An Idea on how to make Ownership matter in Gauntlet, while not being negatively impacting Gameplay.

[visual oriole]

I haven’t been keeping up with all the ideas or plans around Gauntlet and how to make ownership meaningful while not negatively impacting gameplay, so if the following is redundant, apologies in advance.

My Thesis:
Gauntlet is better suited for a Web 2.5 approach, where ownership provides rewards but does not impact gameplay.

Reasoning:
Gauntlet, as a game (8-Player Free For All, gigantic shared pool of Units), doesn’t inherently benefit from ownership mechanics. Forcing such mechanics into the gameplay could worsen the experience. Therefore, ownership should not influence the games directly but could work in terms of rewards for participation or achievements.

Leaderboard rewards that are overly top-heavy often get abused through win-trading or similar practices. Flattening them out, on the other hand, introduces issues like multi-accounting. However, since most current Web3 gamers primarily play for rewards, some level of compromise might be unavoidable.

Proposed Solution:
Introduce a system where players “stake” or “sleeve” (or whatever term you prefer) Illuvials to become eligible for rewards. This approach ensures gameplay remains unaffected while providing meaningful utility for ownership.
Tier, Stage, Stats and Finish of Illuvials should affect the reward.
(This concept could also extend to other games to create interconnected systems to e.g. make the Beyond profile pictures more than pfps/beyond leaderboard relevant, allowing for owning few/less rare/non bonded Illuvitars to matter for “rewards” as well)

Examples of how this could look to illustrate and ideas on how to minimize problems:

Variables to address multi-accounting:
• Rewards are only given after Illuvials have been staked for a set number of days.
• This discourages exploitative behaviors like quick account cycling and forces to at least own assets for every account.

Reward Structure:
The foundation of the system should be a base reward tied to a player’s percentile rank, which minimizes issues like win-trading. If the focus shifts to being in the top X% rather than achieving Rank 1, it reduces incentives for abusive behavior.

The base reward could then be multiplied by the Tier, Stage and Stats of Illuvials staked, as follows (Placeholder numbers and just an example):
• Each player has slots for staking, e.g.:
o 10 slots for Dark Holo Illuvials
o 10 slots for Holo Illuvials
o 20 slots for Normal Illuvials
• Filling all Normal slots unlocks the base reward.
• Staking rarer Illuvials (e.g., Holo or Dark Holo) increases the multiplier, possibly gradually, to avoid making it an all-or-nothing system.

Tier, Stage, and Stats could also modify the reward multiplier. A non-linear progression system would make Illuvials with high stats valuable without making them the only viable choice, avoiding the current "Leviathan setup"
scenario.

• Further for example, instead of basing the entire multiplier on Stats and Tier and Stage, the base number could correlate to Tier/Stage, while stats and Holo, Dark Holo act as a multiplier.
e.g. Stats of Holo/Dark Holo slots could simply add to the multiplier and count at a higher rate than the ones from normal Illuvials. This potentially looks less complicated and allow the multiplier to not be an insanely high % number while the base is tiny.

Benefits:
This system ties leaderboard rewards to ownership while allowing players to gradually engage with it. Gameplay remains unaffected, and matchmaking queues aren’t split into different modes. Ranked could be the only mode, as splitting the queue for different game modes (e.g., testing setups) would strain the player base. For testing, players could use secondary accounts without staking for earnings, which wouldn’t violate the Terms of Service.

[spice hornet]

Great idea 🔥

[robust moth]

Was mentioned here and there but i think no one Made a idea thread out of it yet 👍

I Like the idea in General of lockig illuvials for getting rewards in f2p leaderboards
Don't see why it should replace leviathan mode

[bold violet]

Similar idea here, maybe a mix of both can work #1292423486626856961 message

[visual oriole]

especially if you have normal, ranked, normal/ranked leviathan you split your playerbase very thin

as I see currently there is a struggle to find 8 player lobbies and people have to type in discord hoping for others to hop in

8-player lobbies with similar skill to have enjoyable matchmaking does in fact require very high player-numbers, that´s why even in insanely big games like League of Legends you have few minutes que timer to find a balanced 10-player lobby (obv higher on the less populated ends of the elo-playerbase spectrum), splitting the playerbase of essentially a small indie game into different game modes will make the lobbies less enjoyable to play and increase que-times

Main issue is just the tech side of this imo, no idea how easy "sleeving" Illuvials (or monitoring wallets), calculating and distributing rewards is etc.

[visual oriole]

This feels hard to understand and keep up with, adds more complexity, which for the average guy is likely tough.

[bold violet]

Agreed, although most of it could be automated e.g. the opponent would just get a free automatic boost.

[visual oriole]

the weird part is, playing every game with different powerlevel units from the side that gets the boost, so you have to know how to play every game according to that, which seems super hard

[bold violet]

Even if it was applied to all Illuvials in an equal amount ?

[visual oriole]

It still changes gameplay, like +10%hp could be +100HP and some ability targeting max range enemy might go from killing it to not killing it or from not killing to killing, depending on how the ability scales with omega power/attack damage assuming a 10% increase there as well or if it scales at all.
Further atm atk speed from stats still makes you cast faster, so buffing that certainly changes fights and how good/bad some timings are.

Also taking damage converts to energy, so if Illuvials have more health/resistance they might hit breakpoints of casting ability at all or a 2nd time etc.

Another example would be Illuvials that have %-damage reduction on omega, they do use it with more HP left if they have extra to start with e.g., boosting those abilities a lot.

[rough bluff]

Great idea, I proposed something similar recently here #1308056710954614845 message and how to include stats and levels in order to fight multi accounting abusers here #1308056710954614845 message

It's pretty similar to your suggestion, but instead of staking the illuvials, the game tracks which illuvials you used and owned during the season, and bases the personal rewards based on that. I think it would best work as part of an album/collection that the player develops over time.

I cannot upvote since OP blocked me for some reason, so I'll leave it here 👍

[worldly jasper]

Tbh i think thats the only good solution for all the problems leviathan mode would face otherwise ( like playerbase , p2w , to difficult which viper already mentioned ). For Example i played Lost Ark in the past its an mmorpg with pvp modes in it and they also had a f2p and p2w mode (where stats mattered) and over time nobody played the p2w mode anymore u couldnt find games and it was to tilt if u knew that u only lost cause the other one just had better gear but u played better

[proper basin]

I agree with you, Viper—ownership absolutely needs to be incentivized in Gauntlet. But I believe that incentives need to be built into the core gameplay, not just tacked on as a gate for rewards. A halfway system where players can play but can’t earn anything feels off—it doesn’t pass the smell test as a gamer.

We need to choose a direction. Either go full F2P, admit we’re shifting away from the Web3 core to grab DAU (potentially for a funding round or a cosmetics cash grab), and let the players earn meaningful rewards—or change gauntlet into an incentive model like a "Leviathan Lite," where ownership directly ties into gameplay progression. This halfway approach feels like a compromise that satisfies no one and doesn’t align with Illuvium’s goals.

[visual oriole]

There is no upside in gameplay terms for Gauntlet, you will never reach any meaningfull audience by doing a worse version of a genre just for the sake of ownership.
This sake of ownership thing is why people laugh of many games, because often it just doesn´t make sense, so they aren´t even wrong there.

Whole Autochess genre is essentially set up as f2p sell cosmetics. If Illuvials become meaningfull cosmetics sure, but again how long away is this? And it wouldn´t attract most of web3 players aka the people who are currently open to even start playing.

Web3 players mostly play for rewards, so this web2 f2p game idea is also doomed, as you then don´t have the majority of people who have played and would be open to play.
Trying to convince someone from stop playing TFT and play our game will be very hard, when bottom line even if the game is better there are barely any players and lobbies are all unbalanced+ you need a far better game for people to swap games, which idk how realistic or soon this can be done, currently is obviously very far away from it.

