My Vision for the Illuvium MMO-Lite

[distant wedge]

While I may not be a certified game designer, I have spent years following the open development of multiple Web2 gaming projects and actively engaging with several Web3 gaming communities. As a software engineer, combined with my crypto background, being a veteran MMO-RPG player, and my passion for Illuvium, I’ve developed a unique skill set that gives me a strong understanding of game design, game systems, economy balance, and a clear vision on how to make Illuvium the best MMO possible.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTNwrWxmL9lkmwhzRFPPQ3ylRtG_6M0kBR0D43EpZGFFwfjQVferCHxEco2HyhZd33LBKyA6p-LL64u/pub

[atomic crag]

I don't think we should be doing an MMO next, not before many other things happen first at least. Zero can be built into a full city builder game, where the fuel/eco part of it is just a small sector in your city you enter in and out of. We can incorporate the illuvials much better into such type of game, at the fraction of the cost to develop a MMO. Also mobile is the most accepting market for 'p2w'.

After zero, it's preferably to release another title, a moba or a hero shooter or a combination of both for a wider playerbase reach.

And once we have secured funding (through zero) and reached a larger amount of players through city builder zero, gauntlet and this next title, we can consider doing an MMO. But you need players to be immersed in your universe first. Otherwise it's very likely to follow the fate of the hundreds others that failed and were forgotten.

I also think combat OW or the drone run packs where you aquire the illuvials should be kept separate from any future MMO, so that the mmo is not limited to be built around that.

But to still be on topic, what unique experience do you think this approach offers, that will stand out compared to all previous and current MMOs? Why should anyone choose to play this one?

[viscid lion]

Na, this should be up to 32 players so you can enable guild style raids - imo

[distant wedge]

I disagree. IZ is not how we attract players at all. We should leave it at that.

We already have many of the pieces to build the MMO. Albeit it's still missing the core parts. A good combat system and immersive dungeons/raids.

There's not a single web3 MMO in the market.

[whole shadow]

@distant wedge I’m truly amazed by your tremendous work!

It’s hard to imagine how much time and effort you’ve put into creating this document.

Naturally, I fully support this.

[distant wedge]

You should read further. 25-man raids are there. The 3-man co-op is just for the current OW travels.

[whole shadow]

Am I understanding you correctly: after the development of Zero/Gauntlet, you suggest creating an entirely new game in the MOBA/Shooter genre instead of first "transforming" the existing Overworld part into an MMO?

[atomic crag]

Not in the current version of IZ of course, needs to be fully developed into a clash of clans / state of survival / pvp game. The illuvials would fit great into such type of game, also it would be much cheaper and easier market to get into.

For player attraction there are better genres currently.

MMO is probably the hardest genre to get right and after the lessons learnt so far we somehow jump into it.

To get a popular MMO in this day and age you need to offer a new type of experience and absolutely nail everything else. I wonder how long that's gonna take

[distant wedge]

read the doc and see for yourself if it wouldn't be a killer MMO.

[atomic crag]

Yes Winnie, OW combat can still be developed and improved, but not turned into an MMO in my opinion. We can save that for a big new title

[atomic crag]

I did and I've played probably 90% or more MMOs that came into existence since wow, that's why I decided to comment.

[distant wedge]

so have I, and still none comes close to WoW.

[atomic crag]

Exactly, cause we were already immersed in that universe through warcraft 1-2-3. And also it was an unseen experience at the time. We currently lack both of those perks.

[distant wedge]

I never played warcraft before playing WoW, so that is your PoV.

and if it really was for the novelty experience then why did WoW classic have such a success after all these years?

[atomic crag]

Nostalgia

[distant wedge]

it's not just that. They nailed the game systems. The meaningful progression. The lack of P2W features. The need for community interactions. That game is the top experience of any MMO.

[viscid lion]

Yeah theres a lot to read and little time 🙈 - i would keep it simple as youve referenced in another part of the doc -> scale based on user count 🙂 I'll read it more later

[distant wedge]

yeah I feel you. Dive into it when you have the time. Would love to have your opinion on it.

[atomic crag]

People were playing classic on buggy pirate servers without most of those systems because of nostalgia way before blizzard stole the idea from them, so I'd say the point stands. In any case, don't wanna hijack your post, I've shared my opinion.

