#Illuvium is pushing away its most dedicated players!

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

noble schooner
#

**Posted on behalf of @neat remnant **

This has been a tough decision I’ve gone back and forth on for a while. It’s especially difficult because I’ve invested so much time and energy into Illuvium, and I genuinely love the game. But I’ve come to the conclusion that the direction Illuvium is heading no longer aligns with what I believe in. So, for now, I’ve decided to step away from ranked play for an indefinite period.

What originally drew me to Illuvium was the promise of the ultimate competitive experience, a game where skill, strategy, and long-term progression mattered. I was sold on the dream of all the potential within Illuvium and it's ecosystem also what it could one day become. But lately, the decisions being made do not feel aligned with that vision.

The final straw for me was the introduction of weekly soft resets. We already saw Hollow stop playing, and now I am following the same path. It feels like Illuvium is digging its own grave. If the top players, the ones most invested in the competitive scene, are burning out or leaving because they are unhappy, how will the game attract and retain a broader player base? These spots at the top are what others dream of achieving one day.

Look at someone like Faker from League of Legends. His influence on the scene has been massive. He has inspired countless players and built an emotional connection that draws people in and keeps them engaged. The same idea applies to traditional sports. In soccer, players grow up dreaming of becoming the next Messi or Ronaldo. That dream fuels their passion and commitment. Even those who never reach the top still enjoy the journey because they feel connected to something greater.

Emotional connection is one of the most powerful forces behind long term success. It drives ambition, encourages persistence, and builds loyalty. But when the reward for dedication is disappointment, burnout, or less than what other opportunities offer, it becomes difficult to justify the effort. And when there are no role models left to admire or aspire to become, the scene begins to lose its soul. Without that inspiration, it becomes nearly impossible to grow or sustain a strong and engaged community.

I have also seen this scenario happen before with Dota Underlords. It started exactly the same way: the top players stoped playing, the ones below get happy because they can rise to the top, but eventually it becomes a snowball effect where no one is left. In the short term, it creates the illusion that it is not so bad because new players at the top are happy for a while.

Beyond the impact on top players, weekly soft resets also pose a serious challenge for new and casual players. When progression feels temporary and fleeting, it becomes difficult for these players to feel motivated to invest time or develop skills, which is essential for growing a healthy and vibrant community.

…

Looking at other successful competitive games can provide valuable lessons. For example, Teamfight Tactics uses seasonal resets to keep competition fresh while preserving long-term achievements and rankings. This balance helps players feel a lasting sense of progress and accomplishment, which keeps them engaged and invested over time.

The value of rewarding long-term commitment cannot be overstated. Games that acknowledge and celebrate consistent effort encourage deeper engagement and loyalty. This creates a more stable and passionate player base that benefits both players and developers in the long run.

Right now it feels like we are being asked to treat this like a full time job for the equivalent of pretty much nothing. We are not playing because it is fun or because we are progressing. We are playing just to get a tiny reward every week not even close to the dream that was promised to us.

neat remnant
#

@versed ether @fleet carbon @dark dock @upbeat mulch

solar nimbus
storm berry
#

Gauntlet will be a lot sadder without @neat remnant .
We need a raid boss — someone we can strive to overcome.
You focus entirely on trying to make @neat remnant lose… and he still wins.

@neat remnant , don’t leave.
Better to remove soft resets than lose the strongest player.

timid ingot
#

It reminds me of World of Warcraft, a lot of players regretted the time when acquiring raid loot mattered for a long period of time and this is one of the reasons why WoW Classic was born

I didn't play WoW in a while but last time I did I remember that each time a new raid was out, the previous ones became obsolete except maybe the very previous one due to catch-up mechanics that devalued long-term efforts

storm berry
#

Good day, dear Kieran. I understand that tagging you is not desirable, but you need to be aware of the situation.

1️⃣ As I already wrote earlier – we cannot afford to lose our best player. SL1Ckz is beyond competition. He plays on a different level. Without him, we will stop seeing the kind of show we currently witness at major tournaments.

2️⃣ Let’s put aside any admiration for his gameplay skills and simply focus on the core of the issue.

Previously, the situation was as follows: SL1Ckz was sleeping very little and rarely able to step away to eat properly, because he had to press the search button 24/7. Can you imagine the damage this did to his nervous system?
But over time, he climbed to around 3,000 rating. And then he could safely slow down and focus on other things. Calmly playing just a few games per day.
I lived in such a mode for a long time too, but in the Overworld mode.
But the thing is – these are completely different modes.
Overworld makes us dumber. There is no thinking process there. You just calmly chat with friends on Discord while fighting illuvials.
But SL1Ckz is doing this in Ranked Gauntlet. In every game, he has to think a lot.
This leads to burnout and a huge hit to the nervous system.

