#Bad Smurf

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

loud cliff
#

Right now probably more than 50% or leaderboard spots are occupied by accounts that are not eligible for rewards. Inactive accounts, smurfs and account that didnt play their 15 games.

If you were to finish 2nd and 1st place is someone without 15 games the prize for 1st would just be canceled and you would have 6ilv instead of 9 when you are in reality 1st for the week.

It was initially planned that those accounts wouldnt count and the rule recently changed. I asked and couldnt get an answer of why that is but i presume its for the time it would take. Still this feels wrong to me and many.

I suggest the removal of ineligible accounts in the paid top 1000 arena leaderboard.

I also suggest removing the new rule that makes your highest account your eligible account for the week. Smurfs are already a problem and this new rule just made every competitor obliged to have 3+ accounts instead or 2.

I dont think we will have to do an IIP for those things but the team is hearing feedback and id like for us to discuss those topics and gauge community sentiment 🍞

tropic beacon
#

There are so many inactive accounts in the top 1,000 right now. It seems like either you're competing for the top 100 or you're playing against those players.....making it nearly impossible to even get into 500-1000 with that giant wall of inactive accounts. New players will be highly discouraged to even try because of this.

loud cliff
tropic beacon
#

And they got into the top 1000 when it was easy, but haven't been bumped down enough yet.

wind sphinx
#

they should have done a reset before any rewards are given out.

steady ingot
#

100% agree.. I assume it's being worked on already, but we should at least get all those accounts that was "soft reset" to 1372elo and is now inactive, changed to at least 700 as that would be the start point for any new player. As it is right now they are blocking a pretty big portion of the leaderboard for new players, which I think is a bad experience for anyone coming to the game and trying to play for a spot in top 1000.

rich wren
#

I'll just leave this here as well, we are paying top 1000 but week one only had 176 eligible players and week two 149 players

harsh lava
#

Each week everyone should be reset to 1000 so it’s a fresh competition.

#

Would encourage a lot more play

#

New players would feel like they have a shot to climb

#

And the current system encourages Smurfs to suppress lower ranks from climbing

loud cliff
loud cliff
rich plover
#

I agree with the idea that this needs to be improved. There are many way Illuvium can go about fixing this and I'd like to see them offer a solution sooner rather than later. It's kind of like Lucy taking the football away here and is not the greatest look for the company. Definitely an opportunity to improve here.

dull badger
#

If the issue is dev time or that it would take too much time in general in my opinion us making money for playing the game seems incredibly selfish if it takes away from open beta. Not to mention it ironically hurts us if it hurts dev time that much. We’re a DAO but we constantly complain about small things like this when the big picture would helps us all out far more. Idk maybe I’m missing something 🤔

proud ore
#

I stand as witness to the hopelessness and futility of the climb

rich plover
# dull badger If the issue is dev time or that it would take too much time in general in my op...

You must be missing something... Did you get my reference of Lucy taking the football away? Because the feeling is exactly like that. Illuvium says: "we're paying top 1000 spots", but then Illuvium does "pays top 150 spots" - this is not a good look, especially in the web3 space with all sorts of scams going on left, right and center. I don't care what they do or how they fix it, but, imo it should be fixed. For example, it would be much better (but same thing) to just say we're paying top 150 spots and then do just what they are doing now. Do you see my point here?

loud cliff
#

The thing is that it was initially planned otherwise and it changed, we dont know why

dull badger
#

But then it’s only 50 people and even less people make money than before. I’m not against having a discussion but I am against putting too much effort on the team to do this or that thing because it benefits me instead of working towards open beta which would benefit everyone including me far more which I think people miss constantly.

harsh lava
#

The way the current system is set up it doesn’t encourage new players. If one of the goals is to onboard new players then a system should be implemented that encourages that.

Clash royale’s system is good. You rank up fast in the beginning then gradually gets harder and harder. But each arena you make it to you are buffered there and cannot fall below the base rank for that arena. That encourages continued practice without the discouragement of falling way down like Ilv current system whenever a new patch comes out.

The way Illuvium’s rank/reward system is set up it encourages smurfing… and it’s gross.

sleek crag
# dull badger But then it’s only 50 people and even less people make money than before. I’m no...

Cheers for getting this started Patate! I’ll start by saying I’m loving PVP and stoked we are finally getting rewards.

While everyone (including high elo players) want rewards, this really isn’t a small thing about selfish players thinking of themselves.

It’s about the overall system of reward distribution, and the communication around it. The team will improve each week, and I’m sure most of us here have waited long enough to be patient while they figure things out, but right now it doesn’t make sense to most and is confusing players. Which creates more work for the mods, Rich & devs to constantly answer questions in the lead up to Open Beta.

