Idea for Risk-Ideas

[left acorn]

Here is my suggestion for Risk-Ideas: I should be able to “tag” any player that I interact with. I suggest this “tag” should be color coded. When I click the “tag” I would first choose a color, I suggest red, green, yellow. So if I have a very positive interaction with a player, I could quick tag them as green. If I have a negative interaction with someone, I could tag them as red. Yellow might be a code for a backstabber. Different colors could mean whatever each person wants them to be. I also suggest that an optional little note window pop up so you can leave a message about the person. This message would stay and appear in any future games that that person joins that you are a part of. Whether a person stays under the same name or changes their name, the tag and message would be tied to their account, so it would only be visible to the player that created the tag/message.

[uneven timber]

Risk should not be a game of reputation.
Ideally, you'd play in anonymous lobbies.

[frosty nova]

This would just be a way for people to kick any player from their lobby that they didn't like. "Oh you worked with an opponent to cardblock me... marking down to never play with you again"

It would also give you an advantage over every other player in the lobby if you knew how someone would behave before the game even started and nobody else had ever played with them.

[sturdy ether]

Also other dangers with this too, tag a streamer to be able to find them again etc

If notes etc were ever added, it should only be for private games // maybe only friends

[left acorn]

Risk should be 100% a game of reputation. How you play should be remembered, for good or for ill. However, I will counter this argument with one that some may have made recently. Why oppose my suggestion. It would be purely optional for anyone to use. So if you don’t like the “option” you just don’t have to use it. I think it would be a wonderful option, so it should be an option for anyone who likes the concept.

[left acorn]

We have had this discussion before Ace, and it’s repetitive. Players should never be forced to play anyone they don’t want to. If they had a bad experience playing someone, there absolutely should be a method to avoid playing them in the future.

[frosty nova]

We have had this conversation before and I will continue to voice against it.

At a baseline ranked play should be 100% fair. And if you know something about another player, that everyone else doesn’t, going into the game…that’s not fair.

Realistically all it does is offer the host of the game yet another advantage over their opponents since they can just kick whoever they want. It’s already a bad system and this would just make it worse

Every game should be treated as a players first game in ranked (relationship wise). Otherwise it doesn’t work

[sturdy ether]

"option to just not use it" isn't exactly true, your opponent may label you as "this player was on top 500 in season X" - and use it for explicitly screwing with GMs only, or maybe just "that guy that posted an idea I didn't like" - all this would do is heighten suspicions of players that someone is out to get them based on previous interactions

[left acorn]

Again, I disagree. This option would be available to all players, so it would absolutely “not” just be available to the host. It would be available to all players. There are current players who make lists of the players they play against and make their own notes (either on paper or on an excel spreadsheet) how is that any different? Those players are already doing what this concept would allow all players an option of doing. Again, conceptually, if I play with a person I deem drags a game out. And I don’t want to experience that in the future. I should be able to 🚩 someone. So that I never have to play them again. Sure, a report option exists, and prevents me from playing them for 30 days. After that, I run the risk of playing them again, when I don’t want to. Overall, the success of this game should be enjoyment. Allowing players to avoid other players who created a negative experience keeps the game stronger.

[left acorn]

Luci, I play under one name and I don’t care who writes any notes about my games or my interactions (whether in game in all my games or my postings on this discord.) if someone wants to target 🎯 me for any of those reasons, I welcome it. I am respectful to all, I play fair, and try to make each interaction I have positive. That being said, a couple of days ago, I played against two players who were clearly collaborating. Yes I reported them. Who knows if they are clever enough to avoid detection via SMG protocols. Yes, I am protected from playing them in the next 30 days. However, I don’t want to play them EVER again. If they were willing to cheat in a casual game by playing with a friend, they are willing to cheat in ranked. Why should I not be able to avoid both of them in the future in all of my games? SMG is more forgiving on this issue than I am. SMG gives them a small timeout, I want to give them a much longer timeout, I think that should be an option.

