What are the signs of dangerous players in game?

Roarshore wrote:

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.

Some players with weak kd could be better, then some players with middle KD. And players with good KD could be weaker, then they thinking about themself. Activity, diplomatic skills, backstabing recklessnity, and yeah KD between 0.8 and X.0 are signs, not prooves of danger.

Very high KD is sign, not proove of gold usage. It could be hard enemy, or easy enemy.

But low and very low KD could be signs of poor activity, mmacc farming sidewing account, what is another sing of danger by third part, poor game skills, or reckless of warefare, wich is another sing of danger, that war with this opponent could be bloody, weakening own economy and delivery victory for third part.

There are not some hard definated signs of danger, because danger itself is not hard definated. Danger lose of war with this enemy, danger lose of game round, while fighting this enemy cost too much? Danger involving third part in conflict?

Call of war could be better game, if we would not have low minded players here.

BMfox wrote:

Firstly I'd like to point out that having fun is more important than stats.

Rank: in general the ranks doesn't tell you that much. There's high level players who aren't that good, there are new players who know what they are doing and there's experienced players that are starting over to get better stats. By rule of thumb you could argue that a player of level 50 and higher will be dangerous adversairies because they have the experience that comes with it. Even if their stats aren't that good, they will still be able to give you a good fight.

Kill vs Death ratio: This is an indication of the understanding of the game mechanics. A player with a KD of 0,80 loses more troops than he kills which isn't sustainable. Maybe he actually knows what he's doing but he got nuked in previous games or got defeated by a gold user. However if a higher level player still has a low KD then it means that he doesn't use the terrain to his advantage, doesn't use enough artillery or air force. Or he simply doesn't have a good understanding of the game mechanics. Players with a KD higher than 1,4 are in general players who know what they are doing. They know each troop type, they know the terrain penalties or bonuses, they stack their units and use both melee units, ranged units, airforce and navy. To get a KD of 3,83 like I have it demands a highly daily activity and micromanagement of the battles you fight. Retreating, regroup and fight in the terrain that is to your advantage. It's better to lose a couple of provinces until you give battle that is in your advantage. It demands in depth knowledge of each units strengths and weaknesses, bonuses and penalties. The same goes for the doctrines. Read the newspaper, what kind of units does my neighbour use? If you see in the newpaper that he only loses LT than it's because he only has those so you should make SP artillery and attack bombers. If you read in the newpaper that a unit was destroyed by the rocket artillery brigade or by the bombardment squadron, than you better start the production of mechanized infantry and interceptors. Knowledge is power.

Province retainment: This is a good standard to measure activity. If a player loses one province for every one that he takes it means that he's not online enough to prevent it. If a player has a province retainment of 10 that means that he only loses one province for every 10 that he takes. This means that the player is highly active and anticipates the enemies move.

Games joined vs Games won: This is the true indication of skill. If a player wins half of his games then you better get ready for war. If he has a lot of coalition victories you could offer to play with him. A player with a lot of coalition victories is the indication of a team player and someone that you can trust. A player with a lot of solo victories is someone that you cannot trust, be ready to be backstabbed and don't share maps with players like that.

Economical rank vs Military rank. Players with a high economical rank aren't a threat, they are players who invest a lot in their economy and remain neutral. If you have a neighbor with a high military rank then you better prepare for war.

Ratio of units produced vs killed: this gives you an indication of the units that they use. For example if you see that a player has killed way more LT then he has produced but on the other hand loses a lot of anti tank then you know that you will need to put motorised infantry in your stack with light tanks. If he has loses a lot of bombers and interceptors that means that he uses them a lot. If he hasn't produced a lot of Nuclear bombers or Nuclear rockets then that's because he doesn't use them often.

Alliance: Players of the same alliances are playing as a team. You shouldn't share maps with them in the first place and search allies to fight them. Or you could join their coalition if they have a space left. If you join a game then check every player in your continent and pay attention to the alliances they are in. If you find two players of the same alliance on your continent, there might be more.

There's a lot of information on the players profile and in the newspaper so use it to your advantage.

BMfox wrote:

BMfox wrote:

Firstly I'd like to point out that having fun is more important than stats.

What I said last year!

Last Warrior wrote:

You have ability to close this thread

No. Closing threads is a last resort in a flame war and little else. There's nothing against people posting their insights on the issue.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

No. Closing threads is a last resort in a flame war and little else. There's nothing against people posting their insights on the issue.

BrutusTrump wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

No. Closing threads is a last resort in a flame war and little else. There's nothing against people posting their insights on the issue.

Oh yeah? I think that all threads should be closed, you #@$%$#^@^#$!% People like you are a waste of air.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

BrutusTrump wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

No. Closing threads is a last resort in a flame war and little else. There's nothing against people posting their insights on the issue.

Oh yeah? I think that all threads should be closed, you #@$%$#^@^#$!% People like you are a waste of air.

But the problem is, I enjoy wasting air. All hail carbondioxide!

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!

