VVV scoring system suggestion - Updated

Now that we've got the off-topic cricket discussion out of the way, I'm going to bump my last suggestion for people to pick apart. My aim was to reward harder games, encourage variety and table-filling, cut down on duel spam and/or domination/score spam as the best path to a high VVV placing. But still be pretty easy to understand, to know how to improve your score, and to encourage people to aim for the best finish they can/play a game out, even if it won't be enough for a 1st place finish and/or medal.

sanabas said:
Every entry on a table would generate a fastest finish score, and a score score. A time VC would generate both, it'd just be identical.

That score would be:

(scaling modifier) x (difficulty modifier) x (mapsize modifier) x (speed modifier) x (number of entries modifier) x (result modifier), done the same way for every single game.

Scaling modifier: purely for aesthetics about what numbers you prefer to see, if you use 100, games will mostly score between 40-500, if you use 1, mostly from 0.4-5. Won't change results at all.

Difficulty modifier:
Settler: 1.0
Chief: 1.2
Warlord: 1.4
Prince: 1.7
King: 2.0
Emp: 2.5
Immortal: 3.0
Deity: 4.0

Mapsize modifier:
Duel: 0.4
Tiny: 0.6
Small: 0.8
Std: 1.0
Lge: 1.1
Huge: 1.2

Speed modifier:
Quick: 0.8
Normal, Epic, Marathon: 1.0

Number of entries modifier, where number of entries = n:
For all duel/tiny/small or settler/chief/warlord/prince/king: log (n)
For all standard+, emperor+: log (n+1)
The way I'd do this if making a database/spreadsheet myself is to make all games be log [n + (diff x size)], where diff = 0 for king and below, 1 for emperor+, size = 0 for small and below, 1 for std+, which gives the desired formulae. Dunno if it's easier to pull variables straight from individual settings like that, or to look at which of the 48 size/diff combinations a game belongs to. I think it'd also make it easier to tweak, to scale the rewards for an empty table rather than a straight yes/no.

Results modifier:
Finish time:
Quick:
15/(15 + your turns - winning turns)

Std:
20/(20 + your turns - winning turns)

Epic:
25/(25 + your turns - winning turns)

Marathon:
30/(30 + your turns - winning turns)


In-game score (and finish time score on a time VC):
(your score/winning score)


Multiply those together, get a score for each game. Using a scaling of 100, having the best time on a std/std deity with 9 entries would give 400 points. Filling an otherwise empty std/std deity table would give 120.4 points. Having the best time on a quick/duel settler with 2 entries would give 9.6 points.


How to get the total:

Option a: Simply add all the time scores together, or the best x scores, to generate the time total. Do the same for all the score scores, to get the score total. Add them together for overall. The 6 different categories would be irrelevant, as they'd all be identical, same as now. You'd just have VVV finish time, VVV ingame score, VVV overall. For me, this is the least preferred option, by far. It means you can simply play one type of game to generate all of your score, if you prefer single landmass dom games, or you prefer high level Babylon/Spain science/diplogames, there's no reason to play anything else, beyond a handful to actually meet the VVV requirements.

Option b:
League of nations: Your best 2 (or 3, or whatever) games for each nation qualify, sum those to get your total points.

Map quest: Best 3 (or 4, or whatever) games for each map, sum those for total.

Tempi: Best 15 for each speed, sum for total.

Go the distance: Best 10 for each size, sum for total.

Machiavelli: Best 12 for each VC, sum for total.

Inferno: Best 8 for each difficulty, sum for total.

Sum all 6 totals to get overall VVV fastest time points, likewise to get overall VVV ingame score points. Sum the two to get overall VVV points.

Pros: Simple to understand, easy to see where you can imporve your overall score the quickest. Makes the individual categories relevant & different, so LoN you can do purely with pangea/gp/terra/inland sea domination if you want to, map quest you can use all Babylon science games if you want to, but a high overall total will require a variety.
Cons: It's possible to reach a point where it's no longer practical to improve your score. That will take a very large number of games, though. More likely that you reach a point where more domination games won't help, or more Attilla games won't help, or more duel score games won't help, etc. Which may upset those who prefer to play a certain type of game most of the time.

