You should be able to gain as many battle points as you want if you have risk premium

[slow tusk]

Or even just make the daily cap higher it's so slow ranking up in the rewards

[quasi stag]

I’d like to see them increase daily cap to 10x more. Currently it feels like more of a login reward, than an experience system

[slow tusk]

10x is alot tbf but that would do. 10x would be like winning around 41 games a day

[quasi stag]

Yeah, something like that (maybe 20 to 40 games) would work as a maximum, so normal players who ocassionally go on a big win spree, don’t need to worry about the max, but mega-grinders farming 1000s of singleplayer per day or hackers, get stopped before it goes too far.

[slow tusk]

Are you able to make it happen

[quasi stag]

Best we can do is suggest it in #risk_ideas, so the devs see it

[weary path]

I'm new to risk, could you please tell me whether battle points affect the gameplay or not? If not, what's the main purpose of getting battle points?

[buoyant maple]

You unlock stuff at certain levels, which is all cosmetic only. It's an incentive to log in every day and play a few games.

[weary path]

Oh, ok
Thanks for the clarification 🙂

[rough kindle]

Why would you want to have unlimited BPs? To unlock the rewards faster? Most people are focused on RPs, as those are the ones that help you to grind through the ladder. BPs give you a level, which is completely relative, because it's an indicative of how much you played the game, more than your win/lost ratio, or if those wins were of quality, or against an easy AI in single player. I have seen level 16 players beating level 50+ in the ranking. It could be a GM in disguise, with a new account because he got banned or has several accounts. Level accounts for essentialy nothing in the game, but that you have been around for a long time. So again, why do you want unlimited BPs?

[slow tusk]

Maybe not unlimited but I should atleast be doubled

[rough kindle]

Ok, but the question remains unanswered... What for?...

[ancient sun]

As it is now its basically a login reward. You login every day and play couple games and you have maxed out your BP for the day. It doesn't reward players who actually play more. It doesn't give players any advantage whatsoever so there's no harm in increasing the reward. As it is now it will take years of playing a couple games a day to get to the current max level. It would be nice to be rewarded for playing more often. Also as an add on, RP are arbitrary as well. Someone with 0 RP can beat someone with 45k RP. So the amount of RP don't always reflect skill either since as you pointed out "it could be a GM in disguise, with a new account because he got banned or has several accounts"

[rough kindle]

Ok, so basically it doesn't do any harm, nor any good... If getting to level 100 and unlocking the last reward (an airplane troop -wohoo-), was easier, then everyone would have it and it would not be something special, or they would create levels 100-200 with additional rewards... This is all digital, no real reward other than changing dice, troop or having some gems, with no real value.

So again, don't see the point in asking for something that is completely made up... Also, if you only play a couple games a day, you are a casual player, so what's the point on wanting to reach top level... Isn't winning your games the max reward possible, and getting better at the game of Risk? For me that's way more rewarding than a cone or cube shaped troop or 20 gems... RP are not arbitrary at all. Winning a GM will give you 500 points once a GM, beating a noob, 50 points tops. Winning a game in any mode (single player, ranked, casual), will give you 450-750 BPs, no matter if you were playing noobs, easy bots or GMs... Couldn't agree with this one in a thousand years... If it's a login reward, what's the point on pushing it up? Like a Scooby-cookie? Do we really need that kind of positive reinforcement to keep playing? Isn't the fact that's fun to play well enough reward?...

[ancient sun]

Let me try to explain this a little differently. There's currently only two things you can accomplish in the game.

The first is RP. This is a skill based accomplishment. But once you reach GM there's nothing else to achieve in that aspect. You can achieve that in like less than a week if you're any good. And if you ever take a break from the game all that work you put into achieving a rank is just gone.

The other thing you can accomplish is getting BP. Which has nothing to do with skill and rather how much you play. This achievement doesn't get reset. However there is currently no difference between the average player who logs on and plays a game or two a day, and the top players in the world who play hundreds of games a day. They're all getting the same amount of BP. Imo the system should be changed so that there is a difference. You could make it where each game is worth less BP or raise the daily cap, it doesn't matter, just as long as there's a way to differentiate how much people actually play.

