Start a new topic

Leaving games

Hello, I believe that there needs to be a punishment for leaving games within the first few turns! I am a big fan of playing against real people, not the bots when they surrender and leave. If it was possible to do an hour or two punishment upon leaving games before say 10 or even 7 turns of gameplay that would increase human competition greatly i believe! I see alot of people who leave games after the first turn or two after some bad rolls and luck (I'm guilty before as well) and if i wanted to play bots i wouldnt play online! I think it would do wonders and improve competition by fighting for survival and your time playing! Just an opinion. [New to the community of risk great game and want to help improve it!] Thanks for hearing me out, Shamoke23

6 people like this idea

Wait how is it cheating if you have your friends work with you to take the enemies out? Is that the point of the game? Like I put Allie's with my friend and pin point who we should attack that's the hole point of the game of risk and in the end your still fighting your friend so that's not cheating at all so your wrong and that's not cheating at all.
Michael if you can’t turn a player card that probably means they quit but it isn’t a sure fire method for telling. The reason that is the case is because that is also what it looks like if they “ignore” you. Best to observe their play on their turn. If they have arrows during the attack phase or if they roll the dice manually they are definitely human players. If they always blitz and have no arrows it’s an AI.

1 person likes this

@Charles, to put it simply. Does it give you an unfair advantage that is not known to any other player in the game you are joining or hosting? If yes then it would be considered cheating, as it negatively affects the experience of all other players in the game. I'm sure you have seen the endless legions of unhappy people posting on the forum about this.


Additionally, functionally there is no difference between a player using 2 accounts and 2 seperate people working together every single game in order to win.


There is always the "Play with Friends" game mode that is designed for friends to play. But, I'm sure you will say "But I can only play against AI in that?" To which my answer would be, idea that you want to gang up on the real  unsuspecting players is just mean.


- Phillip@SMG


1 person likes this
Risk is ment to gang on players and kick there butts! My father had his friend go against me and I lost. And sure I was upset but I learned that the only way to win was Allie's! Going against boots are easy and are fun for solo only I believe. But gang on players on online is the best! That's way I paid for the new maps so I can gang on players lol. And by the way how can you even see that someone's cheating? Everyone I Allie with is not Always a friend just a random person. So you tell me how you can call that cheating for just working with a random person.
*bots
Thank ya @smg for your response! I agree with everything ya said! And also, ty @sectaone for your input as well, thats actually a decent social strategy lol! I think I got an idea then, what about a whole new mode for dedicated game play? Maybe like a super rank mode?

@Charles, if its a random person in the game then its not cheating. If its someone you planned to go into the game with, it is. It is very easy to tell when you have played dozens, if not hundreds of games with the same person.


- Phillip@SMG

Charles, you "need" allies to win a game? How about the fact that the more opponents you have the easier it is for me to win the game early? Don't waste your time taking units away from an enemy and expect an ally to help you. Just murder one in the 5th round, take hits cards and sweep the rest of the board by turn 6. Easy win and no allies needed. The more enemies, the better :)
Don’t depend on allies in order to win. Alliance requests are mostly useful for helping to put opponents at their ease and as a way of encouraging them to let your armies out of the continent they’re taking. That is the case in progressive at least. Fixed often becomes all about managing people so I guess they are somewhat more useful in that game type. Briand are you consistently able to knock someone off in the fifth round? That’s the round that typically starts with everyone having four cards. You must mean the sixth round right? Who wants to turn in four kill 15-25 and get six back and be left at three cards which may not even be a set? Not that some opponents aren’t so weak that they absolutely must be killed but that is fairly rare in my experience. I do think fewer opponents makes winning easier on average but prefer six player games for the fun.
I did actually mean the 6th round. My mistake. Sometimes idiots beat each other up too fast and it could be earlier but not usually preferred. And then occasionally taking out a guy before you who has 5 cards when you have 4. It does matter how many players are in the game as to when running the map becomes possible/easy. The less you have, the longer you have to wait. Games of 4 become very political and where alliances become useful. Games of 3 are just stupid as they are pretty much 100% political and pretty unfair in my opinion. I only like those when playing the actual board game and I know who everyone is. Fixed games are irritating. You're pretty much going to be stuck with a 2+ hour game because it's very difficult to get enough guys to justify running the map. You want your opponents to basically kill each other so you can not be killed and be able to over-power them. That's literally a continent fighting game. And very political since the one who builds up too quickly is going to get smashed by everyone. Fixed games sound fun until everyone has an 80+ guy territory and you find out there's no reason to try to win and have to wait until everyone else loses their connection and becomes a dumbputer lol

 

By the way. People who take alliances to the extreme suck. I make alliances to say "hey, I'm not trying to kill you" (at least until the 6th round lol) You take one of their insignificant asian territories that has one guy on it so you can get a card and they go total haywire on you in anger. Urgh.

 

Just don’t play novices more than necessary I guess. Fixed is slow but if you have about two hours to kill it is also fun in my opinion. Though for the record I still consider progressive to be better.

1 person likes this

Briand, I think part of that could be resolved in the game if you could chat with Allies but I can understand why that might be a bad idea. A better strategy for taking someone's last man in a territory or area is allowing them to get out of there first; they move away to keep a strong hold, and you move in. That's fair but taking a territory that might have otherwise been a strategic position or got them to the other side of the board, that's actually kinda a dick move but also understandable in the current way the game works. I think it also depends on many other factors, like how many armies they have and where they are positioned. Many of the problems like this are due to lack of communication. And generally while I don't like alliances that much, I think we've all been on both sides of what you mention. Best!

After reading through this thread, I have only one thing to say.


Charles...I feel really bad and ashamed for you.  I hope Risk bans both you and your "friends" accounts.

Lol they won't. I'm still waiting on the new maps 
Login or Signup to post a comment