#Block Lists are coming to RISK!

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

buoyant stone
#

Hey everyone, Nick here from the SMG team!

We’re adding Block Lists in Update 3.19. Soon, you’ll be able to block players you don’t want to play or interact with again.

We believe this is an important step forward, and will help make games feel fairer and more enjoyable for everyone.

Let us know your thoughts down below 👇

Block_Lists.jpg
limber bramble
#

I am of the opinion that this isn't a good thing.

tick_no For competitive play, so in ranked you should not be able to avoid anyone. This feature makes it easier to cheat, which is not something we should support.

tick_neutral Blocking someone because you think they might be cheating is reasonable, but that raises the question why we can't trust the system to punish these cheaters on its own?

tick_yes The last reason why you would block someone in your casual games is because you don't enjoy their play style. That makes sense, but is this system really necessary just for that?

The drawbacks outweigh the benefits here imo. You might be able to avoid annoying players easier (which you can already manage with the current lobby system), but in turn you give cheaters (who are trying to avoid tougher opponents) an easier time.

#

To add to that, I believe a lot of risk players like to play "police" themselves. It's toxic behavior most often, that's simply an attempt to vent by shaming others for their own gain.
Giving players this power now sends the wrong message imo.

But maybe risk needs these kinds of players more than it's hurt by them. It's a discord community thing mostly.

idle rampart
#

Blocking stronger opponents isn't cheating. The game even gives you the option to limit ranks.
Blocking people lets you block cheaters (and people harassing you). Ideally we could rely on SMG to ban them but experience shows this doesn't always work well.

#

also, you should certainly be able to avoid people. if you know someone then you have to avoid them or it's cheating

limber bramble
# idle rampart Blocking stronger opponents isn't cheating. The game even gives you the option t...

It most certainly is cheating. Limiting ranks is a different thing than blocking specific tougher opponents.

About blocking cheaters, there is absolutely no way the majority of risk players would be able to detect cheaters better than the system itself. Most blocks will be "this guy beat me, must have cheated, I'll block them". It may be satisfying for most people, but I find it questionable that this kind of toxic behavior should be supported. Let's face it: That one guy that you thought was cheating will very likely never repeat that kind of behavior against you ever again (you either won't meet them again and if you do, then you won't recognize each other and it's quite unlikely that they would right then decide to do something bad again)

Yes, you should avoid people that you recognize in ranked. But you don't need to be able to block them because of it. They're your friends. 😅

idle rampart
#

Yes, you should avoid people that you recognize in ranked.

But at the same time I'm not allowed to block them because that is also cheating?

limber bramble
#

The ideal ranking system would be anonymous, so that you can't even recognize anyone.
Or prevent friends from meeting properly in the first place.

autumn trellis
#

Considering that you can kick players at will, being able to block someone that you'd otherwise just be kicking anyway saves both the blocker & the blocked from wasting that time

limber bramble
#

Being able to kick someone from a ranked lobby is questionable too.

autumn trellis
#

Until fully anonymised auto-matchmaking, this effectively just does what sending, receiving, confirming or rejecting a friend request does anyway - so it's not making any functional change, it's more a "visible list" instead that way

soft hedge
#

I like the idea

slender hare
#

Too bad they don't even work. Can you hire actual programmers with skills! Too often no warnings pop up indicating a blocked player is in the lobby. It's not until the game is finished and I can see the player ranks that I I'm informed I was playing with someone I blocked. Less than half the time it actually tells me a blocked player is in the lobby. Grrr

fallow fern
#

or maybe check the reports and actually perma ban cheaters especially in RANKED! The game has to have a faster way to ban/ vote people out for cheating when its blatant.. i watched a guy put 70 troops on a place when it was round 3... thats insane hacking. how is that not noticed but if i have a casual game with a few friends i get a month long ban>?

fallow fern
scarlet oracle
buoyant stone
idle rampart
#

sometimes it shows that for people who are not blocked

#

not sure why, but I have seen that with a streamer doing viewer games. first game no one was blocked, second game one of the players showed up as blocked

#

the same player was in the first game

autumn trellis
idle rampart
#

they didn't get reported

timid bay
#

People would remake lobbies if we removed the ability to kick

#

People like jpizzle kick people to filter for snipers

#

Also I've put a few people that are stupidly underranked on my block list. People that i would argue are supergm, and then they are intermediate rank only

#

Not a fan of bleeding ranking to an intermediate who literally plays better than 90% of GM's I've seen

#

This is a seperate problem but I think a LOT of people have ranks far below their skill level

#

There should be a way to gain rank faster if you are clearly better than your rank. Maybe there should be a k factor in ranking up? The more the game is confident in your rank, the more you don't gain/lose rank and the less confident, the more you gain/lose

#

Also think the game needs to reward getting 1st far more. It's only counted as a victory against every player, whereas 2nd is a victory against everyone and a loss against 1st (so they aren't so so different)

limber bramble
# timid bay It makes sense because you've played people in them before so you don't want to ...

You're totally right in the sense that it makes sense to allow it if you're supporting this lobby system.

I am questioning if this lobby system is fair in the first place. In a fair ranked environment, you should never be able to choose who to play against and who to avoid.

Let me praise the following suggestion one more time:

✨ automatch ranked lobbies with skill based matchmaking ✨

timid bay
timid bay
#

i think if we have automatch which im not opposed to, theres 3 main options:

  1. Completely random settings removing some unskilled settings such as 5rr

  2. A given 5-10 individual settings you can queue for (can be community voted on) unique for each setting. These will include every main kind of setting. Ex. a fixed wd, prog wd, prog zombies, prog caps, and some variants of these (with fog OR/AND blizzards)

  3. A pool of more curated settings, that you can get randomly. (you dont get to pick if you play, fixed, prog, caps, wd etc

#

a 4th option is to have seperate leaderboards for world dom, capitals and zombies

limber bramble
timid bay
# limber bramble YES

the problem is even inside these parameters, there is some better settings than others

#

part of why some better players are lower than me on leaderboard is because eu adv is less consistent than classic prog caps

limber bramble
#

Separating leaderboards between game modes is definitely needed, not just for convenience with a potential automatch system.

timid bay
#

and to do that is more an of an achievement than what I did

#

I think i was one of the first above 48k

buoyant smelt
#

Didn’t vinsanity do top 10 zombies only few seasons ago

timid bay
buoyant smelt
#

Playing ranked past 26k is impressive to me

limber bramble
#

Playing ranked is impressive to me

idle rampart
limber bramble
idle rampart
#

yes, I surely have no idea whatsoever about ranked games

#

never even played a single one

#

/s

fiery cape
#

Maybe started giving explanations with suspensions how about it