Settings and Modifiers by Silent Legend

[copper relic]

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

[left slate]

Balanced games like chess always stalemate

You have to add some chaos to make it interesting

[wise quest]

There are creative ways to make games competitive. Should we reject to even have this competitive option because any of the countless different possible game modes would stalemate? That's a bit harsh, if you ask me.

[left slate]

I am not a big fan of this idea because it makes game too predictable. Right now risk forces you to account all possible outcomes and develop different strategies for different scenarios. For example, playing in the last seat in prog is very much based on people before you not having a set on 4. Equalization makes all games go the same way.

It removes risk from Risk

[wise quest]

Yes, that is a fair assessment. What I was saying, is that there are milder creative factors that you could add to each game, that would make games not go into the same direction every time, but still reduce the variance in luck every time.

The luck factor that is cards is huge. I would say it comes 2nd to dice luck. We also have a True Random dice mode, which by the same logic also makes games less predictable and more strategic. But the competitive meta has shifted, because it prefers to reduce extreme luck factors.

Not having a set at the right time - that is game ending, while maybe not spawning in the ideal board position can be worked with. You can customize your games to go into multiple different directions in creative ways, without being exposed to extreme luck.
That is not saying, that I would never play with normal cards again. The mere option to have a more competitive option would be nice to choose from for certain games and modes.

I hope you can see my point.

[signal merlin]

I think the key word here is "optional". Maybe Chitaka wouldn't like a more predictable game, but I would. There's more predictable games like Risk (Game of Thrones for example) that I consider to be way better games.

But for those that don't like predictability, just don't turn on Blank Cards mode

Plus, the way I play Risk is: I always assume everyone has the trade on 3 every time, then make sure to survive that situation.

[left slate]

True random is better then balanced blitz in terms of attacker advantage depiction but it works only on bigger numbers that is why it is unusable in tournaments. Blank cards will make games less competitive because it diminishes value of kills. Being card up is an advantage because it increases a chance of trades. Now everyone will just have a trade on 3 and it will stalemate games like crazy

[left slate]

Game of Thrones risk has turn limitation. Thus Equal cards will be viable only in 5RR

[wise quest]

I disagree. Risk is not always a game of making kills.

And even in WD, people choose to card skip/not trade for bigger trades. Always trading on 3 doesn't win you games. There's strategy to that. On the right balanced settings, this can work very well without stalemating a game.

And that is ignoring games that aren't as reliant on fast kills like any Fixed game, Caps game, 70% game 5RR game 😉 . That's 80% of all games.

[left slate]

Yes, you will always trade when you are in danger thus making you effectively immortal

[wise quest]

77.7% actually. 5RR Prog doesn't exist.

[signal merlin]

In prog caps, it wouldn't matter at all. It would just shift the blocking moment

[wise quest]

Nope, I'll just make a kill before you and then fish you out of the game when you're on 3 cards. Because trading early makes you become very weak.

[left slate]

Blocking will be much harder because of it

[signal merlin]

Definitely not. I want my opponent to trade on 3, because they won't have a trade on 1

[left slate]

No way. You will never make a kill

[signal merlin]

Unless you go to 4 or 5 cards

[left slate]

Also you need those 4 cards to have a bigger advantage.

[wise quest]

I bet you I will

[left slate]

What if no one ever goes?

[signal merlin]

But even if this mode exists, Chitaka can just not activate it

[wise quest]

This is where skill comes into play. When going first, I would play for survival and wait for everyone to trade before me. Then I can start fishing the weak out of the game, while I get the biggest trade AND am the first to set.

[left slate]

Turn order luck also will be much bigger now

[signal merlin]

The whole point is that the focus shifts from "Am I lucky enough to have a trade?" to "Is it wise to trade in right now?"
So if you always trade on 3, you can hardly ever go for a good kill

Because you will be weaker and you won't trade in turn

[left slate]

People are good enough in surviving usually. It may be not worth it to trade on 2nd sequence but on 3rd sequence everyone will trade on 3 except 1st seat

[wise quest]

And like I said, this is only talking about something optional, that negatively affects only 22.3% of all games, even ignoring modifications like assassin's, etc.

[left slate]

It negatively affects everything except 5RR

[wise quest]

Ah, that's bullshit.

