Points in GE

[Darth Mole]

For any given encounter in GE will I earn the same amount of points for the competition no matter how I solve it?
ie If I battle and don't even receive a hit
or I battle and just squeak a victory
or I negotiate and get it right 1st attempt
or negotiate and end up spending 20 diamonds?

 

[DeletedUser32389]

I too would like to know the answer to this, and I may have to do this research myself. I thing I do know (and I'm sure you do too) is that lost battles grant you some points, so you can farm (a small amount) GE points by fighting and surrendering.
One thing that has stopped me from doing the analysis is my theory that if there is a difference, it's not going to be a major one.
You earn more points for every encounter you win, so to get a good sample I would have to track it for at least two GE sessions

 

[Darth Mole]

At low levels - of both your age and GE I would imagine there's little difference but I bet its significant on level 4 if you're a high era player?

 

[DeletedUser3882]

Depends on what kind of points are we talking about?

Guild points for completing an encounter are the same regardless of battle or negotiation. Exception being the points gained if you fail...

Personal ranking points differ in battle points gained vs points gained spending goods outside of the market...

 

[Darth Mole]

I'm talking about points for the competition.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

Now you have me confused. If your talking about points for the guild championship that isn't computed by points, it's computed by percentage of Participation.

 

[DeletedUser31498]

Depends on what kind of points are we talking about?

Guild points for completing an encounter are the same regardless of battle or negotiation. Exception being the points gained if you fail...

Personal ranking points differ in battle points gained vs points gained spending goods outside of the market...

Incorrect.

You get more points for winning without taking any losses (I don't believe damage to a surviving unit matters).

And paradoxically, in negotiations, the more guesses the more points. (I don't know if its because each good counts or what, would need to experiment more).

 

[DeletedUser31882]

I assumed it was the points that pop up when you complete a GE encounter.

I beleive there is variability of said points when you lose/surrender a GE battle. At HMA and lower, I believe I consistently gain more GE points for killing units before retreat than if I immediately retreat. I am uncertain if that variability is enemy unit death count, damage done/received or lucky skewed RNG of my anecdotal data that I have failed to record & track like a proper scientist.

The point variation is usually very low. If I recall correctly, 10-15 difference between retreat with no damage output & killing 2-4 units before retreat. All of this could be a rose-colored memory bias.

 

[DeletedUser3882]

I just tested this...

1st battle, zero losses, zero damage, no health lost = 3417 expedition points

2nd battle, two units lost, two additional damaged= 3417 expedition points

 

[DeletedUser3882]

Hmmm... interesting...

Surrender, no kills, no damage to my units = 0 points

Surrender, one kill, no damage to my units = 66 points

Surrender, two kills, no damage to my units = 236 points

Did not know this... I don’t surrender nor do I negotiate... Don’t understand it.. My mind can’t comprehend...

But there *is* some variable in points when you’re defeated. (Surrender is a defeat)

As far as negotiation, it makes sense that if you fail to successfully negotiate in round one, that’s essentially a defeat. Round two same as is Round three so without testing it and seeing it first hand, I would argue that there’s some variable there as well.

I can’t imagine anyone boosting their guild’s points by either method... There’s only so many medals one can afford to purchase for additional encounters and only so many goods one could reasonably afford to keep failing at negotiating. Much easier, cheaper and more efficient to NOT consider this and build up your military strength to just attack... Anything else is just foolish long term.

 

[DeletedUser3882]

I don’t surrender nor do I negotiate... Don’t understand it.. My mind can’t comprehend...

I lied and I’m sorry for being dishonest, considering I just did it for the first three times ever... AND just posted it for all to see... I. Am. Ashamed

 

[DeletedUser31440]

Much easier, cheaper and more efficient to NOT consider this and build up your military strength to just attack... Anything else is just foolish long term.

I'm not sure I agree with that, you can build a city where goods are extremely cheap and expendable and for me at least negotiating is markedly faster than fighting, excluding levels 1 & 2 where most battles can just be auto-completed. I guess I could get my attack/defense boost high enough to auto through level 3, but for now negotiating is faster for me at least and therefore a more desirable way to go about GE.

 

[DeletedUser3882]

I guess that comment was more aimed at a general guideline in efficiency. Cheaper and faster to recruit new units vs producing goods... And directly aimed against spamming GE repeatedly surrendering and failing at negotiating as any sort of viable/sustained strategy to gain additional guild points.

Of course, this opens up a whole ‘nother book of debate with all of the variables involved. High level this or that, camping out doing RQs, pre or post modern with refined or unrefined goods, et al...

 

[DeletedUser31225]

Fighters get less points than negotiators.
Negotiators making more mistakes get more points than those who make less mistakes.

 

[DeletedUser31440]

I guess that comment was more aimed at a general guideline in efficiency. Cheaper and faster to recruit new units vs producing goods...

Of course, that opens up a whole ‘nother book of debate with all of the variables involved. High level this or that, camping out doing RQs, pre or post modern with refined or unrefined goods, et al...

