SPS Governance Proposal - Rework Leaderboard Rewards

avatar

Community Proposal #1

Currently about 7.5 million DEC is being minted per season for Leaderboard Rewards. This is the last source of DEC inflation that has not been removed aside from cards being burnt. If this proposal passes we will cease DEC Leaderboard Rewards, reserve 36,000 Rebellion packs from the print run and replace the DEC leaderboard rewards with Rebellion packs as follows:
rb lb rework.png
In the chart above, packs were replaced 1:1 or as close as possible with previous DEC rewards at a rate of 5,000 DEC per pack. This leaves us replacing the previous DEC printing with roughly 7,340,000 DEC worth of packs each season, which can vary slightly due to Leaderboard ties.

The SPS DAO receives half of the DEC from pack sales, so by replacing the DEC printing that has been going on for years with Rebellion packs, we're essentially able to give the same amount of rewards with half of the cost to the DAO.

The amount of packs is also relatively small over the course of the Rebellion product life cycle so should not seriously inflate the print run. If we round up to 1500 packs per season to account for ties, we'd be distributing at most 36,000 packs a year or less than 2% of a 2 million pack print run.

spsproposal sps spsdao splinterlands dao
0
0
0.000
57 comments
avatar

Why we need this ?
The DEC-price is too low ?

image.png

In the townhall today was the question about change the leaderboard-prices -
Answer: They don't see the leaderboard-Prices as a Problem.
I also think so, let's do a calculation:

In the Rebellion-Presale get 441,819 Packs sold (without bonuspacks = only the paied packs) this is at least (if everybody used the 5 Voucher) 1.767.276.000 DEC with 15 million DEC every month (7,5 million DEC every season) it's enough for 117,8184 month, so nearly 10 years of leaderboard-prices - IMO the amount of DEC who is paied out through leaderboard-prices is just so small that it doesn't matter and I really cannot see any reason (especially after the team commited that it is not a problem) to change it.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Read again. it say DEC minted.

Currently about 7.5 million DEC is being minted per season for Leaderboard Rewards.

Does not matter how much DEC team owns, 7.5 million getting created(new DEC) per season.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

But it is a ridicoulos amount if you compare it with the pre-sale.
So what was paied for the packs who are sold in pre-sale would be enough for nearly 10 years of leaderboard-prices.
Okay than take only the DAO-part as we don't know what the company do with their DEC.
So we can compare: The amount the DAO receive in 30 days of pre-sale is roughly enough (especially if I consider that probably not all player used voucher) to payout leaderboard-prices for 5 years.
In fact the DEC who the DAO received are out of circulation - It would need a succesful proposal vote to do anything with them except to burn them for the proposal from the DAO (and if they are burned than they are really out of circulation).

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I want to end ranked leaderboard prizes until such time as the leaderboard and general ranking system can be overhauled. These prizes are consistently won by the same accounts, which often abuse the system in any way they can.
A few of the known exploits include but are not limited to:
Win trading
Carefully timed cueing
Purposeful ties for first place
Rank point scalping

While skill(or a battle helper) is necessary to achieve a leaderboard position, it's just as much about knowing the ins and outs of how to find favorable matches and avoid bad ones. Until the system can be redesigned to make a fair and balanced ranked system, there's no reason to keep padding these account owners' pockets with $15,000 every month.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

This ^^^^ All of it. I would rather have the 36k packs than more dec inflation but if I got my real wish it would be for everything to be completely reworked and leaderboards just get a break until that can happen like F4F suggested.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Have you thought about the amount of DEC-Inflation.
If everybody used max-voucher-amount and I really calculate only the sold (not the bonus) packs I come to the result that alone in the 30 days of Pre-Sale we spent nearly that amount in leaderboard-prices for 10 years:

15 million DEC a month in leaderboard-prices = 180 million DEC a year.
This is nearly nothing when I compare with the Rebellion-Presale:
In the Rebellion-Presale got 441,819 Packs sold (without bonuspacks = only the paied packs) this is at least (if everybody used the 5 Voucher) 1.767.276.000 DEC, so arround ten times more than the leaderboard-prices for one year.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

One first step would be to take away the 72-hours-league-limitation.
To be honest I don't understand why in the last 72 hours of a season a player in diamond cannot be matched with a player in champion (as one example).

