SPS Governance Proposal - Hire Splinterlands to Develop the Next Major Card Set - Conclave Arcana

Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @splinterlands!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal

Updated At: 2024-10-17 20:21 UTC

Loving the changes! The starter set idea is brilliant for NPE. I will definitely be buying those to get my common and rare cards maxed out for Conclave Arcana! Thanks for always innovating team. 💪

This right here:

Please note that the company would purchase these Starter packs from the DAO (with the company receiving a 50% revenue share) each time a Spellbook is purchased using proceeds from the Spellbook sale.

Great idea! Spellbook is expensive for new users considering it doesn't give them anything, so great job to use some of the net proceeds to make the journey easier for the new batch of players to own some cards. Stickiness is important, because we don't get value from the spellbook - we get value from players sticking around and building a collection!

Maybe that would also be a good time to remove starter cards from modern too - players can use the cards from their free pack, and they don't need to worry about "starter card penalties"

I have mixed feelings about the pricing of the new set, but not having a rebellion mini set is a good enough reason to support this proposal.

The starter packs aren't transferable, but what about the cards from the starter packs? Are those transferable?

I am glad to see the new set get released and us moving forward. I also like the introduction of 3 new pack types, especially the low end pack that works out to just $1 per pack - which is a cheap alternative for those just wanting to play the game.

I think this is a very good deal for the DAO, as we get not only 1/2 the revenue but we also get 10% of the non-sold packs. These packs will be very valuable down the road, and will be a big source of value to the DAO. I will certainly vote for this.

Could the starter back guarantee at least one summoner for each element?
(Although I think they would need to be Commons for the math to work)

Can you combine cards from the standard pack with the starter cards and do they now all become non-transferrable?

Do we really need more cards?🥺

Hello!

I think that it is worth a shot pack types which seems to me like a fair attempt to align with player/account types - I see Gold card collectors and Players with decks competitive in higher leagues with few foils.

The Starter Pack looks like the most important one and replies more on expectation and belief.

Good luck with timing of the Conclave Arcana release with the bull market of 2025!

Which pack type will Epic cards be in?

I want to lobby for a 2,500 DEC Pack with 3 cards in it, which, based on the math, would be only slightly worse than the 5-card pack. 1 guaranteed rare won't work so something like a 75% chance for at least a rare or whatever the proper percentage would be so they are not statistically better than the 5-card pack.

This is good for new players and current players since the price is cheaper and they still get the rush of opening a pack. This would be another great addition to our Enhanced Player Experience Initiative.

Is there a limit per person to purchase starter packs? Not having a limit at all for those feels like creating a new chaos legion problem... Which wouldn't be too bad, since it will make it cheap to get a decent starter deck, but will destroy the value of rare and common cards.
I read through the article (and comments) twice to make sure that I really didn't oversee a proposal to prevent that - if I did in fact fail at that, nevermind :-D Otherwise, something like a power-limit or a limit per account could lower the risk of having common and rare flooding the market.

Love the rest of the ideas! It looks like you really took your time to think this through, and I hope it all goes well. Definitely have my vote.

I hope sps would be considered in one of those token sinks, maybe the wagon upgrade to conclave.

I like most of it, although it feels like commons and rares will be very easily available (because of the starter packs), which in turn makes all packs less valuable.

I will vote against this because I don't want a new core set so soon. We should keep a 2 year gap between core set's as that has been the norm ever since Untamed.

I think the Starter Pack in its current form is a mistake cause it will hugely devalue the average regular pack (which consists of 4 commons and 1 rare). If we want to help people with obtaining commons/rares faster for a better price why not just increase the cards in the regular pack from 5 to say 7 without adjusting its price. This way there still be more commons/rares on the market but it won't be flooded.

Great idea with the starter pack. It helps new players with building a starter deck. It will also not be abused since they are non-transferable.

I love all of it. I'm definitely voting yes. I love the idea of different types of packs. I think that will appeal to a lot of people in different ways. And the starter packs won't just be for new players. I could see a combination of the legendary packs and starter packs being a good way to go for some players. It will be interesting to see what happens with the legendary packs, because they'll be more desirable as the airdrop cards come out (if it's legendary summoners again), but they might not last that long.

I voted against it only because I prefer a mini-set so that Chaos Legion set stays in Modern League longer.

