One main problem of the game...

[raw lava]

... is that nobody cares about 2nd place.🥈

A) (noob level) people quit the game when it is unlikely they can win
B) (noob level) people suicide
C) (mid level) people don't collab in order to end the game, because they do not want the other guy to win

in all cases playing for 🥈 is a nice challenge and well worth it.

Solution: 2nd place has to be advertised more!
As it is there is not even a hint that 🥈 will earn you more than just quitting or suiciding!!!
Only an estimated top 15% of players are even aware that in order to get the rating up you often go for 🥈

[open phoenix]

I disagree.

People playing for 2nd instead of the win is already a big issue.
Only winning the game should be rewarded heavily or even at all. Because playing for the win is the only respectable and skillful thing to do.
The "people quitting and suiciding" issue could be solved with the implementation of skill based matchmaking.

[unreal meadow]

You might be right about a win only game mode being better but I respectfully disagree with your reason:

“Because playing for the win is the only respectable and skillful thing to do.”

Taking the opportunity for a certain second and low probability first versus the best remaining opponent is preferable to giving that skillful and deserving player fourth (just because they are the biggest threat) and taking on a probable easy end game against a couple knuckle heads.

Of course I guess you can sit it out and hope one of those knuckle heads doesn’t just do the next dumb thing and feed the game to your opponent, but they (that skillful opponent) might not be so honorable and will probably just take the easy win and put you out as soon as possible.

I will take a skillful second any day of the week over a sloppy cynical first.

[hasty apex]

playing to win should be the norm, and playing for second should only be a last resort type of option when you believe that you can no longer win in the top slot.

the actual problem is that playing for second can actually get you really far through the ranks, getting potentially to GM with only second place finishes is absurd and that should be addressed by some kind of rework of how points are distributed.

there is nothing wrong with second place, you clearly are playing well if you consistantly get second place. it just needs to put you at a more appropriate rank position, like maybe high expert/low master. if you want GM you have to be playing to win

[sterile crystal]

I disagree with Silents dissent. I think his suggestion is well intended, but it’s ramifications could have adverse impacts. If only “winning” the game is rewarded, the unintended consequence is that as soon as a player thinks they are out of it, they are slamming someone. We should be encouraging skill and rewarding it. Changing the system so that only 1st is rewarded, will only bring more suiciding actions of players which to me, is a huge red flag.

[storm star]

I suggested a solution to both issues here: #risk_ideas message

That route I suggested means that players are:

• rewarded for placement >50%
• penalised for placement <50%
• penalised for leaving
• penalised for defeat
• rewarded for eliminations

Currently the main issues players have with opponents playing for second is in doing so without actually doing anything - in a 6 player game this would mean getting +2 points (placement) and penalised -1 point (losing) - so without eliminating anyone the best you could get with 2nd is one point

So with eliminations being a direct route for gaining points, it encourages active participation rather than sitting back and waiting

[open phoenix]

I guess you didn't read the second part of my suggestion?
For skill based matchmaking, if everyone brings the same points to the table then I doubt anyone would want to "unreasonably" suicide while the others are playing for the win.

[sterile crystal]

I read that part of your post Silent, I have stated my opinion about it so many times, I didn’t feel the need to repeat it. I think you believe your suggestion to be a good one and it is well intended. However, I just think that the laws of unintended consequences makes it a bad idea. But, that is only my opinion, and I have been wrong before myself. But, I think I have watched enough games (including tournament games with very high ranked players) via Pete, Risky Fil, JJ and Kylted’s YouTube channels to say that I think it really won’t matter the skill level. Once someone has “lost” in their mind, and there is nothing to be gained, they will target someone.

[open phoenix]

Here's the thing: If only winning was rewarded, then why would you care if that skillful opponent gets 1st/2nd or 4th?
You put it as a certainty, that only one of you two would have the ability of the game. If that was the case, then why would you see the need to reward that player in that very game? What's with the disrespect to those other players?
True skill in Risk can only show through consistency over the course of a bigger number of games.
So if you play for the win, and know that everyone else plays for the win, then you can be sure that the better players will win more often. They don't have to be rewarded for their "potential". So the biggest respect you can show your opponents would be to always play for the win, knowing they would do the same.
Be aware, that your opponents too can have those kind of morals where they would like to reward someone for doing whatever they think was right. And then they might suicide for 2nd. Which imo is an "unreasonable" suicide. Because that is intentionally ruining the chances of two players to win the game for a different way of gaining skill (reward for 2nd)

I also do prefer the game where I played my best and ended up getting a decent result over the game where I won doing almost nothing for it. But that's for the fun in risk, not for the skill measure in Risk, which is fun in itself - only if it is true.

I would also like to add, that I see nothing wrong with people suiciding when they know they already lost. No one should be forced to play for the win, but then they at least shouldn't be rewarded for it. "Going out on your own terms". I call that a "reasonable" suicide. It is up to the other players to be careful not to trigger such a play in their opponents and I consider that to be a skill in itself.

[open phoenix]

Well, I do see the need to engage into a discussion properly, out of respect you know?
I have to say, I am super happy that you think my intention is a good one. I was already worried there. Phew...

Now in all seriousness, I don't see any unintended consequences in that idea. They're definitely intended, you may just not like them.
It's definitely great to see, that you have recognized a pattern in how people play risk. That's the nature of risk. Everyone is allowed to play it like they want I think that is what makes it so fun.
And I believe you will have to come to the realization, that you can't change people's behavior in this game.
You will have to use all the skill in this game to win.
And that can only happen if everyone has the same goal for a measure of skill: The win!

I've already talked about that in my message above this one for reference.

||Cool down in this chat is killing me xD||

[unreal meadow]

||🏴‍☠️ ||

Cool down… cramping your style… Sounds like a skill issue. 🤣

If only debating risk topics only rewarded the win.

[sterile crystal]

I am fine with anyone playing Risk any way they want to as long as they are having fun. People play all different ways, it’s all good to me. I agree with you that it’s a skill to avoid provoking others into their suiciding once they know they’ve lost. Well, only time will tell if SMG thinks your idea is worthy of implementation. When it comes up on Risk Ideas, I can’t wait to see the results of that poll. 🤣

[sterile crystal]

And I think we both know the reason you haven’t asked for that poll yet. (Even though you keep bringing up the concept.) I think you know what the results will be too. So keep your sarcasm coming, I don’t mind… and I don’t think it will persuade anyone with that tactic either.

[open phoenix]

I must admit, I don't understand that last message.
Why would I want to put up a poll and for what? And why would I want to "persuade" anyone?
I'm just participating in discussions about topics I care about, having fun. You know? Is that not respectable?

[sterile crystal]

Silent, things are lost in translation via typing/ reading than if we were face to face having a discussion. I read your posts one way, when maybe you mean them another way. However, since you want to “discuss it,” here goes. You clearly care about a ratings/ rankings changes. Sounds good, I do too. Sounds like we agree upon that. Cheers! Where we differ is that you believe it to be a good idea to only award points to the winner in a FFA ranked game. I disagree with you, I think would be a really bad idea. In the big scheme of things, who cares about either one of our opinions. The poll I was referring about, would be if you typed up your proposal and asked it to be posted to Risk-Ideas. I believe your proposal of only rewarding the winner of a FFA ranked game would be slightly more popular than the recent poll (isn’t that what those things really are over on that thread) about modifying the balanced blitz dice. Feel free to ignore my posts, I won’t be offended. I thought those last two were pretty easy to understand. If you didn’t understand them, it’s all good.

[hasty apex]

@open phoenix while you arent wrong, over a long, loooooooong, number of games players would find their place in a "only first place wins count for points." but it feels UNBELIEVEABLY shitty to be losing a bunch of games in a row while chasing that one win that erases the losses with a big burst of point gain. and, without skill based matchups being enforced, you WILL have game after game being decided by a worse player giving up and costing someone their 'deserved' wins.

and thats with a top player in mind, consider the players who are actually novices and beginners, they could easily lose dozens of games without ever seeing a win and never feeling like they are getting anywhere, not learning, not gaining any points. and so they simply quit. why would they continue playing with zero positive feedback? this is unacceptable.

first place finishes absolutely should count for more compared to second but you NEED to allow point gains for lower placement both to accelerate people toward their 'true' ranking and to let players see any kind of progression at all.

[open phoenix]

That's a very good point.
And very depressing to me, because that means that there can never be a good enough ranking in risk because It'S nOt FaIr To ThOsE nOvIcEs.

Frankly the reason why I don't think I will ever touch ranked again.

[sterile crystal]

Catnip, people don’t reach there “true” ranking now with seasonal resets. If what you say would be an outcome of only rewarding the winner of a FFA game with points, and according to you it would now take longer, wouldn’t that be making it worse?

[hasty apex]

like i said before, i genuinely think the bigger problem is that "playing for second place" is just TOO good. it is absurd that you can (probably?) reach the GM rank without ever winning a game lol.

@open phoenix but really, is first place taking 100% of the games points really all that much different than first place getting like 75%? and the remaining 25% gets split 20/5 between #2 and #3? a 50% w/l ratio with top 3 counting as a win should lead to your rank being around where it should be.

playing to win is clearly the best thing to do, but if you feel you are unable to win anymore, it allows you to swap to survival mode and keep your rank from being absolutely wrecked. and those who always play for second would move up SOOOOOOOOOOOO slowly that its an unreasonable strategy. while newer players who are trying to learn should be able to manage third place and see slow gains

@sterile crystal obviously this couldnt work as a singular magic bullet change to ranking. but that sort of thinking really does need to be part of it to keep everything healthy and equitable for everyone, from top to bottom. (slowmode blows)

another necessary change for this kind of top placement thing to work would be that you cant have static breakpoints for ranks. 'beginner being like bottom 40%, intermediate up to like 60% expert to 75%, master to 90, and GM being like top 10% of players or whatever would make more sense. someone "playing for second" would simply never reach that. their lower point gains compared to the people who win more means they hit a ceiling much lower which is how it should be (i dont claim this is perfect, just an example)

[sterile crystal]

Your last paragraph is spot on. Having the rankings not being a static number would be revealing. Having the top 10% of the rankings (of active people who have played a game during the season) being a GM would be great. Bottom 10% being ranked as novices. Etc., that would be an interesting system, I like the concept.

