Start a new topic

Players who just don't have a clue infuriate me.

 I was just playing a game where it was down to 3 of us.  Blue, Green, and me. 

Green had most of Europe and all of Africa.  Blue and I had generally been ignoring him because he was no threat.

Blue had North America and South America but only had 5 troops at the European entrance after I had attacked him there the last turn.

I had Australia and a lot of Asia but I only had 1-2 troops in my Asian territories and 20 men at the entrance of Australia and few spread across Europe.  I was the weakest but was getting ready to trade in cards my next turn.

So what does green do instead of attack blue to keep him from holding NA?  He attacks my few guys to secure Europe even though there was NO POSSIBLE WAY HE COULD HOLD IT lol.

So next turn Blue secures NA, gets his card and secures NA.  I traded in my cards and attacked NA and broke through but only had a few troops there so blue was just going to take it back the next turn.

So his next turn.....what does Green do instead of attacking Blue when he was vulnerable?  He takes back Europe even though THERE IS  NO WAY HE COULD HOLD IT and lets Blue keep NA.

So next turn I'm out of options, I can't stop Blue from holding NA, I get a card and retreat to Australia.  Blue starts attacking Asia and what does Green do?  He attacks Asia too....but just to collect a card...... while blue fortifies NA and SA.

I ended up just attacking Green and taking away his Europe and Africa bonus for getting us both killed but it's infuriating how clueless some players are.  I mean the green player was either godawful or the Blue player was just using two accounts.  I didn't stick around to find out which it was but these numbskulls who sit there and let a player right next  to them take over territory after territory just baffle me.  It's like they're not even trying to win, they're just collecting cards.  What good does taking over a territory do if you only have a few troops?


Their can be a lot of things at play here. Yup some players dont have a clue. They are rookies and dont know much about strategy. Some players are spiteful and just attack another player because that player attacked them. Those two players end up annihilating each other and someone else wins. I admit that I have done this once or twice myself out of frustration. Sometimes player go for second place. This looks odd at first but if you are trying to improve your ranking then second place is better than third place. So for example if the top 3 have 100, 80, and 60 troops respectively and I am the player with 80 troops then I have to decide whether attack number 1 or number 3. Attacking number 1 reduces troops for both 1 and 2 which brings number 3 back into the game. But an all out assault on number 3 might take him out or at least cripple him and guarantee yourself second place. At least some of the odd behavior can be reduced by playing with higher ranked opponents.

Yeah, I'm talking about players who just sit there and don't attack.  They're idiots.  If you're not even going to try to win why bother playing?  

If a game is hopeless and you want to play for second place, great.  But when you let the other guy win because you won't attack him....that's just dumb and it ruins the game.

I understand how RISK works.  I understand sometimes you take a jerk out rather than trying to win. 

But I played another game earlier today where red had Europe.  He had 25 guys in the center and 1 guy in every other territory.  The green player had Australia, the yellow player had Africa and every single turn both of them would go up and attack the red guy, get a card, then retreat back to their continents and build up troops.

I was fighting with the blue guy in NA, I was fucked because my troops were so spread out at the beginning of the game and I couldn't cash in cards until my 5th one so everyone else had taken over continents and I was barely hanging on.

I had 40 troops in NA, about 35 of them in one territory, but I couldn't hold NA, the blue guy had SA and he kept sending up his guys to NA, attacking, collecting a card and then retreating.  The guy in Africa woudn't attack him so he was free to try to take NA.

This went on for probably 45 minutes an hour, because all those players were dirt slow when it was their turn.  I think the timer was 2 minutes and every single one of them used up almost the entire 2 minutes every time.

But anyway, instead of one of them attacking the other they all just sat there attacking one territory over and over and collecting cards.  I finally got fed up and took out the blue guy in NA but he attacked and killed me the next turn.  It left him almost dead but I didn't watch to see if he was taken out after that.

But I can't tell you how many games I've lost just because I get bored and quit.  Games could go on forever if nobody attacks.  If everyone gets a continent and then just builds up troops the game will never end.  Everyone sits around waiting for someone else to make a move and nobody wants to make a move because the person who makes the move will get destroyed.  Who has 3 hours to play Risk?

That sounds like pretty typical play at Masters level. I have been in several 3 hour matches with everyone doing just as you described. I hace dropped to Expert level now and that doesnt go on as much there but it still happens. It gets quite strategic in those matches. Yes its about building troops through cards and holding continents. But if you look too strong then you get the others teaming up to reduce your lead. Its a fine line between going for a win and not looking like a threat. If you dont like this sort of play then stay down at Intermediate or below.