[distant wedge]

yes that is true. But buggy pirate servers have low player count and the experience is not the same. Most of those servers for example had XP boosts.

[atomic crag]

Dunno, the most famous one was Nostalris or something like that and it had close to a million players I think, before blizz shut them down, after previously having said they have no interest in it. Only to later introduce it as their own product.

[dusty sapphire]

@distant wedge first of all, i really appreciate your enthusiasm and effort in providing opinions/suggestions/solutions to Illuvium in its entierty. I may not always agree 100% with what you say, but it is a healthy for the ecosystem that there are different opinions and ideas.
but in this case i'm with you 100%. if all of it is implemented i can see myself easily spending few hundreds $ a month for a long time...
Illuvium needs smth like this (but this might be more than MMO - Lite).
For starters what i would suggest is creating what you wrote in document, but focus only on 1 region - Brightland Stepps (starting region). Once that region is polished (with enough feedback from players) we can move on to increasing levels, and slowly introducing other regions, content etc. Having everything ready at start is (i believe) a bit 2 much of work and unsustainable with current runaway.

a question regarding fuel:
from what i could read current 3 types of fuel would be converted into just 1 type of fuel? do you have a idea how to achieve this? i know this was discussed and it is desired by every1, but i don't remember reading any proposal on how to actually do it.

[distant wedge]

thanks for the support and yes I agree with you. For re-launch we only need to finish the 1st region and the starter dungeons.

[distant wedge]

regarding the 3 fuels being fused into 1, I think this should happen whenever landowners list fuel or transfer it to the OW. And no there's no proposal for this yet. And I also talk about this in more detail. Not only do we need fuel to be fused to 1 currency but we need it to be a stable currency.

[dusty sapphire]

i would argue that not everything needs to be in place...
e.g.
1.) in-game marketplace - even thou it is highly desirable, it is not necessary as there are workarounds (we can continue to use illuvidex, tokentrove etc.)
2.) all fuel sink sistems, again, same thing. not everything needs to be implemented e.g. loot bidding. i would love it, but i could live without it at start.
3.) trade amongst players - highly desirable, but again not really necessary to start with.
etc.

my point is that having all these features would add few-several months of extra work (i'm guessing; i have no idea how long it would take), and i'm not sure there is enough runaway for that. if there was, then i would have nothing against having it all in place before launch.

[dusty sapphire]

why not having it pegged to $ (but paying that $ amount in ETH). i believe this would be better for mass adoption.

[distant wedge]

yes these are not mandatory, but as you said, "highly desirable".

[distant wedge]

we would basically be pegging it to $ since we would be adjusting the ETH peg according to its $ price.
We need it to be a stable ETH value cause the price stabilization would be done around that. Otherwise the ETH price would constantly be varying.

what I mean is basically that if we would do the price control in $ then we would have to account for ETH oscillations as well and that just adds more complexity to the control system.

and since we're in this topic, I'm advocating to remove the 5% revdis for landholders and allocating that money to the treasury to sustain the ILV rewards.
Also, in order to achieve a stable currency we need to have the DAO fuel print ratio be variable instead of the fixed x19.

[distant wedge]

you can check my land production values doc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT7jK_Amc_JEzPV_g8KQsswbdAJkihQbQh8FcdxdDjdGmTWiDf6BISUi1QWWjxsViBcdGbAYXlEb3ZX/pub

would you rather have:

• A broken fuel economy with low ROI for land and 5% revdis?
• Fuel as a stable coin, higher ROI for land but no revdis?

[pliant smelt]

Not arguing against a Change.
Don't see why the 5% has to be removed to Make it work

[distant wedge]

because it makes the entire system way more complex than it has to be. How do you distribute revdis for landholders? Based on tier? Based on fuel sold? Based on fuel spent in game? It's a mess...
we should keep things simple.

• ILV stakers get revenue distribution.
• Landholders get their revenue from fuel / blueprint sales.

we'll also need to take from revdis for the ILV rewards eventually.

[sterile kettle]

I'll take it one part at a time.

Immutable Zkevm.

• Migrating is a no brainer, but as for making fuel an ERC20, I disagree in its current form. But in the future there may definitely be room for this to be benefitial. Ultimately I don't want to give anyone the ability to bid up/down the price of the token since its directly tied into playing the game.