It appears you only have 2 arguments.

1. Why have a reward that everyone can get? By that logic why have a reward nobody can get? That's how it currently is.
   The current max BP is 1,070,526 pts. The two top players in the world rn have 529,600 meaning they are only halfway there. The daily cap is 2000 points (I think). So they have roughly 250 more days before they reach the max level.
   Also your casual players still wouldn't be grinding out games to get this. There's no motivation to do that. It would just be the players already playing a lot.

2. You don't see the point in asking for a reward that's digital. This is not an argument. Just because you aren't motivated by this doesn't mean other players aren't. Every reward in this game is digital. RP are digital. Being a GM is digital. The game should be doing everything it can to keep players interested in the game and this is just 1 way they can.

[rough kindle]

This discussion is as worthless as the 1000s days streak at Duolingo... Everyone knows that doing something a hundred times doesn't make it better than doing it once, right. So basically you want a reward for playing intensively a game and reaching level 100, which won't reset, and then door number 2 will open and there will be nothing behind it, because an airplane is nothing once you turn off or quit Risk.

I would highly disagree than reaching GM is like very easy and then that's it. It took me a year to get there in a stable manner, and many more months to get to #1 in one of the leaderboards. And even then, getting to the end of the season in the highest place possible is another challenge. So saying that reaching GM status is pretty much everything you can do is like saying that the space race should have ended when Laika was sent to space. It shows a rather short-sighted view of the game.

So agree to disagree, you think that BPs are great, I think that they are rubbish, with no use for them other than unlocking rewards every now and then (whooaaa, how exciting!!!), and having a level that means basically nothing as well, as you could get there by playing against easy AI, day in and day out for the rest of your life... What an acomplishment!! (Sarcastic mode on)...

[ancient sun]

You're just proving my point at the end of my last reply. You have a different motivation than other players. So do I. I don't think BP are amazing or anything its just something that players can achieve. And not improving the system simply because it doesn't motivate some players makes no sense. Most players don't care about 1v1s, does that mean they shouldn't ever try to improve that system? Absolutely not. There is a huge subset of players that don't play ranked and just play casual or single player. Why not improve the one achievement in the game for them?

Yes winning games and getting RP will probably continue to be the primary motivation for the majority of players out there. And getting to the top of the FFA leaderboard the primary achievement, but there's also a Battle Points leaderboard. And obviously some people care about it. I mean this whole discussion was started because someone cared enough about it to make a post

And if you think something in the game is "rubbish" why not suggest ideas to make it better, like OP did, rather than just saying that you don't care about it so nothing should be done?

[rough kindle]

Ok, so there's people who want to excel at something, which is relative to the group, so they compete in a ladder and/or in tourneys.

There's people who doesn't care/are too lazy/doesn't have what it takes, and then competes in this subset of unimportant things. It's like trying to be #1 in troops moved, cards traded or games played. It doesn't show anything about skill or learning, just about intensity of playing. I could gather 10.000 troops in a game, and have the record for most troops. Is it meaningful? I don't think so. Does that make you happy? Idk, but i'd be worried if that was my goal...

[slow tusk]

i aint reading all that

[ancient sun]

Hey I agree. Personally I do not care who has the most cards drawn or play with friends games or even the BP leaderboard. But lets keep in mind that the majority of the worlds population doesn't care about the game of Risk in general. My wife for example. She thinks that me spending my time playing Risk and caring how I do in tournaments is stupid and a waste of time (obviously I disagree). So by that logic we are all competing in a subset of an unimportant thing. And who are we to say what someone cares about is unimportant. And to the point, none of that is reason why the suggestion OP mentioned shouldn't be implemented.

[rough kindle]

I mean, it's supposed that those in the Discord community are more involved in the game... Those who only play every now and then to get the zombie troop, the green dice, or the bone frame, shouldn't be the most vocal here, because they are not invested in the game like someone who wants to get better at it is.

