Multiplayer: Devolving *all* symptoms/transmissions probably shouldn't be a valid strategy

[MantisEsq]

I've been playing this evening and I've noticed that the cure seems to end the game most often. Since the game rewards staying alive the longest, I decided that I'd try to to devolve all of my symptoms and transmissions to keep my profile low, and to see if I could win. Sure enough, I did, since all I had to spend my DNA on was making it hard for the other person to fight the cure.

While this won't work on people who are smart enough to grow and keep a low profile, it seems to me that most people don't play that way. I know the devs had trouble figuring out how to score multiplayer, but this doesn't seem to be the best way to do it. Just an observation. Enjoy the game everyone!

[OS!]

against these types of strategies, i will go for a necro-burst, killing 50% of total population, then devolve the lethal symptoms, i will then have all the DNA to hardening/add infectivity, while the other player's income will be penalized as they now have only half the population to infect. This is risky but i get to win a few games with it :)

[Shahadem]

There seem to be 3 strategies being employed at present:
1) Loud and Proud, spread quickly, kill quickly, devolve to avoid killing off your plague
2) Low and Slow, try to maximize your infectivity while minimizing your severity
3) Wait and See, defensive with a focus on curing the other player's plague and preventing the other player from infecting your countries.

[Aquarius]

^^Shahadem......You nailed it! For sure the 3 main ways of playn

[OldGoldie]

I have a strategy I have been using, i won't share, but I have won every game where I used it so far.

[Zedny]

A good balance would be a rock-paper-scissors scenario, where one strategy dominates another, but is destroyed by the third.
The problem here is, that Loud and Proud generates way more DNA and wins the game before Low and Slow has the chance to react. And the cure research also slows to a crawl when 85% of the population is dead.
Of course the meta needs time to evolve, but right now it's a game where The Rich Get Richer and if you have a good start, you are almost guaranteed to win.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be pessimistic here. I'm one of those who rely on an unexpected mid-game boom to overcome the seemingly devastating odds, but I had to adapt after seeing what higher level players can do.

[Vylon]

I am just a bit puzzled that it ends with infecting everyone. Makes it a bit too simple and takes away some of the better parts, like cutting the match right before the endgame in many scenarios.

The winning condition should be to kill more population than your enemy (based on single player).

If you try to be too sneaky = you lose. If you went too far, too agressive = you lose (cured/consumed). If you manage to pull off killing 51%+ of all population just before you get cured / consumed = well earned win.

Some news messages (classic single player ones) about the rival pathogen might help plan the next step (like, when to start killing etc.)

[>//The_FALCON]

Originally posted by Vylon:

I am just a bit puzzled that it ends with infecting everyone. Makes it a bit too simple and takes away some of the better parts, like cutting the match right before the endgame in many scenarios.

The winning condition should be to kill more population than your enemy (based on single player).

If you try to be too sneaky = you lose. If you went too far, too agressive = you lose (cured/consumed). If you manage to pull off killing 51%+ of all population just before you get cured / consumed = well earned win.

Some news messages (classic single player ones) about the rival pathogen might help plan the next step (like, when to start killing etc.)

Killing people was too easy. That's why it's not a win condition.