Existing Gameplay Changes by Angelika Vee

[worldly spoke]

Welcome @thorny saffron! 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!

[fair goblet]

this will be so annoying in a tournament game

[daring wind]

I understand the problem, but it would make a big difference in how you play the game

[quick cloak]

its quite like in real life, you dont really have to break the alliance and then wait so the person you want to attack knows it and prepares for an attack, you suprise attack them. also how would you make it work with 1 troop territories which most people just dont mind getting attacked?

also there is a possibility of accidentally blocking/getting blocked by your ally (you dont have an option to attack anything because you are surrounded by your ally)

[clever hazel]

This proposal is wrong on a few levels. 1) sometimes in order to attack a mutual enemy, you have to attack an ally’s territory to gain access to the mutual enemy’s territories. 2) sometime in late stages of a game you are trading a single territory with an ally so that you both get cards, while your mutual enemy is card blocked. 3) There is always a points in a game where someone has to betray an alliance. Part of the skill of Risk is determining when that is going to happen. I played a game a couple of days ago when it was down to the three player endgame. I teamed up with the weakest of the three to tag team our mutual enemy. Once we both attacked him for two straight rounds, he was weak enough that he was going to get third. I knew it was time to betray my ally and full send into my ally who just helped me cripple the third player. What do you know, right before I could attack him, he full sends on me! It was perfect timing and he beat me to the double cross! I still won, but we both knew the perfect time to turn on your ally who was helping you for the previous two rounds of game play.

[thorny saffron]

You can just disable alliances, like how it already is.

[thorny saffron]

Yes I agree, but I wonder what the purpose of alliances is right now? Besides scamming people or telling people who to attack 😆.

[thorny saffron]

There are huge consequences in real life when you betray someone. Other people will hesitate to trust you when you're known to betray others. It will hurt your social status (hence diplomacy) and may even cause others to target you as well.

Waiting one turn was just one suggestion to this issues. Another suggest could be that if you betray someone it will be made public OR the defender has the option to make it public (like in real life) OR other alliances of the defender will be notified. There are many possibilities to solve this XD

[clever hazel]

The purpose of alliances is to allow increased communication with your allies.

[fair goblet]

if alliances were to be renewed after every player turn, you barely don't need em anymore, waste of time to just do that after every player turn
alliances are not to be taken way too seriously

[thorny saffron]

I don't agree at all. The points you're naming can easily be fixed with expanding the alliance system even more.

1. Allow territory to be attacked, you can already let someone know "Attack my territory if you have to".
2. Option to trade, for example in the fortification stage.
3. I wasn't talking about these kind of situations. It's not much of a betrayal if you have no options but to attack an alliance, like at end-game. I am talking about the begin game, where people consciously ask you make an alliance in order to gain vision (with fog perk) AND/OR to bring down your guard and attack you the next round. I know, you can just not accept the alliance or still protect your ground, but that's the whole point I am making. It would make the alliance system very obsolete.

[thorny saffron]

I am talking about game settings.

[thorny saffron]

If that is so, why is it so limited? Why do I need an alliance to communicate. That makes no sense and is not realistic at all.

[sweet coral]

its the fault of players when they take 'alliance' literally at face value. there is no expectation that clicking that button means you are BFF friends till the end.

its just how the game goes. official alliance button or not, players must work with eachother until it no longer benefits them, and then backstab.

if you are worried about someone attacking you, dont leave yourself open to be backstabbed.

[thorny saffron]

This is such an ignorant response.

Definition of the word "Alliance": The state of being allied - The action of allying

How can you put blame on players for understanding the word "Alliance" correctly. Being allied means NOT backstabbing.

I also explained in previous messages that I am not talking about situations where you must start attacking one another. I am talking about the abuse of the Alliance system and that it therefor must be improved.

[thorny saffron]

Also keep in mind that every game has players of all levels. A game should not solely be designed for veteran players (who know the faults within the game/design and know how to abuse it). Good game design welcomes all players.

Abusing a system is considered cheating in the game design/programming industry. I understand this all may not be common knowledge, since I am addressing this issues from a game developer background and perspective.

[fair goblet]

Alliances mean - timely not backstabbing you - at some point your ally will need to attack your territory, otherwise we spread world peace and no one attacks.
That's a big misunderstanding of alliances by your part

[thorny saffron]

This is the third time I have to say this:
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT LONG-TERM ALLIANCES. I AM REFERRING TO SHORT THERM ALLIANCES.

So it's a misunderstanding of alliances by your part. You can't argue the definition of words.

[fair goblet]

can you explain for once what do you mean by short term alliances?

[thorny saffron]

You can read my previous messages in this thread. I am not a parrot.

[fair goblet]

Ight

[thorny saffron]

If you still don't understand after reading that's a shame for you. I don't think you then can ever understand, because I can't explain the definition of ever english word.

[fair goblet]

you can stop calling people 'ignorant' and 'not understanding your points' and that would be better to build an effective conversation - otherwise it is pointless to talk about your idea (not regarding how many down votes it has) but it just can't be improved (check other risk ideas to see how the conversation usually goes)

[thorny saffron]

I am not calling people ignorant and never said people don't understand my points.

An effect conversation is one where everyone is speaking the same language and takes an effort to read ones messages. You clearly can't understand either, because you're twisting words and not taking an effort to read my messages.

[fair goblet]

i see what you mean by the alliances, people breaking you after using the alliance to reduce the guard, i don't see a game fix for this, it's dependant on how trustworthy your opponents are, and how their personalities differ

[thorny saffron]

It doesn't shock me you don't see a game fix for it. It's your jam to not read and only judge 😂.

[fair goblet]

bruh

[sweet coral]

you want the word to be literal. it isnt. its as simple as that. call it an alliance, a non agression pact, a temporary agreement to not obliterate eachother, whatever. the name doesnt matter. the mechanic is 'allows extra communication' regardless what its called

you KNOW someone can make or accept an alliance. and you KNOW it isnt binding. use it how its designed, not how you think it should be designed

it doesnt matter if someone decides to backstab you if you know thats a possibility and you dont leave yourself in a position where you lose because of it

[clever hazel]

Well, the only thing currently that is increased by accepting an alliance is an ability to have greater communication. If you are playing fog games, another added benefit is the ability to see your opponent’s territories and those who abuts them. That’s it. So, alliances only allow (currently) for always increased communication and sometimes increased vision, that’s it. You may want alliances to have other abilities or restrictions, but I doubt that a majority of players would agree with the suggestion. However, you are free to make as many suggestions you wish. They should be respected just like everyone else’s posts. I just disagree with your suggestion, nothing personal.

[thorny saffron]

Yeah I've noticed that in fog games. I think the alliance system should be expanded, since you can enable or disable it. But what you're saying is very fair!

[ripe gazelle]

you may call it alliances, but in reality this feature is just another way of saying "extra communication options", because that is exactly what it is in this game right now. just because something is called an "alliance" does not mean it fulfils all the criteria of the definition of an alliance.