I think highest account rewards makes sense and ineligible accounts blocking rewards is what it is for now.
But a simple solution for the benefit of many would be to implement an elo decay for inactive accounts.

dull badger
#

As I said it’s only selfish IF it delays the production and release of open beta. I want to make that very clear that I’m not just calling you guys cry babies 😂👍

near ginkgo
#

what if a big chunk of those "inactive accounts" were merely bots used to pump the DAU? I know...I am too pessimistic maybe..but something is really wrong here

grim torrent
#

Making more smurf accounts **knowing **that every smurf you have in the top 1k is effectively keeping a genuine player from getting rewarded appropriately for their effort seems like the selfish thing to me. Real individual people fighting to get their rightfully deserved reward is not selfish, it is standing up for yourself.

Discouraging dozens or hundreds of players in order to appease a handful who want 10 chances at lucky win streak.. is just not the way.

I have been involved with running pool leagues and tournaments for 30 years and there is a reason why you must 1) check in and 2) not play as more than one person. If someone tried to sign up 3 times so they could have 3 chances to get lucky, they would be laughed right out of the place.

Similarly, if I told the 15th place winner that 6 higher ranked players had been disqualified but he still only gets the 15th place prize and the rest goes into the pot for next week, I would probably get hit over the head. He would expect 9th place, and rightfully so.

Just my opinion, though based on decades of experience in this area, would be to make each week a new and specific leaderboard ranking that each player would have to "check-in" to and only one account per player (unless their account was bugged out, in which case there would be documentation in support to verify).

I know we don't do KYC, but we could make it a more involved check-in process in order to negate much of the potential abuse of the system. If someone had to check in and fill a form and check the box and respond to an email, it would be an easy 2 minute process for one account, but become very cumbersome to do that for 5 accounts every week and thus would discourage many alt accounts without adding much extra effort for devs.

Also with a check-in feature, it would be easy for those who really want a few "testing" accounts to try new decks out but not interfere with other people's winnings. Just don't check in with your alt accounts and they won't be in that leaderboard payout list. Easy peasy.

What's done is done, but moving forward I hope we can work this out to actually get rewards to the top 1000 individual people that played and ranked each week.

dull badger
# grim torrent Making more smurf accounts **knowing **that every smurf you have in the top 1k i...

Calling smurf accounts selfish because they want to experiment and avoid risking LP on their main is a great way to drive competitive players away. With the way our elo system operates that is simply not fair, and it's wrong to shame those players for their smurfing. Comparing rewards on a leaderboard to rewards in a tournament doesn't make sense. If they don't play in ranked mode on a smurf, they have nowhere else to practice, unlike in a tournament where competing or playing ranked online is an option.

While I understand and agree with everyone that it's not fair how the leaderboard rewards currently work, prioritizing changes that may delay the open beta release could harm the ecosystem as a whole. Including the players who wouldn't be able to get rewards if this change isn't implemented. As a business aiming to generate revenue, we shouldn't delay the open beta for such changes. If we delay the open beta, we all risk losing more than just a bit of ILV per week. Revenue generation and open beta release should come before personal feelings/gain/short-term fairness. As a DAO, we must be able to look past short-term problems if they require too much development time until there is time to appropriately address them.

I acknowledge that I may be the only one with this viewpoint, but it comes from a genuine love for Illuvium and a desire to see it succeed for the entire community's sake. I will say I love your idea on how to fix this issue. I think some kind of registration is definitely a viable way to make rewards more fair than the system we currently have.

gentle quartz
#

I would only want to do this if it would be minimal to no DEV time, like @dull badger is arguing for.

I think simplest solution is to just have a manual list go out every week with all the disqualified taken out and top 1000 players get rewards.

A nice to have would be to lower dead accounts since it makes it hard to estimate your current spot.

But I also want to figure out the main goals of the rewards system. Is it to get new players? Is it to get more games played to have more testing. What would adjusting how we are currently doing rewards affect the main goal.

loud cliff
#

Yes we all agree with you Jimbo but you are speculating. Ive made this post because to me this is not a trivial thing. I wanted the team to see the community sentiment around it and tell us what they were going to do initially and why they changed their mind

Even if we have 70-1 upvotes if the Team can explain a good reason for it we may not push anything further

dull badger
#

I understand my take is purely speculation and it's definitely possible there is a quick fix. My only point is if there is no quick fix we all lose much more than a few ILV per week. I simply want to make that clear in case that is the situation that comes up because we've had multiple issues like this in the past Atlas_Love ❤️

jovial zodiac
#

the rewards are there to retain players and get new players (pump dau).
if the current system is discouraging new players, and only benefiting certain people, then it is defeating the purpose

sharp quest
dull badger
sharp quest
# dull badger No one uses casual play and if a top player like Viper went into casual play to ...

