End of Game Rewards

  • If there are only three players left in a game and we are all allies with the option to retire, does that mean that we get the first, second, and third place awards respectively even if one of us is not in the top three nations overall?

  • Okay, thanks!


    They should really change that tbh, the AI and/or inactives shouldn't get anything for quitting, and the still active players should not be deprived of a reward if they are still playing.

    Nothing prevent you to attack those inactives and, in that way, to get better index of power and improve your position in that table. A change isn't needed by that reason.


    Besides, AI and Inactives doesn't get anything. Rewards are only given to active players.

    Demonaire
    ES. EN & PT Game Operator

    Bytro Labs | Supremacy 1914


    b78//+

    All the things you need to play this game can be found here, here and here.

    Do you want to experience new ways to enjoy Supremacy 1914? Click here and here.

    Have you problems with the game? Send a ticket.


  • I am speculating (and if I'm wrong, please correct me Pershing), but I believe he was suggesting that forcing the active players to grind out points against inactive opponents is simply a waste of time.


    Thus removing the AI and inactives so as to give rewards to the top 3 active players results in virtually the same outcome but allows them to move on to a new active game sooner.


    Did I get the gist of your argument?

  • This has been a bug bear of mine for a while. In order to gain your rewards it can be a total grind to kill of the Ais that stand in your way. If a player has left the game then they should not take priority over someone who fought to the end.


    I agree 100% the last 3 real players should get the top 3 placings and associated rewards

  • I am speculating (and if I'm wrong, please correct me Pershing), but I believe he was suggesting that forcing the active players to grind out points against inactive opponents is simply a waste of time.


    Thus removing the AI and inactives so as to give rewards to the top 3 active players results in virtually the same outcome but allows them to move on to a new active game sooner.


    Did I get the gist of your argument?

    Yes, maybe it's a waste of time, but it's part of the bargaining: Gain time by renouncing merit? or sacrificing time to improve your position?


    Reality is the inactive players in Top 3, before going inactive, played better than the others. So it's fair the active players must fight for grabbing those points and not simply "gifting" them just because they were active throughout the match. After all, since they're active, they already have a big advantage against them.

    Demonaire
    ES. EN & PT Game Operator

    Bytro Labs | Supremacy 1914


    b78//+

    All the things you need to play this game can be found here, here and here.

    Do you want to experience new ways to enjoy Supremacy 1914? Click here and here.

    Have you problems with the game? Send a ticket.


  • Reality is the inactive players in Top 3, before going inactive, played better than the others.

    Not necessarily - there are many reason why a player will expand quickly this could be as a result of being a muli who used alt accounts to run Kamikaze for him. Or a big GMer who simply ran out of funds so quit, could have been a lot of luck involved in placement. However the players who stick it out to the end and show that kind of activity and commitment to the game should be given some kind of reward - it's not gifting when the rest of the map has chosen to forgo any reward.

  • Not necessarily - there are many reason why a player will expand quickly this could be as a result of being a muli who used alt accounts to run Kamikaze for him. Or a big GMer who simply ran out of funds so quit, could have been a lot of luck involved in placement. However the players who stick it out to the end and show that kind of activity and commitment to the game should be given some kind of reward - it's not gifting when the rest of the map has chosen to forgo any reward.

    As for the first case, you can report it. If that report doesn't punish that player, then that player played better than the others.


    As for the second case, that is still to play better than the others. Twisted in some way, but that's the logic here.


    Finally, the players that show activity until the end of the match already receive a reward for that: their puntuation in goldmarks (something inactive players doesn't) And they can pursue bigger rewards by conquering inactives (something very easy to do, given the AI). But "gifting" the Top 3 just because activity, or even semi-activity (and not by "play the game"), is clearly an inadequate reason to prize them.

    Demonaire
    ES. EN & PT Game Operator

    Bytro Labs | Supremacy 1914


    b78//+

    All the things you need to play this game can be found here, here and here.

    Do you want to experience new ways to enjoy Supremacy 1914? Click here and here.

    Have you problems with the game? Send a ticket.


  • The problem is killing AIs is incredibly boring and believe it or not the reason we play a game is for fun not to be forced into the mindless grind of clearing a map of AIs. But if Bytro feel to 'win' a map players have to suffer that boredom then they are not providing us a fun game but a mundane task instead. It's a shame you feel like that but I do realise some players prefer killing AIs as they are predictable and easy to kill, those ones would happily keep playing a map when the real fighting is over but many of us really don't consider that challenging or fun.

  • The problem is killing AIs is incredibly boring and believe it or not the reason we play a game is for fun not to be forced into the mindless grind of clearing a map of AIs. But if Bytro feel to 'win' a map players have to suffer that boredom then they are not providing us a fun game but a mundane task instead. It's a shame you feel like that but I do realise some players prefer killing AIs as they are predictable and easy to kill, those ones would happily keep playing a map when the real fighting is over but many of us really don't consider that challenging or fun.

    I won't deny to fight against normal AI is boring (In fact, I think AI should be smarter, at Elite AI level, and become that Elite AI even smarter), but by that reason the system gives people a procedure to end the match sooner when there are 3 players or less. However, some players decide to not ending the match until they have got a better position in the table, and that's a valid stance. As I said, it's a good dilemma whether decide to save time by renouncing some prizes or gain a big reward by consuming some time.


    The fact is no map ends with all their players active, and I don't think it's fair that players who were outsmarted by others win "free" prizes just because they endured more than them. Even more, I think that's a very boring, not funny, way to play.


    Prizes are there to take it. They're yours. But don't tell me it's funny to gift rewards to people who didn't fight them.

    Demonaire
    ES. EN & PT Game Operator

    Bytro Labs | Supremacy 1914


    b78//+

    All the things you need to play this game can be found here, here and here.

    Do you want to experience new ways to enjoy Supremacy 1914? Click here and here.

    Have you problems with the game? Send a ticket.