Open Letter: My Illuvium Plan

[lucid harness]

(For the Developers Its sometimes helpful to hear what your players are Planning )

Look, I’ve been open about my experience and my critiques of the game. I think Gauntlet is an awesome mode (at the time of writing, I’m top 3 on the leaderboards with 1725 Elo). I own land, a decent number of Illuvium disks and Illuvials, and some ILV—I’ve heavily invested in this ecosystem. However, the current plans don’t seem to align with investing in the game; instead, they seem to encourage extraction.

The focus on sponsorships like G-Shock feels like a cash grab with 0 potential to bring new players into the game, instead extracting more value from the existing community. The rug pull that is the F2P Gauntlet completely cuts out Land and Overworld players. Leviathan, which should have been a solution, isn’t working—since the reset, a total of 1 Leviathan games have been played.

We create things like Land, but blueprints don’t work, fuel is useless, and Illuvials have no purpose. It’s not enough to create digital assets—they have to be given utility to have value. Without a purpose, the entire ecosystem collapses into a cycle of meaningless assets and extraction, not growth.

My plan is simple, and I encourage others to think carefully: If the big marketing push comes without a change—if we focus on or give equal weight to a 100% F2P Gauntlet—I’ll be selling all my assets and land. I’ll continue to extract, just as the current system incentivizes, because that is the player path you are promoting. Let me Be Clear i'll continue to play Illuvium Gauntlet i'm just not going to invest leave thousands of dollars invested in a game i can play for free.

(I've written multiple Separate Feedbacks that have Game Design Advice and tips i think would improve this problem but Current State this is where we are)

[lost zenith]

Free modes = little to no reward
Leviathans = airdrops
The free modes are for casual people that enjoy the game. Don't give them rewards, otherwise they will transform into airdrop farmers
I guess this aligns with that you also said

[grand mural]

Theres no use for anything because the game ecosystem isnt launched as long as leviathan doesnt start

I can understand the game wasnt/isnt ready but having the supply side alone for ~6 months destroyed the ecosystem and it wasted our "launch hype" because we havent launched yet but everyone think we did

Im still confident that we will succeed because the team went back to the original plan of competitive arena is the main game, but all the delays are hard to digest for sure

We dont know the split yet but last rumor i heard was that its going to be 50/50 between free and leviathan. As most people cant play 12+ hours a day, they will have to choose one of the 2 mode to compete and if one is free and the other one is couple thousands $$$ and hundreds of grind hours the choice will be easy and we still wont have any demand

[inner fiber]

How is the other "couple thousands $$$ AND hundreds of grind hours" if you can snipe the marketplace?

[tough raven]

isn't the one big reason why some people wan't to overhaul the whole economy system because customers don't wana snipe marketplace?

[inner fiber]

Sure, but that's not a counterargument to his "hundreds of grind hours"

[grand mural]

Sniping = the couple thousands $$$

Sure you could find a couple already high level but its pretty hard because its really hard to level up since we cant level in gauntlet

Someone can get away with couple hundreds $$$ for a non-optimal deck and aim for ok placings but ultimately leviathan is pay2win and anyone that wants to be placing well has to pay the thousands of $$$ and grind hundreds of hours on the marketplace and in the ow to level up

Even if it would only be 200$ and 0 grind hours, if the 2 modes have the same rewards and you can only choose 1 (because you dont have 12+ hours per day to dedicate to the game) then people will only play free

[inner fiber]

🤔

[inner fiber]

Making that $200 step and a large F2P playerbase means you have a much bigger proportional part of said prize pool if you make said step

[grand mural]

Sure but i dont think thats enough to make people jump the fence

[inner fiber]

You are right about the leveling part in the current insane power curve but to my memory the conclusion from that one huge thread was that we were to experiment with a compressed power curve to reduce this effect substantially but still keep it noticeable if distance is apparent. I can be wrong in that though

[inner fiber]

Even if participation itself gives rewards?

[grand mural]

You can participate for free in leviathan

[grand mural]

That was the teams conclusion, most of the community was highly against it (yes to an extent based on their bags)

I personally totally support the idea of nerfing the stats/level effect as its quite too high but nerfing it too much will completely destroy the assets that have always gone downhill non-stop since the supply launch

I fear that this would make a great % of the few paying players leave the project for good

[lucid harness]

xactly. A 2.5% conversion rate assumes a low cost of entry—typically around $10. What’s being proposed here is an entirely different scenario with a minimum cost 20x higher, or even more. At that scale, no game developer in the world would expect anything close to a 2.5% conversion rate. In fact, a 0.1% conversion rate is more realistic, and even that’s optimistic given the massive cost difference between Free-to-Play (F2P) and Pay-to-Play (P2P).