Love the idea, I would recommend that new players get a notification before the purchase of a starter pack (regarding the non transferrals nature of the same). Don’t want them to feel mislead later on

soo...<$18M in sales for us to make $6m back...? if i expected 30% of Max , and assume max profit @ $49M or so, all in, isnt that only a bit under $15 in sales, meaning the DOA loses $ on this? I am no expert, if someone could correct my math? or bad assumptions?

Love it. Had a couple of ideas I wanted to throw out there.

1. What about a Mini-Starter Pack? 1,250 DEC for 5 Cards (80% chance common, 20% chance Rare only and no GF)? If people want to save a bit they will go with the standard starter pack for 5,000 DEC and 25 cards (80% chance common, 20% chance Rare).

2. What about allowing us to prepay to upgrade our wagons at a discount? Say it costs 2k DEC per wagon to upgrade them to Conclave, maybe we can pay 1500 DEC now? I think getting DEC off the market is critical right now.

Excited for the future of Splinterlands.

I like this because:

• No bulk sales bonuses. I am glad to see this disappear. IMO we need to distance ourselves from that practice from now on.

• I can concentrate on getting the commons and rares to a playable level first by buying the starter packs then move over to the other types. This mimics the way I handle SB reward cards. The majority of the first 5 seasons of a new RW card series I am buying common draws until my commons are level 6 or 7 and EOS I buy rare draws then I slowly move my allocation over to rares during the season and will shoot for epics at EOS and so on.

• These starter packs are great for new players to get their foot in the door.

• Including the starter pack with the new spellbook purchase is a great idea for NPE.

• Considering land resources to repair wagons - When mancer gets the 3 other natural plots online/producing maybe we can temporarily allow land plots to input a raw resource into a section of the website and pay/burn DEC to craft wagon panels and wheels for repairing wagons or stone plots to create the roadways and cement for these wagons or ore to smelt nails for the wheels and fasteners of these wagons

What I am not sure about this or that relates to this:

• The alchemist pack price. I'm curious about the math that arrived at this price. Maybe this could be discussed at the town hall.

• Where does this leave new players in regards to summoners? Summoners will be a bottle neck for them. Summoners are intended/supposed to be a bottleneck to some degree but too much and they give up. IMO a mix of common and rare summoners seems to be needed here and in the future for NPE.

• What happens to the CL card's production power on plots when they leave modern? What is the multiplier going to be?

• Does the team have a private server where they have tested only having Rebellion core, promo and SB reward cards to play? Are there glaring holes like not enough common and rare tanks for all the splinters? Does the new set address them?

Hi,

Somehow I don't feel Splinterlands needs a new card set at the moment.

I like the unlimited Starter packs idea and its cost. It will be very useful for newcomers, and will provide a floor price for common and rare cards of the set that is printed.

There needs to be more use cases/value driven for older cards as they drop out of the Modern format, otherwise the collectible side of the game will suffer.

It is reassuring to see that the measures that were taken have had a noticeable impact on the Team/Company:

"With the recent expense reductions we have made, the relative success of the current Hall of Legends promo card event, and assuming the DAO approves this proposal (or a similar one) to cover the development costs for the next major set, we believe that the best path forward for both the company and the community is to skip a Rebellion mini set as originally planned and launch the next major set as set forth in this proposal."

I am excited for Conclave Arcana, although I think Post CL, we should expand Modern to three sets... I can't afford to play high level Modern due to costs of cards like Mantaroth, Venka, Tofu etc :)

By the time I could afford them... the new set is out lol

Ow No 😣 my Chaos Legion cards won't be playable following the launch of Conclave Arcana. In modern Format

I love this.

I want to see a different pricing structure on low end packs. There hasn't been an appetite for $5 packs for a long time now, even if you throw in more cards. Keep starter packs $1 or $2 and put in 5 or 10 cards.

Hey @yabapmatt - apologies in advance for the massive wall of text incoming, but we've been gathering questions / thoughts / etc... from the community and we are posting here on behalf of all contributors:

Thank you!

1.

