Using 2 accounts to gain an advantage is flat out cheating. Two friends playing together with the purpose of making one or both accounts come at the top to gain points is cheating. 2 friends playing in the same game isn't necessarily cheating, but without a way to tell the actual intention, it is labeled as cheating. If SMG sees two players who appear to be related always playing together, you will be banned because you're most likely cheating to gain points.
Note that in normal board game risk, there is only one winner. There are no rank points, so it hardly matters if someone teams up to win because in the end, only one wins in a free for all. With the ranking system in Risk online, this is sketchy. It's fine if in the game 2 players work together for a while, but if it's per-medidated before the game even started, it's cheating.
Your attempt to define cheating vs exploit is invalid. I could very well argue that modifying the game code is just an exploit. They left the code there to modify, so I change it, and it's "exploiting" what I was given. Better to just call all of this cheating. The point of ranked games is you're supposed to start on your own with the intention of you winning, not to help someone else win or both of you take the 1 and 2 spots. And you are cheating if you modify the game as it's given in any way. Exploit = cheating, don't waste our time trying to create this arbitrary argument. We don't need to bother with you trying to justify your "exploitation" of the game so you can cheat for a higher rank.
Steven Conway,
My initial post wasn't to define the exact definition of cheating, your taking it out of context a bit.
My goal was to voice the difference or degree of cheating. To point out someone hacking the game and altering code to roll sixes ever roll and win 100% of every game they play. Cheating, and detrimental to the game! (Example...)
- On the other hand, you have two players who don't know each other, ally in the game, and have a motive to win the game together with an advantage from allying. Not cheating, I get it! Built in game feature.
- Same player(s), plays another game and every game with intention to ally with another player they don't know, but sole purpose (intention) to gain an advantage in every game to win using ally. Cheating, or just using a game built in feature, exploiting that feature.
- Same player plays EXACT same behavior, but actually know the other player. Intention is exact same, should we ban both examples? If yes, why have ally in the game ?
Per rules, two players can know each other and play in the same game as long as their intention is to win the game as a solo player, easy enough!
- Do I now need to attack my friend EVERY turn to prove I hate him and want to cream him off the map like I have a grudge?
...simply so you don't call me a cheater ?
Or can I not hate him so much, and attack others.
How often do you expect me to attack him?
When do you start calling me a cheater, read the forums, matter of time ?
- Most posts I read are that dreaded "I suck, so you must be cheating", cheat! It's wide spread.
Be a lot easier if SMG implemented co-op (team) mode, 2vs2's. Give me a place to play, and I wont play with my friend in your game. Cheating or not cheating... Allying!
Just saying, asking (yes I posted suggestion for this, no votes)
To put this nicely, I THINK you all are crying wolf waaaaaaaaaaay too much, and SMG doesn't have the time to police players allying (babysit), and trying to decide who is and isn't... I see very little proof to what I refer to as REAL CHEATS, and think SMG is doing a good job to prevent this. Read the forums, most of you must disagree on this with the amount of cheater cheater posts.
Same posts over and over, he's not playing fair... Still referred to players rolls the same dice, and same game code (un-altered) as everyone else. ZERO advantage, other than having a buddy, but we're trying to define does he know him or not to distinguish cheating.
Really ?
Wow long post, do what you want with this. (Not worth proofing, nothing mean or bad meant, pls take it as general friendly discussion - disclaimer)
Matt
To Gussie:
" 2. Remember to activate the ignore requests option as the game progress,"
I actually do that the moment the game starts. I immediately put everyone on ignore (I wish that was an option to choose before the game starts so we don't have to manually do it).
I don't want any alliances. Personally I wish they would do away with that option altogether.
My typical game scenario...I nearly always host (I got tired of trying to join other games only to be kicked out for no apparent reason...my rank didn't matter whether it was high or low) and I almost always do it with the intent of having 5 players. 4 human players, including myself, and 1 computer player. I want the computer player for the sake of keeping everyone at least somewhat honest as you can't ally with the AI (assuming someone hasn't found an exploit, of course).
Sorry, MattL...but virtually everything you described in your initial post IS considered cheating. SMG even made a post specifically pertaining to points you made that it IS considered cheating and is subject to banning from the game.
Gussie,
Not sure if I'm missing something, but...
It looks like purple is killing the easier kill, the one with only ONE territory. (Yellow)
That's a bug. If you disconnect in the middle of taking a territory, during the troop movement phase it can register the troops you're moving to the territory as going to the opponent who lost the territory. It's happened to me before you just need to try to move as few as possible so you don't lose too many. Sometimes, connection bugs can result in 0 army territories and you can't even attack them if they went to the other player. I've seen players end up with extra armies from this because their own territory will show blank (0) and then at the end of the turn risk corrects it to a 1.
