#Allow Beyond Unbonding for a Fuel Cost

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

sleek spindle
#

I never feel right bonding high end Illuvitars with anything but top accessories which has stopped me playing the album game. Many other great Illuvitars are not involved in the album game for this reason. Even players who are active players of the Album game often don't bond their "top-end" Illuvitars.

My proposal is simply to:

  • allow for unbonding
  • make it cost fuel to do
  • ensure there is still a 'sink' for accessories by having some chance of destroying the accessory when it is removed

(This last item feels pretty safe, because its much more likely you would want to remove low end accessories rather than high end accessories, but maybe there could be a VERY expensive way to ensure the destruction chance gets to zero.)

**Costs **
Different Fuel types could be used for different accessories, or a combination cost could be used. The cost could reflect the Tier of either the Illuvitar the accessory or both. There are plenty of options to make this as simple or complex as the designers see fit.

I'd say somewhere in the $1-$25 per accessory price range would make sense if it was based on accessory tier/power. But that of course could be discussed and decided by council/community/designers.

Benefits

  • Make bonding more common
  • Get many more people involved in the album game
  • Add a small but noteworthy stream of revenue (i.e. more demand for Fuel)

Although ostensibly this seems like it will benefit whales it is really quite useful to collectors of all budgets: if you have a budget which allows you to open only a handful of disks and you get an Ophisto you would likely never consider bonding it due to the risk of it becoming unsellable in the market. This change would allow you to bond and enjoy it without fear of hurting its future value.

#

(Noting I strongly prefer removing accessories rather than just destroying/cleansing, simply because those 'almost top tier' accessories are quite expensive and if it was destroy only I think it reduces the utility through the sheer amount of value lost ... but I would prefer destroy/wipe/clean over no way to unbond)

jovial pilot
# sleek spindle I never feel right bonding high end Illuvitars with anything but top accessories...

I even have two ophisto's and i will never bond them as is. I agree with your sentiment that unbonding would allow people to participate in the bonding fun more easily.

I could see the album pushing you to make yout unique specced illuvitars though. Unbonding may not be necessary if bonding is incentivised enough. But with 75 unique illuvitars and only 15 unique accessories for each body type I find it difficult to imagine how that would look.

Maybe Rogiers Blog will shed light on this though. But if the Blog does not detail a push towards using accessories im feigning towards unbonding as well.

I like the burn mechanic when unbonding. Unbond your T5 S2 with caution 😄 will require you to buy a bunch of regular d1sks to get those back!

sleek spindle
#

I think it will be very tough to incentivize it enough, because even with incentives, regardless of how large, you are still always fighting: 'bond with what I have now' vs 'wait and bond with T5S3'.

Reflecting on how things have evolved I think it is very clear that this is not a "fun gameplay decision" its a very frustrating and potentially expensive decision which often leads to a negative outcome in both cases. (i.e. you are constantly worried that you should bond if you haven't yet, or you regret that you did if you do).

nova hornet
#

Clearly you've forgotten about the game design documents from a long long time ago 😄
I had written this up almost near inception of beyond - Volta's Wash 😂

I think yes - we should do this eventually.
Need to think long and hard on this, but curious to hear peoples opinions for sure.

Also @lost flare brought this to my attention 😂 Thanks mate 😛

jovial pilot
#

Also who is Volta? Lore leak? 👀 i know it isnt monopoly but return to jail! Pho_Haha

idle pier
#

Although I can see why a proposal such as this would have strong appeal, pesonally I hope that we don't go this route.

I like that there are two aspects to the current game. You choose to collect, go after leaderboard or in some cases both, but there are some very difficult decisions to make that have real impact and cost.
To add such a feature would completely trivialise all of those decisions and ultimately make them meaningless.

Without this I struggle to see where the gaming element would come into play, as currently the strategy aspect is the game, at least to me.

trim sleet
#

I believe community was strongly against unbending and not even happy to allow compulsory rebonding with higher accessories. I did put idea about it but community voted against it. It is deceiving the purpose here of unbonded illuvitars and their uniqueness. Bonded Illuvitars are not allowed to be unbonded but I like the option of making them bonded with high accessories but again it depends on what community says

woeful lichen
#

I'm giving this a thumbs down for 2 reasons.

  1. It is a choice made of taking the gains now or holding out in hopes of greater gains in the future. I like that there is that choice and that there is such a high cost to it both ways.
  2. This one is entirely selfish and personal. I am going to be ticked if we can suddenly just take off all the accessories (even if there is a fuel cost) because I could have made it on the leaderboard and been collecting ILV all that time but bonding was permanent so I went without to keep my Illuvials clean.
woeful lichen
trim sleet
#

It can be rebonded with extra cost but it can't be unbonded totally

idle pier
woeful lichen
sleek spindle
#

All I would add is that I think people are underestimating how hard and frustrating the bond/don't bond decision is and how much it turns people away from being more actively involved. To be clear this is mostly anecdotal, based on what I hear people say, and how I personally feel, the only real data point is how many unbonded Illuvitars are out there, particularly at the higher end.