[unreal meadow]

I think any proposal for a rank system that neglects the effects on the vast majority of players and the possibility that the system proposed might drive them to disengage from the game is flawed. If what you want is only 1st place rewarded in skill level matched play among players ranked mid level master and above, I’d be all for that, but I just can’t support a system that is designed to serve the wants of a tiny percentage of players while neglecting the impact on the much larger group of lower skilled and lower ranked players.

I’d go so far as to claim that an improved ranking system is in fact vastly more important to those newer players anyway since they are actually concerned with it while high ranked players can use a different system whether it is saber or some other form of self judgement based on friendly play against other high ranked players or there finish in the latest tournament to be able to judge their own level of skill.

Anyway I think rewarding beginning players and in fact players up to the mid master level for competent skillful play regardless of if it gains them the win or 2nd or 3rd is important.

Now I’ll admit it is an open question whether any good system can even be designed to reward competent play among low ranked player, only reward the win among higher ranked players while not rewarding cheese settings (no matter how skillful or genius) and cynical seeming strategies such as playing for second from the start.

[unreal meadow]

I think the fact that you can reach GM apparently (I’ve never tried it) while only playing for second is properly indicative of a free for all game and not anything else. If you don’t like it I’d suggest risk 1v1s or chess or checkers or scrabble etc.

One could reasonably claim that in RISK 6 player ffa it is a skillful and in fact masterful play to be able to consistently gain a second place finish. A person who can nearly always finish second is a better risk player than a player who often finishes last and occasionally gets the win. Please remember any new system of reward for 1st only would reward a new kind of gaming of the system… playing a lot of games and bailing out of most and just pursing the high probability wins would be a new viable play and that is no less questionable than playing for second from the start of every game.

[median barn]

I believe as long as you filter out novices you could get to 26k GM by only placing second in a 6 player ffa (although this would become extremely slow 100-200point increases) as you approached GM and I’m unsure if it would be possible with less then 6 players.

[unreal meadow]

Are those filters available on the coffee aisle?

@hasty apex 👇“properly indicative of a free for all game” suggests that I mean that it is right that second places are rewarded. The fact that I also think that achieving second place consistently is skillful is not a supporting point but a parallel one.

So no it makes perfect sense to me that second place finish consistently would achieve GM rank in a ffa game.

We can at least agree that beyond that point at some level (perhaps right around there) then only first should/could count for anything in play among skill matched opponents. I mean to say that that seems like a perfectly reasonable mode of play to determine rank among high level GMs. But I disagree with any assertion that it must be that way. 👇

[hasty apex]

@unreal meadow did you even ready what i said? nobody said that it takes some amount of skill too consistantly get second place, in fact i explicity said that it does. what doesnt make sense is that people can get the GM title for never winning a game.

its not a problem with the playstyle or your opponents. its a problem with point distribution favoring not playing to win harder than it should.

[median barn]

Question are you stating it should be impossible to get to GM at all placing only second, or is this in an open lobby (any rank allowed). I’d be very surprised if 2nd place against novices even in 6 player ffa would net positive rank points.

So while it is possible to get GM placing 2nd you would need to have minimum ranks on your lobbies and only be playing 6 player ffa.

[raw lava]

Wow, that triggered some interest.

I don't even dare to read all the back and forth.

The current "scoring" or "points payout" structure is what it is and it somewhat favors going for second in many situations.
I'm on board trying other payouts, where the winner gets more than the fair share of elos.

IN ANY CASE, the "rewards" (lets call them that) for 1st to 6th should at least be DISPLAYED somewhere.
So that the player even gets the chance to acknowledge them and think about them.

As it is it currently seems like people don't even know that there are no "points" for kills

[unreal meadow]

What!? I’ve been chaining kills in classic fixed for no reason?!!! 😭😭😭

😂

[sterile crystal]

Well, on one of SMG’s videos, they talked about changing the games from being peer to peer to being held on their servers, and once that was done it would have more functionality. Hopefully, battle logs including point distributions would be a part of that. @unreal meadow are you feeling okay? You were making salient points there before the humor returned.

[raw lava]

to @open phoenix and other over-attacking kids:

a scoring system where ONLY the winner scores is pretty unbalanced.
The obvious problem is that players have more incentive to just leave if things don't work out
I seems, however, that many 'noobs' do play it exactly that way.
Hence my idea to better advertise 🥈 in game!

[hasty apex]

i want to clarify how i define 'playing for second' again real quick: passive play throughout the whole game and avoiding being eliminated until you reach a a3 player endgame, and then choosing to kill the weakest player and letting the strong person clean up, accepting second place.

the first part is just undeniably a good strategy, but that second part is what i think everyone hates. because you can do that and you can reach master for sure, and probably even GM. without ever winning. and this makes no sense. so when you ask, should it be impossible to do that? 100% yes. second place should not be so good, the system should not reward that as heavily as it does. it should still reward you, because it is a perfectly viable strategy but the point that it lets you reach honestly should be closer to expert than to GM.

when i see someone with GM i dont want to immediately think "well they probably grinded games against new players for it", or "they could have just taken a card and passed all game" for it. when i see GM i should be thinking, oh damn, that player is good

[unreal meadow]

Isn’t just taking a card and passing a good or high enough level play for you? If it isn’t then why do high level players do it? It isn’t just for rank since you can observe that style of play in non ranked games as well.

That at least is a flaw in the structure of the game itself and not the reward of the rank (or scoring) system.

It is a free for all game therefore killing the weakest player and feeding the game to the strongest is a legitimate play. You might not like it, maybe I don’t like it (especially when I’m that weak player🤣) but it is a legitimate play. Perhaps that player has different goals or values their time differently than you do, and in a free for all game you have to take that into account.

I play a variety of styles as many players do and sometimes if I judge the instability of the other players or my position to be too risky (in other words if I’m not willing to invest another hour and a half of my time just likely as not to get suicided into anyway then I prefer to take an active roll and choose my fate. I would in those cases kill the weak inactive player (especially if they will not do anything with me to counter the strong players growing advantage) and would do so even if second had no reward just to get out of the game and make my finish higher than theirs. (As I said not always my style) but chaining the kill of two noobs and a bot to feed the game to a player who already has an insurmountable advantage (in the absence of any indication of cooperative resistance) seems like a very honest and legitimate old school RISK play.

[hasty apex]

duuuuuuuude, please. read what i write before responding.

the first part is just undeniably a good strategy,

[the second part]

it should still reward you, because it is a perfectly viable strategy

im saying its too good. thats it. someone theoretically getting 100% second place finishes should be ranked appropriately for that, and im saying the system should be designed in a way where that isnt enough for GM.

the best players will still get second place finishes sometimes, and thats ok, they are also presumably winning the bulk of their games, so this doesnt apply to them whatsoever

[open phoenix]

Mr Holmes, your eyes must be deceiving you as I am neither a kid nor would I over-attack.
Maybe it's time for you to clean your mirror.

In all seriousness though, how can you just say stuff like "a scoring system where ONLY the winner scores is pretty unbalanced" and then lead with a point that has absolutely nothing to do with that?

A scoring system where only the winner scores is the most balanced there could be.

The problem with people leaving the game is a completely separate thing and is advertising playing for 2nd really the best option we have here?

[unreal meadow]

So we agree then. A person who achieves 100% second place finishes against all comers in an infinite number of 6 person ffa games should be the highest ranked player in the history of risk.

“duuuuuuuude, please. read what i write before responding.”

Dude I did… you said things such as “everyone hates” “makes no sense” “should it be impossible to do that? 100% yes.” …key words for me are everyone, no sense, and impossible.
Are you the absolute authority on not only this subject but whether I read your post?

Try “ I don’t like it when players suicide for second as a completion of a plan they hatched before the game started. I think many other players may feel the same and lowering the reward for second place finishes might act as a correction to decrease this behavior. ” I think we can agree on that.

[median barn]

Could you confirm exactly what settings would be required to get GM placing only second? If it’s true I’d agree with you but I don’t think it’s realistic at all.

Also GM’s play niche settings to get that huge positive win ratio? In your proposed win only system you are essentially promoting the use of these niche settings exclusively making things like classic fixed even more redundant then it already is. In a win only system would there be any way to counteract this or would risk at high levels become even more of a premium settings only place.

[hasty apex]

@median barni mean, toward the end of last season (probably 3 weeks left?) i played purely basic boring ol classic fixed at a slow rate of like a game every night. i managed to reach about 21000 before the reset with plenty of wins throw in there, but i was still getting points fairly often from second place finishes, i personally felt like i was pretty close and it appeared it would have been slow, but possible. and there is the the whole "card skip to GM" thing that was done (with settings that facilitataed it) which makes me believe even more that its possible. but maybe it isnt with strictly second place finishes, that isnt really the point of what ive been saying.

the point im making aligns with what @open phoenixis saying, there should be an expectation that a player is actually winning their games, where we differ is that he thinks it should be first place or nothing (i think) and i (as well as most other people here that has spoken) believe that second place has merit. I also believe it should be more of a top 3 finish (in a 6p FFA) that allows going up in rank. but no sane person arguing in good faith would ever claim that second place is somehow as skillful as first place. in any kind of competition, playing for first place should always be the primary goal, and playing for second place should be a fallback for when you believe a win is not on the table anymore. being able to achieve such a high rank (high master at least) by playing without the intention of winning just shouldnt be a thing that a competitive system allows for

[median barn]

Fair enough, I don’t disagree with you.

