violet chasm
The aim of this thread is to Ratify Deathmatch GDD and enable official approval to proceed with the implementation. Please cast your vote below.
Link to Deathmatch's GDD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TRqWSmcj2hLMaasticwzMSYWhG8n3KLc1EvtJLOmnT0/edit?tab=t.0
torn imp
Well done @violet chasm and the team 👏
This seems really fun, im looking forward to seeing how it plays out and how we can eventually improve upon the original concept
I wonder if something could be done to even the playing field. Naturally this mode is very different then the arena modes for which the illuvials were designed so the imbalance seems very strong where an umbre for example would insanely over perform while someone like gnarl or adorius wont be able to do much
The pre determined starting time is great to solve the potential problem of not having enough players but it doesnt suit the mode well as its focused on gambling
As a gambler/player of this mode id like to sit down for my session and be able to gamble 10s/100s of illuvials in an hour, playing multiple rounds simultaniously
What if we set the auto start time as a backup mechanic only and instead have a normal queue where once the needed amount of players is there a game starts and another queue starts
violet chasm
Well done <@413338966952247296> and the team 👏
This seems really fun, im look...
Hey Patate, thanks for the feedback and the kind words.
In standard team fights, ranged units are balanced around the assumption that they can stay behind a frontline and deal damage safely. Because of this built-in safety, their raw stats are typically lower than those of melee units.
In 1-man-army mode, however, there is no frontline to protect them. Without that protection, ranged units are far more exposed, and their lower base stats become a much bigger liability.
I’ve been thinking a lot about how to balance this while keeping stats consistent with Arena. We’ll use two main solutions:
The fight will take place in a circular arena.
All Illuvials start evenly spaced in a ring at mid distance.
For the first 2–3 seconds, units will move only (no attacking).
Their movement depends on their archetype:
There will be a bit of randomness in these movements so each fight feels dynamic and unpredictable.
After this short repositioning phase, units begin attacking.
This system gives ranged units a better chance to avoid being instantly focused by multiple enemies. However, they are still threatened by Assassins, who move sideways and can end up close enough to target them.
Similar to League of Legends’ ARAM mode, we can apply balance modifiers specifically for this mode.
In ARAM, some champions deal or receive adjusted damage to stay competitive. We can do something similar:
If certain units consistently underperform, we can slightly boost them. If some units are too strong, we can tune them down. But rather than touching their stats, we will add flat modifiers on damage input and output. IE. Say Elk is struggling a lot, well then maybe we give it +10% dmg output and -10% damage input, but the stats remain the same as in arena.
Our goal is that any single unit, with the right luck and boosters, has a real chance to win.
Bonus:
We’re also proactively addressing potentially overpowered cases (like untargetable units such as Thylacina and Dropbear Omegas). These have already been reworked in the upcoming patch going to UAT.
torn imp
Wonderful, thanks for the details @violet chasm !
orchid eagle
upvoted
torn imp
@fathom cipher @tidal night id like to hear your thoughts on the proposal as you down voted it
fathom cipher
<@483379436901761025> <@486884982028238849> id like to hear your thoughts on the...
My main concern is prioritization. The Illuvium team is relatively small, and we are still working towards stabilizing and expanding the core pillars which are the the upcoming MMO and Arena. Arena in particular is currently our most polished product, yet we’ve rarely had a truly clean, bug-free experience since launch. (Did we actually have had a clean crash and bug free patch? I don't think so) I believe development resources should remain focused on strengthening these foundations rather than branching into a new thing. (Another pivot... again) In my opinion everything that is or goes live should be bug/crashfree and there should be workforce to do hotfixes as we just have seen it would be needed with the augment bug in arena.
I’m also skeptical of the “low effort” framing. We’ve heard similar expectations before (e.g., Beyond being positioned as low effort), and in practice it still impacted timelines like for example delaying EP1 by months just because there was some minor backend problems in beyond. Even an MVP requires design, engineering, QA, infrastructure, and live support, and I think the workload and opportunity cost are being underestimated.
There’s also a brand identity question here. Illuvium has positioned itself as a gaming universe. This proposal introduces a gambling-first experience with permadeath and slot-style mechanics tied directly to outcomes. I think we should have a broader strategic discussion about whether this aligns with the long-term vision and how it affects perception among gamers and existing or possible future partners.
From a market standpoint, I’m not convinced there’s a clear audience. Online gambling is an extremely competitive space that requires massive marketing investment to gain visibility. If the intent is to attract a new demographic, I’m not seeing evidence that an MVP would be compelling enough to break through. Historically, we’ve seen that partially fleshed-out releases struggle to retain players or justify spend in both in Arena and Overworld.
For these reasons, I’d prefer the team prioritize:
Ps. It also amazes me how we now can spend workforce to build a big questionmark-product almost on the same risk level as building an MMO with an indie studio... yet for our mobile game citybuilder where people are used to spend a shit ton of money for everything, competition is very small and low quality and has the by far lowest amount of development time needed (need like one frontend one backend dev for like 8 months and it gets into a money printer) we strictly say no, we can't do it... not enough devs.