But I think that is a pretty strong data point. Isn't the point of Beyond to encourage people to actively engage and connect with Illuvium? What's the point of Albums if the majority of buyers don't use them?

The audience is already very small, why segregate it further 🤷‍♂️

sleek spindle
light flume
#

i'm not really deep into beyond, so i just throw arround some ideas... 😅
What if it's timegated, or attempt gated. Meaning you can unbond an Illuvitar/accessories just once a year are just one time and accessories/illuvitars get a debuff after doing it?

sleek spindle
#

How do you stop people creating new account, and unbonding whatever they want?
Cooldown period? Gets very complicated.

light flume
#

thought you can add like an attribute to the nft, not to the account... idk not a dev.
just a noob trying to throw arround ideas

tacit crown
#

I'm for it if the accessories are burned. There needs to be some element of permanency and by un bonding you remove that entirely. This kills demand for accessories and illuvitars since you can now just reuse the same illuvitars in your collection. So I'd like the accessories to be burned for this to be viable. This also creates more demand now for standards just for economical accessory hunting.

digital lichen
#

From a gameplay perspective I fully support this. As a player, it's intuitive for me to think of Illuvitars as non-fungible, and Accessories as expendable and fungible (outside of promos). "What do you mean I can't take off the hat?" The game is more fun for me if I can make my best Album as possible now, knowing I can improve it later.

From an economic perspective it's more complicated. The accessories are in fact non fungible. And many players from the first couple waves determined whether / how they'd participate based on how it is implemented. Some players can and do pay more for Accessories to minmax. Others (like me) buy and bond less often because of the irreversibility and cost being out of reach.

So in conclusion I would love to see this idea starting Set 2.

olive gyro
ivory smelt
#

I think this makes sense

bright badge
#

**Original Proposal: **The suggestion is to allow unbonding of Illuvitars from accessories, with the following conditions:

It would cost Fuel to unbond.
Accessories would have a chance of being destroyed when removed, with an option to reduce this risk for an extra fee.
Different costs could apply based on the tier of Illuvitar or accessory, ranging from $1 to $25.
Benefits:

Would encourage more participation in the album game.
Allow collectors across all budgets to bond Illuvitars without permanently affecting resale value.
Create additional Fuel demand, adding a revenue stream.
Community Feedback:
**
Support: **Many agreed that unbonding could make bonding decisions easier, enhancing engagement. Some suggested that any removed accessory should be burned, ensuring accessory demand and a continued cost.
**Concerns: **Opponents worried that unbonding would undermine the strategic element of bonding and diminish the game’s challenge. Others noted that re-bonding could simplify play but felt it should come with permanent costs (e.g., burning or replacing accessories).
Alternatives:

Time-gating or debuffs: Some suggested allowing unbonding on a limited basis (e.g., once a year) or adding minor penalties.
Limitations: Some suggested unbonding only for future sets, avoiding retroactive changes.
**Overall, **the discussion highlighted a desire to balance gameplay enjoyment and economic sustainability while ensuring any unbonding feature aligns with strategic game design.

nova hornet
#

We'll take all of this knowledge to continue the design on beyond. Radical changes like it, would be presented and garner support for ofc before implementing.
Happy to read these discussions tho, interesting stuff and thanks to those sharing their pov! ^^

nocturne sequoia
#

Good idea. Burn the accessories you remove also.

misty citrus
#

I like it... adds another layer of strategy for the game too. You'd see more competition in the leaderboards

idle pier
misty citrus
# idle pier Please could you eloborate on the additional strategy that you think that this f...

It would provide more choices and complexity to the game. Not everyone would unbond/rebond because of cost. But it would be another option to consider in the landscape of choices. Would you unbond/rebond if it would only gain you x amount of points and bump up on the leaderboard 2 positions? Maybe not. Would u just unbond? Probably not because you'd want to maintain current ranking. But maybe one or two particular rebondings might bump you up 8 places... that might be worth the fuel investment. Either way... I don't think as many people will take advantage of the ability to unbond/rebond as is feared. I just think it adds another interesting option to the game.

But wen card game?

idle pier
sleek spindle
#

<-- Tempted to just build a card game and then say "Hey Illuvium, I have a Beyond card game... want to buy it?"

olive gyro
sleek spindle
#

No the Illuvium IP is still owned by DAO (Labs/FCZO)

#

NFT creators CAN decide to give away ownership of the IP rights with the NFT, but Illuvium does not do that.

olive gyro
sleek spindle
#

Because that needs the DAO to agree to do so, which they already have decided not to do (for now).
"Fund game dev for X" is a very different decision to "Game Y already exists and we can buy it"

olive gyro
sleek spindle
#

Of course but then I just replace the art with something else and sell as normal 😉

sleek spindle
olive gyro
winged nova
#

@sleek spindle I was thinking about the same. I'm not bonding many of my Illuvitars, so I have a lot of unused items sitting in my wallet too.

