I don't know if this has been posted already, but the name of the game is deception. Like, literally..."Subterfuge" is defined as "deceit used in order to achieve one's goal." If someone wants to pay .99$ just to spite someone, let them do it. I personally think a chocolate bar is a better investment but good for them.

I'm beginning to think that negative medals should be endorsed

Mechanism
- player A gives a -ve medal to player B, player A pays
- other players in the same game are invited to endorse the medal, no charge
-- mechanism.should be a simple vote, yes / no / abstain (+1 / -1 / 0)
-- neither A nor B have a vote here
-- a majority of yes over no votes delivers the medal
--- medal is not delivered until either an absolute majority agree, or the vote has been open 48 hours
--- the option for giving -ve medals closes four hours after the end of the game
- if a third player (C) offers to pay for the same medal to B, C pays developers, but simply endorses A's gift. No second poll

Yes, it's a bit more complex, but, at least one other player will have been involved, and there is scope for discussion.
A has the option to change his (her?) mind and withdraw the medal (no refunds).
- C would become main sponsor in this case
- A's vote defaults to no on withdrawal

roozbeh wrote:

stumbles wrote:Attrition of new players is normal, you still expect to hold a few and show month over month growth. Holidays bring an infux, app store promotions do to yet growth is still negative.

This feature is killing the golden goose.

Nope , the growth isnt relevant to medals , new players need so much time to get a medal ! And that become their concern !
I consider myself luck to get my first medal in 11 games .
I do think we should change the titles and details of medals but lets not get irrelevant things involved

Medals are absolutely relevant when you lose players you would otherwise keep.

but medals are not the reason most players were lost. Subterfuge was already on the decline whenever medals were introduced. It's just a game that has high attrition and only those dedicated to the game stuck around. Medals were just an effort to increase revenue, but they didn't work. We are left with the current player base who still loves the game and I think most of the more experienced players will agree medals have almost no effect on an actual game.

well i think medaled player can comfirm this. rather it acually had influence or not. nothing just a medal or worst to have.

i confirmed the first main idea about medal is raise revenue, there side effect of it. that is rage medal. it give satisfaction after a game to give someone a medal. rather it good or bad medal.

overall it still has balance side effect not the worst. negative medal just too overrated.

how about make other thread about positive medal are the brilliant medal ever. player with actual good nature and skill deserve it.

I have 6 backstabber medals. I also have 8 good medals. I think I have the most medals I have seen from anybody (disregarding patron medals).

The good medals do nothing for me. But once every few games I get a snarky little brat who asks why I have all these backstabber medals and wonders if I'm trustworthy.

So yes the medals do influence players a bit - but it's not THAT extreme. But it is annoying.

For the record - I only deserved 1 of the 6. Even the players who gave me the bad ones later admitted to me that I didn't deserve them. 3 of my good medals are from players who previously given me backstabber medals (I call them sore loser medals) and apparently felt guilty enough to try to repent their sins by purchasing me good ally medals.

And to be honest, I am also guilty of handing out a couple backstabber medals myself