RE: Season 6 Updates and Balance Changes!
I think it is more important to tackle the bots than to reduce the reward cards
I couldn't agree more @simplymike. Why can't the accounts that use them be banned? Are they owned by the big spenders? They are easy to identify and it doesn't take much work to discover the bot network they are part of. Can't that be programmed in?
Not all of us want to work our way up to Champions League. Until this season I have really enjoyed playing in Silver and working my way to Gold by the end of the season.
That wasn't the case this season as the Level 2 and 3 bots have made it practically impossible to play a Life quest when they are around. My life cards won't beat theirs so there have been many times when I've had to walk away and wait until they've moved on.
When they aren't around I've had fun but I'll doubt I'll continue to play. I'll probably wait for delegation to be set up and then let others who are more skilled than I am play with my cards.
When I started it was said that we would be able to level our cards by playing them but that also was taken off the table.
It just seems so unbalanced towards the top players. I get that they have invested the money but I don't get why solving the bot problem has to penalise the genuine lower level players.
The bots and the value of the cards are two separate problems. Wouldn't it be better to find two different solutions to them?
I agree about the average prices too. It would be more representative to use the mean amount rather than the average.
The daily quests and season rewards have been great and I'm glad I started playing right at the beginning and was able to earn some.
It's been fun seeing how games such as these get developed as well.
They can't ban players due to this being on the blockchain. Its too bad that a team or possibly a person or two has to set up those bots and ruin the fun. Try using your sneak monsters in the back when against those bots. I can't exactly remember the combo I used but sneak was the key to me beating them.
I don't get what being on the blockchain has to do with it @rentmoney. This is a business. They set the rules about everything else to do with the game. What's the difference?
Were you able to beat a level 3 bot with a level 1 summoner when both are playing life? I can beat them at times but not in that scenario and so many of them play level 1 cards in the other splinters but up the level for the life one.
Anyway. I think my main point is the fact that there appear to be 2 problems and 1 solution given.
Maybe there isn't a better solution to the bot problem, I'm not a programmer, but if I can discover these nets by hand then surely it could be done automatically and they could be blocked.
I will be interested to see what the outcome of this solution will be at the end of next season. 😁
The majority are against banning people and nuking cards. I am not one of those people. The game being on the blockchain is the reason they give for being against it.
I understand your frustration. I was simply trying to help you find a way to beat the bots. Are all your summoners / monsters at level one ?
Thanks. I appreciate that @rentmoney. I didn't mean to sound ungrateful. 😂
Not all my summoners are level 1, in fact I have started levelling up my main account but I like playing at the lower levels.
I will be very happy if this solution gets rid of the bots but what's to stop the bot builders just building more bots?
Time will tell . . .
@rentmoney, Is it a coincidence that they are all owned by one player? I wonder if he acts alone, or it's just convenient for SM to have bots around to make up for the low number of players in the lower leagues? This guy has worked for them before, developing the marketbot and the trading bot. Ii'm not saying it is like that, but the deeper I dig, the more it looks like that
I think if SM wants bots around to keep games active then they should add some themselves. No users should be allowed to use bots to collect rewards. I don't even agree with allowing bots in the market-place.
Bots have a bad stigma. Even if a person doesn't agree with that bad stigma its still there and its not worth the headache they cause to have them around.
The founders did a great job with fighting bots when they added the changes of excluding a splinter and Mana changes so that shows they are attempting to tackle the situation.
By the way, according to matt they weren't aware that it was rondras who owned 20+ bots. I showed him and asked him if he was doing this as part of an agreement with them, because I agree that putting the bots there themselves would be a lot smarter than letting a user do it.
But he claimed they had nothing to do with it.
So I assume they are just gonna let him continue. While banning those and setting up their own would mean that a whole lot of reward cards shouldn't be distributed.
I can't even imagine how many reward cards 20 bots (level 1 to 7 ot 8) rake in in one season...
Wow ... I was unaware that someone had 20 + bots in the system.
I have to give some credit to the founders here. They have tried to fight bots and implemented great changes in the past such as Mana cap changes and splinter exclusions for battles. We have to keep in mind they are trying to fight them in ways that don't hurt their claim of SM is a decentralized game.
There is no use in mentioning the word ban as a large amount of players are against it so banning will likely never take place due to the, this is a decentralized game crowd. How-ever I think a great alternative option would be to exclude those caught using bots. So these players won't be banned but instead they can be excluded from site sponsored games and league play.
Maybe, but he's not just some player, so I don't think chances are big that there will be consequences...
I really hope you're right, @rentmoney. I really do.
Fingers crossed, the founders and team work hard so they more then anyone else want to see this game succeed.
I made a post yesterday detailing what I thought was a more fair cut back of rewards. Below is the graph ... what do you think of my suggestion ? I think 15 free cards daily is more then enough to give out to anyone and still might be on the high end. I agree with starting with 1 and I agree that some cutbacks are needed. I don't agree with how lop sided those changes are.
My system gives more to the little guy and takes away more from the top. Bringing the ratio of rewards down for the top players get from 20 - 1 to 15 - 1. Top players or champion league players also get a 30 - 1 ratio in league standings and get to fight for a top 10 league prize. With all these nice incentives for top players they don't need the daily swayed in their favor as much as it is. Something needs to be more geared towards the little guy or average player. Smaller accounts should get much less then the larger ones but not at the rate purposed.
I am of the opinion that Percentage wise lower level players should be getting more as to keep them active in the game and give them the feeling of winning. This creates positive moral and motivation for lower level players to move up the ranks and continue playing the game, which is very important for the over all health of any game and in the long run helps those of us that have invested.