My focus is learning. I'm pro everything that means getting better. But when you gamify, and it's all about flashy lights and sounds, you lose that. Take Duolingo for example. Many people who has 100s, even 1000s days streaks, are basically A1-A2. That is, a novice-beginner, playing day in, day out, but not learning squad, because you are rewarding repetition, not learning.

So ideas, sure, why not award extra BPs, since they are so much appreciated, if you beat a player with higher rank/level than you? That would take many out of their confort zone and start leveling up their game, instead of just farming noobs and/or playing single player all day and night? Perhaps that could make a better, more challenging community. If I want collectibles, I go to a toy store. At least you can phisically play with that Star Wars action figure or the Barbie Malibu, whatever suits you...

[timid flicker]

I agreee. You should be awarded for playing for all the points lol.

[quasi stag]

A lot of players message Risk communities, confused why some of their games didn’t count for battle points. Raising the daily cap from 1250 to 2500, would be better for this, so more games could count.

[rough kindle]

Ok, but then players would complain about BPs capping at 2500, like @timid flicker just did, and someone would ask to raise them to 5000... Then to 10.000... it would never be over... If something is infinitely attainable, it loses its value. That's why gold is much more expensive than air... So in the end, this plea to raise BPs to a certain amount would never end... I don't know if you see where I'm going to here...

[quasi stag]

Just raise it high enough that a normal player won't be affected by the cap. Unless someone's grinding an extreme number of games per day, what's the harm in letting their games count to the battlepoint/XP system?

Personally I don't care at all how my BP level compares to other people's, I just want my games to count.

[rough kindle]

Ok, the question is, how much is enough? For SMG 2-3 games. For you 10. For Katheryne 100... There's no one size fits all solution for this... There will be always someone unhappy with the solution taken...

[quasi stag]

At this point, you're just looking for arguments to try and back up your point. If a lot of players want an increase in the battle point cap, it's worth increasing it.

[rough kindle]

I'm not backing my point. All I'm saying is that the right amount of points to be capped is relative to the person to whom you ask for, therefore there's no easy solution. Probably that's why SMG won't do a thing. That, and that it was thought as a login reward, and nothing else. Like the 2 gems a day. It's just to make you pass through the store and see what's new. Someone could ask to raise it to 20 a day, to actually be able to buy something, when things cost 600+ gems in average, but most likely SMG won't budge...

[earnest sparrow]

Yeah I agree, SMG just wants to make sure everyone logins in every day and plays a couple games to get their bp for the day, it’s not supposed to represent a person that plays 5-6 games a day.

[rough kindle]

It's like an apple a day, will keep the doctor away... If you eat two, won't live a 100 years, though...

[ancient sun]

Then why is there a leaderboard for it? It seems to me they have at least a little intention for rewarding players for their games played. And besides as I said before, the game should be doing everything it can to encourage players to play more. The more players play, the more money SMG makes. So why not continue to reward players for playing more than the bare minimum

[faint loom]

It's also that players that want to max their daily BP may have limited time to do so, you can still be a casual player and max it out within 30 mins - and you're spending 30m on the app in the process (which is good for things like average play time being increased)

If it's 5000 for example, it'd be an hour + (or in MP games, 6h+?) - then it'd be discouraging to bother with it too

Also if it's unlimited - some players will just find the fastest path to gaining BP and do that up to 100 then have nothing to do (BP isn't supposed to be like RP // counting every ranked game // or like Stats // counting every game / roll - it's an XP system - the previous XP system that wasn't implemented in-game but uses similar thresholds to count experience (some of you will have seen on hasbrorisk leaderboards too) does have an unlimited threshold - so if you are just trying to grind some arbitrary statistic that counts all games and isn't games played or rank points, that's the one for you)

XP I'm pretty sure is still listed on the leaderboards as well

BP provides an indication of how frequently a person plays, it's a good gauge of activity because you can see if which days they are gained and by how much - something that other statistics are a bit messier with

[ancient sun]

