DAO Sponsored Proposal
Hello Splinterlands fans,
Since the previously accepted proposal “Solutions to Minimize Bot Farms” is not directly compatible with the new ranking system due to accounts no longer being restricted to leagues, there is now a new proposal that has been optimized for the new ranking and the recent changes, such as the removal of starter cards.
To address the issue of bot farms in Splinterlands, I propose implementing a minimum Card Power (CP) requirement in the Wild mode required to be eligible to earn SPS. However, this requirement can only be achieved through ownership or received delegation.
In addition, the cards must have the status “playable”.
The CP of rental or soulbound cards does not count towards these requirements.
Here are the proposed CP requirements for each league in the Wild mode:
Silver: 50,000 CP
Gold: 120,000 CP
Diamond: 250,000 CP
Champion: 400,000 CP
And here are the specific rating ranges in which the respective CP contribute to the rating increase for the SPS reward calculation:
Silver: 260-1899
Gold: 260-2799
Diamond: 260-3699
Champion: 260-Up to the current limit or up to the limit set by Splinterlands, if it ever changes.
To break it down, why it starts at 260: At 260, Bronze 1 begins, and that’s where rewards are currently being distributed. I could have said 0, but it’s crucial to understand that nothing changes there. It’s distributed and calculated as it is currently. The proposal won’t alter anything in Novice or Bronze
The CP requirements will only be used to limit the rating used for SPS battle reward calculations.
Here’s an example: Suppose someone only has CP for Gold.
Gold 3 starts at a rating of 1900 and Gold 1 ends at a rating of 2799. Within this range or below, SPS combat rewards will be calculated as they are currently. However, if the player advances to Diamand or higher, their in-game rating will increase, but their SPS battle rewards will still be calculated as if they had a rating of 2799 because they only have CP for Gold.
Cooldown Implementation
Once an account plays a match in the Wild format, all cards eligible for CP requirement receive a cooldown. This cooldown is applied as if the account had actually played those cards, even if it did not. (that would currently be 48 hours in which the card is not playable for any other account)
The purpose of this mechanism is to protect against exploits and prevent bot farms from continuously transferring CP to other accounts.
By implementing these minimum CP requirements, we can discourage bot farms from exploiting the game and ensure that players are actively participating or have invested in their collection. This solution aims to maintain fairness and integrity within Splinterlands while minimizing the bad impact on genuine players and investors.
Since only SPS falls within the scope of the DAO, this proposal only concerns SPS. Of course, it is up to Splinterlands itself to decide whether to adopt this for the Glint distribution as well.
I like this proposal and have also suggested it multiple times, rentals should count though, it makes no real sense to exclude them.
people who only rent can still play in modern, I've heard the rewards are higher there too :P. the biggest problem is cp rent is way too cheap, for 1 dec you already get 10 000 cp. so that wouldn't help, or you would have to set the cp requirement much much higher. but then everyone would be affected and that's bad. Because we can't have another antibot farm measure that harms everyone. and on top of that it wouldn't be as effective against botfarms/extractors anymore in the end
Except that you can rent enough cards to leech off the system for like, what... $.08? It's a big stupid joke at this point.
I like this proposal. Card owners should always be rewarded more than renters since it us that are actually invested in the game.
I can say that as a card owner myself, I am only invested in the cards themselves, and not that much in the game. So hopefully the older cards will appreciate one day. It might have been not a very good investment after all for me.
While I see your aim I believe this will have more negative effects for the ecosystem than positive.
The biggest few I can think off:
Sorry guys but we are making this game such a complicated system you need a full time accountant to understand it. Instead of going that route we should do our very best and spend our energy towards simplifying the game, make it rewarding again for small players in order to grow our base and stop this whack-a-mole energy wasting bot nonsense.
I am heavily in favour of bringing some kind of collection power requirement back into the game. I say this as someone who bots 99% of the time. Currently the only way to get value out of extra/double cards is to either rent them out or delegate them to an alt.
However, excluding rented cards for this makes absolutely zero sense to me. Why would you actively punish people that rent to play. This is the only way people can get into Splinterlands without spending hundreds of dollars and with this proposal any earning potential for those players would immediately be destroyed.