The real issue is the lack of an on-ramp. There’s no gradual progression for players to bridge the gap between F2P and the Web3 ecosystem. Instead, you’re asking them to leap a massive chasm with no meaningful incentives or stepping stones. And hearing numbers like 5% conversion rates being thrown around just highlights how disconnected this plan is from reality.

The worst part? This approach doesn’t just fail to support the Web3 economy—it actively undermines it. What’s being built here isn’t a unified ecosystem. It’s two separate economies: an F2P system that props up the company’s revenue while leaving the Web3 economy to rot. The core principles of Web3—ownership, value, sustainability—are being sacrificed to chase short-term numbers in the F2P marke

We shouldn't be talking about CHanging the End Game (Levithan ) We need to be making Adjustments to have F2P not FREE, We are Better off with a Low Cost of Entry (Free to Try Model )

[inner fiber]

The conversion rate for an investment would be inversely proportional to the active leviathan playerbase. If a $200 and decent play gaurantees top 50% of leaderboard where much more rewards lies, why would you not convert?

[lucid harness]

Off the top of my head, there are many reasons. $200 is a steep entry cost compared to the $10 average in most F2P games, which makes it a tough sell for new players. There’s also no guarantee that spending $200 will secure long-term rewards or success, especially with meta changes and the competitive nature of the game. Many players won’t see immediate value in their investment, making it harder to justify the cost. On top of that, the thought of competing with whales and experienced veterans can be intimidating, even with a decent starting point. Finally, there are countless other games offering progression and fun for far less money. All of this is already baked into the 2.5% industry conversion rate, so expecting anything higher is unrealistic

All of that is exactly why we need to add ownership incentives to the F2P model, without relying on stats or levels, but instead mirroring the old Ascendant model. This approach gives players a way to slowly improve their performance each season—and maybe even reinvest their rewards to progress further. The reward system should provide very little to none at entry levels and scale significantly at higher ranks, acting as a springboard towards Leviathan.

By doing this, we create a circular gameplay loop between the two modes. In Gauntlet, players can focus on collecting everything, starting small and growing their collection. Then, as they transition to Leviathan, they begin the process again but with better-statted Illuvials to climb higher. This keeps both modes connected, gives players a clear progression path, and ensures the economy benefits from meaningful engagement at every level.

And yes, I’m 1000% okay with knowing this means we’ll have fewer overall players and grow slower. With the current Illuvial supply, even 1,000 active players would consume all available Illuvials and push them into use, creating a foundation of slow, steady growth. Flooding the game with 300K+ players in the next three months, given the current bugs and issues, would be a disaster.

Instead, we should aim for 50-60K engaged and invested active players in the next three months and grow that base to 250K by the end of 2025. This approach allows us to focus on sustainability, ensuring that every player contributes meaningfully to the ecosystem while maintaining consistent demand for assets and steady growth over time. A rushed influx of F2P players might look good on paper, but it risks breaking the economy and hurting the game’s long-term success.

[inner fiber]

$200 is just a line in the sand example where in reality the investment distribution is much more varied. There's also an ROI on the other side which blows any comparison to industry out of the water

I'm not saying the grass isn't greener on your side as I can't predict the future, but currently we want to test the F2P model for a TFT-competitive product which we are not at yet. If we implement NFT ownership gating and have bugs, it will be even worse

[lethal condor]

But this game are still early right? The airdrop plan should be only for 6 season to engage more player and introduced the game and that's 200k Ilv (10% ILV from the treasury), is’t possible if after have a lot D.A.U, and more base player to make it completely P2A game or competitive leviathan etc am i wrong? Or is't any plan after that F2P model tested and for how long the test?

[lucid harness]

Would love to have a deeper conversation about this—don’t want to start a fight or anything—but I think the incentive structure of the game is fundamentally upside down right now. Even Kieran mentioned that if we can’t get players to engage with Leviathan, there’s no way to justify putting rewards there. I think watering down Leviathan to make it more accessible and turning it into the core function of the game is the wrong move.

If you want a 100% F2P entry point, that’s fine—but that should come later, not now. You’ll never be able to go back and add an asset-driven model between F2P and Leviathan if you skip it now, but you could theoretically add a purely F2P option later when the player base is large enough, the cost of entry is naturally higher, and the ecosystem can support it. Right now, it feels like the current plan is doing things backward.

