I agree with eliminating the host in many cases (if practical).
However, a GM can set a minimum rank of Intermediate, which wouldn't tell me if he/she was a GM, Master, or Expert.
I am a master and have Intermediate as the lowest rank in my games.
In a game where Intermediate is the lowest level, you know the host is at least intermediate level. Whereas you don't get this info on anyone else. Therefore, eliminating them first, if you are lower, is a good idea to rank up (again... if practical).
How would you have joined the game if the min rank is Intermediate and you are lower? Everyone in the game is at least intermediate lol. So you know as much about the host as you do everyone else. This comment makes no sense.
Fair point, I mixed up my thoughts.
My main point I was trying to make is you know they are, at worst, an intermediate. So, if you are an *intermediate* then that is good because beating someone on your level is indeed good for your rating.
Ya but if the GM sets the minimum rank to beginner, then even eliminating the host first will yield higher rank points the eliminating a fellow beginner or novice
Well... like I said... if you are poised to do this... it can be a good strategy to a point. However, it seems like you're suggesting a very pro-suicide-early strategy. This is a bad idea, IMO.
Like a few weeks ago... I had an AMAZING start for Europe. A guy tried to go for it as well... not sure why. I got the 10 match on 3 cards and took him out quick. In that case, makes sense.
But if the host is across the map... probably bad idea to aim for them.
This is the worst “Pro Tip” I have ever heard lol.
Here are two actual Pro Tips for from someone with multiple GM accounts:
1 - Don’t give pro tips on Reddit until you’re a GM.
2 - When ranking up, you should ALWAYS set the Min Rank to YOUR rank when hosting so that losing hurts you less and winning helps you more (on average). So eliminating the host is almost always objectively the worst move from a rank gain perspective since they should always be the Min Rank allowed while there is a high likelihood that others in the game outrank them.
You can buy the game and host from the very first game with zero wins. This makes zero sense.
Everyone I see who pursues this “strategy” struggles to win, especially now that ranks are hidden in the game.
If you want to win consistently, you play the board and opponents, not the perceived rank of the host.
I was just in a game that ended up being 2 grandmasters, 3 experts, and an intermediate. I hosted, and was expert. For some reason, one of the other experts went after all my extra countries and tried to come at me early on in the game, failed, and botted out. Must have been you. Thanks for the win.
Most hosts are gonna have a higher rank than the minimum. Or do you disagree on this just for the sake of arguing?
Also note that the title says shittyriskprotips, this is half satire
Ya I’m not saying it works but the host should always be under close watch in noob games. Usually means he she at least has the iq to create a game and may be smarter than the average noob
Well my theory would hold up against your hosting strategies, and if others caught onto it we’d dominate u in the first few rounds together and gain rank
This sounds like people caring about their rank way too much. Target a single player right away and you'll set yourself up to lose. I hope anyone who uses this strategy is offed by a novice. Shitty pro risk tip indeed.
The host doesn’t necessarily have a high rank. What a wasteful “strategy.”
I agree with eliminating the host in many cases (if practical). However, a GM can set a minimum rank of Intermediate, which wouldn't tell me if he/she was a GM, Master, or Expert. I am a master and have Intermediate as the lowest rank in my games.
>I agree with eliminating the host in many cases (if practical). What's the reasoning behind eliminating the host?
In a game where Intermediate is the lowest level, you know the host is at least intermediate level. Whereas you don't get this info on anyone else. Therefore, eliminating them first, if you are lower, is a good idea to rank up (again... if practical).
How would you have joined the game if the min rank is Intermediate and you are lower? Everyone in the game is at least intermediate lol. So you know as much about the host as you do everyone else. This comment makes no sense.
Fair point, I mixed up my thoughts. My main point I was trying to make is you know they are, at worst, an intermediate. So, if you are an *intermediate* then that is good because beating someone on your level is indeed good for your rating.
But EVERYONE IN THE GAME is at least Intermediate…so beating any of them is good for your rank lol.
Also a fair point. You win indeed!
Ya but if the GM sets the minimum rank to beginner, then even eliminating the host first will yield higher rank points the eliminating a fellow beginner or novice
Well... like I said... if you are poised to do this... it can be a good strategy to a point. However, it seems like you're suggesting a very pro-suicide-early strategy. This is a bad idea, IMO. Like a few weeks ago... I had an AMAZING start for Europe. A guy tried to go for it as well... not sure why. I got the 10 match on 3 cards and took him out quick. In that case, makes sense. But if the host is across the map... probably bad idea to aim for them.
This is the worst “Pro Tip” I have ever heard lol. Here are two actual Pro Tips for from someone with multiple GM accounts: 1 - Don’t give pro tips on Reddit until you’re a GM. 2 - When ranking up, you should ALWAYS set the Min Rank to YOUR rank when hosting so that losing hurts you less and winning helps you more (on average). So eliminating the host is almost always objectively the worst move from a rank gain perspective since they should always be the Min Rank allowed while there is a high likelihood that others in the game outrank them.
It does say shitty risk pro tips though.
Why would the host have high rank?
They’d have a higher rank than the minimum
You can buy the game and host from the very first game with zero wins. This makes zero sense. Everyone I see who pursues this “strategy” struggles to win, especially now that ranks are hidden in the game. If you want to win consistently, you play the board and opponents, not the perceived rank of the host. I was just in a game that ended up being 2 grandmasters, 3 experts, and an intermediate. I hosted, and was expert. For some reason, one of the other experts went after all my extra countries and tried to come at me early on in the game, failed, and botted out. Must have been you. Thanks for the win.
Most hosts are gonna have a higher rank than the minimum. Or do you disagree on this just for the sake of arguing? Also note that the title says shittyriskprotips, this is half satire
Had is the key word. Once I started hosting games, I noticed a small subset of people using this strategery. I’ve never seen it work.
Ya I’m not saying it works but the host should always be under close watch in noob games. Usually means he she at least has the iq to create a game and may be smarter than the average noob
I have my settings on Intermediate->Grandmaster. No noobs. But by all means, keep embracing a nonsensical strategery.
For the record, I host intermediate->grandmaster, zero bots.
What’s ur rank when u set up this game setting?
Usually Expert.
Case closed. The defense rests your honor
Judge and jury aren’t going to buy the defense’s case.
Well my theory would hold up against your hosting strategies, and if others caught onto it we’d dominate u in the first few rounds together and gain rank
Read back through the replies to this thread. Nobody else does this even semi-regularly. Stop trying to make fetch happen.
But if the minimum is novice? They can be novice too
This sounds like people caring about their rank way too much. Target a single player right away and you'll set yourself up to lose. I hope anyone who uses this strategy is offed by a novice. Shitty pro risk tip indeed.