Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red Skulls difficulty

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Red Skulls difficulty

    What does it mean when you attack a Red Skulls opponent?

    There still seems to be questions on why 2 or 3 Red Skull opponents disappear, go away, or are lost. To answer this question, I think it's best to first understand what it means to attack a Red Skull opponent. There are 3 levels of Red Skull opponents, or 3 tiers of Nightmare Levels, which are unlocked, respectively, as you level up. Tier 1 is 1 Red Skull, tier 2 is 2 Red Skulls and tier 3 is 3 Red Skulls. The idea of "Nightmare Levels" is to give more challenge and if you manage to defeat them, then you'll get better rewards. When unlocking a "tier" all it does is expand your attack lists giving you more choices of who you get to attack.

    When you attack a Red Skull opponent, it's like a bonus; you get to test your skills and when you defeat this challenge, you get a chance at better rewards, which is more cards.

    So what happens when these Red Skull opponents are not challenging anymore because you already know how to defeat them? A possible answer to this is an "excess of rewards"(this can have negative implications in controlling leveling progression as a community and impact other aspects of the game).

    The question of "why I loss 2-3 Red Skull opponents?" should really be "why are 2-3 Red Skulls not permanent to the attack list?" because if 2-3 Red Skulls were permanent, there would be an excess of rewards which would imbalance the economy of the game affecting certain other aspects of the game.

    The answer given about how "you no longer have Red Skull opponents because there are no more players that pose enough of a challenge to you to be considered a Red Skull opponent based on Attack/Defend scores" is true, but if you need "scores" to tell you what is challenging or not in this game, where trial and error can eventually give you a solution to defeating a base, then you might be missing out on a lot of potential depth in gameplay GU! can offer.

    If I remember correctly, based on the "live release" of GU!, 1 Red Skull opponent wasn't permanent to the attack list. It only became permanent to the attack list after a game update added a Mission where you had to defeat a certain number of Red Skull opponents. I think there were some complaints then, where some players couldn't complete that mission because they loss their 1 Red Skull opponents. So, in a later update that addressed those concerns, it "made sense" to make 1 Red Skull opponents permanent to the attack list.

    When it "makes sense" to, maybe 2-3 Red Skull opponents can eventually become permanent to the attack list too.

  • #2
    Rewards imbalance is a false concern because those players that have lost 2-3 Red Skull Nightmare opponents already have everything they need to defeat such opponents.

    The actual imbalance is that they no longer have fights that can earn them +84 dog tags per fight.
    Last edited by cusman; 05-02-2017, 11:08 AM.

    Comment


    • MonkeyMoon22
      MonkeyMoon22 commented
      Editing a comment
      What is the minimum that should be rewarded when you defeat a "challenging" base? The issue with all the "I loss my 2-3 Red Skulls" is that there is a misconception that the "best" bases are "Nightmare Levels", when they really are just "challenging" bases relative to you as a player, and every player is different, especially when you get into details of stats, current progression, amount/availability of cards/units, etc.

      It's not about what you need to defeat a "Red Skull Nightmare", it's whether or not it's worthwhile to continue giving out the "Red Skull Nightmare" rewards, when, to an extent, "Red Skull Nightmare" will not be a challenge when you already know how to defeat them. There are different opinions in what is considered a "challenge" in this game, but I believe if you played this game with no "spoilers", then everything, at first, can be a challenge. The fact that this game involves a puzzle like solution in defeating bases makes replay value a challenge, but I believe the GU! Team has figured out a solution to this, based on how I've seen the updates play out.

      That dog tag "imbalance" has a role, but it's different to the "excess of rewards" I mentioned. My perspective of "imbalance" is referring to the viability of other resources of the game in relation to community trends, which causes, for example, changes like the removal of the Rare Card Pack, increased price of Common Card Pack, and changes in Gold price values.

  • #3
    It is an imbalance, because those who still have lv 2 and lv 3 nightmares have the upper hand during alliance battles.

    Comment


    • MonkeyMoon22
      MonkeyMoon22 commented
      Editing a comment
      It unfortunately is, but I wonder how many can remember the origins of a possible early "Alliance Battle" idea concept tests? (My meaning of "tests" is more like an "easter egg" or more "foreshadowing"; sometimes "updates" can hint at what can possibly happen in the future for the game, intentional or not, and "events" are great for gathering information, data analytics) Hint: It was a "Special Operations".

  • #4
    I wish i had hundreds of focus fire cards and tactical boots cards.