So maybe that is the direction
Players also have to play a certain amount of casual. Or all Smurfs have to play casual first.
I'm sure there is a way to fix it without using dev time, which I agree has other priorities, yet to see this is as fair I don't know.
Soon you may only have a few players with multiple Smurf accounts.
Maybe they should just stop rewards all together.
It's marketed to people that they can play PVP get into to top leaderboard and earn something.

If I was new and came in to do that, then realized what was going on, I'd be disappointed.

dull badger
#

I would also be disappointed as a new player, but everyone would be disappointed and lose much more if we continue adding things to the list that delay the open beta, resulting in no players. However, there is a possibility that there is an easy fix that won't cause delays, in which case, I would obviously love for it to be implemented.

dull badger
#

@paper brook When you get the chance are you able to clarify the amount of time it would take to solve this issue?

tropic beacon
#

Though there has been good feedback from those top players too....which is worth something. Meh, maybe just live with a bad system for a few more months.

light crag
#

My 2 cents for proposed solution, which should be easy. Current system with smurfs and innactives is unlucky, but it is what it is. Open Beta is crucial, so definitely we dont want to delay that. But since team already has a way to filter ilegible users and has that list which is being pinned in arena, why they cant just move all players up after filtering? And then distribute prizes based on that, either manually or automatically. That move/sort action cant be that hard, since filtering is already done. This should solve smurf and inactive problem. Decaying will only solve inactive problem and it probably takes more dev time

sharp quest
harsh lava
sharp quest
#

It is sad though no one uses it. As a person who really needs to learn the game I am forced to play ranked. Yet I do know they are bringing in other things so maybe that will change. Plus when more people come.

harsh lava
sharp quest
#

I do agree though that guilds are helpful. I'm still in my guild from ESO and they taught me the most.

harsh lava
#

kyc...
I think shrapnel even kycs
kyc is so taboo to many tho

sharp quest
jovial zodiac
#

ru sure filow

sleek crag
jovial zodiac
#

if this is true, a simple solution is just to downgrade their elo for inactivity

sleek crag
jovial zodiac
#

im not a dev. if i have the list on excel, i can just highlight the ineligible and filter them. got the 1000 eligible players

#

unless the dev has done that and there are only sub 200 players

sharp quest
#

Yeah I was thinking there may be other reasons. The more I think on it the more I think just halting rewards will be the best option if it is really shown to have no new player value.

jovial zodiac
#

prob wanna check the numbers again @rich wren

wintry zinc
#

Hey folks, I'm on leave but I saw this thread and couldn't help but reply

#

Right now the reward processing is quite manual, there are scripts but there is still a lot of leg work to do nickname checks, smurf checks, wallet checks, games checks, etc.

#

This is why we kept the metric very simple (must be above 1000) but stated clearly that any 'missed rewards' will go to a pool for future distribution to Arena players.

#

Soon (target next sprint) the automated payment system will be deployed, it can be a lot more clever about how we determine eligibility, and at that point we will almost certainly change the rules along the lines of what has been suggested here.

#

I have also raised a separate request to update leaderboards to exclude all players who are inactive for a long period of time, *X days * (for example 45 days or 60 days). This is a separate (small) piece of work, but it will also remove them from any reward calculation. I'm not sure if this has been scheduled yet, but imagine it also wont be too far away.

jovial zodiac
rich wren
rich wren
# wintry zinc Right now the reward processing is quite manual, there are scripts but there is...

It pains me to say this, but the team should really stop rushing things it just sets a bad image to them.
The team gives so much attention to detail on some things that it baffles me how lackluster other things are executed.

How come we release a reward system for potentially 1000 tx's and we don't prepare them to be on L2?
How come we have anti-smurf policies but then no automated system to detect them?

Here we are worried not to delay OB any further but then the team decides to release a system that requires someone to do these things manually every week.
These things should be automated from the start, if they aren't then please don't release them...

rich wren
#

Here is my suggestion.
When this week ends we will complete our 1st month of rewards.
We could either do:

  • a soft rating reset
  • put all ineligible players at 500 rating
  • both
jovial zodiac
#

the ICC briefly talked about this, and we will have nick next week

sharp quest
#

Cool

queen willow
# rich wren It pains me to say this, but the team should really stop rushing things it just ...

