One Username

[distant yarrow]

I think that players should be limited to one username to play risk. Think about the negative impact this has upon the ranking system. When a person creates a second (alt account), when they are clearly ranked much higher… and they play ranked games, this distorts every persons’ ranking when they play them.

It is inherently unfair to all. Each player who signs up, should get only one account.

Please remember that anyone can “change” their name, should they want to disguise themselves.

[dapper grove]

I think that you're wanting players to have one account rather than one username (just trying to establish that we're both on the same page there)

One of the most difficult downsides for any game that enforces one account / person, is how you actually define one person from a software perspective.

limit of 1 person per device
This negatively impacts families (e.g two brothers may have separate steam accounts and separate purchases, but only have the one PC)

limit of 1 person per purchase
This can easily negatively impact our younger players especially (quite often if parents play RISK, they may have used their own payment account to set up their child's account) - resulting in separate users with a shared purchase.

limit of 1 person per IP address
Virtually impossible to do. You could technically enforce in use restrictions (only 1 account can be connected from one IP address at a time) but there's a lot of risks involved there too.
Public WiFi networks (e.g Starbucks)
Shared networks (businesses, schools, government as examples)
Mobile IP addresses will change every day or two constantly (any fixed limitations will heavily break for mobile use, many people can share the same IP address at once as the ISP often groups users to one)
Dynamic IP addresses (much more common now than static, these are often recycled too)
Static IP addresses are the only ones that could really be enforced decently (and would result in the results you'd hope for, a small proportion of players though)
VPN use (any restrictions per IP will result in lots of things messing up here)

Additionally it'd just make it harder to track cheating because you'd be removing one of the methods of potential association.

phone verification
This is a little harder to get around, but pretty much anyone can get a SIM card for $1 (so it does have potential forced limits, but not exactly guaranteed) - phone verification is also quite an old form of 2FA that isn't the most secure (it often uses randomly assigned phone numbers to send from, so your message could easily be sent before or after a scam message, eroding trust in using them in the first place) - wouldn't be too bad to add vs limit of 1 account per person

A lot of the potential routes for trying to restrict players to 1 account have little impact on malicious actors (there are ways around anything) - and it tends to just overcomplicate & confuse the process for genuine players.

Wouldn't it be better to just have requirements to access different ranked modes, e.g:
Play 100 games - access to ranked FFA, ranked 1v1, on classic
Play 250 games - access to modifiers in ranked games
Play 500 games - access to any map in ranked games
So these would be different queues, and getting 500 games on each account would be too much trouble to bother with in the first place?

[distant yarrow]

Yes, we are talking about the same thing. Restricting one person to one account. Hey, if putting a games played threshold upon new accounts before they are able to play ranked, that seems like a reasonable solution given the points you state. But people playing on alt accounts is getting old…

[brazen turret]

Ranked is the most popular part of this game. Removing the ability to play that until a crazy amount of games would be a huge detriment. One of the most popular maps is Europe Advanced. Not being able to play that for 500 games would be wild. There’s also almost no good 1v1 settings on classic so you wouldn’t be able to play that for 500 games either.

I don’t think people playing on lower ranked accounts is a problem for FFA. It’s a problem for 1v1. And that would be fixed with an auto match system rather than a system where players weren’t allowed to play. It could also be fixed with an improved ELO system.

[dapper grove]

I agree in the current state it wouldn't be a good idea to add any new restrictions, however if we do have an automatch style ranked mode (where you get multiple modes) there's not really any reason why you couldn't have:
Access Classic ranked after completing 100 casual games in classic
Access something else ranked after finishing in GM class at the end of a season in classic
Etc

There's also more controversial things that would appeal to some players like "premium automatch", where it's a ranked leaderboard for premium players - but again, lot of downsides with splitting up ranked like that too

[brazen turret]

Sure. I would be a fan of a sort of "placement period". Probably should be closer to 10-20 games though.

In the context of this issue I don't think its relevant though. Once there's an auto match system in place there's no real reason to limit who can play ranked because ideally there's a rank filter attached to that auto match system. Even if there wasn't it would remove the ability to snipe the top players lobbies

[dapper grove]

In a sense it'd mean you could have minimum skill entry levels for later ones (kinda like having Intermediate tournaments, Expert tournaments and so on)

[strong vault]

I don’t disagree with any of that, however the phone restriction is a common tactic other games use to limit accounts and it is very effective. You’ll never be able to completely stop it but more blockers in place significantly reduce the amount of smurfs.

