BeerBelly wrote:
It seems you favor Quantity over Quality...I do not. Isn't the entire reason Bytro FINALLY put a limit on coalitions was to eliminate large but bad coalitions? You seem to keep pushing for the lowest denominator and to "just stay alive". The current system encourages some coalition members to do the minimum (get a few hundred VP) while others do the work. This feels like Bytro is handing out participation ribbons for barely active players.Please explain how you justify "rewarding" the best player at 0.9 gold per VP for 1st place and then donating 9.1 gold per VP for last (5th) place? When other players saw the exact payout in my game, they commented about how bad it was (it hurt their motivation to play). Having a flat payout for a 100-player win should be implemented (where fewer members receive better rewards). Please stop penalizing smaller coalitions that have to work harder.
In most 5 player coalitions, there are at least 1-2 members that get carried by the other 2-3. Therefore, you seem to be encouraging some players to simply "free-load" both inside a coalition and out. Smaller coalitions have a much greater challenge to winning with only 2-3 players (less units, morale issues, less core resources, etc.) and you bond much more with 1-2 players that are active and communicate versus non-responsive players that just frustrate the team's efforts and goals. Kicking and taking a former coalition member's land has a net zero effect as well.
You have designed a poor system that now encourages shared-map alliances...each member (especially smaller alliances) will receive more gold than if they are in a coalition. They also would not have to carry dead weight (lazy or unhelpful coalition partners). If the first place person has over 3000 VP, it would be better if they leave a coalition and go for the solo win...which doesn't help your half-active players.
I measure a game by how much time and effort that I invest. I spend a little gold each game but enjoy the challenge of being successful without spamming it. Therefore, having a FAIR gold payout after a long, hard fought win keeps me and others playing more. Don't give the gold medal to 5th place and the bronze medal to 1st place.
...
If you measure your reward by gold per VP, there is something wrong with your model of reward, as the gold per VP is ONE, for most maps. The difference comes in the fact that rewards are handed out for being in certain places, fixed rewards that are independent of the VP gained in the match.Link to the comment with the relevant table of rewards.
Now, let's do some math, as you seem to like to use it a lot. For 5th place, the fixed reward is 1200, add the 148 VP's gained, and you get 1348 gold. Note how over 80% of the reward comes from the fixed reward. Now for first place w/ the coalition:
1320 VP + 3286 VP = 4606 VP. Fixed reward for first place is 6000, and, as it is a coalition, the second place reward is void. (6000 + 4606)/2 = 10606/2 = 5303 ... Ok, the math does seem off there, but you never did specify how many were in the coalition, so it could very well be off because there was 3 in the coalition and not just 2(10606/3=3535.33¯), or victory with the coalition completely throws away VP achieved. Either way, the math makes sense. Being in a coalition, you should expect your reward to be reduced, as you agreed to join the coalition, and hence help it grow, not take all the rewards for yourself and take more credits, and should acknowledge that when you join. And you also underestimate how good a coalition member who only have a couple hundred VP is. They do not have far-flung interests, and therefore can produce armies and other material resources without fear of being overrun.
Also, do you mean a flat bonus for coalition wins, or just in general? As said, they already exist for solo players, and coalitions probably split it equally between the players with the highest relevant fixed reward being given(probably. I don't know exactly how it calculates coalition wins, but you shouldn't expect to be more rewarded for doing more in a coalition. That is not how a coalition works. ALL members of a coalition take credit for it, and if a few are inactive, you should kick them out of the coalition or leave it, not complain about the rewards at a later stage of the game. And trying to make an algorithm that is fair for the members of the coalition who did the most work would be complex at best.).
But yeah, gold per VP is not a good measurement for how to judge your rewards, due to the fixed rewards that the game has. Spots lower on the board that are still in the range of the fixed rewards will by nature have a higher gold per VP due to fixed reward being so large compared to the number of VP's they have. Instead, compare how much gold they get from the fixed reward. More reward is more reward, simple as that. You gained more by virtue of getting higher on the board, and in the case of coalitions, you lose some gold because you obligated to join it and hence work with others to achieve a common goal. Playing in a coalition is far easier than playing solo, as you eliminate a threat and become a larger combined entity than if you were to play alone(two heads are better than one and all that).