    Comment


    • mendoza0206
      mendoza0206 commented
      Editing a comment
      I have close to 300 tactical boots that I hardly use sometimes I recycled them

    • MonkeyMoon22
      MonkeyMoon22 commented
      Editing a comment
      How's the current drop rate for those two cards? Would you say its been the same like it's always been or slightly different maybe? Depending on the current trend of the game, I think, if you wanted to, it's possible to stock up on those specific cards at a reasonable pace.

    • mendoza0206
      mendoza0206 commented
      Editing a comment
      Drop rate for both FF and tactical boots seem rational it's just that they get consumed faster than they drop. I also have over 100 valor points. FF, decoys and boots are the most needed to go against nightmares.

  • #5
    Like mendoza said, Alliance Battles are completely out of whack because my low level account can get 84 dogtags/battle while my level 59 account can only get 60. Not to mention, the top tier 3 whites and 1 reds in the high level bracket are quite difficult.

    Skull ranking in this game makes as much sense as a guitar amplifier that goes to "11" imo
    Η ΤAΝ Η ΕΠΙ ΤAΣ - IMMORTALS

    Comment


    • cusman
      cusman commented
      Editing a comment
      That bloke must have been baked when he came up with 11.

    • MonkeyMoon22
      MonkeyMoon22 commented
      Editing a comment
      I might not be up-to-date with GU!, but I assume what you're referring to is the difference between "difficulty" among different ranges of player levels. Again, like what I mentioned to mendoza, the concept of how Alliance Battles could've played out was known. The weight of Dog Tags in relation to Alliance Battles is just a consequence of how the matchmaking currently works. I'll try to explain more in another post here.

  • #6
    My 2 reds are gone but ive heard of higher ranked players that still have them. Hows this?

    Comment


    • MonkeyMoon22
      MonkeyMoon22 commented
      Editing a comment
      Not sure if this is still true, but if your referring to Retaliations, I believe that's a bug. If you meet certain conditions, then yes it's possible for higher ranked players to still have 2 Red Skulls and even 3 Red Skulls too.

  • #7
    I recently (two days ago) lost my red three skull attack. I wrote to peers about it, and it seems so odd why they take it away at some point. I thought getting to a certain level was where it was...kind of a perk so to speak. Lately I have been more aggressive in hitting one and two red skulls (last two days)...still no sign of the three red skull. In some ways I never gave it much thought to attack red skulls with exception to the alliance bit. I remember when I stopped playing and being a level 44 the opponents were pretty simple to take on. Coming back...not the case as bases were much more intense with hero's and stronger abilities. I can only hope in time the game with continue to evolve and make alliance battles more interesting.

    Comment


    • MonkeyMoon22
      MonkeyMoon22 commented
      Editing a comment
      Again, I'm not up-to-date with the game anymore, but based on what I see from your stats, you're at a range which shows there may not be players that pose a "challenge" for you.

    • thedrink1979
      thedrink1979 commented
      Editing a comment
      So should I take on losses purposely at this point to bring back a balance to my gaming? I typically will attack a base I lose to (spend that 30 gold) just to give me that satisfaction that my lose was a fluke of sorts. But don't get me wrong...there are certain bases I have yet to figure out because the rock setup/sniper tower gimmick has me perplexed in a way to approached these bases still. Those are few I encounter but when I do, I add them and keep trying to figure out the best strategy to approach.

    • MonkeyMoon22
      MonkeyMoon22 commented
      Editing a comment
      I don't think you should lose on purpose, but in the context you're suggesting, you shouldn't have to worry about bringing balance to your gaming, which I assume you mean loss of Red Skulls, in the first place, and you shouldn't have to lose on purpose just to bring back Red Skull opponents, but I can understand how losing 2-3 Red Skulls feels punishing because of the difference in rewards and how it can affect your experience with the game.

      If the Nightmare Level feature allowed players to treat it like a bonus or something extra, I feel there would be less thoughts of it as punishing.

      In time, you might get the Red Skulls again just by playing or you can wait to see how Red Skulls difficulty changes or not in an update that might address the issues players have with it.

      Are you allowed to lose on purpose? (Since GU! is technically a competitive game with ranking leaderboards, isn't losing on purpose, along with trading wins, a questionable tactic?)

  • #8
    I want to add some more information about Red Skulls difficulty or Nightmare Levels. It does feel counterintuitive in the way Red Skulls work. You would expect that the better you become in the game, whether higher in level or rank, you would face more challenging opponents and more difficult bases, but that's not always the case because there's a limit in the range of "difficulties" that you can experience and they are dynamic, meaning they can always change.