The biggest issue I see with people that want to 'improve' Splinterlands is that they do not seem to understand that bots and new players are very similar in their behaviour. Lately all the anti-bot action has been hurting the barriers of entry for new players to give some extra crumbs to the whales, but that is an issue seperate from this proposal.
As I said before, bringing back a form of collection power restrictions is in my opinion a good step, just do not exclude rented cards from this. Excluding rented cards is an immediate no vote for me. Also maybe make the barriers dynamic, otherwise card inflation/deflation would ruin the intended purpose.
Completely agree about excluding rental cards!
That didn't work very well and did more harm than good LAST TIME it was tried. What makes anyone think it would be any different this time?
Which last attempt are you talking about?
when cp was last introduced, all values were much better than now, even in the deepest bear market. but i don't think it's comparable to the current proposal. but i can't think of anything else that has anything to do with cp or card ownership 😬
Yes, I'm talking about the one that was in place when I came in; I reckon about half way through the Untamed set. Pretty sure it was 2022. Lots of people were glad when that went away, myself included. It would do even more damage now as far divorced as SL has become from the crypto ethos.
You mean other than the CP requirements for Leagues that was implemented back in 2022 and died an ignominious death, because it was so terrible that Yabamatt called it 'the worst decision in the history of SPL', right?
A worthy proposal if only that it would give greater reward for card ownership over renting and more so for gold froil ownership.
prediction if this proposal would gain traction.
None of these ramifications have prevented changes in the past so most likely this proposal will get some support.
I 100% agree.
I would just like to add that I think it's too optimistic, by far.
For 'Wild' cards, IMHO, there wouldn't be a 'reduction' in rents- there would no longer be a 'rental market' for those cards- I mean, who would rent them? and why?
With no rental market, there would be (almost) no card market for all OOP cards- other than a PURE CP market.
One thing I really like about this proposal though- 'Whales' would really mop up! With no way to rent up, play some games, earn some Glint and SPS- new players would be completely shut out of the game.
Sure, 1 SPS = 1 DEC and DEC would probably drop to $0.0005 and the value of all the OOP cards would drop to ~10-20% more than their Burn value but hey! I'd be able to make a lot more SPS in Wild.
wow I never even thought that this could be a whale conspiracy to scoop up Alpha & Beta cards for sic prices for use on their lands. Just in case it is I just want to make it clear that none of this is financial advice and everything mentioned is just "Wild" speculation. lol
Bronko, can you please clarify the number of days for the cooldown?
Once an account plays a match in the Wild format, all cards eligible for CP requirement receive a cooldown. This cooldown is applied as if the account had actually played those cards, even if it did not.
My main issue with this proposal is whether or not this would cost too much to make the CP calculations. If the team says its not significant relative to their overall cost structure, then that should be included too (if you want more votes).
On the rental topic, I can see that some people would have a problem with the concept. I haven't really formulated my own opinion yet.
hey,
yes of course, it's the normal cooldown period that is currently active when a card is played. that would be 48 hours in which that card is not playable for any other account.
i'll clarify the rest. but i personally don't think it would matter now, since less botfarm accounts would consume server resources, i would assume it would even out in the end. and because matt said in the last town hall that we should resubmit the proposal because of the new circumstances. if that wouldn't work because of the cost, it would be pretty mean to say we should make a new one^^
ok cool on the clarification of the cooldown.
On the team costs, hopefully its not meaningful. I agree that Matt probably doesn't think its a big cost or he wouldn't have said it could be resubmitted. But it never hurts to ask. @clayboyn might be able to help you with getting that answer, or maybe even @investigator can chime in if its an issue on his end too.
yes thank you, i'll ask him tomorrow when he's awake, if he doesn't read this already^^
Just wanted to point out that "not playable" has no affect on "counts as CP"
IF a bot lord setup his bot farm with this feature- delegating cards to increase CP of the bots, putting the 'purely there for CP' cards in cooldown would have 0 real world effect.
nope - this will kill the game (more). Cant keep stabbing it and hoping things will work.