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

this would only serve to create a larger gap with the top players in the leagues because they would then be able to face the accounts that are in champion but do not have the decks to be there. The way it is now, you face the top tier of your league in that last 72 hours so you can not game the system for easier matches.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Sorry but I don't understand this point.
So a player in champion can get matched only against another player in champion, so maybe a player with 4400 get matched against a player with 3500 (who was shortly over 3700, joined champion and lost than again to 3500 what is quite realistic) - this in than better than to get a player in the top-positions of diamond who are at season-end over 4300 ?

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I agree. There is no way a normal player can reach these leaderboard rewards.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Also, I think it's unfair to fight in the top leaderboards. I've seen before the top with like millions of collection power and playing in Bronze and I'm like, "His deck is at least diamond level" the top 10 probably has all cards in the game maxed for Bronze and this made it unappealing to me to compete in the leaderboards.

Like, I know how to play the game, if I try hard enough, I might be able to get to top 100 but there's no point since I don't have all the available cards in the game in order to compete with the top 20.

Since I realized that, I gave up trying hard. I think there should not be any leaderboards for Bronze, Silver, and Gold since these brackets are just farming areas for those in Champion that has extra cards.

Imagine playing mobile legends and having a free skin if you reach Epic Division. I'm questioning, "why do they need to put rewards where the levels of play is too low?"

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Collection power is a really terrible way to determine a players' deck strength. Since gold foil cards have 50x the CP of regular foil cards, and all cards, even duplicates count toward the CP.

I tend to agree that bronze silver and gold leaderboards are a little strange, since it encourages people to stop leveling their cards and hang out there.

Maybe it should be like an achievement with no monetary prize. Like if you place 15th, you get the "🥉15th place Bronze Leaderboard🥉" badge. You could still try for a higher placement in a later season to earn a higher leaderboard badge if you want, or just take aim at earning a silver leaderboard badge.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I'm for making changes to the leaderboard system and this is a reasonable start. I'm also for more reworks in the future too when we have more ability to have a comprehensive looked at ranked play in general.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I agree with you that we should look if we can find a better way of leaderboard.
But I disagree that this is a reasonable change.
The amount of DECs printed for the leaderboard is so small that it doesn't matter.
I have calculated above that with the DEC spent for Rebellion packs (and I count only the sold packs and not the bonus pack and I also take only 4.000 DEC so in my calculation all have used the maximum amount of vouchers) only in the 30 days of the pre-sale we can pay-out nearly 10 years this leaderboard-prices.

Also we discuss the question to put packs in chest or not, so it would be the question to put the packs we reserve now for the leaderboard in the chests.
I understand that we should be carefull with packs in chests but I see no difference if the packs are sorted out for the leaderboard or with reward chests.

What is absolutely clear is that we should not sort out the amount of packs we sorted out with Chaos Legion. When I remember that @yabapmatt calculated for the proposal to prelong the packs in chests with 300.000 packs in 6 monthes, okay it was in the end a bit longer than this 6 monthes, but 300.000 packs in 6 monthes is too much.
But if we calculate the chests new with drastically reduced chance than I think it would be okay and it would be a nice suprise for anybody to get a pack in a chest.
So why not take this reserved 40.000 packs for reward chests, calculate the chances new so that this 40.000 packs will be enough for 12 monthes and let the leaderboard-prices like they are ?

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar
(Edited)

I think the amount of DEC is larger than people give it credit for. Its about $15k a month at peg, so that's almost $180k a year. That is almost an entire month of runway, so the conservativeness in me wants to do things that can keep us stronger for longer.

I look at this like the players in the leaderboard (and my account thebadwitch is almost every season in the leaderboard too) are getting their earnings in DEC and then buying the Rebellion packs. So while its a sacrifice for now by not earning liquid rewards of DEC that are easier sold, its replacing that DEC with packs that the team and DAO have.