The game I was talking about didn't have anyone over an intermediate.  If everyone sits and "builds troops" the game will go on forever.

There is no strategy in sitting and waiting for someone else to make a move.  And no, I'm not a fan of watching players taking turns endlessly attacking the same territory just to collect a card.

When you play in the real world you can communicate with players and get a feel for everyone, the game is more than just the game.  In online Risk there is no interaction and sitting there waiting your turn while everyone just looks at each other is beyond boring.

They really need to put in some kind of communication system.

True, the game could use some better communication tools. There are some unspoken methods though. Like matching the opponents number of troops exactly at a pinch point. Smiley faces can give small clues. Most games I play dont allow alliances. But you can use that if its available. However, alliances dont seem to hold much water in the online game.

I never make alliances and I wish they weren't allowed.  I really wish in fixed card games there was a limit on how many troops you could place in one area.

I just finished an 1 1/2 game and I got so fed up I just ran through all the other players to damage them equally.  Everyone just sat there collecting cards.  One play had 200 men in the middle of Europe.  That's not my idea of fun.

I don't like progressive because it's a lot more luck based, if you can finish someone off and get to cash in cards at the right time you can run the table etc but the fixed card games are no fun nobody attacks. 

An 1 1/2 Mexican standoff just is no fun.

 This is the crap I'm talking about.

I just played a game where I was orange, my troops were spread out at the beginning of the game so I couldn't secure a continent while the other players could (blue had all but one territory in Europe before he ever even got a turn and Yellow had 15 men all around Australia, so those two had secured continents after their first turn and purple secured SA in a 2-3 turns).

Anyway, I built up troops in NA and was fighting with red who was also in NA.....but then I guess the red player quit and his account became a robot.  It kept spawning in NA and I couldn't finish him off without completely wiping myself out too so I built up a mass of troops to invade SA with.

Green also was supposedly a human player but made zero attempt to conquer anything and actually just sat and fortified for most of his turns.  I don't know if it was a player using two accounts or what but the green player just put troops in the way of other players.  He was wiped out pretty quick but he slowed players down in NA and Asia.  I had troops in Asia that I was trying to get to NA but green blocked the entrance and just sat there.

Yellow did NOTHING the entire game except build up troops in Australia.  When I quit watching he had 200 troops in Australia.

Blue had Europe from the start. and just built up troops there.  That's all he did the entire game until I finally made a move. 

All the players except purple were beginners or novices.  Purple was a master and took over both SA and Africa.  He only had 1 troop on every single territory except 1 in SA where he had close to 100 troops.  He had both SA and Africa for 3-4 turns when I finally invaded SA.  I only had about 3/4 the troops he did but I could damage him so badly he would lose the game so he couldn't attack me to get me out of SA but instead of retreating to Africa he just sat there in SA.   In Africa purple only had 1 troop in every territory but still blue and yellow wouldn't attack him to take away his bonus.   Turn after turn they let purple keep Africa.  I kept him from controlling SA for a few turns but couldn't reach Africa and purple wouldn't leave SA.

It got to the point where I suspected blue and purple were the same player, I don't know why you would allow a player to control two continents when he only has 1 troop on every territory but blue wouldn't attack purple.

So out of sheer boredom (an hour of blue, purple and yellow not attacking each other) and not wanting to wait for purple to build up enough troops to wipe me out I attacked him first and wiped out over half his troops leaving him the weakest player left.  Red then finally attacked in Africa and purple ended up going on a suicide run against blue and red.

Yellow probably ended up winning but did nothing all game but build up troops in Australia.  He beat me because I got bored watching him blue and purple just collecting cards.  So skill had nothing to do with who won that game.  The guy who just sat there doing nothing turn after turn probably ended up winning.

I lose more games from boredom and not having time to sit and play for 5 hours than I do from lack of skill.  That's what I mean when I say there should be a limit on the number of troops in a territory.  Or some kind of wild card card bonus that's random that gives players a lot of troops.  Otherwise these games devolve into Mexican standoffs almost every time.

risk 2.jpg
(777 KB)
And? If you really think blue and purple were the same player then report it to support. Perhaps they can track it down by IP address. But it is also possible that they have an alliance and therefore not attacking each other. I cant tell which is which but perhaps support can. The game is strategic and the “mexican stand off” is often a winning strategy for the one with the most patience and best position. If you want to avoid that style of play then play progressive card games. I would disagree with your earlier post about progressive games being mostly luck. It does however require a different way of looking at things. You need to look two full rounds ahead to identify an opportunity where players may have sufficient cards that when taken over will put you into mandatory turn in and you can go on a run wiping everyone out. I have also been in progressive games that even went over an hour as each player turned in cards for 50 troops but it would not be enough to take over. More commonly the game times are much shorter than fixed cards though.

