Do we really want new players to play 100% of their matches against other noobs. I know I played against masters and GMs within the first week I joined Risk GD and my game improved very rapidly due to that (admittedly I had previously played risk and watched some online tutorials). But If I had only played against suiciding noobs I might have quit after just a couple games. Are we more concerned with trying to expand the player base, or tweak the ranking system? Perhaps making a weighted system were your finish versus opponents of similar rank is more impactful on rank is a better system than just compartmentalizing the community and banning ranked play between new and established players, which is basically what is proposed in the first part of ChampionEver#6918 suggestion.
#Risk idea discussion
lilac igloo
lilac igloo
Also any suggestions to improve my suggestion for improving the friends list into an actually useful feature (and a way to soft ban players from your lobby) would be appreciated. I know the idea I have in my head would work very well in game, but I also know I’ve got to write a much clearer description of it to get SMG or other discord users to take it seriously.
I already know I should have included a label for actual (real-world) friends, basically a way to list accounts of friends so you are blocked from accidentally playing in each other’s ranked games.
odd kiln
Suggestion: must play at least 3 casual public games before playing ranked. That way novices can play against GMs. But no players with a rank higher than beginner really play casual public often (as I have seen) so the other option is to just leave it as it is and let grandmasters just set a rank filter.
lilac igloo
New suggestion to remove dice stats… good idea sure… even better replace with more useful stats:
Recent win rate, second place finishes, graph of rank point ups and downs, etc.
odd kiln
New suggestion to remove dice stats… good idea sure… even better replace with mo...
graph of placement would be good instead: 1st - 5%, 2nd 10%… etc as a replacement to the dice rolls
strong eagle
Take each game as it plays out... isn't that the fun part? Figuring out how good your opponents are? Yeah, Noobs are everywhere it doesn't matter GM or master sometimes skilled players ruin games with their style of play... but yeah upgrade the friends system to identify them if you happen to come across one in random matches waiting in lobby.
lilac igloo
graph of placement would be good instead: 1st - 5%, 2nd 10%… etc as a replacemen...
Nice idea!
odd kiln
Nice idea!
Thank you good sir
lilac igloo
@late summit
I tried to develop the idea of a new optional mode that would disguise all player information in lobby and in game. Interested to know what you or other streamers or other regularly targeted tops players think about it? Not the best written description, but I think the idea comes across.
late summit
Yeah man all camouflage mode would be a great addition to the game for Ranked. I think an all camouflage tournament would be interesting too
lilac igloo
Yeah man all camouflage mode would be a great addition to the game for Ranked. I...
A camouflage tournament was the idea that originally got me thinking along these lines. It would be very cool. (You could be playing against Gerald and you wouldn’t even know it).😏
To set it up easily it would probably require SMG to create extensive in game support for tournament play.
Without support from SMG it would be very hard to organize the groups and get the players into the right lobbies. Having to assign a temporary randomly generated name for every player and requiring all players to only be on discord and in game under those aliases for the entire period of the tournament seems a big ask. But in game settings could make it simple.
delicate knot
I think it would be easier if you were assigned A tournament number instead of a name
mild drift
I think progressive capital games should have higher/better bonuses. I believe that could force a bit more action, and perhaps lower the risk of stalemate. I like the setting but it shouldn’t be too rewarding being passive.
lilac igloo
@alpine sentinel
Your recent suggestion is a reasonable one. Perhaps SMG could monitor 1v1 play watching for repeat play and if you played the same player over and over then at some win/lose ratio you should be limited from further play against that account for a period of say a month. That would allow for competitive play in ranked matches between 1v1 specialists who know each other while preventing rank boosting through playing against a stooge or dummy account.
One way this might work is : You could play against someone up to 6 times in a month but beyond the 6th game any further play between those players would be blocked for the month if either player had won more than 2/3 of the matches. As long as the players were evenly matched and splitting wins then they could play head to head hundreds of times if they wanted. Some further fraud detection might be necessary to make sure even this system was not being gamed to inflate rank.
alpine sentinel
Yeah that would be a good addition
lilac igloo
Yeah that would be a good addition
Interested to hear what people think about a similar idea for FFA. I’m not sure that you’re right that the ban makes sense there either. There has got to a better way to prevent collaboration than stopping top players from playing each other in ranked play. Perhaps my idea for Mystery mode plus some additional anti collusion / outside communication / collaboration measures could allow for a more sensible ranked play for FFA as well.
lilac igloo
Yeah man all camouflage mode would be a great addition to the game for Ranked. I...
