Suggestion on Rewards

  • Hi all, I only just now realised how rewards work and I got a suggestion, since I believe the current system rewards players for being total dicks.

    Here's an example:

    I have 900 points.

    My coallition has 1400 points.

    Let's say I have a good day and I'll know I'll hit 1000 points mark. My coallition will make 1500. We will win.

    Based on current rewards system I get 2500 GM only.

    However, if I decide to backstab my coallition mate, I can leave the coallition (let's say 1 min before day change, to avoid risks of retaliation).

    I'll be top player in the map reaching 1000 points. I win solo, I will make 3600 + 1000 points = 4600 GM. Almost double as previous scenario.

    It doesn't sound right and as I stated above, being a dick would be highly rewarding.

    And with this it comes a dilemma - Even if I don't leave my coallition and play nice, my biggest rival that's on the opposite coallition might decide to go solo. So by the time he reaches 1000 points, he decides to go solo and gets the 4600 GM reward. And then there's me, with lets' say 1200 or something points, getting the coallition 2nd place reward which is 1000 GM only.

    This is incredilbly unbalanced, unfair and promotes coallition backstabbing.

    My suggestion is that individual rewards should always happen and coallition should be something added on top of that.

    This way, not only I won't leave my coallition, I also know that I'll win the MVP reward regardless of how good my coallition is.

    Thanks for reading.


    as stated below, my example isn't valid since you can't have more than 2000 points in a map. I did not know that.

    In that case any of the edge cases I was thinking about won't ever happen.

    Funny enough, the my biggest rival in my current map is struggling to beat me and so he just declared war against his mates and is now going solo. Oh well

  • Paulo,

    What you're suggesting is impossible. There are 2000 points total in any game. ALWAYS. It's a "zero sum" game. In order for your points to go up someone else's must go down. This means there will never be a game where you have 900 points and your coalition has 1400 points and there is anyone else in the game with 1200 points. There won't even be an enemy player with 600 points in your example. In order for your coalition to have 1500 points the entire rest of the world including all ai's still in the game will have less than 500 points total.

    I still agree with some portion of what you've said because I've won a lot of games on the 100 player map (5 person coalition) where I had 800+ points in order to reach 1500 with my coalition. Meanwhile I've got an ally or two with 100 points (or less) and they got the same reward as I did. The very minimum I should have gotten was +800 GM for my points to go with the 3150 for the coalition win (it's 3150 each on the 100 player map) because for another 100 points (going solo) I would have gotten 7000+ GM as opposed to 3150. I've been tempted many times to dump my coalition and go solo but I always just suck it up and deal with the "loafers" who basically rode my coattails to a full reward.

    If not giving the GM for points scored, then I think there should be some sort of bonus to coalition winners who get the most points for the coalition. Maybe the top 2 on 5 man coalitions and top 3 on 7 man. Or maybe a sliding scale based upon performance vs expectation. In a 5 man coalition it's "expected" everyone gets roughly 300 points. If one player has to get 800 so the others can all get 175 that's more than a little unfair in terms of rewards vs effort. On the 500 player map with 7 man coalitions I had to get 650 points once. I had well over 1000 provinces and it was miserable to control/maintain morale. I definitely deserved more GM than the player in my coalition with less than 100 provinces and about 40 points.