Option C:
Work out the average score for each nation in LoN, and cap the points for each nation to that average. Likewise for mapquest, machiavelli, etc. Slightly more complex for tempi/inferno/go the distance, work out the average of game total/diff modifier for inferno, cap the points to average x diff modifier. Same for the other two using mapsize & speed modifiers. So it'd be:

LoN: Total points/34 = a, any nations with more than a points only contribute a, any with less contribute full points. Sum them to get LoN total.

Map Quest: Total points/20 = b, any maps with more than b points only contribute b, any with less contribute full points. Sum them to get Map total.

Machiavelli: Total points/5 = c. All VCs capped at c, sum to get total.

Tempi: (quick points/0.8 + std points + epic points + mara points)/4 = d. Quick is capped at 0.8d, the others are capped at d.

Inferno: (settler + chief/1.2 + warlord/1.4 + ... + deity/4)/8 = e. Settler is capped at e, chief at 1.2e, deity at 4e, etc.

Go the distance: (duel/0.4 + tiny/0.6 + small/0.8 + std + large/1.1 + huge/1.2)/6 = f. Duel is capped at 0.4f, std at f, huge at 1.2f, etc.


Again, sum all 6 totals to get overall VVV fastest time points, likewise to get overall VVV ingame score points. Sum the two to get overall VVV points.

Pros: You can always improve your score by playing more games, even if you've already submitted 1000 of them. Like option b, makes each of the 6 VVV categories different, encourages a wide variety of games. For those who prefer a certain gamestyle, they don't reach a point where they can't improve their score without playing other types, they only reach a point where the other styles would be more helpful, but their preferred style still gets them rewarded, just not as much.
Cons: A little more complicated to quickly see where your score can improve, or to see how much improvement you've made between updates. Offers a bit more incentive than option B to duel-spam.


I think B or C would both be good, I'd probably prefer C, though it requires more effort to work out how to improve your score. I'm not a fan of A, both for making the categories irrelevant, and for encouraging spam/single game types.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks sanabas, you have put a lot of thought into this.

Option B does look the best to me. I am in favour of any scoring system that rewards effort as well as skill. If that system rewards lesser scores then it will be an encouragement for members to complete their entries rather than giving up when they can't make the top three.
 
Looks great.

Option B for me as well, with a similar reasoning as TractorBoy.

some small comments on the determination of the scores:
-- number of entries modifier: king in the log(n+1) group
-- results modifier (finish time): use e.g. 33/52/75/150 for the constants, I think this makes all speeds equal weight
-- option B for totals: aim for a comparable total number of scores for each of the 6 groups, e.g. using 2 scores per nation (86 total), use 15 per mapsize (90 total), 4 per maptype (80 total),...
I think 3 scores per nation would be best.
 
Foamfollower said:
Looks great.

Option B for me as well, with a similar reasoning as TractorBoy.

some small comments on the determination of the scores:
-- number of entries modifier: king in the log(n+1) group
Click to expand...

Have been thinking more about that one, and instead of off for king & lower, on for Emperor+, I'd make it dependent on size/difficulty. Something like:

Would go with log [n + (diff x size)], in order to give more points for an empty map on bigger/harder difficulties. I'd make it:

diff: 0 for settler, chief, warlord, 0.3 prince, 0.5 king, 0.8 emperor, 1 immortal, 1.5 deity

size: 0 for duel, tiny, 0.5 small, 1 std, 1.5 large, 2 huge.

You can think of this as 'bonus games'. On warlord or below, or on duel and tiny maps, there are no bonus games. So with 1 game in the table, you'll get no points. With 4 games, you'll have a number of games modifier of 0.6. With 10 games, it'll be 1. With 25 games, it'll be 1.4.

On a small prince map, there'll be 0.15 bonus games. So with 1 game in the table, number of games modifier is 0.06, a small reward. With 4 games, it's 0.62. 10 games, 1.006. 25 games, 1.4.

Std, immortal, 1 bonus game. With 1 game, 0.3. 4 games, 0.7. 10 games, 1.04. 25 games, 1.415.

Play a huge, deity game, and there are 3 bonus games. 1 game, 0.6. 4 games, 0.85. 10 games, 1.11. If we somehow get 25 people to play the same huge deity game, 1.45.


So this way, as more games get submitted, the effect of those bonus games diminishes. There is an incentive to fill the empty tables, and in particular to fill the larger, harder tables. There's not an incentive to play a bunch of cheesy duel games, or a bunch of cheesy settler games.
Click to expand...


-- results modifier (finish time): use e.g. 33/52/75/150 for the constants, I think this makes all speeds equal weight
Click to expand...