[twin spindle]

I honestly really like this idea. Ive only played leviathan a few times and the whole dynamic of the game is different because of the how much stats affect illuvials. I remember i had a Revo with max attk speed and it was just gaining omega super quick from auto attking and he was just rolling around every 5 secs and blinding everyone with dust it was so op, my opponent was pretty much perma blind. I just dont know how they would make things like that balanced without changing the whole game. I think this idea would keep the game balanced, not split the player base to different modes and also give demand for illuvials, and it even puts more demand for holo, dark holos. I think it would even attact more players from web2 as play to win games is such a turn off for many players.

[sage merlin]

Maybe I understood something wrong, of course, but it doesn’t sound bad. I didn’t understand about F2P players? What's with them? Will they be able to receive rewards for playing without having to buy anything? But this is a direct road to multi-accounts. Initially, I thought that we would have only one game mode, where you play with what you own (based on the principle of card games), while Tier 0 is given for free as a basic one. But traits and levels appeared, and everything went in a different direction. There was an ascendant, now there is a gauntlet (but I like it better). And in this mode, tying ownership of an asset to the game became a problem, which is probably why traits appeared? I don’t really understand why there were changes. Why did they start adding traits (+50% max) and lvl (+60% and more) to the standard illuvials, for a total of +110%, making the game so unbalanced? Probably it was possible to do everything in the opposite direction, when an illuvial of 0 traits and 0 lvl has a minimum of HP, attacks, etc. And illuvil 300% with lvl 60 would have the same stats that we now have in our regular ranking. But this is just an opinion.
But I really like the idea of ​​making one game mode, it’s right. The idea for owning an asset (a multiplier, for example) is also good. I don’t know what’s going on with F2P players, but for those who own illuvials it would be great to add a multiplier to the rewards for the leaderboard. For example, a certain amount of ILV is allocated for the leaderboard for the season. Players play the arena and take their positions on the leaderboard. For these positions they receive not ilv, but points. Next, depending on their illuvial ownership (the album would probably be acceptable, with one value for the entire album's power), these points are multiplied by a multiplier (the album's power value). And after that, the total ILV pool is distributed by points, and not by position on the leaderboard.

[visual oriole]

If you are f2p, aka don´t own Illuvials tier 1+, you´d get no rewards yes.
f2p has the entire gameplay experience, but without p2e

I am not even a fan of p2e nor do I think it is great longterm, but seems like the best solution for the current problems.

[lone heath]

I agree that you shouldn't force changes that could hurt the player experience, but I'm not sure this situation actually does that. It really depends on whether there will be one mode or two. With just one mode, I could see it being an issue, but from what I understand, Illuvium is set to have two different modes. If that’s the case, it makes more sense to focus the discussion around that.

Having two modes is a unique feature of Illuvium compared to TFT, and I personally see it as an advantage from a theoretical perspective. I’m not here because I think Illuvium is a better game. Honestly, I doubt it will ever come close to TFT. What draws me to Illuvium is that it represents similar ideas to TFT but adds an entire ecosystem. Without the ecosystem, why would anyone choose Illuvium over TFT?

On the topic of leaderboard rewards, I agree they could incentivize win-trading. To counter that, strict rules need to be enforced. For example, if someone is caught cheating, they should be permanently banned from future leaderboard rewards and tournaments. Hardware bans could also make it harder for them to return.

You could also require phone number authentication at the start and end of each season to make the system harder to exploit. However, I think reducing top-heavy rewards might actually make it harder to catch cheaters. When rewards are lower, people care less about getting banned, while top players and those heavily invested in the game wouldn’t want to because of the risk vs reward. I think lowering the top-heavy rewards would have a negative effect. High rewards encourage players to invest more into the ecosystem and get more engaged with the game. If lower ranks get more rewards instead, it could lead to farming, where people just take the money and leave.

From a market perspective, big rewards for top players attract more people who want to become the best. RIOT has shown this with their success. By giving top players significant rewards and turning them into superstars, they inspire others. I don’t even play League of Legends, but after watching the Worlds Finals entrance, I was so hyped and thought, "I want to be one of those players walking out on that stage." Building a system that motivates players and gives them something to aspire to is so important. Most successful esports and even traditional sports follow this kind of model. With that in mind, I disagree with tying base rewards to a player's percentile rank. It takes away parts from what makes competing at the top exciting and doesn’t seem to have many benefits either.

I do like parts of your solution. Allowing players to stake assets to earn more rewards could really help the ecosystem overall. That said, it’s also risky because it could become a system where the richest players get the most rewards, which would discourage others. Maybe staking could have reasonable caps. For example, each Illuvial could give a certain number of points based on its tier or stage. That would make the system more accessible while still supporting the ecosystem.

I also don’t think overdoing things like stats, colors, or other cosmetic features would be good. That could definitely hurt the player experience, which you mentioned as something you’re trying to avoid. Imagine you finish at rank 1 and have all the Illuvials in the game, but someone who ended up in the top 50 gets better rewards because they have holo or dark holo Illuvials. To me, that would take away parts of the excitement and the rewards for being good at the game. From my perspective, this goes against your idea of not letting ownership negatively impact gameplay. I also think we have this issue with the current stats and levels having too big of an impact. Personally, I really dislike the level system because it forces people to play a game mode they don’t even want to play. I do think the stats impact in Leviathan is important for the ecosystem to work, but the impact it has right now feels a bit too high.

One last point that hasn’t been discussed much is the importance of keeping the current investors and player base happy. You mentioned this on your Twitter, and I thought it was a great take, I’ll include a screenshot here. However, I feel that some of your proposed changes might contradict that idea. They could lead to existing assets losing even more value, which would hurt current investors and players further. The overall sentiment right now is already pretty negative, and what’s really needed is a push in a positive direction, not the opposite.

[visual oriole]

I think all the kyc level things would gatekeep players/web3 natives who severely dislike those or could be gamed anyways.
Idk how easy hardware bans are, but realistically you can never prove things 100% anyways, many „pro-players“ I personally know have cheated systems to some extent and it was very obvious yet nothing could be done because only 99%. Trying to stay ahead of that isn’t possible you can only minimize it by having systems that don’t max reward it.

To the keep people happy point, you literally have no playerbase atm tbh, I am guessing but likely we are talking sub 50 people playing per day, giving this reward structure would make people buy Illuvials, and play however many games needed for rewards, likely giving you few thousand monthly maybe even daily players at least.

I think even Kieran mentioned this recently, goal seems to be more along the lines of token do well -> raise cash-> have better games/time to make them. This seems if dev wise not horrible like the best option in regards of using Gauntlet as the game mode for it like I said above, as the web 2.5 take is also „better“ than TFT in the sense of earnings for top players, which would include most of the creators who might take an interest in the game due to business reasons.

I don’t even think Illuvium does have this big enough and happy core of players you could cater towards anymore, which you see in playernumbers and people who are willing to speculate on Illuvial values/playing Overwolrd/Gauntlet.

It has been fumbled away, we can debate about the why, but idk how helpful or actionable that would be.

[robust moth]

yea, playerbase gets split up into 2 modes.

Indeed it's a struggle atm, but that's not because of 2 modes but rather because of just a low playerbase and yea you really need a good amount of players to cut that waiting time down.
Additions like you can for example qeue in arena while playing ow could help aswell as soon as there are some new people joining the ecosystem. I would rather kill the casual modes than leviathan tbh.

I don't really think it's an issue if you play with higher skilled players or not. I play sometimes a bit of lol with my niece, and i can't remember a game where there wasn't a high skilled smurf account whooping asses in those games.
I feel there are benefits as well as disadvantages when not all player are on the same skill level in a lobby but imo it doesn't make a game a success or not if the skill level isn't perfectly balanced.

In my opinion, having leviathan adds many benefits like bonding with your collection or fun content because crazy stuff happens in there, but also it sets ILV autobattler apart from all the others.

[visual oriole]

Prob relevant to mention again, but you surely can have and keep leviathan as a game mode, deleting it or not doesn’t directly impact rewards setup for normal gameplay.

Everything below the Thesis/Reasosing/Solution part is merely an example of how it could look and what benefits of these examples could happen:
"My Thesis:
Gauntlet is better suited for a Web 2.5 approach, where ownership provides rewards but does not impact gameplay.