The current situation: instead of being able to rest and recover his nerves after reaching a high rating – he has to grind Ranked 24/7 again.

I believe right now SL1Ckz is facing a choice – to destroy his health in his youth for the price of a cheap smartphone per week, or to leave the project.

I’m afraid of losing SL1Ckz.

storm berry
lusty horizon
#

I think the weekly reset was a bad idea for many reasons

Mostly it just feels like progress is taken away and if the goal was to have people be more motivated by the soft reset it seems to have had the opposite effect overall (judging by ques this week, could be wrong)

15 games minimum was already a great way to have people keep playing, and in most cases people had to play way more anyway to hold their spot or climb

If it was to satisfy people complaining they cant catch others than yes they were some what justified in their feelings but were actually just wrong in the reality of them doing any better with a reset, and even if their were some cases where this may be true, to me it doesn't justify all the bad. Some may have done better (like myself) just because others said F that initial grind again or lost motivation with the taking away of progress

I'm all for making decisions for the more casual player but this isn't it, and it doesn't even help them climb anyway

The monthly reset was a good middle ground imo, at most a bi weekly soft reset, but even that might be too much

timid ingot
#

A weekly soft reset looks nice on paper, after the 1st one you see that you're closer to the rank above you which feels nice but after a while you also realize that your efforts are being devalued

Even if this devaluation is applied to everyone, the more you grind the more your efforts will be devalued

Result: it's more psychologically punishing than rewarding after the initial effect

ripe marten
#

I dont like weekly reset at all either (as a mid players). I dont have as much time as others to put in but i could feel the progression from playing because i was always advancing. I know i still advance and others get cut every week too but it just feels so bad

I remember last month when there was even just a rumor of possibly resetting next week a lot of people said i would play but i cant get myself to knowing it will reset next week. Now we have this feeling every week and like slickz say lose the entire sense of long term progression

Honestly im so committed to illuvium and used to push through anything no matter what for years that i thought i was at least still put in my same amount of games but i lived the negative effect this week

My gf was travelling and i was off so i had a lot of time and was excited to play a lot. wednesday i had to stop playing because of the grind event incentivizing me to not play and then when the weekly reset happen it just felt very bad and i almost didnt play after knowing i would work towards nothing concrete and lose a big part of it anyway next week again

I hope thread doesnt come across as top players wanting more rewards or slickz threatening to leave if this doesnt change

Like many voiced before the integration and now from experience this change affects everyone and just removes the entire mid/long-term progression

fleet carbon
lusty horizon
storm berry
neon wadi
#

When u see rank 1 is 20 ILV a week and people who didn't even touch top 10 ever get 100/50/25 ILV on a wheel spin that's also an insane morale destroyer to grind

fleet carbon
rancid rover
#

Honestly, I think either weekly or monthly resets are fine.

Regarding the "rewards," I think that weekly soft resets would definitely increase the chances of rewards reaching a wider range of people. In fact, the top 3, who have been in the lead until now, may change this week. (Hollow doesn't play in the first place...) The same can be said for the top 20 members.

Without weekly soft resets, the point difference between the top 3 and other players would probably always be 200-300 or more points based on past experience, and no one would want to aim for the top 3 just for the rewards. Of course, the top 3 have that much play time and skill, so I think it would be fine for them to always monopolize the rewards.

On the other hand, in terms of "feeling like you're growing," as everyone has said, or as sl1ckz previously explained using Dave as an example, I also think that weekly soft resets are wrong.

I felt that it was a matter of whether to focus on reward opportunities or growth experiences.

For example, in my case, I was in 3rd place the other day, but I was not doing well this week and my ranking dropped considerably, so I'm thinking that I'll try my best again after the next soft reset. On the other hand, I don't feel good because the apparent numbers don't go up at all after the soft reset unless I play a lot.

lusty horizon
# rancid rover Honestly, I think either weekly or monthly resets are fine. Regarding the "rewa...

top 3 doesnt really make your point for you, the reset didnt change anything other than due to 2 people quitting, thats the only reason it changed. The rest of top 10 seem to be able to play as much as each other and might be more competitive because of the reset but I dont really think so, the higher the elo we got the bigger the losses were which means even 100 rating difference can change in a matter of 2-5 games, acting similar to a soft reset

lusty horizon
rancid rover
# lusty horizon top 3 doesnt really make your point for you, the reset didnt change anything oth...

These images are snapshots taken one week after the hard reset, and the top players are at the top with a point difference of around 200-300 points.