Yeah, 15/20/25/30 was just arbitrary. I assume you mean 50, not 52? There are 500 turns on normal speed, aren't there? I think those numbers are too long (so there's too much reward for being a long way off first), but putting them in the same ratio as overall turns/deal turns makes sense. So 10/15/22.5/45, or 15/22.5/33.75/67.5 (or 15/25/35/70 to use round numbers). I'd make marathon lower though, especially as so many are duel games, something like 15/25/35/50.

-- option B for totals: aim for a comparable total number of scores for each of the 6 groups, e.g. using 2 scores per nation (86 total), use 15 per mapsize (90 total), 4 per maptype (80 total),...
I think 3 scores per nation would be best.
Click to expand...

Yep, was aiming for roughly 60 per category, 2 scores per nation is actually 68, not 86. 3 scores per nation is 102. If it was aiming for 100 games per category, that's be:

LoN - 3 per nation (102)
Mapquest - 5 per map (100)
Tempi - 25 per speed (100)
Distance - 17 per mapsize (102)
Machiavelli - 20 per VC (100)
Inferno - 13 per difficulty (104)

Much simpler than option c, and I think it's unlikely anybody would be reaching a cap on their overall score. And you could still be improving your overall total by playing 100 duel/quick/diety games, 3 per nation (say 1 time, 1 culture, 1 diplo). You just wouldn't be helping the tempi/ditance/inferno part after the first 25, and you'd be improving the overall total less than someone making an effort to vary their games. Still going to reward volume somewhat, but a lot less than the current system.

There's strong encouragement to vary games, and it makes the subsections unique, people can aim to be at the top of LoN, for example, even if they're not aiming to be top of the VVV overall scoreboard.
 
You can think of this as 'bonus games'. On warlord or below, or on duel and tiny maps, there are no bonus games. So with 1 game in the table, you'll get no points. With 4 games, you'll have a number of games modifier of 0.6. With 10 games, it'll be 1. With 25 games, it'll be 1.4.
Click to expand...
This part, if I'm understanding it correctly, discourages playing certain empty tables. I'm all for encouraging play on bigger and "harder" settings but I don't think discouraging the "lesser" ones is the right way. This also goes for lowering the score based on map size or speed (less than 1 multiples for duel, tiny, small and quick). Even if it is all relative, psychologically, telling someone there game is worth less seems bad. I'd thinking starting those at 1 and then just increasing the other multipliers is better.
 
Xger said:
You can think of this as 'bonus games'. On warlord or below, or on duel and tiny maps, there are no bonus games. So with 1 game in the table, you'll get no points. With 4 games, you'll have a number of games modifier of 0.6. With 10 games, it'll be 1. With 25 games, it'll be 1.4.
Click to expand...
This part, if I'm understanding it correctly, discourages playing certain empty tables. I'm all for encouraging play on bigger and "harder" settings but I don't think discouraging the "lesser" ones is the right way. This also goes for lowering the score based on map size or speed (less than 1 multiples for duel, tiny, small and quick). Even if it is all relative, psychologically, telling someone there game is worth less seems bad. I'd thinking starting those at 1 and then just increasing the other multipliers is better.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with Xger.
We should give those game 0.1 score with one entry for rewarding them to open a new setting. It should be the max score that they can archive that should be lower then standard but still something worth.
 
Xger said:
This part, if I'm understanding it correctly, discourages playing certain empty tables. I'm all for encouraging play on bigger and "harder" settings but I don't think discouraging the "lesser" ones is the right way. This also goes for lowering the score based on map size or speed (less than 1 multiples for duel, tiny, small and quick). Even if it is all relative, psychologically, telling someone there game is worth less seems bad. I'd thinking starting those at 1 and then just increasing the other multipliers is better.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it discourages certain empty tables, I'd just say it doesn't offer the same encouragement that there is for standard size, standard difficulty. After all, the system now tells people their games are worth less (in fact, worth zero) if they're in an empty table. I also don't think people need to be encouraged to play more duel games, they're going to get played regardless. (Though I'd have no problems if they just got removed entirely. ;))

But it's easy to adjust things so that even settler games, even tiny (or even duel) get something for an empty table.

I see no difference, even psychologically, between having

Duel: 0.4
Tiny: 0.6
Small: 0.8
Std: 1.0
Lge: 1.1
Huge: 1.2

Scaling factor: 100

or having

Duel: 1
Tiny: 1.5
Small: 2
Std: 2.5
Lge: 2.75
Huge: 3

Scaling factor: 40.