I made a toe in the water sort of suggestion for SMG. That could lead to game modes that would allow for camouflage tournaments being easy to set up in game. But at a minimum might lead to basic tournament play being supported in game.
alpine sentinel
Interested to hear what people think about a similar idea for FFA. I’m not sure ...
Yeah, anonymous games would be a good solution. Then people who know each other could play in the same game without being able to collaborate because they wouldn't even know that they're in the same game until the game is over
rose glade
6 times would mean for boosting, players would:
- play up to GM / as high as they can on each "alt"
- play 6 games with their main
- rinse & repeat with X accounts
- each month..
Still a tricky one 😄
I'd like to see more of an unlock system for accessing, so it doesn't restrict players that already play - but it means when you start in MP you're not thrown into the deep end, instead you have:
- Complete 10 automatch games (abandoned don't apply unless stalling verified)
- Complete 10 of next mode (e.g introducing progressive cards)
- and so on... - introuducing settings & modes gradually while ensuring that cheating in any of these requires a lot of time as a new player (which discourages cheating in the first place)
lilac igloo
6 times would mean for boosting, players would:
- play up to GM / as high as the...
Thus the further fraud detection being necessary. Any mechanism can be gamed, but there are ways to detect that kind of abuse. Just an automatic statistical analysis would detect most fraud and could alert the authorities at SMG and they could look at game records and ban players accordingly. This would be the kind of serious full knowledge deliberate cheating that would deserve a lifetime ban on all accounts.
I like what you added…the idea of giving new players the chance to make mistakes and learn without punishment or banning. Just the correction of reminders and warnings until they understand how things work or have pushed it so far that they are obviously actively cheating.
teal silo
Boot option for people who intentionally afk? Game ruiners that sit through their timers and do nothing except press a rejoin button to not be turned into AI's just ruins the game for everyone. Can we have like a boot option if someone doesn't get past their "Draft" phase like three times?
Or at least have their next turn be forced to be played by an AI as a penalty?
lilac igloo
In my recent suggestion:
I forgot to point out the real brain twister…. You could play 70% and total domination in the same game. The player who achieved 70% would get a big point bonus, but the game would not end, the game would continue and that player might go on to win or lose in pursuit of the other goals including total domination.
rose glade
It'd be better to look at changing "Game Modes" to "Victory Conditions" - so you can just pick and choose as few or as many as you like.
The "eliminate all players" one should be a locked one as a safeguard, in case game ends that way instead of say "5 round rumble/speed blitz"
If that was introduced, Zombie Apocalypse should be updated to an AI choice (still premium selection, but can add more of them or select different AI types for each game)
lilac igloo
It'd be better to look at changing "Game Modes" to "Victory Conditions" - so you...
Do you mean zombie as a AI choice in addition to the new victory condition of “eliminate all players and Zombies” (current game mode Zombie Apocalypse)?
I think Rebels would be another great AI setting. They would appear by a mechanism similar to zombie infection as if certain soldiers had turned against an army, aka revolutionaries. They would take attack and defend territory with a special focus on the army they had rebelled against. You’d have to both guard against your outside enemies and put down the revolution as fast as possible or you could be overrun from within. Because each player could have a rebel faction, it would be possible to have up to 6 A I players on the board in addition to 6 human players (this would happen very rarely, but would be possible).
rose glade
World domination includes elimination of both human and any ai players, so Zombie Apocalypse - if an AI setting rather than a mode - would be redundant.
That said it could still be displayed as 'any game with zombies = Zombie Apocalypse"'
It could be fun to look at a naming system for combined 'victory conditions / settings ' such as:
Speed Caps (Speed Blitz & Caps)
Capital Apocalypse (Capitals & Zombies)
Speed Cap Apocalypse (etc.)
Would mean a clear naming system to immediately identify what you're playing and what's involved
delicate knot
There should be a wall of shame where people can post cheaters. Then you could browse it and put checks beside people you’ve encountered cheating. That way the players would have a little power to take this problem into there own hands.
unkempt citrus
There should be a wall of shame where people can post cheaters. Then you could b...
How would people prove that someone is cheating?
pale girder
The person who suggested the option to blacklist people, there is a strange one for now:
You have to ask them to be your friend lol. If they accept, they won't be able to join your lobby anymore.
So if someone send you a friend invite, either he is new to the game, either he/ she doesn't like playing with you x)