Existing Gameplay Changes by The Dred Pirate Robards

[lusty spruce]

Welcome @solid jasper! Any feedback from the community will show up here.
Please note that this thread discussion is not shared with SMG.
It is solely for the RISK Community to discuss ideas & provide constructive feedback!

[red ledge]

Why would closing out of the app instead of surrendering affect how many rank points you get? A bot takes over either way. And the game has enough connection issues where that feels like a harsh punishment

[solid jasper]

Because you should not get rank points that are earned by a bot. If you surrender you get the rank points based on the finish position at that time. If you disconnect you can potentially gain position after you aren’t even present in the game. That is a ridiculous situation and I was taking a different tack at correcting it than the typical “change when bots time out for rank” solution that I and others have suggested even recently.

If you can’t be bothered to either stay till the end or surrender then why should the game reward you for your bad behavior?

I also had just had the new (to me) idea that any rank points gained by a bot should go to the bot, but I didn’t add that to the mix this time so as not to confuse things with what sounds like a joke. But the more I think about it the more correct and fair it seems. I want to see where on the leaderboard these bots can climb.

[red ledge]

Then IMO you should reword the idea because there’s a couple issues with the way you have it worded. If you make it to the final 3 players and then quit out, you should get 3rd, not 0 points. If you quit right away you should get 6th and lose points, not get 0. Being able to just quit out of the game and get 0 points would be abused

[solid jasper]

How would it be abused? I have two different solutions proposed. The other one would work as you said here. This one would actively punish disconnects.

Oh I see what you are saying yes… this proposal should be more clear that you would get negative rank points as well as not gaining any.

[red ledge]

If you are about to lose you can just disconnect and get 0 points instead of losing points. As a side note I don’t think disconnects should be “punished”. They should just get the position they disconnect at. Same as surrendering

[gray chasm]

Currently too many players just close the app when they’re losing, instead of surrendering, even though it leads to a worsened experience for their opponents, and there’s zero incentive not to do that.

There’s also also too many players who join too many games and constantly quit or don’t ready up, because it’s so easy to hop into the next one.

Quitting ocassionally in stalemates, against stallers, or losing connection is fine, but the players quitting 9/10 games in the first few rounds, and leaving a bot, are just a nuisance for everyone around them.

This idea, if implemented correctly, would be a step in the right direction.

[red ledge]

How does closing the app instead of surrendering lead to a worsened experience for their opponents?

[solid jasper]

It is a rude dismissive behavior that completely ignores the fact that you are in a game with other human players trying to have a game together. It is equivalent of instead of saying “sorry I’ve got to go” you just got up from the gaming table and wondered off to the bathroom or out the door without saying anything and then never came back.

[red ledge]

But your opponents literally can’t tell the difference. A bot takes over either way

[gray chasm]

In 1v1, with neutral bot, you’re left sitting there for 60 seconds until they time out, instead of ending instantly.

In FFA with neutral bots, instead of the player clearly going out instantly, there’s 10 painful minutes of knowing that the player might or might not come back and scumbag bot-out strategy you.

So you often can’t move the game forward against the human player, in case the bot player comes back, until you know for sure after the 10 mins that they’ve gone MIA, so you can defeat the human and then beat the bot after.

Unlike surrender, in those 10 mins, if the other human player did decide to kill you first, the bot would get the rank points for defeating you.

[solid jasper]

I can totally tell the difference. The bot takes much longer to take over after a disconnect and there is the possibility that you can reconnect at anytime. That is not fair play.
Surrendering with the flag is the only proper way to leave the game and SMG should adjust how things work appropriately. Accidental disconnects we can deal with. Once the problem is fixed then you would know a disconnect was likely an actual internet problem and not a scummy strategy.

[red ledge]

Fake botting out is a different situation and that’s already against fair play rules.

[red ledge]

So are you arguing that players shouldn’t be able to reconnect at all? Because that’s kind of the only solution to the problems you are talking about

[solid jasper]

And SMG should adjust the game to properly discourage that rather than just saying it’s a no no.

[gray chasm]

I feel like you’re intentionally misunderstanding the idea being discussed.

If you wanted to leave a game, would you surrender, or close the app? And what would you expect your opponents to do to you, if they had the choice?

[red ledge]

No I understand the problem. But how does the game distinguish between someone who simply lost connection or someone who had to go to the bathroom and someone who intentionally disconnected?

And why should there be a “punishment” rather than just giving them the position they disconnected at

[solid jasper]

I wasn’t proposing that reconnection shouldn’t be possible (within certain time limits similar or the same as those discussed in my other proposal) it is disconnecting and never returning that this proposal seeks to actively punish. As I already said I should have written it more clearly.

[red ledge]

And again I ask why that should be “punished” rather than just giving them the position they disconnected at. Disconnecting and not returning doesn’t hurt anyone, as you said it’s disconnecting and coming back that hurts the opponents

[gray chasm]

The frequency matters. Similar to the way you can play the same opponents ocassionally, but doing it constantly becomes an issue.

Bad etiquette on quitting ocassionally is fine, but if you’re doing it constantly, and ruining the game for the people around you, then it becomes a fair play issue.

A lot of other online games have consequences for too quitting too many multiplayer games in a time period, because it negatively affects others.

Risk seems to reward those players instead, with rank points for their bot

[gray chasm]

If they wanted to play with a bot, they could’ve played singleplayer, or made a lobby with a bot, instead of wasting time in the lobby.

Excessively frequent quitting and botting makes the game less fun for everyone else around you, just like stalling or emoji spam does.

