RE: Land Resource Prices and Other Musing
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
What a great post again—awesome to see you back in the saddle! 🙌
We were all wondering what was going on with the Stone anomaly, but as expected, the market did its thing, and just like that… the anomaly vanished. Still not entirely sure why it happened, but hey—it is what it is.
As for the current low prices, I personally think it’s mostly a demand issue, not just about supply. There's a clear lack of strong incentives and benefits for landholders—and I don’t just mean monetary ones. Long-term utility and meaningful engagement are what will drive value.
Price the items higher in land resources, much higher.
I’m not so sure about this one. Raising prices too much could backfire by pushing away smaller players or making it harder for new landowners to get started. We need to be careful not to create too steep of a barrier to entry.
That said, I do think the team has bigger plans—avatars were mentioned in the past, mostly in the context of Glint, but what if we had craftable avatar items too? Imagine something simple like crafting a basic outfit with Grain, then leveling it up to look cooler or unlock small bonuses. It would be a fun, ongoing reason to use resources beyond just hoarding or dumping them.
Land cards are nice but will probably only be a short amount of time a boost to land demand, depending on how they implement it.
In general, we need a steady flow of use cases, not just raising prices. The current items we can craft are very situational and often only needed for short periods. Adding more diverse and long-term utility would/could do a lot to keep the economy rolling—and keep players engaged.
Just some thoughts, hope the team, and not only cryptomancer can get this back on track
I have a theory. Stone prices were anomalously high. We told people that :)
They produced every ounce of stone they can produce and they sold them. Supply increased, price came down.
I understand that. But suggest an alternative. How are you going to burn through 9B grain?
Yes I agree that we need constant consumables not just occasional ones.
@nateaguila has talked about a personal lounge area or custom battle field.. let players fill that common / rare /epic / legendary items to show off, is this idea still alive or on the enormous backlog of future (never) release 🤣
The team has to joggle with all the tokens and give them all attention vouchers / glint / merits / GP / eventually 30 land resources... this will then all have its effect on DEC and then SPS. Not a easy task at all, but for now land is not heading the right direction....
Also the unbound scrolls can be ongoing spending.
This is the main point I am trying to make. It is interesting that in 2025 so far, despite the largest advancement in land game, the occupancy rate remained at 32% and all resources went down.
Ultimately this is a metric the game makers will be judged.
@beaker007 - is there any way on your land tool to see the total consumption and production of resources by rarity?
I have a theory over 50% of production is coming from the most efficient plots (highly boosted epics and legendary), which use the least amount of inputs....
The boosted plots producing so much more than they consume means that it take a whole lot of "inefficient plots" to absorb the excess production these boosted plots produce....
@azircon - here's an "alternative suggestion" to use more of that 9B grain - if we have grain used as an input for crafting products, it ensures grain is not avoided by the highly efficient grain producers.
However, I would echo beaker's concern that too much demand for early and intermediate resource - could hamstring the "overall" demand for land products as a result of too much cost or risk at the end-product stage.
So my thinking is that grain probably needs to be highly available and affordable, or all further production cycles will stagnate.
There should be SO MANY opportunities to spend aura that no one, (except maybe vugtis), wonders'"how am I going to spend all this aura".
At this time, unless people are spending way more on raffle tickets than they can possibly win, there is simply no way to spend more aura than we are producing. And that's the case where only 30% of land is active - imagine if more was active?
Raffles and auctions are a start but we need lots more like this.
Continuous demand for aura, as the last level of production, it drives all the inputs before it.
One might think that at first, and to be honest, I had the same thought when I saw your question. 😅
But once I loaded the actual data… I saw something quite different. Really interesting stuff!
Feel free to write a post about it if you'd like 😁 Would love to see your take on it.
Its live on the site (tab compare):
https://land.spl-stats.com/region-overview
So common plots are producing most grain wood stone and iron. I expected this.
Their numbers are just higher
Oh I hadn't found this info on your site yet! Thanks for pointing it out!
It's an interesting result - I'll dig in a bit deeper, since my initial hypothesis doesn't seem to be supported by the data.
Is the Production by Rarity and Resource available in both boosted and base PP?
I'm assuming it's only boosted in the chart - being able to slice and dice the consumption data based on which types of plots are consuming it is pretty powerful - having base PP would allow a pretty close approximation...
Hi,
It was not on site before 😁, just added it.
It's production per hour (that is always done on Boosted Production Points, in the spl api called rewards per hour).
Consumption is always done on Base Production Points (this is calculated via the consumption ratio)
Nice!!!! you work fast!
yeah I was thinking about questions like "how much stone is consumed by common aura plots, also wondering if there is a way to see utilization of each plot type as [# of plots worked / #total of that plot type] - like "how many magic leg plots are active, and how many are inactive, etc.
Not sure if that data is available already, you have made so many tools :D
First part of the question. You can use the filters. When you filter on Aura, you get only plots that produces Aura. Same for rarity.
For the second part not 100% sure what you mean. But you can also use the filter on legendary magical on active tab you can see how many plots are active and inactive.
My question is what is "too much"?
I can demonstrate that current pricing is not consuming enough land resources.
Thanks Az for the question.
I do agree with you - we are not consuming enough - and certainly not compared to what we are producing.
It's not an easy question: "what is too much"
But I'll try to outline my underlying guiding principal here:
I tend to think a healthy economic cycle usually aligns with the typical risk/reward dynamics that open markets usually see:
Further, in an economic production cycle, each production step should have an expectation of value added, and each step adds cost and risk.
So translating that to SPL, where the final output of Land is to make products to sell profitably to other players...
At this point we already know what most players will pay for cards and assets. So unless the ecosystem expands rapidly, we can probably make a pretty decent estimate of the value of many final outputs, with a bit of a premium or discount based on individual asset characteristics.
But then whatever the output price, the land economy will split the total value added through the production cycle.
Grain production is the classic "low risk" business model in SPL
Then, the final steps - producing SPS, Aura and Research, have the most risk - they risk all the price and supply shocks from all previous steps and they have the most market risk, since they aren't immediately sellable outputs in an LP.
Since Grain is the fundamental first step of land, we need grain to be plentiful and available... yes, it should have an ROI. But if we want to encourage the later steps, we don't just want a "stone anomoly" - we want all the subsequent production steps to have their own anomoly relative to grain: a "wood anomoly" and "iron anomoly" too. And at the end, the "Aura anomoly" should have the highest expected result to compensate for the highest risk - that's the sign of a healthy, non-stagnating, market, which will justify why Aura gets locked behind a research permit....
Pulling demand from end cycle production should have much better results than trying to push early cycle production value - which just means passing higher costs to everything afterwards without adding to those value chains (aka inflation).
*Success will come when late stage production outputs can "pull all resource prices". The goal should be an EXCESS of utility - whether functional, economic, or cosmetic.... by having so many things to buy with AURA that we never hear "I don't have anything to spend my Aura on"...
So to rephrase... What is "too much"?
To me, if grain ROI is higher than equivalent wood/stone/iron ROI, then it's too much: grain price is too high of a share of production value, and you fix it by adding production at the end of the production cycle.
(Sorry for the long response - maybe it should have been a blog post of it's own :D)