Page 1 of 2
Point Strategy
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:36 pmby andreweberman
If you know you are about to lose the game, is it a legitimate tactic to try to ensure the person with the highest rank win so you will lose less points?
This is coming up right now in game #372390
I had the weakest position in the game in terms of getting new soldiers each turn. Yellow (the second weakest player) just loaded up all his army’s on my boarder for his stated purpose of killing me.
Dark blue and light blue will be the two surviving powers left to duke it out after yellow obliterates both our chance.
Dark blue has a score of 760 while light blue has a score of 1735. It would seem in my interest to assure light blue's victory (assuming I can’t win myself and the choice is between light blue and dark blue) so I lose less points.
So, is it a legitimate tactic for me to throw myself against dark blue, or is that some sort of violation?
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:39 pmby jnd94
well it is a good tactic, but it doesnt look like you will have much of a chance to use it, by the way you describe the game
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:42 pmby AK_iceman
If the difference of a couple points means that much to you.... then you probably need help.
My suggestion? Just play your own game and whoever comes out winning, so be it. Don't try and target a specific point group so you don't lose a few extra points. If they played a better game than the others, they deserve to win.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:59 pmby andreweberman
It isn’t so much about the points as it is about having a goal. Victory seems hopeless, but just sitting back waiting for the end isn’t all that appealing. Trying to lose less points seems like the next logical goal.
Let me know what you think.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:19 pmby nagerous
have a look at the game before judging, looks like yellow is the problem and a serious nutcase one at that
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:36 pmby joeyjordison
i understand wat ur sayin and being a high ranked player it would b nice if everyone did it but i think that if u r beaten then whoever did it deserves to win. suiciding is unfair i think
as for the specific game u could come back to win it. trust me. only problem is yellow wanted to suicide on u. if he does tell everyone in this thread, leave negative feedback, then put him on ur ignore list.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:39 pmby AK_iceman
andreweberman wrote:It isn’t so much about the points as it is about having a goal. Victory seems hopeless, but just sitting back waiting for the end isn’t all that appealing. Trying to lose less points seems like the next logical goal.
Let me know what you think.
You don't have to sit back and wait for someone to take you out. But you should be trying to win the game for yourself the whole way. So attack whichever player you think will give yourself a better chance of victory, but don't give up and suicide on the lower ranked player just so you don't lose a few extra points.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:52 pmby maniacmath17
I don't see any problem with attacking the player with the lesser rating. When it's deciding between 760 and 1735 points, thats a big difference. If I were to lose to someone at 760 id lose 77 points whereas if I lost to someone at 1735 I'd only lose 34 points.
I'd say that sort of difference is enough to warrant the idea of attacking the player with the weaker rating.
It's just one of the advantages of having a higher rating. Of course there are also drawbacks like when you are targeted early on in the game because people see your rating as a threat.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:55 pmby ParadiceCity9
AK_iceman wrote:If the difference of a couple points means that much to you.... then you probably need help.
My suggestion? Just play your own game and whoever comes out winning, so be it. Don't try and target a specific point group so you don't lose a few extra points. If they played a better game than the others, they deserve to win.
well put, but i dont have a lot of pts to lose lol
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:59 pmby Molacole
that's a very tuff one to answer if you're concerned about your points... The way I see it is if you have enough troops on the board to make a difference on the outcome then you have enough troops on the board to come out the winner. Why waste you chance of winning by throwing the game so you lose less points?
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:11 pmby tanar
Just my thoughts too, Molacole.
The point to stop trying to survive, come back and win is when your last army has gone and you're out
.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:19 pmby pancakemix
AK_iceman wrote:You need help.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:44 pmby Stopper
Well 16 - 5 so far have voted "yes". I wonder if I should say what I think about that, because this isn't Flame Wars.
Saving your points in this manner is pretty pathetic, if you ask me.
EDIT: Intemperate remarks.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:51 pmby sully800
Molacole wrote:that's a very tuff one to answer if you're concerned about your points... The way I see it is if you have enough troops on the board to make a difference on the outcome then you have enough troops on the board to come out the winner. Why waste you chance of winning by throwing the game so you lose less points?
I'd agree with that sentiment almost always. However in this case another player in the game wants to suicide against andreweberman. So he may have enough armies right now to try and outlast an opponent and win the game, but if someone else suicides him the choice and power is gone from his hands.
So in most cases your goal should always be to survive and do what you can to win. Since your chance of winning is going to be taken away from you I think its perfectly fine to try and make sure the player with the highest score wins the game.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:36 pmby BeastofBurson
So in most cases your goal should always be to survive and do what you can to win. Since your chance of winning is going to be taken away from you I think its perfectly fine to try and make sure the player with the highest score wins the game.