    There are 2 main factors that affect the quality of your experience in GU!, which are player count and the current state of the community. The more players, the more bases there are. What I mean by the "current state of the community" is something like "climate" or community trends.

    For example, a game update buffs Bunkers and so the current state of the community could be higher use of Bunkers and so you might experience Bunker-centric bases more because the current trend in the game is to use Bunkers because now they are overpowered.

    Depending on these current community trends, you can have a much easier or more difficult experience in GU!.

    The reason why some players might feel that there is a lack of variety in bases or all bases they attack now are all the same is because the current range "difficulty" they are choosing is the most saturated of whatever current state the community is in. The two obvious difficulty ranges where you can see lesser variety bases are the free buy-in and your highest buy-in, which could be a Nightmare Level. The difficulty ranges where there are more varied bases would be the "middle" buy-ins. (I intentionally left out "Skull Ratings" including Nightmares because the "difficulty ranges" depend on what level you are and they will constantly change as you, as well as the community, other players, level up)

    So the way this relates to "losing 2-3 Red Skulls", is to lessen the possible exploitation of these "ranged difficulties" situations. And it's an indicator that you've reached a threshold of "dominance"(no more players that pose enough of a challenge to you to be considered a Red Skull opponent).

    Comment


    • #9
      The simple truth for most of Guns Up! progression (lets say roughly level 1 through 42) is that if you have been lucky about getting Perks, Heroes, Keys, you can be playing up to 2 white skull without using any attack cards, and attacking anything higher needs more cards, and by 3 red skull nightmare, you should probably pack some of the cards that are critical to breaking defenses (tactical boots, focus fire, decoy, paratroopers, rally, tear gas, army surplus / extra munitions).

      Past level 42, you will increasingly need to be using some cards even for your 2 white skulls and you will get slaughtered on nightmares if you don't use critical defense breaking cards. Well, unless you are really lucky with what the game gives you mid-mission.

      I am currently level 46, and now I use some cards on 2 white skull, but not critical cards. It just makes things easier and allows veterans to get trained while going in cardless can result in loss or just be a struggle that doesn't yield any veterans. Plus no need to wait for game to give the cards needed, so saves time. Plus I have stock piles of aerials and some other cards I don't take in to my nightmare fights, so might as well use on the 2-3 white skulls.

      My understanding is that as you continue to accumulate dog tags and level up, eventually you need to start using your critical cards even for 2 white skull opponents which are like the nightmares I am currently encountering. That is an imbalance because for vast majority of game (level wise), the 2 white skulls really don't require cards.

      As for 1 skull nightmare vs 3 skull nightmare, it has never really been a big differences. You still need your better cards or you get destroyed. Maybe the margin of error is less on the 3 vs the 1, but in terms of viable attack, its the same cards and units you take in. It is an imbalance when people very high rank no longer have the option of having 3 red skulls, even as they are spending the same type of cards / time as someone else lower ranked. Per my understanding, these high-rank players don't have any cake walk opponents anymore. At level 46, I still have cake walk opponents even for nightmare provided I have certain attack cards.

      Comment


      • mendoza0206
        mendoza0206 commented
        Editing a comment
        At my level (60) there is lots of "easy" nightmares that require patience and are easily defeated the key word is patience. And then on the other hand there is some that are extremely difficult and require luck from drops. I've retaliated against 2 white skulls that were harder than most nightmares I've played.

      • thedrink1979
        thedrink1979 commented
        Editing a comment
        Your point on in that post...and I was beginning to ask why I'm offered bases that are 8,000-10,000 in base strength as two white skulls. Typically I was seeing those bases at three white skull or higher. Granted those bases that are not built to crush one wave...but they can put a hurt on you if you go in without waiting and studying what is/might be ahead. My tactics are considered suicidal of sorts because if a base sets up those gas cans the right way...I could be dealt a swift lose. I use cards (five always) on two white skulls because again there is abundance of cards I have that I never use for the bigger fights (alliance or red skull bases). I laughed the other day when I broke the 1000 card paratrooper/missile spread cards (I actually thought there was a limit but I proved myself wrong once again). It won't be long before I have the fire bomb at 1000 or many other non used cards.

      • MonkeyMoon22
        MonkeyMoon22 commented
        Editing a comment
        What you described about GU! progression is an ideal scenario, but it can be a realistic one that I feel would describe a typical player's experience with the game. Also, that GU! progression you describe doesn't take into account the competitive aspects that might come into play. What I find most interesting though are the different and unique GU! progressions that a player, new or not new, can experience(I would like to get into more details about this at a later time).

