Situation
- The best players of Splinterlands are not tied to a single account.
- The best players of Splinterlands kick my butt all the time... Always... SO MUCH BUTT KICKING...
- I want to play basketball but I don't want to play against Michael Jordan.
Complication
- There is no way to prevent players from having multiple accounts and kicking butt in every league.
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
Resolution A: Pick a League
- Limit accounts to play at a single league level each season.
Reasoning
- Hopefully this will reduce the number of good players dominating multiple league tournaments with the same decks.
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
Resolution B: True Skill
- Stop letting players control what leagues and tournaments they are allowed to play in. Design a smart ranking system that uses collection power, w/l ratios, matchup difficulty, previous season position and frequency of play to arrive at a player rank that is more inline with true skill. Matching players with players equal to their skill is the cornerstone of all multiplayer games and Splinterlands should be no different.
Reasoning
- People will always look for ways to maximize their earning potential. There is nothing wrong with that. BUT it comes at a cost. In my opinion the cost outweighs the benefit. Cost's include:
- Needing 400+ games each season to get to the top of a leaderboard.
- Playing hundreds of battles against vastly inferior or superior opponents.
- Bots outranking humans just because of the sheer volume of battles entered.
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
Conclusion
We should strive to make a game, economy, ecosystem that benefits players equally. There are flaws in both of these resolutions. However, in my opinion we should limit the earning powers of the best players in the game in a way to prevent them from taking profits from the lowest skilled users.
The same people win every league, every tournament, everything. It is kind of odd that people will hang out in the Bronze League even though they're Champion material, just for the rewards. That would be like a MLB player choosing to play tee ball with 8 year olds because they technically can and want to win the prizes meant for those 8 year olds. haha. Cold-blooded, I tell ya!
I'd like to see something similar in tournaments. If you place top 5 in a tournament, you should not be allowed to play in that same tournament the next time it is live. Should add a cooldown or something along the same lines to your account for that tournament specifically.
Until we have a bigger userbase where people are spending $100k+ for a maxed deck, the same players are going to win every tournament/league.
I agree with this. If the current matchmaking goes on new players will be turn off because they will be beaten by vastly superior deck in lower leagues.
SPS proposal, players will decide, that is the beauty of it.
The matching mechanism needs some refinement IMO
!LUV
<><
@unitqm, you've been given LUV from @solymi.
Check the LUV in your H-E wallet. (2/4)
I agree, the rental system helped with some of this but it still comes down to the players with the most money to buy stuff or rent infinite cards still win.
Your post has been manually curated by @monster-curator Team!
Get instant cashback for every cards purchase on MonsterMarket.io. MonsterMarket shares 60% of the revenue generated, no minimum spending is required. Join MonsterMarket Discord.