We tried having this discussion yesterday after all the drama with this proposal. It fell flat pretty much immediately. After Matt's comments on the Town Hall, we'll have to make a proposal that gets a supermajority to approve adding them anyway. This proposal ended up being irrelevant after that stance change from the company.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I am very disappointed with how this "vote" is being handled. The DAO was supposed to represent the will of the people with stake weighted voting, which is exactly what is happening here. Now it feels like the goal posts are changing because the vote isn't going in the desired direction. Since I started playing in Untamed, there have always been packs in reward chests, it has always been the "default". With the "results" of this vote in hand, there is no reason to even bother with a "second vote" requiring a "supermajority" as we can already see the foregone conclusion based on how THIS vote is shaping out, so why even run the proposal? If the problem is that we don't want packs going to bots, then we should do something about the BOTS, not hurt the PLAYERS even more. I love the game, but after spending thousand of dollars on cards and packs in order to PLAY, it seems like the PLAYERS are the ones constantly being sacrificed at the altar of bots. Land doesn't pay the SL bills, there is no SL revenue coming in from land, and RB cards have less PP than CL so won't be used, making packs ONLY use case PLAYING the game. If we continually take rewards away from the PLAYERS, both in the form of high unlock fees for SB cards, and now the elimination of packs in chests, what are PLAYERS playing for? The tiny amount of SPS you can possibly open amongst a sea of merits and potions? To continually disincentivize PLAYERS is going to hurt SL more than any bot farm ever could as they will stop investing in the game, even though the game is fun AF. I bought 600 RB packs, so roughly $2000 worth after discounts etc. For that cost I could have bought a Playstation4, an Xbox, and a ton of games. I chose SL partially because you are (supposed to be) rewarded for the "time and attention" you put in. That "value" is rapidly degrading, and it feels like PLAYERS are being actively pushed out of the game in favor of tokenomics, LPs, and passive earnings instead of PLAYING. There is a value proposition in every choice we make, and I would never have imagined that one of the tentpole rewards of the game, and perhaps the most exciting one, packs in chests, would be removed. Had I known this before the presale it would have effected my decision to buy as much RB as I did. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for RB, but every choice being made lately is causing me to ask myself why I'm spending so much time playing when I feel like as a PLAYER I am not valued. Sorry for the long rant, I am just frustrated right now because I feel like nothing is going the way of the player in regards to the decisions being made. If bots are the reason for SB high unlock, and bots are the reason why we can't have packs in chests, or special promotions, then DEAL WITH THE BOTS, but please, give PLAYERS a reason to keep playing because although fun is fun, this is a REALLY expensive game to play "just for fun". Thank you for listening.
To be clear, I'm not super happy about this situation and feel like we had a fundamental breakdown on this one. I personally believe Matt misspoke in the Town Hall because as you've noted, historically we always have had the packs in chests so it was just like "yea seems like normal." That said, this is the first time the company hasn't fully owned a core set. The company didn't put RW packs in chests either as they didn't own those. If you listen to the most recent Town Hall, Dave actually asked him for clarification on this because of all of the drama and people asking why we're even having this vote etc. Essentially it was a response that wasn't thought out properly as the company has entered into a partnership with the DAO for half of the Revenue.
My personal concerns are addressed in the post. Those didn't come from Matt, I went to him with those concerns before making the proposal. He agreed it should be a DAO vote. The issue seems to be that I was operating based on what he said in the previous Town Hall and I'm guessing he thought I was going to create a proposal for whether or not we should put them in the chests. Seems like a misunderstanding, but yea like I said I don't like the optics on this. If the community supports putting them in chests it's as simple as running the numbers and making a proposal to add them. All of my reservations are the same. It's less about "not having packs in chests" and more about addressing the obvious problem that the lion's share of those packs are going straight to bots that dump them on the market and reduce revenue for the company and the DAO.
No, I get it. But again, if the problem is bots, let's deal with the bots, not "punish" the players who are the lifeblood of the game and the only reason (speculation aside) that packs sell. If you read the room in the comments on this proposal, you see that I am not alone in this feeling. I just want to play and have the opportunity to open cool rewards and buy / sell / trade them like we used to be able to. Between this and the SB unlock fiasco, players are paying a very high price for the bot agnostic stance the team used to have. I can appreciate not wanting to dilute the value of packs so that more sell, but alienating the player base who will buy them is hardly the way to rectify things imho. I've put way to much though and attention into this and the SB rewards unlock lately. It's time for me to mentally check out for a while and just see how things unfold at this point and enjoy the release of RB without dealing in the "politics". I felt compelled to say my piece, and now I have. Let the cards fall as they may.
I get it and we've been having ongoing discussions about how to deal with bots. There's a proposal going right now that should if nothing else limit the ability of mass bot farms to extract without ownership. Currently I think that's our biggest leak. People can create large bot farms that own nothing, rent only the cheapest cards and then run so many of them that at scale they are able to profit more than they spend on renting because it's just mostly empty accounts battling other mostly empty accounts.
There is not currently enough consensus to run a community proposal for a full bot ban. If someone wants to run a proposal like that on their own dime, there is one drafted and available in the Discord server. My current sense is that it has some potential to pass but would be incredibly divisive. I agree that at some point it's a problem that has to be addressed and I think most people agree. Currently it's a debate mired in argument about everyone in cryptos favorite question: Wen?
sorry but ,the dao did not receive any decision-making or ownership rights, but only 50 % of the revenue. this was also clearly emphasized in the proposal for the rebellion payment
Not sure where any of that gives them the right to give away packs, either way they are the ones deciding we need a vote to add them to packs so it seems to be going that way. I still clearly think they shouldn't be. I am only one person.
Fantastic summary of the cancer plaguing the game: That for about a couple of years, this might make it about a dozen changes now that have nerfed the regular player instead of zapping the cancer at it's source and dealing with the anonymous multi accounting and bots. Are the team ever going to face the obvious fact that, on top of the bear market blues, players have left the game in droves because it has become an unbearable ripoff (yet fun!) and the game will eventually die if they don't somehow ensure one account per player? The stupidity is breathtaking. Literally any financial opportunity online whereby smart determined people can extract profit from a system will be exploited, and to allow it with anonymous multi accounts is like burning your own house down. What will every such person do when they detect such an opportunity? Make thousands of accounts. The guy who introduced me to the game had 3000 accounts at one point. He even agrees with me. He knows that it's madness to expect such a system not to be exploited, but figured, well, if they're going to let me do it, I will! As long as any value remains on the table whatsoever for the regular player, anons will take thousands x that. So the team is faced with a choice: eventually nerf the rewards down to zero and stop being a play to earn game while continuing to allow multiple accounts (which won't bother anymore if there are no rewards), or deal with the multi accounting anons and ensure 1 account per person.
So wait a minute, do correct me if I'm wrong: Even though this proposal which quite clearly says "Do not put Rebellion packs in chests" - which is not an ambiguous statement in the slightest - is being overwhelmingly voted against, the team are just going to ignore it and reword it until they get the result they want? Do they realise how dodgy that looks? I wouldn't mind so much, but the premise of why Matt (I think you said it was his proposal) put forth this proposal is flawed anyway, and would only make logical sense if the packs were going to sell out with no daily burn happening, which is surely not going to happen until a bull market in crypto.
No need to reply, I've read more of the thread and you've covered it a lot!