RISK has a huge problem to solve for people who wants a fairplay strategic game

[Generaloberst Heinz Guderian]

I encounter a lot of games where people helps each other. And guess the pay for a nother unit to suppert their higher level unit.

Off course HASBRO RISK can earn a few more buck when this is aloud. More accounts etc.

I'm just saying that if you want to pay money for this be aware that. RISK is not promoting truely honest and fairplay gamer.

Run and AI robot to generate yellow and red card system on players who play in wolfpacks to win.

You can also claim a cheater on somebody. but it is seldom statuated.

In the future i Hope RISK will try to keep the game exiting for Strategic interested people

[Jim]

what are the bets?...drunk or translational issue?

[IbuKondo]

I'm not 100% sure when collaboration takes over strategy. The alliance mode is really just for better communication, but some players treat it more as a literal alliance, is that collaboration?
What about when strategy dictates you should avoid the kill on someone because it either isn't profitable, or focusing on another player is the only way to stop them from running away with the game. If the other player does the same, is that collaboration?
Or if you have a soft non aggression pact with a player where neither of you stack on your borders with them. Is that collaboration?

To me, Risk encourages collaboration to a degree, and I'm not sure where the line is drawn between strategy, and collaboration (labelled as cheating).

[Jim]

When playing with alliances ON collabs are expected...
Thats what that area is for.
The problem is they also do it in the alliances turned off areas.
Anyone with some internet experience knows how to juggle their vpn's and ip's to defeat the current protections.
With very little protections for singles play this game has been taken over by those people.

[FlappyJak]

Originally posted by IbuKondo:

I'm not 100% sure when collaboration takes over strategy. The alliance mode is really just for better communication, but some players treat it more as a literal alliance, is that collaboration?
What about when strategy dictates you should avoid the kill on someone because it either isn't profitable, or focusing on another player is the only way to stop them from running away with the game. If the other player does the same, is that collaboration?
Or if you have a soft non aggression pact with a player where neither of you stack on your borders with them. Is that collaboration?

To me, Risk encourages collaboration to a degree, and I'm not sure where the line is drawn between strategy, and collaboration (labelled as cheating).

Collaboration is specifically using external means to communicate. This includes something like talking via Discord during and/or BEFORE the game (IE: "Let's join this lobby"). This is the line where working together crosses into cheating; you're literally going into a game with the intention to help one of you win.

Working with someone because it's, coincidentally, the best tactic, is not cheating. Having a peace with someone with alliances off, is not cheating. Risk doesn't let you play FFA/Casual games with people on your friends list (you can't do anything with your friends list anyway, so that's redundant AF). SO the only way you could join a lobby with someone you know is to plan it, that's the cheating part.

[Jim]

Originally posted by FlappyJak:

Originally posted by IbuKondo:

I'm not 100% sure when collaboration takes over strategy. The alliance mode is really just for better communication, but some players treat it more as a literal alliance, is that collaboration?
What about when strategy dictates you should avoid the kill on someone because it either isn't profitable, or focusing on another player is the only way to stop them from running away with the game. If the other player does the same, is that collaboration?
Or if you have a soft non aggression pact with a player where neither of you stack on your borders with them. Is that collaboration?

To me, Risk encourages collaboration to a degree, and I'm not sure where the line is drawn between strategy, and collaboration (labelled as cheating).

Collaboration is specifically using external means to communicate. This includes something like talking via Discord during and/or BEFORE the game (IE: "Let's join this lobby"). This is the line where working together crosses into cheating; you're literally going into a game with the intention to help one of you win.

Working with someone because it's, coincidentally, the best tactic, is not cheating. Having a peace with someone with alliances off, is not cheating. Risk doesn't let you play FFA/Casual games with people on your friends list (you can't do anything with your friends list anyway, so that's redundant AF). SO the only way you could join a lobby with someone you know is to plan it, that's the cheating part.