It'll give identical results, and the scaling factor is purely for aesthetics (as in, will an average game be worth 5 points, or 500?) But since it's exactly the same to use 0.4, ..., 1.2 or 1, ..., 3, it doesn't bother me at all how it gets listed.

I wouldn't put all of those numbers on the main page anyway, I'd put all the detailed numbers in a link of it's own, but just have the simple version on the front page/rules/wherever.

Simple version would basically explain that your games give you points. You get more points from being at/near the top of a competitive table, you get more points as map size/difficulty increase, you get more points if you're first of 10 than if you're first of 2. You'll get some points for opening up an empty table (unless it's duel-sized. Or unless it's on the 3 easiest difficulties, or whatever) and again, the bigger the map/higher the difficulty, the more you'll get. For the individual competitions, your best x games of each type will ccontribute to your score. For VVV, it's just the sum of your 6 individual totals. For the maths behind the system, click on link pointing to all the detail.
 
I agree with Xger and Peets that opening a table should give at least a small amount of points. A way to achieve this might be an adjustment to the "number of entries multiplier":

log [n + (diff x size)], where diff = 0.1 for king and below, 1 for emperor+, size = 0.1 for small and below, 1 for std+

this would result in log( n + 0.01 ) for e.g. settler/duel games, log( n + 0.1 ) for e.g. emperor/small games and the 'normal' log( n + 1 ) for all emperor+/standard+ games.



I would actually prefer 'normal' for king+/standard+ games, but that is besides the point.
 
Foamfollower said:
I agree with Xger and Peets that opening a table should give at least a small amount of points. A way to achieve this might be an adjustment to the "number of entries multiplier":
Click to expand...

Two long term examples of unrewarded effort.

1 - vexing playing vanilla deity games and no one has responded to some of them because there is no point in finishing second for no points or medals.

2 - Moriarte has submitted loads of the most difficult type of Deity games on the G&K and again no one has responded.

These guys and a few others should be rewarded for their efforts and there should be an encouragement for others to submit even if they finish second.

So yes, I concur with you guys.
 
Why don't we make bronze medals be gained even if it's the only submission (instead of it needing two)? Sure someone could rush in some bronze medals early, but that's exactly what is wanted - as many categories opened as possible (and he'd probably be beaten quicker than he thinks in most of these cats).
 
Foamfollower said:
I agree with Xger and Peets that opening a table should give at least a small amount of points. A way to achieve this might be an adjustment to the "number of entries multiplier":

log [n + (diff x size)], where diff = 0.1 for king and below, 1 for emperor+, size = 0.1 for small and below, 1 for std+

this would result in log( n + 0.01 ) for e.g. settler/duel games, log( n + 0.1 ) for e.g. emperor/small games and the 'normal' log( n + 1 ) for all emperor+/standard+ games.



I would actually prefer 'normal' for king+/standard+ games, but that is besides the point.
Click to expand...

If we do it that way, I don't see any reason not to vary it a bit more, as I posted above. And easy to have that variation go all the way down to duel or settler. More benefit that way to empty deity tables, and not the huge dropoff for king.

And log (n + 0.01) will really be a small score. Using the weights I suggested for difficulty/map size in my original post, without bonus games, 1st of 10 entries on a particular table would be:

huge deity: 480 points
std deity: 400 points
duel deity: 160 points
standard king: 200 points
duel king: 80 points
duel settler: 40 points
huge quick settler: 96 points

So, if the bonus games are worked out going from 0.1 for settler, 0.5 for king, 1.5 for deity, and 0.1 for duel, 1 for std, 2 for huge, then for opening up a new table on each of those types would give:

huge deity: 289 points
std deity: 159 points
duel deity: 9.7 points
std king: 35.2 points
duel king: 1.7 points
huge quick settler: 7.6 points
duel settler: 0.17 points

I think that looks reasonable. Could maybe drop huge from 2 down to 1.5, that'd change from 289 down to 246 for huge deity. Though I'd expect that with a huge deity game, you're unlikely to ever have many competing entries, so you're unlikely to increase your points from that total of 289. But when 10 people have done duel/deity/attila/great plains domination, they'll all have 120-160 points from it. And for those looking to improve their score, or overtake someone else, if they target someone's huge deity game, and beat it by 25 turns, they'd get 335 points, and the previous #1 game would drop from 289 down to 224. So definite encouragement to go out and beat those empty table games.
 