I would be interested in a breakdown of the number of players in a lobby per season tbh. I don’t think 2nd place in say a 4 player lobby would get you much past high expert (assuming you allow novices in the lobby). If the majority of games are not 6 players in ranked ffa that would indicate that people playing for 2nd to reach high master or GM isn’t frequent at all.

It would also be very interesting to see under what circumstances 2nd place can get you past low level master realistically, and perhaps something implemented to make that extremely unrealistic to achieve.

[hasty apex]

i just checked, and it looks like arco is continuing his campaign new video very recently, so you should probably check it out

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZayVjbQoju4thaEo8958HlEjVs3W7gq8

70 games of card skipping with some weird caps settings. earlier on, he was as high as 21000 iirc. and with the season reset hes back down to 16000, but like ... all the previous discussion aside ... actually doing nothing all game long, literally being a neutral bot, should NOT get you to master any more than 'playing for second' should get you to GM lol

[median barn]

If anyone ever needed proof that passive play and being “good neighbour” results in higher placement that series would be it 😂😂 I think it’s sad that the strategy works so well though especially if he indeed does nothing but card skip!

[sterile crystal]

Great players time their attacks against their opponents to ensure they are collecting the most cards for the troops lost. By never taking a card, you aren’t making yourself a target. However, Arco’s strategies are dependent on the other rules (mainly caps) so that he is collecting 5 troops per turn and isn’t losing any in battles or territory loss. It is a play for second.

[unreal meadow]

If you make the same kind of play as Arco for 30 plus turns and then win by making a cap run. Are you a clever risk player or are you cheesing the game? I know what I think, but curious what others think.
Is zero carding a way to play risk or is it not playing risk?

[sterile crystal]

As I mentioned in a response to Silent, I am fine with anyone playing any strategy they want to. If the other players want to allow Arco to spend most of the game as a neutral bot who just adds 5 troops per turn, and they allow it, shame on them. It is the responsibility of the players in the game to recognize what is happening in their game and to work together to remove him. If they don’t recognize him as a threat, that is shame on them. Arco wouldn’t last in any game I play. Progressive cards would take him out WELL before 30 rounds had passed.

[hasty apex]

is it clever? yes. is it abusing the fact that newer players often let you and dont know how to actually play the game, aka cheesing? also yes.

should the underlying system be designed in such a way that players are encouraged to not actually play the game? no ...

just because it works and is allowed doesnt mean its good for the game for it to exist.

1v1 noob grinding for the ladder was allowed, and it worked spectacularly, and enough people did not agree it should , so the game was eventually changed to stop it.

the scumbag bot out strat was not against the rules, it worked incredibly well, enough people said it shouldnt be allowed, and while its still possible and people still do it, it was changed to be against the written rules.

checking your opponents rank ingame was allowed, and it gave you a giant advantage compared to someone who didnt check. enough people agreed that it shouldnt work that way and the game was eventually changed.

i havent been here long enough to know of anything elseoff the top of my head. but thats how game design works. changes are made for the good of the game, and to hell with the people who get upset that their totally allowed strategy ends up becoming something the community disagrees with and gets changed to be not allowed or not work

[sterile crystal]

The Arco strategy will never bother me as I play progressive. Anyone who tries card skipping in a progressive game will be eliminated quickly. I have watched the Arco strategy enough to know that the other players don’t recognize the player who is card skipping as a threat. Who’s fault is that? Arco’s? He is giving lessons to the players he is playing against, that they can’t ignore passive players, because while they aren’t a threat just yet, they are a threat. What’s next @hasty apex do we ban JJ from taking a card and passing when he plays the meta settings? If you try to ban Arco’s strategy (as opposed to just working together to defeat him), the next step will be eliminating the take a card and pass strategy because you don’t like that strategy either. And so on until all players must play a certain style to be “acceptable” to the masses. Oh, and plenty of people who play on PC use a second monitor to look up their opponents. While the game doesn’t “allow” you to see you your opponent’s ranking, those on PC can find out outside the game.

[hasty apex]

the passive "take a card and pass" strategy on "meta settings" works because it is taking advantage of the fact that you play mostly novice and beginners in games, regardless of your own rank. and eventually, the better (or most patient) player has a better chance of winning. and clearly, this isnt something you can literally ban a player from doing, thats stupid lol.

but the system that allows that type of play to be so effective can and should be changed. things like skill based matchmaking putting GMs vs GMs practically kills that type of strategy because the players are actually good and know how to end games. and like you said, the person doing nothing is just going to get eaten alive by similarly skilled players

bounties are thrown around often as a incentive to be more active too. pros and cons to all kinds of ideas and how they are implemented.

[unreal meadow]

Yes! I’m always a little dubious of sports or games that use constant rule changes to deal with new play styles they didn’t like. If a player comes up with a strat that you find cheesy then you had better come up with a counter strat and make instructional videos if necessary to try to correct the problem. In this case… to inform Arco’s opponents: caps game neutral bots… gang up on the passive human player… do it every time every game and the strat will not be very effective.

[cold carbon]

Honestly, with all of these solutions, I think we’ll never solve the fact that a large portion of players dont even know how the ranking system works, or how it would work if it changed, and will continue to act the fool regardless of what changes are implemented. People want to win, its human nature. And when they think they cant, they get emotional.
Edit: @unreal meadow how dare you threaten the chad japan cap

[unreal meadow]

Sorry you misunderstood. I am not making such a video or encouraging players to do that. I’m saying IF you are upset by the strategy THEN attacking with a counter play in game or even going to the trouble to publicize the counter strategy makes a lot more sense than pursuing rules changes.

[hasty apex]

the slider doesnt reset between rolls. instead of asking SMG to make that change we should just deal with it? and make videos explaining how to do it yourself?

the attack animations are on by default and putting new players at a completely pointless disadvantage because they dont know any better. instead of asking for it to be changed you want us to make videos telling people how to do it?

ill just go through the recent suggestions:
people would like to be able to buy maps one at a time? should you just make a video saying they dont need this option becasue they can just buy the map packs?

should spectator mode not be implemented, because you can just stream your games and people can watch that way?

a stats option for your games played? or shoudl we just show people how to use excel?

retracting ally requests? or are we supposed to uses psychic powers to read their mind and only send it when they are paying attention and will accept or reject?

with this stance, you are saying the game is perfect already, and exactly zero other changes should ever be made because everyone should just learn to deal with the game as is. and if they dont like it, too bad. and you dont see how this is a absurd stance?

[unreal meadow]

Not a single one of the things you listed has anything to do with what I was talking about.

Alterations to the slider or giving the ability to rescind and resend alliance requests etc. etc. including everything you mentioned are not rule changes affecting the on board play in the direct manner that I am talking about. Not one of those changes would have the kind of direct effect on play such that it would fundamentally change the mechanics of the game in the way that I am concerned about.

The game rules should not be changed to exclude a new (or old) style of play just because we don’t like it. In other words altering the game specifically to stop people from employing an Arco strat would be wrong in my opinion.

[cold carbon]

I agree. Changing the game to mitigate play styles and strategies is usually not a good idea. Changing the game to modify game mechanics that make things difficult or put players at a disadvantage for no reason is usually a good idea. With that being said, part of the skill of playing a game will always be mastery of game mechanics, not JUST mastery of strategy. Finding the balance is the tricky part, because everyone has different ideas about what should be changed and what shouldnt

[pine ginkgo]

What was missed a bit along the discussion I feel like is that @open phoenix also suggested implementing match making. If novices only play novices. Than novices are also winning. But of course then you have differences between different numbers of players, which you have to account for in calculation (that's basically also true at the moment, SMG just doesn't do it).

So we like to think of ranking about placement in a game. Which is great usually, since thinking about it in pairs of players (which is equivalent), often leads to misunderstandings. But in this case you can also think of the ranking as how many opponents you defeat vs how many defeat you. That's in the long term more what determines your rank than the placement of each game (so there you can see the differences in player count).

[storm star]

This reminds me of when Quinn decided to play games with 5 minute turn timers and make 1 action every 30s -> 1m to use as much as possible, basically aiming to use the full turn timer - when it came to SMG's attention it was immediately banned 😄 - and we added the 'Stalling' report type (before it just wasn't a thing, refusing to end game was always a report under 'Harassment')

[unreal meadow]

Yep. It probably seemed like a quick easy fix, but is was the wrong way to address the issue. A five minute turn timer should mean a player has five minutes to use how ever they want.

How do you differentiate between a player who is pulling a stunt and a player who is actually using that time to think or because of control interface issues due to physical limitations? That fact is you can’t and have handed the ability to “call” the game to players who also can’t know. They report stalling and then SMG has to do something with that report. Such a waste of time.

A five minute turn timer should mean that players may be using five minutes and players should know that going in. Instead of creating more and better turn timers or even untimed turn options SMG resorted to the the old easy problem fix: The problem is these bad stalling people we will have you report them and we will suspend or ban them. Great, awesome way to avoid the problem while appeasing the angry crowd without ever actually examining the underlying problem… the turn timers you have created don’t make sense for risk.