If you look at the timing this was done for one superficial reason that the team has to consider because lots of people on the market are still looking at superficial data to judge a project.

It was done to avoid a decline in the monthly active user graph, so it had to be released during the last week of January, ready or not.

It still boggles my mind that so many people are looking at DAU as relevant data, when that is a metric for web2 games. Somehow forgetting that the most important aspect of a web3 game is that is on the blockchain, which will obviously be missing from a beta, preventing many people to play. But it is what it is. The market looks at this and the team has to consider it.

rich wren
sand saffron
#

The filter is already there, it is not more work to actually use it in the right way. Smurfs are already filtered out, just give the reward to the next in line, plain and simple.

sharp quest
magic prairie
#

Inactive accounts for X days should be removed like most agree. But no one has mentioned what if someone is excluded because of a mistake? (eg name change bug or mistaken as smurf). And those rewards are given to someone else, what should illuvium do on that case?

Current system allows them to correct that mistake.

sand saffron
sharp quest
jovial zodiac
jovial zodiac
magic prairie
jovial zodiac
magic prairie
sharp quest
#

Maybe it is more about how people are using the system than the system itself.

jovial zodiac
#

dont blame the players, blame the game

sleek crag
# jovial zodiac wdym superficial? the team is working hard to bring changes to arena to make it...

Community tournaments have pretty much stopped due to Illuvium pausing the ILV grant for prize money and low player count doesn’t help that.

I don’t think the point here is to manage player behavior or ban Smurfs. Even filtering Smurfs out can cause problems as @magic prairie mentioned.

Simplest solution that has the least impact on all is implementing elo decay for inactive accounts. My understanding is this is common in PVP games?

jovial zodiac
#

yes, some games do a downgrade at the start of each season

sleek crag
# jovial zodiac yes, some games do a downgrade at the start of each season

It wasn’t exactly clear and IMO there should be a one-pager we can share with guild leaders to drive the initiative when it goes live again. But what was shared was;

  1. game isn't particularly good right now and they have many major overhauls coming.

  2. The results aren't terrible but cannot justify the spend right now

  3. Illuvium hasn't had the time to properly analyse all the data yet. Having some breathing room will allow them to evaluate and decide on their next move

jovial zodiac
sleek crag
gentle quartz
#

We should really announce things like rewards as *subject to change at any time. Might prevent some of community kick back.

royal light
#

It’s really as simple as that

#

(Temporary exclusion)

#

I mean how hard would it be to have a first filter that says for each player, if weekly games < 15, pop player, next player’s rank decrease by 1

#

That could be totally automated, and then the team would get back to whatever manual filter they use after applying this first easy filter

harsh lava
#

Or... just ban smurfing. 1st time warning, 2nd - ban for a week, third - ban for a month, 4th - PERMABAN.

#

90-95% of my opponents are smurfs with no illuvitar icon or unique name... pretty sure this isn't what the team had in mind for a playerbase

jovial zodiac
#

team is allowing smurfs

magic prairie
sharp quest
tropic beacon
#

Smurfs are only a problem for the top ~50 spots, and hopefully people know better by now than to have a smurf that high. Inactive accounts are the main problem for the bottom ~700.

wary tapir
# tropic beacon Smurfs are only a problem for the top ~50 spots, and hopefully people know bette...

Check out vipers new video on how to climb in the top 10 and tell me people know not to smurf in the top 50. TLDR of the video is get to top 10 on your main, then play your smurf to beat your main using main as highest place holder, then when smurf is higher use main to try to climb as the smurf is now the highest place holder, Rinse repeat and here is the problem! Not the video but thats exactly what people are doing. I have no issue with this however , I have issue with the fact all the smurfs being ineligible accounts therefore taking the places from others!

tropic beacon
# wary tapir Check out vipers new video on how to climb in the top 10 and tell me people know...

Yeah, I agree. That's the smart way to play, but the system doesn't handle it right now.

Still, this only impacts the very highest players, whereas the giant wall of inactive accounts prevents less competitive players from even making places ~300-1k.