Reading your post Sanabas made me go on board with your suggestion :)
Although I find 289 points a bit much. Is it possible to use a lower start score to lower it?
0.17 versus 289 is also a lot.
I'm on board with having some difference but that would be taking it very high.
 
sanabas said:
I see no difference, even psychologically, between having

Duel: 0.4
Tiny: 0.6
Small: 0.8
Std: 1.0
Lge: 1.1
Huge: 1.2

Scaling factor: 100

or having

Duel: 1
Tiny: 1.5
Small: 2
Std: 2.5
Lge: 2.75
Huge: 3

Scaling factor: 40.

It'll give identical results, and the scaling factor is purely for aesthetics (as in, will an average game be worth 5 points, or 500?) But since it's exactly the same to use 0.4, ..., 1.2 or 1, ..., 3, it doesn't bother me at all how it gets listed.
Click to expand...
Someone new to the HoF who finds those listings and has a preferred setting of say - quick, tiny, warlord, for whatever reasons - would see the multipliers and think "hmm, none of my settings are even counted as 1 real game" and probably move along. Reducing a score, even if scaled and fair, gives a real negative psychological reaction. If it starts at 1 and goes up by .2 to 2 for huge it gives the same relative result without the sometimes subconscious negative sting of a reduced score.

As for the new suggestions, giving someone 0.17 points for a game is practically insulting from the perspective I listed above. I like the overall model, I just really think the absolute lowest score or multiplier should be set to 1 (that score would likely be a quick settler duel map). Even if the scores end up very high for huge deity normal+ I think it's overall healthier in the long run to not have sub 1 scores.
 
If huge dropped from 2 to 1.5, the bonus games would drop from 3 to 2.25, the score for an empty table drops from 289 to 246.

In that case, the 200+ score for an empty table game would only apply to large/huge deity. Huge immortal would get 143 points. Large deity 202. std deity 159.

The 'bonus games' concept is only there to encourage people to play the less used tables, and will have the most effect on tables with only 1-2 entries. It's going to end up practically irrelevant for tables with 5+ entries.

I think the discrepancy does need to be that big, because there is going to be very little competition for those games. Hopefully it encourages 1 or 2 other people to take aim at your games (and even if they try, but finish 50 turns behind, they're still getting near 200 points for their own effort), but I doubt there'll be more than that, I doubt we'll ever see a huge/deity table with 10 entries. So long term, being first on huge/deity, even the most competitive huge/deity, will still only be worth less than 500 points.

Whereas duel/dom/deity/great plains/attila is going to get full, because it's the quickest & easiest way to get a deity win, and it will become the quickest & easiest way to get some cheap points. BNW has 12 entries for that table, most within 12 turns of 1st. The leader would have 174 points, and everyone within 12 turns would have at least 140. Anyone who wants to spend an hour rolling starts until they get a win that requires no skill will still be able to get 140 points from an already populated duel/deity table like that. Same for one-civ gauntlets, say std/std/prince with 20 entries. The winner will get ~225 points. If you finish 4th, 10 turns out of the lead, you'll still get a decent reward (~160 points) instead of nothing. If you don't expect to challenge the leaders, hope to finish 50 turns behind and mid-table, you'll still be looking at ~75 points, there's incentive to play, incentive to improve, even if you view a medal as out of reach.

That's why I think the larger maps on highest difficulties need to get that sort of reward for an empty table. It will encourage people to try higher levels, it will encourage players to try themselves against existing good results, because they'll still be rewarded if they can get somewhere close, instead of ignoring it as unbeatable. Players improving, learning new stuff, having competition are some of the things the HoF is meant to encourage. The current setup doesn't encourage that, it encourages gaming the system for gold medals, it encourages players to stick to the already full tables, play the same type of game over and over and over.

If we go with this, then people who want to do that will still be rewarded (up to a point), but there are now a lot more options, new players who want to improve their score won't feel funneled into it, there will be cheap points still available, but there will also be decent rewards for other things, rewards that are missing now. I think the more options people have to get points, the more options people have to see those points (different totals for different subsections), the better the chance they can feel they've made tangible achievements, better the chance they'll feel they've become better players, the more active & involved they're going to get.
 