I feel like this doesn't have to be a permanent thing, but until we get an "all clear" that we are in growth mode again, I personally want us to focus on protecting the future. Removing fear of failure will go a long way towards that mission, and once its done then that will give us the greatest reward of all, a bull market in all of our assets.

I hope you understand SCH. I appreciate the dialogue and hopefully by the time the leaderboards get reworked so that many of the problems are fixed, then we can add back these packs or Yaba made something even cooler that we can earn. That applies to both leaderboards and loot boxes.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Okay we will see what bring the future.
Also when 15 million DEC a month = 180 million DEC a year sounds much it is not much compared with the Rebellion-Presale:
In the Rebellion-Presale got 441,819 Packs sold (without bonuspacks = only the paied packs) this is at least (if everybody used the 5 Voucher) 1.767.276.000 DEC

So as I pointed out the amount of DEC for buying packs in the presale is nearly enough for 10 year of leaderboard-prices and this is the result of 30 days.

What I should also say is that in reality the leaderboard-prices are cutted down. I mean when I win a leaderboard-price in DEC I can at least reduce the price to 4.000 DEC with help of vouchers and maybe I can do a bulk buy and receive bonus packs. At Hive-Engine a Rebellion-Pack cost at the moment less than 3$, so less than 3000 DEC at peg.

We will all see but maybe the Conflict harm more than all leaderboard-prices together as now player will always compare the price in the official splinterlands-shop with Hive-Engine, so as long as the Price at Hive-Engine won't really increase I guess that Splinterlands won't see much packs.
Before with the airdrop you always could say: "Ok i pay more in the splinterlands-shop but I have a chance of airdrop-cards whom I don't have when I buy at hive-engine" - this is now over.

To be honest I also don't understand this conflict from another site: We listen always from Splinterlands that they have at the moment no capacity to improve things in the game but they have the time to develop this conflict instead of just use the airdrop-system further.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Just a suggestion. Then why not add more soulbound rewards, even merits to the rewards and remove almost (if not all) sellable rewards? At least do this in Bronze, Silver, and Gold where the one's in the leaderboards are not actually Bronze, Silver, Gold players/accounts but extra accounts from those in Champion league?

That way, even if you give, say 10m cards, it doesn't matter since it isn't sellable. It only matters in terms of making your cards/team stronger for when you try in higher league such as Diamond and higher.

So, "technically" it makes it to not worth to farm in the lower leagues and try to actually farm and compete in higher league's leaderboards where most players there are competitive players.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Thank you for your comment, it is a good suggestion.
However before put additional reward cards to chest it should first solve the problem that this reward cards are for more and more player useless, cause what you do with reward cards when you have nearly all reward cards already at max-level ?
A friend from me has already 41 of the 43 reward-cards at max-level and receive more and more from this cards, he has even cards where he have more than enough cards for a second max-level-card so this player you will just annoy with more copies of cards they have already at max-level.

I personally have no problem to keep the soulbound-cards soulbounded but Splinterlands should finally think about solving this problem as it is discussed since a long time in discord and it seems me that it doesn't matter them.

I cannot accept the argument, that they are to busy - cause when they would really by busy they would not implement the conflict-modus but just let the proven airdrop modus and invest the saved time into solving problems. But they are more interested to bring new stuff than to solve old problems.

But your suggestion with merits is really fine and I like this idea cause it would also help the smaller guilds when merits would be more scattered.
So one possible solution and I suggest this already in discord is:

  1. Give out only reward cards the player have not already at max-level.
  2. If a player has already all reward cards at max-level than give out goldfoil-versions only till he has also all cards as goldfoil at max-level.
  3. If the player has all cards in goldfoil at max-level than change the content of the chests from cards to merits.
0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

This is my personal opinion ( its not intend to harm or discriminate individual or beings or entity)

I prefer CARD BANNING/NERF method instead of adjusting rewards. The main issue certain cards has too much advantage in game ( A player will use that advantage to gain more wins and bots will emualte that winning formation as well) As case refence MTG ( magic the gathering) and LOL autobattle chess ( league of legends), both game regularly monitor ranking system by seeing which card/unit/creature/etc are constantly used and getting too many wins at above average or perfect win.

