SMG Studio

Dishonourable players like velasco the nineth; martin fernstrom; louis odom; lew cliche 3; ismash5; flora rougarou

Wow - you keep a log! Whenever I break an alliance, I let them know on MY turn and don't attack them that turn. That is the most honorable way. But mostly- don't make alliances unless you're desperate. In fact, I wish you could have the option to disable this for a game you are creating. I've been ganged up on too many times!

This needs to be done perfectly in order for it to be good. Sometimes an ally wouldn't mind you taking one of their territories that they don't care about. There needs to be a way that you can do that without breaking an alliance. Also, all alliances are eventually broken. There needs to be a set number of turns or when there's only two players left when you can break in alliance without it affecting your stats. If it isn't done exactly this way it could be very very bad.

The name of the game is called Risk.keeping stats on players that turn or break the alliance take away part of the risk factor. Usually the player that request alliance with you before the game get started is the manipulator this is one that will turn and betray the alliance attack that Person first.

Live chat is a great idea now you talking real strategy. It would make the game more interesting.

Reliance on false alliances to win means you are playing a game called suckers. It is not fun. I like a strategy game where people would rather win on skill instead of being a complete pile of rot. It is a leveller to have effective alliances as a strategy. One player should not be able to run the board if other players are awake. That is part of the challenge. I do not want to make a notebook. It is a computer game and creating stats is what computers do. I try to play with honour and appreciate that being a badge that other players can see. The ones who are saying this is a terrible idea are the reasons this stat is important and they hate it because it ruins their chances to ruin other peoples day. If I am playing tabletop I soon know who can be trusted and chances are we will play often. I will remember. Sorry but I do not want to go through that learning process with hundreds of players. I tend to ignore all and will until there is a stat to show who might be worth giving a chance.

Alliances, in principle, are a great idea. But as they are currently handled in the game, they absolutely take the fun out of it. Too many times I've had people make an alliance with me just to put me at ease and them to plow through me within a turn or two. That's silly. Alliances that create 2 or more players ganging up on you, are also silly. IMO alliances need to last a maximum of turns. The computer must prevent allied players from attacking each other. Risk, as the name implies, is about strategizing without knowing exactly how events will shape up, the dice will roll, or whether or not it pays to leave a section unguarded to take out a giant block of armies. Risk is not about having to guess if your ally is honorable. I've been burned enough that now I NEVER accept requests and I immediately leave a game when it becomes obvious I'm being ganged up on. I'm pretty sure that is not the intent of them.

Okay to most of what you said except for disliking being ganged up on. You are going to lose games. Somebody always does. Being ganged up on means you were either easy pickings or a threat that could not wisely be ignored. I shrug off the first and scream "Battle!" at the second situation.

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.

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 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.

This is the start of table talk. Great idea