SPS Governance Proposal - Amend Miniset Proposal
This proposal is to amend the SPS DAO proposal dated August 26, 2025. The following changes are proposed.
Add Conflicts to the 2026 Mini-Set
If this proposal passes, the 2026 Mini-Set will include Conflicts. These Conflicts will be described below (Conflict Mechanism)
Simplify Pack Type To Standard Pack Only
Eliminate Alchemy and Legendary Packs to simplify the experience, and leave less negative feelings if picking the “wrong pack type”. Create 550k Standard Packs, and distribute 500k Standard Packs via sale to the player base with another 50k going directly to the SPS DAO.
| Pack Type | Total Available | Reserved for DAO | Total for Sale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | 550,000 | 50,000 | 500,000 |
Conflict Mechanism - Multiple Ways To Play Conflicts
- General Conflicts work similarly as they have in the past, with the exception of ONLY RF being included in the Conflicts. NOTE: Leaderboards and Foil Draws will be discussed later.
- Conflict Score (CS) will be adjusted by the following formula:
Conflict Score for Black Foils relative to GFs will be reduced by 40% which reduces the impact from 5x of the GFs impact to 3x of the GFs. RFs and GFs will stay the same. - Wagon Crafting costs will stay the same for new wagons, however the repair costs will cost ½ as much to repair on the Mini set Edition Conflict ONLY. Since the Conclave Arcana last Conflict will be running by the time the 1st Mini-Set Conflict starts, then we will introduce the new Repair Cost after the launch of the last CA Conflict but before the 1st Mini-set starts. Therefore, we can remove all 'broken' wagons from players inventory and we will not need a SEPARATE wagon repair kit for both the Conclave Arcana set and also for the Mini set Edition. We will just have to change the existing Wagon Repair Kits to “Wagon Kits”, and after the change from above introduce a new “Wagon Repair Kit”
- Current old Wagon price :
Wagon repair kit = 40k wood, 10k stone, 4k iron, 2.5k aura. - New price: Wagon Kit = 35k wood, 14k stone, 3.5k iron, 2.5k aura.
- New price/new item: Wagon Repair Kit = 17.5k wood, 7k stone, 1.75k iron, 1.25k aura.
EDIT 12/22/25
The name or the exact process for implementation of the wagons and the wagon kit is up to the team, however the spirit is that the repair kits are 1/2 the cost of the new wagons. The cost in resources won't change either. However, the team can decide how best to implement this new mechanic, such as the suggestion from a community member below might be an easier implementation;
2 wagon parts kit builds a new wagon
1 wagon parts kit repairs a broken wagon
The team has full authority to implement how is best based on their interpretation and available tools.
- Premium Foil Conflict Card Distribution will be broken down into 2 components:
1) Leaderboard Bonus Package for each Conflict and
2) Four (4) Foil Draws for each Conflict based on Foil Type (GF, BF, GFA, BFA). - The Leaderboard will consist of 55 guaranteed bonus prize packages for each separate Conflict (see Chart 1). There will be 10 leaderboard spots, and each LB spot has its own amount of Bonus Packages - note: each Bonus Package wins a prize, so if a player has 5 Bonus Packages in this mechanic, then they get 5 separate prizes from the pool of 55 prize packages.
EDIT 12/23/25 (Removed titles from LB prizes)
Chart 1
| Each Conflict Leaderboard Bonus Packages | |
|---|---|
| Place | Bonus Packages (each Bonus Package is a winner) |
| 1 | 10 Gold Foil + 1 #’d to 10 Skin |
| 2 | 9 Gold Foil + 1 #’d to 10 Skin |
| 3 | 8 Gold Foil + 1 #’d to 10 Skin |
| 4 | 7 Gold Foil + 1 #’d to 10 Skin |
| 5 | 6 Gold Foil + 1 #’d to 10 Skin |
| 6-10 | 3 Gold Foil + 1 #’d to 10 Skin |
| Total | 55 Gold Foil + 10 #’d to 10 Skins |
Chart 2
| Foil Draw Buckets - Each Monthly Conflict | ||
|---|---|---|
| Fortune Draw Card Total Prizes Per Foil Draw Bucket | ||
| Gold Foil Bucket | 1 CC - no # | 155 cards + (50 #’d to 200 skins) |
| Black Foil Bucket | Maxed copy | 9 cards + (50 #’d to 200 skins) |
| GFA Bucket | Maxed copy | 5 cards + (50 #’d to 200 skins) |
| BFA Bucket | Maxed copy | 1 cards + (50 #’d to 200 skins) |
- 2 Days after the Conflicts are over, the Foil Draw will take place. This gives 1 day for winners to place their cards won into new wagons.
