POLLS: Do we enjoy how games are played?

[candid bronze]

As it is now, automatch is not the ideal way to get into a game of Risk for many players trying to climb the rankings. What we currently have is these players choosing a select number of maps and pairing them with specific "meta" settings.

Do you personally like the way matchmaking is currently done in RISK: Global Domination?

Would you like automatch to play more of a role in ranked gameplay?

Would you like automatch for both free-for-all and one-on-one play?

Would you like an automatch for casual unranked games?

Would you choose maps or game settings to influence rankings more? (Choose One)

[worn totem]

Would you like a separate leaderboard for automatch?

[candid bronze]

Feel free to discuss your opinions. I have been thinking on this subject a little bit and just didn't know how to get the conversation started. This way I get a better understanding on others opinions before diving headfirst into it. Didn't just want to flood everyone with a big wall.

[mortal comet]

I believe some kind of automatch system is needed for the future of ranked Risk.

The ridiculous lobby system we have right now is not viable for ranked Risk. I would keep it for the Casual section and potentially give it its own ranking for fun, but the leaderboard representing the best players at the game of Risk can not be one putting those at the top who destroy a bunch of noobs in their own modified lobbies over and over again.

I see the need for skill based matchmaking. And therefore I see the need for an automatch system.
Lobbies will have to be anonymous, to avoid targeting. And top player who "know each other" will have to be allowed to face each other again.

For settings, there will probably have to be a "ranking council", consisting of experienced top FFA and 1v1 players who approve of a variety (the bigger, the better) of competitively viable settings which will then either be added to the game in a specific cycle or decided through a vote by the common player.

All these things are necessary for ranked Risk to become competitively viable again, based on my thoughts and opinions.

[mortal comet]

I don't quite understand this point. I'm not opposed to it, it's just not on my list of priorities.

[candid bronze]

Yeah, it is an interesting thought I had. What if we moved Classic Only Automatch to casual games? Does everyone who plays Automatch, right now, want to be ranked in Risk?

I would like to see more maps in Ranked Automatch.

[mortal comet]

The Automatch we have right now is just an unfinished prototype. You could just play the same settings in an open lobby system if you really wanted to.

Automatch is only truly needed if there is some kind of ranking in play. Or am I missing something?

[candid bronze]

If it works as Rank Matchmaker, I guess so. Is that how Automatch works now? Or does it just group a bunch of players together, that haven't played each other recently or been reported for cheating?

Regardless of rank.

[mortal comet]

That is not how it works currently.

It's what I'm dreaming of. I'm afraid it's just completely random as of now.

[fair crane]

Right now automatch is used so little that if you que up back to back you will sometimes land in the same lobby with people you just played.

Which is really fun, when they decide to totally suicide you instantly for the last game

[candid bronze]

That bad, just wow. I haven't done automatch since 2022, I think.

[fair crane]

And any lobby that showed 5/6 failed to load when I tried to use it, so every game was just up to 4 players, so either 4 humans or 3 humans 1 bot

[candid bronze]

Yeah. I was thinking keep the current automatch, but move it to casual games. Build a new rank matchmaker for ranked games. This would include more maps into a random rotation. I like the idea of a council or an official SMG poll to choose these maps.

[candid bronze]

POLLS: Do we enjoy how games are played?

[strong vigil]

maps and settings are both very good ways to do it

[candid bronze]

But if you had to choose, should settings or maps make more of a difference?

[strong vigil]

Both

[mortal comet]

You can choose the best map imaginable, but if you just apply Speed Blitz to it, it immediately becomes bad. While any map - no matter how bad - can become good at least to an extent when played on good settings.

[worn totem]

Settings is a better way to separate it, because they make a big difference to how long games last (especially Speed Blitz, 70%, Caps ect.), and everyone has different time available.

The only difficulty is that currently a lot of players buy maps because they want to host them for ranked games.

If it were automatched, would players still need to own the maps to use them in ranked, and want to buy them

[mortal comet]

We have free maps of the week, so I'd just assume it would also be possible give players access to maps which they don't own though Automatches only.

[candid bronze]

All good points.

This brings my next questions. How much do we want Automatch to be a part of ranked games? If we expand Ranked Automatch enough do we still need custom ranked game lobbies? Sterling, your poll is so far interesting.

This gives me the feeling that we want to treat Automatch and Ranked Custom Lobbies as different sides of ranked play. I for one am honestly mixed on a separate leaderboard for Automatch. If both Automatch and Custom Ranked Lobbies stay, I guess it makes some sense. However, I also see other opportunities.

Should we focus on one side more or maybe try to blend them together?

Let's say there were more settings as to what games players connected to with Automatch. Players could select a few core settings to specify what kind of game they want to play. Do settings change maps more than maps change settings? Or in a way, are maps also a setting?

Where does the map fall in importance compared to any other setting?

To the point about map purchases, I would say maps would need to rotate in and out of the Automatch system pretty often. It would need to be only a handful of maps in the matchmaker at any given time. If I had to make a practical suggestion: I would say Classic + Maybe 3 per "quarter" season + Free Maps of the Week for FFA and Maybe 4 per "quarter" season + Free Maps of the Week for 1v1.

[mortal comet]

IMO, the 'True' ranking should be Automatch only.
The open Lobby system we have right now is not viable to represent the best Risk players there are on a leaderboard.

It could have its own ranking for fun. That would be the best outcome for the system we currently have.

The focus should therefore be on the Automatch system.

Maps are also very much their own settings.

In importance I'd probably rank it after the game mode and card Bonus but before anything else.

