RE: Announcing a New Energy System for Splinterlands Ranked Battles
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
So this basically means I won't be able to play quite as much as I currently do, without having to pay for it, even though with rewards now mostly being soulbound the value of the rewards on most days won't even cover paying for those extra battles.
Another completely futile attempt to paper over the gaping chasm in the logic of the game's economy that is your flawed insistence on allowing unlimited anonymous multi accounts in order to adhere into an ideological position of the decentralised play to earn dream; one which is ultimately impossible. As long as there is any value at all for an individual player on the table by playing this game, then loads of determined opportunists are going to make thousands of accounts and leech all the value from the game.
Thus, this is yet another update that nerfs bots, but it also nerfs players to the same extent. And you will never stop anon multi accounter bots until you either a) remove all financial value from the game whatsoever or b) do whatever it takes to prevent multi accounting.
Decetralised play to earn gaming being sustainable is utterly delusional. It's mathematically impossible. Any value in game = immediate and sustained ravenous feast by multi accounters until it's all gone. Will you please realise this and enforce one player per account, so your absolutely incredible game can grow and thrive long term. Imagine a game with no energy capture rate! When new players can play all day and night if they want. Imagine how good that would be for the game economy. Imagine a game with only non-soulbound rewards, with one day rentals being possible again, without the nerfed rewards for playing a level 1 creeping ooze in gold etc. Imagine a game without all these silly changes that gradually reduce the value for a player and disincentivises us from playing...
And all of these changes are pointless, the multi accounters will leech and leech and they will vote for proposals that allow them to leech and leech until the whole economy is done, with every change that takes any value away from them also taking it away from real players until there isn't any value left for either.
Myself, and a friend who is a bot farm operator, spend the best part of decade earning only from loopholes all over the web, what I am seeing right now is exactly the same thing.
I don't see a problem with the restrictions of the max number of games. Ranked play, tournaments plus brawls require more time than most human players have anyway. Who is still playing ranked matches manually these days? And what is the point of a game where bots automatically fight each other for the leader boad spots?
However, I fully agree with you concerning the multi accounting part.
Both, multi accounting and bot use are a huge (and maybe unsolvable?) problem of the game.
Me.
and me! :-) The game is amazing fun!
It is nice that you still have fun playing the game.
I have to say the two aspects - botting and multi accounting - let me doubt there is a bright future for Splinterlands.
For me personally it makes no sense to compete with machines.
I am a chess player, and if in that area bots were allowed to compete with humans I wouldn't take part in any tournaments anymore (fortunately chess software is strictly forbidden in human chess tournaments).
Already quite some time ago I wrote about the increasing bot problem but I am not really optimistic that the problem can be solved.
OK, and do you think 24 games per day + tournaments + brawls are not enough?
I think that's 'hard work'.
I also think that most players who say that's not enough simply let their bots run.
At least for me, there is little point in playing tournaments, because as far as I can tell, the same people take the same positions each week. Even for brawls, guilds are using bots, which is sad.
I completely understand that.
But then, what is the difference compared to ranked play, which is dominated by bots as well? I see the same problem in all three areas of the game.
To reduce the number of games in ranked is a step in the right direction in my opinion because especially for bots it is no problem to play all the time. However, it is more a fight against the symptoms not against the origin of the problem (and also by using multiple accounts the bots still can play nearly endlessly).
Currently, it takes me about 250 games to scrape into Champions. Then if I want C2, another 150. a regular season of 12 days gives about 300 games. And I am definitely not going to be paying 500 DEC a token.
This is generally the people who have a smackload of cards from the early days, or renters?
I think there are many different strategies.
Some Users own thousands of bot accounts farming lower leagues.
They were earning huge amounts of reward cards and DEC/SPS which allowed them to buy more and more cards.
Renting of course plays also a role.
And Some players simply spend huge amounts of money to even lead many accounts into Champion Leauge.
Not to get me wrong: I don't blame anybody. As always if a system can be exploited it will be exploited, but I think if the bot and multi account problems can't be solved the game is not attractive anymore for new real human players which are necessary for longterm success of the game.
Honestly, I don't l know much about the lower leagues and the economics there. I have a half-decent deck that has cost me an arm and a leg, but very little extra.
People always work on incentive, so if the incentive is there to farm with bots, they will. However, there should always be more incentive to buy/own and play/rent, than rent and earn.
Oh, and the difference in ranked play, is I get to play :)
I agree, its no fun having bots fighting bots for leaderboard spots!
But multi accounting is not unsolvable, it requires one or both of restricted API access or KYC. Ideologues will complain that KYC isn't decentralised, which is fine, they can keep playing doomed decentralised games that get leeched dry by thousands of multi accounters. That's the choice on the table for the devs and the community: a) a game with KYC or restricted API with a sustainable economy, and without all these silly restrictions on gameplay, or b) a decentralised pump and dump game that ultimately has all its value sucked out of it, even if there might be a random pump at the next bull market before the inevitable.
It's literally impossible to "remove any remaining advantages bots have" as the OP suggests. Removing value from bots removes value from players too.
Yes, indeed, nowadays I tend to support KYC measures even if I also see some disadvantages concerning privacy protection.
But otherwise the game might be doomed.
Maybe you don't want (or don't can) play every day.
So f.e. you can only play at the weekend, so you don't want to play more than 24 battles a day, but maybe you want at saturday or sunday just enjoy playing splinterlands as variety from your work. Why you cannot play than more than 50 battles, even when you don't played for 5 or 6 days before. So why the maximum energy is capped at 50, why not let the maximum run till 100 (or even more) and let all other like it is ?
... Maybe you have childreen and they would like to play also at the weekend ...
Well, if you want to play more, after the ranked battles you can do your brawls and then the 756 daily tournaments with every of your 3291 accounts. :-)