SMG Studio

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.

Now were talking!

I've posted "New Feature requests for

- Game Finder, join queue then game start with random players.

- Team Mode, Two or Three Team Matches

Both received no or nearly no votes...

Your idea of repeat players visits wont work. I've seen many players over and over in my games, not always consecutive, but repeat for sure. Some names stand out, easy to spot.

...and Tournaments would be nice.

Hosted or moderated by SMG so no one can scream "cheater cheater" when the someone attacks them.

Those ideas would work.

Quit defending cheating Matt.  If you can't win without cheating you shouldn't be playing.

My comment about declaring that you're playing with 2 players only applies to the board version where it's obvious of what you're up against. It's more or less to make a point. Nobody is going to play a game where someone controls multiple players. It's physically possible to do and easy to get away with online but it's still cheating. Just imagine if a guy had multiple player accounts on a poker table how everyone would react to that!

Randomized games would be ideal but unfortunately there are way too many variables / not enough players. What SMG could do though is make all non-standard games unranked and have a "ranked" button which auto matches people. They'd need to decide on a standard timer, and that it would always be progressive games, classic map and maybe the number of players in the game can be up to those seeking the game as that one variable may not be too bad.

A huge benefit to this could be to force people to play games. They originally implemented the "ready" button for when you joined a game room and some jerk had it loaded with 4-5 computers and started the game on you and no choice but to play him. Now the issue is people not hitting the ready button because they aren't paying attention when the game actually starts. Some of the waits to fill a game can be long you know.

I suppose the other issue here is using a randomized game maker they'd have to force multiple games to start simultaneously while mixing the players up among the games. The whole point is to prevent cheaters (aside from getting games going faster) and if you know that pressing join game at the same time is likely to put you into the same game, it won't stop anything. Plus we still have to worry about playing similar ranks. And people are impatient to get a game going so I can see why this really is a tough one.

Wouldn't it be nice if people realized that "cheating" ruins the fun of the game especially for the cheater and making it to the top of the ranks has no meaning to it other than saying "Wow! I am number 1" when if you cheated, where's the pride? Unless everyone is a cheater and you're just cheating better than others, which is actually the case. Hell, I know a way to get to number one without technically cheating as per SMGs rules and I would never fail at making it. But I'm not going to waste my time doing that because I just want some games and ranks to matter simply by the fact I can match up against people who don't suck. And hey, if I obtain a high score that's cool it feels good that I did it. Cheating will make the game boring pretty fast also. Way back years ago I got the idea too of "hey, I can use 2 accounts in the same game to make it easier to win" and after like 3 games I realized it was ruining the fun of the game and stopped.

One other thing I've suggested to SMG is they could force you to make a significant account. Maybe you must use your google account or you must use your facebook account and input details about yourself that you couldn't lie about, or would at least be something to put some significance to your profile. The anonymity of profiles makes it too easy to just pick up the game and make multiple accounts. At least for the sake of being ranked it should require a bit more.

Another factor to consider is if someone is caught cheating, their account will be banned as in the google account and they lose out on what they paid for. There may be some sticky stuff in there regarding legality of that but most people will learn their lesson the first time if it costs them money. and probably thwart many if the reality of that risk is there.

They can't ban IPs because most people are on dynamic connections and it could ban people who hadn't played before. But they could use IP checking to at least see if someone is on the same connection playing in the same game. SMG takes a conservative approach and looks at accounts to make sure they are in fact cheating. Like several games played together, one player always winning etc... If they were more strict, like immediately banning if the same IP plays two accounts in the same game, it could stop a lot of naive cheaters.

And all of this boils down to how serious would anyone care about ranks on a cheap device game anyway? If this was serious stuff, they could require input of a driver's license with photocopy of it. If caught cheating you're banned forever. Would be really easy to stop the cheating IF it mattered that much.

it's been 5 games in a row in which I fall on suiciders ! it's enough, frankly. SMG should just give up this franchise and let a decent game manager handle it. It's wasting our time and this great game. 

Bob Bobby, are you playing games where the cards are fixed?

In those games what almost always happens is 3-4 players will be left, they'll be roughly equal, they'll each control a continent, and they'll sit there just picking off stray countries to get another card.  Nobody wants to attack because whoever attacks will get killed by whoever they didn't attack.

Those games can go on forever.  I've "suicided" in those games just to get it over with because if I hadn't I'd probably still be playing and everyone whould have armies in the thousands.

 Yeah fixed games suck. I won my first one but it took over 2 hours. I basically waited for one of the guys to suicide. You'd think in a fixed game, players would want to be more aggressive to make it difficult for others to collect cards but that just results in everyone ganging up on you.

SMG might want to consider another rule variant. Maximum of 10 armies per territory. I played this once, although it was a progressive game. But it prevents people from just stacking armies in one area or overly defending a continent in one spot. I found it fun because it forced aggression or allowed it, if you want to see it that way.

Yeah, I don't like progressive games all that much because so much of the game is left to chance and if a person gets on a roll with cards the game is over quick. 

But in fixed games it's the opposite where games can drag on forever.  I don't know what players who sit and wait in those types of games are thinking.  It's not fun to just there turn after turn after turn while each player attacks the same country to collect cards.  It's not like the status quo is going to change in 5 turns unless someone attacks or makes a move.

