fa9b8601cb6fe45517be496540d35c0ca8e72f7b
Proposal:
Increase price of Spellbook compensate with Rebellion Packs
Reasons:
1st: Perfect against bot farms.
2nd: More Rebellion packs sold => good for Sps Dao
3rd: Improved onboarding experience for new players (wow pack opening, how cool is that 😃).
4th: What costs nothing is worth nothing.
Who am I:
My handle is cryp71x. I am a big shareholder, who owns more than 4M Sps. I am worried about the direction in which splinterlands is heading. I want to correct it a little bit.
I voted for this in hopes of getting more eyeballs on it, and thus more discussion and input.
My personal hope would be for it to be an option added, instead of a replacement. Having various options to purchase "packages" is a great marketing strategy. I'm sure a lot of people would like to buy the "Deluxe Starter Package", and they could even insert a special "exclusive card" available only to this package too. That would be cool imo.
Good idea Cryp71x, I like that you are focusing on making things better!!!
No, this is not the direction I want to go. I want to increase the price of the Spell-book and the value of packs for compensation be maximal and I repeat maximal the value of the Spell-book price increase.
There can be multiple options, but I am sorry DAVEMCCOY the Null (Botfarm) option (Spell-book for 10$ and 0 Packs) will be no longer available if this proposal passes. Multiple accounts are o.k., but bot-farms nope. Hope you agree in this point DAVEMCCOY.
Can we be more specific as to the price change and number of packs issued?
That's fair, its your proposal. While I will likely abstain when it becomes a full proposal, I will still vote yes in the pre-proposal stage so that you get as many eyeballs as possible for you to make your points.
I still think its a good idea to bring up so that we can discuss the issue. So again I'm happy you made the proposal and are trying to improve things Cryp71x! :)
ps. I think the bot farms already pretty much have their accounts already, so that's why I'm not as concerned as you with the inexpensive option. IE...I think there are other things more effective at managing that problem that was created in the past.
My proposal is against new botfarms. The old ones will dry up with the "other things" you mentioned whatever the "other things" are.
buying spellbooks in bulk on the secondary market for under $10 currently is very easy. I don't see why anyone starting a new botfarm would waste money buying new spellbooks from splinterlands while this is possible.
Do you have a link for the secondary market? I would like to take a look.
Maybe I can buy some spell-books before the price increases 😉
I don't get your point, do you want to actually deter real players from entering and giving the company 10$ for doing so?
Are you aware you can have bulk accounts from abandonned botfarms for as low as 30 cents an account?
They never buy directly spellbooks, there is actually so much second hand accounts for sale in bulk for peanuts, strictly no reason to do so.
The only thing you'll achieve with this is putting a huge barrier of entry to the people you want to see coming in, while botfarms will laugh all the way because you closed a door they never use in the first place.
Also, a new botfarm would never open at 10$ an account, it would take them years after years to roi on that.
I'm sorry i'm voting against, there are already few enough spellbooks sold to real player to not make the wall three time higher for them. You want them all inside the disco, not out at the door with a too expensive ticket.
If you pay 100k DEC to get that out, you're basically going to loose money, to loose even more money on your SPS stack as it will be detrimental to the game in general.
Hope you get my point.
TLDR : Bots never buy spellbooks.
Just as an example, on the Xbot page, which is already expensive stuff but still 10x lower than company spellbook : https://xbot.app/discountedAccounts
here's a link https://xbot.app/discountedAccounts
you can also go on telegram. You can also buy bulk accounts for $0.70 each and they have potions on them. i spoke to one reseller that had 2300 accounts for sale. reach out to @binance_whalealerts on telegram
Agree 100% Dave! I like for the team to consider various spellbook options. Also various pack options too for the matter, but that is a different proposal.
No, I think Spell-book and starter packs are linked. I leave the details to the Splinterlands Corporation. My proposal is about the Null option (Spell-book price increase 0, 0 starter packs). And I want to NULL the NULL option 😆
Explain a bit more. I am listening.