[distant yarrow]

There are people who make alt accounts for the sole purpose to target high ranked GM’s for 1 v 1 play. I feel that is an abuse of the ranking system. There should be an attempt to stop it.

[brazen turret]

I definitely agree. It is a real frustration with playing 1v1s due to that. The easiest way to fix is that put a rank restriction so GMs can't play newer players. It would also stop people like Job Mander who absolutely abuse the system. Auto match would also really help. Having to sit there with a relatively uinique lobby makes it super easy to be sniped

[distant yarrow]

I am glad we agree on the problem, but how is restricting who a GM can play a good solution? They are not the “problem.” The problem are people who create a new account to target GM’s, they should be the target of any new rule or action to “fix” the problem.

Well, at least in my opinion.

[dapper grove]

Adding a rank restriction immediately prevents that issue though, right?

[distant yarrow]

I’ll make a bad analogy to compare the problem and the solution. A homeowner goes to the police station after having been robbed multiple times. The homeowner asks the police to catch the criminal who is stealing from them. The police office says, I have an easy fix for you, just move to a new neighborhood. Wouldn’t it be better to all, to catch the thief the home owner asks? No, it’s easier for you to move, the policeman replies… the more I think about it… maybe it’s a better analogy than I first thought it was.

[dapper grove]

You're wanting a solution to "high ranking GM's being targeted by alts" without preventing you from noob-farming then?

I'm not sure how else skill based match making would negatively impact you, while addressing multiple issues for everyone (it's not like your neighbour is going to be robbed because you moved, instead everyone is now in the nice neighbourhood..)

[brazen turret]

Regardless of how you want to look at it the GMs are the problem. They are the ones creating the second accounts to go snipe the ones at the top of the leaderboard. They are the ones abusing the system both with smurfing and with noob farming. There’s no intermediates out there creating a second account to get you if you know what I mean.

Still, requiring players to play others of similar skill is not a punishment. It’s an improvement to the system. Regardless it’s probably the only way this problem gets fixed.

Even if we went with Luci’s suggestion of making them play 500 games before they could join your lobby that would essentially be the same thing. After 500 games they would no longer be a noob and you couldn’t farm them for easy points anyway. I still really dislike that suggestion because it creates a seemingly insurmountable barrier to entry for newer players but whatever.

[strong vault]

More hurdles = less smurfs. It’s a battle tested solution many games employ. There is no single solution that solves a smurf problem, it must be a combination.

[distant yarrow]

Luci, I respects disagree with your assessment. I don’t “Noob Farm” at all. I play anyone who comes into my lobbies. Last season, that was 4-5 GM’s, several Masters, intermediates and plenty of beginners and novices. Unlike others around here, I believe any player should be able to challenge another person regardless of their skill level. How else is a more inexperienced player to learn? You may have a different answer than I give. You learn from playing people who are better than one’s self.

[distant yarrow]

I agree that it is higher ranked players who are creating this problem. The solution seems clear to me, restrict their ability to make a second account. Problem solved.

[torn thorn]

Guilty on having multiple accounts. But the majority I host and don’t join. For now I find it no problem to have multiple accounts, maybe my opinion will change if the ranking system will get an update.

[distant yarrow]

Not every high ranking player or GM does this type of behavior. But the ones who are doing it, are purposely distorting the ranking system for their own benefit. That is why I actually find it comical, that when I am bringing up a problem, I’m being told that my behavior needs to change. I disagree (respectfully) with that opinion. I believe I am playing 100% with the spirit of the rules. I play everyone who wants to play against me, and yet, instead of GM’s who create second accounts to target other GM’s (perhaps to make their own accounts’ ranking seem more impressive) are being told they are fine, keep doing what you are doing. Seems bizarre to me.

[brazen turret]

Having a second account isn't the problem. Plenty of GMs have 2nd accounts so that they can go play whatever settings they want and not have to worry about losing their rank points. Some have it so they can do challenges, like getting to GM playing nothing but simple world 70%. There are many valid reasons to have and use a 2nd account. As Luci pointed out restricting the ability to have multiple accounts would do more harm than good for a wide variety of reasons all listed above.