This is ALMOST a yes for me. Rentals need to be included somehow in being able to earn from playing, otherwise there's no point in renting & will hurt rental market as it'll become a total loss for renters. I'd be on board with rentals earning less than owned cards as a form of balance & bringing more value to ownership. Note: I do not rent whatsoever, I just understand the rental economy is very important to this ecosystem.
when the botfarm quantity decreases, the rating inflation decreases. This in turn leads to the wilderness becoming more competitive again and people will strive to have strong decks to survive in combat. This in turn leads to people renting a lot more cards again because they can't level up with a few cheap 1bcx cards. and because the rewards naturally increase due to the account reduction, it is of course worth renting more again.
I say the rent will go up. We even have evidence that shows this is very likely to happen. let's look at modern. Because the bot farms there can no longer cause rating inflation, it is much more competitive there and people rent a lot more there.
or another scenario when the modern bots had to go wild.
The number of bots in wild has almost doubled.
what has happened there? The wild rents have fallen because they have increased the rating inflation and therefore required far fewer cards for the same rating.
in the proposal 50,000 cp are required for silver.
But only one cl core set at silver level has 83,200 cp.
So if it becomes even halfway as competitive as modern, then even the entire CL core set won't be enough to survive there. That means there is a lot of room and need for additional rent.
"However, this requirement can only be achieved through ownership or received delegation." Do rentals apply/count as "received delegation"?
no, but look at how low the requirements are. like i said, it's not even a cl core set. just with the cl reward cards at silver lvl, you already have almost half the requirements for silver. so people have to rent a lot of extra cards if they want to win fights^^
Not gonna lie, a lot of your message went over my head because I felt it was over-complicating my concern.
My only concern is that rentals CP can still earn SPS from battles, if they can & that is clarified/included somehow, then it will be a yes from me.
people who do not own cp and only rent can still earn sps in all modern leagues but in wild only in bronze.
if you own the required minimum cp, you can earn everywhere even if you only play with rented cards
Understood. I disagree and think full/primary rental accounts in Wild should be able to earn SPS from battles for their rental investments/corresponding league above Bronze even if they're owned/delegated CP doesn't meet those league requirements. I personally think rented CP should count.
While I agree that we should focus on improving rewards for owners of larger collections, I think that it should all come down to rating. Larger collections and higher-level cards should convert to a higher win rate, which should convert to a higher rating, which should convert to more rewards.
The proposal you have right now might not pass because of the rentals not counting for CP part. Maybe you should include rentals to count for CP in this proposal and then create a second proposal afterward to have rentals not count for CP. Yeah, it's two proposals instead of one, but having a proposal that fails means people who put money into this game buying cards instead of just using soulbound and reward cards are back to square one.
Every proposal to decrease effectiveness of bots and increase real-player activities are an instant upvote for me.
I hope this proposal gets through, but tbh, I dont have high hopes. The proposal system is still broken as whales can decide whatever they want. You should start implement that only KYC accounts can vote. Further, each vote should have 1 vote power instead of the power of SPS staked. THEN you would have a real voting system.
Until then, votes are dictated by whales - and in most cases they vote in a way positively for them and not in a way that would help the game grow.
Kind of short minded - as a growing game would mean more earnings. But hey, thats hard to understand for some people...
I appreciate the effort put into drafting this new proposal. It’s clear that a lot of thought has gone into aligning it with the new ranking system and recent changes within Splinterlands.
However, it's worth noting that the Splinterlands team has expressed reservations about the long-term viability of using the CP metric as a central gameplay mechanic. They've indicated that this approach might gradually be phased out. Given this perspective, it’s important for us to consider how sustainable the proposed CP requirements would be in the evolving landscape of the game.
While I don't have much experience with bot farms and therefore won’t be voting on this proposal, I wanted to share this information to ensure the community is making an informed decision.
matt said in the last town hall that we should resubmit the proposal with the adjustments to the new system.
that being said, i personally thought it was wrong to remove the cp requirements even back then, it was a slap in the face for card values.
and also i notice more and more people using cp for something and apparently realizing that cp is a good important value ;)
lastly we saw how useful cp was when @clayboyn adjusted the cp requirements for the tournaments again, that was a big improvement.