Your explanation is greatly simplified,
Passive alliances happen all the time in FFA,
This is true for mutual benefits up to a point when you allow them to get too powerful.
Communication between players can happen a million ways.
Collaboration happens when you are not trying to win the game only to weaken or block the rest of the players so your main/alt/friend can win.
When you join a game with the intent to gang up against everyone else with your friends or if your smart with the internet and run multi accounts...this is collaboration.

[FlappyJak]

Originally posted by Jim:

Your explanation is greatly simplified,
Passive alliances happen all the time in FFA,
This is true for mutual benefits up to a point when you allow them to get too powerful.
Communication between players can happen a million ways.
Collaboration happens when you are not trying to win the game only to weaken or block the rest of the players so your main/alt/friend can win.
When you join a game with the intent to gang up against everyone else with your friends or if your smart with the internet and run multi accounts...this is collaboration.

The point is, if it occurs with no external communication. Like they're not your friends, you don't know them, you're just playing the game how you want even if that's help another particular player. Then that is not collaboration as far as the report option's meaning of it goes.

Your point about working with someone until they're too powerful. Well at that point one of you might be playing for second. Though playing for second does suck, that's a matter of game balance rather than cheating.

Otherwise your last 2 examples are examples of external communication as you say they're friends/alts, etc.

[Jim]

There are always going to be alternative theories.
Thats why they do it and why this has been going on for so long...
It cost money to fix.
Basically to grow this player base they have to give singles a safe area.
When new players finally see they are playing against teams every time most will just quit, some will join them...
The Games Business manager should want both groups and want more growth.
The larger the Playerload..
The more money your business makes.
And only few thousand as a playerload in a legendary game like Risk is embarrassingly low.

[bobgoggles]

Flappy give it up bro, there is literally no way to convince Jim he is not playing against cheaters every game. Dude is too far down the conspiracy rabbithole. He has been arguing for 5 years with people about it and now blames cheaters and SMG for every loss and SMG for everything from dice rolls to cards not setting to bad troop placement to actually conspiring with cheaters. He even thinks a cabal of cheaters is after him and Steam has shadow blocked him.. Trust me he is a lost cause.

[Jim]

I see my stalker out there, is he saying anything important?
I blocked him cause all he has to say is jims crazy,
dont pay any attention to him, nothing to see here...blah,blah.
He reminds me of that guy in Iraq that couldn't see any americans.

[bobgoggles]

Originally posted by Jim:

I see my stalker out there, is he saying anything important?
I blocked him cause all he has to say is jims crazy,
dont pay any attention to him, nothing to see here...blah,blah.
He reminds me of that guy in Iraq that couldn't see any americans.

See what I mean? Beyond reach. Now Iraq is involved?? If I had to guess I would blame this on the poor care the US gives to veterans, classic PTSD case. Save your time and energy.

Jim I know you are reading this.. you cant both not see my post and see I posted.. it does not identify who it is until you click the "blocked user - show" button. Honestly I fear for you and the safety of those around you.. please seek help.

[Generaloberst Heinz Guderian]

I normally play without Alliances and prefer the Fog of War modifier.
I can see the idea of having a friend list and then work with a strategy together to eliminate the others. Thats a point. ( it would be like playing chess. And the other player has two moves. For me its childish but again I wish this was not allowed. )

But when I see the timing of other players coming into the game typically as groups (wolfpaks) its simply annoying.

[Jim]

Originally posted by Generaloberst Heinz Guderian:

I normally play without Alliances and prefer the Fog of War modifier.
I can see the idea of having a friend list and then work with a strategy together to eliminate the others. Thats a point. ( it would be like playing chess. And the other player has two moves. For me its childish but again I wish this was not allowed. )

But when I see the timing of other players coming into the game typically as groups (wolfpaks) its simply annoying.

Stop using fog of war.
I can see using this if your playing trusted friends for fun.
But not with Randoms.
Watching the moves they make eventually shows their true intentions,
After a few moves you can predict the worlds collapse and decide what you can do to tilt the balance of power in your favor...you cant do this blinded.
Its Always better to watch and learn from your opponents in any game.

[Kenpoleon Bonaparte]

Originally posted by Jim:

Its Always better to watch and learn from your opponents in any game.

This