Yes, there needs to be rotation. The more settings to choose from, the better.

[storm flame]

I think a simple fix to a lot of the complaints and issues would be to give bot out opponents last place. A more sophisticated fix would be to look at the chess world and use our ranking or ELO to match similar ranked players together. In chess, GM's typically play other GM's...they cannot farm beginners as they get ZERO points for playing them...

[worn totem]

Would be great if we could put together a list of maps and settings recommended by top players, to give to SMG, so they can use it if they do choose to make a competitive settings automatch one day

[winter rapids]

Maybe each player would suggest a map they own and then everybody votes for one map?

[worn totem]

Yeah I like that

For 1v1, or ties like 2 votes for each map, they could use RNG as a decider

[heavy plank]

I suggested that a while back as a way to replace the host deciding the settings and it was not well liked

[lean crest]

The overwhelming majority of this community wants to play settings they enjoy, and want that to be ranked play. So, I think it was JW who suggested that if there is a day when automatch is set up, it is an additional database/ranking and not a replacement of what currently exists. I think that is a good idea and would be well received.

[worn totem]

Doesn’t mean it’s wrong

[lean crest]

No, it doesn’t mean that it is wrong, and it certainly doesn’t mean that it is right either. It was only a measurement of those who responded to the poll over the period of time that people viewed it. Just a word of caution, as I am observing some interesting trends in these discussions. Some people are “pushing” their opinions of what is right as the “only” correct ranking system and structure. Like the thought expressed above that let’s get a group of highly rated players to suggest the map or rules that automatch should have. Arrogance, that those are the people who should decide… instead of self appointing a group, why not think of a way to get input from the community about what it should be? Why not a poll about it being classic fixed? Or classic progressive? Or poll the community (in a more inclusive way than this discord) about rule options that are preferred? Just a thought.

[worn totem]

Yeah, running some polls to gather more data on what the players really want is always a good thing.

[mortal comet]

Do we really want to let the common player give their unfiltered input on what the most competitively viable rules and settings for an ideal ranking system should be?

Or do we rather want to have the most experienced and most successful players suggest settings that are going to be based on competitively viable standards?

I can only see this through the eyes of a competitive player. I'm handicapped that way.

I really liked the suggestion of keeping the current open lobby bullshit system as it's own 'fun' ranking while adding a better competitive leaderboard for those who would like to compare themselves on the highest levels.

You could even split that leaderboard or create categories for certain game modes/settings.

I can enjoy some bullshit up to an extend. The variety is what makes Risk so fun for me. But I will always search for ways to play true competitive games.

I believe the majority of top players will agree with me here.

If a ranking system isn't made for those who are going to be ranked the highest... then I don't see the point in having a ranking system at all.

To me it's ridiculous that when I open Risk and want to play it at the highest levels, that I wouldn't go straight to the in-game ranked section but instead would have to pair up with other top players in the "Play with Friends" section. Is that really how it should go?

[deft socket]

They do have a point that players at the top have a feasible bias (wanting to maintain being at the top) vs other ranked players

And to be fair, if for example it was voted by top players that there was 3 ranked FFA options and none were classic fixed, we'd suddenly have a PR problem with reviews / social media that would absolutely override a vote 😄

[mortal comet]

Obviously more options are always better than just a few. And the point of having a list of recommendations is, that the players themselves wouldn't choose what would finally be implemented. They'd just offer their experience for good.

[heavy plank]

I think you have a lot of good points. I would love an automatch system for ranked but there’s a couple things I just keep getting hung up on.

1. I refuse to support a system that would give the player suggesting it more power over that said system. Because let’s be honest if there was any sort of council or committee responsible for giving potential settings to SMG, you would be on it. To be clear I’m not saying a committee with you on it is a bad thing, simply the fact that you are a strong advocate for a system that gives you more control over the game. And let’s be real, the other players that fit your criteria of “the most successful and experienced players” is like Arco, Pete, Sterling, Parlox, Kylted, JJ, etc. These are the same players that have been controlling tournament settings for YEARS. Why would the same people also get to control the ranked settings? Because now you would have the same handful of players controlling every aspect of competitive risk play. An Oligarchy of Risk. Not what I want.

2. Nobody has ever really answered the question of how you make the leaderboard truly skill based. When you put a bunch of GMs in a game together there’s not many viable settings you can play considering there’s no VC, no bounties, and no alternate win conditions. That leaves you with prog WD and 70% options primarily. And 90% of those games come down to card luck and turn order. That’s why it’s so hard to win tournaments, not only do you have to play well but you also have to get very lucky. Anytime you have no set on 4 you are basically knocked out of the tournament. And what’s the point of a competitive leaderboard if it’s may the luckiest player win.

And yes I understand this would just be an addition and nobody would “have to play it” but if this became a thing the community would stop caring about the other leaderboards and this one is the only one that would count. Which would mean you would basically be forced to play it. There’s already tournaments based on the sabr ranking, there would be tournaments based on this too

[deft socket]

If you had for example 5 ranked FFA queues:
1 classic fixed
1 classic prog
3 others...
And you have a rank for each (so the first time you play on ANY you are Novice) - if you get to GM on classic fixed you'll stay GM on it next season
If you get to GM on {caps supermax} - the next time it pops up (maybe 4 seasons later or maybe 10 weeks later) you are still GM on that
(So the season drops only occur for when a mode shows up again)
It'll mean players can aim for GM on each mode, and they've been playing their peers to get there (based on their rank at the time) - and can maybe unlock new modes or trophies/achievements for getting to GM (mastering) settings

[mortal comet]

1. Well then who should set that standard? My Grandma? 😂
   Who else would be qualified to recommend and approve of competitively viable combinations of settings and game modes?
   What would that council actually control? They'd just offer their experience for good by giving some recommendations, right?

