RE: How Much Have You Earned In Splinterlands?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
For my main account byzantinist:
Tournament: 329,104.939 DEC
Battles: 8124.889 DEC
Quest: 6876 DEC
For my alt account byzantinekitty:
Tournament: 348,610.998 DEC
Battles: 7895.067 DEC
Quest: 7735 DEC
(I won't include the data for the delegated accounts I play)
0
0
0.000
I hope you guys take s small step back and reflect on this in general terms - and possibly realise that this is actually not a good thing for the game, from a big picture perspective. Just like we've had big problems with farming and prize distribution at the lower end of the scale with level 1 bots (which I have openly defended all the new changes on the blockchain recently), the same applies at the top of the leaderboards, or more specifically with players who are playing too many premium decks at the expense of the overall health of the game and it's overall future...there is a lot of talk about a sustainable in-game economy lately and this also needs to become a part of the discussion imo...Especially if gaining and then retaining new players is of the utmost importance (no matter what level of investment they choose), then the behaviour at the higher end needs to change also. This is not helping in the retention of players in any way, and it's actually anti-competitive, when you have to play and beat a player multiple times in a tournament, when some players only get one shot. I can go into a lot more detail about why, but I will leave it there for now.
I know I'm going to get scolded for this comment, but I have always been one to speak of unpopular things...even though it's unpopular with the wrong or influential people/circles and it always gets me into trouble. So I may as well be the one to start the discussion, since nobody else will do it openly for fear of kick back....I can guarantee you that i'm not the only person who thinks this is a problem. But, since I don't really care about my tattered reputation anymore I may as well put myself in the firing line once again.
I know I'm gonna get hate for this, but so be it.
No scolding or hate!
FYI: I'm actually in the process of dropping a delegated account that I play. And I know @jacekw has been on the verge of also dropping an account.
There are two main challenges to your idea:
It's a major step towards increased centralization (just like with the occasional proposals people make that Splinterlands should ban bots).
It is extremely hard to adjudicate. Without requiring extremely invasive software, there aren't any good ways to determine the difference between one player multi-accounting and multiple people in the same household all playing their own accounts. IP address solutions don't work because people can just spoof their IP addresses.
I do prefer that people are more upfront and transparent about their multi-accounting (or their botting). But the problem is that a lot of so-called solutions are imperfect and just result in people continuing the same behavior, just in secret.
Yes, of course. I understand all the challenges involved with these issues and how easy it would be to navigate around any proposed or suggested "solutions", that may be advocated for by any particular individual or group of players with the technology available to everyone these days. I also understand that any proposed changes would come at a different cost and/or interfere with or affect certain aspects of the game, or the ideas of decentralisation and freedom of choice to heavily invested players. So yes, there are no "easy" solutions.
My statement (or idea if you prefer) isn't necessarily about restricting or punishing the best players (even if it may be perceived that way), only because they are the best players per se. It's also not personal against anyone either. I don't have a problem if someone wins a large amount of tournaments on a regular basis, if they are genuinely the best or most skilled player in a particular tournament, or in the game overall. I am strongly in favour of skill being rewarded appropriately...after all, I was once a regular tournament player in a different game, other than SL. I can definitely say that I have a good understanding of the ideas and concepts of tournament play, and the entire purpose of them - which is partly why I have a slight problem with the current structure of them within the SL eco-system.
I'm am mostly concerned that it has both a perceptually negative effect on current/prospective new players entering the game and the general economy as a whole. It is however a much bigger issue when it comes to tournament play in particular, as it is open to abuse and/or manipulation in various ways, which can really skew the rewards spread based more on the amount of opportunities (or tournament lives) some players have, rather than it being purely based on skill itself. I guess some people will argue that it's not actually abuse or manipulation, which is a long conversation in itself.
As far as the bots are concerned, I don't have a problem with their existence within SL, as they can also serve a specific purpose and can actually be helpful to the game in many ways. That issue is obviously more problematic because of the exploitation and abuse of rewards, with the use of extremely weak decks to farm the eco-system for an in-proportionate amount of rewards based on their initial outlay.
As you are aware, due to my personal situation I don't play atm so I use them myself (bots) for quite a few of my bronze and silver level decks (with some exceptions where real people play them too - especially my main account palikari123...yes @maxi01 is a real person that plays that account). I don't go out of my way to hide it...I just don't advertise it in the general SL server, as it's something that is not really looked upon favourably because of the overall perception out there, by the general player base and is a conversation that is preferred not to be advertised in the server as a general rule. So here I am telling everyone right now, out in the open. Doesn't get more open that the blockchain, right?
Thanks for your response @byzantinist.
I agree with much of what you say. And I think it has a lot to do with the following 2 points (one of which is being addressed, but the other has not YET):
the prevalence of so many shit decks in the higher league matches... when they are comfortable that we have true peer to peer competition, then I think that will change (or show where all the abuse is happening).
the reward structure is heavily weighted to the top. While its better than it used to be, basically the top 16 decks get paid the most. I would think they need to re-work this concept in the future if they want to have more than 50 large decks competing for those 16 slots... Otherwise you are right, the game will go nowhere as the top 16 eventually wear down all other competition.
Thanks for your reply Dave, but this^🤣
Very poetic and hilarious at the same time, I must say.
I do hope that the new changes coming into effect, largely address most of these issues, and go a long way towards making things more equitable for all level of play.
You are a winner!
.gif)