The issue is that some players intentionally use accounts intentionally ranked below their actual skill level in order to unfairly punish others when they beat them, otherwise known as "smurfing". This should and could be easily solved without restricting players ability to make an account and play the game of Risk. Here are the reasons why smurfing is such a problem in 1v1 Risk today:

1. The lobby system. In order to reach the top of the leaderboard you need to play a LOT of games in a season. Often this means sitting with a lobby open for hours a day waiting for someone to join. Not only is this a waste of everyone's time but it also makes it super easy for smurfers to find you. If you play anything other than the classic map it is evident who you are and takes almost no effort.

2. The ELO system. Nowhere in any other game is the best player in the world defined by how often they can beat the newest players in the game. The reason smurfing is even possible is because you can create a brand new account and play the best player in the world in less than 15 minutes. But the problem is that the top players are forced to noob farm. Beating a novice is worth around 100 points. Beating a GM is worth around 300. It is wayyyy easier to beat a true novice 3 times than it is to beat a GM once. This system is super bad for the game. Newer players first experiences with 1v1 is getting absolutely destroyed repeatedly. That's not fun for anyone. Its also not a test of skill and there's no real reason the leaderboard should reflect it. Job Mander is the perfect example of this.

These two issues can easily be solved. You solve #1 by having an auto match system. Not only are you now comparing players based on the same skills, you are also removing the ability to snipe lobbies and removing all of that sitting around waiting time. A win-win-win. You solve #2 by having a rank limitation. GM's shouldn't be able to farm the newest players in the game. Smurfers aren't a problem if every game is a competition between two players who know how to play the game. It doesn't have to be GM vs GM only, it could be in groups (Novice - Expert, and Intermediate - GM). In addition noobs shouldn't have to go up against the best players in the game when they are just starting out. There are other suggestions (like the skill placement period) that could also work to solve these issues.

@distant yarrow I think you misunderstand what we are saying. We aren't blaming you or saying you are doing anything wrong. I actually totally agree with you in the fact that you are doing what you should be. As I said above noob farming is required and IMO encouraged by the system in place. But I think your view of how to fix the issue is wrong. You want to fix the problem by trying to remove players ability to create accounts and play the game, rather than fix the broken system itself. Regardless as Luci said there's almost no way to stop players from creating 2nd accounts, so maybe its time to consider alternatives like the ones I have mentioned?

[distant yarrow]

Ace- I do not take what either you or Luci is saying as I am doing something wrong. If I have given that impression, I did not mean to. I have also said that this is not all people with second accounts or all GM’s with second accounts. I actually find this “discussion” pretty humorous. Think about the irony here. There is a rule in place prevent you and I from playing a game against each other because we “know” each other. Well, we don’t really know each other, but we have communicated on this board. That being said, some would interpret that rule as to prevent us from playing a game vs each other. Yet, people who create a second account to target GM accounts by playing them as much lower ranked than their skill level of their primary account’s ranking is perfectly legal and well within the rules. Think about that and let that soak in a bit. A person intentionally playing on an account to lower other GM’s accounts is fine to do, but us playing a game isn’t.

[brazen turret]

I fully agree. It should be against the rules. But how do you prove it? And the whole problem is that they can just create another account and do it again. So I guess they could make a rule saying its not allowed but it would really just be for show.

The system itself needs to be fixed on order to stop this problem. That's the only way I see it ending. And honestly after getting smurfed so much last season I probably won't take the 1v1 leaderboard seriously until they change it.

[distant yarrow]

Ace, I’m glad we agree. We can also both agree that if SMG makes the rules and figures out the way to enforce them. It should be up to them to solve the problem.

[vivid mauve]

Should have an etiquette button. So can flag a problem player.
Annoying when you have a good battle, and other 4 players leave game so you settle for 2nd and don't finish. Some players don't finish the botts and delay end, drags game out and not sure why, assume trying to kill me for a reduction in ranking. Bit pointless as I am a high master/ low GM and play for fun

Why can't some players just finish the game when it's obvious they have the armies to do so

[distant yarrow]

I actually like your idea here a lot. I think it would be great that you could rank your opponents’ etiquette on a scale of 1-5, 5 being great and 1 being horrible. That etiquette average should be displayed on your username… it should be viewable to all when you join a lobby too. It could even be a setting to prevent anyone with an etiquette score below a 2 from entering.

[dapper grove]

Majority of players that will use etiquette would be:
a) this player killed me they suck
b) this one person allied me all game and was great
It'll be virtually useless for the in between players in the middle, so it'd more likely just be extreme voting (1s and 5s)?

