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.

Your right Jason, everyone's a cheater and everyone's using multiple accounts.

You complain every day, we'll as long as I've known of you...

Are you having any fun?

I still play this game for fun, nothing you can do that will change that.

Yes, I'm still open to playing you a game, you wouldn't except my challenge before, expecting the same.

And Matt....AGAIN.....you realize people can watch the games after they're eliminated right?  Like last night I watched the orange player finish off red after he finished off me and the purple bot.

The red account didn't attack orange after I was finished.  It just sat there and let orange take it out.  OBVIOUSLY ONE PERSON using multiple accounts.....which is cheating.

There's no way to win against that when you all three are roughly equal.

 Daniel, like I keep telling him....he doesn't get to make up his own definition for "cheating".

SMG itself calls using 2 accounts cheating but even if it didn't....still cheating.

Like I said just last night I played a player using 2 accounts.  Of course he didn't make that evident till there were basically 3 "players' left.  There were actually 4 but one was a bot who was no threat to anyone, just not worth taking out at that point.

It was me, red and orange, as soon as I attacked orange red started attacking me and protecting orange.

It's infuriating to play a game for an hour only to have some cheater reveal himself at the end and make it impossible for you to win.

People using multiple accounts is so rampant I just assume anyone with a high ranking has another account in the game so I watch them like a hawk for any signs of cheating.

Last night the red and orange accounts didn't do anything really obvious until everyone else was out of the game and it was too late too do anything about it at that point.

We'll that's a new idea, with software developers making upwards of $70 an hour, ya lets have the sifting for players who aren't playing fairly.

I hate cheaters, but would rather see their software developers working on game code, updates, fixes, security patches, new content, then looking thru logs or watching game reviews. To ultimately find someone who's a pore-sport and plays dirty, but never hacked the game or has another app playing BOTS, altering the DICE or something that would be a game killer. A Crit 1 for them, per say.

Ya, I'm gunna get slack for this post. All good, my fault, I have the options to not watch news, jsut as the option to not read these forums. I like it for some odd reason :)

Yeah, you totally misread Matt.  The Red "player" was defending the Orange player instead of taking him out.

The red "player" was suiciding himself and taking me with him so the orange "player" could win.

If you "sat back" and waited for the red player to attack the Orange player would just grind you down with red....then when he had a hundred troops or however many he needed to guarantee victory he'd come in and finish you off. 

There's no way you could win that game.  None.  You have one player with twice as many men, rolls, cards, etc. 

Your "strategy" is dumb.  No wonder you need two accounts to win.

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.

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.

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. 

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

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! 

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?

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.

 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.

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.