P2Pool model of full-chain game matching mechanism

DeFi’s P2Pool model

Recently I have seen three projects that have also made great innovations in the operation of full-chain games and token economics. Two are to extend the game matching mechanism from the previous P2P to P2Pool, and the other is to extend the concept of fund pool to full-chain games.

I think there are actually three innovations during DeFi Summer.

1. Financial rules are written into smart contracts, promoting the decentralization and serverlessization of the industry (especially the backend).
2. In order to solve the on-chain inefficiency of the counterparty matching mechanism, the P2P model is extended to the P2Pool model. For example, AAVE initially used a P2P model such as an order book, and later changed it to a lending capital pool model. The exchange has also upgraded from the order book model to the AMM model, which has greatly improved the efficiency of transaction matching. For specific analysis, please refer to my article “What is the “AMM moment” of full-chain games”.
3. Tokenomics. In order to adapt to the token economics of the matching mechanism, DeFi will be equipped with liquidity mining of capital pools.

P2Pool model of full-chain game matching mechanism

Matching mechanism is a very important mechanism in games and is widely used in various turn-based games, including chess, poker, gambling, strategy (SLG and RTS), and is basically a P2P (peer-to-peer) model.

Its main functions include:

1. Fair Play: Matchmaking ensures players are paired with opponents of similar skill levels, which helps provide a balanced and fair gaming experience. This balance is crucial to keeping the game competitive and engaging.
2. Game Progression: In turn-based games, matchmaking can pair players based on their skill level, game experience, or game progress. This ensures that the competition is both challenging and fun.
3. Learn and grow: By playing against players of varying skill levels, players can learn new strategies and techniques to improve their game. This gradually increasing challenge helps keep players interested and motivated.
4. Reduce waiting time: An effective matching mechanism can reduce the waiting time for players to find suitable opponents, thus improving the smoothness of the game experience and overall player satisfaction.
5. Social Interaction: Matchmaking helps promote social interaction as it allows players to play with different people and potentially lead to new gaming communities and friendships.
6. Keep the game fresh: By matching players against different opponents and strategies, the game can continue to provide a fresh and different experience, preventing the content from becoming monotonous. \
   In the current full-chain games, due to the performance of the chain, either a room system (manual P2P) is adopted, that is, players choose their own opponents, or a simple matching mode is used to match off the chain.

Mods Protocol’s P2Pool model

Mods Protocol (@modsprotocol) recently drew on the popular P2Pool model in DeFi and proposed the PvPool model on the full-chain game matching mechanism.

Here’s the classic rock-paper-scissors game as an example.

If it is a traditional on-chain “rock, paper, scissors” game, there are generally two design modes.

1. Player A first needs to create a room, and then player B selects player A’s room on the page to enter PK.
2. A random matching mechanism is established off-chain. Players only need to click the “Play” button, and the game will automatically match two players for PK. \
   Mods Protocol first allows players to mint three props: rock, scissors, and cloth. After getting the props, players can have two choices:
3. Stake in the pool and enjoy a share of the pool bonus. The number of props in the pool is public and can be seen by anyone.
4. Participate in the game as a game prop. \
   Let’s take a look at how the pool is played here. When a player participates in the game, the rock-paper-scissors prop he uses will PK with the prop randomly drawn from the pool. The winner will get the opponent’s prop. If he loses, the opposite will happen. If there is a tie, the prop will be forced into the game and a package will be automatically generated. The pool serves as the counterparty. In addition to enjoying the staking benefits, players who pledge props to the pool can also win players’ props, and the won props will be directly pledged in the pool.

Sky Strife’s P2Pool model

Another project that uses P2Pool is the recently popular Sky Strife.

Sky Strife (@skystrifeHQ) is a full-chain real-time strategy game (RTS) built using the MUD engine. It’s made by Lattice’s in-house game designers and developers. The gameplay of Sky Strife is similar to other real-time strategy games. Taking the four-player map as an example, after the start, the four players are located in their respective main bases in the four corners of the map. Players’ goal is to compete for more resources to produce soldiers and ultimately eliminate other players. The resource in the game is Gold, expressed in grams. Players can consume Gold in the main base to produce units with different attack power and movement speed.