[brazen turret]

Here's the real problem with an "etiquette" rating. Sometimes the "right" play is not going to be one the others look upon favorably. Even if you do nothing but win the game you will inevitably have multiple players who give you a bad rating for killing them. Now imagine you are a more aggressive player...you break bonuses, you card block, etc. Players would give you a horrible rating for simply not being a "good neighbor". Is that really what we want? Even if you were being completely fair how would you even rate etiquette? Often times the right move is to surrender (but your opponents don't know if you surrendered or quit), or even suicide. Anything IMO that would warrant a bad etiquette rating would be reportable (stalling, spamming emotes, etc) so why add something on top of that?

The whole goal of the lobby system is that anyone can join a game and play against anyone. And every game is a fresh start. That's why they got rid of being able to see players stats and ranks in the lobby. At best players were just subconsciously affected in who they hit, who they allied up with, etc. At worst they were using it to get rid of any good players in their lobby (noob farming).

The game needs to move to a system where the "host" has less and less power over the game. They already get to pick the settings, how many bots are playing, the skill level allowed, and can remove players from their lobby. The last thing we need is for them to be able to pick the exact type of player they want in their lobby as well.

[distant yarrow]

I don’t envision it as a comment area. Just a simple 1-5 rating. 5 represents a great sportsperson win or lose, a 1 would represent a person who just stalls delaying their win. No comments needed.

[distant yarrow]

Would some people do that and rate people as a snap reaction. Sure. That being said, I think you do not give your opponents enough credit. People recognize good play. People recognize when someone has skillfully beat them with strategy and execution. Those vast overwhelming majority of ratings would far outweigh some negative ratings that a few snap reactions impacted. Well, at least in my experience, that is my opinion, feel free to disagree.

[brazen turret]

You're trusting the vast majority of Risk players to see past what happened to them and vote respectfully? You understand the majority of players in the game are novices and beginners right? Based on all of the posts I see in here and on reddit, I don't even trust players to know what the rules of the game are, much less know that what I did was a skilled play

[dapper grove]

I think it'd be funny to trial as a beta feature - but I don't think that individual results should be shared unless anonymised and that it basically showcases what happens when anyone can rate anyone else

It's a little like how many social media sites removed downvotes years ago, increases overall community frustration and creates witch-hunts for suspected abuse by alts etc

[distant yarrow]

I have said this countless times and on countless posts, the overwhelming majority of the interactions I have had with other players playing Risk has been extremely positive. If I look back over my games, I would rate an overwhelming majority of my opponents as 5’s. I have played a couple of stallers that were annoying, so I would have rated them as 2’s. I would think that the vast majority of the players I have faced would give me a similar rating.

[brazen turret]

I guess we just disagree with that. For me it just doesn't matter. The only reason someone would want this to be implemented is to restrict players from joining their games. That function already exists in the game (rank filters). If you want players who are all good neighbors and try to win, then play Expert+. If you don't want people playing like noobs in your games, don't play with noobs. Problem solved. If someone is doing something that against the rules (stalling for example, the only thing you mentioned that you would give a bad etiquette rating for) then report them. Not only does that stop them from joining your lobby for the near future (whole point of this idea) but it also helps to give them a warning/ban so that the behavior doesn't continue.

[distant yarrow]

We do disagree on some of what you wrote. I don’t think most people mind playing games against people of various skill levels. What annoys risk players more than anything is playing against people whose lack of playing etiquette is annoying. I’ll give you an example. People who just drag out a game when they have won. I have seen people of various skill levels do this. Sure, I can report them, and then I don’t see their games and they don’t see mine. When the report expires, does that restriction continue? Because if those types of “players” had an etiquette rating, it would be lower than most players. Allowing all players to see that rating would help them decide do I want to play with someone who others have rated as having little etiquette playing risk. I would love to be able to pass on that game. I love playing against other GM’s as well as other ranks. I don’t really care what someone’s rating is. I do care if I am playing a serial pain in the neck… most people can spot a noob a mile away. Noobs are not the issue. People (of all ranks… and again, to me they are a minority of players) continue to display lack of etiquette because they know the next game they join no one will know if they have acted like a pain in the neck in all of their previous games.

[brazen turret]

You keep bringing up stalling. I agree with you that behavior is not what I want in games. But the report system is designed to stop that behavior. If a player does it routinely then they will receive enough reports and be issued a suspension. The game can also automatically detect stalling and issue warnings. I don’t see a need to create a whole elaborate system like this just to attempt to stop the small minority of players who stall.