Reasoning:
Gauntlet, as a game (8-Player Free For All, gigantic shared pool of Units), doesn’t inherently benefit from ownership mechanics. Forcing such mechanics into the gameplay could worsen the experience. Therefore, ownership should not influence the games directly but could work in terms of rewards for participation or achievements.

Leaderboard rewards that are overly top-heavy often get abused through win-trading or similar practices. Flattening them out, on the other hand, introduces issues like multi-accounting. However, since most current Web3 gamers primarily play for rewards, some level of compromise might be unavoidable.

Proposed Solution:
Introduce a system where players “stake” or “sleeve” (or whatever term you prefer) Illuvials to become eligible for rewards. This approach ensures gameplay remains unaffected while providing meaningful utility for ownership.
Tier, Stage, Stats and Finish of Illuvials should affect the reward.
(This concept could also extend to other games to create interconnected systems to e.g. make the Beyond profile pictures more than pfps/beyond leaderboard relevant, allowing for owning few/less rare/non bonded Illuvitars to matter for “rewards” as well)"

Your lol example is a personal experience sure, but riot has been and is still doing their best to not have Smurfs in low elo games, so they do see this as an issue worth investing resources to fix in as well.
Most games in fact are having and trying to enforce Skill Based Matchmaking as a very relevant part of how they think they make the game enjoyable for most.

Further in games like TFT almost no one makes multiple accounts, as playing below your elo is very unenjoyable, compared to moba/fps.

The idea of a hyper, poorly designed p2w for the game mode makes the game unique seems utopian, when was the last time you had good headlines about a p2w game?
So poorly designed p2w in a genre that outside of this one web3 p2w game, is entirely cosmetic monetization only?
Sounds like asking for bad press and 0 players, like you currently have. If it would be fun and unique, why is no one playing? The differentiating p2w aspect is live already.

[robust moth]

I don't doubt riot trying to fight smurfs, yet it happend to be the case in my personal opinion on a overwhelmingly high number of games.
I guess it's hard to have control over that.

Why shouldn't that happen in TFT like games? How many smurfs did you have last time you played leaderboard? Almost half of top 100 were smurf accounts if i remember right. (And that were just those who named them similar).
I also don't think its very unenjoyable for people to play below their elo. Maybe for a very small percentage of the playerbase who are highly competitive. Just look how many games struggle to fight cheaters, you think all those cheating people cheat because they want a competitive gameplay? Play with people on their skill level?

I don't think it's poorly designed.. unbalanced, yes.
Leviathan mode can mirror a players strength he gathered with spending time in the ecosystem, actually playing his own collection.
If one is playing his umbre in every game mode in every game over years, that umbre should be obliterating an occasionally played psion backline for the right. It helps you bond with your own favorits or whole collection. It can also make fun content about insane stuff happening in leviathan, give people a platform to flex and can make insane sales happening when in a couple years one sells his perfect stat lvl 150 Titanor he had to spend 10k hours with him to reach such high levels.

[visual oriole]

Well let´s avoid 100 useless messages that won´t end on anything anyways.

You don´t like the example for personal opinion and anecdotal reasons, ok, obv no one can tell you what to feel.
You also argue for Leviathan in it´s current state which wouldn´t be impacted by this outside of the possible example anyways, as if there is demand you obv offer the option to people, currently there simply isn´t demand, that´s why the suggestion to not offer it.

To the relevant part:
Do you have anything against the Solution proposed here, to have a sort of staking/sleeving or similar to allow a web 2.5 p2e and give a reason to own Illuvials that doesn´t make Gauntlet a worse game compared to the business normal approach in this Genre and competitors like TFT?

[robust moth]

lol

You don´t like the example for personal opinion and anecdotal reasons, ok, obv no one can tell you what to feel.

yea i guess we avoid having useless messages and stop discussing...

[visual oriole]

So you can´t point to issues on the solution, only personal feelings on the example then avoid answering ok.

[robust moth]

doesn't make any sense, if anything that doesn't align with your personal feelings gets gismissed like that.

[visual oriole]

I never mentioned personal feelings on anything, you use anecdotals, theoriticals and hypothicals to discuss the example provided how the solution could be implemented, not the solution idea. Further you only discuss a small sub part of that, that barely is relevant to the example.

It is sad that this is the level of discussion we have in these threads, but I should be used to it by now I guess.

If you want to point to your feelings, that is valid feedback, I never denied that either, but how can anyone tell you what to feel? So how am I supposed to respond outside of "ok so you feel this way, that doesn´t mean the majority of potential customers does and likely the majority of customers doesn´t as the big gaming companies seems to belive differenlty" when I did you use further anecdotals saying I am dismissive etc. when I merely pointed to facts opposing the idea that your feelings are the feelings of the masses.

[compact mica]

I think there is defiantly some good idea to this proposal, and we have to find a way to make people want to collect and get some sort of reward for doing so.

I think the best way is to create the "collection album" as soon as possible, and make some reward system, very similar to what we have for Beyond. This can also be done without "interfering" with the arena balance and reward system, and still incentivise people playing to get XP, and gives values to the Illuvials. (more rare gives more points, higher XP and stats = power level gives more points, etc.).

We can then keep Leviathan and try to balance that some more with the Illuvials with stats, make the survival mode with your own Illuvials, etc...

(made a post about this in another thread some days ago)
#1307792806286462986 message

[visual oriole]

I wanna say again, whole leviathan derail thing is pretty irrelevant imo.
Keep it or not doesn´t matter much to this.

I also think burning to maybe increase stats or something certainly has some merits, but that is something that also seems potentially very limiting for the future, as you limit/price out playerbase to some extend, which then would mean make those old Illuvials useless to cater to the new players, which wouldn´t help anyone.

Burning also doesn´t directly give value to Illuvials, you still need a reason to have them and preferable reasons to have Illuvials outside of only perfect stats/levels.
So even if we find a good burning thing, still need owning Illuvials to matter in general.
Preferably faster than with a new game.

[compact mica]

agree with this 100%. That's what I was trying to suggest.. introduce some sort of collection system that rewards for collecting and holding Illuvials.

dont think burning for base stats is a good idea, but could provide XP, that would give value to "bad stat" Illuvials, but thats a seperate discussion... and the main thing is, as you suggest, to give value to owning illuvials to start with

[visual oriole]

I think an issue you run into with just holding paying rewards so to say is, that it doesn´t create players in the PvP games, which are lacking severly.

[compact mica]

yes, 100%... which is why it cant be the only solution, but a part of it.

[robust moth]

i wrote in my very first post in here that i like the idea in general, but don't like seeing it replacing leviathan, you wanted to move on on why we should delete leviathan gauntlet.

It is also you who keep going on with those personal stuff about my feelings and passive personal attacks with stuff like

It is sad that this is the level of discussion we have in these threads, but I should be used to it by now I guess.
Me in general just wanted to have an objective debate.
I don't think i wrote anything based on my feelings.
You think it's anecdotal or theoretical that there are tons of cheaters in games and the more cheaters there are the less impact the aspect of we need a competitive play on all rankings has? Or that you and many other people created tons of smurf accounts?

[robust moth]

Should expect people talking about it if you mention deleting a Mode in you OP.
If it's irrelevant for you, should probably edit it it out.

[visual oriole]

You keep writing examples of your personal experience playing games, or how you think someone might enjoy certain aspects of the game, this is you talking about your feelings and opinions, making thesis without strong arguments, and at most examples or anecdotals backing them.

You certainly aren´t having an objective debate when close to all that you say is a thesis and personal opinion as example.

Obv there are cheaters in games, any system that rewards for online gameplay will have people abusing and cheating, impossible to beat that, reducing the impact of wintrading and having them all own assets on all accounts is as good as you can do like I lined out.

I pointed out people don´t play multiple accounts in that genre of game, this is a fact, different to e.g. Mobas, you say "but viper you made multiple accounts in the 1v1 game, that incentified having multiple accounts", how is this an argument?

[visual oriole]

"Examples of how this could look to illustrate and ideas on how to minimize problems:"

To me this is clear that it is an example and possible options that can go with it.
You clicked downvote on this, so you obv have to disagree with the idea, not only this small part of the example, correct? Or did you miss what an example is? Or do you misrepresent your stance in chat here?