[signal merlin]

I would 100% play with this, and you won't ever have to, Chitaka.

[left slate]

Every bounty game will be a stalemate. Every prog game except prog 70 will be a stalemate. And fixed isn't very influenced by cards so it might not be affected

[narrow compass]

If it was added, it should be automatic trade-in rather than option to hold it - otherwise just another noob grinder setting

[signal merlin]

I can definitely see it as a noob grinder setting

[narrow compass]

That said lots of people that play classic fixed do complain about not getting trades when opponents do - so although I don't think I'd use it competitively, it addresses a well known pain point in the community to let people remove luck (even if at their own detriment)

I am upvoting with bias*
It'll mean I can tell people in app reviews to use the equal card setting if they don't like card luck 😄

[wise quest]

Like any competitive setting. Manual setup in 1v1 is a noob grinder, but a great balanced option for competitive Risk.

So are balanced blitz dice + slider. (Even when that one shouldn't be a thing)

[narrow compass]

If it is forced automatic trade in there is no longer a factor of "know how it works" - and since there would virtually never be a good time to hold cards when always guaranteed a set, it prevents it being abused for noob grinding

[wise quest]

Well, for Progressive card trades it would matter, right?

[narrow compass]

Progressive it is a small factor but it's only by 11 troops, at most

and quickly becomes negligible anyway

[wise quest]

Sorry, I don't understand. What is 11 troops? 😅

[signal merlin]

It's 11 at most in turn 1, but after that it's max 25 per trade

[narrow compass]

Trading 1st (for 4) Vs 6th (for 15)

True, per trade 25 is still a fair bit

[wise quest]

Ah, right

[narrow compass]

For fixed it's irrelevant, meaning auto trade makes sense
Prog its still risky to even not trade anytime anyway - but competitive factor for trading in a little later at own risk ig

[wise quest]

Yes, it absolutely matters for the later prog trades. Choosing not to trade for a bigger trade is a big thing in competitive Prog WD games. I do that all the time.

[left slate]

I don't know why I am arguing about it. Equal cards will make prog impossible to play period. If it gets implemented people will just get a perfect depiction of my words

[signal merlin]

Then you have a lot to learn about risk, as do we all 🙂

[wise quest]

[left slate]

I don't know IT , but I know how to use Paint. I think we can run a simulation of your suggestion with players having infinite time. Is it ok for you?

[left slate]

10 games of prog worlddom

10 games of prog 70

[wise quest]

I'm not sure what you mean? 😅

[left slate]

I create a board on Prog worlddom settings in my Paint. I stream my screen in discord VC. Every player makes a move by telling or writing it to me - I update the board and troop and card counts. I can simulate roll outcomes in Risk App. There is no reason to simulate card deck because every card is a joker. Every game that was stalemated goes to my score, every that didn't - goes to yours. All games that were stupidly stalemated or stupidly fed go to neither.

We also will need 4 more volunteers that are ok with playing 2-3 hours long games 20 times.

[signal merlin]

It'd be easier on Tabletop Simulator

Also, we could play an actual game of this modification on Tabletop Simulator 🙏

[left slate]

I have no Idea what it is, but I can do it as long as Silent is down to play

[left slate]

Is there balanced blitz, slider or other maps and settings except classic?

[signal merlin]

Hmm no, they don't have balanced blitz. Isn't that SMG's own algorithm?

But we can easily use Aresbot to make the BB rolls

[left slate]

That is why we better do it on spreadsheets

[left slate]

I don't know what is. But we can use it, yeah

[signal merlin]

It doesn't actually roll tho haha

I'd say TTS, and simulate rolls in the Risk App

[left slate]

I can do it in the Risk on a background

[golden trout]

hmm, just spotted this thread and tbh didnt read it all, first thing in my mind was "not all cards blank, maybe add like 2-3 "change a card" options max per game. Lets say you need a cannon, you select a card you want to change to a cannon, that card becomes a cannon with a random territory attached to it (ukrain, siam for example). To make it most interesting, the game keeps track of # of times you used the trick and you can see your own use, but your opponents wont know if you used em or not. I wonder if that sounds interesting to you, it would require some coding i presume

[narrow compass]

That would kinda fall under perks / abilities - I'd suggest adding that as a standalone idea (players can select between X perks when they start a game, each with their own benefits & dangers)

[wise quest]

What would be the benefit of that, as opposed to this idea?