It’s just not a good fit for our model. Keeping the player base smaller right now would allow us to refine the game, improve stability, and address bugs as we roll out new features. Rushing into a F2P model feels counterproductive when we’re still learning to manage multiplayer servers and ensuring everything works as intended. The only reason I can think of for pushing F2P this quickly is to inflate player numbers for a funding round in the spring. If that’s the case, I’d prefer transparency—just tell us this is necessary to secure future funding. Otherwise, this approach feels like it’s being done at the cost of the invested players who have built their trust and value in this ecosystem.

I love the game and what it stands for, but the current F2P direction doesn’t make sense. It undermines the value of Zero and Overworld, which are built around creating utility for assets, while offering little alignment with the rest of the ecosystem

[left flicker]

You take alot of wild assumptions to an extreme to build some sort of point. What does watering down leviathan mean? They are only discussing optimization and balancing, it may end up pretty much similar to how it is rn. And the reason for this balancing it is that more people are interested in Levi, as some people are defending the current one but no one is playing it. We don't know the numbers yet and what is planned to be changed, I find it strange to call it watering down before knowing anything.

What does rushing into a f2p model mean too? Did I miss something, where did they say the model will change to completely f2p? From what I've seen, the plan is to have an OW f2p co op mode to explore the lore, but illuvial acquisition will not be free?

Literally the point of these changes is to drive more demand for ow and zero (fuel), so how does it destroy anything?

And lastly, I don't believe illuvium's biggest strength is being web3, that has gotten us nothing so far. The current prices for the current model are quite good, you can even make a decent profit per run quite often. And yet no one is playing.

The biggest strength is the IP itself, and we desperately need more exposure on it.

[left flicker]

Well beyond has surprisingly done quite well, so that can be put as a web3 W

[lucid harness]

When I say "watering down Leviathan," I’m talking about changes that take away what makes it unique—a high-stakes, asset-driven competitive mode. Balancing and optimization are fine, but ideas like reducing stats, removing leveling, or turning Illuvial acquisition into pack openings risk stripping Leviathan of its identity. These are just the suggestions being discussed now, and as more players flood into the game, there will undoubtedly be further demands to make Leviathan more accessible, further diluting its purpose.

By "rushing F2P," I mean creating a system where players can fully engage without owning anything. That completely bypasses the Web3 foundation and reduces demand for Overworld and Zero. Wishing that F2P will drive demand isn’t enough—without some actual "special sauce" to fundamentally improve conversion rates, we can’t expect to do better than what industry standards already suggest. There has to be a clear connection to ownership, or the system won’t support the economy at all.

Illuvium’s strength is its combination of Web3 and a great IP. F2P should be a bridge into ownership, not a separate system that competes with it. If we sacrifice the Web3 economy for short-term exposure, we risk losing the unique value Illuvium brings to the market.

[left flicker]

These are just assumptions, I don't see leviathan being stripped of anything as drastic as you suggest. Nor is illuvium moving away from web3. What's your suggestion anyway?

[lost zenith]

Unpopular opinion, but i think people are not playing leviathan because people know there is no liquidity there. I know no one plays it, so i dont bother joining the queue.
If i want to play gauntlet, i go where are more chances of finding a game

[tough raven]

absolutely me2.
And since there are just tournaments for ranked and not leviathan, people naturally play (train) in ranked mode.

[grand mural]

I would play leviathan all day but im currently forced to grind a game i dont even want to play to play leviathan in the future (ow)

[lost zenith]

I feel you. Wish we had some pack opening so i can get them all at once (i hate the marketplace)

[spiral yacht]

Pack opening is the only thing keeping me from spending all my fuel right now. Been stacking crypton for when pack opening releases because I haven't made time to do OW runs.

I think leviathan will be fun once the playerbase is large enough to support consistent games with a variety of player spending ranges. I have a decent deck, maybe $300 in game so far. I like leveling illuvials for OW (and future OW plans) purposes, but I'm not sure it really adds anything to Arena, even the leviathan mode.

Nerfing stats = balancing IMO. You still have the incentive to spend to gain an upper edge, whether that means a 20% spread or 50% spread. I think having a less drastic power gap will actually make for more exciting matches, even for whales. Airdrop farming aside, where is the fun in spending $10,000 and knowing you bought your way to basically winning every match against 99% of players even more skilled ones with far less investment?

