Discussion of the Class barriers.

[idle minnow]

@carmine egret If you think adding a new class to the current ranking system would be a good move, I think that making Grandmaster higher would be perfect.

[warped silo]

Definition of Grandmaster for other games: a player of the highest class, especially one who has won an international tournament.

Definition of Grandmaster for Risk: A player with 26k/21k rank points, in a game where there are players with over 50k rank points

[carmine egret]

What do you care you’re already a super-grandmaster-Übermensch. 😂

My suggestion did push the low end of Master higher as @warped silo suggests…but yeah I can see several division lines above the 26000 line being a good idea no matter what you call them

If you @idle minnow prefer “Grandmaster Deluxe” to Super-Grandmaster-Übermensch I understand… we can call it the “Qlwl line” as in “this new m….f…er just a month in the game passed the Qlwl line!”

[idle minnow]

I have a lot to care

They will reset me back to 21/26 k

That's ridiculous

[warped silo]

Grandmaster should be a top level title, rather than a half-way point on the leaderboard climb.

By making Grandmaster more challenging to achieve, Master and Expert ranks would become more treasured and aspirational too, better fitting what the name of those titles suggest

[opal lodge]

The main problem is not the amount of points needed, it's more about a pretty broken system in general. I think before we discuss tweaking the labels and points we should wait/push for a better system.
We currently have:

• Connection issues
• Bot ranking points gain
• Teaming/sniping in lobbies

[warped silo]

In Chess for example, the Grandmaster threshold is close to World Champion level.

In Risk the Grandmaster threshold is about as close to a novice as it is to World Champion level.

[idle minnow]

In RISK anyone could be a World Champion with enough luck.

[carmine egret]

With enough luck I could go on a 2000 game winning streak and maybe touch your coat-tales

@idle minnow

I agree that the level of fall to the floor is too big, but rank resets are a good thing right? You’d be okay dropping 10-15 thousand correct just not all the way down to 21/26 or do I misunderstand.

(Why the hell do I have a ten minute plus cool down timer?)

[warped silo]

That’s just a semantic issue with the labeling. The comparison is between minimum elo for GM and highest elo worldwide.

Grandmaster should be an achievement players aspire to, patiently work towards, and eventually achieve after a lot of hard-earnt self improvement.

Rather than an entitlement for everyone half-decent who takes a short term interest in ranked Risk

[carmine egret]

Damn! That stings a bit since I’ve been working really hard for a long while and bounce up and down but never cross 26000…now of course I am a sadist and only play classic fixed WD ffa in other peoples unranked lobbies… if I changed to more rank gain friendly settings maybe I’d shoot right up… but then I wouldn’t really be playing Risk now would I. How many of the supposed high ranked GMs got there with bullshit 1v1 noob grinds or zombies or caps and how many did it the hard way the first time. (Yeah I know some GMs go back and grind a new account from novice to GM but that’s not the same is it). I’m not gaming the system in spite of the fact that I know how. Why isn’t there a rank board for straight up FFA players like me?

I guess my current rank class in Risk Global Domination for FFA is “Half Decent with a short term interest in Risk” 21000-26000 and maybe always will be…

[warped silo]

If you chose to, you could be GM by this time next week 💯%

[carmine egret]

Maybe I’ll make an alt account and try your suggested settings after the tourney, but no I don’t think I’m a GM yet even at the seemingly way too low 26000 line. I feel like I have achieved some expertise and sometimes mastery but was usually aware that my game knowledge was below the rank the game was giving me…which is why I felt like the bottom line for Master is maybe too low.

[carmine egret]

@warped silo @idle minnow review my adjusted suggestion pending in bot-commands if you care to… I’ll post it tomorrow after further edits.

Oh can you not see my pending comment in bot-commands…

[warped silo]

It would still leave the issue that Risk crams all the title progression into the first half of the climb (range A) and has none in the second half (range B).

The idea just adds another rank inside range A

[carmine egret]

Oh can you not see my pending comment in bot-commands… I added up to four star GMs and moved the base GM level up to 31000…. Am I missing something? Title progression from 1star to 2star to 3star to 4star GM is still title progression, right. (God damn fucking slow mode.. why in the flying fuck is there a 15 minute cool down timer?)

@opal lodge A sliding scale would (like this slow mode timer) be very frustrating and confusing for newer players… perhaps fixed ranges novice up to intermediate and varied ranges above that.

[opal lodge]

What do you guys think about fluid classes? so instead of the current point based system a % based system. Like
top 0.1% = GM
0,1-1% = Master
1,1-15% = expert
15,1-30% = intermediate
30,1%-60% = beginner
60,1-100% = novice
That way your class would reflect your "skill" level

[warped silo]

Ah I saw the one in #risk_ideas

[warped silo]

Could go haywire just after a season reset, but using these values from the end of the previous season (when the board is well populated with plenty of data), and keeping them constant throughout the following season, could avoid rapid fluctuations of boundaries.