[distant yarrow]

It can be more than stalling… it can also be the over the top emoji person (and yes, I know you can mute someone), but that isn’t the point. The point is, while the vast majority of players are great, there should be some way to avoid the annoying people.

[brazen turret]

That’s another example where you can report someone. Both the emote spamming and stalling are reportable and easily avoidable. For emote spamming just mute them. For stalling just leave the game.

[distant yarrow]

I agree. You can report. However you are ignoring what comes next. That person continues to spam emojis in their next 20 games annoying other players, or the staller does the same in their future games. Sure, the reporting gives you a break from seeing that person for a while. However, if people had an etiquette rating, you can PROACTIVELY avoid the issue instead of having to be reactive and report. How about we have a system in place that thinks ahead instead of a system in place that has to react. You never respond to that point.

[brazen turret]

If people use the report feature then they receive a warning/suspension and then if the behavior continues they receive a ban. That's how the system stops people from having to play with that behavior.

Also just to be clear. An etiquette rating would also be reactionary? They have to play the game, do something bad that players give them a bad rating for, and then after they do it enough their rating would go down. This is sounding an awful lot like the report system.

The only and MAIN difference here is that instead of being able to receive a warning, stop the behavior and never have a problem again, they would basically have to create a whole new account (I thought this post was against this) in order to be able to play because their rating would cause people to kick them from lobbies.

[distant yarrow]

The etiquette rating would help players who host game be proactive to remove players who other players deemed not to have good playing etiquette. I clearly think that is a great idea. It would help remove problem children and improve the game playing experience (in my opinion). Hey, you disagree with my opinion. I get it. And I disagree with your opinion on the matter. Because some players love to walk “the line” they act like jerks in game every so often, they get a warning, they tone it done for a bit… and then they act out again. You think the current system works well. I disagree. I think this would be an improvement. In the end, this is probably much ado about nothing… because would it be implemented by SMG… na, they’re still working on that database upgrade…

[outer spear]

Feels like you could be onto something here.

Potentially could be of interest for tournaments too. If a player turns up late, spams emojis, stalls a bit, targets and suicides, then gets toxic in chat after the game, it’s not enough to timeout or disqualify that player, but it would hurt their rating if they consistently repeat the behaviour.

[dapper grove]

It kinda falls into my tower idea (though a bit of a different route) where things like:
not showing up to game and failing to provide results and missing some results etc negatively impact your rating, which can result in disqualification / potential ban from future events of that kind

I do still think player-submitted ratings are not a great idea, e.g if @outer spear consistently wins my tower event, players may report them for "unfairly targeting" or "breaking alliances" or "toxic behaviour towards me" or "rude use of emojis" to run them out of the event, so they can collectively eliminate competition

[outer spear]

Yeah, and I'm not sure how to avoid that

Success breeds jealousy

[dapper grove]

Part of the problem with it is there's not really any way to systematically verify reports, so there will be reports for anything and everything.

If you could see bad username reports in RISK you'd be horrified... It ranges from this player is a n**** to i don't like bubbles and their name is pretty bubble

When I look at these reports, I tend to be seeing all user submitted bad username reports and honestly 99% of player reports here are invalid or even potentially actionable for racism, hate speech, slurs
Like why the hell would someone report the username of "General The Able 10249" - seriously? 😒

Although we reserve the right to take action against false reports, to date we have never exercised that right - if we ever start to, it'd definitely be for bad username reports 😄

[torn thorn]

What will happen when a player has received so much bad reviews that they have one star and will be kicked out in every lobby? I don’t see how they would recover from that if they will be kicked out from every lobby. And if you would implement that, I think that is needed a system were players can object against false reports. The fastest way to remove a bad rating would be making a new account.
Nevermind. Maybe in a small pool of players, like in tournaments, were there is more understanding of the game.
Not in ranked were novices with lack of experience are gonna rate others players.

[distant yarrow]

Would that happen, yes. However, I think the overwhelming majority of Risk players know how to play the game. They know that there is only 1 winner, so if there are alliances, they all have to be broken at some point in the game in order for there to be a winner. What matters to people is typically how people do the things in game that need to be done. I played a casual game yesterday and my ally knew I was going to defeat him on my turn. Another player tried to defeat him for his four cards and failed, I sent him the I’m sorry I have to attack your territory message before defeating him. It was pretty much the only time I attacked him all game. He gave me the heart as he knew what was going to happen. Most players know the game, most players respect when a good player makes the move that advances the game. Would some people be reactive, sure, so no one would have a perfect rating.