There was also a case where a guy who was going to mow me down had connection issues and somehow I ended up with a trade of cards worth of troops evenly distributed to 2 territories. It's a known bug as per SMG. My own guess is that he had attacked offline to those 2 territories, then connection finally came back, it moved him back to where he was when he last had connection and then it awarded the troops he had to those territories. he was pissed, making angry faces at me for the rest of the game like I had done something wrong. I was still going to win anyway but it made the game one less turn having to be hashed out with the extra redemption worth of troops right there.
Good ole MistiD-1. I've reported that one on a couple of occasions now. SMG still hasn't banned that account? I'm not surprised.
I had reported Skull Brooks 4 & Usher Wild 10 at least 3 times in the past before the cheating integration was made into the game. And after a long time of not seeing either, Skull Brooks 4 showed up into one of my games. And to no surprise, Usher Wild 10 followed right in. So I let them stay and started the game then reported immediately. And then let them win the game through the usual collusion you'd always expect from those favorites. HOWEVER. This player didn't get away unscathed. When it came down to a situation where I couldn't run the map on the two and I was screwed, along with another guy, I took the choice to kill half of one of the cheater accounts so the other guy could finish him off, just to kill him. So Usher ended up with the #4 slot. HA! But I got #3 as punishment from the Skull Brooks one. I had to stick my tongue out when I did the suicidal / senseless rush to make sure Usher could be killed. haha.
Will SMG actually act on it this time? We'll see, maybe. If i see those accounts again I'm actually going to be very pissed because I wrote a special email after that to insist they take care of this. I took a loss just to use their new reporting feature since they no longer accept tickets for cheaters. And apparently they didn't take care of the issue when I put all that time into those tickets. If i see them again, I'm booting them. And will no longer start games with suspected cheaters just to report them.
I had a game the other day where there was 2 pairs of cheaters in the game. I started it knowing I was doomed to come in last if I didn't get lucky, and it was sort of just to report them. I made sure first and then sure enough, each pair as expected was colluding. Funny how I can see that just based on how people join, ranks and names? Anyway, it doesn't matter that much. I only play my trash accounts until the rank matching finally happens / cheaters become rare, if either ever happen.
I've seen players add 999 troops on the first round. I think only twice. The first time it happened, I was able to maneuver well enough so that the computer in the game killed the 3rd player, so I came in 2nd. I was still pretty upset about the HACKING of the game.
Using multiple accounts is flat out cheating. I get what you're trying to say with cheat vs exploit but it's still cheating. An exploit is doing the alliance/break thing constantly. Which I find hilarious as it doesn't slow me down at all so I just hit the accept button over and over and tongue out at them right when they die. But not everyone is using a tablet or PC so they should ignore the person if they can't be cool like me lol.
So you have hackers, cheaters, and exploiters. I don't care about exploiters.
Well said Gussie!
To try and wrap this up, I will be posting feature add for co-op mode.
I'd hope with all the posters shouting cheat, that you would vote yes on co-op mode or expect these players to be playing in your next game :)
BTW, if any of you come across a real cheat, still like to hear about them, to get them fixed of course.
Please get unstuck!
What are the worst cheats you can mention in this game of Risk?
- Excluding you thinking two players are out to get you, just for argument...
---------------------------------
When I said that, I was trying to not call EVERYTHING cheating, save the big word for real cheats. When someone used a built in game feature, but you don't like how they used it, I called it an EXPLOIT was all.
Yes it's cheap, just as players inviting you to ally just as your trying to kill them so the window pops up and makes it hard to finish killing them in a 60 second turn. Exploit! (In my humble opinion)
- Rolling ALL sixes every turn, definite cheat
- Modifying game code to give you an advantage, definite cheat
If you must call EVERYTHING a cheat, then pls define an Exploit ?
- I'd rather you answer my above question. I don't think any of you have seen a real cheat in this game. (Per my above definition). Seen many users exploiting game features (ally invite, playing with an ally...)
Never seen all sixes, never seen GOD mode, never seen game freeze, never seen double turns, never seen player attacking to non-adjacent territories, never seen anything used that is not part of the game and developed by the game makers.
Have you ??
Intention here is to give SMG & Risk some credit. Forums are filling with cheat claims, and I'm calling all you out (politely) to name & describe the cheat. Exclude your ally claims, you already have your wall of cheaters for that, leave it there where it belongs.
Matt L
You should be careful accusing someone of cheating.
-Two players ganging up on you is NOT CHEATING!
- One player playing two accounts is NOT CHEATING!
- BOTS tough one, but still saying the BOT has no actual cheats but just another account to try and give the player an edge. Not much dif. then having a second account. Still saying this is NOT CHEATING!
I calls these exploiting a games feature, and impossible to stop.
I have hundreds of games logged in Risk, and have not seen one person actual cheat, as in roll sixes every roll, control the game so no one can move but only them, GOD mode where you can't hurt them, etc. NOT ONCE!
I do see many players trying to get an advantage with a second account, but honestly most of them suck and need two accounts.
I see many posts about cheating, but I challenge any of you, prove they actual have cheats vs just playing a second player who also is not cheating rather then playing dirty.
1 person has this question