Onboarding is highly complex and there are surely experienced developers who know how to do it. I want that there comes movement in this topic. I have the bad feeling that there are no new quality players joining. I don't have the numbers but just because 20 Spellbooks are sold, doesn't mean that 20 new quality players joined. Also, there are now new games like Genesis League .... If the Spellbook is too much for new players (after an increase) they can choose to join the newer Games while their Spell-books are still cheap. This way we create scarcity by making Splinterlands an exclusive club everyone wants to join but not everyone can affort to and then Genesis Goals and then .... So be lucky you were one of the first ones when it was still cheap. Don't wait to join the game.
Now to your question: Why is the Spell-book linked to Starter Packs. I thought this is obvious, but it seems it is not. It just came natural in my mind, but let me think about a proof:
Ok, when a new player joins he has to pay money, obvious. This money (real world like Dollar or digi world like Monero) consists of the price for the Spellbook and if the proposal passes also for packs. Now a link has been established. Buying a Spell-book is onboarding but also everytime I buy a pack I onboard a little bit, don't you think so AZIRCON?
I disagree with this direction. GLS and SPL are two ENTIRELY different games. I LOVE SPL but have ZERO desire to play sports games. While we don't want access to this game to be free, making it 'an exclusive club' undermines the purpose of the crypto game (spawn point equality) and works AGAINST the tokenomics and whole economy model. The SPL economy thrives the more players there are competing for the assets. We have had an exclusive club with no new members joining for the past two years and it's been a disaster.
Do you know how I can look up your Sps token value FATJIMMY? I am curious if you really care about this game.
What we need to do is bring back the old players who left. Leave no one behind.
I get it. I am with you.
Offer a new orb like shit they can open each day for some special promo cards.
This is IMO way better option as packs. And can be also priced different like offer some discount on them.
Can have same mechanic as packs for DAO. It also feels way more special.
Definitely. Its a simple but powerful concept that would certainly apply to packs too!
I agree that it should be an option to get a spellbook with packs. I don't like the idea of a mandatory substantial increase to get in the game. I also don't think it would deter future bot farms at all. If anyone wanted to set one up, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dormant accounts that can probably be purchased for a few dollars each. Thats how I expect new bot farms would pop up.
Yes, it is theoretical possible to sell your bot-farm, although it is a hell of a pain in the ass I am sure (how to organize that logistically and also how to match a buyer/seller?).
But it will be no longer profitable to create a new farm IMNO. That's something, isn't it? Kill one bot at a time. Then the next one. Until no one is left.
I don't like the idea of a mandatory substantial increase to get in the game.
Ok, so you would opt that the compensation of packs for the Spell-book increase is exactly equal. Yes, this proposal allows that. It is up to the Splinterlands Corp. and CLAYBOYN to figure this out. This proposal is only to NULL the NULL option.
I don't believe it is currently profitable to create a new bot farm. Botfarms happened because you could pay $10 and then win 25 to 50 cents per game in bronze with starter cards. And if you rented a llamakron, you could get it back even quicker. Bot farms were into profit within a week and then it was all free money after that.
Today it would take a few years to make that $10 back and there's a chance you never can because for all they know, bots could be made illegal 6 months from now. People with the skills to build a bot farm have better opportunities with less risk. Those who own the accounts already and have already built bot farms in the past don't even find it worth it to keep them going anymore.
I think the value of this idea is more about encouraging pack buying and new player integration than it is about deterring bot farms. But I don't think that should be forced. So I guess I'm against nulling the null option.
I voted for it though because I want to have the conversation.
No bot farms anymore? I am so glad to hear that. Let's make sure it stays that way. My proposal will help.
No one is forced to pay let's say 14$ for the Spell-book and a Rebellion pack. If this amount is one's life savings I would say: Play some other game like ... hm why not chess. There are boards for less than 10$ on amazon.com
There are a few still in operation (although 90% have shut down already as evidenced by the reduction from 500k daily actives to 50k today) but no new ones are opening up. Your proposal is supposed to deter new ones but since new ones haven't opened up in over 2 years, it seems like your proposal is to help with a problem that doesn't exist.
And what is anyone going to do by opening up one rebellion pack? That's not even fun, and it will be a deterrent once they realize that one pack isn't even close to enough to field a team (play the game). I'd rather we do what Matt has been talking about. Buy a spellbook and get $3 to instantly rent a whole modern deck in one click. The player should be able to come in and instantly be able to play the game, not need to figure out what it means that they now have 5 cards they bought but can't field a usable team with.