[robust moth]

In your "proposed solution" you want to introduce a system where the gameplay remains unaffected while providing meaningful ownership.
moving on in "benefits" with " gameplay remains unaffected, and matchmaking queues aren't split into different modes.

Which implies to me that deleting leviathan is more than just an example but rather a core thematic to the proposed system.

[robust moth]

So you think this is just a personal experience just i have and noone else?
That smurf accounts and cheaters are a problem almost any game experiences or studios trying to fight against?
Since you just talking facts, you for sure can link a few sources that in Autobattlers smurf accounts are non existent, and it was just a coincidence we encountered that problem with our autobattler. And even if, if we have that problem, it impacts us even if other autobattlers wouldn't encounter it, right?

[visual oriole]

If Leviathan is a gamemode with 0 players like currently or if it doesn’t exist seems to me like it is the same.
If there is demand sure have it, nothing here opposes this.

Trying to convince a TFT player Leviathan Gauntlet is a good game that they should play instead of TFT seems weird as they could clearly choose to play p2w games instead of TFT already but they don’t do so.

[visual oriole]

What do you try to say here?
I lined out what the most effective means to reduce malicious and unwanted behavior are.

Is your suggestion to have no rewards or anything at all? No Season 3? No tournaments?
You obv can exploit things in every system. What you say is repetitive and redundant.

Companies obv don’t have stats on „smurfs“

Streamer community eg plays 1-2 accounts max, 2 if there is an incentive from esports systems usually.

Buying and selling of accounts in eg league of legends is a rather liquid market with lots of offers as well, TFT barely exists.

But this is again the topic, what have Smurf’s to do with the proposed system?
It is clearly beneficial to play on your highest ranked account for rewards, it is against ToS to farm rewards on more than 1 Account.

Will multiaccount stuff happen, obviously yes, same as in any other system outside of forcing people to attend events in person, which isn’t doable for hundreds or thousands of players obv.

[sweet cloak]

If i put my feet in the shoes of a web2 gamer thats about to onboard ilv I feel it would be worst to play for free but only get my rewards proportional to what i invested compared to the TCG like model where you buy "cards" to play with in leviathan

Then if that model doesnt replace leviathan but just get added to the free mode we lose the real power of the free mode imo

I would add that the current model isnt tested yet. The game isnt ready, the incentives didnt start, the marketing didnt start and we cant even speculate on future use case of assets because every week/months the game gets delayed more and more

[polar oracle]

imo this idea is fine for normal gauntlet. we have talked about adopting parallel's ownership-reward system and we have talked about tiered leaderboard (silver, gold, plat, etc) as well.

as for removing leviathan, assuming this is what the thread is suggesting. i dnt think i'll agree.
some of us have spent a premium on decent/perfect stats. i personally want to use high stats to stomp my enemies, not use it as a multiplier. plus, we have 6 stats, some are more beneficial to certain illuvials. i just dnt see the need to revamp leviathan yet, but i'll keep an open mind about it

[rough bluff]

Guys no need to overthink it, just introduce an album/collection that the player updates each season, some sort of locking/staking mechanism for the season, so that you can't transfer your assets and farm the rewards on multiple accounts, include stats and levels of the collection+ combined with the tier system (silver, gold, plat, etc) = the rewards each player gets for the bracket they end up in a season. It has no downsides and solves multiple issues at the same time. It doesn't have any negative impact on Leviathan, if anything it's propping up people for it slowly whether they realize/want it or not. Then it's anyone's decision if they wanna play leviathan or not.

[rough bluff]

This makes no sense Patate, why would it feel 'worse' to get monetary rewards proportional to how much you have invested? In web2 people compete for fun, bragging rights and cosmetics, no one has a problem with that.

We can also have that here, and for the people who wish to invest further to build their collection, they get higher % allocation of the ilv rewards, kind of like how token staking weight works. We get the best of both worlds and create an environment for everyone.

[visual oriole]

So I understand correctly, you suggest, that a TFT player, who is used to playing f2p same game as everyone else, would rather go play super p2w mode, with insane barrier of entry to be able to play at high ranks, instead of putting some Illuvials in a sleeve to get rewards for playing at high ranks?

[spice hornet]

People who don't agree with your idea have invested too much time in leveling up the illuvials for the leviathan, you won't be able to make them change their minds.

[rough bluff]

Leviathan is fine to remain, it definitely has its place purpose and meaning. I just fail to realize why we keep comparing ourselves to tft and built the entire game around it as if it is the pinnacle of gaming or something. That game would struggle to have 500k players if it wasn't riding on LoL's success

[shell ridge]

What if staked album is your base points and end of season rank is simply a multiplier.

[rough bluff]

Yes something like that would be the best option.

[spice hornet]

I agree a niche product that works thanks to LOL

[visual oriole]

I don´t care for people´s motives, I even think this would be very beneficial to the ones who have leviathan like collections, as they get max rewards.
But if they have valid arguments, why this isn´t a far better solution than throw money at very unaccesable leaderboards I am happy to hear it.

[spice hornet]

Seriously, I think the idea of ​​Viper is great, it's the only model that could motivate the masses to play.

[visual oriole]

I´d imagine something like staked illuvials give a base point number, stats/level/stage/tier give multiplier, rank give multiplier, would rather force people to play daily though, to fill game ques. e.g. 2 highest wins give rewards 1st=100%, 2nd etc. descending lower number, maybe 7th is 0% already to make wintrading/conceding not a thing.
Then end of week/month, pay people according to points like in Airdrop seasons.

Btw it is very much true that I have 0 faith in leviathan as a game mode to be monetizable outside of a few who wanna flex and have enough money to not care for rewards anyways.
I don´t understand how it can be anything but "people play for rewards" which means if they have to pay more than they make they don´t play, so idk how it can be revenue positive.
While this gives you players in the same game mode as the guys who might be wanting to play a new TFT not a p2e, ownership, wallets etc. game.

[shell ridge]

To simplify each illuvial has a points assigned to it based on stats/level/stage/tier and full album (all staked illuvials) count toward your base points the only multiplier is the rank. To fill game ques could require a weekly number of games played to get the rank multiplier.

[polar oracle]

i prefer a cooldown for transfered illuvials (incl. purchased), for example wait 5-days until the transfered illuvial can be counted for rewards.
people should still be able to transfer their assets freely

[visual oriole]

Yeah doesn´t change much if e.g. tier 1 is 100 base points and tier 2 gives 100% bonus or 200 base points etc. w.e. is easier to understand.

[shell ridge]

what if the staking/"season" was weekly?

[rough bluff]

If that's the case there should be punishment for taking out an asset out of the collection and moving it elsewhere. The more assets that you pre selected for the season that you move, the more rewards you give up. If seasons are short this shouldn't be too punishing. The option should be there if anyone wants to sell or move their assets but it should come at a cost as not to encourage multi accounting.

[static parcel]

Beautiful thoughts, @visual oriole thank you for voicing them. The current discussion has led me to some reflections on how this could look:

1. The Gauntlet Ranked mode remains as it is now. However, at the time of the leaderboard snapshot, several checks are carried out:

A) Check for the number of matches played.
To earn points, a certain minimum number of matches must be played. For example, this could be 10 matches per week.

B) Check for ownership of the collection. For example, this could look like this (only one collection is considered, the strongest of the ones available):

If the player owns all units:

T0 = +0.5% to total score
T1 = +0.5% to total score
T2 = +0.5% to total score
T3 = +0.5% to total score
T4 = +1% to total score
T5 = +2% to total score

Total for the entire collection +5%

If the player owns all holo units:

T0 = +1% to total score
T1 = +1% to total score
T2 = +1% to total score
T3 = +1% to total score
T4 = +2% to total score
T5 = +4% to total score

Total for the entire collection +10%

If the player owns all dark holo units:

T0 = +2% to total score
T1 = +2% to total score
T2 = +2% to total score
T3 = +2% to total score
T4 = +4% to total score
T5 = +8% to total score

Total for the entire collection +20%

C) If the player has not played the required number of games, their points for the next season are reduced to the starting value.