I'll probably vote yes. There are SO many accounts with nothing but soulbound and reward only cards in Wild, it's crazy. This game needs to reward true card owners more.
Soulbound cards, whether Reward or Gladiator, count as 'CP'
Those "nothing but soulbound and reward only cards" accounts would be relatively unaffected by this proposal.
Disagree. They will be affected greatly depending on what the thresholds are (high enough). I'm voting for this proposal. I doubt this will pass, though, unless the rented cards not counting for CP is changed.
I am also, 100%, voting for this proposal.
120K CP isn't nearly high enough to affect the bots but it is high enough to keep new players from ever being able to earn any significant amount of SPS.
This only affects Wild League. Modern League is probably where new players should play. There would be no CP requirements there. They do need to remove Gladiator cards from ranked play though. It must be a really frustrating experience for new players to face Gladiator cards. So overpowered.
I agree completely.
New players should be encouraged to play in Modern but I don't think Gladiator cards should be completely banned from Modern ranked though. I think a more gradual approach would be better.
Modern League:
Bronze- ALL SB cards are banned
Silver- Gladiator cards are banned
Gold- Gladiator cards can be fielded vs. other accounts that have Gladiator cards
Diamond and Champs- Wide Open
P.S. Modern is a really frustrating experience. Facing unbeatable teams time after time after time and knowing that you can't even rent cards that would allow you to compete is... well, I quit and went to Wild and I'm not a new player.
If this makes it past draft I'll vote no as it stands. I will not support a proposal that's not good for rentals.
It also sounds complicated for the team to implement, there should be a simpler solution to start with. I'd suggest to start with CP requirements that cap your multiplier/sps earnings. It should have nothing to do with what league you are in. However, do we know what problem we are trying to fix? With the 1x multiplier being dropped for having 0 sps staked/rented, I think we need to see the effects of that first.
would like to see this at least go to the main vote. so gunna vote yes for now
I'm kinda leaning towards yes but not fully on this. I want to hear what more people think.
What if we hold off on this right now and wait and see what land does to rental prices, CL & old card values?
Grain LP's are coming out soon. I believe that will start moving the needle on CL and old card prices. It will be slow at first but each land release will have an effect on these.
I get the point of your proposal is to target massive bot farms, but a proposal needs to target bot farms directly for this to not have a negative effect on players with a alt accounts that use automation tools. And this proposal doesn't hit the mark in that aspect.
I think an easier solution to this problem is to bring back the penalties for using cards under max lvl in champ, under gold in diamond, etc. But card levels and min cp are not mutually exclusive. We could do both and really nerf bot earnings.
And again a proposal that hits everyone, even normal players, keep going with this and let the game die already, past years and changes teach nothing? SPS is sinking, game has less and less new players, just ban the bots and end of story
but that's not going to happen. so you have the option of making the best of it, or doing nothing and sulking as the bot farms extract us
It's going to happen if a proposal is made and passes, splinterlands team has to accept that if it passes they have to ban it everywhere or let game die
well theres no way in hell i am going to throw more money buying cards in that black hole eating money game, and with me many others, capping like this will just harm normal players... of course you dont care about that with your 1 milion CP 😂
Splinterlands tells the account bronko has 900k which is, guess what, enough for champion!
Tell me how a small player can benefit, earnings cut unless investing again and again, if one has the skill to reach diamond with 50k power, no cut the earnings, glints untouched by the proposal are useless for useless soulbounds cards so no point in playing at all...SPS should spike at least to 0,03 to make this good for small accounts
Honestly, and although I see some merit in this proposal, I'll be voting against anything that doesn't solve the bot problem for good, which is an outright ban. We're trying to reinvent the wheel over and over again and jumping hoops after hoops because of the same thing, and it's tiring: EVERYTHING that affects bots, will affect players and likely at a higher degree.
