Rating Refresh System Decision

[humble pagoda]

Hey guys,

We’ve been closely monitoring feedback on the weekly soft reset system and have found that its drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Our goal is to create a system that rewards consistent progression while still offering opportunities for players outside the competitive loop to jump back in on more equal footing.

However, the current weekly soft resets have proven too aggressive in suppressing progression. We're aiming to strike a better balance.

To address this, we propose the following solutions:

1️⃣ Monthly Hard Reset.

2️⃣ Monthly Soft Reset of 75% impact.

We are also open to reading other suggestions. But please vote which one of these two systems you prefer.

Thank you.

[hushed hollow]

"the current weekly soft resets have proven too aggressive" - it's too agressive only if you have to high rating.
as more rating you have, as more you drop.
but as i see, ussualy only 2-3 person have much more rating that other. so, don't understand why you call it so agressive if for 90% of players it's just push a bit back them, with same position.
even i'm one of players who lose most of rating, i'm fine with this system.

Hard Reset every week - if you whanna people keep playing, grinding, and try competitive.
Other way top players just push rating as high as possible like in 1-9 week, and then no way to touch them.

[cold viper]

I don't think 2nd's appropriate cuz it will then actually create what everyone said about top ranks being uncatchable (nvm if that means u lose 75% of rating, i read it first as u keep 75%/ however this still snowballs into top 3 being uncatchable), ideal scenario is when the playerbase is big enough you "hard reset" the ranks every 1-2 months but only soft reset the mmr, so 3k elo players start somewhere in the 1600-1800 elo.
But since that's not a thing now hard reset every 1 month is probably ideal balance between keeping ur top players playing a lot for a while and not burning out, can even see reset every 6 weeks be a thing but probably feels weird date consistency wise.

[hushed hollow]

or made ILV great again, so noone burning out, even with weekly hard reset

[deft sparrow]

4 weeks / Monthly hard reset seems reasonable enough if it gets timed with big changes / new patch.

[full gale]

I really like the current level of interaction between the developers and the players.
Yesterday, a problem was identified. Then came a discussion with the community. And today, potential solutions are already being proposed.
That’s impressively fast. I truly appreciate it.

[raven shell]

either way id suggest bringing back the min 15 games per week instead of 5. This is what strikes the balance is having people still play a reasonable amount each week

[humble pagoda]

100% this will come back

The 5 days were only valid with the weekly reset, if the cadence goes monthly, we will have to tighten up weekly game requirements

[cold viper]

why is that, the 5 games a week guy somewhere in rank 90 is getting disincentivized again by that

make it only matter for 2k+ elo or something

[raven shell]

is this sarcasm or not haha

[cold viper]

no, why would it be

[humble pagoda]

The reason being is that otherwise top players do minimal weekly effort to keep their rank and that's it

[cold viper]

ye, so make it not matter before 2k+, let the casual guy play 2-3-4 games a week and have it matter

[humble pagoda]

That could work yes

[raven shell]

makes multi accounting way too easy and if someone can only do 5 games a week not sure they would also be expecting rewards but maybe im wrong

[cold viper]

but the rewards aren't worth multiaccounting for and in a few hundred total playerbase game it's way too easy to catch them

[subtle cloud]

Sometimes people are away at the weekend or have less time - 15 games of about 40 minutes is a lot of time. I think 10 could be the sweet spot

[cold viper]

10's really not a good spot for anyone, 15 games is nothing for me and i assume same for everyone else in maybe top 10, but 10 games for someone who just wants to maybe spend 1 hour a day on the game for a few days and can't do more is a lot and it's just gonna cause them to put in 0 instead of 5~

[subtle cloud]

I am fine with 5 as well, but for me 15 games are sometimes hard to achieve and I am in top 10 right now.

[clever swan]

Agreee with @hushed hollow we want a game alive not found a game every 2 hours 👏

[raven shell]

if its worth someone else getting it on their main its worth someone else multi accounting

[raven shell]

yea was thinking 12, 10 sounds good too

[clever swan]

@humble pagoda we need less time waiting in the queue the game it is not for only one person the game it is for us all what we are playing .