[sturdy ether]

30 days is a pretty long timeout Vs a 24h suspension TBF

[left acorn]

Here again we disagree. Part of this disagreement are the current rules in existence. What other games limits people’s ability to play ranked games against people they know? That would be saying in chess that Magnus and Hikaru can’t play each other in ranked play?! (And I am at least talking about 1 v 1 play here.)

[sturdy ether]

The risk of abuse due to notes is quite high, especially if they persist across different names

Having a block system is one thing, having a notes thing is much more open to abuse

I could change my name and add notes to "good allies" - then betray them every time and change my name again - now they might add a note, they might not - but it can be used for abuse - if it can be, it almost certainly will be

[left acorn]

Could you explain this further. As under my suggestion, the note would remain whether someone changes their viewable name or not. So, someone changing their name would do nothing.

[sturdy ether]

Person A uses notes to maliciously target Person B (potentially across accounts if the notes are client side)
Person A sees a game being setup for a tournament where Target Person is in, they join - add note to target person - then leave again (ensuring to change their name before trying to find target in ranked games) -> this could be explicitly abused for sniping streamers - Target would not have been aware that someone joining wasn't in their tournament game / joining on wrong account or whatever - so won't have even had time to add a note / or visible cause to until it's too late

Notes could effectively be used for stalking players across games too, (casual players too, not just streamers/high vis users)
This would be quite problematic to even try to track

[left acorn]

I think either you missed the point of the suggestion or I am missing your point. Under my suggestion, if person a adds a note about person b. Only they see the note. No one else would see it. So, in your example. If person a adds a note about person b, and joins a lobby where person b is. Them adding a note does nothing, especially if they plan on leaving the lobby before the game launches.

[sturdy ether]

Yes so person A is the malicious user that joins a streamers tournament lobby before it's started and adds a note to them, then person A leaves, updates their name to something else - and can now track down that streamer for "fame" or "misplaced anger" or whatever reason they want to get in that players stream

[left acorn]

I would argue that this would arguably help streamers, and it would help SMG enforce their rules. SMG would have access to these notes. So if a person labeled a notes saying “this is actually Pete from kill Pete strategy” those notes could be used against them in the court of SMG.

[sturdy ether]

It simply makes it easier to single out / target specific users for arbitrary reasons.

"This guy has a french flag, add note - french" - now regardless of what flag they use, it'll be used to target based on nationality

Also not necessarily, they could simply add a note "a" or "blue" etc - more likely "a" because it's short & can exit lobby again quickly. But it's already set a trap for a streamer and once they've gotten that snipe in, they make a new account and repeat process again

[uneven timber]

1. Competitively no, it absolutely shouldn't.
2. I'm pretty sure a majority would prefer a less toxic environment. You may like to play a politics simulator, but ironically the very same toxic people like you would suffer from it first.
3. This is in no way optional. It's interesting that especially you want me to support your idea, when you're the one who has been repeatedly down voting other optional Risk ideas.
   Discord does allow a system like the one you would like to have for Risk. And I've marked you as a troll.
   So I don't believe even you would profit from a system like this, even though you think you would.

[left acorn]

Silent, there is a difference between you and I. I can (and do) respectfully disagree with your point of view on this issue (and Ace’s as well.) However, you are the first person to start name calling on this conversation, why? Because you are so insecure in your opinions that you have to resort to calling someone who disagrees with you or your online comrades as a “troll? Or toxic?” Not all people have to agree with you, Ace or Luci. That doesn’t make them troll or toxic… it doesn’t make them anything other than a person who actually is willing to express an opinion. Differences of opinion should be respected on this discord, not resorted to name calling.

[left acorn]

Oh, as for why I down vote so many ideas, and I do down vote most of them. That reason is simple. I wish you had asked respectfully as to why I do downvote so many new ideas. When a concept is presented in Risk-ideas, I ask myself if “this new idea” is worth the limited resources of SMG to dedicate an employee’s time and labor working upon. Of all the suggestions I have seen offered on the risk ideas board (over a year now), I haven’t seen one good idea from there implemented. Heck, Kylted’s suggestion which had 250(ish) votes for fixing the slider bar hasn’t been implemented. So if an idea doesn’t rise to a substantial improvement, you are correct, I then down vote it. But seriously, do you think any of the ideas posted there in the past 3 months are going to be “worthy” of implementation by SMG? (And by “worthy” I mean more valuable than fixing the slider bar which has over 250 upvotes on it, and hasn’t been addressed.)

