Ranked by 𝙹.𝚆. 𝙷𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚑

[merry pulsar]

Welcome @tired ridge! 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!

[tired ridge]

PROPOSAL:

1. Retain the current leaderboard as is.

2. Add a new leaderboard that closely resembles the classic game without premium modifiers.

3. Add a new leaderboard that closely resembles the current “meta” settings.
    
   Options 2 and 3 would automatically match opponents with competitors as close to their current skill level as possible.

BACKGROUND:

Typically, individuals involved with ranked play fall into one of three different groups:

Group A.  This group primarily prioritizes advancing up the leaderboard using whatever method works best. This typically involves specialized settings/maps and competing against individuals of all skill levels.

Group B.  This group values playing peers on a level playing field to see who is the best. This typically involves traditional classic settings that the vast majority are familiar with and no premium content (that many players do not have regular access to).

Group C.  This group values playing peers with the least amount of luck possible. This typically involves playing “meta” settings similar to those used in most tournaments.

For leaderboard #3, the community would propose and vote on the meta settings. These could potentially be adjusted each season (but not during a season).

[spring wigeon]

My vote for no is purely because of the skill based matchmaking aspect. There are no 6 player FFA settings that consistently allow the best player to win without it being super stalematey, and at that point it’s not about skill it’s just about who can sit here the longest. This is the reason why someone different wins every tournament. We are forced to have much higher luck based games so the games don’t last forever. And if you do that there’s not much point to a leaderboard.

Both Classic and EU Adv work because the games are mostly filled by less skilled players. Those players are aggressive and waste their troops. This allows the better players to win. You take this away and everyone does the optimal play of sit there and don’t waste troops

[long tusk]

Huh? As someone who tests good FFA tournament settings on a regular basis, I have to disagree with you on that one.

You're right about the fine line between potentially stalemating and on the other hand luck based settings. But that's the nature of Risk.
On good settings, I can see the best players always winning more consistently.

Risk is not a game where one player could win every single time. But it's about consistency. And I'd rather measure that on a higher skill level rather than looking at who can beat up noobs efficiently.

[tired ridge]

Skill based match-making would not apply to first leaderboard (which is exactly what we have now). Those that prefer to play individuals of all ranks using specialized settings would continue to have this option.

[long tusk]

Also, remember that this is a suggestion for both leaderboards (1v1 and FFA).

Or so I think?

[tired ridge]

Yes.

[spring wigeon]

1v1 I’m fine with. FFA I’m not

[safe comet]

Is there any disadvantage though if there’s the current leaderboard that stays how it is and then there’s other options. I don’t see a disadvantage to having both even if you believe that the ffa isn’t possible for meta settings there’s still the main leaderboard

[spring wigeon]

I guess that depends. We don't get many updates to this game. Anything that changes you basically have to be ok with for a couple years (possibly for the rest of the time this game is active) so I don't want to advocate for a system I don't think would work since it might never be changed again. The current 1v1 leaderboard sucks, thats something everyone agrees on, and not one hint has been made that they are even thinking about changing it in a year. And it will be another year from the time they say they are thinking about it to the time it happens.

I would rather refine a system that would have a much higher chance of succeeding before it gets implemented. Or have it be implemented in Casual or some sort of beta leaderboard first (and not the beta battle log if you know what I mean).

Basically, If you had one single chance to improve the ranked leaderboard system, is this how you would do it?

[safe comet]

I’d do anything SMG was willing to do if I think it improved it in the slightest. So if this includes ffa and 1v1 getting a couple new leaderboards. It’s such a small company that praying for a big magical update is almost impossible as they don’t got the staff power/ not to mention it’s not profitable usually. So first step we got separated leaderboards. I think this would be a great next step in the development. As we see there is usually a ton of ideas posted and put on a back burner. So basically why shoot an idea down if it gets us closer to an end goal?

[dim musk]

I agree with a different leaderboard and proper matchmaking options, I just don't personally like how it's presented in this suggestion.

I also think the luck aspect of risk is overstated and there's far more variables in people's control than people give it credit for.

[long tusk]

[polar egret]

I think spliting the leaderboard into gamemode leaderboards sounds more valuable.

World Dom
Zombies
70%
Capitals
Speed Blitz
1v1

This gives the "meta settings" a caps leaderboard. But honestly, I like anything but that. Zombies and prog WD are my fav settings.