- There will be 4 separate Foil Draw Events for each conflict, and each player can choose which bucket(s) to place their chances earned in the Conflicts. (see Chart 2 above)
- A player may put all of their earned chances on one Foil Draw Event, or spread them out to each of the 4 Different Events. As a default, the player will start with his chances all put into the Gold Foil Bucket, however the player can choose to move all of them to any of the other 3 Foil buckets at any time during the open window of time. A timer will be made to let everyone know how much time is remaining.
- Players can use potions to double the number of chances they get, including a new potion called Sparkle Potions. Sparkle Potions are craftable on land for a cost of 100 Aura.
- Each player can choose whether or not to use potions for more Foil Draws at the time of entry - each potion gives one more entry. Note: players can buy only a max number of potions up to the total amount of Conflict Chances won during the Conflict and then allocated to each respective Foil Draw event. For instance, if a player enters 100 chances to get 100 Foil Draws in the Black Foil Event, then he may buy up to 100 more Foil Draws by using 100 Midnight Potions.
- The number of each potion required for each extra Foil Draw Entry (see Chart 3 below) is:
Gold Foil = 1 Alchemy Potions
Black Foil = 1 Midnight Potions
Gold Foil Arcane = 1 Sparkle Potions
Black Foil Arcane = 1 Sparkle Potions
Chart 3
| Foil Draw Events - Payouts & Potion Costs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GF Draw Event | GFA Draw Event | BF Draw Event | BFA Draw Event | |
| Number of prizes | 155 GF + 50 skins | 5 GFA + 50 skins | 9 BF (#2 thru #10) + 50 skins | 1 BFA + 50 skins |
| Cost of Potions | 1 Alchemy | 1 Sparkle | 1 Midnight | 1 Sparkle |
Adjust Conflict Score for the Conclave Arcana Mini-Set ONLY. No other cards can be staked in the Battle Wagons other than the Mini-set. The adjustment relative to the Conclave Arcana Conflict Score formula is: Regular Foil CS = same, Gold Foil CS = same, Black Foil CS is 3x GF CS.
Chart 4
| New Conflict Score - Mini-Set ONLY | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Common | Rare | Epic | Legendary | |
| Regular Foil 1cc - max | 5 - 2100 | 20 - 2415 | 100 - 4830 | 500 = 5775 |
| Gold Foil 1cc - max | 125 - 4987.5 | 500 - 11550 | 2500 - 26250 | 12500 - 52,500 |
| ADJUSTED LOWER Black Foil (max) | 14,962.5 | 34,650 | 78,750 | 157,500 |
| Gold Foil Arcane (max) | 4987.5 | 11,550 | 26,250 | 52,500 |
| ADJUSTED LOWER Black Foil Arcane (max) | 14,962.5 | 34,650 | 78,750 | 157,500 |
Other Issues
- Players can use potions to double the number of chances they get, including a new potion called Sparkle Potions. Sparkle Potions are craftable on land for a cost of 100 Aura.
- 1 wagon per $100 spend on the purchase of the Mini-set - up to 20 free wagons per account
- No Wagon Repair Costs on either the Leaderboard prizes or the Foil Draw prizes
- Mini-Set Cards can NOT be staked into Conclave Arcana Conflicts
- Conclave Arcana Main Edition Cards can NOT be staked in Mini-Set Conflicts
Thanks for all the hard work here @clayboyn. I know it was a lot of work finding solutions that work for a large % of our players, and I personally love the compromises made to get to this point! The mini-set should be a "banger"!
Wow. I'd be worried if this didn't pass. That is a lot more detail than the previous mini-set proposal and a lot more work to do if this gets thumbs-downed. I'm happy with no airdrop at all and screw the wagons for the mini-set, but this all seems fine. More resources I don't have.
So, let me get this straight, the Cards from the Mini-set will have a Conflicts of their own? Only Mini-set cards will be usable during this Conflict, and they will NOT be usable in the current CA Conflicts? Is that right? So everything you are detailing above only applies to the NEW Mini-set Conflicts?
yup, you got it right.
I got lost in the explanations somewhere in the middle but what I read before that looked great. :P
Oh c'mon it's not rocket science...😅 (actually it is).
there's definitely a lot to consider when making changes to something as sensitive as the Conflicts.
First impression, I'm very confused.