Sky Strife currently only issues ORB tokens on the test network as the “Entrance Fee” for building game rooms. All players do not have $ORB at the beginning of this season. Therefore, the initial game is controlled by the “Sky Pool” intelligence. The contract is initiated according to a certain rhythm. There is currently no way to earn $ORB other than playing games to earn $ORB. In addition to the operation of establishing a game room (setting admission fees, prize pool ratio, etc.), “Sky Pool” does not have the authority to perform any Token-related operations on $ORB, such as withdrawing or transferring Tokens.

Similarities and differences between the two models

Through the above analysis, we can see that the essence of the P2Pool model is actually “the game between real players and smart contracts.” In DeFi, it is difficult to match real counterparties, so it is necessary to aggregate the liquidity of liquidity providers into a pool, and then let smart contracts compete with real users on behalf of this pool, thereby improving matching efficiency. . In full-chain games, the matching of real game opponents also has the problem of inefficiency, so smart contracts can also be used to represent a pool and compete with real users. There are two benefits to doing this:

1. Provide sufficient counterparties. For turn-based games, many times when we want to play the game we will find that there are not enough opponents to match, and the pool/smart contract can provide a sufficient number of opponents.
2. A relatively fair token distribution model. A common distribution model for DeFi governance coins is that users obtain corresponding tokens by providing liquidity in the pool. In full-chain games, users can obtain tokens by providing props to the pool or by playing in rooms established by the pool. \
   When we study the differences between Mods Protocol and Sky Strife more carefully, we can find that there are still quite big differences between the two.

Let’s first recall the situation in DeFi. On the one hand, when the Liquidity Provider deposits tokens/token pairs into the fund pool, LP increases the liquidity of the pool. At this time, when users come to the pool to lend or trade, they essentially reduce the liquidity of the pool. In the Mods Protocol, players need to provide props to the pool, which I call a Props Provider, which increases the playability of the pool. Real players and the pool are opponents of each other. Sky Strife’s pool is different. First of all, players do not need to provide any game props. Secondly, this smart contract only opens a room for players to play. Multiple players entering the room are each other’s opponents, so this pool can only be regarded as Neutral party.

Anome’s asset pool model

In addition to Mods Protocol and Sky Strife using the concept of pools to optimize the matching mechanism, Anome is also trying to introduce the gameplay of asset pools in DeFi to full-chain games and innovate in token economics.

Anome (@Anome_Official) recently developed a TCG game. Their idea is to combine the game with DEFI. Players do not need to directly purchase NFT cards to enter the game, but stake stablecoins to obtain corresponding NFT cards. NFTs of different rarities require different amounts of stablecoins to be pledged. Of course, NFTs can also be exchanged back to stablecoins at any time, thus ensuring the interests of players, and gamers can “buy at any time and sell at any time.” Since no money is made through NFT sales, where does the game development team make money?

One is in the early stages of game development. The publisher allows game users to Stake stablecoins to obtain NFT, thereby gradually establishing a capital pool, and then obtain DEFI income through the DEFI of the capital pool to support the game development team in gradually developing and improving the game. After the game is developed and has playability, everyone can “earn money” and “consumption” in the game, and the benefits obtained are the benefits of the game team and early NFT Holders. At this stage, the funds pledged by game users in the capital pool can continue to generate Defi income.

To put it simply, the funds diverted through the game will form a pledged fund pool. With the fund pool, profits can be made in the form of financial and in-game krypton gold. In this way, the pure Ponzi token paradigm is completely avoided, and the system can Earning funds externally is equivalent to a mixture of Game+DeFi.

Disclaimer：

1. This article is reprinted from [CaptainZ]. All copyrights belong to the original author [CaptainZ]. If there are objections to this reprint, please contact the Gate Learn team, and they will handle it promptly.
2. Liability Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. Translations of the article into other languages are done by the Gate Learn team. Unless mentioned, copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited.