#Leaderboard structure for Airdrop Season 3

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

raven saddle
#

Hey guys! According to the latest announcement, Season 3 will have a revamped rewards structure. It consists of the following:

The revamped Season 3 rewards structure is below:
Overworld Events: 2,040 ILV (17%)
Tournaments: 5,640 ILV (47%)
Leaderboards: 1,680 ILV (14%)
Missions & Milestones: 2,640 ILV (22%)

With the E-sports committee not yet taking office, I am unsure to what extent a sufficient rank and reward system will be put in place. We have a number of game modes ranging from: Arena Ascendent, Gauntlet, Training and even Overworld rankings. So, with a large emphasis on Tournaments and Leaderboards, we should see some type of structure that represents each game mode the best for the project.

Here are some of my suggestions:

  • Gauntlet should be the main priority for leaderboards and tournaments. After all, Ascendent was fun, but it lacks innovative gameplay. Everyone just copies someone else's deck. Training could use some tweaks but is in a good state to have players play to get on the leaderboard.
  • The leaderboard should either range from 1:X or be cut up in brackets. The ELO system should be highly accurate for both options, as we don't want players to jump to the highest ratings in their first 5 games.
  • The top player should get a fair reward, something they can brag about but not something they can give up their work for. We want a large player base, not just one player getting all the rewards.
  • The rewards could benefit from a vesting system like the previous season rewards. It would be a shame to see the top 10 players dump all their tokens every week.
  • The leaderboard should integrate all game modes in the evaluation. You get X points for ranking in Ascendent, X points for training and XXX points for Gauntlet. This pushes players to playtest each of the game modes, thereby allowing for constant feedback, but lays the emphasis on Gauntlet as "the place to be".

What I'm looking for in this thread is already working systems we can use as example, as well as ideas that the team and councils should consider while making decisions around the leaderboard. I'm not a pro at this but the E-sports committee Pro's we want on this, may be late to the party. So let's lay some groundwork for them and when they are added as a committee, they get feedback from team and council, can then read through this channel and make an informed decision based on community sentiment as well. 🙏

twin ridge
#

"The top player should get a fair reward, something they can brag about but not something they can give up their work for. We want a large player base, not just one player getting all the rewards."

I think that it makes a lot of sense marketing-wise to give a big reward to the 1st player, one thing that draws a lot of attention on Twitter is the kind of tweet that shows that someone turned his life upside down in 1 crypto move

raven saddle
limber steppe
#

Also there should be rules for smurfing, as this was big topic last leaderboard rewards and with this amount of money, it should be even bigger priority to have strict rules communicated upfront and clearly

twin ridge
#

I would love to see a raffle for those who can't score high in the leaderboard

Instead of only having the top 200 being rewarded, we could also give raffle tickets to those who are between 201-300, a bit less to those between 301-400 etc

raven saddle
#

if you guys know games that have a fully functional leaderboard that could be used as examples, please do share ^^
I heard someone mention Parallel but I know very little about them myself.

twin ridge
cinder cave
cinder cave
# twin ridge I would love to see a raffle for those who can't score high in the leaderboard ...

I am interested in this option (mainly cause I suck at Arena)

The problem and negative feedback I have heard around this is = "Get Gud!"
AKA = reward good players, not entry trophy's

An alternative could be "loot boxes" or "Loot d1sks" where "X" amount is available as a prize. So for example people between 201 and 300 all get the same lootbox, but player 295 could open a larger value than player 201 😉 RNG baby lol

raven saddle
odd elbow
cobalt marlin
#

Rewards should be based on the bracket the player ends up at the end of a season. Rewarding the top player makes no sense, we will have tournaments for that. The ILV rewards should start from Gold and up, scaling progressively with each tier and bracket. For the Silver and lower brackets, we can offer cosmetics, OW consumables and so on as a reward for their participation.

The leaderboard distributions should also be season based, not on a weekly basis, that caters too much to the P2E narrative, we should focus on long term engagement.

As long as the team follows the ELO system, without tampering with it, players should be rewarded based on their ELO/bracket upon a season's end.

Targeting gauntlet leviathan/ranked as the main leaderboard distribution is the way to go since ascendant is not finished. If ascendant is included, it should be the leviathan version, as the non-leviathan modes are too copy pasta oriented.

raven saddle
# odd elbow It is a good card game.

