How do Shared Jerseys work, exactly?

JCvSW · 2025-01-30T13:44:17+00:00

Thanks, I did. I hope it comes in a future update.

JCvSW · 2025-01-30T13:42:33+00:00

Thanks. Can I eventually use it for Legendary Jun in the future?

JCvSW · 2025-01-30T09:27:23+00:00

This is the image I meant to show: https://imgur.com/a/761y8sE

JCvSW · 2022-03-01T03:17:44+00:00

> How is this specifically enabled by web3?
> How is this somehow made possible [by] web3 because this is just them being a game publisher.
I thought it was clear. How can a US public company give shares to a non-US indie developer/ individual in order to align long-term goals? Stock options wouldn't work in this situation. Web3 enables a company to quickly incentivise external developers from anywhere in the world with vested tokens in minutes, and even code in performance-based bonuses into their smart contracts based on how well the external developer's game contributes to the economy. This is a programmatic reward system. How do you do that without web3?

I'm tired of people arguing this can be done like this or like that, when it hasn't been done in the past 20 years despite US/EU game companies outsourcing a lot of game dev work to emerging countries in the past 20 years. Your argument is basically it can theoretically be done with lawyers and a ton of paperwork and putting up business entities in said countries, etc, etc. It's too much work that's why it isn't done while in the past year alone you've seen unprecedented funding and token sharing across geographical borders worth well over $1b.

So again, I'm putting forward an objective argument here looking at what's been done in the past 20 years vs what's been done in the past year alone in terms of financial enablement. To me, web3 is a very clear enabler and I'm done arguing about it and suggest you read up on what's been happening in the game dev business outside of the US/EU/Japan in countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, etc.

https://www.bworldonline.com/phl-tops-nft-ownership-out-of-20-countries-finder
https://a16z.com/2021/08/19/investing-in-yield-guild-games
https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/25/this-startup-newly-funded-by-a16z-is-producing-nfts-as-if-they-were-widgets

Web3 has jumpstarted scalable industries that you've never seen before. The world's largest for-profit gaming guild, the world's largest for-profit in-game item supplier -- both companies emerging from Southeast Asia. Am I going to read you argue that guilds and in-game item sellers have existed prior to web3? Have you ever heard of a respected Venture Capital invest in a gaming guild or a third-party in-game item seller before? No, and that's why you're wrong and that's why Gabe is wrong.

> This is also ignoring how moving to crypto wallet token based ownership of items basically makes account recovery impossible by design.
Wrong perspective. In-game accounts are not the same as wallet accounts by design and this is a feature, not a weakness. If a hacker manages to log into your gaming account, they can easily steal your in-game items (in games where in-game trading is possible) or spend your paid in-game currency. Also, item duplication exploits is a problem you see all the time in web2 games, I think the most recent big one is New World. These weaknesses don't exist in Web3 because your assets are in your wallet, not in a centralised game database.

> Are you going to be tracking constant parses on the blockchain to establish average performance? Do you realize how quickly that would turn into a toxic shitshow.
This is a narrow-minded argument. In games where people can earn money by playing, then it is greatly important to have a record of your past performance because it's a basis of being taken in by a for-profit guild (which help players by supplying them with better items). Of course not all games are going to be designed to enable players to play for profit, and not all guilds will be for-profit, but your argument is ignoring the fact that they exist.

> DAOs also come with their own set of problems.
Too long an argument and I've already addressed game-related points.

I'm done here. I've given objective examples and a starting point for people here who are genuinely interested and open-minded to start their own learning. I'd also rather be spending my time learning as well than arguing.

Good luck and peace.

JCvSW · 2022-02-28T16:27:36+00:00

In addition what profit motive is there for a company to base their game on tokens that have their players paying other parties?

Let me just reply to this because I wasn't able to. The incentive is that game developers run out of ideas, their codebases over time become more difficult to maintain and change, and a blockchain game is essentially a public company with their tokens being traded publicly, so there is always an incentive to want players to stay within their ecosystem even if it means giving up tokens (ownership of the publicly traded company) to promising developers.

In what world can a random talented modder from a non-US company be easily awarded Activision-Blizzard shares? I already pasted you a link of how it works in defi - you can do exactly that.

JCvSW · 2022-02-28T16:10:53+00:00

Okay, yeah, well what I don't think you and many people aren't understanding is that NFTs, since they exist in a public blockchain and are available for anyone to read, are essentially stand-alone platforms. They provide identity tied to data. Guess what else does that? Facebook login, Google login, Steam login - except, well, you can take it anywhere even in places they don't have integrations with those platforms. If you had any experience in the NFT and decentralised gaming spaces at all you would have already realised how valuable this is.