2. I've said this before: Sounds like you don't like competitive Risk. And you do see the lack of good alternative game modes/settings.

But what the hell does that have anything to do with the things said here?

That's extremely pessimistic thinking, if you'd rather keep the current bullshit because the suggestion for improvement doesn't satisfy all your ideals.

In (2.) you pointed out a lot of issues with risk in general.

And you're saying: "No, I don't want this aspect to improve, because look: All these other aspects aren't good yet".

[heavy plank]

I would definitely like a change to the current system don’t get me wrong. And I think Automatch is the way to go but I’m against rank limiting (GMs only playing GMs and Novices only playing Novices) and I’m against a council of “Elites” controlling the settings.

The problem with the council system is that SMG would only use the suggested settings and not any other ones. I think the ideal system is just to keep it in SMG. If they wanted to look at tournament settings from say the main server FFA tournament or the KPO for ideas or inspiration that’s great! I am just against a council saying “here’s our pre approved list”.

And again I will say, I love competitive risk! But no tournament has successfully incorporated 6 player FFA risk with only GMs and made it work without the use of additional modifiers like VC, bounties, and alternate win conditions. I fail to see how if we can’t make it work, how it would work for rank.

[mortal comet]

Anytime you have no set on 4 you're basically knocked out of the tournament.

Not a good tournament structure then, if it doesn't account for consistency.

How does that have to with anything here?

[mortal comet]

Sorry, you're making absolutely no sense to me. That may be on me.

You're just against the change, because you have something against the people currently in control of settings. But you have presented no alternative...

Have you ever heard of the GM tournament? We have had some great games with all GMs, without modifications or Bounties and with the mere option for VC, when it was never needed.

I guess we're playing two different versions of Risk. You'd rather give up on looking for better, because you're convinced nothing will ever be perfect?

Sorry man, I honestly don't get you. I should probably stop responding.

[heavy plank]

I have absolutely nothing against the people in control of the settings. In general I think they work and are good. I’m against a few players having control over everything to do with competitive risk. I just think we should keep the SMG leaderboards controlled by SMG and keep the tournaments controlled by the players. That just seems like the fairest way for everyone.

I have heard and played in the GM tournament multiple times now. It uses VC and alternate win conditions. If no VC and no alternate win conditions worked so well why did it change and why did no other tournament adopt that format?

I think you have me wrong. I’m not giving up on looking for the better. It feels like you have. You have this one suggestion and are refusing at looking at how to improve that suggestion. You are convinced that this is the best we can do and there’s no way to improve that suggestion.

My suggestion for now is automatch with a variety of settings that SMG has picked. (So you click play and there’s 10-15 different settings you can play) you are playing against a wide group of players (Novice - Expert and GM- Intermediate) there’s an intentional overlap.) I think that would be an improvement over the current system. I don’t know for sure that it would work or that it’s the best idea.

[lean crest]

I agree with many of your points Ace.

[lean crest]

You ask if we should give the “common” player input? My response is an absolute yes. As someone pointed out in an earlier conversation, there are tons of people who play this game. Each voice should be heard on something this important. Should higher ranked/skilled players be heard on the issue, sure. Please remember that the ranking system isn’t here JUST for the top ranked players. It is here for EVERY player. Which does mean that all voices (more than ours here on this discord) should be heard on the matter. Well, at least… that is my opinion. For whatever that is worth… my wife frequently tells me it is worth 1/2 of what hers is worth….

[mortal comet]

Then who the fuck would decide the settings?

EDIT: Meant to say: "Who would suggest these settings" in respect to a competitively viable standard to choose from.

Clearly you have something against the people in control of the settings. You're contradicting yourself here.

Yes, the GM tournament is always looking for better settings, but it is also making good use of the conventional in-game settings. That was my point.
It doesn't work perfectly, but it works, so I don't see a place for your pessimism here.

Obviously I wish for a greater variety of game modes and settings, but that has nothing to do with this.

I'm not giving up, lol.

I'm the most competitive Risk player I know, so saying I gave up makes no sense. I'm right here, suggesting an improvement for the tools we could use to play Risk competitively. But I will always find ways to play Risk competitively. While you don't even seem to be able to see the idea of competitive Risk and therefore don't want better tools to achieve that.

Obviously there needs to be skill based matchmaking. You can't be serious about that. Unless you want to be pessimistic and say, that competitive Risk can't work.

[mortal comet]

You're acting like I want to steal them their game. I don't. People can have their bullshit ranking for fun.

But if it's not possible to implement a true ranking system, then I will never take any in-game ranking system serious again. As are 90% of all top Risk players. Just for the common player to.... Eh I don't understand? See himself as an intermediate/expert on that bullshit ranking system?

Sorry, I don't understand.

[deft socket]

I'd like to see a vote option at the end of games & at the end of seasons for 👍 👎 or "did you like these settings? Yes | No"
Players can do that at the end of every game or just ignore it (no difference) - and at the end of that season you get an in-app form asking for your feedback (what you liked, what you didn't like)

For SMG side things like rank can be used for grouping feedback to see which ranks are enjoying which settings (and then going for what is most positively reviewed overall)
It also then means that if you enjoy or don't enjoy something, it is in your own best interest to rate it / give feedback - anyone that doesn't really care for or against doesn't have to rate games but can give feedback at the end

[mortal comet]

I lost, so I'll just vote "No" here.