        Also, not everyone will be as efficient or competitive to assume "2 White Skulls without using any attack cards" as a strategy. Maybe the "2 White Skulls without using any attack cards" is not an option as a strategy for a player or it becomes possible later on.

        The observation you make about "2 White Skulls which are like Nightmares"(2 White Skull opponents should overall be lesser in difficulty compared to Nightmares even if it's only a little bit) is either a bug or is a change in matchmaking in response to the "2 White Skull" trend. That imbalance because "2 White Skulls didn't require cards for the vast majority of the game" could be because the "community" has become better in general, overall, or the game updates have made it so "2 White Skulls" are more difficult, while "Nightmares" are now determined differently.

        Why do you think 1 Skull Nightmare vs 3 Skull Nightmare would not really have a big difference in terms of viable attack and which of the two would you attack, reward-wise? The answer to this is also why you currently will eventually lose 2-3 Red Skulls opponents.

        What is considered a 3 Red Skull opponent to a high rank player? And would it be fair to assume that that 3 Red Skull opponent could be a "cake walk" opponent? Not all high rank players know all the best strategies and might not always win, but if they already played that 3 Red Skull opponent before and knows the strategy of defeating those bases, what happens when they get to play that 3 Red Skull repeatedly? And this scenario doesn't take into account those high rank that gets to face 3 Red Skull bases that are much easier to what you'd expect a "difficult" base would be.

    • #10
      Η ΤAΝ Η ΕΠΙ ΤAΣ - IMMORTALS

      Comment


      • #11
        im lvl like 37 or 38 and i still have all of the skulls, 1 white skull, 2 white skull, 3 white skull, 1 red skull, 2 red skull, and 3 red skull

        Comment


        • MonkeyMoon22
          MonkeyMoon22 commented
          Editing a comment
          That's good to know. At your level, do you think the Red Skull opponents are more difficult than the 3 White Skulls opponents?

        • BlackOPS-SEAL4
          BlackOPS-SEAL4 commented
          Editing a comment
          ehhh not all the time i really like them bc if i win i get extra cards so

      • #12
        Tbh I never truly understood how this works. I'm level 50. Played nearly 4,5k matches. Average opponent difficulty 1,8 lol. I could almost count on both hands how often I've ever attacked 3 reds. I much more enjoyed quick simple matches, giving faster rewards and far less frustration, not to mention those are the best for training veterans. Still, I lost 3 reds from the list?? The hardest opponent I can attack right now is 1 red skull lol. Not that I have issues with that, I’m just surprised. I still usually attack 2 whites, though I’m amazed how one time I roll a base of 2k and other time 8-10k (both 2 whites). Like I said, this rating (much like huge amounts of dog tags from low level opponents) never truly made sense to me and rewards from nightmares were never worth the trouble. I don’t play consistently enough these times anymore to be a part of any alliance, but seeing how unfair things turn out to be I’m glad I didn’t join any. I still have great issue with the fact that BP limit is different for different players above level 50, I don’t feel like losing any more nerves on unfair alliances competition.

        Comment


        • MonkeyMoon22
          MonkeyMoon22 commented
          Editing a comment
          Great observations. And according to your stats, I can see why you lost 3 Red Skulls too. I will try to explain more about Red Skull difficulty with Alliance Battles and transitional difficulty.

          If you're able to treat Nightmares like a bonus and are able to weigh the risk vs rewards aspect of it, then they can be worth the trouble, or be no trouble at all.

          Also,"BP", Build Point limit?

      • #13
        What's the difference between a high rank player and low rank player in terms of Red Skull difficulty?

        Before I answer this question, I want to comment about leaderboards and Alliance Battles.

        It's interesting to see the shift in viewpoints of the game when rankings and leaderboards now matter because of Alliance Battles and how the "anything goes" mentality is still strong towards anything that is "competitive". In my opinion, sometimes, "if you can do it" doesn't necessarily mean "you should do it", but if you want to, why not?, if the acceptability of a questionable tactic is unaddressed. It could be because the pros outweighs the cons of the the issue.

        So I'm going to try to make sense of Red Skulls difficulty in Alliance Battles. If you haven't figured out the Alliance Battles idea concept tests "event" that I mentioned on mendozas post about "those who still have lv 2-3 Nightmares having upper hand during Alliance Battles", it was the "Special Operations: Win Ratio Madness" event that happened last year in this same month. What I found interesting from that event was that knowing what I knew about the way Red Skulls difficulty worked, I knew I was going to have a difficult time as a "high rank player" compared to "low rank players". I was not surprised by the results then and I wasn't surprised when I saw what's eventually happening now With Alliance Battles.

