Thank you for getting this proposal up so quickly.
I support the RBW changes. But I support Cuppy’s UNIM values. It’s a better balance for encouraging newer users and more casual to breed for their own utility.
I agree with Kora Re: that the first breeding proposal change set a precedence for the DAO to set the prices moving forward. I’d recommending adding verbiage to the proposal to give the team flexibility to adjust as needed.
Kora suggested: “Keep current; Lower current (LG Calibrates); Increase current (LG Calibrates)”. I’m good with her suggestions or something similar.
Agree with Cuppys proposed changes, and to implement without proposal. Proposal not needed as 99% of people do not understand and will vote against their own interest. Please LG team use 100m sRBW stick to force this change if need be. thanks. (I like this authoritarian approach as long as I agree with the outcome - this is sarcasm? I think? idk).
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal. As outlined in the last breeding change proposal, I still believe that it makes a lot of sense to have the RBW cost on a sliding scale, similar to UNIM. The reason is that advantageous bloodlines fetch higher premiums in the market. These higher profit margins thus allow for higher cost in both, RBW and UNIM, to keep the bloodline going.
Therefore, I support the numbers that were brought forward by wasper. I think these numbers represent a healthy middleground between the original cost and the breeding changes that the DAO recently voted for.
My main argumentation for a slight UNIM reduction is that new joiners with 4-5 lvl 6 lands have a hard time to grow. Whether evo is 7500 or 6500 matters a lot.
Lowering the cost for the lower breeding points aims to also incentivize the breeding that sinks most unim.
My suggestion is to make evo 6500 UNIM, and breeding as follows:
500
1000
2000
3500
5500
8000
11000
15000
if you breed to 0/8, this means a reduction of <15% total. Biggest sink are last breeding points, so lowering this requirement incentivizes to do this more. Of course, if not enough breeders do this, total sink may be less - would love to hear @Neviolo and your thoughts on this.
The reduction in the middle is to accommodate casual breeders.
I agree, with these numbers as well. We need to have Evolution modified at the same time, we should not adjust just the Breeding costs.
I also believe that LG should either manage these costs total or not at all. For example, why would they allow the Community to choose breeding/evo costs but not allow us to vote for Events, Quests, Crafting, etc… I’m not saying we should, I’m saying that the overall economics should be managed by Supply/Demand and allow LG adjust the levels (the market, community) will react appropriately.
Agree with lowering the cost.
Especially the increase of rbw at a certain point, not every breeding point. It will make me breed some not so good corns up to 4x just to maximize the rbw low cost. instead of breeding them up to 3 only
Overall, I agree with the changes. But I see no reason to have an increase between breedings 4 and 5 for RBW. Just keep it the same, the variability only complicates things without value. If you want more RBW, then make it 60 RBW for all breedings, which accomplishes the same thing without additional complexity.
I like the change of the breeding cost but I believe the evolution got little overlooked in the talk and should be adjusted. I would support it with 5000-6000 UNIM and 200 RBW evolution.
Quick note: If this proposal passes, the team should be able to implement in the next major release - similar to the last proposal!
Wanted to share in advance, though, that the team will not be able to make a third change to the breeding and evolution cost for at least 90 days after implementing this proposal due to the team’s existing priorities. (Remember, we just voted on Team RPG battle loop!) This doesn’t mean that proposals can’t be passed to amend this proposal (if this passes) - as a DAO, that’s anyone’s right! It just means implementation won’t be as quick as the first two so apologies in advance.
.