When we (humans) automatically resort to a punitive punishment model to try to blame a problem on “bad people” instead of creating a system structure that better takes into account the needs and wants and differences of the most people…well to be honest sadly it’s pretty normal. So SMG shouldn’t feel too bad. They are in the “good” company of failed government and corporate bureaucracies through out the world along with many failed professional and amateur sports leagues. We all seem to fail again and again at this issue in spite of the fact there is very good evidence to show there is a better way.

[cold carbon]

you’re so frickin’ deep Robards, tell people stories about me at my wedding. Just make them up. Make me sound like a Che Geuvara/Rick Rubin hybrid please

[unreal meadow]

You mock me sir! Fair play 🤣

I will begin work up a wedding speech about a psychopathic murderer who is obsessed with professional wrestling… or did you want me to focus on other character traits of those two?

[sterile crystal]

Who would ever join a 5 minute game of risk? That is brutal. You would know that someone is going to drag it out forever. One round could take 30 minutes! If someone was taking that long to make their turns IRL, that game would end quickly!

[unreal meadow]

A round taking 30 minutes… Sounds like every game of in person risk I ever played…. “…And then I rolled a six a five and a four and he rolled two twos, so I thought I had him but then I rolled two threes and and one and he rolled a four and a five, but then it got exciting when…” 🤣

[storm star]

It's a good indication of trolling when emotes are being spammed while making no game moves for the duration 😄

[dapper condor]

I honestly think the problem with @open phoenix ‘s skill based matchmaking is one nobody has brought up in this conversation (maybe I missed it idk). I think the World Cup was a good example of how having a high level winner take all game tends to just stall out. If players are unwilling to make a move that might get them 2nd place then they won’t make a move at all. The two most popular game modes are Classic Fixed and EU adv prog caps. I don’t think there’s anybody in the world that wants to be forced to play GM only games of those because they would take absolutely forever. If you ever watch JJ you know this is pretty undisputable. So basically the only viable game mode would be 70% on certain maps. And winning a large % of 70% games is just not feasible against equally skilled opponents. Also as Pete says, it’s not Caps global domination or 70% dominance. It’s Risk global domination. People should be able to play any game mode and have fun while also have an equal chance at ranking up. I should be able to play Classic fixed and still have a chance at the leaderboard. Playing a bunch of 6-player GM only classic fixed would make me never want to play the game again because I would be so bored

[pine ginkgo]

Maybe I’m wrong (didn’t watch what you mentioned), but I would think that if you change the circumstances forever, by getting only similar skilled opponents. That people would (eventually) adapt their strategy to it, if their current strategy doesn’t work.

That said, I think there are probably plenty of game modes that are flawed in principle. (If classic fixed is one of them, time should tell, but having an in-game mechanic to reward kills does sound like a good idea. Edit: this has nothing to do with rewarding kills for ranking, it's about having a functioning game. But my guess would be you can adapt your strategy enough for classic fixed.)

[dapper condor]

If there’s an in game mechanic you are no longer just rewarding winning. 2nd place and 4 kills is still losing. In the current tournament structure this would get more points however. (I actually agree with you. I think kills should be rewarded. 2nd and multiple kills can be much harder to achieve or skillful than just sitting and waiting and getting first). With regards to everything else…I’m not sure you’re right. Just look at the GM tournament. The only way that works is by including a whole bunch of alternate win conditions (assassins, first to die, etc). If you could just change their strategy and win they wouldn’t need to do that

[pine ginkgo]

With the in-game mechanic, I just meant progressive card is the way to go 😆 (Played classic progressive master+ games for months, those were just fine for example. But I also see expert players in classic fixed who only know how to do nothing. And fail to adapt when that isn't working in the given circumstances. But if you really can't adapt to it, then ultimately you just end up at a lower rank of course.)

[sterile crystal]

Sounds like more and more people think that rewarding kills should be a part of our ranking system. I agree 100%!

[dapper condor]

Those classic progressive games you played are under the current system where 2nd place is rewarded and even 3rd might get points. If you change that system to where the winner is the only one rewarded you might find that those games go much differently. Personally I’m just going to disagree with any system that limits what maps and modes you can viably play. Ideally I would love a skill based matchmaking system. I’m just not sure Risk as a game can viably support that. Maybe you’re right and somehow players would adapt and it would still be just as fun, I just haven’t seen any examples of that being true

[unreal meadow]

I obviously haven’t read every single word written on the subject of reward for 2nd place finish here and in the risk-rank-chat, so forgive me if this has already been covered, but it seems that again and again I see mention of the reward for 2nd being a problem and while I understand the concern to some extent I have a thought:

I think the penalty for being below 2nd is much more of a motivating factor for taking action to ensure 2nd place than any points bonus for 2nd will ever be.

If I remember correctly 2nd place in a un-rank-filtered game the other day gained me exactly 4 rank points for my efforts. Obviously most players (concerned with rank) would not be motivated by the points they could gain but instead by the points they could lose which could have easily been over 1500 if I had finished 5th or 6th in such a situation.

[sterile crystal]

I currently estimate those thinking the “reward” for second place is about 1% of risk players. Someone should make a poll in Risk Ideas to confirm.

[unreal meadow]

Since less and .01% of risk players look at the polls in risk-ideas… we may have to figure a way to take a representative model and extrapolate to the larger not giving a f… about discord population of risk players.

The real reward for second place is caring enough to check the discord to find out why the reward for second place seems off. 😂

[warped herald]

this remind me of when i play catan in another online platform where there are different "speed" settings. I believe most ppl play in the fast setting (with me included and its the 2nd fastest speed) but still from time to time there is someone in the game chat asking for ppl to hurry up and be faster (when its clearly not stalling). Dude if u are that much in a hurry go play in the Very Fast speed, this is Fast so i legit can use my whole turn to think if i need it.

So if players chose to enter a game with a 300 secs turn they should be at least somewhat ready for it.

Still i reckon stalling can happen, if i had to suggest some key points to pay attention to detect it ig it would be something along the following.

A pattern of actions/time or actions at a moment in time.
Get an avg of the time per turns or a boxplot for that particular speed and compare it to that reported player's time per turn.

Ig the more automated way would be by some statistical analysis of outliers.

[sterile crystal]

If we aren’t a representative sample… however, I have to admit that after Kylted’s post letting us know of a basically overwhelming poll of 250(ish) to 4 (about changing the slider) and SMG doing nothing. Maybe we should have a poll about whether to really have a poll. Giving input, only to be ignored gets old.

[dapper condor]

SMG has demonstrated that it takes a long time for them to implement changes. I mean the zombie bug was around for like 8 months before they fixed it. I think they will change the slider. We are just going to have to wait for a couple of updates

[unreal meadow]

So the best bet for improvements in the game to start happening at a pace more to our liking would be if we had a big in-person tournament/fund raiser and got all the top players and most important discord gripers to attend. Once we raise at least $50,000 we should have enough money to send the entire SMG team on a corporate retreat to Las Vegas. Where hopefully we can get them tickets to a quick change show… afterwards sudden unbidden inspiration will arise in their minds. We will have inception-ed our way to faster game improvements and victory will be ours.

[dapper condor]

I love the creativity here. However this game makes them millions of dollars a year so they hardly need us to donate our money to send them on vacation around the world. I honestly think that’s a lot of people’s frustration, this game does so well and we see so little progress. As a side note I would absolutely love an in person tournament with the top players

[woven crystal]

I don't see it making millions a year. I can always edit lol. That's significantly more than I expected.

[cold carbon]

SMG's estimated annual revenue is $10.7m per year. I'm not smart enough to make a good estimate on their overheads, but im betting its not more than half of that.
edit: @woven crystal micro-transactions are a hell of a drug

[woven crystal]

Ahhh that makes sense

[crystal sorrel]

Patently false. If you only play 2/3 of your games due to spawns. Then you'd have to win 25% of those games to not lose rank assuming equal strength players in 6p games, putting yourself at a severe handicap to gaining rank. You'd need to play all games to the end even with bad starts bc other people make mistakes that you can capitalize on to pull out the win.

[unreal meadow]

? I don’t understand the strength of your response. Which part is “patently false”?

I wasn’t proposing it as a plan or claiming that it would be a sound and quality strategy but was simply pointing out that there is possible vulnerability to a new exploit that would be tried by some large number of players regardless of whether it is advisable. (Bailing out of the game by no means would necessarily take place at spawn but later at mid game when no route to a certain win was seen in end game, thus “ruining the game” just as much as current nonsense does).

First only counts ranked play could be plagued with just as much game ruining shit play, sudden quits and rank cooking exploits as the current system. Forewarned should be forearmed.

BTW I already win well more than 25% of my ffa games does this mean I should see no rank slide ?! My results seem to indicate something else. ah I see in rereading… I’d have to always play equally or better ranked players… very hard to find those games.

[crystal sorrel]

That's not a problem with the ranking system. That's a problem with the settings. If everyone is playing optimally (playing for 1st) and the game never ends, then it's not a ranking system problem. The goal of the ranking system is to promote optimal play (playing for first) and the only ranking system that promotes such play style is only awarding the winner. Literally anything else is suboptimal.

[sterile crystal]

Is this your opinion or is it a fact?

[unreal meadow]

It appears to be their opinion that it is a fact. 😏

In fact the original statement is their well reasoned and insightful opinion while the claim that that opinion is a fact is their dubious and ill considered opinion, in my opinion. And those are the facts.

[sterile crystal]

I just love the FACT that they said they weren’t responding, as they responded… without answering. 😵‍💫 the logic is dizzying.

[unreal meadow]

No comment

[sterile crystal]

Well, saying no comment, is in itself a comment, just not a comment upon the post. 🤔 @cold carbon actually, their comment was they weren’t going to waste a post upon it because of the cool down time period.