First point says RF only, that later talks about a modifier for BF and GF.
Seems to me like it's rather over elaborate, just addressing the BF issue and the wagon repair cost would have sufficed imo.
I have not gotten the sense that anyone really had an issue with any other aspect of this round of conflicts other than the pain points I mentioned above
Its elaborate because there are a lot of issues to be addressed. One thing affects another and while you didn't have issues with certain parts, other people would have an issue with change. So there had to be compromises to solve the issues as best as possible. While it would've been great if we could've had people happy with a less complicated set of solutions, that's easier said than done.
I do understand the difficulty. Thanks for the feedback.
I'm still confused by the BF/GF/RF bit though. Will the CS reduction only affect the main set wagons going forward and the Mini-Set wagons will not allow BF/GF ?
All the foils are still being made, they will just be given out differently. The RF will come via the main conflict, with the GF/BF/ and arcanes coming via the Foil Draws after the main conflict is over. And all the foils from the mini-set will be able to be staked on Mini-Set Wagons.
The Conflict Score reduction will not apply to the Conclave Arcana wagons, and we will see how this goes for the mini-set to see what impact there will be for the next full set of conflicts. Therefore, the Conflict Score for now is only applicable to the Mini-Set conflict only.
Cheers !
Why are we reducing the demand for iron? We also shouldn't be losing our existing broken wagons; they are owned by the players and not to be taken away. I do support repair costs to be lowered - this should have been done for CA already. Air drops should be for different rarity cards so lower contributions could get some guaranteed cards, when conflict is for common or a rare card. Currently smaller players have little reason to participate in conflicts -> less wagon sales. Personally I spent $1000 or so in CA and I'm not anywhere near getting even one guaranteed airdrop with my conflicts points, so I haven't bought any wagons. If only players who get lucky with blackfoils or ones spending 5k+ can get airdrop cards - we lose a significant portion of potential sales - both wagons and packs.
On the iron, the formula was off relative to the amount of production power needed for each resource to make the wagons. The change was to put it back on the right calculation and make it balanced.
You have a chance to repair the wagons if you want under the old system. If we didn't remove the old broken wagons, then that would mean applying the new cheaper repair costs to the old set, which was not going to be approved. This was a compromise. In order to make things happen (like cheaper repair costs), then sometimes there has to be a compromise. I realize there are people that simply want it one way, but in order to make this better than the last time, compromises have to be made. The alternatives are 1) keeping it exactly as it was 2) someone else finding a solution that could pass or 3) not having conflicts.
All three are possibilities and the community is certainly entitled to figure out which one they collectively want.
What's the reasoning behind removing the different pack types?
Its in the first sentence KZ:
Because of the changes in both the initial proposal and also this proposal there would be an impact on the value of the pack types. Its very hard to say ahead of time how much the changes would affect the different foils. So simplifying it for this set is a way to eliminate players from feeling bad if they picked the wrong pack type. However I think after the release of this set, going back to the additional pack types will be good for the next core set - since we will all have much more experience with how the conflicts worked and the value given to them.
Please define "wrong pack type"?
really, you don't understand this? You must not hang out in Discord a ton, there was quite a few seething players over this issue on the last set.
Players bought packs in the last set, only to find out that the Alchemy packs were the "best buy" for the money. They complained that they should've been told ahead of time which pack type was the "best buy" for the money. To those people, they bought the wrong pack type and it was our fault.
While I believe that all the packs had all the information given out ahead of time, that doesn't stop people from being upset. It was new and thus no one knew how the new foil was going to be received for sure (thus the pricing implications). Plus the fact of the matter is that whenever there are more than one way to do something, then there will be one way that is better than another. Some people like that, and some people hate it.
The bottom line is because there are many changes happening with the Black Foil calculations, plus the changes in the price of the pack types in the original proposal, then there was a good chance that the "best buy" for the money could've shifted to something else.
We could just go with the "buyer beware" or "do your own due diligence" approach, but given this was an issue to players that caused a lot of negativity, then it seemed like a good compromise to remove the packs and eliminate the disparity between pack types for now.
We can always include the various pack types in the future, but considering people were unhappy last time, the goal is to eliminate as many bad feelings as possible on this time. Of course if you liked this dynamic, then it doesn't apply to you, but that doesn't mean it didn't apply to others.
I have asked this question on discord and didn't get an answer. So here it goes :)
Looks like this proposal will pass. So, with these changes, do you think people who complained are now happy? Will they buy packs and invest in the game?