And if it's more than 1 pack, well, now we're talking about a lot more than the $14 you came up with to rebut me.
As I said, I leave the details of the implementation to MATT, CLAYBOYN, the community and also you IMNO as part of the community of course. (14$ was just a silly example so you understand, but it seems it failed 😒). All of you can decide afterwards how the onboarding will be implemented and look in detail.
I just want the price of the Spell-book to increase and compensate with Rebellion packs. Because I want quality onboarding not quantity onboarding. And I also want fairness towards player who bought the book years ago already.
Imno also explains well what I said in my other post above, the botfarms that were created by the thousands were done when it was taking 7 days to get back the 10$ on the account from rewards cards dumping. After that they were positive until they tanked the market.
Then they left for the most part, and their accounts are still sold as of today to people that run bots in wild and invest in them, but in way less quantities as it currently take months not only to get ROI, but to stop loosing money on them. Yes, a new bot activated today is a 90% loss for 6 months minimum, that should tell you they are not so detrimental to the economy.
If anything i'd LOWER the price of a spellbook to 2-3$ as it serves zero purpose at 10$ currently with so many cheap accounts flying around for the people in the know to use.
I personnaly would lower it to 2 or 3$ as even at that price no bot farm could take advantage of the price and there is better out there for them. It will also make sure there are more real players entry because low price = more entry.
Don't know where you got your theory where high price in a shit market = more customers but it's factually wrong.
Apart from that, i'd obviously monitor the market price, and readjust the price of the spellbook accordingly and dynamically.
If we were with crazy price once again the price should go higher and higher and be calculated over the SPS price, as the rewards cards are now locked and cannot enter in that calculation.
But for now, 10$ is too much, more than that is suicidal.
I'll be honest, this is not the way to increase value, removing the spellbooks completely would be way better. The spellbook served a purpose when the game first came out, it no longer does because the starter cards are worthless you cant even get into the bronze league with just starter cards, and to be competitive takes a significant investment. Maybe buy up all the cheap cards on market and make starter packs of 10 cards including a summoner, of the same element, of at least lvl 3, charge 30-50 for it. Increase the minimum price to rent cards that would make your bot problem a benefit to the community since they would still have to stimulate the market to do anything, and raise value of the market as a whole. Also maybe give a promo card to everyone who already has a spell book. As for the starter packs burn off half the value in dec which would further increase the value of everything, then focus on gameplay, it goes way too slow which makes it annoying to play. Just my two cents, I voted for it anyways, probably wont once it goes through unless you can do a much better job at convincing me how it will benefit the community to raise the price of something that's useless, and will only further keep new players from trying the game, not that it matters.
I like the idea of this as an option for new players, but not that you want to completely eliminate the $10 spellbook. There are players I know here in game who live in countries where $7/day is the minimum wage. I believe the success of this game comes form making it MORE accessible to as many people as possible, not LESS, and increasing costs for basics like this makes it less accessible for more people.
I really like the idea of the OPTION of buying a few packs with the spellbook but not at the cost of eliminating the $10 spellbook.
Please read the thread before you post. I already said that if you don't want to buy a single pack for 4$ with your hard earned money you worked for the whole day (you still have 3$ for a coke and a burger left) then chess is maybe a better option for. You get a used board for 1$ and never have to pay anything again (until you loose a pawn maybe) then you have 6$ for two cokes and two burger. But that is not healthy in my opinion FATJIMMY😉
I don't want to exclude these people (also not fat people). I just want to signal to them what they are awaiting when they enter this game. They can earn money and they can get rich. But they have to invest in some packs first. Open them (fun) and then buy or rent maybe additional cards that fit to their pack opening. If they don't like the game anymore they sell their cards. Maybe with a profit maybe with a loss. Depends on the market. A zero pack Spell-book only, is not fat, it is hefty. It is so hefty that it will explode, which is cool for the one who explodes but not for the surrounding and the ones who need to clean up the mess 😟
Let's get rid of the Null option. Ok, maybe Spell-book only but then also wood league only. Starter cards only and no earn and nothing more. Your real onboarding begins with your first pack. You will feel great after buying your entry ticket. Open it. Wow, nice artwork! Wow, I can play with them. I can rent, I can buy, I can sell. Unbelievable what I can do with my first pack.
