complicated to handle, one has to pay the electricity bill for his house, buy gas for his car and buys another gas for his BBQ equipement.
Haven't seen one struggle yet to get his head over that even tho all 3 are energy ressources just different ones used for different actions.
Also simplifying doesn't necessarily mean creating more demand. There are bigger leavers we can pulll to create demand. One could argue that a change to just 1 ingame "currency" would bring in zero additional demand and at the same time take away 75% of what makes Zero interesting to play.

fallen sorrel
# dusky minnow I don't know, i don't have max buildings yet since i just started with 2nd walle...

Im not talking about reducing the amount of fuels in Zero to one type. I just mean for Zero to send crypton ór solon ór hyperion over, to have it converted to overworld credits.

It wouldnt change the dynamics in IZ at all. This idea here on the other hand aims for all three fuels to be required in the same amount, which does dictate that you need to convert your most abundant fuel to the other two fuels.

With converters being affected by extraction sites, a 1:1:1 requirement would be skewed in favor of plots with each fuel site right?

dusky minnow
random cradle
#

What means skewed though? Currently if your land produces mostly the cheapest fuel, you are skewed. Next month they made some balancing changes or a fuel demand changes, and someone else is skewed. Next month someone else will be skewed and so on

fallen sorrel
dusky minnow
fallen sorrel
#

And heck i just want to make 10000 crypton on my non existend 3 crypton T2 plot. I dont want to make 2000 crypton, 2000 hyperion and 2000 solon.

(My megacity has 4/4/4 fuels so i wouldnt be affected in any way regardless of the outcome of this idea)

random cradle
dusky minnow
random cradle
fallen sorrel
# random cradle I don't understand why, if the proper converters are built, it should be possibl...

I think it would then have to be balanced indeed. Which isnt a big issue. I just prefer making a lot of one thing if my plot were made for that.

In Travian, a browser based city building game, you would have farm-cities with 15 farms, and other lands with 6 farms. If you then push for all lands to produce the same, what would uou use all that farmland for? Instead they pushed players to hold such lands and add strategic advantages to using a lot of those farmlands. All troops eat food, so you can house all the soldiers on that land.

Doing the same for the different types of IZ lands would be better imo. Have every land be unique in their own way. 1 produces tons of crypton, the other a lot of hyperion and others produce a balanced amount.

random cradle
# fallen sorrel I think it would then have to be balanced indeed. Which isnt a big issue. I just...

The lands can still keep their uniqueness, it doesn't have to be all tied down to what type of fuel you are producing. Building's secondary effects can be added for what you suggested or new buildings can be added, or these features can be tied to landmarks, etc. There are many options.

Furthermore people can balance their plots how they see fit. For example only 75% of their production goes to the refinery with 1:1:1 ratio, and the remaining 25% can be just one fuel that goes to these new features. That way you are reducing your part of the 5% allocation, in order to put the fuel in these future gameplay features which you suggested. Either way in either system, anything you do with the fuel besides selling it, in order to use it on such new features, will reduce your income in order to spend it on them. I still don't see where is the issue

dusky minnow
# random cradle Isn't that part of the charm? Optimizing your plot as best as you can?

sure optimizing is part of the charm.
but for example if my t4 has a crypton landmark and only crypton sites for example, now i can snowball that effect with also building many crypton converters and some hyperion/solon to fill up empty spaces. So i get a super high fuel output in general. I could also build more hyperion/solon if i feel those are going to be super valuable in the next months.

With the change, the t4 will have to build mass solon/hyperion converters to get somehow the 1:1:1 ratio.
result is as mentioned above, less flexibility in building out your plot, going more in the direction of a leaded path on what you have to build and make the gameplay in my opinion way less interesting.

random cradle
dusky minnow
# random cradle But the same can be said for the current system too, you just build whatever fue...

not really, now you have to anticipate what likely most people build.
For example everyone thinking in crypton/hyperion will be the most money, crypton/hyperion converters going to be built all over Zero plots.
Now you could think, well if everyone is focusing on crypton/hyperion, i build on solon and fill empty spaces with crypton/hyperion because the supply of solon will be so low, even if the demand is low the prices will be high because theres way too less supply.

random cradle
dusky minnow
random cradle
# dusky minnow you don't have to and for sure not constantly since the whole system is inert.

The whole system is very far from inert, it's the opposite, the demand for different fuels will change constantly, meaning if you want to maximize profit you have to adapt or accept lesser profit.

Also, if you don't have to change the layout with the current system like you say, it means you more or less follow your pre determined plot layout. It's not gonna be so much different with this suggestion.

dusky minnow
random cradle
sharp zephyr
# random cradle I thought about it in the original post where OP got the idea from, but thought ...

This was my thinking, as well. It's a lot easier to make balance changes to Zero where endgame T1's equally produce about the same 1:1:1 mix vs. balancing every game downstream to require each of the three fuels to keep demand similar across-the-board. To get everything to max level, you have to build converters, anyway.

