Originally I was going to post this in the general section and it is possible that it belongs there(or Q&A?).
There have been many instances in risk games where a powerful player can choose who to give second to in an endgame. From what I have observed on Pete and Kyle's channels and from my own experience I have come to realize that when we are placed in these situations where two allies are to be terminated it often causes a slight internal conflict. Obviously this is all a game and does not have an enormous impact on my life but it did make me ponder: "Why do I care about who gets second and who deserves it?"
To give an example: In my most recent game of Risk I had an alliance with two players that helped me progress to the endgame. One of these players seemed to be an experienced player who understood the nuances of the game and played fantastically trying to win up until the last second. Once he understood defeat was imminent he played for second place and made sure there was no reason for me to kill him.
The other player was a much more inexperienced player who did not quite have the strategic prowess to win the game but was a reliable ally who kept all his promises(made through game chat). His play, although inferior to the other player, made me reminisce about when I was a new player and sympathized with him. I ultimately ended up giving second to the newer player out of sympathy but am wondering if I was wrong to do so. From a strategic standpoint the skilled player did everything in his power to assure second place but still failed to do so, does this mean I did the dishonorable thing?
I feel like im overthinking this and losing my train of thought. I hope im not the only one with this dilemma and if anyone can relate to this situation let me know your thoughts.
#Who DESERVES second place?
merry moat
echo abyss
Wouldn’t you have been surprised to find the inexperienced player was actually a clever GM playing on your sympathies to get second place. My point is I think however you want to do it is fine.
The player who got third didn’t do everything they could have to get second, they should have been an even better ally to you if they really wanted it 😏
I would also tend to reward the most helpful ally over the most clever player, who already got their reward in the form of a higher statistical probability that they would scrape out a win. Over large numbers of games they will get a higher percentage of firsts playing the way you describe to make up for this third.
In the situation you describe giving the new player a 2nd place finish and encouraging their continued play is in my opinion a good choice.
terse iron
This is a fantastic question. I wish you had posted it in the Q and A, maybe I'll still read it and my response out on the channel.
Ok so caveat to the whole discussion. I don't believe in the concept of 'deserve' on a fundamental level. Nobody deserves anything, we get what we get. This question is also an opinion question so the answer is always up to you and you're always right to decided however you decide.
That said, here is my process for determining who to give the higher placement to:
#1: I prioritize my own win always.
Most important I must win the game if it's a matter of me winning or not winning I will choose to win. That means targeting skilled opponents in prog WD or prog caps over weaker ones to go into the 1v1 with a weaker opponent to increase the likelihood of my victory. This is a function of the ranking system being broken.
#2: Since the ranking system is broken for FFA if I find myself in a situation where all things being equal I am able to ensure victory and ensure who gets second and who gets third I always choose to give the higher placement to the player I feel is more skilled. The ranking system is very punitive towards better players to the benefit of weaker players. Those weaker players will benefit from the system itself giving them unearned skillpoints and I don't need to spend energy assisting that, and likewise if I've identified a strong opponent I would be a good Kantian about it and act according to what I would will to be a universal law: I would hope they'd give me the higher placement so I give it to them.
"From a strategic standpoint the skilled player did everything in his power to assure second place but still failed to do so, does this mean I did the dishonorable thing? "
Did they?
When I have ascertained that I have lost a game I do everything in my power to get the highest placement possible (see #1) this includes suiciding into my weaker opponents to kill them off and guarantee that higher placement. Again this is correct from a game theoretical standpoint only in the current environment of a broken ranking system.
Was is dishonourable? No. You are free to act in whatever manner you choose in this game. That's what makes free for all free. I think the game is better and more fun when players are playing to win but we actually can't enforce that very well and certainly not with the current incentives.
Finally, yes, you are definitely overthinking this but so am I. The final point I will leave you with is who to give second to when all things are not equal:
Let's say I've identified a higher skilled opponent who has been a thorn in my side all game and a lower skilled opponent who has been bumbling along. Not necessarily favourable to me but not necessarily against either, just playing to win to the best of their ability.
In this case I will absolutely make sure that the higher skilled opponent who is being a pest to me and not accepting defeat gets the lower placement if I can. Often times with me players 'earn' their lower placement.
Again loved the question and I'll probably find space to read it out on the show.
zealous trout
Ethics in a video game designed to be a fight to the death is not an issue you should really worry about IMO. If you feel letting an ally take second will not lose you first, you can do that or do whatever is the most expedient or efficient, including allowing someone that bots out take second. I understand ethics in a video game, I am not saying there is none but its a fight to the death and if people cannot deal with the outcome, they should not play. I have been teamed up on by the strongest and their ally enough to know it sucks. I have also done the bidding of the strongest player who gave me second but took my bonus first so they guaranteed I would not be the one who stabbed them in the back. There is no guarantee if your not the strongest and they don't make a mistake.
A more non-toxic environment is, of course, desired but no one will be satisfied with all decisions other players make in a fight to the death. Risk is inherently a toxic environment unless everyone is skillful enough to understand all strategy by all players and why they made every decision. Every decision someone doesn't agree with will be regarded as lower skill unless the strat comes to full fruition. If no one risks (ironic) anything and only plays the "objectively best" strategy (again an opinion), everyone would be clones that fall victim to luck. Obviously skill is a factor and skill can be obvious, I am speaking of deeper strat here. Letting everyone else fight is the best strat unless your hoping someone does something about someone else but then your the one involved if you don't. If someone is not in a position to break an advantage, that is one thing but hoping other players break but not you (to avoid focus) is opinion of the circumstance.
One thing I would like to see is streamers confining themselves to mobile play only. I have never seen a stream from anyone confining themselves to mobile only, relying on skill that much. Judgement of others skill (and showcasing your own) would be more pure then. Maybe I have missed someone out there streaming on mobile only, talking about skill and strat. It is easy to speak of not handicapping yourself by needing to wait in a skilled lobby but anyone could stream mobile. I wish the leaderboard would include PC or mobile for the account. I highly doubt the most skilled use mobile or even entertain the idea, but I could be wrong. Unless the 60 second turns are not viable but you can just do 90 second turns instead. Its funny when people entertain 30 second turns when it seems that mobile isn't viable in the current environment (at least no top players have proven it is in the current environment).
fresh sparrow
shrewd steppe
I usually give 2nd to the player that tried the hardest to beat me (excluding being a jerk to me the entire game, that is). I feel that player that does the most deserves the higher placement.
If it’s a tournament game, however, I give 2nd to my best ally.
echo abyss
The answer is you. You deserve second place. Because you are reading this, because you play risk, because you forgot your grandma’s birthday…
Obviously no one deserves second place. Everyone however deserves a trophy commemorating their participation!
shrewd steppe
The answer is you. You deserve second place. Because you are reading this, becau...
The Dredded response 😭