Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The new system emphasises your current rank and that of your opponents. Although this can seem strange in some situations, it is intended to be more punishing and, at the same time, more rewarding.
For example, if you are a bronze player against four diamonds, you are very much expected to place last, and therefore won't lose many stars if you do, but will get a lot more stars the higher you're placed.
Getting -1 stars for second place is possible in a situation where you're a diamond player, against four easy bots, for example. You're expected to win that game with ease, so not doing so would have that result.
There's also the case of a person resigning from a game. If they do, they're not counted in the final ranking. Let's say we have three players and one resigns. Because of the resigned player, you'll still get the stars for 2nd place, even if you're in last place in the scoring. That would explain getting +4 stars when placing last, for example.
However, it is a new system, and if you believe there were miscalculations or strange occurrences, please reach out to our Support Team at help@marmalademail.com with more details about the game and a screenshot of the final scores so we can investigate the situation further.
Thank you!