You'll also need to take into account how many worlds a person is playing on and how many of those they're doing GE on. For me with 4 worlds doing GE 4 each week I prioritize time over in game resources and just overproduce goods to allow me to sustain it.

 

[DeletedUser3882]

For me with 4 worlds doing GE 4 each week I prioritize time over in game resources and just overproduce goods to allow me to sustain it.

I understand your point. I do, but Im a bit lost in reference to my post in spamming GE encounters for extra failed negotiation and surrender points.

In prioritizing your time, do you deliberately take each encounter to round three to maximize your guild points each time? Do you spend all of your medals each week going into battle, killing a few and surrendering just to squeeze out a few extra guild points?

Or in prioritizing, you’re more focused on completing GE as a whole and sustaining that?

Does a camper do this? Spending all of their medals to eek out a few extra guild points? If they’re lower age, they do this without regard for their need of expansion? Eventually? I mean, if they’re doing this on the regular, how many medals are they spending each week to gain meager guild points vs completing the encounters regularly and gaining those rewards.

I do not see the benefit in regularly failing for measly rewards when more efficient, cheaper, faster methods are available. Even if one is camping out or using a mirriad of other game strategies..

 

[DeletedUser31440]

I understand your point. I do, but Im a bit lost in reference to my post in spamming GE encounters for extra failed negotiation and surrender points.

In prioritizing your time, do you deliberately take each encounter to round three to maximize your guild points each time? Do you spend all of your medals each week going into battle, killing a few and surrendering just to squeeze out a few extra guild points?

Or in prioritizing, you’re more focused on completing GE as a whole and sustaining that?

Does a camper do this? Spending all of their medals to eek out a few extra guild points? If they’re lower age, they do this without regard for their need of expansion? Eventually? I mean, if they’re doing this on the regular, how many medals are they spending each week to gain meager guild points vs completing the encounters regularly and gaining those rewards.

I do not see the benefit in regularly failing for measly rewards when more efficient, cheaper, faster methods are available. Even if one is camping out or using a mirriad of other game strategies..

I don't particularly care about the encounter points, so I make no effort to maximize them or create bonus points by purposefully losing encounters or making negotiations longer. I want to be done with GE as quickly as possible each week, usually I'll buy either 4 or 8 encounters with medals to finish GE 4 in one tavern boost.

Edit: I mistook your post to say that negotiating would be inefficient due to goods costs, not that the strategy to purposefully lose was the inefficiency.

 

[DeletedUser31498]

I understand your point. I do, but Im a bit lost in reference to my post in spamming GE encounters for extra failed negotiation and surrender points.

In prioritizing your time, do you deliberately take each encounter to round three to maximize your guild points each time? Do you spend all of your medals each week going into battle, killing a few and surrendering just to squeeze out a few extra guild points?

Or in prioritizing, you’re more focused on completing GE as a whole and sustaining that?

Does a camper do this? Spending all of their medals to eek out a few extra guild points? If they’re lower age, they do this without regard for their need of expansion? Eventually? I mean, if they’re doing this on the regular, how many medals are they spending each week to gain meager guild points vs completing the encounters regularly and gaining those rewards.

I do not see the benefit in regularly failing for measly rewards when more efficient, cheaper, faster methods are available. Even if one is camping out or using a mirriad of other game strategies..

I don't think anyone negotiates with the intention of giving up for points, nor was that the point of the original post I don't believe.

But with that said, for a high-Era player, if they could kill 15 units and surrender on encounter 64 to repeat, that actually does seem like a solid way to gain crowns.

 

[DeletedUser3882]

@gutmeister I hope not either... and I have no clue why I’ve spent so much time on this thread today...

My posts above were all “personal experience” as I spent medals to test above... After a while, I couldn’t help but think of the HMA camper or any other low(er) aged player who might be doing this regularly...

I didn’t science the crap out of it, but I know I spent a couple thousand medals on extra encounters, just to fail them.. (Hey, it was for a cause. Still don’t know if it was good or not!)

Confirmed that you DO NOT get extra points for winning.

Confirmed that you DO get extra points, not only for failing, but how well you fail

Then, pity for that HMA camper set in and my thoughts turned to “this is really, really, really dumb... Who in their right mind would do this regularly?!?”

Except me, of course

 

[DeletedUser31882]

Hmmm... interesting...

Surrender, no kills, no damage to my units = 0 points

Surrender, one kill, no damage to my units = 66 points

Surrender, two kills, no damage to my units = 236 points

Did not know this... I don’t surrender nor do I negotiate... Don’t understand it.. My mind can’t comprehend...

But there *is* some variable in points when you’re defeated. (Surrender is a defeat)

Have we established if a player gets more 'fight lose' GE points the further they are in GE? I suppose it wouldn't matter unless you get less points the further you are. I could see a potential strategy of clearing GE and 'lose camping' the final encounter to burn all the encounter per hour to 'maximize' GE points. I almost did that when I was new to GE mechanics. Then I realized I ain't got that kind of time to burn.

But hey! Science! Thanks for confirming my suspicions!