[cold viper]

then u need to make people able to think it's worth playing for any amount of time not either 12 hours a day or 0

[raven shell]

people are quitting because of multi accounts, or atleast because they think there are and its obvious its easy with 5 games

[clever swan]

We need tournaments where people they need to share and like for good visibility on the Media so we can bring more people to play

[cold viper]

but this is a fault on the team in not catching them then

[raven shell]

games always put in things to make it hard or less viable to multi account because its always wrong to just say "be perfect and catch them all with magical software"

[cold viper]

i mean come on, what multi accounting are we talking about, it's not even worth it unless u do it with 10+ accounts and how is that not getting caught instantly

[raven shell]

but your saying tis worth it for a guy with 5 hours of gaming time a week

[cold viper]

yes, that guy's not compettiive, he gets his 0.5 Ilv and he's happy

[raven shell]

than its worth it to do it twice with someone with 10 hours of game time a week

[cold viper]

for anyone who can multi account it's not worth it

[raven shell]

its not just this ranking either you can grind 2 accounts to top 50 in first week than do 5 games on each weeks after

anyway this ones really up to the team anyway, not a huge discussion to be had

[cold viper]

sure, but how the fuck are u not catching these guys, it's a 100-200 unique players game

[raven shell]

i thought they allowed vpns now?

how do you get caught is the question

[cold viper]

but u don't need to have same ip to catch them, first u can check hardware, 2nd u can check gameplay, 2nd is an insane tell, 3rd u can check patterns, 4th they might just send rewards to the same address

[raven shell]

didnt know about the hardware checking part interesting. How would someone look gameplay and pattern wise? that you can 100% ban for

ravenquest spends 100k or more a month and still has bots

[cold viper]

is it a pvp game?
you wouldn't look at gameplay unless u already suspect someone, but it's really easy to tell after that that 2 people are the same or not from mouse movements/clicks/keyboard/camera/ tells.

[raven shell]

both

[cold viper]

and again, i think im majority in this, but if i'm gonna smurf for rewards i'm not stopping at 2 accounts, i'm probably even playing 2 screens at once

[raven shell]

you might stop at 2 if its 15 games min. youd play 3 times the accounts with 5 games min

[cold viper]

idk, i think at least before mobile 90 out of top 100 at minimum is gonna be real 1 player accounts, even with 0 games requirment, like the chances are u're not making top 100 with 5 games a week anyways, but maybe someone just averages 2x and has no time and he can, maybe 10 games a week does tho, but u get rid of the psychological barrier of if i don't play at least 15 i basically played 0 so why bother

[raven shell]

oh yea i think right now its 90 plus is real

[forest vine]

Here's my option 3️⃣

Introduction of quarterly seasons tied to the battle-pass.
Hard reset at the end of each season - 3 months.
Soft reset in the middle of each season - 6 weeks.

[cold viper]

not good, without mmr it makes top uncatchable after first weeks

with mmr it's basically ideal

[forest vine]

assume that there is mmr, since that is most likely the plan for the future when there's a bigger player base.

[cold viper]

then that's the ideal solution yea, but should not be implemented before 1k+ playerbase probably

very important to not base the whole philosophy of battlepass on that tho, the cosmetics need to be insanely pretty and not just hope u can make money ponzing

[clever swan]

How gonna have multi account shuld be ban and get everything from them account and never let him to play ! ( they shuld go to mc to work if they are smart)

[cold viper]

also to be completely honest if you have mmr 1 soft reset in the middle of the season should be enough

[raven shell]

they are uncatchable if willing to repeat what got them there anyway

[cold viper]

that's not true, when there's mmr it won't be +13 caped/same gains for everyone, guy in 2nd is gonna get more lp than guy in 1st and the longer the season goes the higher the overall ladder mmr -> the more points someone starting fresh gains

[raven shell]

Oh was thinking with current system

[runic rose]

@cold viper great thoughts and input. 15games will make people play less rather than more. only the ones with a lot of spare time can do it

i should clarify im talking about casual players

[raven shell]

min games is one of the best controllers/deterant of multi accounting it cant be too low

this will also make casuals play less

[raven shell]

this good for casual players to see?