Sometimes I think about how these proposals can be beneficial for the game, wild has already been changed and a bot released only in it, and the rewards are already reduced, with proposals like this, it seems like they want the extinction of the wild and "force" modern play.
The game currently has 20k active players, with an average of 310k battles in the last month, but only 20k were in modern.
In my opinion, the focus of the proposals should be to increase the player base and with this proposal "excluding" the rent to take CP and rewards into account, since modern already pays 50% more glint, it would be a hammer blow. mass reduction in players, the majority do not have or do not want to buy cards and prefer to rent.
Instead of putting the cards on cooldown, put a 1 dec per card cost to delegate cards to another account. 1 time fee until the cards are delegated again. If a farm wants to rotate cards around for CP then they will have to burn a ton of DEC or own a couple very high CP cards like GF alphas etc.
or just transfer the cards from account to account instead of delegating.
or you could just combine a card up to the point where you only need to delegate one card instead of a bunch.
"Wanna see my 105K CP Uraeus? 1,000 BCX- He's YUGE!"
it's true that it will affect the rewards on bot, since they rely on soulbound cards to generate rewards. but it can also be said with players who only bought the spellbook, they're already struggling to get rewards since they only have small card pool from the credits they have from the spellbook. by doing this, you're also removing them.
I am against this mostly because renting should quite equate to owning when it comes to playing. Otherwise you are left with a solution that benefits only card owners and only in a very short time, and damages everybody eventually.
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @bronko!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal
Updated At: 2024-05-04 16:34 UTC
Oh yay....... more "bot farm" wack-a-mole.
In rewards they eliminated the credits and it hurt everyone, they eliminated the envelopes and they lowered the price, they eliminated the salable cards and they all lowered the price, they eliminated the SPS from the chests and lowered the price. All with the justification that they are antibot measures but that in the end they harm the entire ecosystem. Now it is intended to implement a system where the CP of rental or soulbound cards does not count towards obtaining rewards from battles. Could it be that they don't realize that every time they implement an antibot measure it harms the entire system??? This would be the end of Splinterlands.
i mean the proposal was accepted back then even with stronger restrictions than now, and the state of how the bot farms are bleeding the system dry is even worse now than it was then. just from the circumstances alone, the logical conclusion for me would be that it's even more important now than it was then. but apparently not everyone sees it that way, i'm very sorry about that.
i honestly didn't want to have to convince the people again who were already convinced back then in an even worse situation.
i'm sorry to everyone who has been eagerly awaiting the implementation. but i don't have the strength to go through this again. i think i've answered the most important things. the rest is in your hands now!
i wish you all the best and that you manage to solve the problems.
Voting against this again. I like most of it but I don't want any precedent set that says renting isn't as good as buying. When this game functions properly (I get that its not right now), it costs so much money to come in and compete. The saving grace for someone just coming in is that rentals give you the same advantages as owning. I don't want to screw with that at all.
exactly. lately this game has been more focused on kicking out existing players than actually trying to get new players. this proposal is just another example
renting has the advantage that you are not limited to any edition, which means you can participate in modern where there are even more rewards ;)
Modern is an unmitigated hell-scape. Being 'able' to rent and play in Modern means nothing, because you can't rent Lobb Lowland. Nor can you rent any of the other Summoners that allow you to field Gladiator cards, let alone Quora or any of the other Gladiator cards.
I will not vote for anything that nerfs rentals. It's too shortsighted. Since the goal here is to target bot farm accounts that only play SB cards, why not simply remove rewards for SB cards? The SB conundrum was a team creation unfortunately... in the past reward card sets were MUCH more limited in scope. Meaning you could not possibly win playing only reward cards. There were too few and only a few from each splinter. The SB reward set was TOO BIG and also unfortunately included summoners, allowing bot farm accounts to rent for a short time and then play using SB cards exclusively.
Yes rentals are cheap right now because of both overprinting and fewer accounts playing, but RB rentals are much higher than other editions due to scarcity (which is due to excessive cost imo but that's another conversation).
The narrative has also shifted from 'new players should play modern so they don't have to face older expensive/powerful cards' to 'new players should play wild because there are lots of low level bots that are easy to beat'.