[distant yarrow]

Sparky- you raise an interesting point, maybe in order to rate someone (or to be rated) you would have to be intermediate ranked or above.

[brazen turret]

Whatttt. That was what I was saying days ago. I don't trust the majority of players because "the majority of players in the game are novices and beginners"

If everyone voting has to at least have a minimum level of understanding and skill then this "system" might have a chance of working

[distant yarrow]

Ya, I was thinking of you as I typed it. But maybe the way Sparky wrote it resonated with me more! 😂

[untold gust]

they shoul make the option to block a person

[brisk sparrow]

One could make an argument that users should generally be anonymized
with the rule of 1 account - and now with no incentive to change names

[dapper grove]

Restricting to one account is hard to achieve successfully (near impossible, as you can just use separate devices, networks and so on)
Additionally not great if you and any family with you also play the game, other people at your workplace play it at lunch, etc
Tends to be more downsides than upsides with trying to block use of more than one account.

You also have to consider purchases made on separate accounts, if someone has 4 accounts, with 4 groups of gem purchases - they'd be justified in wanting to transfer them all to the one account if we banned multiple accounts, but what benefit do you get in having an extra 100k gems on one account with nothing left to buy except occasionally new content (almost always being <5k?)

I think it's better to incentivise one account (e.g battle points progression, gem purchases being account specific, game stats being tied to the account etc) - without actually outright banning using multiple.

If you really want to get from novice to GM at the expense of your own time and not counting towards your own stats, so be it - and any restrictions we do add they'd be able to be worked around anyway for anyone that really wants to do that, so it wouldn't stop them - it'd just stop genuine use cases imo

[torn thorn]

I know from reliable sources that there are players that purchased gems on 4 separate premium accounts 😂 .

[torn thorn]

Must be my broken english!

[brisk sparrow]

Incentivize! I like!

[brazen turret]

I generally am a fan of all accounts being anonymous in ranked. You shouldn't be able to see who you are playing in ranked. It would definitely make smurfing and sniping a lot less effective. In addition it would let GMs play each other in 1v1s even if they "know" each other

[distant yarrow]

Hogwash! The rule that 2 GM’s can’t play each other if they “know each other” is a stupid rule! Rules should make sense. What is the purpose of prevent you and I from playing against each other Ace in a 1 v 1 game? There just isn’t a point to it. So that rule should be immediately changed only to FFA games. In fact, I would argue (at least for 1 v 1) the rule is part of the problem! GM’s should be ENCOURAGED to play each other. Will GM’s communicated during a 1 v 1 game change anything regarding an outcome? No way! Look, for FFA games I can understand the purpose of the rule, but for 1 v 1 games… the rule is pointless.

[brazen turret]

You’re operating under the assumption that everyone does things the right way. What’s to stop someone going for the top spot from playing other GMs that know that who just so happen to “let them win”.

In general I agree. The system should encourage play amongst equal skill levels. But if someone can join a friends lobby and not try very hard and then join someone they are competing against and do everything they can to win, that’s not very fair

[brazen turret]

@distant yarrow

It’s just better to restrict play to players who have no relationship which might affect the outcome of the game

[distant yarrow]

I disagree (what a surprise, right). If you fear abusive like a GM throwing games to a different GM (for 1 v 1 play) put a limit on the number of games people can play each other in a season. That rule would actually make sense.

[brazen turret]

Yeah that’s kind of how it works but none of us know how many games it is. For example I’ve played Arco hundreds of times in casual and I can still play him in ranked. I just don’t know how many times I can play him before the system trips and I get a warning.

Regardless would you mind elaborating on why you think friends should be able to play eachother on ranked 1v1? There’s maybe 30 people I would say I know well enough it would violate the current rules and for most players it’s probably closer to 5-10. There’s thousands of players playing 1v1s, why does it even matter?

[dapper grove]

When the fair play rules were initially released, you couldn't even play 1v1 - each game had a minimum of 3 players
They're made with the initial design of FFA games only

[distant yarrow]

You are Arco are great 1 v 1 players. You should be able to play RANKED games vs each other.

[distant yarrow]

So maybe it’s time they were revised to reflect that 1 v 1 exists.

[brazen turret]

To be clear there’s currently nothing stopping us. We could definitely play once or twice a season and it wouldn’t trip the system.

