You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: SPS Governance Proposal - Ghost Card Liquidity Bots.

in #spsproposal6 months ago (edited)

No I'm not asking for free labor at all. Please don't twist my words,

I read your comment and it misses the mark. The problem with player owned bots is their goal is to maximize earnings by trying to win (which they should), and this creates a situation where automation is better than humans. Thus the player bots will outperform the humans and 1) take a disproportionate share of the earnings and 2) more importantly, destroy the fun of the game when humans can't win against comparable bots.

We've already tried this and it doesn't work.

You are missing the purpose of the team liquidity bots. They are not there to do their best to win, they are there to help create the conditions for humans to enjoy the game by providing matches and appropriate level of competition. Just like a PVE mode in many games.

I understand your view, and but I 100% disagree with it. There is nothing wrong with PVE in the gaming world, and there is nothing wrong with the team setting the right conditions to make their game fun. This has nothing to do with decentralization, that's absurd. These bots take no prizes or earning. This is no different than the team creating a new card to counter an older OP card. That isn't centralization, that is called "balancing", and adding team liquidity bots serves the same purpose.

Sort:  

take a disproportionate share of the earnings

This is exactly why I proposed a penalty on earnings.

The problem with player owned bots is their goal is to maximize earnings by trying to win

Since bots must be registered as per my alternative suggestion for community bots, a set of terms and conditions can be given to community bot operators to adheres to. These conditions could include things that will limit the win rate. Bot operators are to be treated as service providers.

There is nothing wrong with PVE in the gaming world

Yes, but I would like to see it be a separate game mode. Ranked should remain exclusive to those who have assets. I'm okay with company operated bots as long as those accounts hold assets. If Steem Monsters Inc wants to have Ghost Cards, they should be a separate set of PvE Cards.

We could even have some lore about these PvE encounters in the arena. It can lead to a fun gameplay experience. PvE part will be explicit rather than a seeing a centralized party play against me without owning any assets in the game mode where everyone else is expected to own assets.

We have more agreements than you think. In a reply to a different user, you said:

I will try to get an exemption for you to run your bot in Modern if you are willing to vary your team performance to provide different levels of game play and of course not accept earnings too.

  • Create a portal (or even a support ticket on Discord) for bot owners to apply.
  • Terms and conditions that require operators to vary performance.

You and I are both open to these. You expect the operators to earn nothing while they have to purchase/rent assets and operate bots. I think they should earn 50% - 90% less than manual players like me.

PS: I have never used bots or battle helpers.

We have more agreements than you think.

I agree with this.

I don't mind registering bots either, I'd for for this part on its own. Your ideas can solve the problems if all of them were implemented together, but I think realistically that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

For instance, you said we could limit the botted player accounts "win rate". I don't even know how you would do this, but I would be willing to listen to your ideas. However, I do know that many bot owners would not want their win-rates nerfed, they would scream loudly that they own assets and they bought them to win.

So in order to put together your much more complicated solution, then the process would need to bring in many of the stakeholders and get them to agree to your vision. I personally would be one that would be happy to explore these things, even though I'm doubtful it would lead to an acceptable solution. I do like to learn and explore new things, so feel free to message me on Discord if you like and I will participate if asked!

Your ideas can solve the problems if all of them were implemented together

That is how I formulated them.

I think realistically that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

Unfortunately, I think you are right.

For instance, you said we could limit the botted player accounts "win rate". I don't even know how you would do this

Since the bots a registered under a set of terms and conditions, they can be banned for violations. Requiring a deposit (DEC, SPS, VOUCHER) that will be burned in the case of a ban could be added if a simple ban is not enough to keep bots complaint.

I do know that many bot owners would not want their win-rates nerfed

Then that is their problem. My aim is to find decentralized solutions that can bring SPS DAO closer to HIVE or BTC. As a bonus we will be more SEC proof.

So in order to put together your much more complicated solution, then the process would need to bring in many of the stakeholders and get them to agree to your vision.

For the time being I'm fine with @splinterlands controlled bots that do not earn rewards as long as they use real NFTs.

feel free to message me on Discord if you like and I will participate if asked!

Thank you very much. I rarely use Discord. But I will keep you in mind.