Those who surveyed tundras and canyons have been put at a disadvantage on their plots compared to others because of the terrain modifiers for production.
Anyone with castles or keeps and those with occupied or magical plots have been put at a large disadvantage with a max of a 5% bonus when everyone else has had a 10% bonus.
We would like to collect feedback to present to the Splinterlands team about some potential remediations for the above problem.
For reference here are the current terrain preferences.
I just wonder what the original thought was is making those plots at a disadvantage from the beginning? did the teams thoughts change in regards to the original reasoning or is this change because of "noise" from some whales who have lost income due to player loss.
!PIZZA
I favor the 1st option so it is a level playing field with maybe something small to compensate for the time missed for land holders with these terrains. Great post thanks and enjoy the weekend!
I think the Neutral option is a pretty reasonable compromise.
End of the day I'm not heavily impacted. I just know I was avoiding tundras and canyons, and less interested in neutral cards. This could help both issues, so... win?
Congratulations @tech-support! You received a personal badge!
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
Check out our last posts:
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@sirsmokesalot96(1/5) tipped @tech-support
Being that a vast majority of my 142 plots and my keep with 100 plots are on almost ALL Tundra it sucks lol That being said the neutral option is an interesting one and feels like it could be the right move. It would also bring some value into natural cards.
However it does seem weird as really those areas should be aligned with a element card and not a non element card.
To me Tundra should be +10 water aka snow and +10 dragon as that seems like a fitting match. I'm not 100% sure on this one though but it would be nice to have a change to put these lands on a even playing field. So for now I'm going to go with the +10 neutral as the option as that sounds the most interesting.
Nearly all of mine are tundra too - hasn't been great. Though I have far fewer than you :)
Reduce the 50K DEC staking requirements for these plot types. (40? 30? 25?)
Give players that own these plot types a bonus to the amount of desalinization crystals they earn in ranked and change the white paper. Percentage of Tundra and Canyon active plots owned compared to total active plots owned times the bonus multiplier.
In the future that will give these plots a significant advantage to make up for the disadvantage they have had until now but not too much. The land 2.0 white paper says DC's can be bought with vouchers and DEC and earned in ranked and guild participation and transferable but it is not clear if they can be sold on the secondary. If you make them tradeable then that would give a revenue stream to players that own these plot types. They could choose to desalinate their region or sell some of the extra DC's.
Start thinking/working on the formula for DC's earned in ranked, it should be gated by active land ownership and a person that owns more land should earn more DC's in ranked or else it won't be possible to desalinate the regions. If 100 players with one plot each earns way more than 1 player that owns 100 plots that wont work.
I don't know what the land timeline/priority is but I would say next would be to release the rest of the common natural resource plots - wood, stone, ore and corresponding LP's however long that takes and then after that implement part of the salt system.
I LOVE THE NEUTRAL CARD IDEA!!
In fact, I love it so much, I typed it in all caps like a 74 year old Gramps...
@aftersound @bulldog1205 @infidel1258 @bronzedragon @psilence @GatheringtheMagic1984 <-- youtube handle
Do you have an opinion on this subject?
New: Reduced Dark Energy Requirement by 50% (I.E. 50,000 DE down to 25,000 DE for 5 MAX level monsters to work the plot)
this will match the reduced Splinter Synergy, as canyons and tundras currently have 50% less on their bonuses.
This aims to make these plots very attractive to farm as they will not require as much funds to be locked up and will actually encourage people to build out land and stake DE.
love the neutral bonus option!!!
I’m all for buffing the Neutrals on the plots.
Seems the easiest option and gives love to now unwanted cards…
As I've said in chat making neutral +10% is unlikely to help, as it means two entire plot geographies will want this single type of card, unlike all other splinters where there is some distribution.
The end result will most likely be that neutral cards quickly become too expensive, relatively, undermining the perceived benefit that people currently see. As a result tundra and canyon plots are still disadvantaged, but now it is with prohibitively expensive cards that give the 10% bonus, which means in most cases the status quo persists and no benefit.
I would welcome someone to do the actual math on this, but it's pretty clear the above would be the outcome. I would have excluded option 2 on these grounds, as it's not a solution