I think using the rewards to attract new players should at least be slightly higher priority than ensuring all the highest players get their max rewards. Both are certainly important though as I appreciate the die-hards who produce content and great feedback for the devs, which has raised the bar.

glass shuttle
#

Elo decay for inactive players. If you don't get your 15 games in you should lose elo.

magic prairie
dull badger
harsh lava
dull badger
#

That’s a fair take

sleek crag
harsh lava
#

How about a daily decay of 2% and any inactive account for more than 2 weeks gets dropped... also include the minimum of 15 or 25 games needed/wk.

lilac fossil
#

Just ban smurfs altogether already, what is running here, a circus or a esport. While i was initially writing in IIP to create fair play rules and tos, i quickly realized all the main smurfers are on the council, so i figured it wouldnt get far, but to my surprise, i have heard nothing but DM's in how smurfs are ruining their experience.. go figure eh

lilac fossil
dull badger
# lilac fossil lol, they dont get big cuz they play or learn fair

I'm honestly not trying to be mean, but they are higher on the leaderboard because they are better than you. The only reason smurfing is such a huge problem is because of how few people are playing the game. You wouldn't run into them every match if we had a larger player base, so your opinion is skewed due to your circumstances.

lilac fossil
#

lol, ridiculous, i dont even play a game that isnt complete and will have zero factor when the game launches as it will be completely different... i onyl care about fair gaming, i play between the lines.. the ones on the top in the test of time, are always ones bending factors in their favor.. aka smurfing being the main, as they wont play on their high account with a new team to stay at that rank... while i will pick 20 cards and play and not give a fuck

dull badger
lilac fossil
#

who's complaining about losing? lol

dull badger
#

I dont understand the problem then?

lilac fossil
#

i hate cheatetrs... fact, see myt 20 year career in pro sports, they ruined my career... i built anti cheat software for years... only to see developers cater to cheats.. fuck cheaters... all of them

dull badger
#

Smurfing isnt cheating?

lilac fossil
#

if you say so, lol, go try that in a chess tournament, carlson only plays 2 opens a year, because he has to play 2400-2600 ELO while he is 2800 ELO and can lose, meaning he has to play 24 more games and win all to stay at 2800.... does he smurf though? no he plays his 2 opens

#

and if you think thats the only thing it bothers, explain how your lower players get better, if they are matching up against 1000's who are using the 1800 decks and know how to use it.... try plaing 60 more games just because of one queue.... when you get -600

#

what its doing is making them quit, but have fun feeding ilv to your "PRO's"

#

and i have heard more complaints from the 50-150 ranked more than any other player saying how smurfing is ruining the fun. so there goes your "you suck" mentality

dull badger
lilac fossil
dull badger
lilac fossil
#

its ranked, lol

#

he cant lose rank if he's not playing his account... has nothing to do with who's good... its fucking stupid, pathetic, and 100% cheating... the excuse is, that casual isnt popping? pathetic.... they got a discord with hundreds of players, they can ask anyone one a whim, hey wanna play test my new team... but no, let me lurk in the shadows... its easier for me to destroy others at their expense clicking a button than doing whats right

#

its RANKED it affects ELO, 2 opens are required on the tournament

dull badger
#

Sorry you're wrong. I'd continue the conversation but I don't think you would give my opinion an honest chance. Appreciate your passion tho Atlas_Love

lilac fossil
#

oh, im wrong cuz you say so.. good one.. yeah we are done

#

here's a quote from a top 100 ranked player maybe top 50 "Top 25 players are ruining the fun for everyone with smurfing"

dull badger
#

As I said it has more to do with you being unwilling to listen because you're too emotional. Which as I said I appreciate the passion 🤷‍♂️

lilac fossil
#

unwiling to listen to what? you have no point..your whole point was I suck, and smurfing isnt cheating

#

the only reason smurfing exists is from shit games looking the other way for $$$$ to sell their game copies lol.. have fun ruining this esport before it gets started.. your looking at a 75% will not participate right out of the gate

lilac fossil
#

he is not allowed to test his COW opening in ranked under another account lol... could you imagine

#

yeah yu got nothing.. i win again

harsh lava
#

Who knew a smurf could stir up so much heat. Thank goodness there's still time to hit closer to center. Won't be able to please everyone... but I'm sure from all the ideas put out here some changes will be implemented that will hopefully take things in a direction that promotes new user interest and retention.

tight locust
#

Just want to drop by this thread to let all concerned parties know that IMC picked this topic up and was discussed in our last meeting already.

Without disclosing more details as this is reserved for the team to share, I'd like to let everyone know that the team is aware of this and will be communicating the solution they've been working on this particular issues.

So please lookout for the official communication from labs.

Om behald of the IMC, thank you for actively providing insightful discourse. Please continue to do so not only on this topic but on others that you deem are important for us to push action on.

TLDR: they know it's an issue and a solution will be implemented soon.

jovial zodiac
jovial zodiac
jovial zodiac
#

this is what need to be changed : "Smurf Account Policy: If you have multiple accounts, only the highest-ranking one will be eligible for payment."

