NewsFlash Articles Data Fundraising BlockBeats Pro

The ultimate guess on the chain game version of SLG

Read this article in 15 Minutes

It is too difficult to do SLG with Web2 thinking. After rethinking, I found that SLG is more suitable for blockchain games.

Original title: " Chain game big conjecture - feeling for the chain game version SLG "

Original Source: W Labs Guadain Laboratory

W Labs Editor's Note:

Wrote about Some thoughts on SLG games on the chain game side, it just so happens that Xiao Fei has also completed a research on SLG games, so friends can compare them. Xiao Fei is a core partner of W Labs. He is a practitioner in the WEB3 industry and a senior chain game player. In the last Singapore token2049 chain game hackathon, Xiao Fei was one of the members of the W Labs judge team. Watch it within a week More than a dozen projects, but also gave a very detailed comments. Melon friends can follow Xiaofei’s Twitter: @daifei520

One

Half a year ago In my opinion, the chain game version of the SLG project is very difficult to do.

Where is the difficulty?

At that time, a judgment was given based on the ecological characteristics of WEB2 SLG games:

1, ;SLG needs to establish a game ecosystem first, retain more users in the early stage, enrich the user level, and the alliance gap should not be too large, and gradually establish contradictions and conflict points in the process. In this case, there is no profit in the early stage.

2, In about half a year, social relationships have been established between users, and various real social relationships are displayed in the game, such as: brotherly loyalty, chivalrous spirit , intrigue, intrigue. Contradictions escalated to the extreme, robbing the throne, fighting, is to die. Specifically, it is seconds to explode soldiers, seconds to resources, seconds to accelerate, seconds to recover, etc., all of which are bought with money. Tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars are thrown down, which is a pleasure.

3, After every large team battle, many alliances will be disbanded and users will be lost. The combat power gap between alliances is too great. After one family dominates, the ecology gradually becomes unbalanced. The final performance is: there is no fight to fight in the game, no place to vent, and it is boring to play.

4, At the beginning, a server comes in with 10,000 to 20,000 people, and it is very cool to play. You can always find someone to bully. The big world also looks very lively. When the server drops to 2-3 thousand people, it is necessary to consider server merging.

The big guess of the blockbeats - the feeling of the chain game version SLG

So:

1, WEB2 SLG is very fond of the ecology in the game, can chain game SLG make the ecology in the game?

2, At worst, a server must have an account with 1000 daily active users. How many daily active users can a chain game SLG have?

3, At least three months, at most more than half a year, you can see more and more users recharge, the life cycle of the chain game SLG can be done Is it going to be more than three months and the later payment is more and more?

There are indications that it is too difficult to use WEB2 thinking to do SLG.

Even so, there are still WEB3 game developers exploring the SLG type, which is amazing.

Two

Chain Game Big Conjecture——Chain Game Version The feeling of SLG

I played "MOiand Defense" before. It is a card development game with TD gameplay. It is also a chain game model explored by the MOBOX platform.

It can even be said that they are exploring a fast game chain reform solution based on the framework of the platform's mother currency.

During the National Day, there was plenty of time, so at the end of the season, I also played the latest SLG chain game "Clash of MOland" on the platform. It continues the well-run and mature chain game mode of "MOiand Defense". Although not everyone likes this mode, I didn't like it very much at the beginning. But it is still a business model that can be explored and continued. At the same time, we can also see the places where evolution or innovation are attempted, such as:

In the following example, the calculation of the payback cycle brought by the leaderboard rewards is not considered, which will be described later Why.

In the "MOiand Defense" card game, users spend their mother coins to buy gold coins to draw cards. The payback period has nothing to do with the quality of the card, so focus on it). The earliest design of the payback cycle is not fixed. If you spend 100, you can return 20–80. It’s probably too long to remember. Now it is consumption of 100, and the fixed return is 50. The rest depends on playing the relic dungeon every day (which can be understood as mining), and the sub-coins are fixedly produced according to the consumption level dungeon. The summary is: the payback cycle is fixed without considering leaderboard rewards. Payback mode: dungeon digging sub-coins + lottery cash back to the parent coin.