[red ledge]

Yes true nobody wants to play with a bot, but hitting surrender does the same thing so that argument doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me

[gray chasm]

Yeah, but also nobody wants to be stalled for an extra 60 seconds in 1v1, or have to sit around for an extra 10 mins of uncertainty on whether they’re coming back in FFA.

Surrendering ends it faster and more politely for the opponents.

[solid jasper]

Why should you get rewarded for wandering away from a game? Either play until the end or acknowledge that you are leaving. Perhaps punishment is an overstatement, rather it is the removal of the reward. You currently can bot out intentionally and get rewarded. I want to end that. You currently can quit the game improperly and get rewarded despite that. I want to end that.

[red ledge]

Well I’d be a huge fan of just making it 2 turns instead of 10 minutes. I agree the 10 minutes is weird and arbitrary. And from my understanding you want to incentivize people to hit the surrender button. What’s your proposed incentive to do that? Not sure you have actually said

[solid jasper]

Hitting surrender doesn’t do the same thing. You have a bot immediately and you know you have a bot.

The Surrender flag means sorry I have to leave… I will be replaced with a bot (of whatever type the settings indicate).

[gray chasm]

Could help to give a warning next time they open the app, along the lines of “This is the 3rd time you closed the app in an online game today, which worsens the experience of your opponents because … , next time please use the surrender button here”

[red ledge]

You can’t see the surrender flag in active bot games so this isn’t relevant. Although I think you should be able to see it

[solid jasper]

Yes there is a lot for SMG to fix.

[red ledge]

I’d be a huge fan of this

[gray chasm]

Yeah 2 turns would be better, and should apply to Automated too

[red ledge]

100%. The bot activity shouldn’t change how disconnects are treated

[gray chasm]

Too many people botting out is one of the most complained issues of online Risk, so it’s a high priority issue, worth implementing a few ideas on, to make the game better

[red ledge]

No I agree. I just don’t think it should swing too far to the “punishment” side. It would push players away. That’s why I like your notification idea. It educates and informs while pushing people to the better option, without affecting the points players worked hard to earn

[solid jasper]

For the surrender flag to be motivated the rank incentive for botting out has to be removed. I think this is accomplished even by my other proposal.

I like sterling’s idea of an information message since many players might not even understand rank enough to be motivated by lose or gain or even know about the surrender button for that matter.

[red ledge]

But I also think SMG needs to change things inside the game before these changes are made. They need a better server reconnection process. The surrender flag needs to be visible for active bots. The rejoin screen shouldn’t be available for more than a couple turns. Etc

[gray chasm]

Can be broken down into a few problems, that possibly need their own solutions:

1. Fake bot-outs
2. Constant-quitters
3. Ready-up bots
4. Human players fighting each other and leaving bot until last, gifting botted player 2nd
5. Uncertainty over whether a botted player is coming back
6. Disconnection bugs
7. Waiting longer for the game to end in 1v1, depending on how the opponent quits

[solid jasper]

4.1 Or fighting each other and giving the bot first…. as happened in my most recent game 🤣

[red ledge]

Maybe we could start a forum for these problems and work together, along with polls, to come up with community agreed upon solutions to these issues? Then SMG might fix them. Idk

[gray chasm]

Even happened in the FFA World Final before

[solid jasper]

Or SMG may be too busy figuring out how to squeeze hair cream ads into the empty spaces of all the risk maps. I hope not. 🤣

[red ledge]

Ok that’s an idea they don’t need 😂

[solid jasper]

Correction>>

Please correct fair play rules by adding "Only players who properly finish the game gain points in ranked play. You may finish the game by winning, being present at the win, finishing the game by being eliminated, or surrendering. Those who disconnect, close the app or simply go inactive letting a bot take over and do not reconnect and resume play within the rules finish in the lowest position that was available at the time of their disconnection and loose rank points if appropriate but if their finish position would gain them points then they get zero points instead". Please update the way rank points are distributed accordingly.

[karmic cape]

I agree that it being reworded would be better - at the moment it looks more like a jab at players experiencing connection issues (and for punishing players that disconnect, even briefly) at the moment players being stuck in the "game won't end" issue are still given 1st place based on these parameters being in place, if this was added they may be placed anywhere between 2nd and 6th depending on who was for example spectating longer

[solid jasper]

Oh I really do need to make it clearer if it appears that spectating would count for anything other than “properly finishing the game by being eliminated”.

In the system I am trying to describe then surrendering in a game won’t end scenario (the last player stuck in endless turns despite having taken the board) would get 1st placement as they should, although that endless game thing is a problem that really aught to be fixed before SMG gets around to implementing my ideas 😉

[drowsy linden]

what about a karma system like mobile legends? has that been suggested before?

[solid jasper]

Correction version 2>>

Please correct fair play rules by adding "Only players who properly finish the game gain points in ranked play. You may finish the game by winning, being present at the win, finishing the game by being eliminated, or surrendering. Those who disconnect, close the app or simply go inactive letting a bot take over and do not reconnect and resume play within the rules and time allowed will finish in the lowest position that was available at the time of their first disconnection and loose rank points if appropriate but if their finish position would gain them points then they get zero points instead". Please update the way rank points are distributed accordingly.

[urban patrol]

I like it.
It would also influence endgame strategies in a positive way.
As is, the optimal strategy is often to go after the bot - if he's last anyway you would not.

[solid jasper]

Yes nothing in the game should ever encourage anyone to let a bot finish for them. If you must leave then you surrender and a bot replaces your position is the proper way to look at it and for it to work. The bot should never be playing for your benefit (except in the very limited case of a brief accidental disconnect). If there is a bot replacement lasting for more than a brief time then it should be there to try to preserve some semblance of a game of risk for the opponents and not for any other reason.