Xger said:
Someone new to the HoF who finds those listings and has a preferred setting of say - quick, tiny, warlord, for whatever reasons - would see the multipliers and think "hmm, none of my settings are even counted as 1 real game" and probably move along. Reducing a score, even if scaled and fair, gives a real negative psychological reaction. If it starts at 1 and goes up by .2 to 2 for huge it gives the same relative result without the sometimes subconscious negative sting of a reduced score.

As for the new suggestions, giving someone 0.17 points for a game is practically insulting from the perspective I listed above. I like the overall model, I just really think the absolute lowest score or multiplier should be set to 1 (that score would likely be a quick settler duel map). Even if the scores end up very high for huge deity normal+ I think it's overall healthier in the long run to not have sub 1 scores.
Click to expand...

Setting the lowest multiplier to 1 is easy enough, without changing the end result.

Honestly, if somebody looks at it, and says to themselves 'hey, my quick/settler/duel game isn't even worth a whole point, isn't counted as a real game', I'd hope they decide to maybe try a 'real' game, rather than decide the HoF isn't for them. And if they're only prepared to play 5 minute duel settler games and not try anything else, maybe the HoF isn't actually for them.

I'd need to sit down and actually generate the numbers (and I'd rather spend that time playing games :D), but there would be very few settings where you'd get less than a point for an empty table game. Duel/prince would be 1.15, Small/settler 1.2, tiny/chief 1.52. So it'd only happen for duel/settler, duel/chief, duel/warlord, tiny/settler, and that's it. And as soon as there's a 2nd entry, even a duel/settler game jumps to 12 points for 1st, and if 2nd spot is 100 turns slower on standard speed, they're still getting 2.4 points. I don't think having scores below 1 will be a problem.

But if it is, could just hardcode it to say every game is worth at least 1 point, if that's easy from a coding perspective.
 
How many points are they when someone plays for example standard settler?

Edit: Just saw your last post and I didn't saw it that way.
So it means that for low easy games it better to play existing games then to open new ones.
But for the higher difficult and bigger maps it's both a good option.
Although, those who aren't that good can better open up a new game setting then try to compete?
 
sanabas said:
Setting the lowest multiplier to 1 is easy enough, without changing the end result.

Honestly, if somebody looks at it, and says to themselves 'hey, my quick/settler/duel game isn't even worth a whole point, isn't counted as a real game', I'd hope they decide to maybe try a 'real' game, rather than decide the HoF isn't for them. And if they're only prepared to play 5 minute duel settler games and not try anything else, maybe the HoF isn't actually for them.

I'd need to sit down and actually generate the numbers (and I'd rather spend that time playing games :D), but there would be very few settings where you'd get less than a point for an empty table game. Duel/prince would be 1.15, Small/settler 1.2, tiny/chief 1.52. So it'd only happen for duel/settler, duel/chief, duel/warlord, tiny/settler, and that's it. And as soon as there's a 2nd entry, even a duel/settler game jumps to 12 points for 1st, and if 2nd spot is 100 turns slower on standard speed, they're still getting 2.4 points. I don't think having scores below 1 will be a problem.

But if it is, could just hardcode it to say every game is worth at least 1 point, if that's easy from a coding perspective.
Click to expand...
Well there are people that play that struggle with warlord for instance. So the example I gave of warlord, tiny and quick, could be someone still working on improving their game and preferring to get through a game in 1 session.

As for coding a floor of 1, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me if possible.
 
Peets said:
Although, those who aren't that good can better open up a new game setting then try to compete?
Click to expand...
That's similar to what I was thinking with the sub 1 score point. If someone new wants to put out a new duel/settler (or chief/warlord) game giving them sub 1 wouldn't be much of an incentive psychologically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
  • Sticky
Modding Guide for VP 4.0+ (COMPLETE, v1.0)
Replies
5
Views
3K
mofab16084
M
jarcast2
Fix for bugged River City Connection trait
Replies
19
Views
598
Rekk
Rekk
S
30 Points On Chieftain
Replies
8
Views
852
Ruin
Ruin
Enginseer
  • Locked
(6-CP) GPTI Bonuses Scale on all GP Units (Great Engineer, Great Merchant, and Great Scientist Affected)
Replies
5
Views
678
Enginseer
Enginseer
S
  • Locked
(7-14) Double Spy XP for Completing Missions [Spy Update 2]
Replies
1
Views
209
axatin
A
Top Bottom