Ranked by Marcellus Fuse

[vale meteor]

Welcome @worldly hull! 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!

[kind latch]

There's not enough GM's and you aren't allowed to play people you know

[worldly hull]

Someone you know shouldn’t really be an issue in ranked 1v1. It’s a 1v1, there is no collab possible

[kind latch]

So I don't think it'll be possible for people to find games as a gm. (Even there isn't enough masters prolly)

[kind latch]

I agree but as the rules are written right now you aren't allowed to play people you know even if there's no possibility of collab

[worldly hull]

Yeah they’d have to update the fair play rules most likely to specify

I specifically only made this post about 1v1s because it’s a much easier challenge to tackle. You could also make the lobbies anonymous so that you don’t know who you are playing against until the game is complete

Even just that change would stop the extreme filtering measures in 1v1

[kind latch]

I think anonymous makes more sense but I think that opens up a new problem. If a novice is trying to snipe you who's not a gm, you can't dodge the sniper

Also if you keep matching against the same person, it would be flagged automatically as matching too many times against the same person

[worldly hull]

Right there is definitely additional things SMG would need to fix to implement this.

Sniping wouldn’t be an issue if it was both anonymous and within a few ranks. You’d have to spend the time grinding an account to master to snipe someone. That takes an hour or two at least (maybe longer if you don’t have premium). And then at that point it’s not sniping because you are playing somebody closer to your skill level. If you are losing to them it’s a skill issue

[kind latch]

I mean I think this has to do with the bigger (unaddressed issue) that some people are under ranked so they'll gain Elo at the cost of someone correctly ranked

[worldly hull]

Not sure what you mean by people are underranked

[kind latch]

Someone who's Elo is lower than their skill would be underranked

And because of how risk works, if you take a break, across a few seasons, you'll be back to novice but likely not lose much skill so still play at a gm level. But every game you climb back up to your actual ranking, reduces rank from people who are closer to their actual rank

[worldly hull]

I’m not sure what the issue is with that? It’s always going to happen. They will quickly get themselves back to master/GM

[kind latch]

Yeah but on the way, if they beat masters and GM's, the masters and GM's would lose Elo like they are playing against someone lower ranked

[worldly hull]

That’s why you don’t allow to play far outside your skill level

Novices and GMs shouldn’t play against each other period

Any other game I’ve every played that has a ranking does not allow that. It’s illogical and renders your entire ranking a joke.

The same goes for FFA. Realistically lobbies should be within 2 or 3 tiers of rank. GMs should not have 4/6 novice and beginner opponents

[kind latch]

Yeah, but honestly it should do both that and have provisional ranking

So if you win a lot in a row, lose a lot in a row or just took a long break, some kind of event that makes the game less certain of your rank, the amount you win or lose per game gets multiplied

That's a seperate suggestion though

[worldly hull]

Yeah I’d prefer to just see the noob grinding go away

Bc right now it’s impossible to get rank 1 without doing it due to oddman no life noob grinding so hard for the past 3 seasons

[timber sentinel]

Bc of that I think there should be a setting for people to choose whoch difficzlty they want to be able to play against

[grizzled ridge]

you could feed wins (elo points) to a friend

[worldly hull]

Sure and then you both get banned

[grizzled ridge]

only if there is a rule against it. that's the point of the rule

[worldly hull]

That would be a trend very easy to catch.

“Playing against a friend to feed them free wins is not allowed.”

[grizzled ridge]

that's much harder to detect than just saying playing against friends is not allowed

[worldly hull]

Not really, the same 2 people playing eachother 5 times in a short amount of time with the same winner each time should easily be flagable as suspicious behavior

[grizzled ridge]

if you are stupid enough to let one player win every time, yes

8 out of 10? certainly possible if both want to win. can't punish anyone for that outcome.

[worldly hull]

I have played over 1500 1v1s in ranked and have never encounter this scenario

I have played the same people multiple times, even 2 or 3 times in a row. Never have I played the same person more than that in a row

Yes you shouldn’t be punished for a skill discrepancy, so if the same people play say 5 times in a row there could be some sort of soft lock that does not allow them to keep playing against eachother until it can be reviewed

[daring turret]

Definitely agree with this idea. Add in automatch with tournament settings and you have the perfect system

[trail halo]

this could be fixed if the game would be reducing your rank only a little bit if you dont play for a time, instead of making it go up to the lowest level

[gloomy ibex]

Good idea but too strict to only let gms play masters. Allowing gms to play intermediate or higher is much more practical

[worldly hull]

@gloomy ibex the skill difference between int and GM is astronomical, especially in 1v1s. In most cases playing against an int is no different than playing against a novice

[jolly loom]

implement it soon so we can crush Oddman's hopes and dreams

[raw storm]

I mean, there are settings about this tho... when you create a game it's straightforward to limit the ranks allowed... am I missing something?