So there is no leaderboard structure? it just is a card game?
Or you mean, that they have a good game, and so any leaderboard structure works?

twin ridge
raven saddle
cinder cave
raven saddle
#

"I play a lootbox game with my lootbox PFP to hopefully get a lootbox from the Arena rewards 😄 "

raven saddle
cobalt marlin
cinder cave
cobalt marlin
#

For the top 3 players, we can offer modified borders, with 1-3 stars on them based on rank 1-3

raven saddle
odd elbow
twin ridge
cinder cave
cobalt marlin
cobalt marlin
odd elbow
#

if you wanna apply parallel system, you´d wanna give people bonus rewards for using holo/dh imo
talked about this briefly last epoch at some point

raven saddle
odd elbow
#

no parallel community is far more reasonable when it comes to decisions should make sense for the company and not the airdrop farmers

#

there is a lending system live now as well, I thought ILV was supposed to have that via 3rd party, but I guess they didn´t deliver that

torn bluff
odd elbow
#

ILV was more or less 2 years delayed, maybe council/labs should look for someone else at this point
But ILV isn´t this standard p2e setup, so I don´t think it is that relevant, no %cut of rewards to be made like in parallel.

raven saddle
odd elbow
#

so far no, there was no ladder that you play pvp for rewards, idk what season 3 will exactly look like

raven saddle
torn bluff
odd elbow
cobalt marlin
torn bluff
odd elbow
torn bluff
#

yes I agree assets are rather cheap atm and not a big barrier of entry, it's not that we really need it but would be a nice addition.

odd elbow
cobalt marlin
#

Just an idea - We can also add to the players profile, or a building in sanctum mesa, a shield or a banner, with empty slots on it for each season.

Players will then collect gems or stars to imbue to the shield/banner, kind of like the infinity gauntlet. Each gem/star will be based on the bracket the player ends up in at the end of the season, and will be imbued onto the banner.

We can either leave it at that, as an achievement for the competitive player, or offer certain rewards based on how many stars/gems we have imbued onto the banner as the seasons go by. To do this, each bracket gem/star should give specific points towards the banner progression system. This will create long term stickiness and a sense of progression/achievement and also offer bragging rights down the line to players who started in season 1 or those that have high rank stars overall.

#

If we can equip this banner for OW multiplayer as a cosmetic or if it has a gameplay function, I think it will be very cool to see the stars on it LIVE and displayed for other players.

fresh shoal
#

I'd switch amounts between tournaments and leaderboard. Leaderboard doesn't require people to be active at a certain time nor requires organization. People can freely spend their time grinding for those rewards and I think it's much bigger than tournaments
Edit: plus you can reward say top 200 and give everyone a decent chance to earn

neat bloom
# raven saddle Hey guys! According to the latest announcement, Season 3 will have a revamped re...

I agree that Gauntlet should be the main focus, as I believe it offers the highest chance for Illuvium to attract new players. I also think it should remain the primary focus moving forward.

A ranked system with brackets would be the best solution. There's a reason almost every game implements different rank brackets—people like it that way, and it also provides rewards to those who may not be competing for first place. However, I still believe that the top 10 players on the leaderboard should receive larger rewards for marketing purposes. These players are also more likely to continue playing and engage with the ecosystem, rather than just participate for airdrop rewards.

Here’s a rough suggestion for the rewards structure:

1st: 100ILV
2nd: 75 ILV
3rd: 50 ILV
4th: 40 ILV
5th: 30 ILV
6th: 20 ILV
7th: 15 ILV
8th: 10 ILV
9th: 9 ILV
10th: 8 ILV
11th–25th: 5 ILV
26th–50th: 3 ILV
51st–100th: 2 ILV
101st–250th: 1.5 ILV
251st–500th: 1 ILV
501st–1000th: 0.5 ILV

The brackets should have specific point thresholds that players need to reach. For example, only the top 25 players could hold the highest rank, "Challenger." Ranks could be broken down further as follows: 26th–50th as "Grandmaster," 51st–100th as "Master," 101st–250th as "Diamond," 251st–500th as "Platinum," and 501st–1000th as "Gold." These are just examples, and the numbers should be adjusted based on the projected player base, but the general concept should be reasonable.

Additionally, we should consider how far down the leaderboard rewards should go. Should everyone receive a reward to artificially inflate player numbers? While this may initially seem beneficial for the game's image, most players would only participate for the reward and leave afterward. Given how important community-building is to Illuvium’s ecosystem, I personally believe rewards should be capped or significantly reduced for those just farming airdrops.

Regarding vesting, I think it's fine for the leaderboard, but it shouldn't be too long. Top players will likely reinvest in the game to stay competitive, thus helping maintain the ecosystem. However, for tournaments, I don’t think there should be vesting. Tournaments are a form of marketing to draw attention to the game, so the focus should be on making players happy, rather than protecting the token.

I'm against the last suggestion. In my opinion, it's never good to force people into doing something they don’t want to. We should prioritize the overall player experience, especially when we’re paying to attract people to play the game. If needed, we could implement separate rewards, such as mission-based incentives, but I don’t believe it's beneficial to allocate significant resources outside of Gauntlet.