Conclusion: In such a system, the characteristics do not affect the outcome, and thus the natural demand for units increases. A competitive environment is maintained that is fair for all participants.

2. The Leviathan mode should remain as it is (perhaps with slightly adjusted characteristics for a more competitive environment). However, instead of a leaderboard, a ranking system should be introduced:

   • Before the game starts, you need to fill in the "Leviathan" album by selecting the required Illuvials (for example, if you have multiple copies). Then, you are assigned a certain rank based on the total number of power points (similar to the Bеyond system).
   • To enter the rewards system, you must play a minimum of 3 matches (matchmaking should be from neighboring ranks, "Rank ±1").
   • Once the match begins, only the units in your album will be used.
   • During the competition, if you lose (placing 8th, 7th, 6th, or 5th), you must choose any Illuvial that was placed on the table in the last two rounds (this is to avoid intentionally selling off all Illuvials before the final fight) to add to the winner's pool.
   • At the end of the game, all the placed Illuvials are transferred to new owners. The player who finishes in first place selects one Illuvial from four offered options. The second-place player picks from the remaining three Illuvials, and so on.
   • Based on the results of the games, you either gain or lose ranking points.

The final outcome of the game would be:

1st place: +1 Illuvial and + ranking points
2nd place: +1 Illuvial and + ranking points
3rd place: +1 Illuvial and + ranking points
4th place: +1 Illuvial and + ranking points
5th place: -1 Illuvial and - ranking points
6th place: -1 Illuvial and - ranking points
7th place: -1 Illuvial and - ranking points
8th place: -1 Illuvial and - ranking points

Conclusion: Since the ranking system involves finding players from neighboring ranks, the influence of the deck will not be as significant a factor in determining victory. At the same time, the loss system makes any player vulnerable. In the event of a defeat, the player will be forced to search for a strong Illuvial again (in the market or open world). If the player wins, they will move toward stronger players, while also increasing their deck's strength. Each player takes a risk, and as a result, the system will level out, becoming more competitive and open to new professionals.
I believe that this combination of solutions could satisfy all categories of players.

What do you think of this approach?

[polar oracle]

possible. players pick their draft for the week.

it comes down to two options:

• one hybrid gauntlet mode
• two separate gauntlet modes

for me, stats and level will always be P2W. it shouldnt be a factor in normal gauntlet. the idea of normal gauntlet leaderboard is better accessibility to win rewards.
holo and dh are cosmetic, it shouldnt be a factor in earning.

[visual oriole]

thx for the great post

personally I´d be very down to, if this makes it to an IIP, leave it up to Labs to decide what the numbers should look like given their economical models and what they have planned for droprates etc. in the future

Anything that is super specific would get declined anyways by council and pointed towards, reduce it to the intent and let labs do the numbers/implication, I assume.

[static parcel]

yes, I understand that, it is indicated here only as an example.

[polar oracle]

Yes. the transferred nft is excluded for the week's reward

[visual oriole]

I´d think numbers for tier 5s especially should be a lot higher, would be my feedback. Or in general way higher % increases between tier 1 stage 1s up to tier 5 stage 3s.

[shell ridge]

I don't see why it can't be one gauntlet mode.

If you do not own any illuvials you don't get rewards and you can just play for fun or maybe for emotes.

If you do own illuvials you get access to rewards, the larger and more powerful your collection the larger your points are and more rewards you get.

[cunning saffron]

What if they just combine the ideas into one queue instead: as in have the f2p queue, delete leviathan, have leaderboard rewards for the top of the ladder regardless if they achieved the rank with 0 ownership, but have daily win ILV rewards based on ownership+rank (this gives both the absolute tryhards rewards to play for but also the worse/casual players some small rewards that keep them in queues), the same way Axie did SLP rewards, and (i think?) Parallel does now, and just save stats matter for single player.

[sweet cloak]

In both model you get monetary rewards proportional to how much you invested. The part that feels worst to me is playing but to collect my rewards i wouldve needed to pay/invest

I open packs or play OW to get assets but i dont even use them? That feels worst to me then the current leviathan idea where you have this p2w mode where you invest and grind assets that you play with

We also already have the environment for everyone and its 100% free and fair. This is optimal to onboard people and the goal is that a certain % of them want to compete for more $$ and start to invest into the ecosystem

[cunning saffron]

in reality the most likely scenario is you'll have no enemies to stomp and you'll just face opponents with same stats so basically exactly as playing the f2p mode but instead of plug and playing you spent a lot of money and time to even be able to queue up, and you get longer queues because there's 50-200 players that will realistically even do this

[rough bluff]

First there can still be rewards for f2p players, like any other rewards in web2 games - cosmetics, emotes, borders - you name it. Even some small % token rewards if deemed necessary. But to get to the big slice of the token rewards you have to start filling your collection.

Which leads me to the next point - what do you mean open packs but don't use them? There will still be leviathan mode as it is, I don't agree with OP on removing it. So you buy packs in order to progress your album both for higher rewards and to play them in leviathan.

Also your last part contradicts your argument, the album/collection idea does the same, for a certain amount of people to want to compete for more $$ so they start to invest into the ecosystem and build up/improve their collection so they are eligible for higher % bracket reward allocation.

[cunning saffron]

if you don't at least start by giving f2p good monetary rewards you're gonna have the same playerbase u have now

[sweet cloak]

I also think it would make more sense that this mode we are talking about gets added on top of the current free one but like i said previously, i think we would then lose the advantage and real power of the free mode

It will be very hard to convince web2 auto battler players to come try our game. The only thing we have to offer is the money

Current model = they can come to try and play for free and get some rewards. As they play and see they can win they see that theres an even bigger pie to eat in the leviathan mode where you need to invest

Proposed model here = they can come to play for free but they can only get rewards if they pay. All thoughts stop there and they confirm what they heard all over the internet, web3 is a giant scam

[rough bluff]

Yeah maybe I should post my idea separately as it differentiates a bit in it's approach. There is no need for any new modes or crazy changes. Just add a collection weight boost that scales with tiers stats and levels, or some combination of those. F2p would still get rewards, just a much smaller allocation compared to those who bother progressing their album.

There is no other way to implement leaderboard rewards with real monetary value without it being exploited and multi accounted to oblivion, losing it's original purpose of those rewards going to normally competing players.

[cunning saffron]

but there's nothing stopping the team from having f2p able to make money off placements rewards

[sweet cloak]

Thats why most of the rewards are through tournaments and why i think most should be for leviathan

But i think theres some great power in a real f2p environment with rewards to onboard players in the ecosystem

[sweet cloak]

the team wants people to make money fp2, at least a portion of them. Thats how we attract people from TFT

[rough bluff]

What has that to do with needing a system to make sure any leaderboard rewards are not exploited while also stimulating players progressing their collection?

Tournaments can still be there, although I don't think they will have any considerable onboarding power at first, you need to have an established playerbase already for it to start snowballing the hype of the project. In any case, this has nothing to do with tournaments.

Real f2p environment is great, if the rewards are going to the right place. Otherwise it will do nothing.

[cunning saffron]

they need to be top placement heavy to not be bottable and other type of rewards for ladder tied to ownership so if they get smurfed/botted it's not a net negative

[rough bluff]

Yeah cause otherwise top50 players can make 10 smurfs each to farm the leaderboards and suddenly top 500 is out of reach for anyone else. There go the rewards.

[cunning saffron]

i mean they've been good with dqing smurfs so far and if all they need is to check 500 acounts they should be good on that still

[rough bluff]

Not sure if thats the case. If it is then that's great.

