Posts by Moldavi

Okay, thank you. I didn’t know the mechanic worked like that for these games so that clears it up.

Quote from Arcorian

Edit: after another round of checks...

"Victory rewards are now based on each player’s or coalition’s relative progress towards their respective victory condition. This progress is reflected in a joint ranking table, accessible through the timer in the top right corner of the screen or from the new ranking indicator in the top bar."

What you descirbe and as you stated, relevant for time boxed rounds only. In case you have a round where that is/was not the case, could you tell me which map that was and/or provide a game ID so we can take a look at it?

Hi, it happened in 3108872.

My individual score was 505 (50.5%) but my coalition’s score was 643 (42.9%) and the coalition won.

Thanks!

No, I’m talking about timed games. The patch from Nov states that the person or coalition with the most “relative progress” towards victory wins once time is up but that does not appear to be correct because it is based on absolute points regardless of which is actually closest to winning.

That still doesn’t address the question.

Victory conditions for an individual in the game is 1000 points (50% of the total points available relative to all other players). For a coalition it is 1500 points (75% of the total points available relative to all other players). If the victory conditions were 2000 points (100%) then percentage towards that would be relevant but it isn’t, so it’s not.

So 699 points for the individual is relatively closer to victory (1000) than 700 for the coalition (out of 1500). The individual is only 301 points away from victory while the coalition is 800 points away from victory. The progress towards victory is significantly more substantial for the individual in this instance then the coalition but the coalition is granted victory over the individual because of the one point difference - even though it is further away from the game constructed victory condition.

The formula has nothing to do with my question, it is just the tool for calculating points.

The question remains - what is the definition of “relative progress” when by every logical comparison the individual percentage in the example is relatively closer to victory than the coalition?

Hi, I know the formula but thanks.

That isn't my question. The patch states that the winner will be determined by who has the most "relative progress" to victory.

I am asking what the definition of "relative progress" is in this instance since to me relative progress is percentage to victory since that was the entire point of the patch adding the percentage to victory to the counter. But the game is factoring victory based on absolute points.

So if I am an individual that is at 699 points at the end of the timer, my "relative progress" to victory is 69.9% (699/1000). But, if a coalition is at 700 points, their "relative progress" to victory is only 46.7% (700/1500).

So how is the coalition relatively closer to victory than the individual?

Also, a better link to the formula: https://www.supremacy1914.com/…in/files/PointFormula.pdf

I asked this in the patch notes thread a few days back but think this might be a better venue.

I would like to verify that the winning criteria is the absolute score rather than the nearest to victory score (raw number versus percentage). Is that correct in all circumstances and if so, why? A coalition score of 700, as an example, is not as close to victory as an individual score of 699 (47% versus 70%) so does the coalition always win? I think for me the confusion is that the wording states “relative progress” towards victory when that does not seem to be the case.

Just curious more than anything at this point for future reference so I know how to calculate my province upgrades accordingly.

I personally have no problem with the monetization of the game. It allows those of us who are not whales to play what I consider one of the best online games out there.

But, as someone that has played on and off for over a decade, I can say that the quick pay to play option has changed the dynamic over the years. In the past I advocated a maximum GM spend per game, or even per in game day per game, as a way to balance it. The paying players still get an advantage but the others have a bit more of a level playing field.

I have beaten whales in games but it does take a lot more effort and a lot more micromanagement to do so. For the casual player who may spend a total of $5 to $50 per month/year on the game the level of in game interaction needed for this might seem a bit overwhelming, especially in the speed rounds.

This may have been stated earlier in the thread and I missed it, but what would be the harm in a 100k GM limit spend per game or 15k GM limit spend per game day?

As an update - I got the coalition medal today.

I would still like to verify that the winning criteria is the absolute score rather than the nearest to victory score (raw number versus percentage). Is that correct in all circumstances and if so, why? A coalition score of 700, as an example, is not as close to victory as an individual score of 699 (47% versus 70%) so does the coalition always win? I think for me the confusion is that the wording states “relative progress” towards victory when that does not seem to be the case.

Just curious more than anything at this point for future reference so I know how to calculate my province upgrades accordingly.

I accidentally posted this on the Supremacy 1 board:

I have a question about this patch.

I had a 100-player map end today and my coalition won. I received the GM for a coalition win but the medal for the individual win. I was the top player individually as well.

So, I am curious how this works. Is it an absolute determination on whether or not it is individual versus coalition or based on percentages or just raw points? I was individually at 51% (505 points) while my coalition was at 45% (678 points).

I don't mind sharing the victory here and I received the GM rewards for the coalition win, but I would like to know why it was decided that the absolute points were more valuable than the percentage to victory amount? Also, if I received the GM for the coalition win, why didn't I receive the coalition medal and instead received the individual win medal?

Thanks!

Game: 3108872

Quote from Edwylm

Due to being pointed out as a "cheater" (if they are were or were not true) it does hurt their reputation and it is thus protected under Law and game rules. Reason why is that other players will not trust the so called "cheater" and players might try to seek to punish them.

For the mutli account part, each situation is different which is why we gather evidence. When a player admits, we have to confirm that they are a multi as they could be bluffing or trolling. But seeing that you were once a GO you should understand how difficult it is when dealing with muli accounts and confirming if its the same person.

Everyone is affected by multis But as I have stated some players will consider our insights as false making things even more complicated.

Display More

You are correct, it is difficult to determine based solely on an accusation. But if the player admits to it and then the investigation determines that multiple accounts did in fact stem from the same location it seems that the accused saying “oh yeah, that is my wife’s account” would be insufficient since it is corroborated by the player admitting it to someone else in the game directly.

Without the admission of guilt, such instances are, as you say, difficult to determine. With an admission of guilt, it is difficult to see how such an instance could be any more clear cut. Especially since it was determined that they were from the same location and therefore clearly not bluffing or trolling.

But that is just my opinion on it.

What about when the player admits to multi-ing through a bragging personal message and then tells the Mods that the multi account belongs to their "wife"? This happened to me in my most recent game. I know what the player told the mods because the mod accidentally forwarded two of their responses to me.

I understand the data protection laws and we had to deal with Germany's pre-EU data laws when I was a GO but letting a player know that another anonymous player was cheating is not a violation. The Daily European used to have simple reports like "Player X was removed from the game" which covered everything.

I agree with the OP regarding the problems with cheating. Using GM is obviously not, but if a player is obviously multi-ing, admits it, and is then allowed to stay in the game even though the evidence is readily apparent through a quick look through my messages in-game how does that make it fair to the rest of us? Not to mention the loss some players might have who have paid for the GM only to have someone screw them over with a multi account.

I’ve been FP before and quite enjoy it but the message that I received (three times now) is weird since I just joined back up last week. I haven’t had four weeks as a FP to be inactive. Oh well.

Hi, I just logged back into 1914 last week after a five year absence and had a pop up to rejoin FP. I’ve looked for a game but haven’t seen any starting and today was sent a message that said since I haven’t joined a game in 4 weeks that my account has been suspended. Huh?