Let's face it: T1 and T2 need massive re-balancing after the most recent changes, anyway. T3 and T4 shouldn't particularly care as much. Yes, landmarks make a difference, but on a T4, you can power everything up so quickly, the conversion is barely an inconvenience.

That said ... I do think some folks speculated on landmarks for Crypton, or other types of "favorable" fuel plots. @fallen sorrel has a point that things were unevenly distributed, and that likely played into some amount of purchase choices. Okay. I concede that. That's ONE argument in favor of keeping it 3 fuels instead of 1. There are about a dozen reasons to make it 1 instead of 3.

Against my "simplification" rules, perhaps there's a way to re-invigorate T1 plots with a simple mechanic:

  • T1 sells to the refinery (any units of fuel). Their portion of the output is (units/3) so they can focus on maximizing a single fuel. This was obviously the original design plan.
  • T2 sells to the refinery 2 of the 3 fuels in bundles. Their portion is counted as (2*units/3).
  • T3+ sell in 1:1:1 bundles. There's no problem with converters at this level. If someone has to rearrange their plot a bit, oh no! You have a reason to play the game a bit more! How terrible ...

This simplifies life for T1 and T2 without forcing them to sell their "off" fuels that would probably only get made to advance their progression.

sharp zephyr
# dusky minnow I don't know, i don't have max buildings yet since i just started with 2nd walle...

I want to address the "3 energy sources" idea, here. Yes, real life deals us complexity every month. Mortgage or rent a house, lease or buy a car, multiple bills for Internet, energy, water, etc. Are these concepts fun?

My point is to prevent this user experience. I put $5 into Crypton. I'm hoping to get a few handfuls of illuvials. Then I realize I don't have shards. Do I buy them or use some Crypton for a shard-only run ($ decision)? Okay, I'm going to try a shard-only run, but when I get back, I realize I need Hyperion to cure the shards. Crap, so now I buy some of that ($ decision). Okay, I have shards. I get to the Obelisk and realize, "You know, this is costing me money ... in Crypton. If I buy Solon, I can know which Illuvials to focus on. I'm gonna go out and buy some of that." This game sends you to the Cashier's Box more often than a casino. Even if you buy a fuel bundle, odds are you will spend it unevenly - sometimes needing more of one than another type. Do you buy only that type, or buy a bundle?

These choices are not fun. And, last I recall, we're trying to make something Pokemon-like, with collectible aspects, and trying to get people to have positive memories of catching their first Ramphy and fusing a bunch of them up to a devastating monster. Right now, I'm not sure people come away from OW with those vibes. Even 1980's arcades (with their notoriously-difficult quarter-eaters) seem more "fair," and a hell of a lot more fun.

bleak ocean
# sharp zephyr Let me ask it to you this way: I have outlined the benefits of a single fuel sys...

Coming late to the conversation but I want to take a stab at favoring a 3 fuel system in opposition to the system you proposed. I made a post about it that still hasn't garnered a lot of traction but I think it's a valid idea and addresses a lot of the concerns mentioned in this thread.

First, I think we should not divide the use cases for the 3 fuel types by travel, crafting, and curing. I think we should instead divide them up by class traits or sets. Let me explain... classic pokemon handheld games were usually released with different versions at once (red and blue, silver and gold, ruby and sapphire, etc). I think it would be smarter for us to follow in that stead, but with fuel. So in practice, we would have 3 different versions of the current travel system, each either costing fuel in solon, crypton, or hyperion. Think of it like Illuvium: Solon, Illuvium: Crypton, Illuvium: Hyperion. So in the Crypton stage run, we would be able to find and catch a Titanor, because he's a Crypton Illuvial, but not a Rhamphyre. In a Hyperion stage run, we could find and capture a Rhamphyre, but not a Titanor. This would establish a framework for the rest of the Illuvium universe, makes fuel easier to balance, and allows for a more engaging lore. For curing, it can be a 1:1:1 ratio of all 3 fuels.

This solution works with the current foundation we laid with the 3 fuels, but changes the way we individualize them. That's why I would ALSO push from a game design/lore perspective to attribute these class traits (or something like it) to the 3 fuels: Crypton as representing the slow moving and immovable, enduring, or tanky classes. Hyperion as a way of power, persistence, and strength, Solon as representing the fast, nimble, intelligent, cunning types. The way I see it, this is a much better way to balance fuel, opens up the door for tighter lore, and we wouldn't have to do a change that negatively impacts the previous investment choices people made on land.

sharp zephyr
# bleak ocean Coming late to the conversation but I want to take a stab at favoring a 3 fuel s...

This is a more interesting proposal because one of my big reasons to do one fuel type is exactly because there is no lore to tie them to the Overworld. From an OW perspective, the three fuels are nearly arbitrary, force you back to the marketplace at uneven intervals, and this is key: you always need all three, anyway. You have no way to earn them in-world, so economically, they are full externalities to your experience. You can sell shards or other things in the market, then use that ETH to buy fuel, but again, that's not in-world. It removes the immersive factor from OW entirely.