Hey AZ, I think they don't have anything to complain about now after this, this addresses their objections. Whether they come back and buy packs or not, we will have to see. I certainly hope so though.
Thanks for the response Dave
I am in discord a fair amount, but there are no wrong packs. depends what we want and what we are willing to pay for it.
By that logic, all packs are wrong, as none are better value than buying individual cards.
The pack variants, imo, was the best thing that happened to the game since aggie left.
again, my vote doesn't matter, so not sure why i voice an opinion.
I hope I am wrong and we get floods of buyers due to the newfound fairness.
I agree that the pack variants are fun and are a good marketing tool, I would like to see them come back on the next set. I think the only place we would differ is that I'm ok with simplifying that part of the mini-set as a compromise to get the other things resolved that I think are far more important.
Put another way, I think the Black Foils and the various pack types did a lot of good and enabled us to sell more than we did on Rebellion, even with less players. But those also created negativity for some which also cost us.
I like what I read for the most part, but it is again so many small things packed together in one big yes or no proposal.
I don't think splitting into wagon kits and wagon repair kits makes much sense from a market and crafting usage point of view. Why do you want to do 2 items? Make "wagon parts" and any existing wagons are just replaced by 2 wagon parts. You need one part to repair and two to build from scratch. That way you keep it at one item and you don't create two different inventory items.
Advantages:
Also I can't shake the irony of removing pack types for the sake of simplicity and introducing a second type of wagon kit at the same time. ;)
YES YES YES
This is a better and simpler concept: please combine both types of wagon token to a single token:
Better utility and increases liquidity.
We'll discuss it, I like the idea. I think your suggestion still can be done based on the spirit of the proposal.
So a few questions to help understand :
Are CP stats changing for black foils? Or is it just the conflict formula is changing, so we shouldn’t use CP as a mental shortcut anymore?
Are sparkle potions going to be used for pack openings or other things? or are they created just for the chance at 1 of 6 cards in each conflict?
Bonus packages - are they just randomly distributed? (Like #1 gets 10 packages but it’s a random selection from the 55 packages, aka not guaranteed to be one of the 3 legendary titles ones?)
At the risk of being annoying with it, this makes it again a bit more complicated than it has to be. A card having a CP score, a PP score, now additionally a conflict score which would only be introduced for BF. Do you really need CP and conflict score to be different things?
Out of curiosity, in which calculations is CP actually factored in? Is it just tournament qualification and conflicts or am I missing something? Maybe there are some hidden calculations relying on it? Either way, it would be more streamlined to adapt the CP score of the BF cards in the interest of simplicity. Otherwise you would have to display the conflict score too and this clutters the UI or you put out a disclaimer for conflicts which may or may not result in more support tickets when the BF cards don't do what they are expected to do, assuming the disclaimer is not read 100% of the time.
Either way, I would consider this implementation detail for the team to decide and as long as the reduction happens it is fine with the proposal.
Hey @cardeegel this isn't annoying. I would say that you underestimate the complexity of the situaion, and its complicated because it needed to be complicated to solve the issues tackled and still pass. It didn't start out this way, it ended up this way through compromises. So moving pieces around will just lose votes.
You are welcome to put up a different proposal, and I'm sure if you get a reasonable amount of people that would pre-agree to your proposal (without large objections), then we can find a way to fund that proposal for you. I think you will find when you shop it around though, that you will lose votes very fast if it differs materially from what is presented here. But you can try.
To answer your questions, yes we do need CP and the conflict score to be different things. First this is an attempt at solving a problem with the conflicts, not anything else. There are people that don't want the Black Foils nerfed at all, so this is a compromise they accepted. You can try to nerf them further by reducing their CP, but I'm positive it will lose a lot of votes and won't pass.
There's many spots where CP is used, including the biggest one - burn value. On top of that like you said tournament calcs, plus the conflict score only applies to a temporary set of conflicts, it doesn't apply permanently like CP. We have never altered CP and therefore its the one that players rely on to give an underlying value to the card.
In my opinion, you and others that say this is complicated simply don't understand that the alternatives are:
In my opinion, a vote against this proposal is likely going to lead to not having conflicts, which is fine if that's what the players want. Its possible that someone can come up with a better solution, but doing so will mean speaking to many players and finding out where they stand on the deal.
I have worked on this with Clay and we've been through the process, I'm confident that you will find that changing things will lose votes really quickly. That's my assessment, you can do your own of course.
