Wyeth_RG

We have reviewed concerns about Tournament 2, and these are our findings and guidance going forward. First off, please remember that the Unioverse is full of many games, and Hoverdrome is just one. Also, consider that the Hoverdrome code and assets will be given to developers who can make all sorts of variations to cater to different appeal and purposes. Now, let me personally ask you all to reset your expectations about what the Hoverdrome is. It is similar to Rocket League or Mario Kart but also, a unique product unlike anything else. I need you all to understand what we are trying to do, so you don’t come to the table with expectations based on how other eSports work. The Hoverdrome is about live audience participation. For every player IN the Hoverdrome, we want 10 or 20 times as many people watching it. When thinking about how it should feel, we would draw more inspiration from a live UFC event or soccer game than with any existing eSport. When we talk about “people playing the Hoverdrome” we consider those viewers players also, and you have seen the first little peek with the cheer system. From this regard, tournament 1 and 2 were overwhelmingly successful. In fact, it was some of the most fun gameplay I personally have ever watched. If we do this well, playing in the Hoverdrome should feel much like walking into that UFC stadium with 20,000 people screaming your name. This is the goal. Therefore, when considering what makes the Hoverdrome better, it’s as much or more about the viewers as live participants as it is about the in-game players. The issue was raised that Clyfoul and Gellazka might have been coordinating, and that as a result they should be banned because this is unacceptable in eSports. Similar complaints were then issued towards other players. First of all, I want to give context to this complaint: If the complaint was true, I would put this under the umbrella of “unsportsmanlike conduct”. It is not the same as using an aimbot, or exploiting the game with memory tools - which certainly would warrant a ban. I am disturbed by how quick the accusations went immediately to “ban them”, though I do understand existing eSports competitions have a lot of baggage. Regardless, let’s try to be a less toxic community. If we examine this in the perspective of the UFC: can you imagine banning a top fighter because he did an eye-gouge? They can’t eject celeb athletes, who provide most of the fun to watching the sport, because of a momentary error in judgment. Now, because this is a unique product we need new and unique solutions. We do want players to have fun and a sense of fairness, but at the same time we need to accept it as a live event. There are reasons why NFL teams are limited in referee reviews: Too many, and it becomes unbearable to watch. We also need to embrace that Hoverdrome is evolving, fast, and we need systems in place that adapt to changing features and rules. My personal belief (admittedly not shared by everyone) is that some forms of collusion are probably OK in the Hoverdrome. One example I have given is the following: If a player got an early lead in points, and then wanted to shift strategy to specifically stop another (really skilled) player from advancing to the finals, I feel that’s a totally valid strategy. To anyone watching, this might look like collusion. Another example: three players spawn with a known top player, and all three use 100% of their missiles and lasers against that player. Again, looks like they are colluding, and in fact they are but to a reasonable outcome. In our premise of being a live UFC or NFL event, the solution to complaints against this can’t be to stop everything and review, or to review sections of videos after the fact (as has been going on in our Discord) trying to understand a players intent at a given moment. Therefore, here is the proposed way forward: We will do a better job issuing guidelines and expectations for the rules. During a tournament, each player gets 1 appeal. It must happen immediately after a match they were in. This will start a 5 minute delay while the issue is resolved. During this time the dev team/hosts will issue any thoughts they have for consideration. All the players in the tournament may vote if the match should be replayed because of the issue. If at least 50% of those that vote, vote to replay it, then that will go to the hosts/dev team who can veto it or proceed with a rematch. If a player who was found to violate the rules in an appeal, performs the same or significantly similar infraction a second time, they will be dropped from the tournament. If an appeal was granted, it will not be counted as used and they could appeal again. We will define this system better before the next tournament, and adjust it as we go. To some degree this passes the responsibility on to the players about the gray area of the rules. I think everyone is OK with that, as long as we all understand the context of this needing to be really fun to watch and fun to play. If we imagine going back in time, to some problem scenarios we had, this approach would have worked well: Mikmik’s escaping the arena: I believe it was accidental, and did not ultimately change the outcome of that game, but if someone appealed and wanted that match replayed either outcome would be reasonable. Infinite flying: It was raised and ruled on prior to a tournament, but imagine if someone got the Proten and just flew around for 30+ seconds. I’m pretty sure an appeal would have gone through, we’d determine that was NOT ok, and replay the match with clear guidance for the subsequent games. Flying to Specific areas: This came up in the qualifier and we ruled areas that were specifically OK to land and others (top of the gears) that were not. With that guidance I think this would have led to a reasonable outcome. Finally, if we imagine this was the process in place when this accusation of collusion between Clyfoul and Gellazka came up, what would the likely outcome have been? This is obviously unknowable, but I certainly would have encouraged the players to consider that the games played were great games to watch, among some great players, with no obvious unsportsmanlike conduct to the viewers. I imagine any appeal would have informed everyone to be very careful about appearances, and ultimately 2 amazing players would likely still have been in the finals anyway. Therefore, we are moving forward with the results as they stand. We hope everyone understands the reasoning, even if they disagree, and will be part of the active community to help continue to evolve the Hoverdrome into something unique and amazing. Thanks, Wyeth Ridgway Founder/CTO

An “Ask me anything” blog for learning more about the Unioverse and its designs, from yours truly Wyeth Ridgway, CTO and Cofounder. I’m not only the CTO but also the designer of many aspects of the Unioverse vision. As such, I can take some credit for the good design decisions we’ve made, but also need to fall on my sword when we do something wrong. The Unioverse is a new vision for a metaverse of games linked in an epic Sci-Fi franchise. While it borrows themes from Roblox and Fortnite Creative Mode, it’s also something entirely new and different. Separate games, on separate platforms, will share some elements of an economy, digital object ownership and interoperability, social features, accomplishments and more. We are definitely NOT going to do this all correctly. Much of it is experimenting as we go. Some ideas that sound great will be trashcanned. If you want to follow along for some inside details on what we did and why, and perhaps some ideas on where this is all going… well, this blog’s for you. Pose questions to me here, in Discord or Twitter and I will use those as inspiration to reveal what we are doing, and why we did it. Thanks for taking this journey with us.

In many ways, this billboard is one of the first building blocks of the Unioverse. To understand the significance of this, you need to understand that the Unioverse is like Minecraft or Fortnite Creative mode, containing many games across a scifi universe. While much is shared across all Unioverse games, each game is a separate download/experience/product. That said, note that the first Unioverse game the Proving Grounds contains a robust level editor, The level editor contains a storefont with brushes you purchase for Protens: So far.. this is pretty standard stuff. Exchange your time (a grind loop) for features (brushes in the level editor) that enable you to make more interesting content. However, now consider 2 additional things. 1) The second Unioverse game, Hoverdrome, ALSO has a level editor. It's not live yet, but you can see it in action here. 2) Purchases in Hoverdrome work in Proving Grounds, and vice-versa! [Barring some unsupported, game specific items.] Wow.. now that's interesting. Suddenly the cool billboard I grinded for in Proving Grounds (which will support movies eventually) can ALSO be used to make my Hoverdrome levels cooler? Holy shit! Back to the billboard linked above.. it is NOT a Proten-purchased, server saved object -- It's on the blockchain! So, what's the difference and why? While everyone can buy tubes and walls and floors, SOME objects will only be awarded in tournaments, raffles and other Unioverse engagements. This allows us to create rare, limited-supply objects to reward the faithful. As I have said before, and will say again (and again, and again) in this blog - Metaverse rarity is everything. Getting it 'right' and caretaking it preserves the value of the time contribution of all our community. So.. get out there and earn some Protens

hoverdrome-trailer (1).mp4