I still prefer the streamlining to a single fuel downstream from Illuvium Zero, but if we are forever stuck with three, this would be better than what we have. Even if we made it where Air & Fire require Solon, Water & Nature require Crypton, and Earth & Neutral (e.g. Lynx) require Hyperion, that could at least carry downstream into the other games. SOMETHING.

Right now, it just feels complex for the sake of complexity ... at least to me. And that's a detraction from the game experience. It lends to the already pervasive sense of "grinding," whether that's IZ, OW, or Arena ...

#

FYI ... this is my proposal, but I'm not all-in on this as a solution. I just know that SOMETHING needs to get changed re: Fuel, and I posted this as an earnest proposal from a player of all three games. I'm worried about my stake, my land NFT value, and the experience. Right now, it is hard to feel like I am ever going to experience any positive nostalgia re: Illuvium. So, turning around dozens of these little negative experiences into something either pleasant or at least unoffensive is critical to turning around the whole ship before it is too late.

bleak ocean
# sharp zephyr This is a more interesting proposal because one of my big reasons to do one fuel...

Very fair points, and pretty much the same reasons I went in this direction. I personally feel the titans of the gaming industry already figured out the majority of mechanisms that just work, and Illuvium being fundamentally based on pokemon, it just made sense to me that it goes in this direction.

The biggest concern I have against the 1 fuel system is the negative impact it would have against investors that decided to buy the more expensive lands that had an equal distribution of fuel and resource nodes. It wouldn't have been right to rugpull the investors like that by making the variation of fuel node spawns on land plots essentially pointless outside of ILZ.

bleak ocean
sharp zephyr
#

I guess I don't view the 3 fuels into 1 as a "rug pull." Especially not after the re-balancing took 75% of production out from under us with nearly zero up-front conversation. (I don't count generic, "It's a beta - we'll be making adjustments" as "communicating an upcoming change.")

Ultimately, any changes would impact me the same ways. I had zero Crypton on my initial lands, and bought one that wasn't close to where I was looking just because I thought I'd have to have one.

But even that aside, if I was a Zero-only player, we all have to understand that the back half of the Titanic sank just as surely as the front half ...

velvet coral
#

Forcing someone to sell 1:1:1 is a terrible idea. You buy something because you get the mix of fuels you need. You wanna change it so I'm forced to play a certain way, punishing me for buying what I wanted.

random cradle
#

Ok let's leave everything as it is, cause there will always be someone unhappy. The current system is great 👍

subtle notch
# velvet coral Forcing someone to sell 1:1:1 is a terrible idea. You buy something because you...

this is a common sentiment, and probably the biggest hurdle to this idea. I think Aaron and team know this is how a large amount of the base feels which is why it will be hard for anything like this to happen. Out of curiousity, king of jabronis, did you read this full thread and see all the main points that nASTY, myself, yang, and snugglebear bring up as reasons why the current system doesn't work and something like a 1:1:1 conversion is the least bad option to move forward with?

#

people just seem attached to this 3 fuel "free market" idea because thats what they "bought into" when they bought land, even though we know that 1) its not actually a free market, as evidenced by illuvium labs acting as the fed and nerfing supply to match demand. 2) as yanghologram has detailed very very well, there is zero actual lore attached to it to make this feel a core part of the game 3) it adds way too much friction when playing as the amount of purchases you have to do is exhausting, and this will be magnified 10x for new players coming into the ecosystem for the first time.

subtle notch
# bleak ocean Coming late to the conversation but I want to take a stab at favoring a 3 fuel s...

this is indeed an interesting option! I do like it, although it doesn't really solve the main root of the problem this thread and others were trying to solve which is we need to make adjustments to how fuel is transacted. Right now the way each of the 3 fuels is supplied/bought leads to price undercutting by sellers, and illivium labs is forced to act as the bottom rail, nerfing fuel production to keep the fuel price in a certain range. Having different uses for the 3 fuels might make a more fun OW experience, and i think your idea has merit in that regard and is a cool concept, but it doesn't solve the root problem of the fuel economy

bleak ocean
# subtle notch this is indeed an interesting option! I do like it, although it doesn't really s...

I see. I was also in favor of the 3rd "scoreboard" option and the majority of yang's proposal, but especially not selling in a 1:1:1 ratio or reducing the 3 fuels to 1. The scoreboard system can just keep track of the 3 fuels individually. I'm certainly in favor of players just buying fuel or their derivatives from "The Leviathan Refinery". In this way, OW players don't have to go to an immersion breaking "marketplace" to get their fuel, and we wouldn't need to upset land investors by changing the way fuel is balanced.

I agree that user experience is important, which is why I think the "overworld credits" is too much of a push in the wrong direction and instead we should find a way to make the 3 fuels lore relavent.

dusky minnow
bleak ocean
dusky minnow
#

Haha i like both directions 🙂