Even reviewing thresholds annually and keeping them throughout the year could work, since the range of skill levels develops gradually.

The issue is we’re using a 2015 set of rank thresholds, with 2023 maps and strategies

[carmine egret]

This is the message that I will edit if I want to say something in the next 15 🤬 minutes…

Oh Damn, I forgot to add my rank class: “half decent with a short term interest in Risk”

And ☀️☀️☀️☀️☀️Master-of-the-dark-arts-of-Risk - 106,000… so Qlwl has something to shoot for

[idle minnow]

76 k? 💀

That would take ages

With the current season resets would not be achieved by almost anyone if none

[warped silo]

I like the idea of the thresholds being set for a reason, based on data, rather than picking random numbers that sound cool

[opal lodge]

gm should just be 69k right? sounds fair

[carmine egret]

A sliding scale might be very frustrating and confusing for newer players… perhaps fixed ranges (admittedly at arbitrary numbers) for novice up to intermediate and varied ranges above that as per @opal lodge suggestion.

I would point out that any numbers for whatever reason based on analysis of performance data or percentage placement relative to the top ranked player will still just be arbitrary lines. That’s what measurement is. Arbitrary lines used consistently work as a comparative measurement. Their only meaning comes from them being used repeatedly and consistently over time until the actual data becomes easier to understand through use of the measurement system, whatever it is.

[delicate minnow]

Do we know how the current system works as far as points awarded? Does one gain more points when playing in a lobby full of masters as opposed to a master clearing the deck with a bunch of novices?
This seems like a bigger issue for me.

But the main obstacle for solving that would be finding a big-enough player base. If I was limited to only playing with players of my rank, it could take a while to fill-up a lobby.

[opal lodge]

Yes we know how the system calculates the points. And you get fewer point for lower level opponents. And if you limit to your rank only it would be impossible to find games as a gm. There are ~2k people with more than 26k points, and they play at different times and different settings.

[carmine egret]

Perhaps we should just have three ranks then: novice, grandmaster and between them: cannon fodder…

[opal lodge]

I would rebrand that to bad food, food and good food for Qlwl

[carmine egret]

When Qlwl eats grandmasters does he cough up the bones? 🦉

[wispy belfry]

I don't really buy it. There are plenty of games with fewer players that get games going all day (there are even fewer chess GMs in the world, to make the comparison, although I don't think it's a good one). You don't get GM games going, because there is this meta that you should stomp novices all day. For example, just set the rank points gained when the difference is over 20k to 0 (similar to the actual elo design; or a bit lower if possible) and people will stop playing novices all day. Or even better, use the number as an actual rating foremost, to match players of equal strength.

There are obviously more issues, such as that people never reach equilibrium with the current numbers, so you can't actually assess their strength.

[opal lodge]

Check out league of legends for example. The high level players have really long que times if they don't play on certain times. And those are servers for specific time zones.
I already see long lobby times in this games when I don't play classic fixed, EU adv caps, or anything uncommon prog. If the game would limit every player to like 2 different settings it could work, but not in the current system.

[clever oasis]

Here is an idea: All the rank point thresholds stay the same, except GM is only awarded to players who reach top 100. Then, with each new season, you can ‘prestige’ your GM if you reach top 100 again. Or maybe rather than reaching top 100, you have to finish the season in the top 100. I’m not sure.. but I like the idea of incentivising players to keep coming back and to base the top ranking on the level of competition, rather than an arbitrary number that isnt all that hard to reach

[dusk cove]

This! But to be able to know clearly, after each game you have, What is your personal rank change. I understand the frustration of, If you decide to spend 2 hours to win a game and then the moment you win you realise it was vs all beginners. You think, was that worth it to go up 8% (progess bar) instead of 20% if all opponents were masters. Either way I'm going to choose to win. But I think what there is atm is ok but could be better! 🙂 the new ranks, you have to figure out opps rank by troop ( level 20-35) maybe put level on avatar aswell?

[carmine egret]

New class barrier suggestion is in risk-ideas

😂well thought it would at least get some neutral votes if I was headed in the right direction… oh well

[slim canopy]

there should actually be a super gm category as well imo
like chess (and even they are very unofficial with that verbiage)
4000 gms aint healthy
NEW

[warped silo]

If they increased all the current class thresholds by around 50% rank points (and rounded a little for neatness) they’d honestly be fine for the next few years

Skill points needed for each rank:
Novice - 0
Beginner - 1,000
Intermediate - 6,000
Expert - 11,000
Master - 16,000
Grandmaster - 26,000

Proposed points needed for each rank:
Novice - 0
Beginner - 1,500
Intermediate - 9,000
Expert - 16,000
Master - 24,000
Grandmaster - 39,000

“Expert
a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.”

“Master
having or showing very great skill or proficiency.”

