Defeat a player and get points

It gets quite pointless and annoying, to really struggle hard and don't get anything by the end because a player was foolish enough to take over all the troops of another play but leave one troop so that the third person can simply destroy that one troop and take over all his cards. I hope you understand what i'm trying to say.

Something similar happened to me. I won the game because in a 4 players deathmatch, one of the player took all the troops but left only 2 troops for me to take over, i took over those two troops, take over all of his cards, then you can pretty much just win the game. Actually, i was losing the game pretty bad and just by One move, i won the game but it couldn't be helped because the other player was "Basic" (Oh BTW, can you please change "basic" to "conscript" because basic doesn't exist in army ranks and it just sounds silly XD).

What i'm trying to say is that, there's no point of having higher ranks if no one can reach it, sure there are one or two players who are Major General but what about other ranks. I love the part where you lose points, but to gain points is just ridiculous. I know players who can take down any ranked player they play against yet they are private and lance corporal, why?

Well i think, that since this game rely mainly on the probability due to heavily dice based, ranks fail to show the skill level that a player have. There's no correlation between "Skill level" and "Rank".

What i think is, if someone defeats a player, even though he doesn't win the game, may get "some" points so that this cycle of remaining private breaks and you see numbers up there at General level. Then there gets more competition since higher ranked players would give more points to low level players when they'll lose the game and then the numbers would move up and down instead of remaining below Corporal rank.

To put it simple: How about players gaining "some" points by defeating a player, even if they lose the game.

The problem I see with it is that it introduces a new strategy that changes that game too much. If you have the 3 most amount of troops in a 4 player game and you see no chance of winning then you kill the player with the least troops in order to get at least some points. But what you are really doing is giving the game away to whatever player goes after you. This essentially takes the problem you described and gives it a new form and doesn't really solve the problem at all.

I think many issues like these will be solved when we get around to programming the capped cards game option because it will require more than just being lucky with killing and cards. You'll have to build regions instead of just getting lucky with a kill. For those who haven't heard, capped cards will be like increasing cards except that there is a limit on how high it can go. For example set the limit at 20 and the card turn ins would be 4,6,8,10,12,15,20,20,20 etc.

But killing the player with least amount of troops doesn't mean that you're necessarily giving away the game, the player would get his/her cards and become more powerful and probably win the game. What my main point is to really give away points because actually in most games where players are more than 2, more people lose points than the people who gain it (which is only the winner). This results in more people getting demoted than getting promoted lol.

I didn't know that the game was also there in 2011 and when i got to know that, i was surprised how few people were at the high ranks.

You mentioned a gamemode which is pretty interesting but it doesn't necessarily improve Deathmatch and capital game...

So what you are saying is that we should give the ranks away and then is does not mean as much to really be a winner?

In war you need to know your opponent and you either win or lose...there is no 2nd place!

I feel that if you lower the standards then it means less. As it stands right now if you have a higher rank ...you really earned it! Just look at how many games the higher ranked players has played to get their rank...mine is above 800. Fendi had been a General before and she helps with newbies (like me, when I first started) and I have seen her rank almost go to basic and then fight to get her rank up...then watched it go down again...she really has to fight to keep it high.

Ever wondered why we have passwords? Or have games that you have to have so many points to join?

This is what was done to help your problem...try it. I do not use it but it may work for you. 

You mean i either put password so that only friends of mine can play or i buy premium so that i can host games where only high levels can join? That's not really good way to advertise your premium membership.

Anyways, you took my words and used them, i didn't mean to use the word "give away", sure you can give away 1 point if someone defeats a player, but that's still better than losing 35 points and still doesn't messes up too much with the "hardness" of the game. Lowering the standard of gaining points doesn't necessarily make the game easier or pointless to play. I have lost three games, not because my strategy was bad but because i lost 10 troops in 5 attacks, is that even possible? anyways, i'm not mourning about it or anything, just using a fact in favor. I guess the suggestion wasn't that good enough. Just my thoughts since i fail to comprehend the purpose of having ranks in the first place if you can't keep it for long enough (3 games?) lol and you can't get there (at least for the majority, this is the case), to make a positive correlation between skill level and ranks.


Thanks for reading though!

So there are a few things mentioned here:

First off that some ppl ruin a game by suiciding.
Ok, too bad it happends, but there's not much to do about it. Everyone has to learn this game once.
Still, this is no reason to give points for killing players - because the suiciders ruin that part as well.

Than there was a point where you said about: ppl who can take down high ranked players, but are only private or basic themselves.
I can name you two of these, but there might be more:
MuzuanneAskari and k_w_cheng.
These players really can buy a rank that at least has yellow in it, but they don't, because they do not want ppl to know that they are that good. Its no fault of the game, its tactic.

Than there was a remark about some ranks being too difficult to reach, because only two ppl have them.
Well, that is the idea of ranks right? Only two ppl are so amazingly good that they can get an keep these ranks...
But that's the meaning of those ranks, if you have them, you are really, really good.
Of course, not everyone can get them, because not everyone is really, really good.


And you said you didnt understand the purpose of having ranks, because you couldn't keep them?
Well, that is their purpose: it shows the players who are good enough to keep them, and who are not.

Its no problem not to be able to keep them, you learn quite fast and will be able to hold on a nice rank soon enough. I know that because I have seen you play a couple of times and chatted with you

Matty, the thing is, you said if you play "good" whereas this game 60% relies ok not even, 75% relies on the probability of getting a good number which seems to have been lowered i suppose. Often you still end up losing the game not because you played bad but because people ruined the game and/or you got such numbers the "whole" time that you end up losing.

Anyways, i guess i'm missing obvious points in my suggestion which are mentioned by Vexer and Thorpe.

Thanks for at least arguing with me, makes me feel worthy xD

Cheers

So you might think, but it's not true.
Alot of this game is decided by skill.

Of course, sometimes you loose because of bad dice, or because of a suicide of others. But so do other players. You also win because of that sometimes.

And other people think that because they lose more games than they win, they are bad.
But if you play 100 four-player games, and you win more than 25, than you are already better than average

I've only won 46% of my games and yet I have a high rank. I only play games with 4 or more players so that when I do win, I get plenty of points to make up for my losses. If you want to rank up you have to play plenty of 8-9 player games.

If 75% of the game is luck then how can I win 46% of the time?
Matty wins 44% of his games. Why is his rank lower than mine? He has played far fewer games than me.

I can go on and on with statistics proving that skill overcomes luck.

I know you are frustrated now but every game you play you get more skill and you will soon hold a respectable rank, but you do need to start winning a little more than 33% of the time and you'll need to win bigger games against stronger opponents.

I guess you have a point. Don't take it personally that i'm taunting the game or anything, just thought about sharing an idea that i had since forums aren't used that much by other members it seems.

Thanks!

Trust us we do not take it personally...but we have heard this before and Vexer is the % king and can give you % all day long! HeHe

When you do get and hold on to your rank then you will feel you really did do something right and in a age where you get praised for just for showing up...it is nice to know somewhere you really have to earn something.

GOOD HUNTING!