| Sunday, December 6, 2015 - 08:25 pm |
The monthly award system is pretty good right now, but I've noticed a couple oddities about it that seem like they ought to be fixed.
1) Per documentation, a #1 award will get you -1500 score, a second-tier award will be -500, and a third-tier award will be -300. Great. But on WG, where I play, #1 is 310 GC and #2-8 is 120 GC, meaning that the GC/score penalty ratio is actually better if you're #2 than if you're #1. Given that this ratio is usually what's most important(since it determines how often you can win, in effect), this means that the #1 player actually gets less out of winning than #2, which is just wrong. Also, enterprises getting smaller awards means that accepting enterprise awards is always a bad idea unless you'd never win on the country side - #1 CEO is only slightly better on a GC/penalty basis than #37 country.
I suggest, as a fix, that the score penalty go away from a flat amount and instead it scales with the GC and rank of the award. For example, #1 gets penalized 5 points per GC, #2-8 get penalized 10 points per GC, and #9-37 get penalized 20 points per GC. Penalties still go up as awards go up, you don't need to change the award amounts, but it'd mean that a player who only ever takes #1 is definitely better off than a player who settles for lower awards.
2) The system asks us if we want to accept the award, but it doesn't say what the score penalty is. Could this be added?
| Thursday, December 10, 2015 - 02:30 pm |
Great suggestions, thanks!
1. We'll look into an alteration to how the penalty is applied. Can't say for sure if/how we will change it right now.
2. I've added this to the immediate to-do list. Should have been there in the first place.
| Thursday, December 10, 2015 - 04:32 pm |
As a simpler change, you could change the ratio of reward amounts a bit. For example, 310+7*120+29*30 = 2020 coins are given out per month on WG. Make it so the awards are top-weighted a bit more, so that #1 is better than #2. For example, instead of 310/120/30, make it 450/100/30 - it's the same total GC awarded, but #1 is now 3.33 penalty/GC(instead of 4.83) and #2-8 is now 5 penalty/GC(instead of 4.17). #9-37 would remain at 10 penalty/GC, which seems perfectly fair. That way, the penalties would remain totally unchanged, which probably saves work on your end, but #1 is now a real goal for people to aim for, and settling for being #2 is definitely worse.
| Thursday, December 10, 2015 - 05:02 pm |
A number of awards are refused each month due to the penalty system. It would be nice if the coins that were refused were rolled into the next month's awards rather than retained by the game as some type of penalty-tax.
| Friday, December 11, 2015 - 09:15 am |
That would be awesome. Make that unwanted top ceo spot strategically coveted for when lots of rollovers occur
| Friday, December 11, 2015 - 05:59 pm |
I like some of the view expressed above. I like what oddstudents1 says, but I think his breakdown would discourage people from accepting anything but the top award.
When I read the awards section in the rules, I got the impression that the penalty was imposed to try and enhance game play for more players instead of the same players getting the awards each time. Sort of spreading the gold coins (GC) out among more players to create incentive & interest. I may be wrong about that, but it's the impression I got.
Looks at the example for WG. Top award would receive a penalty of 1550 points, 2nd level awards would receive a penalty of 1200 points. With 310 GC for top award and only 120 GC for 2nd level awards, I think this would dramatically discourage players from accepting anything but the top award. Players would hold out for the top award, unintentionally blocking more players to be eligible for awards.
I suggest a straight 5 point penalty for GC accpeted. In the WG example 1550 point penalty for the top award, and 600 point penalty for the 2nd level awards. If you are eligible for an award, the penalty is fair and leveled so that it's balanced per GC received.
The same should hold true for enterprises. 5 point penalty per GC received in awards. While there are many reasons why people don't play the enterprise game, perhaps 1 is the severe penalty for accepting the awards. For example, top president & top CEO both get the same 1500 point penalty for the top award. However, the GC award for enterprises (CEO) is far less than the country award (presidents). If you are getting a 1500 point penalty for top award in either, only 200 GC for a CEO is far less incentive than 300 GC for a president. This makes the enterprise part of the game less appealing to play for most.
These are my opinions, and I take no offense if people don't agree with them. I encourage feedback.
| Friday, December 11, 2015 - 11:03 pm |
Yeah, looking it over my initial numbers were a bit ham-fisted. I do think #1 should be a bit better than #2, but you're right that it shouldn't be that much better.
And yeah, CEO awards are weaksauce right now, those need to be cleaned up. If you want to make CEOs get less awards than countries, give out fewer of them at similar values, or give them lower penalties for lower awards.