[uneven timber]

I've only done this, to give you an example of what a system like this would achieve. Doesn't have to concern you one bit, if you really think it's a good system.

And I didn't ask you you why you down voted so many ideas, but good to know.
Yes, every idea that I upvoted I believe to be worth for SMG to consider. Not having faith in the developers to do the right thing is wrong.

The reason, why I think your behavior is toxic, is because in every argument you make yourself the lonely soldier against the rest of the world and I would title you as a troll (just for myself, doesn't have to concern you) because you're not bringing any value to these discussions. You enjoy causing havoc.

[left acorn]

Ya, I’m sure that was the reason you stated I was “toxic” and a troll. Clearly, me complementing Ace on a different thread is a great example of me causing havoc. I have posted helpful responses to other people as well on numerous occasions (which Ace seems to remember on a different thread as well). I am respectful to all, helpful to most. However, you can call me whatever you wish. I will not resort to name calling. I was taught long ago to respect other people’s opinions, even of those people you disagree with. It’s a skill, one that is hard to learn (I hold out hope that you will learn it one day.) I have said on countless threads (especially ones that I disagree with others) to just agree to disagree. Because ultimately, I doubt that you will change my mind or vice versa. That being said, I think you missed my point. I defined why I downvote most suggestions. Because the one major suggestion that has had the most input from the community has been ignored by SMG, or SMG is unwilling (or perhaps unable) to implement that change. Nothing stops them from considering any of the suggestions that are made there at all, not even a downvote of mine. I really don’t consider expression a different opinion from yours as “causing havoc” whatsoever, it’s just representing a different point of view. And it’s okay if you disagree or if Luci disagrees or Ace too. It’s okay to disagree!

[eager coral]

I think you go into many tournaments and know more than your opponents do on certain players. ¹its call game experience. Along these lines then NOT ONE person should have the pathing maps for the zombies . You should also never play the same person. Twice. There are a million. Reasons.. in baseball you have scouts that go ahead of the team to tape and watch the team they will be playing. I love all the fair play rules for risk I do I think that everyone should start at a baseline. And manipulating the game mechanics (hacking) is like treason take them out back and get a firing squad. But arco wasn't arco from game one. And neither are you. I have notes on almost everyone in the tourney circuit. And if I'm playing someone I know nothing .I ask around . Now granted it doesn't help my game AT ALL but at least I feel better. Just my 2 cents which are not even worth that.

[frosty nova]

Tournaments are different than ranked play. Tournaments are community run and not a part of the game (it all happens on Discord and not a part of the app and doesn’t count towards any rankings or anything). But most importantly everyone has an equal opportunity to learn about their opponents. If you want you can watch them on YouTube games or you can play practice games with them or even just ask other players. In ranked everyone wouldn’t have that luxury. You would have one person that would have access to notes based on experience that nobody else in the lobby ever had the opportunity to see.

Pathing maps I have a different opinion on. I think we should all have access to the zombie pathing logic. Everyone has the same ability to make a pathing map. None of us have extra knowledge from SMG so it’s definitely fair. I just think SMG should either produce the logic for everyone, or they should make the zombie pathing more random. Because currently the pathing maps are kinda hidden on Discord and the average player wouldn’t be able to find them

[eager coral]

And ace I want to apologize for the fiasco that went down. I was literally going to pull the plug when I died for 54 seconds . I wasn't quite my self and don't think I ever will be. But again forgive me I owe you a lot for even helping out and playing

[left acorn]

Ace is a class act, and extremely helpful on this discord.

[frosty nova]

There’s a lot of things more important than Risk. I’m just glad you’re still alive.

[left acorn]

Agreed! I thought he meant died in the game of risk! Glad to hear you are alive too, hopefully recovering or recovered. I have had some medical issues in the past couple of years @eager coral , some recoveries take months and some take years. I hope you have a full recovery.