[sweet cloak]

They havent at all. We had 10 weeks of rewards where it mattered and afiak they never banned an account, even when all the community was pointing at a certain name

The rules were very subtile as it was only written in a blog that we had to name our accounts properly, e.g. Patate & Patate2

It was more a gentle man agreement than a rule. At a point there was someone with 9 alt accounts in the top 50. Lots of people were talking about one of his alt new name being top1 in 15 games and no response from the team. I ended up figuring out who it was and it was simply a non-native english speaker that didnt know about the rule and then changed but he could have abused the system really hard

Now that the game is about to start i hope they will make it very clear and take the time to monitor to a certain extent and take real actions

Sure its hard and best we can do is set up the environment so that its not easily abusable but it should still be clear and have consequences

[worldly jasper]

the problem is if we release how it is now a f2p mode and leviathan and we assume we use the f2p mode to onboard player into leviathan , then the only ones who will have fun in leviathan will be the ones with nearly or full max stat and max lvl collection and even these few people will stop having fun once they dont have enough people to play with. The biggest portion of the cake are casual players and those players will never go thro that barrier , i saw it in league over 10 years they make everything easier to please the casuals cause they are who they get the most money off but only cause they are the most people not cause they are the most paying per head , for example jungle was alot harder at the start of league , the champs like azir or yasuo alot harder then all the new champs the release now. If we seperate the stats and lvl off the actual gameplay and use them instead for the rewards that way the entry barrier is much lower , everyone can play cause its a fun game and over time these casuals see oh this guy who owns some illuvials also get rewards and that other guy even more cause he owns better illuvials maybe since i play the game anyway for a few months i should also buy some illuvials and that way i think the demand and value of illuvials will get way higher up then with a f2p and leviathan mode

[rough bluff]

The album suggestion targets precisely that issue, while also helping in other areas.

[cunning saffron]

i would be surprised if leviathan is ever gonna work unless they make perfect stat aquisition on par with pokemon games, so like 1 month of grind and u have a full perfect team, otherwise i can't see how they don't give up on it even if they run it one season, which is why the parallel/axie way of using ownership to own might just be better

[visual oriole]

that´s more or less what I think would make sense yes

[visual oriole]

Isn´t it super easy nowadays? Don´t think you need 1 month anymore.

[cunning saffron]

in pokemon? by full team i mean full collection but i haven't played the last 2 gens, i just know before that one month of grind+trade with no hacking would get u about a full collection. But the idea is that in illuvium it's extremely excessive with whatever you compare it to, axie, card games, etc

[visual oriole]

yeah, Illuvium is insane effort especially for full collection, which you need for Gauntlet, close to no one would commit to that
There are other games to play for reward and stuff as well, with way less effort and or investments needed.

[worldly jasper]

we saw it with social media or gaming over the last 20 years too from longterm content youtube to tiktok or mmorpgs having the most players to mobas the most people need to get their dopamin fast in an mmorpg u need to level farm your gear and it takes months or years in mobas u get that all instant in quick 30min games

[cunning saffron]

that's just a result of people having the option to not have their time wasted for no reason and just playing the good games that gave it to them, and illuvium is supposed to compete for players with tft and palworld which already did exactly that

[abstract rover]

What we definitely need is that the stats of an illuvial really matters, if not directly in the game, then in the reward structure - a T5 with 90% perfect stats should make a big difference compared to lower tiers or unperfect Illuvials because you really paid a high premium for perfect stats on the market.
Not making the stats important enough would be a disaster for existing buyers.
Maybe you can also adjust the rewards based on the Illuvials you played so that you don't need all of them, but only the ones you really used.
Maybe in the future it would also make sense to lend your Illuvials, as better players can earn more rewards with them and the lenders can passively participate with them.

[polar oracle]

make sense

[thin acorn]

I would like to attempt to TL;DR this to see if I understood all the points correctly:

Single Ranked Mode for Gauntlet:
Have only one ranked mode in Gauntlet to ensure the largest possible player base by avoiding fragmentation into multiple sub-modes.

Standardized Illuvials:
Every player uses the exact same Illuvials, simplifying balancing compared to managing multiple game modes with varying Illuvial strengths. This also reduces the risks associated with implementing Leviathan mode and the potential for serious consequences if it fails.

Ownership and Quality of Assets Impact Rewards:
Ownership and the quality of owned assets will directly influence the potential earnings from your ranking. Players must sleeve these assets into an album to make them eligible. Creating also a barrier for win-traders and multi accounts.

For example, the better your sleeved Illuvials (e.g., those with the best stats or rare traits like Dark Holo), the higher the rewards you receive based on your ranking. (also the higher their Level the better the rewards?)
A rank 1 player without owned Illuvials would be incentivized to acquire them to convert their ranking into rewards, in addition to earning through tournaments.
Meanwhile, a rank 1000 player with a high-quality collection could still earn a decent amount by leveraging their collection to boost rewards.
Extension to ILV:Beyond Profile Pictures:
This system could also apply to ILV:Beyond profile pictures. For example, the rarer your Illuvitar profile picture, the more it could boost your rewards.

Lab-Defined Numbers:
The specific reward calculations should be determined by the Labs team, ensuring they are well balanced and for example correlate with the cost of acquiring the associated assets.

Possible Downsides:

• Players who acquired perfect-stat Illuvials might be upset that their investment doesn’t provide better chances in gameplay, just more rewards.

• Development time required to implement this system. Additionally, it would mean discarding the development time already invested in Leviathan.

However, this shouldn’t deter us from pursuing the best possible system. After all, we’ve made similar decisions before, such as halting work on Ascendant, potentially Overworld, and Airdrop Missions/Milestones.

To be honest, thinking about how Leviathan looks to a newcomer Web2 gamer—it’s pretty horrible.

They get to try out and play this TFT-style game, and once they start to like it, they’ll naturally look into the end goal. Then they’ll see that the 'champions league' of Illuvium is a pay-to-win model with an entry barrier of $10,000.

Yes, you might argue that they don’t have to play Leviathan and can stick with the free-to-play mode. However, it will be hard for them to see Leviathan and not instantly abandon Illuvium because it’s pay-to-win, which is considered one of the ultimate sins in traditional PvP gaming.

I know our main audience is Web3, but even for them, I think it makes more sense to have a 'pay-for-rewards' system instead of a 'pay-to-win' system. The former has a significantly better track record of success in other Web3 games as well.

I have spent a lot of money on perfect-stat Illuvials, by the way, but I just want what’s best for the game, and I want mainstream adoption—at least to some degree.

[cunning saffron]

You can easily solve all the downsides by just giving the unhappy perfect stats people 1 season of just pure pay2win (basically treat a few thousand $ as just lost money to not piss off the few whales) and then scrapping it in favor of the good mode, and you give leaderboard placement prizes regardless of collection to the top players so you don't turn away f2p players and convert them in later seasons probably with the prize money they got in the previous one.

[robust moth]

I always question if system changes and/or implementations are really worth doing when people have to exaggerate for effect 🙂
Saw it in the fuel debates from different people that 3 fuel are way too complicated and now here.

10K$ entry level?
With 10k spending in illuvials you would be a top 10 spender.

Also had a look at your account. Sure, everyone has a different understanding of what is much money and what not, but i guess you mentioned it to show how invested you in the leviathan area are to legitimate your POV on the topic
A quick filter search showed 19 low tier/low stage/low lvl illuvials with perfect stats (movement speed not included)

But appart from that...
Your revenue model would be that like 20K-30K people buy Illuvials on a regular basis to increase their leaderboard rewards in the f2p mode?
Do you think that people rather buy Illuvials to increase leaderboard rewards than play it for fun, and if so how big of an incentive there has to be that people start doing that? Do you think there will be a couple K ranks of the leaderboard going to be rewarded with ILV?

[polar oracle]

the entry barrier of leviathan is definitely not $10K.
not even when fuel price was so much higher

[thin acorn]

Yeah, I chose my words poorly there, sorry about that. What I meant was a 10k barrier to be able to play for Rank 1.

I think when looking at my profile, you might have missed my 3/5 and 4/5 T4 and T5 Illuvials, which I haven’t fused yet. So far, I’ve spent around $1-2k on perfect-stat Illuvials, which I think puts me among the top spenders. 🙂

Yes, I believe people are more likely to buy Illuvials to enhance their leaderboard rewards rather than solely play for fun, especially in a competitive ecosystem. More importantly, Leviathan mode is an instant turn-off for anyone outside of Web3. If we are only marketing to Web3 and don’t plan to try for Web2 adoption anymore, then I think Leviathan could work as well—just with much greater risk.