When you consider the meaning of words like expert or master even these should be prestigious Risk titles, not given away frivolously

[carmine egret]

I think your placement of especially the top three rank classes makes sense on this scale. Are they landing at approximately the percentage of player population points that @opal lodge was proposing?
Looks good. I still think that some method of greater delineation at the small end of the scale is needed. New players making progress need to see their progress reflected in the game and the change from one rank class to another (again admittedly at relatively arbitrary points on the rank point scale) will be a very noticeable sign of progress. I think the progress points need to be more frequent. They could just be unnamed subdivisions inside each rank.

For example a short story 😉 told on the scale you propose.
You are ranked 38000+ really pushing for GM but the season ends and you don’t make it so your rank resets down to 34000, and you return to grinding up the ranks, you get a new job and move and forget about Risk for a while so again at the end of the season you are reset to 34000, you are still getting settled in the new city and you just got a new girlfriend so a whole season goes by, you are reset down to 29000, you login see your rank and are so frustrated you swear off Risk and take up golf, at the end of the season your rank resets to 24000, several weeks later you have gotten bored with golf and decide to give Risk another go. You find yourself ranked at the bottom of the Master rank class but you don’t let this frustrate you, as you quickly rediscover the joy of the grind, you shoot up the ranks and are again at the threshold of GM as the final week of the season approaches. You are determined to make it but this time you find that you just keep going up with ease, you have truly achieved Mastery, and don’t even notice as you blast past the GM line and you keep climbing right into the top 50 in the game. (The entire time right up to the point you cross the 39000 threshold into grandmaster you were a master ranked player in the game.)

[forest wind]

You are forgetting that you'd reset to the previous class start point at season resent so from 56 to 76 isn't so bad in 3 or so months. You wouldn't have to start from 26k

[carmine egret]

Plus I moved the line down to 69,000 for my actual posted suggestion (for obvious trying to get more votes reasons)

[idle minnow]

True, I did indeed forget that.

[forest wind]

I agree more classes are needed. With more bunched at the bottom for obvious player progression reasons. I'd suggest new military names for them as well.

Private - 0
Corporal - 1k
Sergeant - 3k
Chief Officer - 6k
Lieutenant - 10k
Captain - 15k
Major - 21k
Colonel - 28k
Brigadier General - 36k
Major General - 46k

Edited for spelling

[warped silo]

Don’t noobs start the game being called General?

[forest wind]

Easy fix there, CTRL + R replace General with Private. 😆

Obviously the English word general is sufficient for describing their role in the game, but I think just saying you are commanding this army should be sufficient. Obviously a private doesn't do such a thing, but it's just a title to fit the theme of the game which is militaristic in nature

[warped silo]

But a General is a commander of an army, and even a novice commands an army (though unstrategically)

[opal lodge]

Private General - 0
Corporal General - 1k
Sergeant General - 3k
Chief Officer General - 6k
Lieutenant General - 10k
Captain General - 15k
Major General - 21k
Colonel General - 28k
Brigadier General General - 36k
Major General General - 46k
Better? :D

[clever oasis]

https://tenor.com/view/himym-how-i-met-your-mother-salute-ted-robin-gif-7960412

[carmine egret]

Move this discussion to the “general” chat room. That is where we chat about generals.

[slim canopy]

Still like the idea of Super GM (which FIDE chess has horrendously failed to this point to implement) when players at 2700+ are light years ahead of your state's grandmaster.

[carmine egret]

You forgot:
I-quit-my-day-job-to-play-risk-full-time - 56k

[forest wind]

They don't need a title to save their progress that high, that would defeat the lb reset

[whole cosmos]

The game is ruined by cheats. I have seen it 100 times.

[timid osprey]

Not the convo that’s happening here. And no. You haven’t seen it 100 times.

[carmine egret]

I have. Because I watched that one Pete video 99 more times after I watched it the first time… for a grand total of 100 times. I have seen that game ruined by cheaters 100 times.

[runic kite]

This season I was set bk to 16k just before reaching GM lol.
I play 1-3 games of classic fixed WD 6 player ffa a day and have climbed to 33k and reached GM and top 500 this season.

We already have several 'ranking' progression targets after the GM threshold.
Top 500, top 100, top 50, top 10. And even the checkmark.

Yet these are all still pretty meaningless because for the most part people just grind.
Qlwl is really good at the game but they dont play the settings I do or limit themselves to x games per day.

Until there is some kind of standardization for the ranking system, I.e. until we are all playing on as even playing field as possible, there isnt really a point in having 'ranks'.

TLDR the ranks are currently a personal progression milestone system rather than a comparitive skill measure between players.
And that's ok 🙂

Just my thoughts on the subject as a relatively new noob GM 😛

[magic elbow]

So how close am I to the top 1000 with 52000 battle points… ok since there’s a 10 minute cooldown… I’m a gm with 24000 rank points too… new to the forum… not high level risk. Don’t really gaf just wondering.

[opal lodge]

If you think battle points have anything to do with your class probably very far

[clever oasis]

Battle points arent relevant to the rankings/leaderboard. Top 1000 is somewhere around 28k-30k rank points I think