[worn totem]

These are the ones the devs picked in their last proposal.

I’d be interested to see a lineup of what the settings would be for the different approaches e.g.

1. All players vote
2. All players who’ve tried an official tournament vote
3. A ranking council of players who’ve been successful in tournaments vote

If we could see what each of those looked like, it would be easier to recognize which is best

My experience from 1v1 tourneys, which use public votes, is that even when everyone is allowed to vote, only those enthusiastic choose to, so you still get a good outcome

[deft socket]

There is the contradiction that if ranked is purely geared towards tournament settings it will only appeal to a select audience, the ranked mode would need to appeal to most people (so having some more popular deviations from the norm while also keeping the standard experience throughout) - it also wouldn't be too good if we simply replicated tournaments in-app using the same design as community tournaments because the end result would be no reason to participate in community events (until the community can come up with new designs)
It could be that less popular while still popular variations that aren't on ranked will be bigger hits on community tournaments too (so it doesn't necessarily have to work for 100% of people, the community will likely be making their own custom designs for gaps in ranked)

[mortal comet]

We're still talking about the idea of a split here, right?

Of course it would mainly serve a specific audience: Those who want to compare themselves on the highest levels.

While the other 'fun' ranking could stay for those who want to play in an "everything goes" environment.

Is there not a need for a 'true' ranking system? I may be out of my mind, but that's just what I feel.

I don't see a problem with reusing the settings used in tournaments. Risk is so great in variety... There will always be more to explore. That shouldn't stop us from trying to use the best there is.

[heavy plank]

I agree. It’s tough to know what the best solution to who picks the settings without knowing what the said results would be. But IMO that’s exactly why you can’t limit who votes. We all want what we individually want. And so a group of like minded people voting on something isn’t ideal for the game as a whole. And us tournament players are more like minded than you would think.

To answer you @mortal comet I’ve said it multiple times already but I’ll say it again since apparently you missed it. I think SMG should suggest/decide what settings an automatch system has. They are the only ones with what’s best for the game in mind. They have the numbers to know what players like and play and also the motivation to ensure that whatever is picked is best for the game. If they pick bad settings people wouldn’t play and the game would suffer. My second choice would be everyone votes on settings suggested by SMG. Individual players will inherently vote for what THEY want to play so you need a variety of player types voting. Luci pretty much echoed that sentiment.

And I was serious about the skill limits I had. One of the biggest skills in the current FFA ranked is the ability to manipulate lower skilled opponents into doing what you want. Not only that but it allows for a variety of settings to be viable rather than just prog WD or 70%. That’s just my opinion. I’m aware you disagree

[worn totem]

There’s a tricky balance to strike between making ranked competitive enough that it’s not a joke, but popular enough that the masses actually play it

[heavy plank]

Most players play classic fixed because it’s easy to understand and they can figure out how to win. Competitive players don’t play it for the most part because it’s easy to understand and everyone can figure out how to win. Tough balance for sure

[mortal comet]

I see that last point, I guess we just disagree.

I don't think the definition of "manipulating a lower skilled opponent" stops at destroying novices over and over again and seeing who can do that most efficiently. I believe, that once you're past that stage, that you can apply that to other GMs, who may as well be "lower skilled" than you.

Therefore playing on a higher skill level and therefore having to apply skill based matchmaking to it.

There's a serious lack of good competitively viable settings, but that's a different subject, right? No reason to let any pessimistic sentiment about the future of possible in-game modes influence how we feel about this specific idea, right?

About that "SMG should decide" thing: OF COURSE they will be the one to decide. I never said otherwise, lol

And obviously there could be votes from the community - even better. I just don't see how a few recommendations by those who are experienced with it would hurt.

Actually - I've read my messages back and I probably said things that were confusing. I thought we were still discussing this original idea.

-> #1203450215751880724 message

List of recommendations. Not something that is forced upon SMG to use.

My use of the word "decide" was wrong. Obviously top players recommending something would never be able to decide anything.

[lean crest]

Oh, it’s clear you don’t understand my point. I’m truly sorry about that. That being said, I understand your point and your point of view. I just disagree with your opinion. I’m also sorry you feel the need to include profanity in your posts to try and make your point.

[lean crest]

A ranking system is not just for higher ranked players. It is for ALL players.

[fair crane]

It's for all players that want to be high ranked players

[worn totem]

Yeah, it’s easy for top players to want it to revolve around them, or for noobs to want it to revolve around them.

The real challenge is designing something for all levels of player.

[deft socket]

Designing something that first works for most then making changes that specifically apply to smaller subsets of players is more likely to be successful for everyone than trying to get everyone to agree on all of it at once (will just be confusing as an idea)

[heavy plank]

If your suggestion is simply that top players have the ability to suggest settings to SMG and then SMG can pick whatever settings they want then I don’t have a problem with that. That’s probably how it should be done.

What I’m against is having an exclusive club where only a select few have the ability to suggest the settings to SMG (no matter who that select club is). If everyone has the ability to go in and suggest settings (including top players) then I’m perfectly fine with it. For example I think the GM server settings system is great! Anyone can suggest settings and those who care can vote on them. And if you don’t care enough to suggest any or vote on them then you can’t really complain. The same few players end up suggesting and voting on them all (which is more than likely what would happen if a risk wide system were implemented) and that’s perfectly fine. Staff still has the ability to pick from the suggestions or they can let the votes decide. An ideal system in my mind.