"AND" the game would still be going on if I hadn't made a move.

"AND" my point is too many people don't play the game to win.....they just sit around and wait.

"AND" that makes games last forever and totally negates the point of playing a game....which is to have fun.

"AND"  alliances suck because they just drag games out forever. 

"AND" NONE OF THEM were attacking.

"AND" it speaks to my point about how there should be a limit on troops in a territory.

"AND" I've reported several cheaters "AND" only one resulted in a banning.  The others were given a warning.

"AND" I literally said I didn't know I suspected they were the same player but wasn't sure.

"AND" the yellow player DID NOTHING THE ENTIRE GAME.

You do remember it's a game right?  And the point of the game is to take over the world by beating everyone else?  Because there's no communication between players and because of alliances too many players sit around waiting for someone else to do something.  If everyone does that a game could go on literally FOREVER.

"AND" that's not fun.

"AND" progressive card games are a lot quicker but there's a lot less skill.  I much prefer fixed games IF PEOPLE ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME AND DON'T JUST COLLECT CARDS.

I mean, often the best strategy is "patience" lol?  Yeah, just sitting around doing nothing waiting for people with lives to lose interest or have to attend to the real world responsibilities seems to be a good strategy lol.

Unfortunately I have a life and job, GF, etc so I can't really play Risk for 5 hours with strangers. 

“AND” its just a game. The games is and always has been about alliances and how those alliances eventually crumble. The same rules of the game apply here just as in the board game. I agree that cheaters need to be dealt with and in my over 300 games I have seen only one instance of blatant cheating, I reported it to support and they banned the player. The rest of the discussion is just about game play. The friends or family that you invited to your living room are not the same people that you are playing with online. There are no past relationships (or at least very few) when you are in an online game so the play is a bit different but still under the same rules. If you want to change the rules then submit a post under Feature Requests to add something new to the game. SMG has added things previously.

Progressive games are mostly luck, if the other players get to turn in cards after 3 turns and you have to wait 5 you're screwed.

I've ran the table or close to it many times in progressive games.  Once the card value starts going up if you're lucky enough to be able to take someone out who hasn't been able to trade their cards in it can start a chain reaction where you can take multiple players out.

Fixed is much more skill based I said, too many players don't play the game.  They just sit and wait.

In a real world game of RISK communication is a huge part of the game, making alliances, breaking alliances, coordinating attacks.

In online RISK that aspect of the game is gone.

It's an incredibly fun game if everyone is playing to win.  If people just sit around and collect cards it's incredibly boring and takes forever.

Like I've said, I think a timer would help......I think a troop limit would help.....and I think having random large card bonuses would help because it would break stalemates and incentivize keeping other players from collecting cards.

As it is in a fixed card game there is no incentive to attack after everyone has settled in.  Which is why so many people just sit around collecting cards waiting for someone else to attack. 

I love the game of RISK, and I love playing online but there are serious flaws in the way SMG has set it up.

Yeah, it's always been about alliances but in the real world game you can see who is making an alliance and you can communicate with other players to make alliances in retaliation.

"AND" if EVERYONE in the game has an "alliance" with each other........what's the point of playing? 

If nobody is attacking.....if everyone in the game is just sitting around collecting cards........remind me what the point is?  To see who has no life and can outlast everyone else?

OBVIOUSLY the people you play with online aren't friends of family which is my whole point lol.

Too many people just sit around scared to make a move because there is no incentive to make a move.  In fact the OPPOSITE is true. There is an incentive NOT to make a move because if there's a 3-4 way Mexican standoff if you attack someone all you're doing is weakening yourself.  The other players will just wait and finish you off. 

Which is why everyone sits around waiting for someone to make a move and why so many times the winner is just the guy that sits back and does nothing.  It's a serious flaw in the online version of the game.

I mean, you say "maybe they had an alliance"....they weren't attacking me either because they knew if they attacked me even though they could take me out it would weaken them and would be suicide.

The other two players were just sitting there letting the purple player control two continents.......did they all have an alliance?  Was I the only one in the game not a part of the alliance?

You would have to be an idiot to have an "alliance" with a guy controlling two continents if you only had one and he wasn't attacking any other players lol.

Login or Signup to post a comment