Now, I qualify as one of those "dangerous players", and I am always worried that the "Gang up" technique will be used against me. ("What goes around, Comes around" - payback is a bear!) It does not happen often, but I prepare for it by entering the game with other players from my Alliance, so that we can support each other against that tactic. (We try to only be 1 country apart)

As someone else pointed out, rank is not equivalent to being a dangerous player. To me, rank is an indicator of experience only. W/L ratio is a much better indicator of who is a dangerous player. 30 total wins out of 300+ games played - that player is not worrisome at all, to me. But I recently played an Amerca Homefront game wher I identified 3 players from the same Alliance, and they all had W/L ratios of 70% or better. They were all dangerous players, and I lost. I was impressed at how well they played.

That's my two cents worth.

Losing to someone who plays well is a lot different from losing to someone who is just joining a pack. Losing to bad players sucks. No matter how it happens.

No. Closing threads is a last resort in a flame war and little else.

vidmate mobdro

gold

General Michaelis wrote:

gold

Those who doesnt reply your questions

General Michaelis wrote:

gold

But you said you never use it so....no

dw98 wrote:

But you said you never use it so....no

WAIT,...

Let me spend some

There we go, just spend about 600k of gold in a single map. Those poor guys wont know that has hit them

Spoiler: That was an old screenshot.

Limafox1 wrote:

Those who doesnt reply your questions

BMfox wrote:

BMfox wrote:

Firstly I'd like to point out that having fun is more important than stats.

Rank: in general the ranks doesn't tell you that much. There's high level players who aren't that good, there are new players who know what they are doing and there's experienced players that are starting over to get better stats. By rule of thumb you could argue that a player of level 50 and higher will be dangerous adversairies because they have the experience that comes with it. Even if their stats aren't that good, they will still be able to give you a good fight.

Kill vs Death ratio: This is an indication of the understanding of the game mechanics. A player with a KD of 0,80 loses more troops than he kills which isn't sustainable. Maybe he actually knows what he's doing but he got nuked in previous games or got defeated by a gold user. However if a higher level player still has a low KD then it means that he doesn't use the terrain to his advantage, doesn't use enough artillery or air force. Or he simply doesn't have a good understanding of the game mechanics. Players with a KD higher than 1,4 are in general players who know what they are doing. They know each troop type, they know the terrain penalties or bonuses, they stack their units and use both melee units, ranged units, airforce and navy. To get a KD of 3,83 like I have it demands a highly daily activity and micromanagement of the battles you fight. Retreating, regroup and fight in the terrain that is to your advantage. It's better to lose a couple of provinces until you give battle that is in your advantage. It demands in depth knowledge of each units strengths and weaknesses, bonuses and penalties. The same goes for the doctrines. Read the newspaper, what kind of units does my neighbour use? If you see in the newpaper that he only loses LT than it's because he only has those so you should make SP artillery and attack bombers. If you read in the newpaper that a unit was destroyed by the rocket artillery brigade or by the bombardment squadron, than you better start the production of mechanized infantry and interceptors. Knowledge is power.

Province retainment: This is a good standard to measure activity. If a player loses one province for every one that he takes it means that he's not online enough to prevent it. If a player has a province retainment of 10 that means that he only loses one province for every 10 that he takes. This means that the player is highly active and anticipates the enemies move.

Games joined vs Games won: This is the true indication of skill. If a player wins half of his games then you better get ready for war. If he has a lot of coalition victories you could offer to play with him. A player with a lot of coalition victories is the indication of a team player and someone that you can trust. A player with a lot of solo victories is someone that you cannot trust, be ready to be backstabbed and don't share maps with players like that.

Economical rank vs Military rank. Players with a high economical rank aren't a threat, they are players who invest a lot in their economy and remain neutral. If you have a neighbor with a high military rank then you better prepare for war.

Ratio of units produced vs killed: this gives you an indication of the units that they use. For example if you see that a player has killed way more LT then he has produced but on the other hand loses a lot of anti tank then you know that you will need to put motorised infantry in your stack with light tanks. If he has loses a lot of bombers and interceptors that means that he uses them a lot. If he hasn't produced a lot of Nuclear bombers or Nuclear rockets then that's because he doesn't use them often.

Alliance: Players of the same alliances are playing as a team. You shouldn't share maps with them in the first place and search allies to fight them. Or you could join their coalition if they have a space left. If you join a game then check every player in your continent and pay attention to the alliances they are in. If you find two players of the same alliance on your continent, there might be more.

There's a lot of information on the players profile and in the newspaper so use it to your advantage.

What I said last year!

Not True - "A player with a lot of solo victories is someone that you cannot trust, be ready to be backstabbed and don't share maps with players like that."

Remember what Kenny said!

Karl von Krass wrote:

General Michaelis wrote:

gold

no. I mean technically yes, there have been players so inept in this game they can't help but use gold, such may not affect good players, but bad playing and trying to mask with gold always affects oneself.

so I guess the second most anooying thing after gold is Wr/map ... if its high wr (70-100%), he is more than likely to be a gold user