I just don’t see the problem with letting everyone suggest settings. The top experienced players would most likely have the best suggestions that end up getting chosen (I would hope that TR caps on overworld wouldn’t get picked over Fixed Dracons) but maybe not. And maybe that player nobody has ever heard of has a great suggestion that works fantastic that SMG would pick.

[worn totem]

Would you want individual players to have any choice over what settings they play?

[heavy plank]

Well they still would be able to right? Or am I misunderstanding your question? You could go play ranked on Classic Fixed, Classic Prog, and whatever else there is. You could also play casual either public or private on whatever settings you want. I think there should definitely be options. Forcing people to play settings they don’t like just means they won’t play and that’s bad for the game.

[lean crest]

No, it’s just for ALL players.

[lean crest]

I agree 100%.

[mortal comet]

Right! If I want to organize a long distance running competition, I always have to watch out, that my 3 year old cousin has had their say on what that should look like.

That's super important, because if I don't consider his opinion, then he may not like how other get the chance to compare themselves on the highest levels.

My cousin COULD also play on the playground a few blocks away, but merely the fact, that I want to organize that competition will drive him away of ever letting me take care of him again.

[mortal comet]

You can see how I'm scared of the common player giving their input, right?

If the right people are listened to by SMG, then that's always more than I could wish for.

In my work as a setting tester I have to make sure, that settings are competitively viable. So I already have to hit a very thin line.
If you can then run my results with the good ones I found (ideally this would just be say 50 settings that are competitively viable - the more, the better) afterwards, for the common player to vote on, then I'm fine with that.

Just imagine my nightmares of the majority of players voting for ridiculous things. Maybe I'm too paranoid.

Whenever I have tried incorporating less experienced players into my work (which I do, I always love to hear from them) they had come up with suggestion that I know just from experience will come back to bite them in a way they do not understand, simply because they lack the experience.
That's just what I'm scared of. If SMG knows who to listen to, then that defeats my worry. But... I won't finish that thought. 😉
I guess I will just have to build some trust?

[heavy plank]

Trust is important. I don’t have complete confidence in SMG. There’s COUNTLESS things they could do better but I do believe they are the only ones who have unbiased motivation to make the game better.

The “common” player giving their input isn’t a bad thing. They should always be included. The game doesn’t exist without them. That input being accepted and used without any verification or testing would be a problem. But I could say the same about anyone’s suggestion. 3irc is one of the most experienced players in the community and he suggests some WACKY settings sometimes. I wouldn’t want those to be in ranked as much as I don’t want the 1v1 automatch settings to be Nikos settings

[deft socket]

Well I have 5000+ games if that is of any reassurance (so I'd probably be involved in the process) 😄

That said, be prepared for some 70% true random rivertown and some capital conquest simple world true random 😂

[worn totem]

Would each of those options count toward different leaderboards or the same one?

[worn totem]

There’s flaws in the map choices made by each group.

If anyone thinks any 1 one group (whether that’s tournament veterans, Grandmasters, masses of inexperienced players, devs etc.) always chooses perfect settings, then it’s easy to show the times, when that person was sorely mistaken.

If we’re looking for 10-15 settings per season, it’s safer to diversify those choices across several groups, than to put all our eggs in one basket.

E.g. if we gathered a group of each of the following, and let them each discuss then vote in a couple of settings:

1. All players
2. Devs
3. Competitive Tourney Players
4. Grandmasters
5. Content Creators
6. Old-School Classic Players
7. ???

We’d have a rich and diverse range of maps and settings, covering a broad range of skills and tastes

Of course each group could disagree with what the other groups chose, but each player would have the choice to pick to play what’s right for them

[lean crest]

Silent, it is amazing to me that you really just can’t see that getting more input from all groups is important in this process. I think that Ace’s post just written is a good explanation of why, I would just say I agree with what he wrote. I hope you read that over and think about it. As well as Sterling’s post!

[mortal comet]

No, I don't see why that would be important.
Vice versa, you seem to be unable to see my point.

You reject the idea of a 'true' competitive ranking system for those who want to compare themselves on the highest levels, even as a coexisting thing to what we currently have, simply because you think it wouldn't be a fun thing for the common player to enjoy?

Why not have a competitive ranking system? In a true ranking system, top players would finally start caring about being ranked again. That's the ONLY purpose of ranking people.
It doesn't truly matter for the Novice/Beginner/Intermediate where he stands on it, if he doesn't want to be competitive.
If the ranking system was true, then ranks would actually matter again for those who care. You cannot tell me, that the Intermediate/Expert has anything meaningful to say about the ranking system. He hasn't even come close to experiencing it to its fullest. He's having fun, and that's great.

Nothing changes for the common player, right? What would they actually lose? They can have their fun on their playground - hell, I'd join them too!

But we do need to have a true competitive leaderboard, otherwise you could just get rid of it.

If you can't see that point, then I don't have to waste anymore words to this conversation, sorry.

[lean crest]

Well, now I believe your reading comprehension skills need improving. I have said that I can understand your point and your point of view, I just disagree with it. A rating system is just as much for a beginning player as it is for the #1 ranked player. Your opinion should be heard, just as much as ANYONE who takes the time to play risk in a rated game and cares about their rating. If you miss that point, you are being obtuse. Any player who looks at their rating, cares about their rating… should be heard on the issue.

[deft socket]

If new players do not enjoy the experience, what happens is that we'll have a solely top heavy rating system (with maybe 1000 players) split across all ranks

[heavy plank]

I feel like that's the current 1v1 leaderboard in a nutshell

[mortal comet]

I believe a lot more people than that would enjoy a 'true' competitive ranking. 🙂

[deft socket]

To elaborate on what I mean, a tournament may have "meta" or "optimal" challenges for top players - why isn't each round this optimal selection?

