Splinterlands Proposal: Hybrid Async Battle System

Objective

Reduce matchmaking queue times and increase effective player liquidity by introducing an optional asynchronous battle system that shares the same matchmaking pool as live battles.

Overview

Ranked Modern battles would support two matchmaking modes:

• Live Battles (current system)
• Async Battles (new system)

Players may choose if he is entering live battle or putting a battle in queue.

There could be only up to 50 games be put in queue from each player.

Shared Matchmaking Pool

The key to this proposal is that Live and Async battles are matched together.

When a Live player enters matchmaking, the server searches in the following order:

• Live opponents
• Async queued battles

From the Live player's perspective, nothing changes. The battle feels exactly like a normal Ranked battle. If no opponent is found within 60 seconds Live player is matched with Async battle team.

This dramatically increases available opponents without requiring more players to be online simultaneously.

Rewards

Async battles provide convenience and eliminate waiting, so rewards should be slightly reduced.

• Live Battles: 105% SPS and 100% Glint
• Async Battles: 95% SPS and 105% Glint

All other progression, including rating, Focus progress, and rewards, remains unchanged.
This model incensitives live playing with small boost on SPS earnings. While also encourages async battles with additional glint and slight reduce in SPS rewards.

**Double glint option / SPS burn **

Not applicable in async battles.

Queue Expiration

To prevent abandoned battles:

Async battles automatically expire after 48 hours if unmatched.
Players receive a notification.
They may reclaim or requeue the battle.
No battle remains permanently stuck.

Last 50 hours in a season entering Async battles is disabled.

Benefits

For Async Players

• No long matchmaking waits, just like we have brawl and tournaments.
• Ability to prepare battles before work, school, or sleep.
• More flexibility.
• Better experience in low-population leagues.
• Less need for liquity bots - players are matched with players

For Live Players

• Significantly shorter queue times.
• Larger pool of available opponents.
• No gameplay changes.
• Less battles with liquidity bots

For Splinterlands

• Increased effective matchmaking liquidity without increasing player count.
• Better retention during off-peak hours.
• Faster battle completion across all leagues.
• Proven implementation concept using existing asynchronous battle technology from Tournaments and Brawls.

Negative side

Async Battles - putting tactics blindly

I dont have a solution for this. This is something that you sacrifice in order to skip the waiting time to be matched with an opponent. We are doing the same in brawls and tournaments.

Matchmaking

From live player perspective, when 60 seconds passes the system is matching him with async battle in a way:

1. Firstly checks if there is an async battle in between 0-500 rating
2. If not found it goes to 500-1000 rating span
3. If there is no suitable async opponent within 1000 rating reach, Live player is matched with liqudity bot

---

Implementation Flexibility by team

This proposal focuses on solving the matchmaking liquidity problem while minimizing development effort. The exact implementation details are intentionally left flexible so the development team can choose the solution that best fits the existing architecture.

The following elements are suggestions rather than requirements:

• The user interface and placement of the Async Battle option.
• Whether players can queue a fixed or variable number of battles.
• The exact reward distribution between Live and Async battles (SPS, Glint, and any future rewards).
• Matchmaking algorithms, rating expansion, queue expiration, and other balancing parameters.

The only core principles are:

• Live and Async battles must share the same matchmaking pool.
• Async battles should increase the number of available opponents and reduce queue times.
• There should be an incentive for players to continue using Live Battles, which can be achieved through reward balancing or other mechanisms.

By leaving these implementation details flexible, the team can iterate on balance and user experience without changing the underlying concept. This should also allow the feature to be implemented more quickly, as it does not require a specific UI design or fixed reward model to deliver its primary objective of improving matchmaking liquidity.

---

Feedback and thoughts from the community:

1. You can be matched a maximum of 5 times in a day with an async battle from one owner/scholar

• to avoid bickering (I have been matched 50 times with shade today)

1. If I'm a scholar and I play 5 account I can't be matched if going live to async battle with an account that have my IGN in scholar tag.

*this way we avoid breaking TOS that you are matched with yourself

1. Rating should be always taken into account as current one. Meaning, if you enter 50 battles on 3800 rating you are NOT searching 0-500 rating for all 50 battles.
   If you win 10 in a row and have 4000 rating with 40 games left. Game searches with spread of 3500-4500 (instead of 3300-4300)

2. Should we limit 50 battles per person? This is for team to decide.