That all makes sense. The only issue I have with that is that the motivation to login purely to max out your BP for the day is sooooo small. I mean lets put it this way, there's only 2 players who have logged in every day and maxed their BP. And the leaderboard really drops off quickly after them. I also personally don't know anyone ensuring that they get their BP for the day. Its just kind of a thing that happens in the background. I'm sure there are a few people where that's their motivation to open up the app and play, but that has to be a incredibly small percentage of the player base so there's no way its impacting the average play time in any relevant amount. I also think that if a players motivation was purely BP, then they would want to be able to get to the max level slightly faster than they are, and that would outweigh them having to play a little longer every day. So as long as you didn't increase the rewards, I don't see any harm in raising the cap. I agree that unlimited would be too much, but I don't see why players who play 5-6 ranked games a day shouldn't get BP for all of those. As far as the getting up to 100 and having nothing to do...you're eventually going to have to increase the levels anyway right? In another year tons of players will be lvl 100 . So either more levels will have to be added or the whole system becomes meaningless

[rough kindle]

I play at least 2-3 games a day to get my BPs fulfilling... But hey, that's only me... Other than that, I agree with Luci on pretty much everything that she said...

[quasi stag]

It sounds in a way, like what a lot of people are really craving, is a more engaging XP system

[rough kindle]

As I said before, it would be cool to get additional BPs for specific targets, such as (but not limited to):

1. Beating a higher rank opponent
2. Getting all the kills in a 6 players FFA game
3. Getting a streak, say, 10 wins in a row

In that way the system gives you something, in exchange of something that wouldn't be seen imo as dull repetition. So everyone would be happy. Gamers would get more points, as well as they'd be improving their skills, and not only playing against novices and/or easy AI to get them. Agree?...

[faint loom]

Achievements/Milestones that award battle points would be nice as one time things (and these could bypass the cap) - but I like the cap as is personally

Also worth noting that for new players, the tutorials award a small amount of Battle Points too, so new ways to gain battle points are added already (but targeted to new players)

[rough kindle]

I liked the old tutorial better... This one makes Risk for dummies look like a PhD in Risk, imho... You could rise the bar (i.e. beat 1, 2, 5 rivals in FFA, or 10, 20, 30 wins streak) to keep it relevant, and if you want more points, then you have to work your a** for it. Also the higher rank opponent would get significantly higher over time, as it's supposed that if you level up, also your opponents to get this landmark will... Not sure about people going up and down the ranks just to get some extra BPs...

[ancient sun]

The tutorial isn't supposed to be teaching you strategy, but rather explain the game mechanics. Which I think this one does. I do really like your XP system challenges. I think that could be a start to a much better system then what is in place currently

[rough kindle]

Cool! It's just that the old tutorial showed you things like how to overcome a great difference in troops (1 v all and all v 1), which is actually useful in-game. There were others than added little to no value, like the zombie mission (not fond of zombies at all)... But the new one is Risk 101 dumbed down... How to put troops, how to attack, how to reinforce. It's like a 1-2 minutes tutorial overall. Many people who download the game, has previous exp with PC versions of it and/or the board game, so this seems like a rather unnecesary explanation of things. I just wish that they kept something of the old tutorial, like conquering a continent which wasn't 3 territories in total. Sorry, but it's just too watered down that seems rather unnecesary to me... But hey, I'm just one guy. Perhaps others will find it insightful and entertaining...

[timid flicker]

I don’t agree. I love gaining points and levels and learning to play better, while also having incentives and rewards.

[ancient sun]

Thats true. I honestly didn't even see that they removed the scenarios. I did like those. As far as mandatory game tutorials go I don't really see the point in making someone play those though. They already have to play a single player game (I don't think they changed that) which combined with the basic mechanics, should be enough to figure out how to do things. I could see them being available and recommended but optional.

[faint loom]

The scenarios were moved to Solo (at the bottom of map select)

[rough kindle]

Well, what can I say... Thank God I don't need to have the pyramid, number one or airplane troop as an incentive to get better at the game of Risk...

[timid flicker]

I think we should have a match against each other lol

[rough kindle]

Ready when you are 🤣😂

[timid flicker]

Maybe my special dice I earned will help me gain some skills 😉😉😉😉 how do we make a game lol