[DAO:5a95e28] Duel Arena Development Changing Category ( Re- Proposal )

[dao]

by 0xed0e0cb94f60f72ec94bef848f5df4cbd365af1d (DuelArena)

Should the following $75,000 grant in the In-World Content category be approved?

Abstract

Dear all, I am pleased to inform you that our proposal has been approved. However, we have encountered a slight setback as it was submitted under the wrong category. Therefore, we kindly request your attention once again as we re-submit our proposal. Thank You!

Our project is the development of an immersive 3D game for the Decentraland platform. Our goal is to provide players with a unique gaming experience that combines parkour, team games, and strategic battles. One of our key features is the ability to crossover game progress between our 2D and 3D, allowing players to seamlessly continue their gameplay experience regardless of which mode they choose.

Grant size

75,000 USD in DAI

Project duration

6 months

Beneficiary address

0xed0E0cb94F60F72ec94beF848f5dF4Cbd365aF1D

Email address

info@duelarenap2e.com

Description

Introduction:

As a team, we are excited to present our updated grant proposal for Duel Arena on Decentraland. We have taken the time to listen to the community’s feedback and have worked hard to refine our 2D model while also developing the 3D version of the game.

We recently imported our game into WebGL, The community wanted the game to be directly accessible on DCL without a frame. As a result, we have made adjustments to our approach and have imported WebGL on a separate page but are working on a 3D game mode in DCL aswell.

We have also implemented a data storage system using PlayFab that enables players to make progress in either the 2D or 3D game, and it will carry over to the other platform. We believe that this feature will be a significant asset to the game and add value to the player experience.

We have a webpage for our proposal active for this proposal and will share a document with fundamentals.

Grant Proposal | Duel Arena P2E

Contributing to Decentraland’s Growth:

Additionally, we aim to contribute to the growth and success of the Decentraland platform. Our game will bring increased engagement and activity to the platform, and our data storage and crossover system will set a new standard for games on the platform.

Experienced Team:

Our team has the necessary skills and experience to make Duel Arena a success, and we are committed to creating a high-quality game that will meet the needs and expectations of the Decentraland community. We believe that our project deserves funding because of its unique features, potential benefits, and alignment with the vision and mission of the Decentraland platform.

Progress Made:

While we have made significant progress in the development of Duel Arena for the Decentraland platform, it’s important to note that the 3D game is not yet finished. However, we have created a 2D game that is currently live and playable on itch.io. We have designed the 2D game to serve as a demo for the 3D game and showcase some of the features and content that we plan to include.

Battleground Map:

Despite the 3D game being a work in progress, we have made significant strides in its development, as outlined in the previous section. Our team is confident in our ability to complete the development of Duel Arena and deliver a high-quality game that will meet the needs and expectations of the Decentraland community. We have also developed a unique battleground map that is set on a floating platform above the 3D game map.

Functional Buttons and Wearables:

Furthermore, we have created several UI buttons such as Play 2D, Home, and Play Now. We have also developed functional buttons for gathering resources, including wood, fire, dandelions, and water. Winning battles will give players game currency that can be used to purchase wearable NFTs that give bonuses in-game.

Conclusion:

Our team has made significant progress in the development of Duel Arena and is committed to creating a high-quality game that will meet the needs and expectations of the Decentraland community. We believe that our game has the potential to contribute to the growth and success of the platform, and we are excited to continue our work on this project.

Roadmap and milestones

Progress So Far

• We released the stress test 2D version of our game in February 2023.

• We launched our fandom page on February in 2023.

• We submitted our first grant proposal, March in 2023.

• We created a 3D Map of the game and used the 2D one as a reference in March 2023.

• We started to host our 2D game through WebGL in March 2023.

• We added a full UI template on the 3D scene in March 2023. ( Not everything is visible yet in 3D )

• We created basic game logic & battleground for the 3D version in April 2023.

• We developed a basic model to gather resources and data storage for it on PlayFab in April 2023.

• We have now our 2nd proposal up and worked on all the feedback from the first in April 2023.