In MTG banning/nerf, since its both physical and digital, they schedule banning every quwater ( unless its emergency banning).

In LOL battle chess banning/nerf, its digital game and they adjust the card stats evry season by nerfing.

FOr splinterland case, we could use Nerf method by not disturbing the original card stats but adding another layer (nerf layer) on top of the original stats... think of it like equipment (shackle) equip on banned/nerf target monster. The task would need to constant review game rank in both format and every season. ( Example of lama + kron combo, since summoner are the heart of the game. the question vomes, to ban/nerf summoner or monster. My suggestion is either ban the summoner or nerf the monster)

As for rewards pools, I like to see grain or other future minerals be replaced which able to change every season 😁

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Good suggestion.
Just one question: Who will do this research and decide what card will be nerfed in what way ?
You will do this in the future ?

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Howdy, b4 I answer. Just like to add on a point that the banning/nerf applies to all league but not necessary the same card/stats as bronze lvl LAMA+KRON vs Diamond lvl maynot hve the same dominance play ( it's an example, not necessary true )

Who or what will do this research and decide what card will be nerfed in what way? You will do this in the future ?

I don't hve the brains & expertise but just sharing some random thoughts for you lots to ponder.

Banning Score = (Power Level * w_1) + (Format Dominance * w_2) + (Play Patterns * w_3) + (Community Feedback * w_4) + (Tournament Results * w_5) + (Accessibility and Cost * w_6)

Where:
- Power Level: A numerical measure of the card's power in the game.
- Format Dominance: A measure of how much the card or deck dominates the current league metagame.
- Play Patterns: An assessment of whether the card leads to interesting or repetitive gameplay.
- Community Feedback: A score based on players feedback and concerns.
- Tournament Results: Performance of the card or deck in high-level tournaments.
- Accessibility and Cost: Consideration of the card's impact on accessibility and cost for players.
- ( w_1, w_2, w_3, w_4, w_5, w_6 ): Weights assigned to each criterion to reflect their relative importance.

The weights ( w_1, w_2, w_3, w_4, w_5, w_6) would be arbitrary values based on the perceived importance of each criterion. A higher weight indicates a greater influence on the banning decision. In practice, determining these weights would involve a combination of game design expertise, player feedback analysis, and an understanding of the game's overall balance.

For start, we could create a "BAN/NERF/COOLING" vote page which refreshes evry season/month. Account holders ( limit to 1 per account per season/month) submit a card name or ID they deemed OP/unbalance ( submit a battle reference ID if possible ) . Then we list out the top 5 card that the community deemed is OP/Unbalance for DEV to find adjustment (nerfing).

ANother method was to gather inputs from :

  • Summonerlab
  • Splinterguide
  • Splintercoach

Tht's just some random thoughts....😃

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I don't think this is necessary, at least for modern ranked. Reason is I think we've established that next season, Chaos Legion will be unusable then Rebellion + new set will be the usable ones in next pack season. So, everytime a new pack is released, the previous strategies will be unusable. As an example, since Scarred Llama Mage and Kron the Undying will not be available starting Dec 5, then people needs to make new strategies for that 17 mana sweet spot.

This, is still a problem in Wild though. The ban system may only be applied in Wild but that also will decrease the price of the said banned cards.

In the question of "who will do this?"
We have the community proposal. So, just have a survey or suggestion of what card you think should be banned. Majority should know what cards are overpowered. Or maybe take the opinions of those in the higher divisions.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I would prefer to end leaderboard rewards altogether until we rework the way ranked works but I prefer this solution over printing more DEC, so it has my support.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I don't have a problem with the proposal, but I feel like the impact will be extremely minimal. My guess is a large percentage of these packs will end up sold on the secondary market. Since there is no benefit to buying directly from Splinterlands anymore, packs on the secondary market essentially take away from primary sales.

It's all just a reshuffling of value. I won't complain if this passes, but I just don't see the benefit in spending time to rework this to give a little bit of support to DEC in exchange for hurting Rebellion sales/secondary value.

