An idea to stop the Inactivity at the top of the Leaderboards during a Season...
///
TL;DR:
Addressing inactivity in Splinterlands, proposing either a daily 1% point penalty for players after their first match each season or tier-specific penalties based on league achievements. Seeking community input for a solution.
///
Hey fellow Splinterlands Players, I've noticed a long time recurring problem in our game seasons that I believe needs some attention. There are players who quickly climb the ranks early in the season, only to become inactive for the remainder of it. This creates a situation where they feel secure in their position without actively contributing to the ongoing competition.
Idea 1: Daily Penalty for Inactive Players (Affects all Players):
I suggest that, at the beginning of each Splinterlands season, players who have participated in at least one match should incur a daily penalty of 1% of their earned points at midnight. To illustrate, if a player has reached 4360 rating points, they would automatically lose 43.6 (44 points) at midnight, bringing their total down to 4316. This would result in a downward shift in the leaderboard, encouraging continued active participation and discouraging prolonged inactivity.
Idea 2: Tier-specific Penalties (Affects Players at higher Rating as the Tier 1):
Building upon the first proposal, I propose implementing tier-specific penalties based on the achieved league. The suggested tiers and their respective starting points for penalties are as follows:
- Bronze 1: From 700 and above
- Silver 1: From 1600 and above
- Gold 1: From 2500 and above
- Diamond 1: From 3400 and above
- Champion 1: From 4300 and above
These tier-specific penalties aim to ensure that players in higher leagues are particularly motivated to remain active and consistently participate in the competition.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on these proposed measures to combat inactivity.
What's your take on tackling inactivity in Splinterlands? Share your thoughts and ideas to keep the competition alive!
Isn't that only 1 %?
10 % of 4360 is 436.
Yeap, ur right. Changed. Vacation brain afk.
This is an interesting idea, thanks for sharing. I also like Bulldog's suggestion that he posted in Discord (https://discord.com/channels/447924793048825866/906426246328623114/1190633581266092073).
"*This is one reason I support making cooldowns on everything per season. I'd actually prefer to make it a literal stake instead of cooldowns.
Each card can only play on 1 account per season, it means you leave out a lot of value if you only play part of the season. Whether that is increased rental cost from a full season rental or lost opportunity cost if you own the card and can't rent it out/delegate it/place it on land the rest of the season.*"
I do not like this idea at all. I think ranked play offers plenty of rewards to players who want to consistently play ranked battles. I don't see any need for a penalty for inactivity. Those players earned their rank through an extraordinary win percentage and if you want to pass them, you should do it based on your merit rather than just being active every day.
Please explain to me why players should be penalized for inactivity. To me, missing out on ranked rewards seems like penalty enough.
A) to encourage the players play and play and not sit down to provide match liquidity. At some point, you don't even find an enemy.
B) to try to avoid people getting the thesame rating points and using that exploit to enrich themself. Soon there will be packs... Why pay 600k DEC instead of 450k to the top 3 places.
I think this is bogus reasoning. If a player has earned their rank, it is within their prerogative to sit on their earned rank and do something else with their cards, whether that means playing a different format or renting out one's cards.
What if someone likes to cycle between formats, and only plays Wild for the first week of the season and then Modern for the 2nd week of the season? Would they get penalized in the Wild format after week 1 when they are focused on Modern instead?
I think this is a lousy way to encourage match liquidity. The motivation to earn ranked rewards should be incentive enough for people to play matches. Plus these players were averaging about 20 matches per day over a 15-day season. Angel and Intsa are both over 20 battles/day. That seems like pretty heavy use to me.
If you intend to somehow propose to rework the code to split the bonus at the top so we aren't giving out more than is allotted, it can be done without some ridiculous rating deflation system that penalizes people for their prerogative not to play. I think it would be foolish and would lead to many more problems than the narrow solution you are trying to find.