[left slate]

No benefit for either. When do you want to test your idea?

[wise quest]

You're just trolling at this point 😦

I'd like to try it out once it gets implemented

[left slate]

It is friendly trolling. It should never be implemented ( in my stinking opinion). I would like to play it atleast once tho

[wise quest]

You've completely ignored the fact, that your only argument against this optional feature (you'll never have to play it yourself, you just don't want me to have it I guess) only potentially affects 22.2% of all possible games negatively, ignoring that you can always use your creativity to make good settings with the right tools (this would be one) and now you want to trap me in 20-30 hours of pointless games to prove something to me?

I can't change a troll's mind and I'll stop feeding you. Not worth it.

[left slate]

I like the idea of more settings. But I disagree with statement that this exact option will negatively affect small portion of settings. Firstly every tournament that has points - bounties will not be possible because everyone will have a safety trade.

For winner advances games.

1. It is already hard to make kills in prog worlddom and prog zombies if you are playing against good players. Majority of high skill games are saved from stalemate by somebody not having a set on 4 or being forced to go to 4 cards so people with good lines can kill them. Your argument for getting a bigger trade doesn't work because trade difference is extreme only in 1st and 2nd sequences where kills must be impossible( unless somebody above you in turn order misses a set 4 and you have a big enough trade). And in the 3rd sequence( where majority of kills of high skill games should be made) it is worth to take a 50 trade on 3 for every seat except 1st. In 4th and 5th sequence it will be already a stalemate.
2. For the next argument let's assume that kills were made in 2nd or 3rd sequences. Usually if you have made a kill then game becomes essentially a 4 vs 1 in prog worlddom. That 1 card advantage doubles your chances of getting a set first and being able to make further profitable kills first. Killing people when they are on 3 cards should be unprofitable in most cases and with trades on 3 defending side will get a much better chance to fight back, thus stabilizing and stalemating the game anyway.
3. Unironically removing card luck will make game more luck based. I treat somebody above me in turn order not having a trade as sudden differentiation between turn order and trade order giving you a small chance of negating turn order luck if you are skillfull enough. Without it last and first positions will be impossible to play thus making highest skill performances like yours in WC finals practically impossible no matter how good of a player you are.

For prog 70: 1 and 3 arguments are also true as making kills is often required to get 70 and removing card luck makes it so people above you in turn order will always have trade before you to block the board or run by themself, making lining up a 70 on next trade strategy impossible. Eventually game will end but it will take a couple of hours which is certainly a negative.

For fixed 70 idea sounds good until you take in consideration argument 3. Most of the time you have to outstack your opponent on certain corridor and the best way to do it is to get a big trade. Thus turn order luck will significantly increase and make it much harder for people who are in later seats to get a win. The game will just become unfair.

Don't you dare ignoring me. I can do some slight trolling but I am serious in my core statements and arguments. I have spent a couple of hours of my life translating my thoughts into language I am bad at because I really care. I am so aggressive with my opinion because I like this game and I want to continue playing it. In my opinion, your idea can expand a "Zombie Apocalypse" Paradox - horrible settings that result in stalemate or dirty feed in 90% of games but people still keep placing them into tournaments (everyone who disagrees with me, just go to Pete's channel and watch Grandmaster tourney loser bracket finals game 2 and tell me with straight face that people played poorly and stalemate could have been prevented).

I want you to delete your idea so it doesn't gets implemented. And if my arguments can't change your mind I have offered you an experiment so we can settle down our disagreement once and for all. If I win, you will have to denounce your idea; if you win, I will accept your position and become a fiery supporter of it, I will also call you "daddy Silent Legend" every time we talk (no matter how cringe it will sound and if you like it or not). We will also be able to use results of our tests to push for implementation of such settings. Does it sound fair for you?

[steel vigil]

I have so much to read XD

[narrow compass]

I saw >3 paragraphs and gave up

Oh and r.e.

I want you to delete your idea
Not possible to delete it / it's posted by bot with administrator access 😄