        But what's great about Alliance Battles though, is that it brings in "new" players. The more players, the more bases, the more chances at "variety", the more chances of different or unique GU! progression experiences. As an option, Alliance Battles are great in that aspect. There are drawbacks, but hopefully they'll get solved at a later time.

        Also, I want to point out that because of the way Red Skulls difficulty works, low rank players can be as competitive and as successful(maybe too successful?) as high rank players in Alliance Battles. Again, there are drawbacks, but hopefully they'll get fixed.

        So what's the difference between a high rank player and low rank player in terms of Red Skull difficulty?

        High rank players will have an overall higher Red Skull difficulty compared to low rank players. The way it's been for a long time though, was that low rank players would see 2-3 Red Skull opponents more compared to high rank players. Sometimes, the way I saw it was like if you are "high rank" you do not need the "bonus" anymore so the 2-3 "Red Skull rating", the choice of 2-3 Red Skull opponent, goes away. But as you continue to play, all of a sudden, you become "low rank" and now the game tries to help you out in a way by giving you a "bonus", giving you the 2-3 Red Skull opponent choice again. Once you reach that "high rank" status again, "bonus" is taken away, and that cycle will continue the more you play. But you need to remember that your "rank" is in comparison to other players, so depending on certain conditions, 2-3 Red Skulls could feel inconsistent. And because of this inconsistency you can sometimes encounter "transitional difficulties", like when an empty base is a 3 Red Skull opponent or you feel like a lower Skull rating is more difficult than a higher rated one(can be confused with a matchmaking bug).

        Usually the buy-in that's next to the less-varied-bases difficulties will be "transitional difficulties" because that's where you'll start to to see any shifts in "community trends" but they can occur in any buy-in.

        Comment


        • xBino
          xBino commented
          Editing a comment
          Monkey, why don't you play anymore? You are one of the original gangsters with ody, DarthEban, Gummbae, etc.

        • mendoza0206
          mendoza0206 commented
          Editing a comment
          I get lots of variation from 2 whites, I can beat them all day long without taking any attack cards. On the other hand there is quite a few nightmares that are very difficult...well I don't make it a habit to bring out the vets that might be why I have a harder time but most nightmares I can beat without vets. PvP is different from alliance because alliance is a competition which implies to "put together a strong alliance" but is ironic how the "weakest" members can bring more points. My former alliance memebers used to ask me how come I didn't have more points, and if they had to go against some of the nightmares I had to go against they would have less than half of what I had (over 1000) and I only did about 5 battles per day. I've always enjoyed nightmares but alliance is a whole different game since you're competing.

        • MonkeyMoon22
          MonkeyMoon22 commented
          Editing a comment
          @xBino, It's because of a combination of things. I had a lot of feedback I wanted to share about the game, but felt they were to "spoilery". I did my part in helping build the community in a non-spoiler kind of way, and show a different style in how you can play GU! compared to an already established way of playing. I feel there's a depth to the game still not noticed and, hopefully, the posts I make on the forums help explain and show it.

          @mendoza0206, I agree. PvP though is still competitive and has always been competitive. CPU Defend is competitive too. Would you agree that GU! is meant to be a competitive game? As a game mode, I can see Alliance Battles as being more competitive to the regular PvP. Actually, you can think of Alliance Battles as how PvP used to be, with some tweaks. Alliance Battles is still an option though and players can still choose whether they want to participate or play it. What do you think should be done so that every player participates or plays Alliance Battles? Or just keep it as an option for players to choose from?

          From what I explained of Red Skulls difficulty, I think that the idea of Alliances was to be inclusive for all so any member can contribute during Alliance Wars. Do you think there should be separate "Wars", different competitions based on "Rank" or level? Do you think points gained from high rank should be weighted more compared to low rank, and if so, how do you think this would effect the rest of the "points"(how "stars", Dog Tags, etc. are calculated) system of GU!.

      • #14
        i find it all easy as long as you place your specials right thats just me !!!

        Comment


        • mendoza0206
          mendoza0206 commented
          Editing a comment
          Yes it's all about timing. But then again you haven't seen "true" nightmares when timing and lots of luck come into play. Most times is a 50/50 chance of winning or less. Just check out your own stats.
          Last edited by mendoza0206; 05-05-2017, 06:48 AM.

      • #15
        @MonkeyMoon22 do me a favor and check out my stats.
        Yes competition should be based on rank or prestige level if it can be called that. Low level players can beat 3 reds all day long while us "high" level players have a very hard time with just 1 red sometimes just winning 1 out of the 3 free alliance battles.

        Comment

        Working...
        X