RE: Thoughts on the Latest SPS Governance Proposal
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I feel like you guys have good intentions at heart but you're failing to apply SEVERAL key aspects of GAME design. If we want this game to be successful it's not about managing a perfect investment model but instead about creating a fun and attractive GAME that creates its own value by creating demand for the game itself NOT the money you can make. We have seen countless games where people were willing to spend 100,000 dollars for virtual items that had no investment value. WHY do you CONTINUE to avoid using established PROVEN models of game economy design that have worked for 10,000's games when they are known? I don't BUY the "well this is a crypto game it's Different". I agree we can't offer free stuff at lower levels but that does not distract from the fact that the formulas to build stable and adjustable models for this economy exist and are not only being IGNORED but done 100% the wrong way in an attempt to supply HIGHER ROI's to Champions and WHALES in the short term while those should be the players must invest for the long term. It's not about this specific proposal *Which is BAD because you are changing the reward structure payout AGAIN * it's about a continued failure to understand how to balance a game economy and help players advance. The previous attempt to get more players to Champion Failed horribly as we can see how the number of players it championed failed to advance due to the fact people just don't have the spare money to advance through those league
What suggestions do you have to make the game more fun? :-)
Haha you beat me too it that's my question!
I think if the major match making factor was cards rather than rating, that would be much more fun. Like matching based off of effective CP instead of rating. It would create much more parody.
Effective CP would count the CP of only the highest leveled version of a given deck. Example: I have a level 5 venari whatever and 5 more at level 1. Effective CP would only count the level 5 card.
New players experience starter cards that allow them to play but, not as good as a set of 4 mana summoners with no abilities that can be unlocked as part of new player experiences and leveled up to maybe common level 5 as unlocking missions (Like a version of Gladius cars ie this would replace the 3 dollars of credits they get for buying a spell book ). Swiss Tourneys ,,, E-Sports Pro Circuit with qualifiers that award quarterly titles. A Tourney mode that shows one card at a time. for broadcasting tourneys. ..... A PROPER BELL CURVE / CARROT Economy that encourages players to advanced.
https://peakd.com/splinterlands/@axrho/spl-to-the-moon
One of the short comings of the argument here is the ignoring of reality that in order for any business to be successful or last long, it needs investors. If you destroy your investors to appease people who pay fractions or even nothing, compared to an investor your product is not going to last long at all.
I’ve personally spent a few thousand dollars on the game, which isn’t as much as some people for sure but if you aren’t willing to invest that money, or others aren’t willing, how do you deserve a better shot than someone who has paid into it?
What are some of your ideas for how it could work better or be less detrimental to the group of players you have in mind? Criticism is the best when you provide potential solutions, instead of listing faults. It’s also much more likely to get your point heard if you can say “here’s what I think is wrong, and how I also think it could look better”
I think your criticism is warranted because everything in life should be debated in an open forum so different sides can see what the other is thinking and coming from. I think it falls a bit short in a few areas but I’m also glad that you took the time to voice the opinion! Dialogue is great!
I’m not trying to treat you poorly but get you to think a little more about what you could offer for your criticisms.