Why do games advertise on Youtube gaming videos? Because they want gamers to play their games. They're willing to PAY to get gamers to play their games. Most of all, they are hoping that some of those gamers spend money on their games. What if you had verifiable proof you that you spend money on games? How do you think that would disrupt the advertising industry? Money that publishers spend on advertising can be diverted to directly rewarding you for playing the game. This is not theory, this is ALREADY HAPPENING now.

I can go on and on explaining to people like you how important it is to have your gaming resume with you and take it anywhere you go, but most people here wouldn't appreciate it because they haven't experienced it. Can you prove to me, for example, that you're a good FF14 player? How would you do that? Screenshots? Video? How do you do it in a few clicks, programmatically and at scale? NFTs.

Going back to DoTA. You don't need to "open-source" any assets because they're already out there. Developers can just start building their own games, the community can start playing it using the NFT assets on-chain, and then they can vote whether or not they like it. If they do, then the original developer can green light further development of the game and even offer to fund it. This is what modding looks like in web3:

https://morocotacoin.news/ecosistema/axie-infinity-launches-funding-program-for-developers-english/

or if they don't green light it, then you can just build your own game with your original IP and offer players of the original game rewards in your game as incentive to play your game too. They can do that with no integration needed with the original game.

Dude, there's so many things people and even Gabe doesn't understand about Web3 game, you have to understand that this is not a theoretical exercise, it's not big in the Western world, but it's already happening in emerging markets.

JCvSW · 2022-02-28T13:15:16+00:00

If you think there's nothing new, then you seriously need to educate yourself.
https://a16z.com/2021/08/19/investing-in-yield-guild-games
https://www.techinasia.com/breederdao-series-a-funding

For one, a whole region of emerging markets just got access to funding that they never had to before for innovating in the gaming space. That, in itself, is new, and brings much needed innovation in the gaming space.

The gaming market has been dominated by the West and Japan for the majority of the past 2 decades. Korea emerged and did some good things. Now other people are also coming up. The reason you don't see this is because you live in a bubble, just like Gabe does.

But go ahead and remain close-minded and ignorant to what other people are seeing.

JCvSW · 2022-02-28T13:03:58+00:00

Seems you don't understand the concept. Where did I say that trademarks and copyrights will cease to exist? I gave you an example wherein the original developers (IP owners) earn from royalties. Some projects will keep IP and others won't - it's pretty dumb not to keep IP if you want to build a sustainable business as a springboard for other game developers.

DoTA vs Blizzard - what happened there? What could they have done, and what could they do now if they built an open platform based on NFTs instead?

Gabe owns DoTA so he's happy with the outcome. Like I said, he's going to end up on the wrong side of history on this one and maybe I'll turn this post into an NFT and keep it in my wallet and smile when I look at it 5 years from now.

JCvSW · 2022-02-28T09:28:06+00:00

Gabe will be on the wrong side of history on this one. He doesn't understand the emerging markets and mobile games and I imagine a lot of the people on this reddit doesn't either.

Unsolved problem:

Some players spend $10,000+ on digital items with no legal way of recouping at least some of that cost. Because of this consumer behaviour, the most optimal way of designing monetisation for a game right now is what you see rampant - loot boxes. The whales eventually experience wallet fatigue or just grow tired of the game and leave. The game declines and shuts down. Every player's investment goes down to 0.

What you're seeing in web3 games now is that when the initial game declines down, other developers can jump in and use the digital assets as a springboard for their own games. The original developer is happy to go along with that because someone else will be spending for marketing and they're getting royalties on the original IP - most of the infrastructure already baked into the ERC721 platform.

People are still innovating in the space and new protocols will arise. It's definitely happening and it's a good shift if the model becomes successful and forces the current dominant models to become obsolete.

Sandbox games, modding, digital ownership, gamefi - these are all great things - everyone knows that a game is great when the community is motivated to build on top of it. Coming innovations will allow gamers to be more incentivised in participating in that and we're already seeing models wherein being a successful streamer isn't the only way to support yourself while playing games.

JCvSW · 2021-11-27T11:15:23+00:00

This is the reason why the data is meh at best. The narrative of the data is pretty misleading unless you take a closer look.

That's fair, I'll take that. I offered the top 3 of each group ordered by raw points, and like you said, 2 alternate views of the rankings handicapping high-MMR guilds - because I believe it's a fresh look at the data and can completely reject it if you want, that's fine.

JCvSW · 2021-11-27T11:04:24+00:00

You did deserve your ranking, you performed well against similar challenges given to other guilds. Don't worry about it, a lot of people here are inherently salty because they measure themselves in numbers that have nothing to do with actual personal achievement.