Have I made myself clear FATJIMMY?
open packs is a suicide today,it is better to pay for the cards you need directly in the market, better using BIDS on peakmosnters, even better to only rent some decent decks on the market. but, open packs? are you nuts? This is not the way I would recommend to a newbie to go into the game today.
The game already has a huge paywall, increasingly less rewards (not even counting that most are soulbound now), and less and less appealing to a new player. I do understand the reasoning behind this proposal, but increasing ANY costs, even at the expense of getting some cards, is a no for me.
Hey, let's charge more! And then watch those people who AREN'T PLAYING OR BUYING ALREADY...move to a game they don't have top spend a penny on.
sorry but this is going in the wrong direction. actually games where you have to buy everything yourself to be able to play have free access. the 10 dollars for a spellbook are already a joke at the moment. in the past you could play and earn with starter cards. now you only get 3 dollars in credits and a wallet for the 10 dollars, which is free anyway. so you pay 10 dollars and can play just as much as before without a spellbook, find the mistake. maybe you should take a look at what other games are doing. since you can no longer earn money with starter cards, even the 10 dollars is actually a no-go. because they only trigger mistrust in the customer and the feeling of having been taken for a ride. because as I said, you pay 10 dollars and can play and earn just as much as without the spellbook. and after this feeling, the customer is then asked to pay again. this achieves exactly the opposite, the customer leaves because he thinks this is a scam
I gotta agree with bronko
See below for why:
Changing Spellbooks and a better experience
I leave the details to the Splinterlands Corp. and CLAYBOYN. This is to NULL the NULL option.
If the new player thinks it is a scam he will sell his cards and then he will realize..........wow. wow. I can sell my cards this is not a scam like Heartstone. This is real. And then he will come back or not. His choice.
sorry, but when it comes to marketing and player retention, you can't be so arrogant as to say ``he will come back or not. His choice.''
and apart from that, he then pays 20 dollars for a spellbook and then sells his cards and gets 5 dollars back? and that's supposed to convince him afterwards that it's not a scam?
there's no need to reinvent the wheel here, it's been tested by experts, with the most expensive psychologists, marketing professionals and co. for years. games that want the player to spend money in the game work best with free access. that's how you get most people ``addicted''.
100%. Other Web3 games are making effort to make their games accessible to people but this proposal wants SPL to become harder to get into. Some games even have F2P options, with less earnings but it lets you test the game features, mechanics, etc. I wish SPL would have that option (not the current "play starter cards in Novice before deciding to buy spellbook").
IMO, those who think this proposal will help grow SPL is very out of touch with the current trend in web3 games.
But anyway I dont have much SPS and my assets here are less than $2k i think, so obv my opinions mean shit lol.
The whales gonna vote this to try to put a fence around the game lol soon they be the only ones left (and their scholars maybe).
Totally agree. 99% of the games out there are free to play, then you can choose to spend money, or "play with real money" so to speak. The other 1% is Splinterlands. The spellbook never made sense in my opinion.
at least people have the benefit to know hive ecosystem by creating a splinterlands account, believe me when I say is thousand times easier to create my first hive account with splinterlands that any other way,not all the people notice the struggle every new person has to pass for when they arrive at hive ecosystem without using "the splinterlands way", for that reason I go on liking the possibility to buy the spellbook.
I like for this to go to the main proposal.
I don't have a strong opinion, but like to guage the community opinion. As I don't know which way the cumulative stake weighted vote will go.
We have enough trouble onboarding players for $10. The initial price would have to be high to get enough packs to get any meaningful cards. A new player would be better off renting or buying a few needed cards.
I don't have a strong opinion about it Josh.
Are we saying we are getting 500 new players if the spellbook price is $10, but will get 400 players if the price is $12?
I don't know the answer to that.
I am curious what do you and the rest of the community thinks about that. Is the spellbook price the barrier of entry?
TBH, the game has limited appeal outside of crypto. I offered the opportunity for all of my nieces and nephews to play my maxed out deck, and they just didn't care. I even went to a few gaming shops and showed it to them and offered them a free code(a while ago). It's niche. You take the crypto out of it, and it's it's just not a top-tier game. I doubt you could find many players to play a mediocre game for free, let alone $10. I can extrapolate $12 or $120 from there. We are here for the crypto aspect of it, the game itself got really old for me really fast, and I was no stranger to the leaderboard. The aspects I enjoy about it now have nothing to do with game play. As you know I have a scholar in the Philippines playing my deck and I have zero interest having a deck to play for rebellion.