As others have stated, I'd rather see a complete overhaul of the leaderboard system in general.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I agree with you, I pointed out already in discord and also here that the saved DECs for 10 years in leaderboard-prices are roughly equal to the DECs payed for the Rebellion-packs in 30 days Pre-Sale.
So this impact is really very low and you in the past the DEC-supply reduce in the last monthes from month to month even this leaderboard-prices was paied out.
I don't understand why all should be rushed and we have not the time to wait for the result of the measures we already started.
IMO for Splinterlands it would be better to stay with the DEC-rewards and to sell this 40.000 packs through the official shop instead of adding them to the leaderboard-prices.

I also agree that a complete overhaul of the leaderboard system is neccessary, however this should be low priority and IMO only started when things like Land, Tower-Defense and also a rework of the brawls will be finished.
I think we cannnot explain that for example Tower Defense will postpone a bit more cause the team was working on overhaul the leaderboard system.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

the proposal you just posted earlier is all about getting the packs out of player's hands...or was it just poor players? It's okay to give out packs to the Leaderboard winners...the same group of accounts...huge bags, huge collections...THOSE are the ones you want to give the packs to INSTEAD of randomly giving them out to players who have earned enough wins for a chest?
your previous argument in favor of the OTHER proposal contradicts this current proposal..."we need to save the company and stop giving out free packs" and "we need to stop the DEC inflation, and the answer is to give free packs instead of DEC"
the only difference is WHO is getting the packs...you are trying to move those rewards from the COMMUNITY to the ELITE.
boy am i glad they hired you.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

The other proposal was made due to bot farms having a massive advantage to accumulate rewards chests that normal players don't, especially at scale. It's not about punishing players or "keeping packs away from poor players." This proposal was made because the community has been complaining about the DEC inflation from LB rewards for a long time. It's more productive to have a vote and future point of reference when people complain about the DEC LB rewards, we can point the DAO voting to keep it. It's going to take a super majority to change anything here.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Great idea. I'm glad we are finally removing DEC from the leaderboard for packs! Thanks for doing the math and keeping the conversion around 1:1.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

good idea, but rewards are too high, i would cut that in half for the pack amounts, and extend it to top 75 even receiving 1 perhaps? as it stands splinterlands will be losing the same net dec value, if you cut the numbers in half. itd be a net win for splinterlands in my opinion and still a good reward for players

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

We discussed it for a good bit in the discord threads to figure out what our options were and what people wanted. Rebellion packs was overwhelmingly the winner. This was the draft approved by the community. There are many that wanted something different and some that just want them gone all together. If this doesn't pass we'll just keep the DEC until someone proposes something better that gets more support.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

i do support this point I dont see the reason why only 20 people in 1000s of players only enjoy this leaderboard thing.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

@clayboyn please make sure this changes will come with this aswell - as we wait for long time and see more and more often... do changes in the reward-leaderboard-distribution when in example 2 players have thesame amount of Points instead of paying the leaderboard price twice... change it to split up the leaderboard price to make it more fair and encourage player to do a step instead of sitting down and waiting to let the deal works out and leech the pool.

example:

image.png

And this is how it should be, to achieve a fair system

image.png

thanks.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I discussed this with the team actually. If we stay with DEC then it's something we can try to change, but with packs that makes it more difficult as they are not divisible. We added in a cushion to account for ties in the packs requested and we're still roughly around the same expected value. Ideally we should figure out a better way to deal with ties... going to have to be a separate proposal though.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

$15000 monthly transferable rewards sounds like a reasonable,achievable and scalable unique selling point for new splinterland players. Why not swap DEC rewards for equivalent SPS rewards? I'm assuming most of these rebellion card rewards will be locked and not easily transferable to other assets like DEC is. Now that land is just around the corner for expert players, theres no need to burn and ruin the reward bridges that enabled those experts

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Good proposal. I'm for this, packs as prizes should increase the interest to compete for those top spots.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

This would be a great proposal if the SWAP were from DEC to SPS. Doing so would also allow far more tweaking. Suggesting Rebellion packs after seeing the need to try and eliminate them from chests doesn't make sense.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