E.g if "mode -> map -> settings" are the best gauge of skill - why bother with classic fixed or NZ&au 70% etc?

The most challenging things for us are extremely subjective (someone else may find zombies are the most challenging, and sure maybe not knowing community research into it & pathing plays a factor, but the same could be said for having an ai in the game - knowing how they'll act & probability of X over Y decisions can be a massive factor, which impacts the difficulty)

I'd argue that zombie pathing actually simplifies games (gives an edge over the standard player, directing you to follow step by step instructions to go to territories A, B or C) - and all it really achieves is making an easier way to compete Vs others - it also takes away a skill aspect of it just by **being ** understood

We can say "these 10 maps are the most competitively challenging right now" - but if classic fixed & classic progressive isn't there, that removes ~90% of our ranked player base - that definitely damages ranking more than what map / mode is picked, purely by cutting the active player base to 0.1x

[mortal comet]

Preferred Zombies pathing should not be a thing imo.

They should attack randomly, as that would make the mode more competitively viable for everyone to play.

[deft socket]

I would instead argue that the most competitively challenging is more important for tournaments (dedicated areas for competing against the world's best) Vs a ranked system that is for all players

If we even only had 1 ranked mode, everything else was unranked - and it was classic fixed 60s, regardless of how basic or advanced the settings are, it is a massively more accurate ranking system because everyone is competing under the same circumstances - I think that's what should be prioritised for ranked - though I agree classic fixed isn't the pinnacle of gauging skill & competency in RISK - it's one of a tiny piece of cake 😄

[mortal comet]

I don't like the idea of limiting everything to that few competitively viable settings. Every map can be competitively viable. The only reason why we would ever limit that would be to fit it into a system that uses auto match making, forcing us to narrow it down to a smaller selection of temporarily available maps and settings.

Classic fixed and Progressive should always be part of it, as they are competitively viable and the most popular settings there are.

All we would have to do is approve/disapprove the most popular settings for competitive viability and then implement a cycle of settings to run through each week/season.

[deft socket]

I assume the "preferred pathing" stuff is more likely just tied to internal IDs for territories (or alphabetically) based on a very old version made (and it was near completely unknown how it worked by the player base until a small group of highly dedicated players put their sights on fully understanding how it works - a very small group compared to how many now ask for & use pathing maps

[mortal comet]

I 100% agree on that!

[deft socket]

For the other modes it doesn't matter too much on how frequently it rotates (or even if some things are randomised a bit - as long as it's small variations, e.g blizzards on/off as a 50/50 chance)

I'd personally say that any game with blizzards is inherently better at gauging skill than without, purely because there are (although finite) a massive number of variations that completely change pathing and balancing, being able to adapt on the fly with these is much more difficult than learning a strategy and sticking with it to GM

[mortal comet]

One interesting variable would be FOW vs alliances. They don't go together and I see them each as the opposite kind of.

They each challenge you differently and it's purely subjective as to which is 'better'. This one I'd love to see go through a vote.

[candid bronze]

I apologize for my absence, in the above discussions.

I said I would be open to a "council" or an official SMG poll, originally. I never really felt a council would have all the say. SMG would certainly have to take what those players submitted and make the final decision. Always.

I really think official SMG polling is the better option. I would much prefer that since SMG will always have that final say. That way we do get input from everyone. All players deserve to have a voice on crafting ranked gameplay. Doesn't matter if they are a seasoned streamer with multiple tournament wins or a brand new player embarking on their Risk journey.

Just so you know what my opinion is on the matter.

[mortal comet]

I don't believe it'd be wise to get unfiltered input from inexperienced players if we're trying to implement a 'true' ranking system.

If we're looking for the best compromise and not for a 'true' ranking system, then I believe taking the most popular settings instead would be the best alternative.

Better yet, I believe these could coexist as suggested here a while ago.

-> #risk_ideas message

The benefit of having a 'True' ranking system in some shape or form would be to have an ideal to strive towards. Which may not directly affect the common player, but definitely benefit him in the long run.

[candid bronze]

Risk needs to go beyond the most popular settings, in my opinion. We need to find new ways of playing Risk. The only way to do this is to play risk in every way and listen to everyone.

You want to run tournaments on your favorite settings. Go ahead. That doesn't mean the global ranked gameplay needs to run on those settings.

[mortal comet]

Now please don't mind me asking: How is that not contradictory?

If you listen to everyone, then you'll get the most popular settings. End of road.

If you want to find new ways to play Risk, then there'll have to be someone with an expertise to find that direction, someone experienced. Right?

I'm very much for finding new ways of playing Risk, which is why I chose to become a settings tester for tournaments. Someone that wants to find new ways to play Risk, make it challenging in new ways for the top players to play. An ideal to strive towards. If you don't think that should exist, then I don't see the need for a change in the current system.

Those "new ways to play Risk" could even be things I don't enjoy. Every experienced or 'good' player has a different taste. Risk is great in variety. Making it all about "oh, that's just what you would enjoy" is super wrong.

But I believe, that if you put a great variety of people who all know their stuff well in their own way together, that they will always come to great results.

I've seen that in the discord community. And I believe for that to be true for all the experienced players not using discord too.

[mortal comet]

If we force everyone to vote on something they don't understand or simply aren't interested in, then that will always lead to more problems.

If we instead have a team of experienced enthusiastic players, who all care about that same goal, then we'd actually achieve something meaningful.

