GOLD payouts BROKEN on 100 man map

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • GOLD payouts BROKEN on 100 man map

    My 2-player coalition just won a 100 player map. We each got 3150 gold. I had 3386 VP and my partner had about 1200. In reality, I should have left the coalition and gone for solo win. We both would have received more gold that way.

    The 3 remaining active but small players received an average of 2000 gold and they had 400 VP or LESS. How is it even remotely worth the time/effort to win? LOSERS GET 5 gold per VP and the WINNERS get about 1.5 gold per VP (combined, i obviously got less than 1 gold per VP)
  • I just kept the first initial of each player so nobody censors me. These players got the following pay outs:

    BeerBelly1 (Volga Perm) : 3150,- gold (3286 VP)
    J (Finland) : 3150,- gold (1320 VP)
    G (East Brazil) : 2438,- gold (438 VP)
    M (São Paulo) : 1789,- gold (289 VP)
    A (Western Australia) : 1348,- gold (148 VP)

    Losing 3 countries got a combined 5,575 gold for holding a combined 875 VP = (6.37 gold per VP)
    Winning 2 countries (coalition) got a combined 6,300 gold for WINNING with a combined 4,606 VP = (1.36 gold per VP)

    Can a moderator please explain that math?

    The post was edited 1 time, last by BeerBelly ().

  • BeerBelly wrote:

    I just kept the first initial of each player so nobody censors me. These players got the following pay outs:

    BeerBelly1 (Volga Perm) : 3150,- gold (3286 VP)
    J (Finland) : 3150,- gold (1320 VP)
    G (East Brazil) : 2438,- gold (438 VP)
    M (São Paulo) : 1789,- gold (289 VP)
    A (Western Australia) : 1348,- gold (148 VP)

    Losing 3 countries got a combined 5,575 gold for holding a combined 875 VP = (6.37 gold per VP)
    Winning 2 countries (coalition) got a combined 6,300 gold for WINNING with a combined 4,606 VP = (1.36 gold per VP)

    Can a moderator please explain that math?
    First off, if you looked at the bonuses for 3rd, 4th, and 5th on the 100p map, you'd see where they got all their gold. More than 50% of that gold comes from the additional payout of the positions in those spots.f

    As for 1st and second.... I have not the slightest idea, besides those 2 being in a coalition together and hence splitting the payout(and lowering the rewards as a consequence of working together).
  • Winning as a coalition is of course easier since you work in a team and have less enemies to worry about, and you need less time to achieve it. Therefore it is only fair that the gold amount is split and you receive less than when getting 1st place. Also at the end of the game it is not only about the amount of VP you have but the fact that you are one of the last players surviving that long and managing to secure top5. Therefore we introduced the fixed payouts based on rank, not VP, to reward staying active and fighting for so long. Gold based on VP is additionally given on top of that.

    If you think that winning as coalition is not worth it anymore and you only measure that by the amount of gold at the end and how much better it is than the rewards of other players (envy phenomenon), sure, try to go for solo victories instead. But keep in mind that for 5 games won as solo player you probably could have won 10 games as coalition, receiving more gold in total.

    It is also not a bug that a winning 2-man coalition receives the same as a winning 3-man coalition. It is just the way it is designed and implemented. It may not be perfect, but other systems also have trade-offs and unfair edge cases. Feel free to just create bigger coalitions then. More people being able to win maps is actually what we want, it helps with player retention, bonding and growing the community.
  • freezy wrote:

    Winning as a coalition is of course easier since you work in a team and have less enemies to worry about, and you need less time to achieve it. Therefore it is only fair that the gold amount is split and you receive less than when getting 1st place. Also at the end of the game it is not only about the amount of VP you have but the fact that you are one of the last players surviving that long and managing to secure top5. Therefore we introduced the fixed payouts based on rank, not VP, to reward staying active and fighting for so long. Gold based on VP is additionally given on top of that.

    If you think that winning as coalition is not worth it anymore and you only measure that by the amount of gold at the end and how much better it is than the rewards of other players (envy phenomenon), sure, try to go for solo victories instead. But keep in mind that for 5 games won as solo player you probably could have won 10 games as coalition, receiving more gold in total.