We actually discussed multiple different options. Rebellion packs was the overwhelming majority. The thoughts are also that it leaves some potential avenue to earn them if they aren't in chests. Feel free to join the discord discussions we're having on these topics! I'm working to get us a better solution than Discord but it's going to take some time.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Something that I might want to add is that accounts on leaderboard should lose x amount of rating for every 24 hours that they do not play because most leaderboard players would not play anymore or bot their accounts on wild in order to secure their spot which resulted with long matchmaking time going towards the end of season.

image.png

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I think most people agree we need a rework of how ranked play functions at this point. It's outside of the scope of this current proposal though and will require some serious collaboration with the team to figure out what's possible and how we want to change it.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Just a suggestion. Then why not add more soulbound rewards, even merits to the rewards and remove almost (if not all) sellable rewards? At least do this in Bronze, Silver, and Gold where the one's in the leaderboards are not actually Bronze, Silver, Gold players/accounts but extra accounts from those in Champion league?

That way, even if you give, say 10m cards, it doesn't matter since it isn't sellable. It only matters in terms of making your cards/team stronger for when you try in higher league such as Diamond and higher.

So, "technically" it makes it to not worth to farm in the lower leagues and try to actually farm and compete in higher league's leaderboards where most players there are competitive players.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

We had all of these discussions before making the proposal. The proposal seen here is what the community wanted to move forward with. If you'd like to get involved in the discussions before they become full proposals we're currently running DAO forums in the Splinterlands Discord server.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I'm in favor of gutting DEC creation. Card burn and SPS burn are pretty much the only ways I think we should establish more DEC. That said, I think leaderboards in general need a massive rework, not just the rewards.

They are gamed heavily and it has been the same 20-30 accounts winning all the spots for basically the past 2 years.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

The new Rebellion catolog is the massive solution to leaderboard stagnation. Give it some time

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

i am usually in the top 10 of diamond every season and i welcome this change. the top 4 spots is the same people every season. in diamond the top 2 is always the same player with 2 accounts, every single season. If you see anyone on here complaining about why this is being proposed, they are prolly the people i am talking about. literally just giving away money which gets sold because we know they arent holding dec like they would with packs for airdrops. Overall packs being given as rewards ends up being more profitable.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

end leaderboard prizes until Ranked play is fixed.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Well to start with, I think every player on the leaderboard should have to play a minimum of 120 battles. That averages 8 per day. When I looked at the last Diamond leaderboard 19 out of the 40 winners wouldn't have qualified. In fact 5 of the top 6, and 7 of the top 11 played less than 100 battles (actually 1 was 102). To contrast that, there were only 9 of the next 60 ranks that played less than 120. In other words, the "winners" were the ones who didn't play very much.

The NBA has a 5 foul "bonus" rule where upon the 5th foul on a team in a quarter, the other team shoots free throws. They also have a "2 fouls in the last 2 minutes" rule where regardless of how many fouls a team has, the 2nd foul in the last 2 minutes results in free throws. The same could be instituted here. There should be a minimum (10? 15? 20?) battles that need to be fought during the last 2 or 3 days of the season. Too often people get on a win streak early in the season, post a number, and then just sit there with no risk of moving backwards.

I'm sure there would definitely need to be some work on the back end but tracking this data would probably be helpful in multiple ways, besides just making sure people aren't gaming the system.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

It is a good point, something should be made to ensure participation. Moreover, I think that the brutal rating-drop that occurs when you are up on leader board level is a heavy deterrence from playing in the end. It was a long time ago when I realized that, even when I had the deck and the skill, I would not be able to stay on the leader board because of one poor game or whatever would knock off like 40 points. That made me stop trying. If we instead have a form of decay in points per hour or per day, instead of the major difference points lost vs points won getting over-sized it would encourage players to play more, and probably also more over the season. You could even say accumulate more decay if you don't play at all one full day or whatever. Of course I understand this is totally off-topic for this SPS Vote but I liked the discussion here!

0
0
0.000
Reply