What if we introduced a limit for cleansing Illuvitars?

Here’s my idea:

Each Illuvitar starts with 3 jewels, representing its cleansing limit.

Cleansing Mechanics:

  • 🟢 First cleanse: All items removed, nothing destroyed.
  • 🟡 Second cleanse: You choose one item to destroy (or random as you suggested).
  • 🔴 Third cleanse: All items are destroyed, and the Illuvitar loses all jewels (after this, all future Items are bond permanently).

This system keeps the permanent choice of bonding items but adds some flexibility to “fix mistakes.”

Plus, it adds a new (unwritten) rarity factor: untouched Illuvitars (all 3 jewels intact) would be seen as mint-condition collectibles.

To activate the Jewels you could pay with fuel (as you suggested) or craft an item in Overworld like a potion.

What do you think?

real belfry
#

For the same reasons others mentioned, I like the idea provided the accessories are burnt as a result

tidal osprey
#

im against unbonding.
The decision to bond for leaderboard or keeping your illuvitar clean for future value is a financial decision. i do not yet see an urgent need to change it.
if this idea get much support, i hope it will be implemented for set 2.

winged nova
idle pier
tidal osprey
#

plus havinf a limit on how many u can rebond

winged nova
fathom bough
#

Unbonding and burning fuel has a nice ring to it!

tidal osprey
#

i think if you can only rebond the illuvitar once, it wont affect the market that much

#

even if the community agrees on more than once, lets say 3 times, the cost to rebond should increase each time

woeful lichen
#

I don't mind the idea of rebonding it is unbonding I am against.

sleek spindle
#

I don't think the arguments around not changing game rules because it's been around for a long time. If it's a bad rule why keep it?

We are (at least temporarily) taking down Overworld, but we can't tweak a Beyond rule?

Bonding basically means losing a large amount of value. Play-to-lose doesn't sound like a compelling pitch.

woeful lichen
#

Because there was a financial incentive to bonding, it wasn't just a game it was a financial decision. Some people chose short term gain and bonded.They didn't bond to lose they bonded to try to gain in the short-term. Others chose a long-term strategy based on the fact that people would be choosing to get short-term gains.
This idea would now penalize those who chose the long-term strategy over the short-term one. It isn't a bad rule, it is bad for a group of players and a good rule for a different group of players. If the changes go in from now on then that is one thing but it should not be retroactive. No Illuvial bonded to this point should be able to be unbonded. It would be unfair to those who didn't bond.

sleek spindle
#

Almost every change to a Crypto game is unfair by this measure.

#

The penalty is retroactive and small.

I think in terms of raw numbers I would be more penalised than anyone in that I bonded nothing but my PFP (Alexa was top of the leaderboard so even if he didn't bond much of his raw value he is not penalised at all as he extracted the maximum possible value from short term strategy).

#

Furthermore this also has a huge positive effect for the 'penalised group' ... now they can finally play the game!

#

Looking at the votes it actually seems to be the opposite group that is down voting... those on leaderboard even if it benefits them with regards to theoretical value of their collection.

Maybe they don't want more competition or maybe they feel it's unfair that they had to make hard decisions and others won't or maybe they just don't like the idea.

But the reality is no one is punished in any notable way by this change.

The only question we should be asking is: Is it better for the overall health and experience of the game (and more widely the DAO).

idle pier
# sleek spindle Looking at the votes it actually seems to be the opposite group that is down vot...

But the reality is no one is punished in any notable way by this change.

I don't think that is entirely true. Thousands of people own illuvitars. How many do you think would have competed for leaderboard but didn't to maintain clean illuvitars.
To change this now would be a slap in the face to every single one of these people that chose to walk that path as they could have been earning for the best part of 1 year.

The only question we should be asking is: Is it better for the overall health and experience of the game (and more widely the DAO).

Not so much just a question but something that you have to demonstrate.
By implementing such a feature you will undoubtably lose a portion of your loyal player base, does the benefit of implementing this feature outweigh this cost and how can you clearly demonstrate this.

Looking at the ratio of likes to dislikes, at least 25% are against this, yet if you changed the proposal to "lets implement accessory changing/removal for Set 2", i'm pretty confident you would get most on board.
What's the rush, why not wait till set 2, you get what you want and you don't need to risk losing any players.

sleek spindle
#

I don't think they could have been earning as they wouldn't have had enough stuff to earn. And I think the vast majority of such people would be more happy to be able to join in rather than sit on the fence.

