I read the nice multi page post regarding the use of medals and how they affect a players reputation, but since the medals are only out on the iOS and not Android I would like to disregard them for this post. That thread made me think though, how do different people view different players?

In this thread I would like everyone to give their opinion on how they would approach certain players once they had a chance to look at their profile which included ELO rating, number of games played, and number of medals. Below is a short list of various combinations of the stats and below that I will get it started.

1. New Player - 1200 rating no games, no medals
2. Newish Player - 1100-1299 rating, under 10 games, 3-5 medals
3. Mid Player - 1100-1299 rating, 25-40 games played, no medals
4. Mid Player - 1100-1299 rating, 25-40 games played, 10-20 medals
5. Veteran Player, 1250+ rating, 50+ games, 1-10 medals
6. Veteran Player, 1250+ rating, 50+ games, 25+ medals
7. Add another one if you need

My feelings:

1. Dangerous territory, could be a new player or it could be a double boxer. I approach them with caution but don't rule them out
2. Got a few games behind him as well as medals, knows what is going on so lean on him, and potentially take him all the way if all others are new players
3. This one is tricky because although he/she has lots of games they have no medals, I have to say I usually try to target them for first elimination as I feel they aren't very good at the game, after that many games I would expect them to have at least a few medals
4. This would be my go to ally as they have the games behind their belt and medals to prove they can make it through to the end
5. Similar to #3, but probably even worse as they have much more games with very little medals
6. Your best bet for a good ally and someone that you can team up with to take the game.

Disclaimer: These are all my own opinions and how I choose to approach the players based on their profile, I also understand that Finishing, Resignation, and Elimination percentages may sway you if you are on the fence. This is meant to be a fun experiment to figure out what kind of players are out there and how they think, I know for a fact I had a several new players team up on me cause of my high number of games quoting that they were afraid I would win the game and they needed to take me out....which isn't very logical as I can't really win the game by myself no matter how many medals or games I have played, in truth you would probably be better teaming up with a veteran player as they could give you their experience.

My rating at the moment is roughly 1350, so I think I'm out of the "noob range," as I call it. And I also think that a player's profile doesn't tell you anything really important. That being said, I think I judge players based on the number of games they've played, mostly.
1. If I encounter a player with >1300 rating and <5 games, I can say that the person has a natural grasp of strategy and/or diplomacy, but doesn't know the finer points of the game yet. I'd probably try to do some fancy maneuver to catch them off guard.
2. If I encounter a player with >1300 rating and 5-15 games, I can guess that the player knows what they're doing, despite not being a veteran yet. However, they're also probably not on a trajectory to become one of the top players in the game.
3. If I encounter a player with >1300 rating and >15 games, this is a veteran. However, they've settled into the 1300-1400 range after more than a few games, which means they're either not good enough to progress further or don't take the game seriously enough to progress.

I also want to point out that I make note of how many games a player has finished since they started playing Subterfuge. If the ratio of games to weeks is particularly high, I can guess that they won't be paying too much attention to this game

I see no reason to play the ranked version of this game because of how easily it is to join the same game on two accounts and feed yourself stuff. I don't see any entertainment in having a week of playing invalidated by someone who can cheat as easily as spending another $10.

I'd second that - the most critical stat is "games played" to "date joined" ratio.

Lots of games at once means you'll miss stuff. Also lots of games played for a mediocre ranking means your probably not that great...


I'm rated 1601 - played just 12 games since October and won them all - I'd consider myself the most dangerous sort of player of all...

bags wrote:I see no reason to play the ranked version of this game because of how easily it is to join the same game on two accounts and feed yourself stuff. I don't see any entertainment in having a week of playing invalidated by someone who can cheat as easily as spending another $10.

Can I just say, for the record, that in the dozens of games I've played, I only ever ran into one player who did this, AND the devs quickly deactivated his accounts.

I have to say that I have not seen a double box player in any of my games, you can usually spot those pretty easily. Not that easy to hide gifting drillers to another player.

As for the amount of games you play at once I guess it depends, I play a bunch at once but never a lot of ranked ones at once, only play a few of those at one time and my focus is definitely more on those, but I think I give all of my games the same amount of attention, I just make sure I set aside a block of time to review them all when I log on.

Yeah the closest thing I've run into for multi boxing was some guy who got his little brother to play. They were always logged on at the same time and I'm assuming the older one was telling the younger one what to do. They both sent attacks at everyone and then resigned when people sent attacks in retaliation. Claimed they'd been "betrayed". So out of 20+ games I don't think 1 person halfheartedly trying to multi box is to big of a problem. So sure while you can bump your rating through multi boxing if you wanted to, not many people actually go to the effort.