#

watching viper guide to climb ranked using smurfs
maybe players need to pick one account and stick with it

dull badger
#

This will pretty much destroy any reason to Smurf other than practicing new team comps whoch is fine. If a top player is practicing new team comps against lower rated players using solid meta comps the playing field should be much more even than it would be if it was just constant grinding of smurfs with the best meta team.

jovial zodiac
#

my take on this so far:

  • people just need to register once for their main account and will continue to use their main account for rewards. maybe they can switch accounts after season reset.
  • smurfs are allowed if they explicitly identify the smurfs
  • if they get caught using non-identifiable smurfs they will get permanently banned

one thing people keep forgetting is that the DAO is paying people with tokens, this is not our typical web2 games with no monetary rewards

low owl
#

Imagine people would actually use casual for testing Decks. Top Players would Match top Players in casual, and quickly know if their Deck is viable instead of wrecking casuals and not actually knowing if the Deck is viable.... and all the casuals can keep playing ranked to get a higher ranking

jovial zodiac
#

people can use their alts to play themselves in casual

#

there is a good reason why big time and shrapnel are using KYC, because they know paying smurfs with token is a bad idea

low owl
glass shuttle
sand saffron
#

To avoid camping it is probably better to have 2 accounts elligible for rewards

#

That way you are trying to surpass your other account and playing top raring games. Otherwise ppl will play their 15 games on top and not play more than that

loud cliff
#

Having any account eligible incentivize people to create infinite accounts and also push on more than 1 account

Viper got top 5 on a new account in a couple hours yesterday, he could do that any time he feel his current win rate is 90+ and in a matter of 2 weeks we would have top 50 with 20 viper accounts. Its an advantage now and even more when we get soft reset

I dont see any upside to this new rule, the only reason i see is to create more DAU because instead of having 2 accounts, 1 to grind and 1 to practice we are now incentivized the more we grind with

rich plover
# lilac fossil unwiling to listen to what? you have no point..your whole point was I suck, and ...

Smurfing is not cheating and everyone should understand this.

I'm getting very tired of people who are given leeway to call other people names in a public forum without any pushback. I am not a cheater - I do have smurfs - - they are all clearly labeled per the rules Illuvium set out. I do not like the current system, but I must abide by it. It is nearly impossible to compete at a high level without at least one smurf account. This is not because all of the top players are, as you say, cheaters. It is because they optimize the ruleset given to them. Illuvium has clearly stated the rules and players who are simply abiding by those rules are being called cheaters publicly with zero pushback. It's not right. I'm pushing back. You are wrong, sir, and should learn to understand why.

Some have a difficult time accepting their own mediocrity. But, trying to drag down and slander others to feel better about oneself is not the way. Offering feeback to the Illuvium team in a concise and thoughtful manner is our main purpose and it can be done without the name calling.

There is a small handful of people who are hurt by this the most. I'm in that group. Viper's accounts alone are costing me over $100 in ILV this week. I'm not complaining though, because Illuvium has an incredible track record and they will fix this issue - making the game even better moving forward. I will patiently await the improvements while continuing to enjoy the game in this early access state.

jovial zodiac
glass shuttle
# rich plover Smurfing is not cheating and everyone should understand this. I'm getting very...

I wouldn't call it cheating. My question is, is smurfing having a positive or a negative impact on new players and therefore is it helping the team achieve the purpose of this beta or not.

Imo it is a problem and it isn't helping the team achieve it's objectives. That's why I don't smurf but that's me. I ain't going to criticise those that do though because it's within the rules. It is what it is 🤷‍♂️

sand saffron
#

I think the first move would be to have a set amount of accounts maximum. It is just a small to change to the current system that would probably be a benefit

rich plover
#

Most of us are all on the same page. Just waiting for the issue to be officially addressed. Also, Smurfs are a big issue, an unpleasant experience and nearly everyone wants a resolution asap.

sleek crag
loud cliff
sleek crag
loud cliff
crude wave
#

imagen let player steal 2 reward from top 10 just coz he can play infinite amount of games and others cant : DDDDDDDD

image.png
glass shuttle
rich wren
harsh lava
#

Problem is, if the system isn’t inviting for new players we won’t have a game

#

I like the idea that mentioned of a rewards sign in. You sign up with certain verifiable credentials in order to be eligible for rewards. That way the general leaderboard can be whatever…. But the reward leaderboard is 100% unique individuals.

loud cliff
#

It used to be only main account eligible, no need for nothing fancy just remove the new rule

magic prairie
#

the issue needs to be addressed just I can see now why it is the way it is. I think decay solves it to some degree without creating more problems

sand saffron
#

Decay + number of account maximum by players are the 2 way to go

magic prairie
crimson wren
sand saffron
loud cliff
lilac fossil
magic prairie
loud cliff
#

