I have a question for you guys, I know gauging a player for his/her skill in game is important for waging war with them can either turn to victory or defeat. In picking an enemy or prey, how do you gauge the ability of a player and know how much percentage of your success in defeating them?
Please log in to post a reply.
I wouldn't be worried, unless he decides to spend some $$dw98 wrote:
Very true - I'm in a game now and the top player is Ranked 2 Star - 991 Games ----- 14 Ind and 47 Coal wins!!!Province Ratio 1.67 --- K/D .67Donk2.0 wrote:
I guess that is true too.You think I'm worried about that player.
My guess is some players just like increasing their military rank. If thatโs all youโre looking to do, joining as many games at the same time and using your units to kill as many enemy units as possible would be an effective way to do that. Ultimately they would just become overextended and burn themselves out in each individual game and have a low win ratio as well as low K/D ratio.
Perhaps they have other motives or just donโt have a strategy at all.
I wish you could tell, when looking at stats, how many games a player is currently playing. That would become one of the bigger stats I would look at on another playerโs profile.
rebellions will never be an issue. because of the capitals you will take. and rapidly expanding is better than sitting on your ass doing nothing. not to mention a good player will never lose that many units. because he will make smart use of artillery and know when to stop and when to expand. the goal of the game is to get more VPS the earlier you can do that the better.Alexandera Nevsky wrote:
Expansion means nothing about winning. In fact, the people who conquer 5 nations by day 3 are the most weakest players. Numberwise or possibly gold-spam wise, they may be the strongest, however, most of their forces will be thinned out, with rebellions occurring in many provinces for them to be able to handle at once. You should never rapidly expand your land/forces unless you are over 90% sure that no neighbors of you or your conquested lands will be able to defeat you with their alliances/experience.
On the first day. Look for the player with the highest morale. This is a golden boy with brains. He's the one to watch. He knows the game. 
Things are gonna change. I can feel it!
Well, advanced knowledge of game mechanics does not necessarily make a good player. Strategy is completely different.Brutusof7th wrote:
On the first day. Look for the player with the highest morale. This is a golden boy with brains. He's the one to watch. He knows the game.Things are gonna change. I can feel it!
Most games i've played have been won by a gold user, or 5. Outside of gold and diplomacy, i'd guess some coalition wins tell that the player knows what he's doing. K/D ratio is a bonus but it's easy to manipulate it by using gold and bombers. If somebody brags about his K/D, i cringe. There's nothing more manly than two armies trading blows.
Efficient use of strong, combined attacks - that is the call sign of a strong player. It can be as well in the shape of strong stacks as several stacks supporting eachother.
Rank rarely indicates skill and K/D is often misleading.
K/D doesn't matter, it is easy to make it decrease than increase it.
Actually, it does matter, it shows how effective you are in using your units, however, yes, overall, I would say that games won and lost and the provinces captured/lost ratios are more important.Claudio NVKP wrote:
K/D doesn't matter, it is easy to make it decrease than increase it.
Multiple great players have K/D ruined because of tournament games.Alexandera Nevsky wrote:
Actually, it does matter, it shows how effective you are in using your units, however, yes, overall, I would say that games won and lost and the provinces captured/lost ratios are more important.Claudio NVKP wrote:
K/D doesn't matter, it is easy to make it decrease than increase it.
Also, I learned the hard way that once you reach a certain level and/or win ratio, ppl will gang up on you in open games just to see if they can knock you down. In the first few games, I thought that was just a coincidence, but now I see the pattern.
Even noobs can ruin your stats if they are plenty enough.
Oh well, bring it on!
Especially in the start of the game when you are vulnerable and only have infantry. 3 noobs attacking you will win, only to get whipped of the map a bit later by other players. A waste reallyNoobNoobTrain wrote:
Also, I learned the hard way that once you reach a certain level and/or win ratio, ppl will gang up on you in open games just to see if they can knock you down. In the first few games, I thought that was just a coincidence, but now I see the pattern.Even noobs can ruin your stats if they are plenty enough.
Oh well, bring it on!
I find this to be more deterrent than dangerous. Neighbors tremble for you when they see your stats, want to be friends, etc. I is easy to spot inactives that way for early growth; after that, the noobs don't pose a threat anymore.NoobNoobTrain wrote:
Also, I learned the hard way that once you reach a certain level and/or win ratio, ppl will gang up on you in open games just to see if they can knock you down. In the first few games, I thought that was just a coincidence, but now I see the pattern.Even noobs can ruin your stats if they are plenty enough.
Oh well, bring it on!
Well, in one case I had 5 players team up on me at day 2 on the Europe map*. With a 'corner start' as Egypt, there wasn't that much I had time or opportunity to conquer before everyone started arriving with their units at day 2/3. They weren't really good, but at such numbers even noobs will defeat you.
I welcome such fights no matter the outcome, though. I'd much rather have that than a largely inactive opposition.
*custom game. They probably joined together.
i have never seen people Gang up on others just because of stats, you are correct, most will just prolly looks at em and ally.K.Rokossovski wrote:
I find this to be more deterrent than dangerous. Neighbors tremble for you when they see your stats, want to be friends, etc. I is easy to spot inactives that way for early growth; after that, the noobs don't pose a threat anymore.NoobNoobTrain wrote:
Also, I learned the hard way that once you reach a certain level and/or win ratio, ppl will gang up on you in open games just to see if they can knock you down. In the first few games, I thought that was just a coincidence, but now I see the pattern.Even noobs can ruin your stats if they are plenty enough.
Oh well, bring it on!
In any case I'd say that the call of a dangerous player is someone who uses his units efficiently and knows the game mechanisms. No matter if it's just the first few scout cars or the initial air battle with 1 interceptor, it's often easy to see if it is someone who knows his ropes.
In return there are a lot of indicators of not so skilled players. So in effect, you could perhaps define the dangerous players as those who do not make the common mistakes.
If a player stay neutral and dont jump to coalitions he is a good player
I use to just wait and see how it played out a while before I joined a Coalition.Undaunted wrote:
If a player stay neutral and dont jump to coalitions he is a good player
This current game, I joined one early and it has worked out. By day 6, most players are AFK. And if our coalition is active, we end up winning usually. One note to my decision in this game is that I don't join a coalition unless 1-2 of the players have decent stats (level, territories W:L, games W:L)
You can atleast rely on the fact, he wont be the same country in all the dif maps At 2 am evrything looks like Spain. 3 maps same country, dif strategy. It does not end well6thDragon wrote:
My guess is some players just like increasing their military rank. If thatโs all youโre looking to do, joining as many games at the same time and using your units to kill as many enemy units as possible would be an effective way to do that. Ultimately they would just become overextended and burn themselves out in each individual game and have a low win ratio as well as low K/D ratio.Perhaps they have other motives or just donโt have a strategy at all.
I wish you could tell, when looking at stats, how many games a player is currently playing. That would become one of the bigger stats I would look at on another playerโs profile.
Iโm new to the forum, not terribly new to the game. In my experience at guessing probability of a player being good, Iโve found that K/D doesnโt matter. My k/d is only like 2 but thatโs because my first 10 games i didnโt know what i was doing lol. Iโm not saying Iโm good either, but i am saying that Iโve came across many players with high k/d and no idea how to use their units, most likely just created a new account to seem better honestly. I personally go off number of games joined, and ratio of victories.
A player with 10 games joins, 2 victories and a 10 k/d is probably not as skilled as a player with 100 game joins, 20 victories, and a 3 k/d.
my logic is: the second player has more experience than the first, based on game joins.. trial and error with the mechanics of the game.
Please log in to post a reply.
