Taking out the lower ranked.

[quackaddict]

I have always just based my strategies upon the positions and strengths of the board. Recently I have been noticing open commentary from higher ranked players point out lower ranked players that are getting strong in the game and asking people to target them so their score doesn't drop. Does this seem fair? I guess I feel that is pretty crummy to be trying to automatically remove the folks that can hurt your score the most. I figured the point was to play as best you can and the best strategy wins, not the best strategy after we remove the lower ranks.

[FabledIntegral]

I have always just based my strategies upon the positions and strengths of the board. Recently I have been noticing open commentary from higher ranked players point out lower ranked players that are getting strong in the game and asking people to target them so their score doesn't drop. Does this seem fair? I guess I feel that is pretty crummy to be trying to automatically remove the folks that can hurt your score the most. I figured the point was to play as best you can and the best strategy wins, not the best strategy after we remove the lower ranks.

No - it's stupid and retarded. Report it and it may be dealt with. Although the reverse happens as well, low ranks will target high ranks because they believe that the high ranks, if not cut back early, will somehow exploit the game better than they can, so they all suicide the high ranks early game.

[Haggis_McMutton]

As far as i`ve seen targeting is common in games where 1 or 2 players don`t fit the norm. It`s normally not a coordinated effort to take out the higher/lower rank, but more of a "hey this guy could be trouble, I`d better try to get him out of my corner of the map".

It sucks, but there`s not much you can do about it, except of course, play most games with people around your score.

[FabledIntegral]

Oh I have no problem doing that. For example, a low rank sergeant or lieutenant comes into an 8-player escalating. He uses his entire deployment in Australia, and like an idiot, tries to go and take Aussie (which is one of the most classic noobish moves you can do). By all means, I would make a coordinated effort with the other two players in Australia to specifically attack him and get it out.

I can't tell you how sick I am of people who try to go for Aussie and think it's a good strategy... ugh.

[whitestazn88]

if i'm on the brink of elimination, i tend to go after the lower ranked players so that i don't lose too many points...

i suppose that was more important back when i had more than 1200 points though. now i guess i wouldn't care

[kratos644]

Oh I have no problem doing that. For example, a low rank sergeant or lieutenant comes into an 8-player escalating. He uses his entire deployment in Australia, and like an idiot, tries to go and take Aussie (which is one of the most classic noobish moves you can do). By all means, I would make a coordinated effort with the other two players in Australia to specifically attack him and get it out.

I can't tell you how sick I am of people who try to go for Aussie and think it's a good strategy... ugh.

Fable definitely has no problem doing this lol
I've witnessed it multiple times and it just gets funnier each time lol

[kratos644]

But on topic now no it's not fair but yes it does happen
I've had it happen to me more than once. Specially when my score was a lot lower.
Really the only thing you can do is play with people your score to avoid it as sad as that is.
Although that doesn't fix the problem of playing with people that don't know what they're doing
Lol

[Ethitts]

When I first started out players would purposely kill me to stop them losing alot of points. It was even announced in the game log. I was real pissed off and thought it was unfair, but now at a higher rank I do it. That's really hypocritical, but common, I don't wanna lose heaps of points. All you can do really is play with similar ranked players.

[MeDeFe]

Usually there's no need to take out lower-ranked players, mostly they don't play as well and are eliminated early on anyway. And if they play well enough there's no reason to target them since they contribute to the enjoyability of the game.

[LlamaGeneral]

Never noticed it, but thanks for the heads up..

[FabledIntegral]

When I first started out players would purposely kill me to stop them losing alot of points. It was even announced in the game log. I was real pissed off and thought it was unfair, but now at a higher rank I do it. That's really hypocritical, but common, I don't wanna lose heaps of points. All you can do really is play with similar ranked players.

Childish - do it in a game I'm in and I'll report you in a second, I've done it before, and trust me, the mods notice it.

Point whores are annoying. I've suicided a major before and let a cook win because the major was being an idiot - attacking me when I had around 19 armies compared to the cook's 45. After continuously attacking me, I just unloaded a cash onto him (like 15 armies + I stacked all my armies into one stack of like 13 and used the 27 to just run him over where I could).

I lost 100 points to the cook rather than the 35 I'd lose to a major. 65 point difference. If a cook plays better than a major, the cook deserves to win.

[FabledIntegral]

Attempting to throw the game in order to lose less points can be really unfair and very unsportsmanlike. It is right to give him the appropriate ratings and this report is noted of him.

This is not the first time that some players do break some unwritten rules that destroys the essence of the game or of the site. If it is just a case of unsportsmanlike conduct, it will reflect on himself. There have been warnings, permanent and/or temporary bans, depending on the weight of the offense. Regardless, when it comes to that, the case is thoroughly investigated and consulted with the other moderators before a judgment can be handed down. As much as possible, we do not want to go to that path and hopefully, the player in question abides the rules and policies implemented by the site.

[oVo]

If a cook plays better than a major, the cook deserves to win.

I agree. My moves are based on a player's position in the game and not their rank.

[quackaddict]

I find it kind of sad how many of the upper ranked reply's are to only play people of your own score. That pretty effectively keeps all the lower ranks low and the higher ranks higher.

But, I appreciate the open feedback, thanks.

[ahunda]

If a lower ranked player is really skilled, he should be able to beat other low ranked players, thus gaining points and rank. That is how all higher ranked players gained their rank in the first place. They all started with 1000 points, you know ...

I climbed to 1800+ points by exclusively playing public games against all comers. By that time however I had grown frustrated with many of the downsides of public games: Deadbeats, missed turns, poor game-play by unexperienced or bad players ...

I then joined some private games with minimum point requirement, that were announced in the Callouts forum, and I found those games much more challenging and entertaining.

For me the main reason to try maintaining a certain rank is to have access to exactly those games: No deadbeats, rarely a missed turn or a really dumb move, skilled opponents, ...

I still play the occasional public game though. And when I do, I don´t go after lower ranked players more than others. I think, that´s really cheap, and if someone is so protective of his points, then he should really stay away from public games, instead of ruining the game for others.