New players will NEED To be able to rent cards and earn otherwise they will never buy. Modern is basically hell for new players right now and I believe SB and Glad cards will unfortunately only perpetuate/maintain that scenario. Nerfing rewards for rentals goes against core principals of the game.
I 100% agree with the issue with SB cards. It should be impossible to reach/earn on a level higher than Bronze 1 or something with only reward cards. When I started in Sept 21 the prices were prohibitively high for existing cards (i.e. as a new player who was used to putting 50-60$ on a game I was not about to put thousands of $ into an unknown game...). This was before CL edition came out, so my only option was to rent, but I still got the rewards for playing, although back then we got like 1 chest daily and I think 10 season chests in Silver :).
I wanted to get involved in crypto and gaming felt instinctively right for me so that is why I checked out different games. I landed on SPL because the game in itself felt easy enough to understand but at the same time really challenging to win consistently. I trudged through all steps to set up HIVE accounts etc. and get some money in the game to be able to buy some single cards and later on rented some key cards (hello Yodin...) to get going. My point is that I would never have continued to put money in the game if I hadn't gotten hooked on the game itself which led me to having bought a bunch of packs and continuously complemented my collection with card purchases. (Don't think I wanna know how much I've spent on this "game"... :D)
To @bronko, well done for re-working the proposal so it wouldn't just die by the roadside. I am very encouraged by the way the SPS community can vote on these issues, no matter the outcome. I like the CP "soft limits", that is not restricting anyone from moving up but simply capping them from extracting more than fair value from the game. I believe that Matt and co. have taken many prudent steps during these years such as the energy requirement to make it prohibitive to play 24/7.
From my perspective I think rentals are an important category for many thousands of players so it should be empowered rather than nerfed. I understand that you fully believe that it would raise prices, but perhaps the drop in turnover rate would fully negate any earnings for the renters. On the flip side, should the CP be heavily reduced or even nullified for Soulbound Reward cards then the CP requirements put forth would in theory increase the demand on rentals again, and possibly then push up the prices. Even if it won't be the ultimate solution it could be one step in the right direction without alienating a large share of players.
Last point about Modern, I used to only play in Modern but since a few months back the lack in liquidity has made it horrible to play with my Gold league-ish collection. I mean, I get whopped by max-decks in Bronze... I used to float between Silver and Gold but now I just hang out in Wild and are enjoying the game so much more again. I play against really good players with awesome decks one game, and next one against an even-levelled player and then against some low-level bot. I love that! I think it gives a sense of suspense in the match-making to see what you might be up against. I don't buy for a second that bots are better than me, my statistics are probably 2/3 wins against bots if we have similar deck strength, especially with the Tactics part from Rebellion.
I say the rent will go up. We even have evidence that shows this is very likely to happen. let's look at modern. Because the bot farms there can no longer cause rating inflation, it is much more competitive there and people rent a lot more there.
or another scenario when the modern bots had to go wild.
The number of bots in wild has almost doubled.
what has happened there? The wild rents have fallen because they have increased the rating inflation and therefore required far fewer cards for the same rating.
in the proposal 50,000 cp are required for silver.
But only one cl core set at silver level has 83,200 cp.
So if it becomes even halfway as competitive as modern, then even the entire CL core set won't be enough to survive there. That means there is a lot of room and need for additional rent.
and to the new players. the proposal has no requirements for bronze there can still be earned without own cp.
my goal is to give the cards and therefore the rental market more value again. if you think it's okay if 1bcx accounts can play up to diamand because it's great for the npe, well then i don't know what to do, i'm sorry i couldn't convince you
and the principles of the game are that ownership is rewarded and that card maximization is encouraged. the current state of affairs has the opposite effect. and pointing to rebellion?
do you remember the untamed rental prices when they were in modern? my prebuilt deck cost 14-20k dec a day to rent there, since it's in wild it costs 900-1500 dec a day. so if the few hundred players in modern had more influence on the rental prices than the tens of thousands of accounts in wild. then sorry then i have to tell you the wild rental market is already dead!
