Why there is no option on having computer players (s) when going against another human player ?
#1 on 1without comp player
vapid notch
viral stagBOT
weak verge
Or use the +suggest command in #nr_bot_commands to suggest it as an idea in #risk_ideas
royal tapir
I added the suggestion to # | Risk-Ideas. You can vote on it if you would like to see this option added.
royal tapir
Two human players plus bots probably should be part of 1v1, as computer opponents do not count towards rank. Currently the ranked free-for-all (FAA) mode does not allow you to have just two humans and bots. Personally, I find this format to be the most skill-based. It eliminates collaboration/teaming that frequently occurs in FAA games. It also helps offset the play order advantage that exists in standard 1v1 games.
vapid notch
Two human players plus bots probably should be part of 1v1, as computer opponent...
Totally agree 👍
weak verge
1v1 +bots is 1v1, because it’s the 2 humans competing for the ranked win.
The first edition for Risk included rules for 2 player, and even that included a neutral player with territories on the board, to make the 1v1 more balanced
grave latch
So if the original board game had a balanced 1v1 why not use that as the 1v1 here???
On another note the original question, 1v1vbot isn't 1v1.
royal tapir
With the new update, FAA mode requires that you have a minimum of three human players. 1v1vbot is not possible for ranked games. Many enjoy the 1v1vbot option as it eliminates collaboration that occurs in FFA games and helps minimize the significant play order advantage that exists in a traditional 1v1 game.
rotund fox
Why there is no option on having computer players (s) when going against another...
100% or else its heads or tails
median wigeon
Actually he is kind of right.. There is now way to play against another human player with a bot to add challenge to the game.. You have to at least have 2 human players
royal tapir
@stiff citrus mentioned in announcements today that SMG is "exploring options to allow AI / bots in 1v1 games. This will allow players once again to have matches between two humans and up to 4 bots as part of Ranked 1v1 matches." It is unclear when this change update will be made.
stiff citrus
<@448774951265239041> mentioned in announcements today that SMG is "exploring op...
It won't be part of hotfix, if I had to guess I'd say v3.9 - but just a guess for now 👍
weak verge
Good to see it’s on the list of things to add.
The original 1950s Risk rules included 1v1, but had a neutral player added, to balance turn order advantage.
The truest version of this would be to allow added neutrals, but with the current options, bots are the next closest alternative
south stream
I think there should be a Cap of 1 Bot, 2 at most.
1 Bot is perfect to stir things up, offset, & off balance a game, imo.
weak verge
Tricking people who think they’re getting into an FFA into a 1v1 +bots (because you can’t see from outside the lobby that there are bots) is bad
Now that FFA and 1v1 are separate. Players joining a 1v1 with bots know what they’re getting themselves into.
I wouldn’t personally grind with bots for 1v1 because they make games take longer, and there’s little proof that they increase the maximum win rate.
However if people enjoy hosting these ranked games and others enjoy joining them, there’s no reason to force them not to play
south stream
I used to play 1v1 +1 Bot on Grip of the North w Blizzards. 😂
royal tapir
1 vs 1 + Bots is not best for quick wins for those seeking to rapidly earn rank points. However, in my view, this configuration is perhaps the fairest/best test of skill. It significantly reduces the play order advantage in 1 vs 1 games and avoids collaboration issues often found in FFA games.
weak verge
If hosts enjoy it, and there’s people joining those lobbies who enjoy it too, they should be allowed to play it
stiff citrus
Only type of 1v1 I used to enjoy was 1v1v4ai on mall of the dead, what really needs to be conveyed is that regardless of how many ai are in the game, it is still a head to head game vs 1 human player. What the AI are doing is almost irrelevant in comparison, so eliminating the human opponent should be considered a "victory condition" - like taking all capitals or 70% of map
royal tapir
Only type of 1v1 I used to enjoy was 1v1v4ai on mall of the dead, what really ne...
That is a good point. Sometimes it can take a while to defeat remaining AI/bot players. It would make sense that the game ends once the human opponent is defeated considering that there is no rank benefit for defeating AI/bot players. The same concept should apply to FAA games if bots are initially included and do not count towards rank.
median wigeon
I agree totally. It is a better representation of a players skills with 1v1bot
south stream
Eh, not really.
The Bot is just there to stir things up a bit.
It doesn't really add a whole lot more of a skill factor.
It's more a luck factor, in who can successfully manipulate the bot into attacking the other player more. 😆
weak verge
Filling space is really important for making big maps work for 1v1.
On a big map without a bot/neutral, the first player takes a load of territory off the second player in round 1, then as a result every turn earns more troops because they have more territory, then can keep taking more territory because they earn more troops
Filling some space limits potential troop income from blindly taking a lot of territory at the start, and if they want the territory they have the dillemma of whether it’s worth hitting the bot/neutral to get more, if they’re not right next to all their opponent’s territories
royal tapir
In a traditional 1v1 game, the first player will typically either eliminate the second players big stack(s) and/or take over most of the territory in round one. Having additional IA players reduces the likelihood of this happening. It tends to result in a more strategic game.