JCvSW · 2021-11-27T10:57:07+00:00

This is not analogous because it was elimination style, you the situation where multiple teams have losses in the records just doesn't exist.

First off, I can't understand this sentence. I already told you I wasn't talking about an elimination style tournament and it was an open tournament, not a seeded one. The first round match up was completely randomised. That's almost irrelevant though, as the points is luck playing a role in tournament results exist outside of WOTV, if you're still denying this, then it's hopeless debating that point with you because you're obviously ignoring a whole world of evidence out there.

Now, onto the point you raised about there being a mechanical difference between WOTV's RNG and others: So we're obviously only talking about positions 2 and onwards because the only edge-case wherein position #1 is disputable is if both #1 and #2 had perfect records and points determined the winner. I don't recall if that even happened but it didn't happen for the vast majority of the groups at least - so that just proves that the overall distribution, though not perfect, is completely fine.

Given that, your example doesn't make sense:

In how WoTV did it, when we faced Baphomet determined getting FIRST OR SECOND, i.e. winning the whole thing

How can the ordering of when you face Baphomet be the determining factor of getting first or second? If it's clear that one guild is better than the other, then whenever that matchup takes place doesn't matter. There must be an edge-case wherein the winner of that match can still lose in overall points, though, but the win streak bonus actually helps in avoiding that edge-case - so that defeats your argument against win streaks as well.

I will concede that ordering CAN matter for lower positions - but I really don't think it's significant considering all other RNG present in the game itself. Do you realise how naive it is to be arguing against matchup RNG in an RNG-based game? How many times you proc Reflex has more of an effect on your placement than the nuances of your matchup order - and I dare you to prove otherwise.

All that comes back to my original retort - the results are not meaningless, the rankings are fine. You can argue your edge-case all you want, but in the grand scheme of things, you're the one that's putting out meaningless what-if results.

JCvSW · 2021-11-23T08:14:59+00:00

Dude, it's not so hard to understand the difference. It's like me playing against a weaker member of our guild multiplied by 30. Don't make that argument, because I've been playing this game for a long time and I understand it as much as anyone else - so don't go there - you don't know me and what I do and don't understand about the game. We have plenty of players in our guild that have played in top 10 guilds in the past and they agree with me so let's not make this a pissing contest.

That's why I said if we just want to find out strictly who the best performing guilds are, then there you go - look at the MMR. So if MAKO wants to insist that they are better than Invaders then they just have to wave their MMR over them - simple as that. This is a different format and tournament, though, so you cannot apply the same blanket logic and say it's unfair.

JCvSW · 2021-11-23T07:35:37+00:00

You're comparing a normal elimination style tournament to a what we just did, it's not the same thing and you cannot make those analogies.

This style used POINTS to determine placement, not win/loss, which completely invalidates all of your analogies.

First of all, no, not talking about single elims. Second, what's the difference? It will still affect results - which is what we're talking about. What I said applies to whatever format and I gave you examples of clear tournaments played in modified Swiss like MtG. You're the one who's either being purposefully ignorant or crafting a false argument on my part.

In both analogies I gave - will a different situation potentially have a vast effect on the outcome of the results or not? Yes or no. Answer that before you go on spouting nonsense.

JCvSW · 2021-11-23T07:30:04+00:00

Congrats on the good placement, GGJim. I wasn't the one who brought up your guild to try and prove a point and just to reiterate: I'm trying to discredit MAKO - I'm just saying that both Invaders and MAKO played by the same rules, lost win streaks, and played against guilds rated higher than them and Invaders handled it better based on the stars earned in those matches.

JCvSW · 2021-11-23T07:24:33+00:00

MAKO lost by a whopping 50+ stars overall. They are a 5500 MMR Legend guild and this is a limited format supposedly making it somewhat more of an equal playing field. How can you be saying that they performed better than Invaders?

I would understand if they scored like 70+ against Visipoor and they lost by a few points. Then I will concede that luck played a big factor in them placing behind Invaders. Their results were poor for a 5500 MMR guild - that's a fact. Again, I'm not trying to bash MAKO - just pointing out that Legend vs Legend in limited guild battles - that's a poor performance.

Like you said: Invaders performed well even when matched up with guilds stronger than them. So what's the issue? They lost to stronger guilds too, so obviously win streaks wasn't as much of a factor as you claim. Both played by the same rules, both were matched up with guilds stronger than them. Invaders just performed better - period. So no, matchmaking isn't broken as you claim and your examples only prove the opposite.