I do NOT think it's great for 1 bcx account to play up to diamond, that's putting words in my mouth. But that's something the team needs to address since they caused the problem. Too many things are getting changed too quickly to realize the actual EFFECT on the game and the ecosystem. We need to understand what every single thing does and the chain reaction it causes, and personally I do not believe the current setup of eliminating league limits is correct or good for the ecosystem, let alone the NPE.
I have been around here for a long time, and a major part of the OWNERSHIP thing is the ability to RENT cards and earn by doing so. We have no idea which way new players will be directed at this point... first it was modern, now the narrative is wild. As I said, I see nerfing rentals as another step that will damage the ecosystem in the long run. There are better solutions to the same problem, such as removing earnings by SB reward cards.
well, we now have liquidity bots in modern, i think this will ease the situation there again. and as i said, even if new players choose wild, they can earn there as normal, for novice and bronze there is no cp requirement. they can even play up to champion without having cp and earn glint as normal. only the sps reward would then be calculated as if they were in bronze 1. do you think that would be different from now? now they wouldn't even earn 2 sps in diamand. by proposal that many extractor botfarms will only earn sps at bronze level instead of diamand and champion as they currently do, the pool will be emptied much slower, which means that new players can at least earn something again. currently they can't if they choose wild.
and remove income for sb? how do you envision that? we all use soulbound cards. will we all be penalized if we use one?
In wild, sure. SB cards are loaded with problems that were not fully predicted by the team when implemented (some oversights, like including summoners, are mind blowing to think about).
Remove the rental nerf and I'd support this 100%. Being able to rent and earn is a vital part of the core of this game and ecosystem, and ANYTHING that nerfs rentals is a terrible idea imo. I do not believe rentals will go up for legacy editions if you do not earn rewards in wild with rented cards.
The core problem is that, in wild, if it were related to rent, we wouldn’t be able to solve the issue. Bots have no time limit, so they can infinitely multiply themselves without investing. Some even have tools that precisely calculate how expensive the rent is and how much I would earn. Then they determine the minimum profit required to activate accounts. Consequently, they automatically mine SPS without any financial or time constraints, and without any investment or risk. As soon as the SPS price rises, more accounts are automatically activated to rent, and mine sps from our pool. This continuous siphoning ensures that SPS and rental prices can only increase temporarily, as they are immediately absorbed again by the automated process 😔
I mean, back then we had CP requirements that could be rented. Did it help against bot farms and extractors? No, they even had a boom. It would be an improvement to the current situation; we now have other measures that would restrict it a bit more. But only restrict. The core problem would still exist; we would just slow it down but not stop it.
I like this. I really, really like this!
The more I think about it, the more I like it- TBH.
Given that most current 'bot' accounts have 10's (if not 100's) of thousands of CP in Soulbound cards (both Reward and Gladiator)- this change would have little to no effect on any of the 'Legacy' bot accounts. OTOH- this would serve as a very effective deterrent for any new players trying to play in Wild.
In effect, this policy would serve the same purpose as all of the Bronze bots in Modern- dissuade new players from getting involved in the game.
There's a lot of other reasons why I think this would be the best policy to be implemented in SPL since getting rid of daily quests in favor of 'Focuses'- discouraging Wild players from renting cards, discouraging Wild players from renting SPS, less DEC being 🔥 through renting, etc.
I will be 100% be voting for this with all the SPS I don't unstake to sell before this policy goes into force.
I am all for minimizing the impact of bot farms, but I am a no vote on this proposal.
To me, there is no difference in renting or self delegating to a different account, so treating those two things differently is ill conceived solution. I also do not think CP is the answer either.
The more simplistic and effective solution would be that a card could only play for 1 account per season. Whether that card is owned, delegated or rented, once it is played, it is in cooldown for any other account for the remainder of that season.
This means that all rentals would effectively be season rentals.
This means that all delegations would be season delegations.
This would close multiple massive loopholes that allow bot farms to farm cheaply and other loopholes that allow top tier human players from shuffling cards to diff accts every few days, or renting for just a few days to push up as many accounts as possible to leaderboard positions.