There was no problem with the old rule of main account gets rewards. People that wanted to compete had their main account and then 1 to practice, now we are incentivizing you to have as much accounts as possible

magic prairie
loud cliff
#

Yes exactly and not extra has half the rewards arent given out

magic prairie
lilac fossil
#

there literrally is a youtube video where a content creator is earning revenue in the marketing program saying, RUN A SMURF so you DONT LOSE ELO, when practicing a new team in ranked.. lol

#

this issue goes back years guys... remove it... i watched the pro's do it in HOTS< they get their 5 man team at launch... they play with their friends on alts, and they run the carry, they play their 20 games get highest rank, then never play that account again... then they run claiming they are 3000, while i carry them in game

sand saffron
lilac fossil
#

is it fair to play a guy on his alt and win, and not be able to climb and him descend? this is not even a debatable subject... its insane

#

this also a 3rd party factor, if i play you and win, you dont lose rank... cuz your on your smurf... it also affects others, because it doesnt drop the highest to be more rightfully lower for oothers to acheive... i mean, to debate ths logic, please tell me... why do you want to play on another account so bad?

#

tthere's only one reason, to cheat your ELO

#

oh you cant do casual, the queues are SO BAD, hop in the chat room, im sure someone would love to play you

#

oh you dont want to waste your time on a 1500 game... NUFF SAID

wintry zinc
#

Automation
Hey folks, the code for automation for both Beyond and Arena rewards went to UAT today, and is thus expected to be ready for PROD next week. Unless there are some major bugs discovered, this week will be the last manual snapshot.

Fast Track
Regarding 'rushing things out', we are trying to find the balance between moving fast and being perfect, the general sentiment is we went too far down the 'perfect' road on a lot of things, and we need to be a bit more responsive and fast moving.

Specifically for rewards, we handled the Beyond rewards semi-manually for a long time without issues, we didn't expect Arena to be this tricky. But this is part of moving fast, you make mistakes, and learn from them. On the flip side the speed at which hunting was added to the game shows that this approach can also be very beneficial.

Smurfs
Regarding smurf rules and detection, the rules are for us collectively (team, council and community) to decide, no easy answers. From the tech side we need to be mindful that smurf detection can be quite hard if someone is trying to act maliciously (for example using multiple VPNs, devices, etc). I don't think we want to burn too much dev time on this.

Longer Term
Ultimately this likely means that although there might be airdrop style rewards for participation, in the longer term it will be tournaments that deliver the big rewards... probably not surprising, as that was always the plan.

(Caveat: although most of the above is fact, some is my opinion, things like rewards, for example, are ultimately the councils decision)

paper brook
#

My opinion is both that Johnny is smart and has a great beard.

dull badger
mellow oasis
# wintry zinc **Automation** Hey folks, the code for automation for both Beyond and Arena rewa...

I will just add to this very well written breakdown, that smurfs and inactive accounts issues, mostly because DAU is low.

We have low DAU and even lower amount of actually good players, which leads to the actual not ideal situation of smurfs and inactive accounts taking too much "space" in the leaderboards.

With a bigger community and more competitive players, this would barely be an issue because there would be more "pressure" on those high placings, forcing the top players to play more.

Imo what we see right now is more a consequence of other issues we're facing than anything else.
It could have been anticipated though, and some players warned about this before we even launch leaderboard rewards 😦

jovial zodiac
mellow oasis
# jovial zodiac from the articles that i read, isnt RIOT trying to combat smurfs?

Never heard such thing, and since they don't have money on leaderboards + a very aggressive decay system + a large community able to pressure top spots... I would be surprised if they actually even see an interest in combating smurfs more.

Also, important to note, but in web2 games, smurfs are only a slight issue at top top level (0.001%) like top40-top100. And during specific times (worlds qualifications snapshots).

jovial zodiac
mellow oasis
#

Well they might have their reasons... I should read those articles to get some more context cauz I admit I don't see the problem with smurfs from a gaming perspective.

jovial zodiac
#

i had experience being a smurf in mobile legends, because i switched from android to iphone. they have a system where if ur dominating (mvp) your rank increases more. so unless i keep creating new accounts, which is a pain because u need to spend 30mins on tutorial, you will be discouraged to do multiple smurfs

#

the leaderboard reward issue is going to be solved, as per johnny. rn it's just the "new players getting stomp" issue

#

idk how many non-smurf new player are we getting each week tho. i always assume the leaderboard rewards is to attract new players, while retaining existing players

mellow oasis
jovial zodiac
#

ive been seeing this "git gud" attittude from few people, i personally dont think that's good to onboard new players

#

i believe our success is to onboard as many players as we can, not make it harder

mellow oasis
#

It's just a consequence of games rewarding skill! Go play smash bros online, game is very easy to pickup and play with your friends, but go once online with no preparation and see what happens.