[cold carbon]

Seems to me like they answered, but they wanted to make sure you understood the reason why they answered using emotes instead of a written reply was due to the cooldown.. seeing as they responded in a different channel without a cooldown, the logic seems pretty straightforward

[unreal meadow]

Please remember the cool down period is for mandatory court ordered chill out time. You must max, you must relax, you will kick back!

So take your time and change into comfortable slacks. Now is not the time for commentary on the possibilities of bypassing the count down timer through various hacks. It’s almost time for me to post this rhyming rant attack. Don’t get lax. Chill out, keep it cool, lay back and relax.

[unreal meadow]

Stand still like Drax and no one will see you until you attack. The cool down timer should be set to max. To slow me down with my inane cracks.

[unreal meadow]

I’m back. On a new track. Drill down get busy and spit some crap. This cool down timer ‘bout to get stack slapped. I’ll try another tack. Too much chill time made me crack. Now I’ll get lined up for a new kind of smack. My brain is racked. For words that clap. Cool down timer is a discordant trap.

[unreal meadow]

My time is capped. Got noob smacked. Now I’m back to the beginning for a new bad rap. Bread is filling so I prefer a wrap. Is this timer tired of holding me back? I need a snack. I like pudding so I bought a pack. Spooned them empty and recycled the scrap. Now I’m hyped and ready for a choco-caffeinated attack.

[silver ingot]

Thanks for the 45 minutes of content everyone

[dapper condor]

If there's a system where out of millions of possible settings, only a few don't stalemate consistently, and they are the same variation of each other (prog 70%), I fail to see how that's a settings problem rather than a system problem. I have yet to see a single tournament successfully implement a winner take all system so I don't see how the actual game would do it either. The closest we have seen is the GM tournament and that relies on VC, alternate win conditions, and 3 game series in order to be successful. All of that is not possible in game or at least not realistic. Even if you're just arguing from a mathematical standpoint I think you're wrong. A player who gets 2nd every single game they play is a much better player than the player who gets 6th in every game they play. However in a winner take all system they would be equal. If you want some alternate logic, getting 2nd in an F1 race takes more skill than getting 15th so the person who gets 2nd is rewarded with points accordingly. If it was a 1v1 then sure getting 2nd is the same as getting last, but its not, its a multiplayer FFA

[crystal sorrel]

So you bring up a lot of good points. The settings issue boils down to good game design. A good game promotes action and helps bring the game to and end naturally. Some games that points based. You earn points by completing objectives and after enough points the game is over. In risk, the goal is typically global domination. To do so you must kill every other player. Nobody wants to waste all their troops to kill someone for 12 troops. Let some other idiot do that and then you can clean that idiot up. But that is only a problem early game or in fixed cards. Prog scales such that it is worth killing people, you can get their cards which compensates you for the troop losses such that you aren't the next to die. So if the game stalemates then, the problem is with the players. They missed the window where ending the game was profitable. This can happen in a game where position is rewarded bc nobody is willing to take the chance to win bc if they fail they are first out. This happens so much in the FFA finals game even with decent settings, bc the reward structure doesn't promote playing to win. It promotes playing to not lose.

Now to address the constant 2nd Placer vs 6th placer. I like your analogy for racing bc that illustrates perfectly why you can't reward 2nd place in FFA. In racing the second place racer is arguably the second quickest on the track. Sure wrecks happen occasionally or some bad luck in pits, etc. But for the most part you earn your placement. In risk, this is certainly not the case. Your placement outside of winning is typically dictated by other players. It only takes 1 player to end your game. So imagine a race that never ended until there was only 1 driver left on the track and everyone else wrecked. That would be entirely different scenario where the second quickest around the track would not necessarily be the second to last one left on the track. Same is true in risk, being the last one killed doesn't mean you had the second most skill.

[unreal meadow]

Your analysis of how the racing analogy breaks down is somewhat convincing. But in a race that never ended until there was one car left (un-wrecked) you are correct that second would not necessarily be the second quickest car around the track, but the race you describe would be about avoiding wrecks anyway, and second would go to the second best at avoiding that.

So in risk are we trying to be the “fastest across the finish line” (the best) or the least likely to get wrecked? I guess it’s a little bit of both.

I agree that being the last to be killed doesn’t mean that you had the second most skill BUT being the one to get that final kill in a ffa melee doesn’t mean you had the “first most skill” either. It is no more significant that you got first or second from that standpoint. It is ffa and the most skilled player can easily be killed first.

So it comes down to consistency across a large number of games. And Consistent second place finishes are just as good a measurement of ffa skill as consistent first place finishes.

Obviously we would judge a player who has 40 1sts out of 100 6 player ffa games a better player than a player who had 40 2nds. But what if that player had 80 2nds? Then I think we see that they are actually the better Risk player assuming that both of the players other finishes are equally bad.

[unreal meadow]

Let’s imagine a scenario:
After a series of 1000 6 person ffa games (let’s say classic fixed)

Player 1 has 100 1sts, 200 2nds, 600 3rds and 100 finishes of 4th or worse

Player 2 has 200 1sts, 50 2nds, 50 3rds and 700 finishes of 4th or worse

Who is the better ffa player? Who is more consistently good?

Obviously player 2’s 200 1sts make them the greatest of all time 🤣

[crystal sorrel]

Yes consistency is the key metric. And measuring 2nd place finishes completely obscures that fact. If you can consistently win, that is the measure of a skilled FFA player. Someone who can never win and only get 2nd is better than someone who always gets 6th sure, but it's still a meaningless measure and not deserving of points. The flaw in your logic is perfectly illustrated in your following post imagining a scenario of a poorly designed game mode. (Classic fixed). Let's instead imagine those stats are from classic prog games where the winner sweeps in a single turn say 90% of games. Now argue that last player killed had any sort of superior skill in those games.

[unreal meadow]

So support for your superior ranking system requires you to dismiss classic fixed as a poorly designed game mode rather than explaining how it would act measuring performance in that scenario. I believe that is the most popular and widely played mode, so I guess the flaw is in your logic if you think such a ranking system has any value.

Progressive is a great mode and if I imagine the scenario you describe among a group of nearly identically highly skilled players then you are right, there is little to conclude from who finishes second but there is just as little to conclude from who finishes first until we see a very large sample and I’m not sure my example of 1000 games is anywhere near enough.

And yes I would argue that there is considerable skill in positioning yourself such that you are last killed in progressive as well. Obviously there is also considerable luck just as there is both skill and luck in a first place finish.

[crystal sorrel]

It doesn't require dismissing classic fixed. It still works for classic fixed same as classic prog. I was just reframing the problem to one that's easier to see the value of the ranking system. I can't help that fixed cards is a poorly designed mode that happens to be so popular. That is an issue with the population at large and why nobody understands a winner take all system when they all want to stalemate forever and call that skill.

That skill you mention for getting second in prog is exactly why that same player would win more than other players. So measuring second place is irrelevant. That's the point I'm trying to drive home.

[cold carbon]

I'm trying as hard as I can to follow this thread but now I just have a headache. However I want to add that I dont see how a winner takes all system would limit stalemating, unless there was no rp penalty for finishing in any position other than 1st.

[unreal meadow]

Let’s try this:

“That skill you mention for getting first in prog is exactly why that same player would get more seconds than other players. So measuring first place is irrelevant.”

You might be able to describe a first place only system and claim that it is your preference. Maybe I agree. But you are not demonstrating how it is actually objectively better. Giving points based on placement or points based on only top placement are equally arbitrary ways of measuring performance and you aren’t saying anything that demonstrates that your preference is anything more than a subjective opinion.

You say things like: (bold emphasis is mine)

“…measuring 2nd place finishes completely obscures that fact. If you can consistently win, that is the measure of a skilled FFA player. Someone who can never win and only get 2nd is better than someone who always gets 6th sure, but it's still a meaningless measure and not deserving of points. “

But this only convinces me that you feel strongly about your opinion not that it has any objective truth. I’d rather be convinced. I really would. But I suspect that what I said about the systems being equally arbitrary is probably closer to the truth.

@cold carbon

I think that is the system described. No penalty… all positions not first are equally bad. But I don’t see how that prevents stalemates though since all players should be motivated to grind it out as long as possible for that all important first.

I play tons of classic fixed and can’t remember the last time I was in a stalemate. This is because of the style I choose to play and has nothing to do with the ranking system, but in a first only scenario I think I would have to stalemate the game in many situations to try to increase my chances of surviving till a moment of maximum odds of my victory. <<<

[cold carbon]

I think that as much as players would be incentivised to grind out a first place, they would be equally incentivised to take risks in doing so due to there not being a rank point punishment if they fail in their mission. Hard to say unless we see it in practice. But, it's like you say, it largely comes down to personal preference in terms of settings and play style.

[crystal sorrel]

I thought my statements were clear to the point I was making. To directly address statements I made that you bolded, I will list the facts as they are. If you remain unconvinced then we are at an impasse, where differences in interpretation of the facts simple won't align.

Measuring 2nd place finishes in the ranking system obscures a players win percentage. A high win percentage should be the measure of consistency for a good player.

Measuring a players %2nd place finishes is meaningless bc it has no bearing on their win percent in a FFA game. You can't use it as a prediction that they are more likely to win based on the fact that certain strategies employed can get to gm that involve never winning. These are the strategies hurt the most by only rewarding winners. And these are the same strategies that cause unnecessary stalemates.

A winner take all system will not only more accurately predict a players win percent, but all players should play optimally due to proper alignment of game objectives and rank objectives.

[unreal meadow]

Okay.
“Measuring a players %2nd place finishes is meaningless bc it has no bearing on their win percent in a FFA game.”