• We published our 3D scene to our 4x4 Parcel in Decentraland in April 2023

Duel Arena - Converted to 3D

Promises:

• Functional buttons for parkour.

• Maximum of 100 energy that can be used to start a game.

• Wearables Stalls add our own wearable store to the stalls 3D.

• Create unlockable skills for battle.

• We are going to add a peer to peer system to synchronize players and use it as a battle handler.

• Leaderboards with a ranking system that can be obtained by PVP.

• P2P system for a synchronized battle system and sending battle system.

• Functional skills to use in battle, such as doing 5% damage to the enemy.

• Health bar UI to track current health.

• Reward system with winners receiving currency.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

[InJesterr]

Dear all, I am pleased to inform you that our proposal has been approved. However, we have encountered a slight setback as it was submitted under the wrong category. Therefore, we kindly request your attention once again as we re-submit our proposal. Thank You!

[didiimakiii]

Hello everyone,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to provide an update on the proposal we recently submitted. Although we were successful in getting it approved, @InJesterr and @Zino brought to our attention that we had submitted it under the wrong category. To address this, we have created a new proposal and submitted it under the correct category.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Buraggan]

Hi all, with succes we ended the previous proposal, however as InJesterr mentioned above… the proposal was send under the wrong category which is why we created the same proposal with the right category.

[Shiny]

Good to see that you have re-created proposal in the correct category, but it is still no from me. I would like to see more progress before asking for a grant and some existing user base to see that your game would actually have demand.

Also I would expect from someone who asks a 75K grant to first read documentation about grant categories and requirements, because how would you otherwise know with what requirements you need to comply? After it was pointed out to you that it might be in the incorrect category you still thought it would be wise to keep it up:

@InJesterr

think it is wise to see keep the proposal up and if it becomes a no we will be able take the feedback from this proposal to upgrade the one we will post in the in world category.

[Buraggan]

Hey @Shiny our proposal already passed.
Just letting you know Incase you missed it, this is a back- up proposal.
We are trying secure to release funds as soon as possible because the other proposal has some issue’s and the final conclusion is not clarified yet.

The reason why we want to release funds as soon as possible is because when the proposal passed we already started on working, and now we cant pay our developer and team the 31st of may as promised. We didn’t know that it would get threatend with a revoke because the GSS was 1 month late while they had to do this asap.

[jar0d]

I don’t think voting no on a resubmitted proposal that only exists because of flaws in a new system is reasonable.

I also don’t think the GSS suggesting the grant should be revoked is reasonable. If they thought it was a problem, they should have said something when the grant was submitted, or within a day of it ending.

Waiting in the way they did was the least professional way they could have gone about a situation like this. No one with an ounce of empathy would agree with how they’ve handled this situation.

The reason squads and committees exist is to utilize critical thinking and to make sure the spirit of the votes is honored while the technical limitations are worked out.

I am not friends with injester, and I think the grant passing only because RobL voted for it is lame, but they played the game, and punishing Injester because the process is convoluted isn’t the right solution.

[Shiny]

I don’t think it would be reasonable to vote Yes on a proposal on which I have previously voted no, still don’t agree with it and which was previously passed by RobL.

Also I don’t think GSS was created to check each created proposal for mistakes, teams who are creating grants should have some common sense themselves, it is not kindergarten here after all.

[jar0d]

@Shiny

I don’t think it would be reasonable to vote Yes on a proposal on which I have previously voted no

Wasn’t the reason you gave for voting no last time that it was in the wrong category?

@Shiny

still don’t agree with it and which was previously passed by RobL.

Not one person objects to RobL more aggressively than I do, but RobL’s actions being questionable don’t give the GSS the right to not honor the intent of a passed DAO proposal.

The reason we have human beings in these positions is so they can use critical thinking and empathy that can’t be codified.

@Shiny

Also I don’t think GSS was created to check each created proposal for mistakes, teams who are creating grants should have some common sense themselves, it is not kindergarten here after all.

This is an international community attempting to engage in a process that was JUST created, it is very disrespectful and misleading to suggest that someone making a mistake is doing it because they have the intelligence of a kindergartener.