I've had hope for the future prospects, but even that has been dwindling. Pure venture at this point.
Agree on the limited appeal. I had similar experience with my family members!
Yes, without crypto for the needy, I don't see much growth. But that is a BIG market.
You know I do exploration: so lately we had to push boundaries on what and where we can explore a bit... so I was preparing a few famous predictions from few famous people...
I tell you, prediction is a unpredictable business :)
I should write a post about this thought :)
I try not to make predictions and operate on confidence levels, but those are all doozies!
I've previously suggested to the team to do something like a $30 dollar starter pack with a spellbook + 5 in print packs. It gets a bit more complicated now that Rebellion is 50/50 split with the DAO and no discounts. The DAO does own vouchers and the team has some flexibility with what it charges for a spellbook though. I'd love to see a starter option with packs, however that looks. Every digital TCG I've played has a starter pack.
I disagree with that a lot.
The spellbook should be cheap, even 5$ cheap.
Fighting bots by increasing the price for spellbooks is the wrong way to go about it.
secondly, the entry to the game should be cheap. Clayborns idea with a starter pack option seems like a better way to go about it. I agree that new people should get 5ish packs to start off their journey but not by forcing them to pay more.
offer them a 5$ spellbook and afterwards 3 bespoken options for starterpacks at different prices.
It is the nature of Splinterlands that the token increase in value. The Spell-book should be no exemption. It should also increase in value.
No, it is the right way. And much more easy than by fighting hacker with software updates, like anti-cheat (I am not against anti-cheat, but well why not target cheater/bot-farms from two angles?).
CLAYBOYN's idea is a refinement of my proposal. A special implementation. The amount of the price increase of the Spell-book as well as the number of packs for compensation (or even multiple options and complete starter kits) is to be considered later and can be determined by Splinterlands Corporation and CLAYBOYN. This proposal is about the direction.
No one is forced to pay anything. But do we want botfarms and player who make a living of Splinterlands and never buy any products, in spite of playing the game for years? Are you one of these players SWARMINVESTMENT? How much sps do you own?
We could probably have different 'tiers' when onboarding the game. The proposed pricier ones should be given something that can benefit the new players, but not something game-changing; this is in concurrence with the said Packs given to the players who chose to avail this. While also leaving the cheap $10 option in.
First of all, if there are people who are really interested in joining the game, it would let them have the ease of not having a headeach about what cards to get, since its already handed out to them
I suggest that it is not packs to be given away, but cards, and that the team or the DAO can soak up cheap cards that are sold in the market and have it be part of that 'package'
I think packs are better. Why? Because it is good for the DAO and also Splinterlands Corporation. And: Packs are more fun. There is a random element involved. The onboarded player doesn't know what he awaits. It's just more fun.
I am curious to see this go to an actual proposal. I think with some discussion behind this we could really make something good out of this. I don't necessarily think forcing a price increase on spellbooks is the right way to go but I appreciate this discussion. @bronko I think hit the nail on the head in his comment and I agree that a real free to play experience is something that can really get more eyes on the ecosystem and then offering different options as a starter would be beneficial and entice new players to want to earn and buy more.
The only other thing that is lacking to me is many proposals have been shot down already because of the lack of information or direction. Just saying I leave it to the team and Clay I don't think is enough. A little more price direction I think would be helpful.
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-ProposalThank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @cryp71x!
Updated At: 2024-03-03 19:38 UTC
I fully get your worries and I'm sharing them.
However I don't think right now, bots buying 10$ spellbooks to try and milk rewards is a viable strategy. Instead, Splinterlands will more likely be milking money from them giving mostly potions and soulbound reward cards in return unless a bigger investment is followed.
Speaking for myself in case I was a new player, 10$ just to get going probably would be the absolute max. A higher price that includes some packs would put me off for sure.
What I would do to fight bots is to bring back collection power in Wild so it's impossible to get rewards with little to no investment.
Speaking for myself in case I was a new player, 10$ just to get going probably would be the absolute max.