The incentive needs to be substantial, such as meaningful ILV payouts or exclusive rewards, to justify the investment. Rewarding the top few thousand ranks with ILV would create broad motivation while avoiding an overly exclusive system. A balanced "pay-for-rewards" model could drive engagement without alienating the player base.

[polar oracle]

so P2W is a turn off for web2 gamers?

like clash of clan?

diablo immortal
candy crush

SWGoH

Most of netmarble games

[thin acorn]

https://tenor.com/view/bart-simpson-the-simpsons-at-least-you-tried-fail-failure-gif-7859548

[cunning saffron]

10k for rank 1 is not true btw, 2-4k at most if you barely play and fuse yourself right now

[robust moth]

Thanks for clarifying, Paz. I appreciate the adjustment, but I’m increasingly frustrated by how exaggerated claims are being used in discussions to push certain proposals. Your earlier statement about a $10K barrier wasn’t just an overstatement, it was misleading and manipulative. The real cost to compete for Rank 1 in Leviathan mode is closer to $3K. That’s still significant, but it’s far from the narrative of an $10K entry point. The same with the statement about your own investement and collection, which was just there to manipulate people to think that even your are invested and ready to take on heat in leviathan you still would vote for deleting that game mode. But enough of that...

One of Illuvium’s key visions is to create an interconnected ecosystem of games where players can use their collections across multiple titles. In that context, having a Leviathan mode in every game makes complete sense. It provides a high-stakes, competitive environment for players who want to leverage their investments while still allowing f2p modes for all those competitive people. Removing Leviathan from the equation would not only alienate a key segment of the player base but also undermine that overarching vision.

Now, on to the pay-for-rewards idea. Personally i think this model is close to p2w on a psycological level. If we are concerned that leviathans p2w perception would turn off players, wouldn't a pay for rewards system create a similar issue?
Appart from that, most people simply play for fun and self improvement, working their way up the next league but often not getting there. I would say the people playing games with serious intentions to get rank1 or into the highest league in the world is pretty small.
Now, also thinking about having the bulk of the rewards in tournaments i doubt that Illuvium can reach sustainability with leaderboard rewards.
Most people simply won't pay anything or just a one time couple dollars because the reward would be too small and the small portion buying some illuvials to earn rewards will never bring us anywhere close to the revenue we need.
Besides i think after some time it gets totally calculated... people don't spend more on illuvials than they get back in rewards, making the system a non profit system. Especially if they buy a certain % of their collection from other people.

How would you tackle those concerns i have?

[high basin]

People still play those? Lol Christ

[spice hornet]

in which game do you have to pay 3 to 10 k$ to be competitive ?

if the game brings people the prices of illuvials will increase so the prices could actually climb to 10k +

just need to give a slight advantage to the statistic

[robust moth]

you don't have to... there's still ranked if you want to play competitive

[robust moth]

That doesn't make sense with the proposed solution prices for illuvials rather decrease than increase.
Amount of players won't change much if it comes to prices of Illuvials, compared to now they rather decrease because with more demand there are also gona be more farmer trying to make a profit and the margin will get smaller with more competitors in sales than what you see now.
In my opinion prices of illuvials for 10k+ is if you maybe hit a darkholo perfect stat T5S3... other than that i guess just because of rarity if we head into set 3, 4, 5... IF you can use it to play aswell.

but in general the ecosystem isn't set up to get such prices for illuvials during it's season

[spice hornet]

we're not going to lie, we're looking for a competitive game with rewards to earn money by playing (Léviathan) otherwise we would play web 2 games but the problem is that to enter the competition you need to invest too much, it pisses me off because I have already invested a lot of money in this project (land)

no one plays for the pleasure of tft arena we play for a potential gain $ (we prefer to play witcher 3)

[robust moth]

Is profit nice, sure.
Do i just play OW and gauntlet because of profit, absolutely not. I like the IP, i think the vision is super cool, love the art and in my opinion the gameplay at least in gauntlet is fun. (I myself like it already more than tft, because of the additional complexity)
If it comes to leviathan, i love to have a mode in every game where i can play with my collection, even tho i get stomped by people like whitey.

[spice hornet]

I had the same vision as you at the beginning of the project but so disappointed now that I am only looking for real profit now I don't want to just be a pawn who feeds the game and lose everything😭...

@robust moth If I'm still in the project it's thanks to you who tries to help for ilivium zero

[robust moth]

I totally understand the frustration. And it's also not just you, i feel there is a general sentiment change in the discord to throw all the vision overboard and make just a tft clone for highly competitive people and turn all the rest into a cash grab for dummies to fund the rewards for those highly competitive people.

this thread is a perfect example for that.
You give people money and in exchange for that you want a little bit money from them. In order to make that work, you have to expect that there is a massive playerbase who pay the IP 20$ and expect 10$ in return.
If not you can't fund developement nor have a sustainable reward strategy.
You basically try to lure in highly competitive people with the IQ of a toast. Not sure that will work.

[thin acorn]

Thanks for your feedback—let me address your points and clarify further.

1. On the Exaggeration Point
I appreciate you calling this out. I realize my earlier $10K figure was an overstatement and could come across as manipulative—my intent wasn’t to mislead but to highlight the accessibility issue Leviathan mode might pose to new players. Even at $3K, that’s still a significant entry barrier compared to a $0 barrier in free-to-play competitive modes or lower costs in other games.

The crux of my argument isn’t about the exact figure but about the perception of “pay-to-win” that Leviathan mode creates, which could alienate Web2 players and casual Web3 gamers alike.

2. On Undermining Illuvium’s Vision
I completely agree that Illuvium’s interconnected ecosystem is a major strength. Leviathan mode, in theory, fits well into this vision as a high-stakes competitive environment. However, we must consider how its perception aligns with the broader gaming audience.

While I support leveraging players’ collections across titles, I believe a system where asset ownership impacts rewards (rather than gameplay directly) achieves the same goal with less risk of alienating potential players. This would still honor the vision of interconnected games, as higher-quality collections could yield better rewards across modes without making skill irrelevant.

3. Pay-for-Rewards and Psychological P2W
I understand the concern that a pay-for-rewards system might feel similar to pay-to-win. However, there’s a critical distinction: the former incentivizes building a collection without directly impacting gameplay outcomes. In pay-to-win systems, paying players have an intrinsic advantage in competition; in pay-for-rewards, the playing field remains level.

This system could strike a balance:

• Free-to-play players can climb ranks purely based on skill.
• Owners of rare or high-quality Illuvials are rewarded for their investments without overshadowing others’ achievements in competition. This model also aligns better with mainstream gaming values, where skill is paramount, and spending primarily enhances the experience or rewards.

4. Sustainability Concerns
You raise an important point about the sustainability of leaderboard rewards. I agree that tournaments should remain the primary driver for significant payouts, ensuring Illuvium stays financially viable. Leaderboard rewards can complement this by providing incremental incentives rather than being the main revenue or engagement driver.

In terms of player spending behavior, I think it's about creating a system where:

• The value of owning Illuvials extends beyond immediate leaderboard rewards—through exclusivity, aesthetics, or future game utility.
• Players feel a long-term return on investment, which encourages continued engagement rather than one-time purchases.

---

Final Thoughts Ultimately, the decision comes down to striking a balance between retaining the core Web3 audience and appealing to Web2 players. I see the pay-for-rewards system as a safer middle ground that reduces perceived barriers to entry while rewarding asset holders meaningfully. Leviathan mode could still exist, but perhaps as a separate layer catering to the hardcore Web3 audience without being the centerpiece of the ecosystem.

What do you think about this as a compromise? I’d love to explore ways to make both systems coexist effectively.

[polar oracle]

the entry barrier to leviathan mode is $0

[polar oracle]

the solution to the argument above is basically by having two gauntlet modes

[rough bluff]

The notion that Leviathan would turn of web2 players by just existing is wrong. You can just gate it by requiring a certain amount of progression to enter and put a lock on it for f2p players to avoid confusion.

Ranked gauntlet then caters towards web2, competitive players, and some sort of rewards system implemented to award progression/ownership and prevent multi accounting.

Leviathan remains for the web3 audience.

All problems solved, no need for additional modes or changes.