I thought I understood that this was your position. Thank you for making it clear. 2nd place doesn’t matter because you are only concerned with first place.

There still seems to be a touch of circular logic. So I’ll simply ask this: why? (other than your or mine preference) should it be that: “A high win percentage should be the measure of consistency for a good player.”

Or in my words: Why should we believe that win percentage in ffa games is the only metric to meaningfully measure performance?

Seems that you are making that claim but not substantiating it.

Let’s start with obvious common ground: In a long series of 1v1 s it is clear (or at least we can agree) that a tally of wins and loses would be a pretty clear indication of both skill and a predictor of future performance. I suppose there might be some 1v1 players who play a beautifully creative artistic and skillful game and still lose. Obviously their performance would not be distinguishable from a player who tried their first 1v1 today and played unbelievably foolishly. They would both be marked as a loss. This seems an acceptable (while not comprehensive) way of measuring a game that results in 1 winner and 1 loser.

Can you not see that the ffa game of any variety but especially the 6 player is a different thing? You could claim that there is 1 winner and 5 losers and anything else is irrelevant but that is not the only way of seeing it. And to claim that yours is the right way of looking at it and the only meaningful way of measuring it requires more support.

[crystal sorrel]

The objective of the game is to win. The only meaningful way to measuring ones performance against the goal is win percent. Therefore better players have higher win percents.

[sterile crystal]

Are you of the opinion that there are to many GM’s? Would that problem be solved if there were just fewer GM’s? Say, the top 5% of active players in either 1 v 1 or FFA? It sounds like if there were fewer GM’s this wouldn’t even be an issue because those “playing for second” while still earning points wouldn’t rise to the level of the top 5% of players, and would then remain a master.

[unreal meadow]

@crystal sorrel wrote: “I can't state my position any more succinctly. That's the base level logic that can't be refuted. You may not agree, but then you and I aren't playing the same game with the same objectives”

Well your base level logic seems quite flawed in current statement. So yes unfortunately in current form it could be easily refuted. But instead of criticizing it I will try at a later time to restate your position in its most convincing logically sound structure. There is a good argument to be made here and you aren’t making it.

Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. I have an open mind and would certainly be interested in seeing a new split off leader board (or boards) very specific settings for example progressive (on whatever map is best)… only 1st counts and run it for a season or two as a test. Would you play it? Would enough other high level prog players? Would the data interest you?

[crystal sorrel]

@sterile crystal I don't see how your question is relevant to my point. Rewarding second place is at odds with the objectives of the game, number of gms being irrelevant.

@unreal meadow so you disagree with my stated object of the game? Then we are playing 2 different game.

Or do you disagree with the best way of measuring how often one completes the goal of winning? Win percent is literally the only thing that makes sense.

Now that we have a way to measure against the goal, clearly a better number is preferred. So anyone would logically conclude that the better player achieves the stated goal more often.

Irrefutable given we have the same objective for the same game. Otherwise, you and I are playing 2 different games, as previously stated.

[crystal sorrel]

this is the game i am discussing. i'd love to hear about the game that you play sometime in DM, as that would be off topic here.

[median barn]

If you only reward first place with points your saying you believe a 6th place suicider who happens to have a 10% win rate because of novices is of the same skill level as someone who would routinely come in 2-3rd place with a 10% win rate?

I think this idea kills ranked for the majority of the more casual player base as they will never see any realistic progress.

I also don’t believe that the casual system would retain those players as people routinely suicide and bot out in those games as there’s no incentive to play for any position even first in casual.

So while it may be the most objective way to measure rank (although in a 6 player ffa id argue this isn’t the case anyway) I don’t believe it is a healthy change for the longevity of the game.

[sterile crystal]

Well, thank you again for Not Answering a simple question. Your powers at convincing people of your OPINION as fact is weak at best, and at worst is something else. I still estimate that those who believe that only wins should be rewarded is about 1% of the risk playing population. Feel free to ask for a poll on the matter on Risk-Ideas. I’m still waiting on that one. Oh wait, you probably still don’t know what a poll is either.

[dapper condor]

I'll be honest. I don't think you answered the problem of nobody has successfully created a winner take all system. Its been tried and it doesn't work without additional gimmicks. Even "good" settings ( various prog world dom) stalemate without the use of VC, rewarding kills, or other tricks.
Fundamentally I'm with you. Winning is the objective and that's what should be rewarded. Getting 2nd still shows the "you were defeated" screen at the end of the game. But if you can't create a system that actually works, why are we arguing about theory here?

Additionally, most of your arguments tend to be focused on progressive games. I do believe you have to take into consideration fixed. Just because your opinion is that fixed is a flawed gamemode doesn't mean it actually is. Its more popular for a reason. And getting 2nd or 3rd in fixed can take a lot of skill. The two most popular settings in the game are Classic Fixed and EU advanced prog Capitals (plays like fixed). So currently any new points system would need to be centered around fixed style gameplay. Anything else would upset the majority of the playerbase, which SMG is never going to do.

[unreal meadow]

“Oh no I’ve been playing 70% domination… my wins don’t count!” Says every 70% enjoyer ever.

“Uh oh I won by cap running… I didn’t eliminate all my opponents. 😭😭 My win record is falsified” says every caps player.

“My opponent surrendered… I didn’t eliminate them… oh how clever they, oh how crafty they stole my win.” 😭😭

The game I was playing was trying to get you to actually support your position. Because I thought there might be something to it, but again and again you just make the same claim without support. So as I said I will have to rewrite your position myself sometime. Perhaps when I am bored I will search the whole discord for everything ever said on the matter and try to state what I think your position is in an actual supported manner. Then I can examine it and see if I’m convinced.

Here most recently you again claim “Win percent is literally the only thing that makes sense.” Prove it.

[sterile crystal]

Wait, what? Proof? Poof! It’s OPINION. There is no proof. Otherwise we would be enjoying the pudding. We all can make claims. I made one that 1% of the risk community agrees with you. @unreal meadow it would be interesting to have a database where people played one set of rules for the season to see if people would play it. I probably wouldn’t, unless it was a map with options I enjoy, then I would that season. Interesting concept, but I think that database would have the fewest games played in it at the end of the season. Just my opinion though… but I’m not afraid of stating it.

[unreal meadow]

Well now I’m gonna do what I said I wasn’t and actually criticize what you wrote.
Here’s what you said:

“The objective of the game is to win. The only meaningful way to measuring ones performance against the goal is win percent. Therefore better players have higher win percents.”

I believe you claim this is as succinct an expression of your position as you can make and that it can not be refuted.

The object of the game is to win. The object of the game is to have fun. The object of the game is to pass the time and distract from my pain and troubles. The object of the game is to keep some designers at SMG busy creating new dice skins. The object of the game is to make money for Hasbro. All these things and more are true. But I am a friendly pirate and for the sake of your argument I was totally onboard accepting the premise that “The object of the game is to win.” especially because I hope the you are right and there actually is a simple solution to the ranking system problems.

But you’d have to follow from that premise in a logical and supported manner. Instead you jump to “The only meaningful way to measuring ones performance against the goal is win percent.” Another claim. Doesn’t follow from your premise and isn’t supported in anyway. If the goal is to win then how is one’s performance in other games relevant… only this current game should matter and if you win you are victorious if you lose then all is lost. It is irrelevant whether you won or lost a thousand games before. Only this game matters and winning is the goal.

Then we have: “Therefore better players have higher win percents.” Well that’s probably true but it doesn’t follow from what was stated previously so “therefore” we just have three claims.

[crystal sorrel]

@sterile crystal your insults have no power over me. If you were to ever have a valid point that's on topic, I would address it. Meanwhile feel free to hold a poll about what an idiot you think I am since you love to mention how people should post unrelated polls. I'm still waiting on that one.

@unreal meadow while amusing and humorous, no actual point being made.

@median barn you do make a valid criticism. However I believe that majority of players dont care about ranking system. Also I believe a ranking system is meant only for those competing for the top spots. It's useless to rank players that are light years away from the top. If SMG wants to implement a progression system to encourage players until they reach a level worthy of being ranked, then that's their prerogative as game developer to incentivize player engagement. Say progression system goes thru intermediate. And players in progression system only play other players up to intermediate. Then you get to expert and you become ranked by ELO.

@dapper condor I am unaware the gm tourney isn't successful. That was my proof of concept that winners only advance can work back when nobody had even considered such a thing. I am very grateful to parlox for giving my idea life. My argument does focus around prog as it's a better game mode and illustrates my points the best. Eu Prog caps has only become popular due to the nature of the current ranking system rewarding placement over win percent. Caps is the best way to avoid being killed early and get 2nd place at worse if you don't win. By changing to winner takes all, average placement will no longer be the driving rank factor, and it will open up more settings to being viable to rank up. While not the point of my proposal, I see that as a positive added benefit.

@unreal meadow your counter points are just grasping at straws. Nice try tho.

[unreal meadow]

@crystal sorrel

Here’s a first crack at steelmanning what I think is part of your position. It only requires two premises and if they are accepted it leads to a pretty convincing conclusion.

The object of the game is to win. In a system where only first place finishes were recorded for rank purposes the best players would pursue first place in game after game and would have higher percentages of first place finishes than less skilled players. Therefore measuring first place percentages would be a valid method of ranking the skill of players in such a system.

As to straw grasping… nope. My criticism was valid. Your position was just three claims. Which is a great way to express three opinions but not to convince anyone thoughtful of anything.<<

[crystal sorrel]

You have at least proven you understand my point, unlike general bala. I'll give you that much.

