RE: SplinterStats: Unveiling Splinterlands Battle Statistics. The Season's Report 163

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

Hi there!

I've just completed a thorough review of all the processes running within the service. It looks like it wasn't a bug, but rather an issue with the temporary window for scanning player battles. When I first started developing the service, I set a delay of several seconds between calls to the Splinterlands API to be respectful and avoid overloading the server. Unfortunately, that timing wasn't optimized later on.

As a result, each player was only being scanned every 24 hours. In many cases, that's just too long, and I believe it caused us to miss some battles. That's probably one of the reasons why our system reported fewer battles than, say, PeakMonsters.

I've already updated those variables, and now each player is scanned approximately every 2 hours. This should prevent battle records from being missed, making the data much more accurate and reliable. Before this change, I was only able to get 2 of your battles, but after the update, the results were much closer to reality:


-- SPS Earnings Report for seattlea (Season 164, Wild Format) ---
Total SPS Earned: 103.6200
SPS Earned per Day:
2025-08-01: 13.7940
2025-08-03: 89.8260

--- Debug Summary for seattlea (Season 164, Wild Format) ---
Total player battles processed (including losses): 48

  • Ignored due to null JSON: 0
  • Ignored due to JSON parsing error: 0
  • Ignored due to 0 SPS (even if won): 0

It's likely that between August 1st and 3rd, many battles weren't recorded. However, this should now be resolved. While the data has always been precise, it wasn't exact, and with this modification, it should start to be. Unfortunately, there's no other way to verify this than by waiting a few days to see how the data evolves.

Thank you so much for your support, and we're always here to help. Cheers!



0
0
0.000
1 comments
avatar

Thank you for looking into it, the numbers look much closer to reality now at least for my account. Looking forward to the next set of data after correction! BTW based on my AI detection analysis the other commenter on this post could be an AI bot...

0
0
0.000