Yes, this was how long ago? Times have changed now. You get so much value for your Spell-book. You can join a guild, the card designs improved, lore, land-worker and so on. Isn't a Spell-book increase of let's say from 10$ to 12$ justified? This game is sooo great now compared to what it was when I joined six years ago. The player who trusted and took the risk to pay the 10$ back then should be rewarded. The values of their Spell-book should increase a little bit.
However I don't think right now, bots buying 10$ spellbooks to try and milk rewards is a viable strategy
I don't know, but the Spell-book increase will end new botfarms one and for all times. It will become an uphill battle for them, so new ones will stop trying. New single bots specially created for Splinterlands can't be stopped by this measure. But we don't get new farms at least.
I think the option to buy (one time purchase) some sort of starter pack would be a great addition. Increasing the cost of the spellbook and throwing in some packs though... I'm not really feeling that one. The initial cost for entry needs to remain low.
I feel like this kind of mentality isn't conducive to onboarding new players and/or growing the community.
Don't you realize the irrationality of your statement? You buy the Spell-book and then afterwards optionally some packs. That's already the way it is done right now. So it doesn't make sense to add this feature optionally. No, my proposal is radical: destroy the NULL option.
If this is a problem for you, then you are totally wrong at Splinterlands. Maybe try Heartstone. Ooooops. You also have to buy packs there too? Oh no, is there any card game I don't have to buy packs? Magic the Gathering maybe? What community are we growing here?
I guess I'm wrong at Splinterlands 🤷♂ Glad to see your proposal is doing so well
The only issue I have here is we don't have a large influx of new players yet. We have struggled to onboard new players for years and quite frankly put, I don't think making it even more expensive than what it already is will help that. The new people that come to this game will be here from bull market fomo hype, after all we had no reason to just expect new people to arrive, but we do now. We are competing with games that look great and fun this cycle. As price of SPS goes up players will be coming in to chase the earnings so we need to get the flywheel started by bringing in as many players as possible. Euphoria in splinterlands comes when SPS battle earning goes viral from a post on Tic Tok, X, FB, etc... I read something where you mentioned price going up as token goes up and I think that's a great idea. In my opinion that would need when the flywheel is in gear.
What is the price it's to be increased to? Also, is it optional for buy in prices? Say Normal, 10 Packs, 100 Packs etc. What happens when packs are sold out?
HEllO! Cryp71x, great suggestion on increasing the spellbook price. However, as a user/gamer/App enthusiast I would politely disagree on this proposal, honestly it is already difficult get'n New Players inside the eco system let alone play the game.
What about the option to add packs to the Spellbook at $4 each and the DAO burns the required Vouchers for each pack bought? There could be a cap on how many packs you can buy in this fashion.
The idea has merit but I wonder how much new players will be willing to pay? Surely, one pack which will cost around $15 (spellbook + pack) is not enough to start playing the game and earn SPS. To build a deck, players will rather buy cards from the market or rent.
Depends how it's implemented the Dao could propose a deal discount for bulk purchases of new packs for new accounts but we would have a permanent discount if people set up new accounts to take advantage of the promo.
Neutral for now needs more concept
Vote with yes and different concepts will be developed. You can then make another vote which concept you like most. I hope you give me your vote, so that the Null option will vanish 😐
How about once a week or month reduce spellbook to 0, and offer free spellbook with rebellion pack combos ranging between $18 to $90? or your offer but only weekly or monthly?
If your proposal is accepted as it is, could you stipulate future pending on new Splinterlands account sales > current monthly spellbook sales after 1 to 3 month trial?
Proofing this change does not harm but improve current spellbook weekly/monthly revenue should be top priority before this change becomes permanent.
This comment was made during pre-proposal phase. Now this is a proposal, and there has not been any changes, I cannot vote yes until you address all suggested changes?
Greetings, it is an interesting proposal, but, in my opinion it should be more refined, what I mean is that, it should be a little more consistent, even so, I understand that it is to draw attention and seek a change in what is the spell book, although I have some observations.
Another benefit would be to have several "Spellbook" offers, what I mean is that there are certain levels, for example:
Spellbook at 15$: That comes with a SET of 3 level 3 Soulbound Summoners.