Unless one player can get multiple continents and then just builds up armies at a higher rate but I've never seen that happen in a fixed game because the other players will send out attacks if one player gets too big.

Some kind of feature like a game timer should be put in.  Whoever is biggest at the end wins.  Or maybe some kind of penalty for just sitting on a territory. 

I was in a game yesterday where all of us had built up armies with over 100 men.  I ended up just attacking the player who was sitting around the most. 

It seems a lot of Risk games are decided by whoever can last the longest in hours long boring games.

Briand, do you know if the rolling in Risk is just wonky or is it an easy thing for cheaters to manipulate?

I was playing a game yesterday and I lost about 20 men when I was trying to take over areas with only 1-2 men on them.  I lost 3-4 of those battles in a row, even though I usually had a 5-1 advantage. 

Some guy was holed up in Austria with only 5-6 men there was a bot with 2 men in front of the entrance, I had 13 guys and I attacked the bot. I won but was down to 3 men.

I get that stuff like that is possible in the real world....but multiple times in the same game?

So do you know......are the dice algorithms that bad or "loading" the die a common cheat in SMG Risk?

3-4 times in a row, lol, you think dice have memory or feelings.

Each roll is unique, and the fact you lost last roll has no impact on the next roll.

There dice!

Just because you lost, does not equal others are cheating.

I'm betting you have ZERO proof of a real cheat being used, other than you think someone has played unfairly. I believe that's called a whiner! 

Just had a game ruined by some suicider who decided to just go around and F everyone up.  TIred of these people

Yeah, Matt, I know dice CAN do that.  But 3-4 times in a row?  I've never seen it happen in a board game  that's for sure.  I'd like to know the odds on that happening.  Anyone here an actuary?

But I know it COULD happen.  That's why I was asking a question.

Are you trying to be ironic when you talk about "whiners"?  I mean....you started this thread whining about how people shouldn't call you a cheater just because you use two accounts lol.

I played a guy yesterday who was using two accounts, it got down to four players, a bot, me and red and orange.  Well I attacked orange who was next to me in Africa, I had SA and most of NA.  Red was in Australia and Asia.  The bot had most of Europe and some of Asia.

So what happens?  Once I attacked orange red moves out of Australia.....orange moves into Australia......and Red surrounds the entrance to Australia and begins attacking me.  We all had roughly the same amount of men except the bot which was just doing what bots do and randomly attacking whoever was nearest it.

So since that's not cheating and you're such a great player that you can overcome twice as many troops, twice as many rolls, twice as many cards......explain how you would win the game in that situation?  Just hope you get 100 lucky rolls in a row and can take out the red AND orange player without losing all your men?

The orange player just sat back and used his red account to attack me over and over and take away my bonuses while he built up troops in Australia.  Even if I could have somehow beaten Red I still would have Orange to deal with who would have a massive troop advantage. 

So let me know how you could possibly win in that situation buddy. 

FU like I said, I understand why people "suicide" in the game sometimes.  Too many people just want to sit around collecting cards. 

In fixed card games it becomes monotonous when nobody will make a move.  Winning the game often comes down to who will sit there the longest.  I just play for fun.  I don't have time to sit around and play a 4 hour Risk game.  If I'm playing with someone who is not even trying to advance and is just sitting there waiting for everyone else to do something I eventually will attack them just because they're ruining the game.

The game is only fun if people actually try to win and keep advancing, if all someone is going to do is sit there and attack the same territory every turn to collect cards and build up troops that ruins the game and could literally go on forever.

Like I said in an earlier post I don't get why people think if everyone is equal in turn 1 of a Mexican standoff that they won't be equal in turn 10 since they're all collecting cards and bonuses at roughly the same rate.

If I misread, forgive..

1st, I'd have to sya, read no sign of cheating, this is good. Did read a sign of one players controlling who will get the kill in Australia, but protecting the border, but not taking it over. Strategy...

Depending on troop count, and sounds like end of game, I would be at  stacked phase, where I don't care about my countries anymore. I only play progressive (Fixed just too boring for me, it's a stack and wait for someone to attack, very little strategy), anyways I only care about countries till cards are worth say 20+, then I start troop moving to one kill territory. I'm about the kill, not how many countries I have. Sometime I don't even get a country, this is War, only one winner.

I prefer people to play my game, then theirs. So I would wait for the player protecting Australia to attack, then attack him if game not over. Yes, there is def. a chance he will get cards and kill me, but if he doesn't get cards, he'll be weak. There my chance.  If I can't kill, then I attack as many One's (troops) as I can, try to live long enough to turn in cards. I wan't the win, no matter how long the game goes. Only one winner.

I try to use strategy with every move. Sometime I may not even attack, accessing how many troops I would loose to how many I would gain. Like 1st player, should almost always skip a turn, never be the 1st to turn in 5 cards to receive 4 troops, skip one turn, and now it's more like 20. Skip a turn meaning, don't attack anyone for one turn.

Don't know if I would win Jason, but that's how I would play that out. Same dice, just use strategy and look at every single troop as their important.