[sterile crystal]

It is a common reaction of younger people when questioned to get defensive or to feel attacked or insulted. I don’t think I have “insulted” you at all. If questioning your claims/opinions makes you feel insulted, I am sorry you feel that way. Everyone has opinions in this world, some are correct, and others aren’t. (Including my own.) BTW, Robards was trying to get you to think about your claims in greater detail than you come across. I have read his posts/ responses to you as him trying to help you to get you to provide evident to support your claims. I don’t think you can without evidence. Not sure how you can “prove” what you believe to be true, to actually be true with implementing it and testing it out. However, that would mean that SMG is going to revamp their ranking system based upon your belief or your claims. I doubt they will do anything of the kind. Why? Because they won’t even fix the slider based upon a 250-5 poll! You think they will revamp a ranking system based upon a few peoples’ belief that it will be better? I don’t. (But that is only my opinion, currently valued at less than 2 cents and could be wrong.) @crystal sorrel oh, I understand your claims/opinions just fine. I just disagree with your claims.

[pine ginkgo]

Separate from any practical considerations, you could make a formal argument why WTA works better. The current approach does pairwise comparison, that means it only considers a player’s ability to beat opponents. But that is a bad proxy variable for winning games in FFA. As we can show with an example, where we imagine games of players of all exactly equal strength (to keep it simple).

Using the binomial theorem we can obtain the probability to finish in a certain place with the following equation for these games, when making use of pairwise comparison:

f(k,n) = n! / (k! * (n-k)!) * 0.5^n

, where: n is the number of opponents (i.e., n+1 is the number of players), k is the numbers of opponents beaten (i.e., n+1 - k is your placement after a game) and f is the probability to beat a certain number of opponents (i.e., to finish in a certain place).

From this equation it follows that the approach of pairwise comparison inherently underestimates the probability for a player to finish first or last in a FFA game. Let’s take a 6 player game as an example. Of course 1 player will finish first and thus beat 5 of their opponents. Since all players are of exactly equal strength the chance that this happens is 1/6, which we can also write as 16/96. Pairwise comparison, however, predicts that it’s fairly unlikely to beat 5 opponents for any of the players, since if they were to play 5 1v1 games each, it’s much more likely to win some and lose some than to have a clean sweep against opponents of equal strength. Thus, using the equation above, we can find that the pairwise approach predicts a chance of 1/32 or 3/96 to finish first (or last) for any of the players. Which is a serious underestimation of the actual chance of 16/96. From which we can conclude that although winning a FFA game constitutes beating your opponents, only considering beating opponents is a bad proxy for winning games in this context.

[crystal sorrel]

If people like Bala can't follow simple logic, you think they'd understand mathematics?

Your point is exactly why I created an alternative elo formula that considers actual win percent and it only works in WTA. For the majority of cases it would calculate an equivalent rating. It would only affect those who get a disproportionate amount of 2nd place "victories". Most everyone else that earns their fair share of 1st place finishes would be unaffected.

[pine ginkgo]

Maybe a more obvious example why WTA makes more sense based on this. We could also say that for a 6 player game of players of exactly equal strength (again). Pairwise comparison predicts there is a 6 * 1/32 = 3/16 = 18.75% chance someone will win the game. But of course we know there is a 100% chance someone will actually win the game, so that makes little sense. (Same sort of error applies to other placements, for example for again the same scenario, pairwise comparison predicts there is a 187.5% chance someone will finish third, whatever that may mean.)

[unreal meadow]

Thank you for explaining mathematically that a 6 person game is not a 2 person game. Can you forward this to SMG’s coding department. They seem to have missed that idea.

[pine ginkgo]

I would phrase it more as, winning is not the same as beating opponents, unless you play 2p. Thus WTA makes more sense, since beating opponents (which is equivalent to placement) will inherently create the possibility to over- or underestimate reality. As shown above.

[unreal meadow]

So pairwise comparison works for 1v1s in risk, checkers, chess, etc. equally well, but if your twister games have more than 2 participants then you need a different model to disentangle who is the best twister player after some number of games.

[pine ginkgo]

You may notice that 1v1 is also WTA

If beating more opponents makes you a better Risk player is subjective I would say. The argument is that it inherently doesn't match with the reality of playing FFA games.

[unreal meadow]

I think I understand your point. Whether your opponents beat each other and you out played maybe just one player or you actually outplayed the entire board would both result in a win and so yes it is a subjective matter if beating more players makes you better at risk.

But playing and beating a number of opponents at once (ideally five) makes you a Risk player. 1v1s especially manual placement ones could be seen as Risk adjacent logic puzzles. It is an impressive skill, I’m glad it has a leader board, but come on. The fact that 1v1s have I assume an accurate and fully functional ranking system / leaderboard and ffa Risk, aka Risk does not is ridiculous.

If WTA is the only solution then so be it, but it seems to me that the math demonstrates that the current system doesn’t work for ffa and perhaps that WTA would work better but it does not demonstrate that WTA is the best solution? Are there rank formulas that could be made for 6 player ffa that are not WTA and function? If so then they would be the competitors with WTA and not the current system.

This is why I was asking @crystal sorrel to actually convince me and not just claim that it was better. He seems extraordinarily biased when it comes to WTA perhaps because he made a elo formula that works with WTA.

I can see various positives of a WTA system but I also anticipate some down sides. The ranking system becomes part of the game in the way it affects motivation for play and the way a WTA system might motivate taking sixth and moving on to another game if a win is not possible is not good for the game. Every position should be played for maximum longevity and yes maximum chance of the win but also for the best possible placement. There is more to the game than just winning. In games and life there are moves still to be made even from a losing position. But of course that is all my opinion (which I have no problem acknowledging).

[sterile crystal]

Thank you Jack for this response. This is the type of response that might actually persuade a non-believer. As I had said before, I am sure your mathematical knowledge is far superior than mine, thank you taking the time to try and explain it to me. I appreciate it. I did notice that you said “an argument could be made,” so my question to you is are you supportive of a WTA ranking system? In your post, while you actually made a factual argument for it, I’m not sure if I read your support of it. @crystal sorrel I think the difference between you and Jack is he actual made what appears to be a factual argument in favor of a WTA system. The method of you presenting that claim is lost to “non mathematical people like me.” However, if you want to persuade a simpleton like me (and there are probably a lot more risk players like me, than you or Jack) your method is lacking. I can appreciate Jack’s response. I may not get the math behind it. But at least it is presented in a way that I could look further into it. Thanks again Jack!

[crystal sorrel]

I'm glad to see you are coming around to WTA is at least better than current system. But it seems you are stuck on it being the best.

Let's go back to the premise that each games objective is to win. Then the better players will win more often. So we measure players win rates taking into consideration player count, and strength of opponents. I'd love to add map and other game settings into consideration but I personally do not have the data to accommodate those into my formula. Sure in an ideal world all that is taken into consideration. Then for a new game you could use each players win rates and feed that thru the formula that takes everything into consideration and it would predict an outcome for the players but only enough for predicting who wins, as that is the only meaningful metric that would affect the players rating after the game.

As soon as you start taking into account other finishing positions, now the best players are incentivized to maximize scoring positions. No longer does the best player win more often but instead gets the best average position, which now no longer matches the objective of each game. So now the outcome of the game may be changed by what you are measuring.

[unreal meadow]

Sorry you misunderstood me this whole time. There is nothing for me to come around on.
I am certainly not stuck on it being the best or needing to be. Perhaps you thought I was in argument with you because I was anti WTA or pro current system or pro reward for second place, but that is not so.

If I have a position at all it would be that strong claims need strong proof. And you seem to not just claim that WTA is the best but that it is the only solution. I am and was dubious of this overly strong claim and therefore had questions. So perhaps one could say I am stuck on you claiming that it is the best.

As I’ve already indicated I’d be all for trying different leader boards / ranking systems different ways. And if I wasn’t tempted by the promise of some of the possible positives of WTA I wouldn’t have been questioning you in the first place.

Though this is all probably sadly academic because it is probably beyond SMG’s capacity to successfully enact such a one leader board test let alone an actual successful switch over.

Anyway this last bit you wrote is the clearest expression you made of your position in at least the interchange with me. As you express yourself more clearly it is easier to see exactly what assumptions are necessary to get to your conclusion. It is helpful to understand that terms and assumptions need to be agreed upon. It will not convince anyone to just insist. “Only winning matters therefore a system in which only winning matters is the best system for measuring winning”. Well maybe it would convince some people. It sounds pretty good, but it is just word salad and if WTA is as good a method as you claim and I suspect then it deserves a more convincing argument on its behalf than that.

Obviously your more clear expression of position leaves me with some of the same questions I had at the start, but I won’t get too far into the weeds of that at this time.

[dapper condor]

The GM tournament proves my point as I have stated. Sure its winner take all but its in VC, its a set of 3 games, and there's alternate win conditions. If it was a single game winner take all without those other steps it wouldn't work. You could make it work but it would be incredibly luck based and it would be the same variation of settings over and over again. No set on 4? Good luck next tournament.

There is absolutely no system that has worked with what you are suggesting. When every game is winner take all, with no VC, and no alternate win conditions, it has not worked yet. What is your solution to this?
@crystal sorrel

[crystal sorrel]

So you claim you aren't stuck on it being the best solution and then turn around and say you are stuck on me claiming it is the best, which is just semantics. That's still the part you have issue with. And the only proof I can offer that you would accept, is i challenge you to come up with a system that promotes winning more than a wta system.

You are 100% correct that this is merely a thought exercise, and SMG would never update their elo formula since they don't even understand it to begin with. Just like they need to update their BB estimate formula, which is honestly more impactful to individual game outcomes than the ranking system.