Revdis

• We cannot remove the 5% from landowners. I see where you are coming from, but I would rather take an 5% from stakers. Where you'd be taking what is ultimately 7-8% from a staker as opposed to 100% from a landowner. I don't like this either way and don't think its necessary.

DAO's Fuel Ratio

• No comment from me on this today, but its on my mind.

Fuel

• Same as above.

Ranger Gear

• I am leaving this up to the dev team, but yeah as many RPG elements as we can get is ultimately a good thing for sure. I am a big Monster Hunter fan, and mimicing that is ideal. I don't think we need amulet slots etc, and at the very least can just spontaneously add that stuff in the future.

Risk-Reward

• I am definitely keen on any and all Risk-Reward mechanics. For me personally the goal has always been fun, less than 'earning' Any mechanics focused on minting NFTs kind of miss the point of gaming imo.

Ranger Levels

• Definitely need limitations around ranger levels. This is one of the strongest elements of Pirate Nation where account bound metrics prevent many actions in the game. This helps heavily restrict botting within the game, and is something we desperately needed for Illuvium.

Co-Op

• A travel discount per party member is actually pretty interesting, and could be quite useful. However the plans are not to have the MMO-Lite cost anything. But maybe improved rewards, or reduced costs for other components of the game could be cool.

Overworld Events

• I like the idea of your anomalies system adding things like extra Illuvials or a rare boss. Ultimately anything that gives the game deeper replayability is insanely important. Without that we r truly fcked imo.

Quests

• Tis a no brainer. Lore, storyline and quests are all necessary. Especially to hook in newer players.

Breaches

• Waves of enemies is how I imagine the bulk of the MMO-Lite. But on the front of a leaderboard I think this is a good addition. Any sort of competitive and 'end-game' content in the MMO-Lite is important to add to that replayability factor.

Guilds

• Yes, a million times yes hahaha. The ability to sell 'guild tokens' could actually be a giant revenue generator for the DAO and its definitely something I will work towards when the time comes to start building the MMO-Lite.

A lot of this other stuff is very boilerplate stats for different costs and things like that so I won't really discuss it much.

Honestly idk the best way to integrate this feedback into the game, the council aren't game developers and don't really input too much into the development of the game. Rather when topics come up and the community surfaces feedback, we ensure they are heard with Kieran and Labs.

My best suggestion is maybe if @quasi isle wanted to, when the new design docs are created, you could potentially call on @distant wedge for feedback and share some of these documents under NDA. Its clear he loves Illuvium, and wants to help it succeed in the MMO-Lite genre, this would be the best way for him to help.

[distant wedge]

Thanks for the reply Scoriox, this is exactly why I wanted to get the discussions going on this because it's hard for me to convey everything that's on my mind in a single document and it's even harder for whoever is reading it to visualize the whole thing.

Let me break down point by point.

• Immutable Zkevm
  I think you're not grasping the situation here. Having fuel be an ERC20-token would actually help stabilize fuel price A LOT. Here's why:
  In my doc I propose fuel to be a stable currency. If this is so, then players trading behaviour would naturally help stabilize price cause they would know it's a stable currency and what's the peg value.
  But it's not just about that, the fact the it is a tradable token would give the DAO another way to control the fuel price. How you may ask? Well, instead of every in-game activity fuel commission being burnt the DAO could further control the fuel price by having an ON/OFF controller where if the fuel price is below the target price the DAO would BURN fuel, if the fuel price is above the target price the DAO would SELL fuel.

• Revdis
  Can you ellaborate WHY we cannot remove the 5% from landowners? Is it because it's written in an IIP? Just do an ICCP. I can't stand having bad system designs based on arbitrary rules.
  As I said to Spoon, how do you distribute revdis for landholders? Based on tier? Based on fuel sold? Based on fuel spent in game? It's a mess...

• DAO's Fuel Ratio
  I don't get what's all the mistery around the fuel overhaul. Whatever system you guys are designing just has to have one thing: Fuel being a stable currency. I think my solution is the best one, having the DAO ratio be variable instead of the fixed 19x.
  I've already made the code to control the fuel price, you can see the behaviour simulation I did in the .txt file.
  Fuel price being 1 corresponds to an ETH price of 0.000001 ETH.

