Other by The Dred Pirate Robards

[grave root]

Welcome @rich summit! Any feedback from the community will show up here.
Please note that this thread discussion may be shared with SMG, but its primary purpose is for the RISK community to discuss ideas and provide constructive feedback.
If you would like to submit feedback to SMG directly, use this link.

[fading dock]

interesting but im a bit confused on how this would work/look like, if it'd be able to be abused, etc

[crude merlin]

it couldnt be abused, its just a qol thought, but one that we dont need as a toggleable option. a simple popup when the game would end saying "you have won, would you like to continue anyway?" would do the trick

[opal osprey]

Popup is planned (intended) behaviour that'll be added

[crude merlin]

man im so good at this, you should hire me

[rich summit]

Yes that was the point. Except it is an option that you can click at any point once all other players are flagged. So you have the option to leave via a button shown along with the flag. It could even be the flag button. Just with a pop up message alerting you to the fact that flagging gives you the win.

The fact that we don’t have to finish the bot is already a problem in that it modifies the end game giving the second place player no option to continue to play for first they basically have no option but to surrender for second in many cases. I hope SMG eventually makes better bots and then forces us to finish them, but that will probably never happen, for now at bare minimum I believe the “winning” player ought to at least have the option to play it out and actually win the game. Having the option to quit for highest placement at any point seems a sensible way to bring the player experience into line with the way that placements are actually being measured.

Currently the surrendering player in some cases gets to dictate how and when the game instant ends and sometimes the game instant ends at some timed interval after only flagged bots remain if they were flagged by the timer / disconnect rather than deliberate surrender. As things are the only human player in the game ought to be able to play how ever they want to play. This is basic user interface design. Anything else creates an aggravating and arbitrary seeming player experience.

Also if this continues viewers are going to start getting a lot of sudden stupid and unsatisfactory ends to streamed or YouTube games. Risk is often stupid enough, let’s not make it even more so.

[crude merlin]

i feel like you are making problems where they dont xist

SOMETHING has to be done if a player leave the game early. bots are strictly required. and players have the option between active and neutral AIs so anything to do with that is moot.

if someone leaves the game ..... you cant just continue on like nothing happened

flagging already quits and gives you the highest placement. and as luci said, there will be a popup that lets you know you won and can leave

making it a weird ass toggle somewhere is just a bad implementation

like, when the win message pops up you can click to go see ranks, or click to continue. to play against the remaining bots

[fading dock]

oh qol

[rich summit]

Never suggested any kind of toggle. Basically want the instant end of games to be done away with. Either finish the game or choose to leave. Either way clear communication for a pop up that using the flag at any point will result in a highest placement would be helpful.

The argument from many was… “players shouldn’t get credit for placement achieved by the bots replacing them”. This is a very appealing thought but it was never as simple a fix as was suggested. By eliminating the bots from counting for anything the three player and other ends games are inherently changed by the inevitable disconnection or surrender of numerous players. Instead of trying to code a better bot and have something closer to the end of an actual risk game what we have now is another “easy” fix trying to remedy the worst outcomes of achieving placement by botting out but without any consideration to the impact that the changes induced by the quick fix will have on the strategic game itself.

A tiny number of players might use multi accounts to spy after death in fog games therefore instead of finding an actual fix no one can spectate fog. (This is not a good idea!)
Some lame players use bot outs to manipulate the rank system. Instead of an actual fix we get instant game ends and de facto wins dictated by the moment of disconnect of the third place player rather than an actual end game.

There are not easy solutions that do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Hopefully SMG is trying to make a risk game and will get there eventually but in the meantime a lot of the “fixes” while exciting or promising often seem to lead to unintended consequences that could be easily predicted while not easily worked around. Ultimately SMG has to make extremely complicated decisions with a strong sense of the game play experience that they are aiming for. I hope they are up to the task and the game they have in mind is Risk and not some Risk like substance, but we will see.

[crude merlin]

a player full suiciding into another player killing themselves and the other guy just for the third player to mop up is no more satisfying than a player full suiciding into another player killing themselves and the other guy just for the third player to win when they both quit and flag

thats just part of the game, it happens. sure, there can be an option that lets you play against the bots, but the other players quit. that makes you the winner

we start games against players with the expectation that we have to beat the other players, not the bot that takes over when they give up

if a player doesnt like that the bots are hard to play around, i mean .... tough? stop playing automated bots, play neutral

[rich summit]

I start a game with the expectation that I will have won when I meet the win conditions for the mode not when the app decides I have won based on win conditions that have nothing to do with a game of risk.

[crude merlin]

if you are playing OTT and your friends walk away from the table and go home, you dont just sit there and keep on rolling dice by yourself do you?

or maybe one person quits and goes home leaving you and one other person still playing, i presume that you treat the troops of the player who left essentially as neutral AIs and ignore them.

[rich summit]

Bots are a necessary evil to deal with the fact that in an online environment there is simply a large number of players with no ability to understand that they are playing against other humans and that sportsmanship requires play similar to how you would play if the person was in front of you. Anyone who left the table or stalled or did all the other crap people get away with because of the consequences free online environment would never find anyone willing to play with them again. Here we have bots to try to cushion the damage done to the game but finding better solutions may be possible.

[crude merlin]

the solution already exists

if you want risk like risk was made to be played, then use neutral bots.

however you slice it, the point of the game is NOT 'achieve the win condition'. its 'be the last man standing by eliminating the other players through a win condition. one of which is for everyone else to leave'

[rich summit]

I thought the point was to make the map pretty by painting it all one color.