    It is also not a bug that a winning 2-man coalition receives the same as a winning 3-man coalition. It is just the way it is designed and implemented. It may not be perfect, but other systems also have trade-offs and unfair edge cases. Feel free to just create bigger coalitions then. More people being able to win maps is actually what we want, it helps with player retention, bonding and growing the community.
    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.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by BeerBelly ().

  • With coalition win we are able to finish a 100 player map in 45 days. Solo win takes a lot longer, usually 90 days.

    Half the time, half the gold? Seems fair to me.
    War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



    VorlonFCW
    Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

    >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
  • 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).

    The post was edited 1 time, last by NovaTopaz ().

  • NovaTopaz wrote:

    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.

    TLDR. There is no Victory Reward for 1st place now if you are part of a coalition. There is nothing wrong with my "model of reward" because it used to be AT LEAST 3 gold per VP which made much more sense than this trainwreck of a payout system. You have your opinion and I have mine but in the specific game that I reference, the winners got screwed and Bytro KEPT about 9K gold that would have given to a 5 player coalition (in addition to the 6K we got). Think about that for a second.


    As I have started seeing in more games, many players are putting in minimal effort and can now get carried or just stay alive and out of people's way. Participation trophies are not a good idea.
  • VorlonFCW wrote:

    With coalition win we are able to finish a 100 player map in 45 days. Solo win takes a lot longer, usually 90 days.

    Half the time, half the gold? Seems fair to me.
    You are missing the point about the math and good players dont need 90 days to win. My 2 man coalition won before we had nuke missles researched (well under 40 days). It would have been even sooner had I accepted 2 lazy players that did nothing all game in South America. Sorry man, you are off target with your comment.
  • NovaTopaz wrote:

    BeerBelly wrote:

    Learn to read original post, not just response to developer

    Nova, my coalition had only 2 members an we each got 3150 gold. I have won with 5 player coalition and we still got 3150 gold (I was first place in that game as well). It seems you are just guessing at numbers and have not won in either a 2-man or 5-man situation.

    Then you say the math is off and then in very next sentence, the math makes sense because you just keep guessing instead of READING. I just skimmed the rest and laughed when you said its more difficult to win solo...well duh! I couldn't take much of what you wrote seriously...need more facts and less opinion mate.
  • So in my 100 player game that ended 5 minutes ago:

    These players got the following pay outs:
    (Kentucky) : 42,- gold 42 points
    (South Argentina) : 71,- gold 79 points
    (Nigeria) : 1617,- gold 417 points
    (Egypt) : 194,- gold 194 points
    (North Sudan) : 39,- gold 39 points
    (South Sudan) : 135,- gold 135 points.
    VorlonFCW (Iraq) : 3150,- gold 772 points
    (Burma) : 3150,- gold 279 points
    (Indochina) : 3150,- gold 1371 points
    (Sumatra) : 3150,- gold 901 points
    (Khabarovsk) : 3150,- gold 1298 points


    So the only one that got any real bonus is Nigeria who placed 5th overall and recieved 1200 gold plus one gold per victory point. Surviving players that did not place in the top five got one gold per victory point. I believe that the difference is that we still had 5 members of our coalition. 3 heavy hitters, then me, and one who was always late to any battle, but good to have anyway. Burma placed actually in 6th place, allowing the enemy Nigeria a chance at fifth place. If our coalition was fewer members there would have been more of the 'enemy" that placed third, fourth, fifth.



    My suggestion therefore Beerbelly if you want to keep your opponents from receiving gold is to eliminate them. Perhaps kick one good friend out of your coaliton and just share map to eliminate the stragglers, and then have your ally re-join the coalition to end the game.


