SUBTERFUGE Forums

I'm currently In a game where players A and B made a deal with player C to let C take first place while A and B get protection from C and can easily take second and third

In ranked games, your rank improves if you place in the top half - so players A B and C all get positive rank points for basically letting C win.

Shouldn't the game be played to win? And not to get second or third and reap the ranked points?

You should only get rank points for placing first (or MAYBE second). Third through sixth (in an 8 player game) get no points and the bottom 2 players get negative points.

It's not completely about the win, but also about how you get there. Alliances are a part of the game. What you said about "games played to win" is pretty much inferring you don't want people allying together. If you can get one powerful person to not attack you, consider yourself lucky.

Also, having only top 2 get ranks will throw off the whole rank scheme. Lower players that finish 5th or higher normally go up in points, (in an 8 player game). However, higher players sometimes only go up of they are in 3rd or higher. There wouldn't be enough rank and fairness if the middle placing didn't get or lose rank.

Part of the game is teamwork, betrayal and alliances.
This game is impossible, if not extremely hard to win without some form of alliances.

3 people teaming is the most logical course of action because all 3 will get a medal if they succeed.
The whole point of rating is so that its not just medals that are promoted and I think the way the ratings are set up are to promote alliances.
If only the winner got plus rating then, I couldn't imagine how it would be...

You should find the thread about how the rating system works. Its effects are more obvious when the players have varied ratings, as opposed to everyone being within 50 points of 1200. King making is a way to guarantee you do well, and it is not a perfect strategy. Often, once the King has everything they need, they simply eliminate the others, because they are normally closest and now have nothing to defend with. Also, while they may have some protection, you can still attack the makers. You might not beat the King, but if he has taken a lot of the makers territory, you can likely outmine them.

The bigger they get, the harder they fall.

Biggest problem I've experienced with kings is forming an alliance to bring them down. Everybody seems happy to come fourth or just finish. We need a BALLS medal to encourage people to take on goliaths before a game ends. lol

bangerz wrote:You should only get rank points for placing first (or MAYBE second). Third through sixth (in an 8 player game) get no points and the bottom 2 players get negative points.

I vehemently disagree with this.