[polar oracle]

imo this proposal is making the whole stat system (level and trait) unnecessary

[rough bluff]

Yeah I think as soon as gauntlet is done and polished we should switch the focus over to ascendant and get it operational asap. That mode can be the perfect bridge between f2p and paid players. It is also much better suited for Leviathan. It also feels much better (at least to me) to pull your own units on demand, rather than wait for rng and fight other people for it. Of course there is place for both.

[polar oracle]

yes, ownership is definitely more suitable for ascendant, as it was originally designed.
there will always be an inherent issue with ownership and gauntlet due to the nature of random pick.

i really do hope the writer can identify the cons.
another issue why parallel system cant translate well to gauntlet:

• parallel is a deck building just like ascendant, while gauntlet is not
• this proposal is basically rewarding people for collecting NFTs more than playing the game. you prob dont use the NFTs that you own but still get rewarded by it. theres a huge gap

imo you need to own the NFT and use the NFT to win rewards
if we want to reward NFT collection, it should not be tied in to arena.
the idea to have a collection leaderboard of illuvials and arnaments have been voiced out in the past

[rough bluff]

This would be the ideal leaderboard system, if it tracks each unit used during play, and then based on the total amount of games with illuvials used with certain tier/stats/levels, you get a final multiplier on your leaderboard bracket reward. Not sure how feasible it's on the technical side.

It's also important to pair it with a cool ass UI album/collection/progression menu that clearly shows you what you have and what you don't

And shows you your multiplier with the current collection

[cunning saffron]

I think they should just run leviathan + free gauntlet at the same time for the first season and then if it (very likely) doesn't work because of too low of a playerbase just have plans ready for a change or just completely scrap stats in gauntlet and keep them for very hard overworld stuff in the first place at this point.
Or maybe even easier have a relatively big leviathan tournament and then if everyone can realize it's a pointless mode just be able to improve the game once the people who spent money and time for levi got some back off of it

[thin acorn]

I think the author has you muted since a long time, so if you want him to answer stuff you might need someone else to ask the questions 😅

[polar oracle]

im sure he reads mine haha

[robust moth]

Was actually interested in your thoughts... can ask chatgpt myself.

1. Entry level is the same as f2p 0$

2. How does assetownership for rewards create a feeling of an interconnected IP of multiple games?

3. So you saying that there is no people feeling bad about having to pay 20$ to get 10$rewards?

4. If you scrap leviathan now, i don't think people buy your "in future you can use them in games"
   No, there is no feel of a long-term return on investement. In order to make this system pay development, people have to pay more for rewards than they get back.

Final thoughts, Ultimately the pay for rewards system will be perceived as rugging behaviour from web2 people, since they not only have to pay to get rewards when they played good, they have to pay more than they get back. In a very short timeframe the IP might make some money, but people will realize quickly that it's not worth to buy those assets.

[thin acorn]

Thanks for your input—it’s clear you’ve thought deeply about this, and I appreciate it.

Entry-Level Access & Ownership
You’re right—entry-level access is $0 for the lowest possible ranking. But very shortly after "entering," you will be hit in the face with a paywall once you try to advance to the ranking that reflects your skill level.

For example, a Gold player joining will be free to enter at the lowest ranking but won't be able to succeed against Silver players with bigger wallets. It is a game of flexing your wallet, which is definitely a huge turn-off for any Web2 gamer.

Pay-for-Rewards vs. Leviathan
Leviathan could remain as a niche, high-stakes mode for those who want it, while non-Leviathan focuses on skill-based competition. This way, we avoid alienating either group and provide a choice between pay-to-win and a fair competitive experience in the F2P mode.

It will depend a lot on the user base. If we don’t have enough players, I don't see Leviathan as a sustainable game mode. That is the other big risk I see, next to it turning off traditional gamers with its hardcore pay-to-win model. The idea is that ownership adds optional rewards across games without locking anyone out or disrupting core gameplay. It’s not about forcing people to pay for rewards but offering value for those invested in the ecosystem.

Sustainability
I agree we need rewards that feel meaningful without over-relying on ROI. Supplementing monetary rewards with exclusives like cosmetics or event access could help sustain engagement without exploitation.

[robust moth]

now it doesn't make much sense anymore.
Your point in "Entry-Level Access & Ownership" is we have to delete leviathan because it's a huge turn-off for any web2 gamer. (even tho they can just play f2p ranked) and in "Pay-forRewards vs Leviathan" first paragraph you say leviathan should stay since both can live next to each other.

Sustainability.
What do you mean with events exactly? You want to asset gate tournaments? Wouldn't that turn off the web2 playerbase when playing good isn't enough anymore? 🙃
What do you mean with cosmetics? Besides Zero, beyond and the usual cosmetics the IP itself already creates you want to introduce another cosmetic line?

[thin acorn]

I'm pointing out different options. There isn’t always a definitive perfect solution, so compromise or simply choosing a path after thorough research is often the way to go.

I’m not saying Leviathan is all bad, nor am I saying it’s all good. It comes with risks, just as the idea proposed in this thread does.

What do you mean regarding events? Could you please elaborate?

No, I wasn’t referring to creating a new line of cosmetics. Utilizing the ones we already have should suffice if the goal is to incentivize players beyond monetary rewards.

[robust moth]

The idea proposed in this thread is to delete leviathan mode.
As you supported aswell in your first post and then in the following post aswell. (see SS attached)
You brought up event access in your previous post, i'm asking you what you mean with it exactly 😄

What do you mean with that exactly, you want additionally to buying disks or paying money asset gate some of the extisting cosmetics?

[thin acorn]

This is still a feedback and ideas thread, not an IIP we’re voting on. The purpose here is to gather community sentiment and take a brainstorming approach to collaboratively find the best solutions. That’s where I see the most value in discussions like these.

You’ve raised some great points, and I’m trying to explore if there’s a compromise that could offer a better outcome than either side alone.

I don’t see “event access” mentioned in the screenshot provided.

[robust moth]

i'm very well aware that this is a feedback/ideas thread, and brainstorming is what we do now, no?

Event access is mentioned here at the very bottom

[thin acorn]

Yeah, you’re right that this is something that could turn off traditional gamers. It’s all about striking that balance, it feels like. The other options I can see would be to lean heavy into Web3 or Web2 as our target audience. Right now, it seems like Illuvium is trying to make both work, which would be ideal but definitely harder to pull off.

Is your preferred approach the one that has been communicated by Kieran in AMAs, etc.? Splitting the player base into two game modes: F2P and Leviathan, with both having monetary incentives for leaderboards and tournaments?

[robust moth]

pretty much, yea.
I feel the more incentives to give people to take part in the economy the better.
The only "downside" is see myself is "splitting the playerbase" and with that increasing qeue time. Which is in my opinion less impactful than many might think.
I feel we speak to 2 different consumer bases with leviathan and f2p, which obviously overlap to a certain percentage. On one hand we have the (competitive) autobattle players on the other hand we have the creature-collector lovers.
The creature collector lovers going to play with their collection in whatever game they like (For now only arena available) and are highly integrated in the ecosystem and therfore bring in the bulk of revenue.
With ranked mode in all the games (for now only arena avialable), we get consumers game specific and might be able to convince a part of them to take part in the ecosystem.
So in the end we end up with actually more potential consumers.
Now if it comes to qeue time it's a balance the IP has to find of how short it is and what range of mmr gets qeued. I don't think it will have a detrimental impact if you qeue against a slight stronger opponent than in for example lol since there's always smurf accounts, pro players coming back or just high skilled players just starting and therefore people already are used to fight stronger opponents. Besides a part of the consumerbase might even enjoy that (like myself)because their learning curve is way steeper fighting against people above your mmr level and you can incentivice that even with getting more points etc.

I would prefer to have higher rewards in leviathan than f2p, to really incentivize people trying out taking part in the whole experience (maybe a 33/66 proportion)
I can also see that your collection offers you (additonal) rewards or are necessary to get monetary rewards in f2p similar to proposed here
I would also like to see all leagues getting rewards so everyone gets something at end of season even if it's just small and also doesn't have to be monetary... can be cosmetics or other stuff as you mentioned above.