I don't try to approach it from a position of trying to do a different proposal. I already voted for this, because it is better than not having it. I just try to mitigate (completely subjective) issues with small changes.
Our proposal system is not great for community input because as soon as the wider community knows about it, it is basically a vote. That is why I mostly suggest changes that (again completely subjective) could be done in the scope of the original proposal without changing the spirit of the proposal.
My understanding is:
there's several things happening in the proposal, not just the conflict score.
The proposal was needed because of the change to the pack types, everything else probably could've be done by the team. But why not include the full picture so that everyone can see how its all connected, that way they don't object to the changes after they are released?
Keep in mind that there were many people on both sides of these Conflicts issues, and some were vehemently upset with some parts of it. To be fair to everyone, and to get a good gauge of sentiment, its better to include all the changes for that full picture.
Love simplifying the pack types! Only standard pack!
I think this needs to be simplified.
Sure it can be simplified, but by doing so it might cause it not to pass. Which is fine if you would rather not have conflicts @sprstoner instead of this set of solutions.
Anyone can make a proposal, but with every proposal it requires a lot of communication with many of the various stakeholders. You and others can do that, and possibly find a better solution. I've been there with Clay having the convos and I can assure you this wasn't an easy discussion with many players. However, if you want to do the work, then that's cool if you can find something that people would prefer.
When a situation is complicated and people are dug in on various sides of the issues, then the solutions generally have to be complicated if you want them to pass. What you think is important, might not be what other people think is important.
We have many issues being addressed in this proposal including the value of the Black Foils (in both conflicts and overall), the costs to repair the wagons, the types of packs offered and the value of those packs, and the mechanisms for guarantees versus opportunities at big stuff for all. These are all issues that need to be addressed, none of them can be ignored.
So if you and others can make it more simplified, and get enough backing to pass, then I think that's great. The alternatives are simple though:
While I agree and believe the solution is complicated, the outcome of the process is not. Either someone puts up a proposal that passes to enable conflicts, or we just skip Conflicts for the Mini-set.
i rather it not pass than being a convoluted mess. but my vote doesnt count anyways.
Your vote counts @sprstoner. And that's fine that you feel that way, I would expect that there would be a lot of people that would prefer a different solution. The hard part is how to get more than 2/3rds of the vote to find something that's acceptable.
or to out vote the 3 people who make all the decisions. we barely even have the illusion of a vote that matters.
I think that its not just the overall vote total that matters, its also watching how individuals vote. I know I look at who votes for what, and it affects me. I would imagine the guys at the top think the same way. My view is that voting matters because its a way to gauge sentiment, even if your vote won't change the outcome.
As a libertarian, i am used to my vote not mattering and I guess I am ok with it. :)
I don’t agree with removing different pack types. If players want to pay a premium for a higher chance of bf cards they should be able to.
Players not understanding what they are buying is not a good enough reason for removing an incentive for other players to chase bf cards
I genuinely don’t understand the rest of it.
That's fine that you don't agree FM. In the last set of conflicts there was quite a bit of negativity regarding the formulas for the pack inclusion of the Black Foils. Since things changed again, quite a bit on this mini-set, then it was an issue that some didn't want to repeat and make the same mistake again given 1) its a new dynamic and 2) our community has quite a few people that care about disparity.
If you feel that having 3 pack types is more important than having Conflicts, then certainly you can vote against it. You can also make a proposal to have the 3 pack types too if this proposal were to pass.
I like that you identified what is your most important issue, that makes it easier to comment on. Your focus is on the pack types, so either 1) the proposal fails and you don't need to do anything - no conflicts but 3 pack types or 2) the proposal passes and you can find support to do the 3 pack types and put up a subsequent proposal.
As with everything in this proposal, there are many parts to it for a reason. Getting people to agree on solutions was not easy. So while everyone might want various pieces to be different, in my opinion the totality of the proposal is good even though everyone will have pieces they like and dislike. That's just my thoughts, of course everyone is encouraged to have their own!
I, for one, loved multiple pack types, and conflicts kind of suck. So I guess it is not a guess that I hope this fails.
I too like multiple pack types, and I was a big proponent of them on the main set. And like I said above, its cool that you don't want this to pass, especially more so if you don't like conflicts.
Thanks for taking the time to reply Dave. The different pack types have allowed people to chase bf cards. I think this is a good revenue stream for the company. I believe the company continuing to make money is more important than an air drop.
What I don't understand is why pack type choice and airdrop distribution is on the same proposal. I think you should leave the packs alone and make a fairer system if its been massively unfair in CA.