O
odssstudents1
All worlds
06 Dec 2015 20:25Link
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 in
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 in
J
Jonni
All worlds
10 Dec 2015 14:30Link
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.
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.
O
odssstudents1
All worlds
10 Dec 2015 16:32Link
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.
A
Aries
All worlds
10 Dec 2015 17:02Link
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.
D
Danzig
All worlds
11 Dec 2015 09:15Link
That would be awesome. Make that unwanted top ceo spot strategically coveted for when lots of rollovers occur
T
The Ho
All worlds
11 Dec 2015 17:59Link
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 sug
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 sug
O
odssstudents1
All worlds
11 Dec 2015 23:03Link
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.
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.