[crystal sorrel]

The gm tourney used to not have all those gimmicks and it worked just fine. The only thing you mention that's been there from the beginning and is required is the 3 game format. We all accept that the games have luck in them. That is undeniable in a game with cards and dice. The most effective way to mitigate such luck is multiple games. That is why in a fully functioning WTA rank system it's required to have a large enough sample size. Any elo system requires a large enough sample size, so there is no difference in that aspect from the current system.

Gm tourney experimented with incorporating a bounty system once bc official FFA tourney uses it so it must be a good feature. It was a disaster. Apparently hot bunz didn't have that history lesson and tried a version of bounties with WTA and it was more of a disaster in her HBWT.

Now for the VC aspect, I believe this was to be able to overcome stalemates to make it easier to work together. Some argue that it can cause stalemates instead of preventing them. Regardless, it has no affect on the validity of WTA system. It's just a tool one can use to win the game. I personally think it allows poorer game settings to become tourney viable more than it ruins already good settings. But either way there is a winner that advances.

Other wacky settings with alt win cons are only possible bc of the WTA system, not the other way around. Caps and 70% dom are alt win cons that SMG created, but parlox or his staff have invented some very creative and unique alt win cons. Those are only possible because of the game and "rank system" alignment that one must win to advance whatever that condition is. Those alt win cons he and his team created would not work in the traditional tourney format where people are incentivized to earn bounties and gain points rather than meet the alt win con.

[unreal meadow]

No not just semantics. I said “perhaps one could say”. I was just granting that in as much as I seem stuck to you (in that our interchange continues) it it is on the failure of the expression of your position. I am not actually stuck. I have no side.

I was just curious about WTA or more accurately your version of it and what your rational for it was. Unfortunately my questions were dodged, side stepped or ignored to a large part and now I am beginning to form an opinion. This is unfortunate because one should not decide until one decides. Prejudging and jumping to conclusions tends to lead to a situation in which all evidence is bent to the preformed position rather than accepted as is. But of course this is a common cognitive bias and must be actively guarded against.

It has become increasingly apparent that you are biased to your version of WTA and will take any question as an attack rather than an opportunity both to examine and question your own position and to better express and support your position (if possible).

I was looking for a sound argument not proof. Instead I see in part a circular argument and the insistence as facts those which are assumptions most of which are merely a matter of preference. They might be my and many others players preferences if they were expressed in the correct terms. But assumptions need to be acknowledged, starting terms need to be justified.

So here is a question. Why should a measurement system promote winning?

Is that not just as much a measurement system interfering with what it is measuring as that which you note in your quote below?

“As soon as you start taking into account other finishing positions, now the best players are incentivized to maximize scoring positions. No longer does the best player win more often but instead gets the best average position, which now no longer matches the objective of each game. So now the outcome of the game may be changed by what you are measuring.”

[cold carbon]

This thread is poppin’

[sterile crystal]

Slack, many of us think the ranking system can be improved. I may disagree with Obiwan on several points, but on that item, I think we agree. People do care about the ranking system, so whether they are numbers/math guys like Jack and Obiwan, or a simpleton non math guy like me, I think we want to see it improved. Getting any type of agreement about what is a replacement will be tough. Obiwan’s point about my lack of great mathematical thinking could be fair (although I like to think that with good explanations I can find my way), but for the community to come together around a common solution it will also take good explanations (which take patience for those with that advanced knowledge) to help people like me understand. Otherwise, you should a poll ever be brought to bear on this topic, it will never even be close to consensus. And by some miracle, if we did ever reach consensus, the real question of would SMG ever implement it? I doubt it.

[crystal sorrel]

You claim my argument is unsound or circular and that my facts are merely assumptions. That sounds pretty good to undermine my point if any of that were actually true. And no I don't take your criticism as a personal attack, I just fail to see how one can still be unconvinced when the evidence is as plain as day. You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. I will give you one last chance to drink.

You ask why a rank (measurement) system should promote winning. I feel like a broken record and believe it's quite obvious. The object of each game is to win. That's not my opinion, that is fact. Now the reason people play the game may vary: some like the challenge, while others enjoy the act of winning itself, others just find it fun regardless of outcome. Those various motives do not change the game's objective. Nor does it change the measure of what makes a skilled player, one who achieves the objective more often (when accounting for opponent skill and player count, etc) than others. So to put it simply, the measurement system must promote the games objective. Why you ask?(of course you would, even tho I've already answered, I'm giving you one last chance to follow logic) When the two are in harmony the best play in a game is also best for your rank, which is measuring how likely you are to make the best moves (remember better players have better ranks). If those are not in harmony, the game's objective will not be the primary focus in the meta when people are playing for rank. Then you get circumstances where the best play (to maximize winning) in the game (stated objective to win) will not be the best move to maximize one's rank (a measure of a players ability to win more often). Then rank no longer measures who is the better player, as they no longer make the winning moves. This is what you call a logical contradiction. And it happens any time you incorporate something other than winning into a ranking system. I leave this as an exercise for the reader.

[cold carbon]

That was just a really long way of saying ‘this thread is poppin’ tho

[crystal sorrel]

I said I was going to leave this as an exercise for the reader, but i can't trust the readers to follow logic. So I'll give a few extreme scenarios, for illustration purposes.

I've heard a lot of people advocating for bounties. In a system that only rewarded bounties you'll get scenarios like the following:

Player 1 kills player 2, player 2 killed everyone else. In a 6 player game, last man standing (player 1) receives 1 point. Player 2 received 4 points. The winner of the game (player 1) didn't maximize his scoring potential in the game, unlike player 2 who fed the game to player 1 by doing so. Now this might be a preferred way to play for some players, but that doesn't change the facts that the stated goal of each game (being last man standing) is no longer represented by the ranking system, and is therefore promoting an entirely different game than the one being played.

Now let's look at a simplified example of the current system, one that promotes playing for position. 1 point per position in 6 player game, with 1st being 6 points.

Say player A is presented with a 50/50 roll that if he takes and wins, he gets a players cards and goes on to win the game with 100% certainty, but if he loses he will die first. The expected points by taking this roll is 50% of 6 points and 50% of 1 point for an average expected outcome of 3.5 points. Say his other option to not take the roll is just cap stack for a guaranteed 2nd place, which is 5 points. His options are play for the win, expected outcome 3.5 or do nothing for 5 points. Now granted this is oversimplified, but the point remains. Playing to maximize position discourages players from playing to win and ultimately encourages stalemates. Again, this may be a preferred playstyle for some people, but the fact remains that this scoring system doesn't promote the goal of the game. Therefore better players ranked in this manner are not playing the game as it was intended.

[sterile crystal]

Roger that! Much shorter answer.

[sterile crystal]

Thanks for posting this example. I appreciate it and it helps me understand your position better. I have advocated for bounties to be used in addition to the ELO ranking system as I feel it could be an added benefit, as I feel it is an objective of the game to remove other players, is it not? In order to win, other players have to be removed. So I believe that is also an objective of the game to help bring the game to a single winner. But I can completely understand if people disagree with this argument. Should it propel someone skilled at making removing opponents to the top of the leaderboard, no. I am relatively new to Discord, but I really haven’t seen anyone advocate for a ranking system completely based upon bounties, or was that posted a while ago (or maybe it was just an example you were thinking of). I can appreciate your suggestion of a WTA suggestion but I am not convinced it will get the desired outcome you think will have. Here is why: right now under the current ranking system, each player is motivated to play for the highest finishing placement they can, as it will earn them more points the higher they finish and they will lose more points the lower the position they finish. Each player decides what strategy they will employ, their goal is to win at the start. Completing the game’s ultimate objective, which should receive the ultimate reward. However, as play develops and rounds pass by, some positions are know to be lost (6 player FFA games). At that moment, the question is what should the ranking system encourage? If the position is lost under a WTA system, there is no benefit to playing any further as placement will no longer matter. Well, I think placement should matter. To me, there is a difference between finishing last (6th place, and first person out) compared to a person who battled to get to a 1 v 1 with an opponent and lost or the person who battled from a horrible spawn and earned 3rd with great decision making and battled bad dice.

[pine ginkgo]

I've been trying to think a bit more about it. But the main point is that I think @crystal sorrel accurately identified an issue with predicting and scoring placement/ratio of opponents beaten, that doesn't match the reality of how each FFA game is played. It's not only that one can differ in opinion about what the goals of the game should be, it's more fundamental. Namely, that scoring placement leads to contradictions with the reality of how the game is played (e.g., someone has to win, it's non-sensical to predict there would be a less than 100% chance that happens); while scoring wins doesn't have such issues.

I can't promise you there is no other way to solve it and I find it intriguing to consider alternatives, but nothing that I can think of so far would "work", while WTA does. (For example, one of the things I considered is viewing a game as a battle of not losing. Where every time a player dies, there is a new battle to not lose. Which would consider both "winning" and placement, but has a ton of other problems.)

@sterile crystal I'm more interested in discussing arguments in general. I don't know why I should care about anyone their opinion or vice versa (or how one would get to an opinion without being based on the discussed arguments). My understanding at the moment is that WTA solves an issue, of which I wouldn't know how to solve it in any other way. Hope that answers your question about my position.

[sterile crystal]

It does, thanks for answering my question. I am naturally a curious person and I respect your point of view. When I read what you wrote, it appeared carefully worded and could be interpreted a couple of different ways. I appreciate you clarifying it. I also think that if we all want to work towards changing the ranking system (which I think we all do), discussion and debate are important. While I am not optimistic that SMG will change the ranking system at all, the best chance we have is if we agree. That appears to be a challenge on this one. Really though… do we think SMG is going to test out new ranking systems? I doubt it… it’s a lot of work to do it once… let alone twice?!