I think it will be quite difficult to overturn a point difference of 200-300 points with the current point fluctuations.

What I want to say is not who is at the top, but just that if there is a weekly soft reset, it may be easier to overturn even if there is a big point difference between you and the top players.

Even so, I don't think that "competitiveness" will increase, and I don't think that the overall number of plays will increase.

However, I just think that players who were previously in 4th or 5th place may find it easier to move up to 2nd or 3rd place as a result of playing as usual.

w1a10.jpg w6m15.jpg w10j12th.jpg
neon wadi
#

yea that's why instead of hard grinding first 1-2 weeks and then doing 15 games for the next 2 weeks you're now forced to play 12 hours a day every day for a whole month for top 3

#

but this is also affecting the ordinary 4-5th place people because they're now 100 points above 10th~ every week

lusty horizon
tepid flint
#

As a casual player, I can say that the weekly soft resets, doesn't really add anything positive either. It makes much more sense to with (ELO decay if not playing for a number of days) and a "seasonal resets".
It dose however feels more motivation to have lover weekly required games than the 15 games... maybe 5 games is a bit too low though, and 10 games a week might be better... if you are plying for top 10 spot it doesn't really matter if its 5 or 15... but if you have about on hour pr day, plus some extra in weekend, you can manage 10 games.

autumn geode
#

keep in mind that the weekly reset is a "soft" reset eh

lusty horizon
lusty horizon
autumn geode
#

40% is not 100% tho

lusty horizon
#

true yea guess my point is the taking away of progress is similar to hard reset and doesnt achieve what in theory it might have

neon wadi
#

again there is fuck all u can do about this with a playerbase of like 50 active players, the real problem is that there's no mmr, if you have mmr matchmaking and mmr gains loses u're suddenly looking at a functional system that doesn't make u play 12 hours a day forever, but that needs 100x the players

#

current system is just straight up a math problem of "do i think the rewards are worth playing 12 hours a day for or not"

autumn geode
#

The effect will likely smooth out over time; however, we've experienced a hard reset followed by a soft reset within a very compressed timeline, which has amplified the immediate impact.

rancid rover
lusty horizon
ripe marten
autumn geode
neat remnant
# lusty horizon I do think you are slicks playing for the prestiage a bit more than you think ha...

Yeah, you're definitely right here. A big reason why I enjoy playing something and strive to be the best is the prestige but also the progression. I would never in my life choose to put so much effort into something, become the best, and earn one dollar per hour. So no, that is not the reason I stopped playing.

The real reason is that I lost 40 percent of my progress because of the soft reset. Last week, I played an average of 18 games per day, which adds up to over 100 hours in a single week. I pushed myself hard to reach rank one.

If we take the rewards out of the picture, of course they matter, but they are not the sole reason I play. So what did I get for putting in all that effort? Pretty much nothing. And what did I lose? A big portion of what I had worked for was wiped away.

This creates a negative behavior pattern in the brain. When you put a lot of effort into something and 40 percent of it is taken away every time, it starts to wear on you. You feel the negatives more than the positives. Over time, your passion and motivation fade, not because you do not care, but because your brain starts associating effort with loss.

It is also about competitive fairness. Normally, if you put more time into something, you are rewarded for it. But here, you get punished instead, because the people who choose not to put in the same effort end up getting closer to you.

Just take a similar example. Imagine going to the gym four or five times a week, every week, and then losing 40 percent of your gains at the end of each one. How many people would keep going? Our reward systems work the same way, no matter what we are doing.

To me, it is really strange that this weekly reset was introduced in the first place, because I am not aware of a single competitive game that uses this kind of leaderboard structure. It goes completely against the industry standard.

I feel like the overall direction Illuvium is taking with Arena is to make it so everyone has a chance to win something, no matter if it is earned or not. And that approach risks turning it into an empty and soulless game that no one really cares about or feels emotionally connected to. People will just extract what they can and then leave when there is nothing left to extract.

It honestly feels like Illuvium no longer believes in its own product. (They probably do, but that's the message they're sending out.) It feels as if they don't trust that people would actually enjoy the game for what it is. The competition, the challenge, the chance to become the best player they can be. Also the fun, the excitement, the journey, and the social connections that make the experience meaningful. That was the dream I was sold on, and the reason I came to Illuvium in the first place. But it no longer feels like the same vision they once promised.

neat remnant
#

Another good example I saw was discussed in another thread is the lottery system, where 200 ILV are given out randomly to players. This is the same total amount of rewards as the entire leaderboard. If we compare this to being rank 1 in the game, which should be the most desirable position, the reward is only 20 ILV. Essentially, someone could play 10 games, get lucky in the lottery, and earn more ILV than a player who has spent hundreds of hours playing and held the top rank for an entire month.