• Co-Op
  "However the plans are not to have the MMO-Lite cost anything."
  Whose plans are these??? Have we learned nothing so far? The only way you can mint assets without it being exploited by bots is in group play. So that means you can only have the game being F2P if it's not a single player mode. Travelling to the OW like it is currently should still have a fuel cost.

[pliant smelt]

we should stop calling simple things complex 🙃
As written in the IIP it's at the moment based on fuel sold.
Also note that this is basically the exception and got introduced because not everything is priced in fuel, or it doesn't suit the purpose of a product to be priced in fuel.

[distant wedge]

• Quests
  I know it's a no brainer but the crucial part about this is that completing the main story-line quests would give fuel. Making it possible for players to reach the end-game without spending any money and experiencing the game in its entirety.

[distant wedge]

yes and what about those that don't sell fuel why shouldn't they get revdis? Dude just let it go. It's ok.

• Breaches
  "Waves of enemies is how I imagine the bulk of the MMO-Lite."
  Breaches are not AT ALL the bulk of the MMO. This would be just 1 activity out of 5 activities players could do per region. There's the current OW region travelling, Breach, 5-man dungeon, 10-man raid, and 25-man raid.

[pliant smelt]

that's not the point of those "revdis"
Everything should be sold in fuel, so the people selling fuel get the fuel revenue.
However, there can be products where it's not suitable to be priced in fuel and needs for example to be priced in eth and those revenue gets distributed to fuel sellers, as it as every other product should be priced in fuel.

[distant wedge]

there is no point to "those revdis"... Just bad systems design that's all.

[pliant smelt]

easy solution is delete those revdis and price everything in fuel

get the team on work to actually price everything in fuel

but just deleting those 5% is in my opinion a little f up with all due to respect

[distant wedge]

F up? why is that?

[pliant smelt]

cause you just do it to somehow make a constant rewards going for leaderboards etc. and make landholders pay for it.
What if everything gets priced in eth and nothing in fuel, what would land be worth then?

[distant wedge]

nop that's not it at all. Landholders get revenue based on what they sell. It has nothing to do with the rewards.

[pliant smelt]

yea, which should roughly be 5% of the total revenue, right?

[distant wedge]

I dunno, might be more, might be less. Since I'm advocating for a variable DAO ratio.

[pliant smelt]

why you wana change those 5%?

[distant wedge]

the 5% revenue for landholders fucks the entire system. At least my version of it where fuel is a stable currency controlled by a the DAO's ratio.

[pliant smelt]

why so complex? why not make it simple? 🙃

[distant wedge]

you want more simple than this m8???

• ILV stakers get revenue distribution.
• Landholders get their revenue from fuel / blueprint sales.

[pliant smelt]

how much revenue?

[distant wedge]

you clinging to the 5% is what makes it complex.

if fuel was a stable currency you would know exactly how much each landplot would produce and its ROI.

[pliant smelt]

i don't say fuel shouldn't be astable currency

i'm new to this and wana buy a land, how much revenue can i expect with your system?

[atomic crag]

How does the 5% make anything complex? You can just airdrop plots their share based on tier, or implement a similar system as we discussed here https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1275072638037004308

[distant wedge]

I just shared you my land production values doc...

[distant wedge]

how does the 5% make the system any better?

[atomic crag]

Dunno but I don't see how it's any problem whatsoever, just make it passive or something like that suggestion through gameplay. But it was obvious long time ago this 1:19 thing is a total nonsense.

[distant wedge]

right you don't know but you advocate for it...

[atomic crag]

What are you talking about, you dont know the outcome of removing it either. The reality is, landowners were promised 5% of the revenue before them buying their plot, and there is a non invasive and fun way on how you can deliver this promise, thus not needing to change it.

[distant wedge]

ah right the promises... 🤣
Ok I'll tell you why IT IS a problem.
ILV stakers get revdis based on how much ILV they own. SIMPLE!
What about landholders? You do it based on tier you can be rewarding inactive plots. You do it based on fuel sold, you neglect all those that focus on BPs or don't sell fuel. You do it on fuel spent on in-game activities and you basically reward only those that are focusing on BPs.

[atomic crag]

Or

You do it based on people who play the game, like my suggestion, and fit in the BPs if necessary? Isn't the BP just a different income route the player can choose to take? It's either or anyway. If that turns out to be a problem, then just adjust the gameplay so that the player can do both...