[spiral yacht]

I agree that Beyond sponsorships feel like a cash grab because Beyond as a whole feels like a web3 PFP cash grab, but people seem to enjoy it and it adds runway. I still think they should have focused on making a less goofy artwork TCG considering the fidelity and potential of the IP, but that potential is long past gone unless a future TCG uses illuvials and not illuvitars.

Even land feels gimicky, it was the hot thing years ago when NFT's and Metaverse were the end all be all, but it's just another cash grab game, even if training gyms etc. get introduced.

I think the f2p model is a positive direction to correct how cash grabby web3 extraction the IP has been wrapped in, which was just the team adapting to market conditions/hype at the time. We have to move away from airdrop farmers and move towards people wanting to try and invest in the ecosystem because they enjoy the games and are competitive gamers. F2p OW with story mode will help encourage illuvial purchases, f2p Arena with potential to jump players into leviathan will do the same. Beyond and Zero seem to be more or less a web3 cash grab and feel isolated from the other games, I'm fine with them existing as long as they don't stifle the other games adoption too much.

[plucky chasm]

Couldn't agree more. Absolutely no reason to own any NFTs in this ecosystem now, at least in the direction we are headed. And for perspective, I'm in the same boat. Staking since 2021, land, did PBs, Beyond, avid Overworld Player, etc

Hate the move away from web3. 50,000 hardcore crypto gamers is way better than 1 million ftp people that will just extract value. Think this game is destined for pure web2. This was my number 1 conviction for 3 years.. f man 🤦

[plucky chasm]

Already responded to your original post but this is so important right here ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️

TLDR: Core principles of Web3 are being abandoned

[cosmic pelican]

@lucid harness I completely agree with your point of view.

[inner fiber]

Finding it hard to find the nuggets in here, so I'll try and ask a direct specific question

Assuming Leviathan is the same structure across both models, why do you think (partial) ownership gating would work better for a TFT-like autobattler?
Let's also assume illuvial acquisition is irrelevant, packs or OW or marketplace

Take me through the first player experience in both models and why you are so adamant one works long term and the other doesnt

Prospect -> Player -> Customer -> ARPU

For each of these steps, explain why one model trumps the other, or the aggregate trumps the other model

Model 1: F2P + Cosmetics (we need a ownership cosmetic which is coming soon afaik) + Leviathan as now
Model 2: Ownership gating as in Ascendant + Cosmetics + Leviathan as now

What would your Model 2 exactly look like in the current iteration of Gauntlet? If I own all but 2 T4 and 5 T5 lines, what happens?

[lucid harness]

The core idea here is that a smaller, well-engaged player base is far more sustainable in the long term and allows the entire ecosystem to grow organically. A F2P system, while it might generate a larger DAU, comes with significant downsides: increased costs, amplified bugs and balance issues, and forcing more players into the game before it’s fully ready.

Model 1 (F2P) creates a system where ownership becomes irrelevant, sidelining demand for the Web3 economy. On the other hand, Model 2 (Ownership Gating) ensures that every player has a reason to invest in and engage with the ecosystem, tying their progress directly to the health of the economy. Here's the breakdown: ( Let me Break this down More for you )

Model 1: F2P + Cosmetics + Leviathan
Prospect: Attracts free players, but most churn or remain casual with little long-term commitment.
Player: Revenue is tied to cosmetics, which don’t connect to the ecosystem or ownership.
Customer: Spending is minimal and disconnected from the Web3 economy, limiting impact on Overworld and Zero.
ARPU: Cosmetics cap engagement and fail to drive meaningful ecosystem demand.
Model 2: Ownership Gating + Cosmetics + Leviathan
Prospect: Appeals to asset-driven gamers like TCG and gacha players who value ownership and collection.
Player: Uses soft gates, allowing players to grind and climb ranks with favorite team comps without requiring full ownership upfront.
Customer: Gradual investment encourages small, meaningful purchases rather than the overwhelming all-or-nothing model of Leviathan.
ARPU: Ownership ties spending to progression, driving engagement and supporting the Web3 economy.
Soft Gates Note: Model 2 lets players progress while incentivizing ownership over time. This lowers barriers to entry, promotes steady engagement, and builds a stronger connection to the ecosystem than F2P.

In my ideal model, players would get "Ghost/Phantom" units for any Illuvials they don’t own. These units would lack the ownership bonus—a stat or level boost, ideally set between 10-30%, similar to the advantage a perfect-stat Illuvial has over an average one In Levithan.

