Splinterlands possible improvements

Competitive integrity is one of the most important foundations of any long-term game ecosystem. As Splinterlands continues to grow and evolve, it is natural and necessary for the community to periodically reassess whether existing systems still promote fair and engaging competition for all players.

Splinterlands has one of the most active and thoughtful communities in Web3 gaming, and many of the game’s best improvements have started as player-driven ideas. With that in mind, I want to share a series of proposals/ideas aimed at improving competitive fairness especially in areas where single-account players may feel disadvantaged.

These ideas are not presented as final solutions, but as discussion starters. The goal is to understand how the community feels about potential changes, what concerns might exist, and which directions players believe are worth exploring further.

---

Idea number 1:

Player shouldn't match with another account until the game that is started isn't finished. Meaning, both players didn't enter a game / entered tactics.

Currently, players are able to queue multiple accounts for matchmaking at the same time or once matched with one account they start searching with another. This behavior is commonly associated with scholarship setups and creates several competitive issues:

• Faster and more efficient rating, reward, and focus farming

• Disproportionate advantage over players who operate a single account

• Reduced ladder integrity and perceived unfairness among the player base

---

Rating Gained

I’ve already had a similar discussion about this and still believe the system should be changed. This topic goes back about 14 months:

https://peakd.com/hive-13323/@shadecroat/rating-system-in-splinterlands-should-we-change-it

I’m not an expert, but based on the numbers I provided, AI suggested that in order to avoid rating inflation, a system of ±13 and ±27 would be the most appropriate.

For those who remember, we previously had ±3 and ±36, but that proved to be too extreme—and I agree with that assessment. How would it work?

100 difference +1 -1
200 difference +2 -2
300 difference +3 -3
400 difference +4 -4
400 - 600 +5 -5
600 - 800 +6 -6
1000+ +7 -7

I run some simulations on rating based on win% but I guess team could make it more accurate since they have more data. to see if this would be feasible.

---

Incentivize Fighting Higher-Rated Opponents

To encourage players to challenge stronger opponents, introduce bonus rewards when facing higher-rated players.

If a player has a rating above 1000, they would receive a percentage boost to rewards when matched against higher-rated opponents.

Example incentive:

+5% GLINT rewards

+5% SPS rewards

---

Prevent Immediate Rematches

To improve matchmaking quality and reduce exploitation, introduce a cooldown period before players can be matched against the same opponent again.

Players cannot be matched against the same opponent within 20 minutes. *20 minutes subject to change

• Reduces frustration from repeated back-to-back matches

• Encourages wider opponent diversity

• Makes ranked play feel more fair and competitive

---

“Piloted By” Account Tag

Introduce a visible “Piloted by” tag on accounts to clearly show who is currently playing the account (e.g. owner or scholar). This tag would be publicly visible next to IGN.
Benefits of This System

Full transparency for opponents

• Easier detection of multi-account play by the same scholar

• Helps tournament organizers enforce scholar restrictions

• Owners can quickly see if a scholar is playing multiple accounts

• You know who you’re actually battling against, not just the account

---

Maybe I will input few more ideas over time if i get them. Please do comment if you have any ideas or see any negative sides to the ones i gathered.

Thank you in advance