In the "Clash of MOland" SLG game, the user directly spends the mother currency to draw cards, and the quality of the card directly affects the payback cycle. same place. That is to say, if you spend 100 to draw several top cards, the base coins and child coins released after card binding will be more and faster, with low consumption and more income, compared with those users who spend 1000 to draw the same number of top cards Speaking of this cycle, it will naturally be faster (the release of Token by the monument can also be understood as mining). The summary is: without considering the leaderboard rewards, the payback cycle is not fixed. Payback mode: Monument mining mother coin + child coin.

More details are compared as shown below:

Chain Game Big Conjecture - Feelings of Chain Game Version SLG

Card comparison

< br>

In this way, due to the different mining methods and different payback cycles, users can clearly understand that these are two games with different money-making models.

That is what we mentioned above, why not consider the rankings for analysis. Because the leaderboard is not bad from the perspective of user perception, we will not discuss the same design.

The difference between the two, and the most important point, may also be the point of more user feedback:

/p>

In the "MOiand Defense" card game, the price of top cards in the in-game trading market is too low, there is no demand, and there is no liquidity. The odds of drawing cards are negative, and users will definitely not spend their mother currency draw card.

In the "Clash of MOland" SLG game, the top card guarantee can release 90 mother coins, 2 mother coins are drawn once, and the odds are 45 times. With the guaranteed price, the game among users will generate demand, and the market will be there. No matter how bad it is, after 3-4 seasons, after the mother currency is released, plus the sub-coins released every season, it can always pay back, and there is hope in the payback cycle. Therefore, in the subsequent returns, users are not afraid to draw cards and not get back the cost. On the contrary, because there are top-level cards with high ratios, it can stimulate the desire to draw cards and other consumption desires.

After comparison, I boldly guess that the MOBOX team takes the development and design of chain games very seriously, and it is considered top in the encryption circle. And the exploration and collocation of these different modes, and the pits they have stepped on, are their precious wealth.

Not investment advice, just because I like research.

Three

What is SLG playing?

From understanding to playing, SLG is much simpler than MMORPG. Therefore, the early SLGs were all older users, because they were simple enough and easy to understand.

In understanding of SLG, it means urban construction and fighting. Fighting is the core, and it is possible to fight without Chengjian Light. (The Land of the Land is an SLG that extremely simplifies urban construction)

So what exactly is SLG playing? It is resources, and what you play is the output and consumption of resources. Urban construction has the output and consumption of resources, and the big world has the output and consumption of resources. PVP, neutral cities, and thrones are all output and consumption of resources.

Output and consumption? Is it familiar, what is the economic model playing? is not it Token output and consumption?

Is it similar?

At the same time, it also needs an ecology. SLG needs a game ecology, and the economic model needs a community ecology. The foundation is people.

Is it similar?

After rethinking these things, I found that SLG is more suitable for blockchain games.

Fourth

If you were asked to design a chain game version of SLG, how would you design it Woolen cloth?

In other words, be careful about obscenity, and make a bold guess, is there anything promising for the chain game version SLG?

1, Based on the logic of PVP, various Token , various public chain names, plates are packaged into camps, and various blue-chip NFTs are packaged into camps or heroes. Knead them in and snatch BTC together. Can a cold start be completed?

2, SLG prefers the ecology in the game, and ecological construction consumes user emotions. The mentioned community ecological construction can be built and taken into account at the same time, that is, when developers design games, they can connect the game ecology and community ecology to build. The SLG ecology can be done well, and the community ecology is also easy to do well. How good is it? Certainly not bad. In the blue ocean market, not bad means how good it is.

3, The chain game version of SLG may be expanded into a metaverse project, with elements such as urban construction and the big world, and the concept of nature and the metaverse. The path is clear, the consensus is easy to build, and it is easy to draw big cakes.

Theme packaging can be used as a cold start, and the community ecology has a path to follow, and it is easy to draw big cakes.

Boss, this plan is guaranteed not to lose money, can you vote?

Not investment advice.