[InJesterr]

Hey @Shiny I find your comments always way too passive agressive towards me, I mean try to share your toughts without disrespecting me, I acknowledged that I made a mistake with the category and was waiting for the proposal to actually be rejected but still after that it got passed, so the community didn’t mind the category only the GSS did.

I dont say this for an apology or anything I just want you to be as critical as you please but not disrespectful. I’m Hopeng that you can understant that.

[Shiny]

Yes, “community” didn’t mind

[Shiny]

Anyways I am sure you can just ask the same “community” that passed your proposal previously to pass this one too, because obviously he is directly benefiting from it - getting 4K from land rental in DistrictX.

[InJesterr]

DistrictX allows us to build on their parcel 4x4 for 3 months free what are you talking about?
All I wonder = Who are you, do I know you? what did I do that you hate me so much???
Goodluck + say what you want you are free to do so but next time when you post a screenshot showing all the no it might be cool to show the 1.16M yes aswell that didnt come out of the blue…

[Shiny]

You have written in this proposal yourself “3 months for free & after release we agreed the upcoming 6 months payment”. Budget for that category is set to $4,000, am I misunderstanding something there?

[InJesterr]

Yeah thats mainly the reason why we work with DistrictX thats the explanation we are allowed to operate 3 months free which is a great amount of time before we can actually release, now what is the problem with that? So everyone we work with isnt allow to vote?

[Shiny]

I have not mentioned anywhere that they are not allowed to vote on this proposal or the previous one. Just stating a fact that the person who passed the previous proposal could be benefiting from it (after those 3 free months) and that it is DistrictX leader RobL, that’s all.

[InJesterr]

The person who passed it was outvoted until the last 1 day… it was 4.5M to 4M, the last 2 days 400k + came on NO and 1.1M on yes.

[jar0d]

Are you suggesting you support using red tape and bureaucracy to invalidate passed dao votes?

[CentralVerse]

I am strongly opposed to this proposal and I urge everyone to vote against it. My opposition is rooted in @InJesterr prior mismanagement of grant proposals, which I believe should not be overlooked. In my opinion, it is concerning that someone who has already received funds from the DCL DAO and failed to deliver on their promises is now being considered for another grant.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the proposed project, Dual Arena, would have a significant impact on the Decentraland user experience or attract new users to the platform. I am skeptical of its potential to contribute to the growth and development of the Decentraland ecosystem.

While I do have respect for other team members involved in this proposal, it is troubling that InJesterr’s name is listed on the team roster. Moreover, the fact that the linkedin URL does not even work in the game managers tab raises further questions about InJesterr’s involvement with the project. He is a bad actor within this space and has a proven track record of draining DAO funds.

In summary, I believe that granting funds to someone with a history of mismanaging grant proposals and who may not be fully transparent about their involvement in a proposed project is not in the best interest of the Decentraland community. Therefore, I urge all voters to reject this proposal.

[didiimakiii]

Dear Harrison Scott,

I am writing to express my concern about the hate you have shown towards InJesterr. While it’s your own decision not to vote for the proposal, trying to suppress others from doing so is very rude. You claimed to respect the other team members, yet followed up with a complaint that the @Buraggan link didn’t work. Do you really know the team? Instead of assuming that the link was something demeaning, you could have asked for the correct link.

Regarding InJesterr’s previous proposal, there seems to be a complete misunderstanding between him and the GSS. You appear to be talking out of hate since you have no knowledge of what it’s about. The reason why his personal grant was revoked is because he was trying to create content for the game and thought that it would be considered acceptable, as it was content in his eyes. However, he was accused of not doing his duties and was shown several times what he had done and what he did in the background. The previous revoke was more of a misunderstanding and was due to his inexperience.

If you believe that InJesterr is draining funds for his benefit, I must disagree with you. I find it disturbing to see such a defamation.
Here is the correct link incase you feel sorry and have a tiny bit of humanity left in you to reconsider the things you said!

1. https://www.linkedin.com/in/burak-ucar-898b8b133/