[pliant smelt]

rights, so if i buy a t4 i get 12.15/d from selling fuel to the DAO?
Do i get those 12$ also if the total revenue of the DAO is 1$/d?
Do i get those 12$ also if the total reveneue of the DAO is 100m$/d

[distant wedge]

first of all you don't sell fuel to the DAO you sell to players

and yes ofc you get wtv you sell, regardless of how much the DAO is selling.

[pliant smelt]

so instead of giving a 5% share to landholders, you give them a specific roi based on random price valuations and devalue land pretty significantly.
Reasoning is system is too complex.

That's fair, everyone can have their opinion.

[distant wedge]

lol, you're getting salty for no reason. If you see it through you would see this actually benefits landholders.

[pliant smelt]

i'm not salty at all... actually sitting in front of my desktop and smiling 😄

what's the benefit?

[distant wedge]

higher ROI

[pliant smelt]

if the DAU number sucks

if the dau number is high it's a lower roi

right?

[sterile kettle]

The team is undecided on if Illuvials are mintable in the MMO lite. But my idea was to open Illuvials from the automated drone runs or overworld travel as it currently is. Then U use those Illuvials to play the MMO lite and have fun.

[distant wedge]

nop, land revenue would have nothing to do with the DAU.

[pliant smelt]

yea then i don't get it obviously

[distant wedge]

omg why.........

what's the problem with the current OW travels???

[sterile kettle]

Id personally like Illuvials to be catchable. but blocking off the game behind consistent paywalls is equally as fcked.

Behind some sort of subscription model I could see it function

[distant wedge]

IT IS NOT FUCKED! You know what's fucked? It's not having the option to experience the game unless you go through those paywalls! With my suggestion with the integration of the quest main storyline giving fuel, you would reward players with 10,000 fuel. Which would enable them to experience the game in its entirety until they reach max level.

this document is so gem packed is kinda insane. What you guys have to say about this little segment regarding Sets, Haven't seen any comment on it.

[sterile kettle]

Oh I love the idea of onboarding tools such as your 60k fuel suggestion without a doubt.

I guess I'd need convincing that it's enough to keep them engaged after they run out of fuel

[distant wedge]

breaches, dungeons and raids are all F2P. Not to mention the PVP arenas and battlegrounds.

[sterile kettle]

Very cool idea. My concern with this type of thing is simply manpower. I'd need to hear the team committ to a timeframe of developing sets and how fast they can be completed. A hard reset requires a fuck tonne of new characters

[sterile kettle]

Okay those 3 are what I was referring to in terms of not acquiring Illuvials. So you'd have the storyline be the main component where you capture Illuvials? I think the team is on the same page there. @viscid lion correct me if I'm wrong

[distant wedge]

nop that's not it. You acquire illuvials the same way you do now through OW travels. The storyline quests would send you to F2P dungeons or OW regions where it would reward you with fuel upon quest completion. Allowing you to progress through the game without spending a single $ unless you want to.

Ow travels would get you illuvials, mining materials and plant materials. Dungeons would get you loot crates.

this would be the loot crates loot table:

[sterile kettle]

Yeah that's mostly what I meant. But sometimes a quest could be an overworld travel, could be cool. Like quest 1 gives u 10 fuel, quest 2 is use the 10 fuel to capture an Illuvial. But yeah I think keeping the Overworld as it is is a good use of dev resources for sure.

[viscid lion]

I don't think anything concrete has been set yet for the MMO lite other than it will be multiplayer from day 1, so all ideas and opinions are valid at this point. The more ideas and things that we want to see from a community perspective will definitely help shape the path forward 🙂

[earnest trench]

you outdid yourself @distant wedge . I’m still reading the document. So far I like most of it. Some I need to think about it. Will continue reading it.

[austere ember]

Like Winnie said tremendous work! I am happy Illuvium has players like yourself thinking of and presenting ideas to help make Illuvium the best game possible.

[brave valley]

Would be a wet dream for me an mmo in web 3.0 where you can trade everything. Maybe it can get so big that illuvium can pay their check with taxes or fees. That they build the world we pay taxes in. And we built the economy.

[distant wedge]

yeah... Unfortunately their vision for it seems to be building a web2 game and sell packs. So I guess it'll just be a dream.

[brave valley]

Agree, skins are useless because they print better one, fuel and illuivals too. If they would built more for the player, then more player would come I guess.