The Starter Pack proposal, as it currently stands, offers 25 cards for 5,000 DEC. While this is an excellent value and excellent offering, it still feels like a high price point for many players, particularly new ones. We also do not offer ANY low cost pack option with this proposal as it stands. Adding a pack of 5 cards for 1,000 DEC (keeping the same value/rarity proposition as the 25 card starter pack) offers many benefits. It presents an affordable ‘impulse buy’ price point. Many players have said they would buy packs daily if the cost permits it, and considering the psychology of pricing, a $1 pack offers an excellent opportunity for the ‘impulse buyer’. We would be willing to bet that we generate more revenue with $1 vs $5 packs (with the same rarity value). Why not offer both?

Also, both scaling down to 5 cards for 1k DEC and including 5 packs with the Spellbook purchase could be a strategic adjustment that leads to several key benefits:

• Accessibility for New Players: A reduced price point of 1,000 DEC for 5 cards provides an affordable entry point into the game. It ensures that new players can start their collection without the feeling of a large financial commitment right from the beginning. A smaller pack size feels more manageable, making the game more approachable.
• Encourages Incremental Investment: Many players may prefer purchasing smaller packs over time rather than committing to a large sum upfront. By offering the Starter packs in a smaller, more digestible size, you tap into the psychology of incremental purchases, promoting longer-term engagement.
• Aligns with Familiar Pack Sizes: Splinterlands has traditionally used 5-card packs, and scaling the Starter Pack to match this size makes it consistent and familiar for both new and returning players. This familiarity helps create a smoother transition into the game's economy.
• Simplifies Value Perception: Offering smaller packs at a reduced price allows new players to easily gauge the value of their purchases. The 5-card pack gives a clear, straightforward value, whereas 25 cards at once may dilute the perceived worth of individual cards.
• Promotes Continued Engagement: Instead of one large, bulk purchase, smaller packs encourage players to come back for more over time. This consistent, ongoing interaction helps foster a dynamic in-game economy and cultivates regular player engagement. Including 5 packs with a Spellbook purchase further incentivizes new players to explore the game and feel rewarded for their initial investment.
• It may also be beneficial to allow a ‘jackpot’ possibility even in the starter packs, ie a VERY low chance of pulling an Epic or Legendary. The impact of experiencing such an event cannot be understated, especially for new players. If Epics have a 4% drop chance in a ‘regular’ pack, maybe allow a .4% chance in the starter packs, along with .1% for Legendary drops). An extremely low GF chance can also provide significant impact/benefit here (ie .1% chance)

2.

Please explain the reasoning for making ANY pack purchased with real money non-transferrable.
$1 packs, if transferable, would also encourage and facilitate ‘gifting’ packs to other players, offer excellent giveaway prizes for streamers, etc. Making them non-transferrable completely eliminates this opportunity.

3.

The introduction of repair costs for Mage Wagons in the Conflict segment presents significant concerns for many players, especially since these wagons were originally sold with the understanding of ongoing value. While token sinks are important for the game’s economy, adding repair costs feels like a shift in the player experience that could result in unintended consequences.

• Optics and Player Sentiment: The optics here are key. Many players will feel as though they are being nickel-and-dimed with repair costs, which may lead them to opt out of participating altogether. Instead of paying a nominal fee to upgrade or maintain their wagons, players could decide to leave thousands of dollars on the table, missing out on what could be a fun and lucrative part of the game. The introduction of these fees may do more harm than good, creating resistance where there should be excitement.
• Introducing Fees on Previously Purchased Assets: The introduction of repair costs for Mage Wagons raises concerns about the potential for fees to be imposed on other in-game assets players have already purchased. If this approach is applied to Mage Wagons, what’s to stop similar fees from being introduced for assets like Power Cores in v2.0 or even on totems and titles? This opens up a slippery slope that undermines player trust in the long-term value of their purchases. Imposing fees after the fact can make players hesitant to invest in future assets, fearing that unexpected costs will continue to arise. To preserve player confidence, it’s crucial to avoid retroactively introducing financial commitments on previously acquired assets.
• Additional Wagons Will Still Be Needed: It’s important to note that even without repair costs, players would need to purchase additional Mage Wagons as the game grows. For example, as more cards from older sets like Alpha, Beta, Untamed, etc., become available for staking, players will require more wagons to maximize their participation. There’s already a built-in demand for additional wagons, so repair costs are an unnecessary complication.
• Unanticipated Financial Burden: Players who purchased wagons did so expecting a one-time investment. Adding repair costs after the fact creates an unforeseen ongoing expense. This could deter players, especially those who budgeted around the original cost of the wagons.
• Maintaining Trust with the Community: For Splinterlands to foster long-term trust with its players, it’s essential to respect the expectations set when Mage Wagons were sold. Unexpected changes in the value of purchased assets can lead to disappointment and a breakdown in the relationship between the game and its dedicated player base.
• Deterring Engagement: With additional costs to maintain Mage Wagons, some players may feel discouraged from participating in Conclave Arcana Conflicts. The complexity and financial upkeep could reduce overall engagement in a key feature of the game.