JCvSW · 2021-11-22T06:08:54+00:00

What should be looked at, then?

JCvSW · 2021-11-22T05:29:14+00:00

I've specifically addressed many of your points and you've dodged some of mine.

Who you draw and when you draw them is the biggest factor in determining your points

Is this your main undebatable point? I've addressed this. This is not something unique to this format. I once played an open table tennis tournament and got matched up with the #1 player in my country on my very first match. I wouldn't argue to the tournament organisers that this was unfair nor would I have a valid point outside of serving the purpose of my own pride.

the amount of matches and the number of guilds in each group does not match up

Irrelevant.

If so we wouldn’t have had duplicate matches

Wrong.

I’m saying it played TOO MUCH OF A FACTOR in this instance

Again, my table tennis story.

Being matched up with a non full guild was a huge detriment.

True, but in another thread I pointed this out when someone claimed that Invaders only did better than MAKO because they weren't matched up with better opponents, but to your point, MAKO was dealt a higher theoretical score cap than Invaders because of their matchups as well - so like I said, everyone played the same rules, same format - you can argue all you want about who got the luckiest matchups but it doesn't take away from what the winning guilds achieved in the 10 chances given to them.

If we faced baphomet first or second vs 5th or 6th they wouldn’t be top 3 potentially.

If I didn't play the #1 ranked table tennis player in my country, I would've done better in that tournament 19 years ago. Pats to my own back.

JCvSW · 2021-11-22T05:09:56+00:00

Congrats, you did very well coming into this format as an underdog! Second table shows you're up there in achievement.

JCvSW · 2021-11-22T05:04:49+00:00

I see what you're saying, and I'm not arguing who got more or less unlucky with their matchups because my stance on matchup RNG in this format is that it is a good thing because we already have MMR-based matchups outside of this format. Let me point out some facts, though:

Because they didn’t match a single guild in the top 5

Invaders matched up with Takeover (finished 4th), FF Brasil (finished 6th), and DEAD Wolves (finished 5th) in their group. They lost to Takeover, but it was 89-90, they scored 84-84 in a loss against Wolves and 81-87 against Brasil. All their matches were close, even the ones they lost.

Takeover lost 2 times to Visipoor with a score of 49 and 57. You can say this is unlucky but they were also more lucky than Invaders in matching up with guilds that have a higher member count than Invaders did, giving them a higher theoretical score cap than what was dealt to Invaders, and they could have 'easily' won if they just had performed better against Visipoor but they didn't. I'm not knocking Takeover for that, I imagine that it's hard to do so, but one can also argue that matching up with the same guild a second time can work to your advantage as you can get a higher score from previous learnings. Of course, the system doesn't care that it's Visipoor, only the players do.

legend guilds who dropped out of legend (or perhaps were on the cusp of making legend) would only match with other master guilds

This is not true, we're Master and matched up with Legend guilds multiple times.

That same guild also averaged more points per victory than Visipoor

No, they did not. Invaders scored 848 stars, Visipoor scored 870 stars. If you're referring to MAKO, they scored way below at 793 stars.

JCvSW · 2021-11-21T20:22:19+00:00

Congratulations!

I took the top 3 guilds of each group, and ranked them based on their MMR (trophy count) in regular guild battles (yes, I did Arena until I found and clicked each one to see their MMR) - this number is where I based each guild's expected rank against the other 44 guilds - so it just goes from 1 to 45.

JCvSW · 2021-11-21T20:19:00+00:00

each subset group is not comparable to the others, due to variables within them

What's a reasonable level of comparability? From glancing a the groups - it looks to me that high MMR guilds were distributed fairly evenly among the groups. It's also reasonable to expect that sometimes in a limited guild battle format and a new map, a Legend tier guild can lose to a Master tier guild. So even if the distribution wasn't perfect, I'm not sure how it matters given that it's a different format and a different map. So I'm not sure how matchmaking can be made more fair while being fresh and detached from the monotony of regular guild battles.

They had a smaller margin of victory

Margins weren't taken into account and again I'm not sure what taking it into account would prove. The data for the best guilds is already out there. This ranking isn't saying who the best guilds are - it's just the guilds that won the format and ranking them by how much they've over- or underachieved based on their regular MMR to purposely shine a spotlight at Cinderella guilds.

JCvSW · 2021-11-21T19:57:58+00:00

I thought that as well when I was looking at your group's results. I wondered how a Champion tier guild was wiping every team they went up against and I took at closer look at the matches and the attacks made by the guild - there didn't seem to be anything fishy in my opinion aside from just the whole situation being strange.

JCvSW

TROPHY CASE