I agree...besides...the ranking system is based on your points...and the way its figured out between the winner and the loser to figure how many points are lost/gained...
why not give it to the person that causes you to lose fewer points?
I mean if 30 points keeps you as a Lt...compared to 77 dropping you to Sgt....why lose rank?
I think that saving your rank is the real issue here...
[/quote]
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:52 pmby oggiss
imo, it depends on how much pts :p
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:22 pmby Beastly
Wow I never thought of that before!!!
thanks for the idea
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:34 pmby poo-maker
It depend what are the points at stake for me. If theres more than a 30 point difference, i could be tempted. But i've never been in a situation like that, so i dont know.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:19 pmby andreweberman
The problem became a non issue since light blue struck a potentially devastating blow to dark blue before I went. I think it is still a legitimate question to be debated though. I have a screen shot, but I am not sure how to post it.
Let me refine and clarify the scenario (in case I never get this picture up). There is a four way stand off (you are one of those people). One of the others masses on your boarder for an obvious and stated suicide attack against you. You have enough troops to cripple one of the remaining two effectively handing the game to the person you don’t attack. One of those two has a significantly higher score than the other.
What do you do?
Do you sit back and wait for the suicide attack leaving the game a coin toss between the other two?
Do you attack the lower ranked of the two so you will lose less points?
Do you attack the suicider preemptively?
Other --- explain
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:32 pmby freezie
andreweberman wrote:The problem became a non issue since light blue struck a potentially devastating blow to dark blue before I went. I think it is still a legitimate question to be debated though. I have a screen shot, but I am not sure how to post it.
Let me refine and clarify the scenario (in case I never get this picture up). There is a four way stand off (you are one of those people). One of the others masses on your boarder for an obvious and stated suicide attack against you. You have enough troops to cripple one of the remaining two effectively handing the game to the person you don’t attack. One of those two has a significantly higher score than the other.
What do you do?
Do you sit back and wait for the suicide attack leaving the game a coin toss between the other two?
Do you attack the lower ranked of the two so you will lose less points?
Do you attack the suicider preemptively?
Other --- explain
Depends. In escalating, leaving yourself wide open by making sure the suicider can't kill you won't help you at all.
Leaving yourself to be killed by the suicider leaves the suicider a chance.
But anyway, I have to agree with you on your case, unless you can make your way to victory in a way. It's a legitimate tactic, cheap..but legitimate.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:32 pmby Genghis Khan CA
The way I approach it is that I prefer to lose to a higher ranked player if I'm going to lose, but I don't feel comfortable suiciding on a low ranked player to influence the outcome.
To be honest, I've won from pretty hopeless positions before, so I agree with the guys who say if you've got enough troops to make a difference you shouldn't be giving up.
Regardless though, I just don't feel its fair to the lower ranked player, who must've played well to have a chance of winning, to take away their chance of victory just to protect your points. Just the way I feel, I mean I care about my ranking but I don't feel it's the right way to play the game.
Seriously though, I have never suicided on anyone because I don't believe you've lost a game until you're eliminated.
And I'm not just saying this because I'm a low ranking player...
EDIT: Just read your second post - in that scenario, I would try to negotiate with the suicider... if that didn't work, I would probably try a "hit and hope" against his troops, using good old auto-attack. I just don't believe there are many situations when you should simply give up.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:22 pmby maniacmath17
Hold on a sec. If you go ahead and suicide someone else before the guy on your boarder suicides you, isn't it possible for the guy about to suicide you to also win?
He may still kill you on his next turn, but assuming all your troops are gone, he would still be at large. In a 4 player game it's going to be tough to determine the outcome single handedly.
Posted:
Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:14 pmby andreweberman
Your not really suicideing the other player. More, you are attacking them in such a way to break there continent. Doing so will leave you vulnerable (but it should still take most of the suicider’s troops to finish you off so he can’t continue on against the “fresh” or untouched player)
You can check the game out to see what I mean, though at this point the situation has changed a great deal.
Posted:
Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:02 amby tanar
Sorry to see your hopeless situation, IF yellow really does what he has said. Because blue is already too weak to fight light blue, and if you two spend armies on each other, there's no doubt who the winner will be.
Any idea why yellow is going after you (it's not that clear from the game chat) ? Anyhow, I'd try and persuade him to see a chance for him in the game (which does not include trying to kill you now). Maybe even gang bang light blue like yellow suggested ?? Something that makes him forget his current mission....
And, I would NOT:-
- attack yellow (that would push him to carry on his task)
- attack blue (he's weak enough already)
- attack light blue (need all armies to defend against yellow)
.
Posted:
Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:11 amby MeDeFe
Yellow's being an asshole, tell us if he suicides and he will be on one more persons ignore list.