[cold viper]

if these are actual smurfs and the team doesn't manage to catch them in a 100 player leaderboard that's completely the fault of the team not the minimum games

[raven shell]

your suggestion was for the team to watch their gameplay and see if they can some how see if its the same as any other player than ban them based on the subjectivness of this

[cold viper]

idk man if they can't even do that then it's doomed anyway, and the gameplay watching comes only after they've seen that they're all on different ip, can't determine much from hardware and their patterns are suspicious

also it's not even worth doing that the stake is what 5 ILV?

[raven shell]

for some people for sure it is. Again if you say the person that can only play 5 games a week is worth it than yes for others to do it twice.

Also some might play main, secure as high as they think they can get, still have moe time to play so go to second account since its not 15 games minimum

[cold viper]

no i mean for the team not the smurfs, but these are not confirmed smurfs yet even

[raven shell]

Oh yea haha might even be counter productive since goal is more numbers on paper atm

[runic rose]

idk how to solve that problem mate. But as a casual player who's got maybe 1-2 hours per day. the 15games a week was becoming annoying if i wanted to get that sweet 0.5 ILV 🤣

plus, with the 600-1000 second wait times, thats basically a game or two per day max

[gusty lake]

10 games is a good middle ground

[cold viper]

middle ground's pointless if the problem is "how do you convince the guy who wants to play 10 games a month to not think it's a complete waste of time"

[raven shell]

yea good feedback, maybe there is a sweet spot. Curious though if you managed to get your 5-10 games done and saw you didnt make the rank you wanted and you look at the ladder to see no profile, random named accounts with say 8 games and around 2-3 average place would you be annoyed (multi account) ?

[raven shell]

i dont see how that person is making top 100 with 10 games a month, especially when you have to plan these things based off player base increasing

[cold viper]

they don't have to make it, they just have to have the illusion that they can make it

[raven shell]

imo still not even in the same realm of importance that multi account deterrent is. Especially when you can justify the higher minimum games by getting to be paid to play a free game

[cold viper]

i agree, but 10 games shouldn't be how u take care of multi accounting, if i know u have nothing other than this i'm making 10 smurfs i can play on every week

[runic rose]

nobody likes pests. But i certainly do like playing faster the games and not having to wait too long. Im sure we'll find a sweetspot or another way to counter the smurfs

[dense nexus]

The main issue with the game is that it’s very hard to get into as a casual.

By making minimums, we are yes helping with smurfs. But the issue then becomes that people who are new feel intimidated or like it’s too serious and sweaty.

We’d want to encourage new players and casuals

[raven shell]

i dont think anyone is coming to a new game thinking they can do 5 games as a new players and get rewards. It not only takes much more to learn but also to climb

[raven shell]

back to ravenquest example. They spend over 100k a month (using battleye and some other external team) plus have game masters to manually check bots/cheaters. But they still have rewards gated by a monthly subscription and you have to be lvl 20 or something (lots of time)

So we cant expect illuvium to be able to deal with this without something like a minimum game deterrent. Often deterrents is all you can rely on, even for those spending 100k a month on this issue

Luckily you really cant bot gauntlet. And multi accounting i imagine for a lot isnt worth taking those games from your main account in most cases, if we keep a decent minimum games required

Ravenquest isnt the only example, gala rewards were always gated by needing to own NFTs

[cold viper]

because we have a 100 players playerbase if 1 guy can't deal with that alone that's just incompetence, if you think 0 games is no gate but 15 games is suddenly some insane gate it doesn't make sense

[raven shell]

it takes the same amount of time for a multiaccounter to do those 15 games as it does the casual player you are talking about. If your saying its a gate for a casual than its a gate for a multiaccounter deciding if its worth a second account or sticking to main account or 3rd, 4th ect account

and obviously we have to plan/consider for more than current player base or nothing matters anyway