4.

When examining the Alchemist and Legendary packs for Conclave Arcana, it’s worth considering why these packs should contain a few more cards to enhance both their value and appeal. Below are key reasons for this suggestion:

• Increased Perceived Value: Both the Alchemist (12,000 DEC) and Legendary (24,000 DEC) packs come with high price points relative to the standard booster packs. However, offering just 5 cards — the same number as the much cheaper packs — can make them feel less rewarding, even with the guarantee of special cards like a Gold Foil or a Legendary. By adding just a few more cards, players would feel like they’re getting significantly more for their investment, enhancing the perceived value of the pack and making the higher cost feel justified.

• Encouraging Larger Purchases: For the players willing to invest in Alchemist or Legendary packs, they are already showing a willingness to spend larger amounts of DEC or Credits. By adding more cards, you increase the sense of reward for these larger purchases, making it easier for players to justify buying multiple packs at once. More cards per pack would serve as an extra incentive to participate in the bulk buying of high-tier packs.

• Compensating for Unused Potions: Given that potions like Alchemy and Legendary Potions are still in play for these packs, having more cards per pack would give players more chances to leverage their potions effectively. With more cards, there’s a higher chance of activating the bonus effects from these potions, which increases the overall excitement and satisfaction when opening the packs.

• Rewarding Player Engagement: Players who invest in the higher-tier packs are generally more engaged in the game. Offering additional cards within these packs would be a direct reward for that engagement, keeping high-spending players more satisfied. This also encourages repeat purchases over time, as players feel that they are receiving more tangible rewards for their continued participation and financial support of the game.

• Avoiding Buyer Fatigue: With the high cost of Alchemist and Legendary packs, players may feel “pack fatigue” after purchasing only a few if they don’t perceive enough value. By including a few extra cards in each of these packs, you mitigate this risk. Players will feel like they are getting a richer experience from each purchase, reducing the chance that they will burn out after only a few packs.

• Enhanced Collection Building: For collectors and competitive players, having more cards in these premium packs will help speed up their collection-building process, ensuring they have more of the powerful cards they seek. This will encourage players to dive deeper into the meta of the game and experiment with more strategies, since they’ll have a wider selection of cards available after each purchase.

Suggested Increase:

• Alchemist Packs: Increase from 5 cards to 7 or 8 cards (one guaranteed Gold Foil still included).
• Legendary Packs: Increase from 5 cards to 7 or 8 cards (one guaranteed Legendary still included).

5.

What about offering a 2,500 DEC Pack with 3 cards in it, which, based on the math, would be only slightly worse than the 5-card pack. 1 guaranteed rare won't work so something like a 75% chance for at least a rare or whatever the proper percentage would be so they are not statistically better than the 5-card pack.
Benefits

• This is good for new players and current players since the price is cheaper and they still get the rush of opening a pack and have a chance at pulling a Gold Foil Legendary, which could be good cheap marketing when they post on social media about their pulls.

6.

Will Conclave Arcana be subjected to rigorous testing to ensure proper power curves are established, particularly for epics and legendaries, to provide enough incentive at higher levels for players to max out these rarities? Given the unlimited availability of Starter Packs, how do we plan to avoid overprinting powerful cards that are accidentally put as commons or rares, and weaker epic and legendary which will reduce the value, impact, appeal of higher-rarity cards?

I voted for the proposal as soon as I saw it yesterday.

I like the changes, they add new excitement to the game. Especially the Starter Pack is very well thought out.

I love it! What makes me sad is that we'll soon be rotating the Chaos Legion cards into the Wild format.

!PIZZA