    So to summarize. The gold payouts are a fixed amount for placing in the top five, plus a gold bar per victory point. Members of a coalition receive a fixed payout of 3150 on the 100 player, regardless of placement. Perhaps adding a gold per vp amount to the winning coalition members would even that up.
    War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



    VorlonFCW
    Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

    >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
  • BeerBelly wrote:

    Nova, my coalition had only 2 members an we each got 3150 gold. I have won with 5 player coalition and we still got 3150 gold (I was first place in that game as well). It seems you are just guessing at numbers and have not won in either a 2-man or 5-man situation.
    Then you say the math is off and then in very next sentence, the math makes sense because you just keep guessing instead of READING. I just skimmed the rest and laughed when you said its more difficult to win solo...well duh! I couldn't take much of what you wrote seriously...need more facts and less opinion mate.


    What an astute observation! You are correct in that I have never won the 100 player map, in a coalition or otherwise. I have always gone inactive before I could get very far into it, and the last time I did enter a 100 player map of any kind, it was 2 months ago for a single speed match that I spent all of about 2 and a half hours in and lost. But you were complaining about your gold payout, and I was answering your question in a very formal manner, to the best of my ability. Can you ask anything more from me? I don't think so.
  • Solo win better than Coalition payout! I came in first place outside my coalition and unfortunately my partner went inactive and didnt get paid (another bad mechanic). 6500 more gold for solo win over coalition win.

    These players got the following pay outs:
    MaoTheKing (Colombia) : 1652,- gold
    BeerBelly1 (Volga Perm) : 9617,- gold
  • VorlonFCW wrote:

    I believe that the difference is that we still had 5 members of our coalition. 3 heavy hitters, then me (SO YOU GOT CARRIED), and one who was always late to any battle, but good to have anyway.

    My suggestion therefore Beerbelly if you want to keep your opponents from receiving gold is to eliminate them (AGAIN YOU DONT GET THE POINT, I DONT CARE WHAT OTHER PLAYERS GET).

    The gold payouts are a fixed amount for placing in the top five, plus a gold bar per victory point. Members of a coalition receive a fixed payout of 3150 on the 100 player (WHY REPEAT WHAT I SAID IN MY OP, I OBVIOUSLY KNOW 3150 GOLD IS MAXX PAYOUT PER COALITION MEMBER), regardless of placement.


    Perhaps adding a gold per vp amount to the winning coalition members would even that up. FINALLY, YOU GET THE POINT...A GOOD IDEA!
  • And here is yet the latest example of broken payouts. I kicked 2nd place West Texas and we both got MORE GOLD by me taking first place. Had he stayed in the coalition, we both would have only got 2000 gold each. By me winning solo, I got more than 5000 gold and he got almost 2500 gold.

    GenHitman (Alaska) : 1114,- gold
    Clanpred (Central America) : 1512,- gold
    Empire iron (Cuba) : 61,- gold
    Daronite (East Texas) : 7,- gold
    Pauloconn (Florida) : 112,- gold
    ray williams (Illinois) : 0,- gold
    BeerBelly1 (Kansas) : 5674,- gold
    Dogowen24 (Maine) : 1,- gold
    mydrrall (West Mexico) : 2435,- gold
  • freezy wrote:

    Winning as a coalition is of course easier since you work in a team and have less enemies to worry about, and you need less time to achieve it. Therefore it is only fair that the gold amount is split and you receive less than when getting 1st place. Also at the end of the game it is not only about the amount of VP you have but the fact that you are one of the last players surviving that long and managing to secure top5. Therefore we introduced the fixed payouts based on rank, not VP, to reward staying active and fighting for so long. Gold based on VP is additionally given on top of that.

    If you think that winning as coalition is not worth it anymore and you only measure that by the amount of gold at the end and how much better it is than the rewards of other players (envy phenomenon), sure, try to go for solo victories instead. But keep in mind that for 5 games won as solo player you probably could have won 10 games as coalition, receiving more gold in total.

    It is also not a bug that a winning 2-man coalition receives the same as a winning 3-man coalition. It is just the way it is designed and implemented. It may not be perfect, but other systems also have trade-offs and unfair edge cases. Feel free to just create bigger coalitions then. More people being able to win maps is actually what we want, it helps with player retention, bonding and growing the community.
    Free Time looks good on me