Start a new topic
Discussions RISK Global Domination Feature Requests

TURNCOAT - player statistic to show % of alliances broken

IDEA: A player statistic visible to other players that shows your % of alliance broken before <x> number of turns.


[Note: exact number of turns to be defined.]


HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE? Tap the 'Do you like this idea?' below


108 people like this idea
84 CommentsSorted by Newest First
Alliances should be set for a certain amount of turns. They also need to NOT show ranks of players till after the match.
1 person likes this
In my opinion if we have the option of making alliances the break alliance option should be checked first instead of attacking an ally if the game is to be fair and allow a turn at least before eliminating an ally. The only problem though is a situation where an ally is downsized to the point where anyone can take their cards and it would be a disadvantage to yield that option to a non-allied opponent in order to be holding true to alliance.
This would be a nice feature, but only once chat in implemented. Also, there would need to be an end alliance button where both players agree on ending, or being able to truce for a certain amount of turns.
I'm still going to disagree with the alliances broken part of it. All alliances must be broken at some point. The point of the alliance is to try to keep each other from killing each other early on, or a way to say you won't attack when you plop a huge army nearby. Does the other trust you? He may have reason not to. Afterall, part of the game is about being deceptive.

I use the alliance feature as a way to guarantee I will not attack someone until I'm able to sweep him or her from the board. and other than killing 1's or trapped armies to take a continent, I really don't kill the ally. The game is political. You need to know what you're doing. Sure, some people make alliances and just attack you anyway but the game is a free for all, not a team game. It's just a communication.

 

1 person likes this

I agree and have felt this way since day one. Some suggestions:

If a player attacks an ally, that alliance is immediately broken and no longer shows in player options. This will matter with stat tracking.

Stat tracker to show: Average turns players alliances last. Yes, that player being attacked, and the alliance being over will effect that stat. However, there are times when a player might attack said ally because they are obviously assisting another player who is attacking you. Therefore a player with a long turn count on their alliances shows something.

% of alliances broken by that player. Meaning they went into options first to break.

Avg turns after player breaks alliance that they attack player they were allied with OR % of broken alliances they attack them the same turn they break that alliance.

% of alliances that player has attacked their ally without first breaking the alliance and/or waiting at least one turn.

Avg # of alliances made per game.

Make an alliance option for certain amount of turns up to max amount. Should be an option that is able to be turned off/on in game options as it makes the game very different to play strategically. If allied for X turns, either player is unable to attack the other. You can break the alliance, but not be able to attack until the beginning of your next turn.

Wow this game is awesome I get ganged up on for days !!! Some times it's disheartening but it's all part of the game!!
I love the idea of being able to accurately gauge your fellow players integrity and trustworthiness. Even if there were no "turncoat" statistics, at least set up a rating/reputation system where we could leave some simple feedback on players after the game. As of right now, there are no ramifications for lying and manipulating your way to a win. A reputation system would at least allow players to make a judgement call about the integrity of their opponents/allies.
Seems pretty easy to make an alliance with someone, box them in especially if they are an obsessor over Australia and then never allow the alliance to be broken. Sweep the board and the ally could never do anything to stop you.

 

I feel this should be available. There should be a player to player chat available. You could make it so the app asks you if you want to break the alliance. Example if I (red) am in an alliance with blue and have no where to attack but them. I can request an alliance break. In order to break the alliance they would have to accept. Just like when you're requesting to make the alliance. Just my thoughts
id b happy wit a "turncoat" pop up icon for a few sec. thank u
This is the start of table talk. Great idea
Yes these situations which you are describing do happen and there is no cheating involved. It is definitely possible to get everyone else to Rally against an opponent who was obviously going to destroy everyone if you don't all team together. I am not talking about just these situations. I am talking about when there it's definitely cheating going on and I want to be able to label a player so that I know not to let him into my games. I've played over 800 games in the last 5 months and there have been times when I suspected a player of cheating and I'll end up with a game again with that person and his same sub account and the same exact thing happens again where the two accounts coordinate with each other perfectly to be able to wipe out everyone else was on their own. I have even noticed players like this on my list that will join the game and when I poop the secondary cheating account the other one will immediately exit the game room. It's not a common problem but it's something that I have concerned about and have to take screenshots of players names and memorize them just in case I bump into them again. The worst part is that people can change their player name based on Facebook risk profile or their Google Play account.
1 person likes this
For that matter I will often deliberately not go after weaker players because there is a strong player that must be beaten. I lose if I let the stronger player hold too many territories and make myself the only target left for them. If one player has North America, South America and Australia for example while other players are just scattered scraps, I will ignore the other players for a chance to dash through South America and capture Central America. Until the advantaged player is levelled I will make eliminating other players a neutral versus positive objective. As long as the advantaged player is unlikely to capture their cards the otber players are helpful even just to split the enemy focus.
Yes. I have turned rabid and went after a player knowing that I am just making it easier for other players to beat them and I will not win. Things like throwing my trools into an attack even though outnumbered just because I want to weaken them enough that somebody else will be able to breakthrough their defenses. Illogical play does not equal cheating. Picking somebody that bugged you and trying to make sure they lose can be a way to finish out a game.
3 people like this
I can also recall a few games where I've noticed movements that appear to be cheating so I decide to pick on the high ranked account and knock him out even though it's stupid to do so. Then the secondary account will freak out in all out emotion trying to destroy me even if it means the other players will easily sweep him. It's funny to watch.

 

1 person likes this
Login or Signup to post a comment
More topics in Feature Requests
See all 1477 topics