This means rewards are going to people who haven’t necessarily put in the effort, and unearned rewards tend to be appreciated less than those that are earned. It also creates negative feelings among players who work hard but receive less. This is a psychological pattern that may attract extractors rather than players who engage for genuine reasons, and it is usually those players who drive long-term participation.

I’m not completely against a lottery system because it could attract people who wouldn’t otherwise play the game, and they might end up liking it over time. However, its rewards should never come close to what players earn through skill and dedication. Otherwise, it sends the message that the game itself isn’t truly valued or good enough, and that you need to attract players without them actually engaging with the game for what it’s meant to be.

.........

Now I think I’ve gotten most of the stuff that’s been weighing on my mind off my chest. It’s been a lot of constructive feedback, which I know can be hard to read, but everything I’m saying comes from my deep passion for the game, and I’ve really tried to make it as constructive as possible so the end result will hopefully be good and help the game. I’ve put so much of myself into Illuvium and I want it to succeed more than anything.

I also want to add that I think the game itself is still shaping up really well, and with a bit more polishing, we will have a really good game if not the best in the entire Web3 space. We have outstanding IP that can compete with the best games out there, even in Web2, that is how good we are. On top of that, we also have a unique ecosystem that other similar games just don’t have. We really do have what it takes to succeed! We just need to play our cards right.

I haven’t given up on Illuvium because I truly believe it has a real shot at becoming incredibly successful. But for that to happen, we need to make decisions that move us closer to that goal, not further away. Execution has been a challenge before, so it’s more important than ever that we get it right this time.

neon wadi
#

I'm not aware of anything that comes close in terms of being an actual game in web3 tbh, the problem is just the crypto space playing it isn't a success

glacial tiger
#

I would want to point out several things:

  1. It is difficult to compare this game with someone like League of Legends. Here we are talking about play to earn. In web 2.0 games you play just for fun.

  2. Soft reset system allows to more players to aspire for rewards. New players get discouraged the game because it seems impossible to aspire to rewards, so they return to web 2.0 games.

  3. Finally, it is true that you are one of the best players of the game, but I am not going to feel sad because of you stop playing. By opposite, I am going say "thanks", one step closer for being in the top 10.

solar nimbus
#

I get that the team wanted to try soft resets, but what I don't get is why start with such an aggressive time frame. Why weekly? Why not bi-weekly or monthly?

neat remnant
# glacial tiger I would want to point out several things: 1. It is difficult to compare this ga...

  1. No, it's not difficult, because what I explained in my post is that the things that drive us are the same no matter what we do. Also, the main goal of the project is not to just give out rewards forever and get nothing back. It’s primarily a marketing tool and a way to increase positive sentiment and improve the reward structure for playing the game and participating in the ecosystem.

  2. That’s not factually true. You're basing your argument on your own feelings and likely on what benefits you, rather than what’s good for the game overall. Reaching the top 100 was actually easier in week 4 than it was in week 1. We have statistics for everything, and we can calculate how many games are required each week to reach a certain rank threshold. Maybe the top 3 is harder to reach, but those are ranks new players are unlikely to hit anyway, and if they improve and eventually become good enough, they will have a chance with regular resets. This is how ranked systems work in almost every game out there, and it is what has proven to be effective.

  3. Yeah, and it’s exactly players like you we shouldn’t listen to. You only care about yourself and how much money you can possibly extract from the game. I think your response made that pretty clear.

glacial tiger
#

Yeah. Me and most of the people who play this game. If you want to do tantrum because you can't monopolize top 1 is your problem. But it is sure that week reset is a fairer system.

lusty horizon
lusty horizon
# glacial tiger Yeah. Me and most of the people who play this game. If you want to do tantrum be...

It’s actually more skill based without a reset and therefore fairer (if we want to take out the whole argument of taking away progress ect).

At higher elo you get bot 4 it takes away 5+ hours of playing (eg lose 30-60 rating), right now you can get it back in 1-2 games making it less punishing and harder for us to catch those willing to play more.

Lower players also verse the same higher ranked people but win less after a reset and lose more. Before reset you could verse a top 10 player and lose less because of it and can gain a lot more

dusk tiger
# neat remnant Yeah, you're definitely right here. A big reason why I enjoy playing something a...