This system rewards ownership without completely locking out non-owners. As Kieran has mentioned, skilled players with strong strategies and good augments could still overcome the gap, but on average, ownership should provide the winning edge. This approach maintains competitiveness while incentivizing gradual investment in the ecosystem. Players can play as much as they want and CLimb as far as they want experincing the game. However they can also start to pick up illuvials from the marketplace or overworld to fill in the teams they like to play.

Similar To how you Can just Buy the Champions you want to play in League of legends not the whole Roster. Or the cards you want to play in hearthstone not the whole set.

[distant cedar]

Free to play gauntlet arena tournaments should be able to get some rewards such as unique illuvitars, illuvitar disk or any illuvium nfts for top rank players, and for leviathan gauntlet tournament players should be the only one that should get ILV (real money) rewards. I think this is the best solution to encourage everyone to collect more illuvials for the leviathan gauntlet tournaments. This proposal will also help increase value of fuels and increase activities in marketplace. Also there should be a casual PVP 8 players leviathan gauntlet arena where a host player can set an amount of fuel to enter the game, and the top players gets the fuels, 1st place takes 75% of the fuel in the pool and 2nd place takes 25% of the fuel that's in the pool, this type of game would allow anyone to have a chance winning something even if the player is not that good in playing the arena tournaments.

[inner fiber]

So the game would become Leviathan but with a different power gate based on just ownership

F2P is 0% at no ownership, full ownership is X%, let's say 20%
Then Leviathan is 0%, full ownership is X% where it varies based on your stats

Don't get me wrong I liked the old Ascendant ownership model, I just don't think it makes sense anymore with Gauntlet as main game mode

[lucid harness]

Leviathan isn’t just about ownership—it’s about leveraging the stats and levels of Illuvials to create a high-stakes, competitive mode. In the model I’m proposing, Gauntlet becomes an introductory league where the only power gate is ownership, and stats and levels are normalized.

The ownership bonus in Gauntlet would be smaller, perhaps even smaller at 5-10% difference in power, enough to reward ownership without overwhelming non-owners. The idea isn’t to create two separate modes but to provide a natural progression path. Think of it like a JV league leading into varsity—players can hone their skills and build their collections in Gauntlet before moving into the more competitive, stat-driven Leviathan.

This structure ensures Gauntlet serves as a bridge to Leviathan while still encouraging ownership, keeping the ecosystem cohesive and rewarding across both modes.

The current Gauntlet setup might work for traditional F2P games, but in a Web3 scene, it completely disconnects from Overworld, Zero, and the broader Illuvial economy. If we don’t integrate ownership incentives from the start, we risk creating a mode that feels great to play but contributes nothing to the ecosystem we’re trying to build.

And if we try to come back later and add ownership incentives after players are already in, it will feel like a bait and switch, damaging trust and alienating the very audience we’re trying to grow. Gauntlet is amazing—it just needs to work in harmony with the Web3 economy from the beginning.

[inner fiber]

Not really what I was looking for, anyone can put positive words to the model they like and negative words to the model they don't like

Assuming Leviathan is non-existent as it is the same for both models, highly personal the above, add "imo" or "I think" to every line. Not enough pride to assume to know the future and if the grass is greener on the other side

Model 1: F2P + Cosmetics + Leviathan
Prospect: F2P enables much more marketing potential in terms of "try us out"
Player: Level playing ground for all, no frustration
Customer: Relying purely on cosmetics and show off for the conversion
ARPU: Once base cosmetics collected, "whales" rely on holo/dark holo

Model 2: Ownership Gating + Cosmetics + Leviathan
Prospect: Less marketing potential broadly but perhaps more from an investment POV
Player: (More) frustration in a game genre which is notoriously bad at given feedback for why you lost, now you lost because you owned the Phorus but your opponent owner the Phosphorus
Customer: Much harder to convert but opens multiple avenues
ARPU: Similar cosmetics as above, beyond that "Catch em all" is the end game, relies on UX quality of marketplace or fun of OW

So in the end I agree with your macro conclusion in the sea of words. F2P leads to bigger player base but smaller (and different, cosmetic vs ownership) conversion rate and ARPU, the latter leads to smaller player base but better conversion rate and ARPU

Which is better? Who knows

But I'll stand by my point that the game is not in a state to test Model 1 proper

[inner fiber]

For games which are meant to be very competitive at heart, I don't think we can tack on progression systems outside of options.