Start a new topic
Discussions RISK Global Domination Feature Requests

Reporting Options

This post is the offical place to discuss options for reporting players in game.

Idea: In game functionality to report players.


Express your ideas, but please keep all player reports to the support tickets.

23 people like this idea
49 CommentsSorted by Popular

ES wird wirklich Zeit das man diesen Armleuchtern das Handwerk legt, das ist doch Ätzend

 I suggested it in another thread but how about giving players an in-game message to let other players KNOW WE KNOW THEY'RE CHEATING?


I'm so sick of filling out reports on cheaters since cheating is so rampant in SMG RISK.


Fix the damn game!

It seems there are many different ideas in one thread. I have therefore created two topics for two different suggestions :


http://smgstudio.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/11000031031


Reporting unreliable allies


I have crossed several players who offer you an alliance. Once the alliance has been accepted, they come and smash you 'in the belly' (in the your strongest position) in order to destroy when the alliance is still on. You would expect to be able to rely on your ally. In my humble opinion, this kind of behaviour kills the fun of the game, would it be possible to implement a button to report 'unreliable allies' please?


and


http://smgstudio.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/11000031032


[feature request] bot to detect when a player attacks an ally


The feature request is related to http://smgstudio.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/11000031031 .


I think the developer/publisher could monitor fair play rules and have a 'bot'/'robot' to monitor (track) when players attack their allies.


1. Saying 'sorry I need to attack your territory' does not mean you are allowed to steal a continent from your ally because he trust you.

2. Saying 'sorry I need to attack your territory' does not mean you can attack several territories from your allies without permissions.

 

One idea is the ally who has been attacked could be asked to confirm whether the attack was reasonable (and compliant to fair play) or whether it was abusive/aggressive/cheating.


Saying more on those ideas. 


Stopping an alliance is part of the game but you should stop the alliance (using the alliance feature feature in the game) in order to act that the alliance is over before actually turning your ally into your prey/enemy.


Players would be required to end the alliance before attacking allies. This would help detect abusive behaviour. The bot would go 'hey they are still allies and this player is smashing the other player'.

Let's consider player A and player B become allies.

When player B wants to break the alliance, he presses the 'break alliance' button before any attack.

It is only fair to stop the alliance before any attack/betrayal.

This would also make the difference between 'fair play' (or normal course of a game) and cheating/abusive action.

This really needs to be implemented asap. I have no doubt that the game I just played involved a player hosted bot. The username of the player is RestingHippo1093. I will give the characterstics of this bot and compare them to my knowledge of Risk AIs. Risk AI: > Able to strategically guide the bot on where to generally attack next depending on certain factors like troop count in adjacent territories, and open paths. > Depending on how much the board changss before the AI's next turn, it can take almost an entire turn for the bot to recalculate; sometimes taking an entire turn. > The attacks of the AI are instant, however, there is a certain delay from attack to attack. > Will build troops around player troops that stay stagnant in order to eventually overtake them, or to defend a position/border. > Generally, the AI will most likely leave a path of ones behind depending on how big their attack sprees are, and whether or not they are trying to take space, or claim a continent. Player Hosted Bot: > Attacks instantly with no delays on the next attack, while also leaving troops behind with almost every attack. The bot takes no time in leaving troops behind as a human would normally do. > This bot seemed to attack in ways that were mathamatically the most strategic. > The bot was able to regain ground pretty quickly, which made it almost imposible to eventually take over. > It didn't seem to be easily controlled. The only thing you could do was build so that it didn't think it could take that territory, otherwise, there was no stopping or controlling where it would go next. > It fortified at the end of every turn and would do so in a strategically smart mannor. All in all, this bot was probably two times more difficult than the "Hard" AIs in game. Somehow I managed to still outsmart it and win, but only by a hair. Its use of taking, defending, while also landgrabbing, made it extremely hard to drain, and it almost seemed like a powerful virus that kept spreading and spreading. Someone mentioned a cheat check sort of deal. I think that would be nice, but as far as bots go, It would be good to implement a way for the game to recognize bot like activities and kick the player from the match, and ban them.
Y dose in not let me log back in and kicks as soon as I start winning
A possibility ti Report Players would bei awesome Right now i'm playing a Game with 3 Others players and one with only 3 areas ist slowplayjng and stuck in the reinforcement-phase for 30 minutes ... Wonder how this ist even possible
Yes, just had horrible cheating with riskranger and dogabuser. Blatant cheating. Blatant coordination using fog of war, which was stunning since it makes cheating easier to detect. In the end, the grandmaster won, even though there was no possibility that s/he should have. I reported the users, but likely nothing will happen. Makes me want to quit playing altogether since I became a grandmaster the old fashioned way...I earned it
Sandy Archer2 and KingSavage5 were obviously colluding. SA2 took out all but one army of another player (easily could have taken it). Then KS5 turned in his cards, killed the one army, collected his cards and turned in another set and proceeded to finish me off leaving just the two of them. SA2 gave me a little smile icon. Oh, and I was the 3rd to join, they were the first two in the game.
I have played with Sandy Archer 2 a few times and have always found him/her to be a fair player. But if what you're saying is true then maybe he/she has gone to the dark side.
SHUDRSKI is my account name if you'd like to look it up. I play quite often .
Rory, as host the player has the right and ability to choose opponents. If I’m hosting a game and a known cheater tries to join, of course I’m going to boot him. I suppose some hosts would remove an opponent who has beaten him previously or perhaps it’s someone who betrayed an alliance in a previous game. In any case, the host has that choice.
Can someone please tell me why when you go to join a game of risk the game setter is allowed to remove someone,(Or should I say someone he sees as a threat to his stats),I often see people of the same level joining a game and at the very last second a “senior” player jumps in,or a senior player is starting a game and he is selective over who he wants to play/ beat?
Login or Signup to post a comment
Topic merged into this topic:
More topics in Feature Requests
See all 1493 topics