I saw it yesterday, and I also saw the annoyed reactions that were posted (actually, I saw only one, because I passed by only quickly)
I'm glad to hear that at least some of the mavs are concerned about the fact that the game is way too top-heavy.
But you caught me at a wrong time. I just had a short conversation with Matt, and it became clear to me that the lower level players are the least of their concerns....
I'm going to give up the fight for equal rights or fair distribution. I'm done with it...
Now you're simply talking about opponents to your/rentmoney's plan as horrible people, which is not what's happening. Percentage-wise, the lower players already get much more than the higher players.
@pizzachain, I got the advice not to go into discussion with you. Still, I'm willing to spend my time giving you another tip:
Don't jump to conclusions when you don't know the entire story. ;0)
I already explained to you why your reasoning for that statement is wrong. Via our debates : You based it on, those with less cards in their collection already get a higher percentage of free rewards then those with more cards in their collection so those with less already get more. This reasoning can't be applied to SM because players can have lots of cards and be playing the lower levels and vise versa..... Players can have few cards and be playing the higher levels.
Take a look at these cuts. A blind man can see they are unfair.
Silver
60-20% less rewards daily
40% less rewards at end of season.
Diamond
33-6.33% less rewards daily
25% less rewards at end of season.
Champion
20-0% less rewards daily
20-0% season less rewards at end of season..
The founders are trying to sell packs with 5 cards in them for $2 and at the same time giving away up to 20 cards a day for free in the daily. Its easy to see why pack sales have come to a crawl. The whole daily quest system needs to be reworked. The cards shouldn't be seen as rewards for those who already have. They should be seen as a tool to onboard new players who can earn cards for free and then move on to buying Alpha and Beta cards once they get hooked on playing the game with the rewards cards. No-one should be getting 20 free cards a day. I would even argue that no-one should be getting 10 free cards a day.
👍👍👍
👍👍👍
Top players (Champion III and Champion II) are also going down on this. I'm a player currently residing at the lower end of Champion III and I'm perfectly fine with earning 4 less reward cards per day. These changes, even if the bot-thing was excluded, make sense to me, because:
Bronze league is more like a starter-league/learning phase. Players who can't get to Silver are players who don't yet know how the game works. Or they are just really, really bad, but then that's a different problem.
Now it's much harder for players to sustain a position in Silver I than to sustain a position in Silver III, so a difference in quest rewards between those 2 makes perfect sense. Good players will rank higher and higher, going to silver I and maybe even Gold III with just level 1 cards. Then the player can use their reward cards to go even higher than that!
Now you may say "But pizza, the higher players get way more reward cards than the lower ones! How is that fair?"
Well, my dear Mike, that's fair, since the top players have:
-Invested more
-The players at the absolute top (Champion I) are generally really skilled players. Even if you have maxed cards, it's very difficult to get there and then we're not even talking about finishing a quest there. That's much easier at the lower leagues.
-Need more reward cards to keep their decks at a reasonable level. In the lower leagues, there's limits. People don't need to buy a ton of reward cards to stick to the top of their leagues. In silver, you only need 25 commons, 11 rares, 6 epics and 3 legendaries to use MAXED cards for that league! In Champion, you need to use MUCH more!
And with those maxed cards in silver, you can easily get into Gold and start earning even more rewards to grow your deck. The bronze players don't need skill. The Silver players need a bit of skill. The gold players need either leveled cards or a good amount of skill. Diamond needs both and Champion I needs both at a very high level.
So is it fair? I say yes.
Probably more fair than you downvoting my comment, only because you disagree...
People seem to upvote comments because they agree.
So why wouldn't I downvote because I disagree?
Because it would be a lot more interesting and valuable to exchange thoughts and discuss the matter, and in the end maybe agree to disagree.
Are you aware of the consequences a downvote can have? If you do the same to others whos reputation level is lower than yours, it can have a serious influence on their rep score. Do you think it would be fair to lower someone's rep score, just because you disagree?
Indeed, I find it quite interesting and valuable to exchange thoughts and discuss the matter, and in the end maybe agree to disagree. However, people constantly upvote the comments they agree upon and I do the same, but also downvote comments I disagree upon.
And as a downvote lowers the reputation, so does an upvote make the reputation score of a user higher. Besides, my vote is really not worth a lot.
The fact that it is not worth a lot is besides the matter. For someone with a rep of 48 it could have a lot of consequences.
Normally, one downvotes a comment because it is abusive or something like that. But there are no rules, so you can do as you please.
But be careful who you downvote. If you downvote someone with a much higher vote value than you, you need to take into consideration that some people have a short temper and could destroy your rep in no time.
Just sayin'
I find the taboo of downvoting a bit stupid. Now I'm not saying I'm going to downvote every post someone makes that I disagree upon, but if I'm actively participating in a discussion and I see others upvoting posts with 'Agreement' as the sole reason, I'm going to join them, but on my way:
Upvoting comments/posts I agree upon and downvoting comments/posts I disagree upon. It's that easy, really!
If I had a higher upvote value, I would just make it a certain percentage. And believe me, even for a 48-rep, my downvotes don't mean a lot. Of course, it'll have some sort of an impact if I downvote every single post/comment they make, but I don't do that.
If someone decides to destroy my rep, I move my steemmonsters cards to an alternative account and everything I got on here. Problem fixed. If they wish to waste money on destroying my rep, I would naturally be disappointed in their behaviour, but it would not be the end of the world. If someone downvotes me with 100 SP, I'd likely not even notice.