I agree with you mostly, but let me play devil's advocate

Our rating system is a combination of a progression and a skill depiction system
On the skill depiction system it has no effect, it's just renormalizing, rank is preserved

On the progression system there's a 40% reset every week, but even here rank is preserved. Put in the most effort last week? You've still put in the most effort now

I think the goal for the soft reset was to let someone 'mid' or 'new but good' have the feeling that they can make the top (we're not getting many new players atm) AND not let top players "park and chill" (min games at a decent high amount was doing this as well)

Even if we did get new players, wooing them with leaderboard rewards might work for some but I don't expect a lot, but let's assume that's the go to marketing hit here

How would we, according to you, make people feel they still have a chance when 3 goliaths are at the top of the mountain staring down

dusk tiger
# neat remnant Another good example I saw was discussed in another thread is the lottery system...

As in the other thread, one can spin numbers any way you want, but your and Quants look at this give insight in how those numbers feel

The lottery gives out 200 ILV every 2 weeks and the leaderboard every 1 week, so that's double rewards for leaderboard vs lottery

Both of you (quite biased compared to the overall playerbase, especially hopeful future playerbase) compare the weekly winner to the biweekly lottery winner and point at the 20 ILV vs 100 ILV difference. In a world where we're keeping the same distribution of ILV rewards per 2 weeks per "category", this screams to me:

  • Leaderboard payout less frequent but more substantial
  • Leaderboard more top heavy (giving out ramen at 51-100 has no use, making the top 50 carrot more juicy might) <- you are very biased here ofc but no way around it
  • Leaderboard rewards at all? Even it was an amazing retention tool, is a retention tool what we need right now?
dusk tiger
# neat remnant 1. No, it's not difficult, because what I explained in my post is that the thing...

That’s not factually true. You're basing your argument on your own feelings and likely on what benefits you, rather than what’s good for the game overall. Reaching the top 100 was actually easier in week 4 than it was in week 1. We have statistics for everything, and we can calculate how many games are required each week to reach a certain rank threshold. Maybe the top 3 is harder to reach, but those are ranks new players are unlikely to hit anyway, and if they improve and eventually become good enough, they will have a chance with regular resets. This is how ranked systems work in almost every game out there, and it is what has proven to be effective.

Actually how people feel on it is their "truth" here, if players at any cohort feel it is impossible to reach high ranks even though that's not the case, it's a system/communication issue

Interestingly Naghen comes in with "in web2 games you play for fun, web3 is play to earn", which is a fundamentally long term dark path for us I feel

neon wadi
#

If players see that top 1 takes 12 hours a day to reach and they're getting 3$ an hour and top 2 is 1.5$ for it who's even gonna bother doing it. Basically absolutely no one is excited, not even rank 1, so the prizepool isn't attracting virtually anyone to play.
On the 2nd point i think giving away any prize right now is actually completely worthless yes, the 100 players u're keeping this way aren't gonna make any difference you're better off paying QA and using arena with big prizepool as a funnel into the mmo when it's ready.
And on the 3rd point i don't think arena has any chance to be play for fun even if it's a literaly tft copy, but mmo/roguelike does because players are way less sensible to unknown ip there and mostly only care about the actual gameplay.

lusty horizon
# dusk tiger I agree with you mostly, but let me play devil's advocate Our rating system is ...

Our rating system is a combination of a progression and a skill depiction system
On the skill depiction system it has no effect, it's just renormalizing, rank is preserved

  • It actually reduces skill expression because reducing rating makes losing less punishing for the amount of games every can do that week. When we were much higher a loss can be 50 rating or 5 plus hours of games. With the soft reset you maybe lose half that or less. This means its more about hours than not getting a bottom 4

"On the progression system there's a 40% reset every week, but even here rank is preserved. Put in the most effort last week? You've still put in the most effort now"

  • having it % based means those that put in more work have more rating taken away relative to others, even if rank is maintained

"I think the goal for the soft reset was to let someone 'mid' or 'new but good' have the feeling that they can make the top (we're not getting many new players atm) AND not let top players "park and chill" (min games at a decent high amount was doing this as well)"

  • I thought this was the most valid reasoning. Though I disagree top players can park and chill. Maybe some can but only if they both put in outrages time and had one of the top average place, this imo shouldn't be punished, and if you want them to keep playing the 15 min games was good, again they risk minus 50 for a 5th place, even more for lower places.
  • The reset also forces those top players to be in every game 24/7 meaning those new players will never win a game, probs in a lot of games it will be auto max 3rd or 4th, this is more of a bad time than some seeing people on much higher rating. To add to this if you have a top player in your game, you want them to be on crazy high rating so the risk rewards is high for you, eg you gain lots more for top 4 and lose very little vs them being closer to your rating
minor hazel