TBH even if I could play Arco 50 times in ranked I wouldn’t want to in the current system. I’d be much better off playing 50 games against lower level players

[distant yarrow]

I disagree (what a surprise? Right?) I would rather play either you or Arco 50 times under the current system. I’ll take a lot more points off of you and Arco then 50 scrubs! (Okay, maybe I’m a little bit delusional about this claim!!) we could pick a nice small map… auto set up… true random dice… but… if we are close in rank, and we split 25-25, wouldn’t the rankings be relatively close to what we started at? (If we both started this at a season reset at 26,000.)

[brazen turret]

Yeah if you both started at 26,000 and went 25-25 you would both end at basically 26,000 again. Which is just a waste of time. Comparatively I could have gained several thousand points against everyone else

[distant yarrow]

Careful, it currently sounds like you are advocating for the status quo ranking system, and not advocating for playing people at your own skill level… and that I am advocating for the reverse!

[brazen turret]

Well it sounds like you want people to be able to play high level players they know in ranked. And in under this system that doesn’t work. You would need a whole new system. Because if you have players who are grinding noobs, and players who are challenging other GMs in the same system, the noob grinder wins every time.

[distant yarrow]

I want people to be able to play whoever they want to play ranked. Whether they want to play a noob or a GM… whether they know them or not. Luci basically said that the rule about people not playing against anyone they “know” was created for FFA and existed prior to 1 v 1’s existence. So one could infer that rule doesn’t really apply to 1 v 1 play.

[torn thorn]

I have got an answer from smg that it isn’t allowed to play 1v1’s against players with you can have external communication in casual public, so I am sure i isn’t allowed in ranked also.

[distant yarrow]

Well, that answers that question, and it returns to being a pointless rule. Why should GM’s who “know” each other on this discord be prevented from playing each other? The rule is silly! If any of us play each other, is any of us (in 1 v 1 games) not going to try to win the game? So according to SMG, the best thing for all of us to do, is to leave this discord so we can play each other. Silliness!

[pale crow]

knowing someone adds an inherent bias and advantage to the game. if i ended up in a game with one of the strong players that im aware of (pete for example) i pretty much know for certain that if i let him take a bonus and dont break, then he will let me take a bonus too.

the reverse is true as well. if i have played with someone who i know is a maniac and will slam my stack if i break their bonus, i am NOT going to mess with them. i wanna win, and i know someone else will draw their slam

if we have the option to pick between allowing players who are familar with eachother play together, or making it against the rules to play together .... denying it is the most fair option.

the even more fair option of course making it so you cant tell if you know someone else in your game or not. but until that gets implemented, its better to not allow it

[distant yarrow]

Thank you for completely missing the point that we are discussing this rule as it applies to 1 v 1 games. I don’t care how much you respect your opponent, in a 1 v 1 game, the only objective is to defeat them. Period. Whether it is Pete, Ace, Arco, or insert the name of the person you know here _______.

[pale crow]

"oh its pete, i cant win this [surrenders]" is still something that is lame and shouldnt happen. i think everyone agrees that it should work differently, but the problem isnt specifically the rule, its the way the game is designed.

[distant yarrow]

If some idiot sees Pete’s name and resigns, that is a them problem, not a Risk design problem. Would you resign after starting the game (a 1 v 1 game) and Pete was your opponent?

[pale crow]

i personally wouldnt, just pointing out an extreme case of how knowing who your opponent is effects things. and that these kinds of issues are completely erased with a proper system, not with rules. in all game modes, for everyone.

i assume someone has already pointed out how win trading works. so theres that too. how you gonna stop that if the rules practically invite you to

[distant yarrow]

A “proper system,” too funny. When will you realize that that there is no perfect system. Every system has something about it that someone can point to and claim it isn’t perfect. This discussion is about pointing out that the rule that prevents me from playing you is silly. It wouldn’t change a thing as our only objectives is to beat the other person. Me knowing you (or vise versa) wouldn’t change the objective 1 iota.

[silk tendon]

I don't think limiting people to just one account is the best idea. There are quite a few players that make new accounts just to get better win/loss records.

[distant yarrow]

That is a reasonable thought, no harm in that at all. If someone wanted to reset back to 0-0, they could delete their first account and resign up.

[silk tendon]

True. But let's say you had an account that's at 500+ hours of play, but you still want better records. Would you want to delete that account and lose those 500 hours?