Something that also needs to be addressed is what modes the rewards will go to? Leviathan or f2p? I personally think the leaderboard should be f2p based to attract as many players as possible without them feelings it's an unfair from the start and we could use tournament money for separate Leviathan tournaments.

fresh shoal
torn bluff
raven saddle
torn bluff
#

I see no point in vesting them honestly.

raven saddle
torn bluff
#

if you want revdis you go and stake your ILV. Why mingle the processes.

neat bloom
torn bluff
raven saddle
neat bloom
clever iris
torn bluff
clever iris
#

me too

meager palm
#

Concerns About Game Balance and New Player Retention:

I believe that new players won’t stick around if they’re forced to spend a lot of money just to get competitive Illuvials or if they keep losing to experienced guilds and players who have been training for months. It’s frustrating for a new player if they feel like they have no real chance to compete, especially when they’re up against players who have already invested a lot of time or money.

It might be a better approach to start with ranked /casual tournaments and gradually shift towards Levithan mode over time, perhaps quarter by quarter. This way, the game won’t be immediately dominated by pay-to-win mechanics or veteran players. Instead, it gives new players a fair chance to get involved and find success before the focus shifts more toward Levithan.

In addition, I think it would make sense to extend the rewards beyond just the top 10 or 25 players. Expanding the rankings to the top 5000 could motivate more people to stay engaged. If the game focuses too much on rewarding only the top players right now, it could discourage those who are just starting. It’s important to keep things balanced until the player base grows.

I also think it would be smart to hold back on pushing too many rewards through Levithan at this stage. Also, focus on keeping people engaged in (OW) until the player base is larger and more players are willing to invest in Levithan. If we shift everything too soon, we risk alienating a lot of new players, and the excitement might fizzle out.

In short, the game should develop gradually, with rewards and features introduced at a measured pace, ensuring that new players have a fair chance to succeed. By slowly phasing in Levithan mode and expanding the reward system over time, we may can create a more balanced and welcoming environment, which will help build a stronger, long-term player base.

marsh narwhal
twin ridge
#

But if tournament winners receive huge rewards I guess that you don't need to do that with the leaderboard as Garf said

cinder cave
#

Rank 1 to 25 players will consistently top most tournaments... overtime they will be "handsomely" rewarded....

No need to CONSISTENTLY reward them large pots... save those for massive tournaments & events that encourage new users to enter the ecosystem

clever iris
#

sorry im not well informed about the lending platforms or the progress

shadow ice
#

My thoughts on tournaments should be:

  1. Big ILV Price Pool for Quarterly Tournaments NOT monthly
  • you drive more hype
  • its more inclusive (more chances to win slots for the quarterly invitational)
  • you dont trivialize monthly tournaments
  • better marketing when you have a huge ILV prize pool per quarter vs spreadout monthly
  1. Quarterly vs Monthly
  • Shorten the days people will be playing from every weekend to one weekend (Lessens burden on Labs to organize)
  • Allows grassroots tournament to flourish during the other week/weekends

That being said, having monthly tournaments is still viable as qualifiers to be invited to the Quarterly invitational. Id take a page from HS here where they were able to do qualifiers monthly + invited the top 10 of each month in ranking @odd elbow correct me if im wrong if its 10 or more.

This allowed people to keep trying their hand either in qualifiers or in rank leaderboards to get invited to the big invitational.

Note: ugh weird it became numerical when i was putting ("-")

odd elbow
# shadow ice My thoughts on tournaments should be: 1. Big ILV Price Pool for Quarterly Tourn...

It depends on which year you refer to in HS, in the "prime" esport years there were daily online open cups, people could earn small amounts of points there, then monthly ladder finish awarded points and bigger often lan events, depending on the year 1-3/month also gave points.
Then 3x/season you had top 64 by points + people tied to 64th+ some wild card kinda spots, those played to qualify for a championship 8-16 people, big live event and 1-4 from there got to worlds, again depends on the year, 2018 e.g. it was top 4 from the first stage in every of the 4 regions->16 people championship->top 4 make it to worlds.

The daily online event structure was seen as tedious and later changed with monthly caps point you could earn there.
This was in a time when HS would fill 256-512 online tournaments daily as well, so can´t compare to web3.

I think having smaller level events to filter for the bigger ones makes sense, points to qualify for the big events have an EV, due to big event price pool, so you can give points to even somewhat low placing people.
If you give cash instead, you certainly inflate the amount of participants, but again just invite people who want to extarct money, not actually play the game, because they like it currently and or believe in the future, like we have seen so far most of the time.

#

Over the years the systems as long as they were still offline events got flattened out on pricemoney, but you still had to get to the "big" events to get any.
Once everything was online and pricemoney overall was lower, only top roughly 50% if I remember correctly.

#

I think the best scaleable thing is to have pricemoney scale with participants/people playing ladder, to avoid comiting to large sums and then having to low interest to justify it.

e.g. each active ladder player adds X to leaderboard rewards, maybe + a min number

then various top% of Ladder get parts of that, like top 1% gets 10% of the total pool, (random number idea)

For tournaments obv easier to "cheat" amount of participants, could check how many did play first 1-2 rounds on average previous months or so.

This would also make it not "the more play the worse are ones odds of earning", so people are incentivised to get more others to play compared to wanting it to stay as small as possible, so they can get the prices as easy as possible.