#Thoughts about a better fuel economy

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

vestal grail
#

So far I understand, illuvium is printing 95% of the fuel out of nothing?

My question?
Isn't in the economy printing something for ever leads to permeability deflation?

Wouldn't it be better to have a natural and real open market?

Illuvium could take instead fees from fuels sales, even it's 25%.

Update: Afixed price would solf a lot of problems. Then everyone can calculate and it's not only speculation anymore. Illuvium could increase or decrease the fees if it's getting to much or to less fuel. And if the player base is growing just buff the plots again. Then it wouldn't be a free market but no one would feel disadvantaged.

median tree
#

I don't think we're going to have a 100% natural and real open market even if we try to slap one on top of the system we have now given that it opens up the fuel economy to bad actors monopolizing production and manipulating the price.

I think unlimited printing of fuel is fine (because that's basically how other web2 games function with their in-game paid currencies) but only if we do a better job of increasing and maintaining demand via a complete and fun gaming experience with an ample supply of fuel sinks mixed in.

lean obsidian
#

Yes, it would have been better and it was what was supposed to happen. Before land sale it was said landowners would set fuel prices in a free market. After land sale people panicked over "free market" and instead wanted government control. They felt landowners might band together and price too high, it wouldn't have happened with how much land Kieran holds and the natural tendency of people, but anyhow, rails were put in and the DAO produces fuel out of thin air. Now we are watching the results of that. It's an interesting economic experiment anyway.

Note: Illuvium would take 95% in fees as landowners were promised 5% of fuel sold.

nimble oxide
#

It would likely have been better if there was always a 95% tax on all fuel rather than a 19x inflation right from the start.

#

They could add extra fuel easily through fuel crates, but it is difficult to burn fuel after it is in the system. Players would sell 100 fuel and get only 5 fuel worth of revenue. Yes that feels bad, but right now you make 100 fuel and you need 2000 fuel to be sold to get your 100 fuel in revenue. It doesn't feel bad because you don't notice it, but the exact same thing happens.

heavy summit
#

When you sale land to bailout misappriated funds (sILV stolen) and not to properly develop the ecosystem this is what you get. Turning Fuel into "V-Bucks" and then expanding the unit of energy 19x per transaction is an absolute numb skull disaster that anyone with experience in traditional markets would have understood. Compound it by no entertaining gameloop development because we built an art gallery on an nft marketplace and...

vestal grail
# median tree I don't think we're going to have a 100% natural and real open market even if we...

But web 2.0 don't have landowner, there is no need for an economy. Web 3.0 should be about ownership, fair market. On the beginning it was good that there was extra fuel. Our government also just printing money if it's necessary, not all the time. I think it would be a better game experience if it's more natural. If Illuvium can get something like Pokemon, WOW there is a lot of potential for getting money with fees on the market. Plus fees from the landowner. At the end the game must succeed, it's just an idea, how it can be a better experience.

median tree
# vestal grail But web 2.0 don't have landowner, there is no need for an economy. Web 3.0 shoul...

That may be so, but web2 game economies still exist and have had a lot of time to work out a lot of kinks. It's just that you usually can't directly liquidate or claim ownership of assets like you can on blockchain. It's just a matter of how those economies get integrated with blockchain.

The reason I say unlimited fuel printing "is fine" is only because our lands produce an infinite supply of fuel already, and we're only gated by the rate of production. So even if the "government" is stepping in with their infinite supply, it hurts landowners in these downtimes, but it's not the main problem.

The main problem is we don't have enough of a game to stimulate a bigger demand on consumption. Our rate of consumption doesn't come close to matching our rate of production. The web2 game developers deal with that problem by continually putting out content to spend those currencies on, which is what we're severely lacking right now.

vestal grail
# median tree That may be so, but web2 game economies still exist and have had a lot of time t...

I'd like to have a different and a reason to play web 3.0 .

That there is content missing and it's still an beta it's obvious. And it's fine.

Like I said, it's an idea to make the game experience feel more like real ownership and real economy. I don't expect that the next 6 month we will get massively players that stop the deflation. And when the deflation stop, new player don't have a chance to compete in the market, because the first ones bought so cheap fuel. So it will feel like a ponsi for them. I don't think they will stay long.

median tree
slender hornet
#

@vestal grail why don't you format your thinking and place it as question for the next #1297569623109275758 ? I'm curious to hear Kieran's thoughts about it. I remember there were also a worry that we wouldn't have enough fuel production on day one, because ILZ weren't released earlier, but now I think we are close to max production, so wouldn't this be the time to change to an open market approach?

toxic lichen
slender hornet
vestal grail
vestal grail
#

By the way, I am not a big land owner, I like more pve, grinding the overworld. But it's also no fun, if the prices just falling and with the knowing it's not a natural economy. It's like a speculation, doesn't feel like a game with a full concept for me. But I am a very logical person. And maybe other people feel different and the 95% printing is the best for the game.

toxic lichen
#

at least the high tiers.

toxic lichen
#

instead of set a min rail, max rail and in between increase and decrease fuel production all the time

formal oak
#

The fee/tax would be 95% from land owners sales.

But I’m for this. The 19:1 dao/land owner ratio is confusing, dealing with bonus fuel, and I agree is very deflationary

wheat scaffold
toxic lichen
vestal grail
median tree
vestal grail
toxic lichen
bold summit
#

I personally have never been a fan of the 19:1 fuel inflation model.

vestal grail
#

Thoughts about a better fuel economy

zenith sonnet
wheat scaffold
zenith sonnet
#

imo the biggest issue is we have is IZ keep producing fuel with or without demand

wheat scaffold
zenith sonnet
#

maybe cosmetics for iz?

wheat scaffold
zenith sonnet
#

not sure if thats possible for wave 3 but we'll ask

wheat scaffold
#

it's one fuck up after the other. I'm not surprised at this point if things start falling apart.

vestal grail
toxic lichen
vestal grail
toxic lichen
nimble oxide
toxic lichen
#

And don't say it's complicated.... If you can explain it in 3 sentences it's not complicated

lyric basin
lyric basin
bold summit
#

I also really don’t think fusing the three fuels into one solves anything. I actually think it’s shortsighted reflex to try to hotfix a problem when in reality it just means scale/lore/growth more difficult to grow into.

bold summit
lyric basin
bold summit
#

Yeah, i don’t dislike it, but i do think of it more as a chore than as a game.

wheat scaffold
#

IMO Illuvium's main problem right now is that it only feels good if you play all 3 games. And this is something we should try to address in the future. Even though they're interconnected we need to make each game good on its own.

rich crane
vestal grail
toxic lichen
#

Gona listen to that townhall aswell now

zenith sonnet
#

we still have to vote on it haha