[cold viper]

you need to differentiate between who's gonna be smurfing and who's not, if i wanna smurf it makes 0 difference to me whether there's a 0 games or 30 games minimum per week, if im a casual i can't smurf i can barely play 5 games a month at most, we have 100 players currently, if u can make some who aren't playing because 15 is too much play 5 because they can do that u already won, if league of legends had a 15 games minimum a week the game would lose 80% of playerbase.

the minimum games at 0 or 5 is not even real btw, it's just psychological cuz u're gonna have to play more for rewards anyways, the whole point of it is to remove the feeling that u're punishing people for not doing 15

[raven shell]

this game doesnt have a 15 game minimum to play. It has a 15 game minimum to get paid to play, so its not the same as league. I can see the argument for psychological part, I just think 5 games is crazy low imo, but yea maybe 15 is too high. 10 games is double the difficulty for multi accounts compared to 5 and still seems psychologically not a big deal

[cold viper]

it's exactly the same as league where people play for the skin, prizes are prizes and it does the same thing psychologically, and i don't think it should be 5 i think it should be 0, you're legit gatekeeping players just off psychology when it makes actual 0 practical sense as the game maker. (again, at below 1.5k-2k+ where basically all the money is)

[raven shell]

your disregarding the impact of people coming into the discord and seeing people spam complain about multiaccounts or going to the leaderboard and seeing the person above them with 7 games total and average below 3rd place

And i know you have this opinion because you think its just the teams fault if their is a multi account and they shouldn't need deterrents only manual banning, but this isnt a reality

[cold viper]

1 we don't even know if those are smurfs yet and 2 if they magically had 15 games instead of 10 how does that change anything

If i know for sure that the team straight up can't do anything but put game required barriers to stop smurfs im making 5 smurfs with dozens of games and taking 5 spots in top 10, whether minimum games is 5 or 25 it makes 0 difference to me

[raven shell]

this is exactly how multiaccounters would think, they know how hard it is to catch, and its worth the try anyway even if caught. Just kind of proved my point. Also its much easier / effective for someone not like you (somone that can actually make top 10), if they only care about spamming lower rewards its much easier

I know you point is it would make no difference but right now it really does for lower elo

[cold viper]

No game's ever gonna get and keep a playerbase when they think in self-righteous/how do we make our slaves give us the max for our money ways.

[wanton ridge]

To activate the account and rewards it should add prerequisites play and catch x illuvials🤔

[raven shell]

I think reward multiplier based off illuvials owns idea has been thrown around

That’s how gala always did it. Gives utility to the NFTs but no in game power (no pay to win)

[loud robin]

https://tenor.com/view/why-not-both-why-not-take-both-gif-11478682

gate ilv rewards of ranked mode behind illuvial collection + add some fuel/cosmetics/borders/whatever and can still do leviathan mode

[naive harness]

I fail to see how monthly hard resets would feel less aggressive. We will be back here after the change anyways 🤣 .

Now soft monthly resets and a hard quarterly reset I could see

[blazing summit]

That doesn't make sense either, why have monthly soft resets and a quarterly hard reset?

This has been discussed as well in the past, of course no one listened. The seasons should be at least 3 months or longer, with no any resets in between. After that you can do a soft or a hard reset.

As always we are doing things the wrong or opposite way. First we have to build in our casual playerbase and only then focus on competitive play. Casual players don't want to grind non stop and be pressured by frequent resets. They just want to play a few games per day or every other day and feel like they are making progress.

There should be all kinds of cosmetics and other type of rewards for the lower brackets (ton of options here) and keep the rare ones and ilv tokens only for the top. That way casual players can play up to their pace and still feel they are making an impact and progress towards something.

Instead we are rewarding top 100 players, much of whom are multi accounting (flagged this is gonna happen months or year in advance) and the others are competing pretty much for nothing, not even some skin of some sorts. In whos mind is this a good idea/setup? Labs? IMC? Totally the wrong approach, nevermind we are in "beta".

All of these things have been discussed in the past

And the discussion here should not be what everyone "prefers", it should be what's best for the project and what's gonna net the biggest success.. smh

[heavy sparrow]

quote: "**should not be what everyone "prefers", it should be what's best for the project and what's gonna net the biggest success.. **"