#

I've got no problem with waiting but I don't like that it doesn't apply to all illuvitars. Effectively that doesn't really address the problem as at the start of Set 2 most of the power is still locked behind unbind/bond value.

#

Even by the end of Set 2 it's still 50%.

Also 25% of players preferring not to do something is not the same as 25% of players leaving.

I don't think many on the leaderboard would leave if this happened. And I don't think many not on the leaderboard would leave either.

I do think a lot more people would be a lot more active if this happened.

digital lichen
sleek spindle
#

If there aren't going to be overall rewards which include both sets then that is more palletable.

digital lichen
#

(I upvoted btw. I would really love to see this happen. Just at a point that it won't upset loyal long-term players)

sleek spindle
#

I didn't realise that was the case. Kinda feels bad for existing Illuvitars though. Set 2 launch immediately means Set 1 no longer has any (rewards paying) leaderboard value?

idle pier
sleek spindle
#

Ultimately I hate the idea of the games being bound by every decision as if they are holy edicts. The whole point of ICCPs was that we can quickly change things to reflect community and market sentiment.

I truly believe that this ethos could bury Illuvium. And I'm glad that this is not being upheld and major changes are occurring elsewhere.

This specific idea is very small fry in the scheme of things, I certainly don't know if it's the best thing for the game, but I do think we need to make some changes to get Beyond to allow it to break outside its current boundaries.

woeful lichen
#

Johnny, If I had known I could unbond my Illuvitars I would have made many different decisions, as would have others. I sold higher priced accessories because I didn't want bonded Illuvials. Had I known I could unbond them I would have tossed a bunch on a Rhamphyre, bought an Ophisto and done that one as well. I am sure others would have too. So I disagree with you, I think it would have changed things a lot.

Secondly, you are changing the future value of our unbonded Illuvials by allowing Alexa (and others) to unbond his. Which is an even more notable change in my opinion. It's the difference between a pristine card that has never been played with and one that has been played with and put in the dirt. They should have a different value ten years from now if Illuvium does make it big.

People were told that they couldn't unbond. We all made our choices based on that and the DAO should honour it. Change it for Season 2 or whatever that is going to be called but leave at least Wave 1 and 2 as is.

It's true the DAO can change anythhing they want but there are consequences to that. Do it often enough and people are never going to believe anything the DAO says and will feel less secure about seeing Illuvium as an investment. My opinion isn't totally selfish, I am thinking of the DAO as well. I'm old school, a man (or a DAO) is only as good as his word.

sleek spindle
#

Which is why we introduce the durable IIP that I proposed. Then we know which decisions are easy to change (ICCP), moderate (IIP), or hard (dIIP... Proposed).

woeful lichen
sleek spindle
#

As to value changes it's all very hypothetical and retroactive. I'm confident that there are very few people who would have seen substantial change. You would have behaved differently sure, but would you have had any notable differences in what you earned or in the value of your assets. I expect not.

For every thing that reduces value you have a corollary: value goes down as more unbounded things but values go up as more people willing to buy as they know they can bond and use in album then later sell.

#

Let's not forget that we can set a cost and destruction risk as high or low as we want to balance any perceived loss. It could cost $10 or $100 per item removed. Cost could be tied to power so it scales with any such effects.

#

In any case I don't have much to add. I think some kind of change here is worth it and of overall benefit to the DAO. But acknowledge there are negatives too.

idle pier
woeful lichen
woeful lichen
# idle pier Is anything really set in stone?

We have to hope so. Otherwise next year, Illuvium takes off, we have a few thousand people annoyed they missed Wave 1 and the DAO re-releases it because they managed to get 50 thumbs up and the new council figured it was a good way to make money for the DAO. Where does it end? Consistency to promises is essential to a business succeeding.

That's what makes precedents like this a bad idea. If there is a better way of doing things then do it from today forward but businesses shouldn't change past promises.

idle pier
flint isle
tidal osprey
sharp void
# sleek spindle I never feel right bonding high end Illuvitars with anything but top accessories...

I think it takes away the idea of the game in illuvium beyond and this might lead to less transactions in marketplace and decrease in illuvium beyond disk sales if you can unbond accessories. No one will buy new illuvitars anymore because they can just keep increasing their power level with just upgrading their accessories. Most illuvitars with low power levels will be just a trash with $0 value if you can unbond accessories. Bonding accessories to illuvitars is a form of collectible arts that can't be altered like the expensive art paintings. If you alter a painting you definitely lose value of that painting. So keeping illuvitars bonded accessories permanently may have significant impact to it's value depends how players sees it and how they want to use it. Illuvium Beyond is a collectible game that makes your decision the main aspects of the game that can result in losing or wining the game and if you are not happy with the outcome of the game you played then you will be more likely to purchase more illuvitar disk and you will try another strategy again and again to increase your chance of winning the game and this is a healthy cycle to help illuvium beyond economy thrive.