Spellbook at 25$: That comes with a SET of level 6 Soulbound Summoners.
Spellbook at 40$: To come with a SET of maximum level Soulbound summoners.
Of course this idea can be modified much better, something that is more balanced, but, the idea is that new users have possibilities to play with good decks (depending on how much they pay). Now if you are wondering what would increase the BOTS farm or more creations of this, the higher the price of the book, the higher the benefits in decks and this would speak of quality players committed to really play the game.
Would the summoners be counted as starter cards? if so why not implement a spellbook level system, letting you pay for a higher lvl spellbook containing starter cards matching the level of the spellbook? That actually sounds useful maybe 0-5 with each lvl costing 10 bucks, maybe even implement a way for old players to burn dec to lvl their spellbooks. With a zero level spellbook letting you play but not giving any starter cards, so youd have to build your own deck.
Yes, my idea is that new users have the desire to acquire any type of spellbook that is ivented, and that can help them build their deck, talk about "Soulbound" cards to avoid the supply of the same, but, from that I think you can build something good and beneficial with spellbooks.
I like your thinking @cryp71x, but this is a little vague on amounts, what value amount were you looking at? $15 with 1 rebellion pack, $20 with 2 rebellion packs??
Let's face it, this is not a free to play type game. It is a trading card game, with a twist, its a digital nft trading card game. Thats the way I see it..... think back.... wind the clock back. I used to collect basketball cards! why? because walking into the trading card store and getting a shiny pack and opening it was an experience I loved... and I paid money for it... why did I pay money for it? Because that was the only way to get the cards and that experience. There has to be a focus on buying packs and the cards have to be desirable, enjoyable and something you want to collect and keep. Now add in that you can play with these cards and earn crypto is frickin awesome. Get people opening packs, give them the experience. But are there that many ppl buying spellbooks and not buying packs? I dont know the data. I pay more per month for spotify than it costs to buy a spellbook and a pack. people with money ... pay. cool shit costs money.
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.View or trade
BEER.There isnt much info about this proposal.. Like what are we incresing the price of the spellbook to? And what does compensate with rebellion packs mean? Will they get two packs with their spellbook? 3, 4, 10?
Congratulations @cryp71x! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
<table><tr><td><img src="https://images.hive.blog/60x70/http://hivebuzz.me/@cryp71x/payout.png?202403101841" /><td>You received more than 10 HP as payout for your posts, comments and curation.<br />Your next payout target is 50 HP.<br /><sub>The unit is Hive Power equivalent because post and comment rewards can be split into HP and HBD <p dir="auto"><sub><em>You can view your badges on <a href="https://hivebuzz.me/@cryp71x" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" title="This link will take you away from hive.blog" class="external_link">your board and compare yourself to others in the <a href="https://hivebuzz.me/ranking" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" title="This link will take you away from hive.blog" class="external_link">Ranking<br /> <sub><em>If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word <code>STOP <p dir="auto"><strong>Check out our last posts: <table><tr><td><a href="/hivebuzz/@hivebuzz/recovery"><img src="https://images.hive.blog/64x128/https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/hivebuzz/23uFKTNcnw2EPu4zmyKv64xU3B44awk3KsJtwgZ6amzVpuoeneaMkE4dWHZCNnem6c2Y1.png" /><td><a href="/hivebuzz/@hivebuzz/recovery">Rebuilding HiveBuzz: The Challenges Towards RecoveryFor discussion purposes I want to propose a new battle format for modern champ that directly addresses the current community concern that people are cheating in modern champ league. This would be a trial and tweak live (not on mav server) using the challenge system based format.
This new format I am proposing for discussion to be trialed and tweaked cannot be botted or battle helpered.
How do I post this for discussion and at the same time avoid discord?
I hate and avoid discord because it's like being on stage in the medieval century. I say something there and some other guy can take what I've said out of context or make an accusation and every selfish person starts dog piling on taking free shots on me.
Discord moves too fast and allows people to group attack and dog pile anyone without repercussions. Anyone that says anything that violates a person's idea that is camping the channel and is the self appointed developers/moderators assistant is attacked.
The pitchforks come out and the tomatoes start getting thrown and you have no way to defend yourself.
IMO discord corrupts the free market ideals that our CEO values.
Please discard discord and move to a moderated message board system.