SUBTERFUGE Forums

Just out of curiosity, what do you guys look for or see when you check someone's record (their medals, number of games played, percentages, etc)?

I mainly look to see how new they are. 0-5 games is noob, 5-20 is potential ally, 20+ means they should know the game pretty well. I also look at resign/elim rates, under 10% for resign and under 20% for elim means they know how to play well and will stick through it to the end. Also, if they have good medals that's a plus, and if they have a ton of angry medals I may need to ask them what they did to deserve those. That's just a quick thing I check for, but the main thing I do is talk to people, see who is open and friendly, who doesn't respond, who seems like a jerk

I usually look as resignation rates first, a high resignation rate will scare me away from alliances. I also check the rates of medaling, anything above fifty percent usually indicates a competent player to me.

Most of the people here seem heavily intent on having excessively highly skilled players in their retinue. Chattanooga even went so far as to insist on a medal:game ratio of over 50%! That's almost unheard of!

Reading The Prince by Machiavelli suggests that it may be more fitting to ally with a slightly-weaker player to eliminate a stronger force, because after the common enemy is eliminated you are at the full mercy of your partner. A strategic superpower may be more inclined to reduce you to second or third place even if - no, especially if - you spend all your resources supporting him in combat.

In the interest of vetting potential allies, I watch the ranking (Those with high rankings tend to carry a fanclub of sorts around them, as more people are willing to suck up. Attempt an agreement only if your rating is comparable or you have a positive rapport with the guy.) People between 1350-1450 tend to make the most reliable partners.

Medals: Positive medals are cool, angry medals can mostly be disregarded because they're generally issued by sore losers. Do be on your guard though.

High resignation rates are a sign of abandonment issues, anything over 10-15% should be considered a flight risk.
Eliminations are an inevitable aspect of gameplay. Of course the lower the better, but a straight 0% leads one to believe that they may turn to hire slaving or other despicable methods to stay in the fight whenever defeat seems imminent.

The biggest indicator, though, would be game count. More than 5 games proves the man has grounding, over 20 proves competence, and triple-digit game count means either the man is a tactical genius from all that training or a tactical nightmare from consistently playing many games at once and paying little attention to individual games.

Thank you for all the replies! They really helped remind me what to do and what not to do when making decisions that can affect my record and looking at other people's.

Another question, does the type of medal matter? Like, what if someone played 20 something games and medaled over half of the time BUT more than half of the medals are silver?

What I do:
1. Look at resignations. If under 20%, continue.
2. Look at games. If over 10, continue.
3. Look at medals. If at least 1, ally.

flydarkwings805 wrote:Another question, does the type of medal matter? Like, what if someone played 20 something games and medaled over half of the time BUT more than half of the medals are silver?

Even silver medals show competency, since silvers are awarded in 6 or more player games, which means they were able to beat out 4 other players at least. If they don't have ANY golds that might be a bit odd, or maybe it just means they're willing to let their teammate take the glory, in which case allying with them wouldn't be a good thing

The absolute best way to choose a teammate is to talk with people, see who talks back, see who you get a good first feeling about. If you talk to someone and immediately don't like them, then don't work with them, even if they are pretty good. Just find people who you think you can work well with, and go from there

Yeah, that's what I try to do, talk to them and see. Diplomacy is one of the most important areas of the game after all .

mathwhiz9 wrote: If they don't have ANY golds that might be a bit odd, or maybe it just means they're willing to let their teammate take the glory, in which case allying with them wouldn't be a good thing

If they are willing to let their teammate win, you should definitely ally with them bc they could let you win.

But more than that, if they have a lot of silvers, its usually because they are the type to grow absolutely huge but lose first to a pufferfish that mines from the start.

silverberg wrote:Chattanooga even went so far as to insist on a medal:game ratio of over 50%! That's almost unheard of!

Huh? I went to double check, and Nojo, Niv, Z, Aclo, Max, and I all have at least a 50% medal rate. I don't mean gold medals, just a medal in general. It's not too hard to reach.
(Also, it may have been autocorrect, but its ChattNooga, not Chattanooga.)