It is NORMAL and SANE for the game, that you need skills and/or knowledge in order to even get your first wins.

It's not even being elitist, it's being rational.

jovial zodiac
#

its not normal u need skills or knowledge to get you first win

mellow oasis
#

In online games it is... unless you wanna pray to tag a 6yo...

jovial zodiac
#

good luck onboarding players

mellow oasis
jovial zodiac
#

remember we need $6m/month revenue, if ur confident that the top players are spending this much then ill rest my case

mellow oasis
#

Dude, make the experience yourself. Go and download fortnite, start playing it. And tell me when u get your first 1st place.

And nobody complains about fortnite being too hard to on-board players.

jovial zodiac
#

BR is only one winner, some people just happy to get a few kills

#

completely different gameplay to compare

#

i played fornite lol

#

warzone, pubg, apex
i never aimed to be 1st. its just fun to run around and get some kills

#

the fun from FPS is to get that headshot, just bad example

mellow oasis
# jovial zodiac the fun from FPS is to get that headshot, just bad example

Like I said, I'm not an FPS player. But I do agree, games are funnier when u win.

People who agree that games a funnier when u win, should just put the effort in being good rather than complaining for not having free wins.

And anyways, who likes to win a game with no knowledge or skill?! If you can't say: I'm better than my opponent or I practiced more than my opponent WHATS the point?!

That's not a skill based game, that's a dice game.

#

Also @jovial zodiac about your 6m$/month thing. Issue with a dumbed down to the ground anyone can win, no skill game... you'll maybe have 6m$ first month with good marketing but I strongly doubt you get it a second month. Because no skill means no sense of progress, and no sense of progress means the player experience has no taste and they just LEAVE.

IT IS REALLY CRUCIAL that someone in your position finally gets that.

jovial zodiac
#

maybe thats why im in my position

#

because i understand how web3 market works, and the recent pivot from kieran is what ive been suggesting for the last 2 years

#

degens just want to make money and play casual games
not watching dozens of strats videos and learning the notes

mellow oasis
#

Ok man, we got this discussion 12 times at least already. Let's just agree to disagree

sleek crag
# jovial zodiac i believe our success is to onboard as many players as we can, not make it harde...

it's not a good attitude, straight facts. lower elo players are well aware they need to 'git gud' to receive higher rewards lets say top 50-100 ..myself included. that's why it's great there is top 1,000 rewards to attract a larger player base. but when majority of those rewards are blocked/cancelled out/given to event initiative/etc. then it defeats the purpose.

It was nice to get an update from Johnny, but i think i missed any update on wen we'll implement elo decay or better reward distribution for the top 1,000 eligible players? rather than the approx. 180 from last week it is currently.

sharp quest
#

I totally agree with 'getting good'. I lose a lot. I learn and try again.
It's funny because my issue isn't losing it's not having enough people to play.
I recently played a web3 game that had ranked separated into skill brackets that makes sense to me.
From what the team has said we probably won't have many of these issues soon.
AI training ect.

tight locust
near ginkgo
#

@tight locust so elo decay next week?

tight locust
royal light
#

Some people are simply not playing anymore and take some rewards spot, that’s equally frustrating I think

royal light
#

It’s normal to need skill to kill people, the system just should be when you start you are unskilled and playing equally unskilled people. Then you realize that by getting better you get more kills. And now the reward of ranking up kicks in, so you want to get better, because the better you get the more kills you make. And then you rank up so much that now leaderboard rewards kick in, making it real, and you feel proud

#

I don’t think that being rewarded for skill stops unboarding new players, most people think they are more intelligent/skilled than they actually are and will be able to be better than others so they like the skill based ranking up

gentle quartz
#

I'm trying to 'get gud' able to get top 500 multiple weeks. But the pain and fun in getting gud means you play people slightly better then you until you are able to beat them. NOT play the top 50 smurfs and getting reckd. If you are just playing smurfs in low elo and they are all trying hard because that makes the most sense to have multiple accounts trying to out rank one another then there is the lack of fun. Imagine playing tennis vs someone that is top 50 beacause they are trying to rank up their 10th smurf that is not fun. You can get destroyed and only play smurfs in low elo and think I suck worse then I actually do.

I think the rule should be one main account. The rule could be loosely enforced but people should honor it. They can play smurfs to practice.