[lean crest]

Silent, you are making this out to be a much more complicated thing than it really needs to be. It really isn’t that complicated. If SMG sent out a poll to ALL members asking for their input about potential rules for a database for an automatch structure. Something along these lines. Question 1: should fog be enabled on such a database? 1) yes, 2) no. Question 2: Should alliances be on in such a database? 1) yes, 2) no. This really isn’t that complicated. SMG reviews the selections and has the ultimate review to ensure the choices are playable. Test it out. Revise in a future season. People understand the different types of rules.

[worn totem]

Yeah sounds like he wants to have his cake and eat it. Wants all the benefits, and none of the consequences

[mortal comet]

~~This may come as a total shock, but this kind of feature already exists. 🤯

There's an open lobby system in which you can choose to play with whatever settings you want.

If you simply want to apply Automatch to it, the best and most effective compromise would be to go with the most popular settings. No voting even needed. Voting would even skew results, as not everyone will give their true input as they would when hosting games with complete settings, limiting the variety of different settings even further.~~

(EDITED: probably no point in arguing with you over that. I can live in a voting system as you suggested it here. I probably got carried away by what I can only dream of. )

~~I would simply wish for a True competitive system. But I can settle for one where the most popular settings are used and I can hope for the meta to closely resemble skillfulness. I have that trust in the Risk community.

If you don't want that, that's fine. It's fine, if you disagree with me. It just feels like you want to let me know "screw you and your idea, I wanna keep what we have". When I'm simply proposing a coexisting thing.~~

[worn totem]

You’re right that popular and competitive aren’t always the same, so simply identifying the most popular settings isn’t enough to choose the most skillful ones

[mortal comet]

I believe that popular can be competitive to some extent and I could live with that. No need to skew results with votes in hopes to achieve something very unrealistic.

But, I also believe, that competitive can become popular, if it is done right. So having both exist in some shape or form will always be beneficial as far as I can see.

[lean crest]

Isn’t that why most of us who are saying that input should be taken in from all, should still have that data reviewed by SMG to ensure the results are playable and competitive?

[candid bronze]

What do you think I am saying and why do you think it is contradictory? I am using your definition of "popular settings" (Competitive settings). @mortal comet

What do you mean? What do you think I want, and what would be the consequences of what I want? @worn totem

Why do you want tournament settings and ranked gameplay settings to be the same? That will work for you. It won't work for everyone. Keep doing what you want to do with your tournaments. Let SMG decide what is better for their ranking system. SMG needs input from all of their players.

[worn totem]

I think they should get input from all the players, to understand what’s popular, and input from the devs, to see what gets played a lot.

That’s not enough to guarantee skillful settings, so other sources should be included to account for that too.

[worn totem]

I have nothing against the devs being one of the sources on what’s worth including, since they can see what everyone’s playing.

The problem is using devs as the only authority on what’s competitively skillful, without accessing other sources, especially after seeing the settings they’ve had for their automatch for years, and the settings they were going to make the only ones available for rank

[worn totem]

This would work better than including only competitive settings or only populist settings.

Since the skill distribution of players is pretty slanted with up to 80% being novices, and less than 1% Grandmaster, using only all-player votes puts quite a particular slant on it.

It’s fine to include that, so long as other approaches are taken too.

[worn totem]

Tournament settings are voted by players who choose to play Risk competitively, by entering free tournaments.

Of course that’s one of the places we should look, if want to find competitive settings.

Just important to explore other sources of info too, to get the bigger picture, rather than pigeon-holing into 1 approach

[mortal comet]

In the definition I've been using:
popular settings =/= most competitive settings

So when you're saying, that Risk needs to go beyond using the most popular settings, then I 100% agree with you. We need to find new ways to play Risk and we need to have a discussion with the most experienced and enthusiastic players out there, who have experienced playing Risk in every way.

1. To my understanding, your suggestion to achieve that would be to have everyone vote for what settings should be used in such a system (the basis of this discussion still being an automatch system for the implementation skill based matchmaking)

Now I think that is contradictory with the idea of "finding new ways to play Risk". If you have everyone vote on how they think Risk has to be played, then you're gonna end up receiving a very clear image of the current meta - the meta constantly changing (hopefully to the better). The most active and most interested players would be voting and I think that's fine as it is.

That's a very good idea for a compromise and is perfectly in line with what was suggested here
-> #risk_ideas message

2. But now, back to the point you brought up and where we both may be out of our minds 🙂 : The Dream scenario would be to have an even more true competitive system, where the settings can also be a representation of the most skillful ones.

To achieve that, you could gather a council of the most experienced ranked players there are. That way, those who really know their stuff and are interested enough in having that conversation could sit together to come up with the best possible settings for ranked. This council would come in a much greater variety of players than any tournament could ever hold. They could look at a much greater variety of possible settings and wouldn't have to adapt to standards or simply the personal preference of any TO.

(1.) Is talk about something that is more realistic to implement. Something we should be looking at in the near future.
(2.) Is something I'm dreaming of and apparently what you're dreaming of too? Unless I misunderstood you.

To clarify:

Popular settings = current ranked settings that are played most often
'True' competitive settings = settings found by some form of council
Tournament settings = something completely unrelated to this idea. There's probably some confusion, as you brought that up?

If you believe, that (1.) is enough, then I don't see the point in continuing this discussion, as I agree with you.

[worn totem]

What would qualify players to join the council of experts?

[mortal comet]

Some combination of success on the in-game leaderboard and experience (amount of games played)

[worn totem]

Yeah it’d be good to have something meritocratic

[lean crest]

Has anyone actually said use the devs as the sole source of what is competitive? Seriously? Anywhere? Do you actually read the posts that people write? At this point, I highly suspect you do not. I think you just scan quickly (as we all do from time to time) and type out a quick response. I (and several others) have been saying collect input from MANY different sources to determine what ALL people believe are competitive rules and settings. Then, of course, SMG is going to have final say as they are the creators of this online risk product. So ultimately, what they determine is “competitive,” is going to be what it will be. However, I am starting to be worn down in this discussion. Writing the same things over and over again as some people have recently pointed out is pointless. Network upgrade is first priority, and this is no where near on SMG’s radar.

[worn totem]

I might've misread this one then, since it looks like you meant simply having a vote with everyone to determine popularity, then the devs filter those results for competitiveness

Of course devs should be involved in the decision-making process, but it's important not to treat them as a genie-in-the-bottle, that'll just magically summon the most perfect competitive settings, especially when they have other priorities

[lean crest]

Sigh, I don’t think anyone, anywhere is suggesting that. But the devs will be the one programming the game/ settings. Typically, went one plays 5000+ games (as Luci) mentioned above… they have a good concept of reviewing competitive settings. But as also been said by others. A “set” of rules for competitive play (imo) should NOT just be a retread of a tournament setting either. There are a lot more people who do not play in tournaments than those who do.

[worn totem]

Feels like we’re going in circles here, after already establishing that the settings wouldn’t just be tournament settings

[worn totem]

Is there any reason we couldn’t use a mixture of sources for settings, with something like this?

Or as @latent garden has suggested, have some separate leaderboards so there’s spaces for Classic Risk, modern competitive Risk, and custom Risk

[latent garden]

I do not see any disadvantage to having a few leaderboards:

A. Anything Goes/Status Quo
B. Classic
C. Meta Settings
D. Rotating

Players who like things the way they are use option A.  Players that like the classic game use option B.  Players that prefer tournament style settings use option C.   Those that prefer a variety of settings use option D.

The only potential challenge I see with the above is agreeing on leaderboard C (Meta Settings).  I would suggest a group of experienced players propose a few competitive options and then put them to a community vote.  However, even if your preferred settings are not selected, you can still use them to play ranked games on leaderboard A (Status Quo), or advocate to have them included on Leaderboard D (Rotating).

[lean crest]

Would this actually be 8 options. Your four choices for FFA and four choices for 1 v 1? With or without bots?

[latent garden]

Yes. I would envision a FFA and 1V1 version of each leaderboard.

[candid bronze]

Why isolate Classic into its own leaderboard? Just plain fixed cards world domination with no customization? Would other maps be isolated into their own leaderboards? Why stop at eight leaderboards?

My leaderboards would look like...

• 1. Overall Leaderboard (Unfiltered)

• 2. Free-for-all and One-v-One

• Automatic / Semi-Auto / Manual

• 3. Dice and Card

• Balanced Blitz or True Random
• Fixed or Progressive

• 4. Victory Condition

• Speed Blitz
• World Domination: 70% / All
• Capital Conquest
• Zombie Apocalypse

• 5. Premium Customization

• Fog of War
• Blizzards
• Portals
• None

• 6. Map Selection

1V1/FFA - A/S/M > BB/TR - F/P > Game Mode > Customization > Map

[worn totem]

When you play against a Grandmaster you gain a lot more skillpoints per win, and lose a lot fewer skillpoints per loss than if you play a Novice.

If you played someone who was a Grandmaster on other leaderboards, but novice on the precise leaderboard you were playing for, would your skillpoints change as if you played a GM or a Novice?

Since say you play a Balanced Blitz GM who’s not tried TR on TR, they’re definitely better than a real novice, but maybe not quite on the level of a TR GM

[candid bronze]

I guess Rank Classes would just stop at level 2: 1v1 or FFA. Nothing below that would get a rank class. The whole thing is a single leaderboard but with a hierarchy. As we go down the list we are just adding specificity to the above.

As to your note about GMs playing Novices, I feel that should end. Grandmaster should be forced to play Intermediate+. Novices shouldn't get into games with anyone above Expert. That would solve a number of issues.

This is how I rank the importance of specific settings. This was meant to be it's own thread with more to it. I just felt like posting a preview here. I may also just be little insane. Maybe I should just stop?

[worn totem]

Yeah, I agree that GMs shouldn’t play novices for rank.

Even if there aren’t other GMs online, being matched with Intermediate-Master is still better than GM vs Novice, since at least these players know the basics of the game.

[latent garden]

If you transition most ranked play to mandatory auto-match then you need to have a reasonable limit to the number of leaderboards.  Otherwise, it becomes increasingly difficult to match individuals with near-peers.  That said, I think that the existing “anything goes” leaderboard should remain for those who are not interested in measuring how good they are playing peers on a level playing field.

[lean crest]

I agree with most of what you wrote. I would just slightly disagree with your final thought. While it may be partially true that some would not want to measure themselves on a level playing field. It could also be true that people continue to play in the “anything goes” db if they really don’t enjoy the other created databases and the settings established in them. It would/will be interesting when and if this ever happens to see how many games are played in each database to see what the actual preferences of the players are. I’ll use myself as an example, I’d love to play others of my skill level. That being said, I despise fog games. So if there was a meta database established. Well, I just wouldn’t play that database. Then again, if there was a ruleset established in the “rotating” ruleset database, I think I would enjoy playing in that database IF it had rules I enjoy playing.