"Increasing Bonus" has got to go

OK serious players. Hear me out on this. Im sure Ill get resistance, but not based on merit, but habit. Just because things are a certain way does not mean they should be. It seems like the “default settings” are for having increasing card bonuses. Which lets be honest, takes all the strategy really away from the game that we love. When you played risk as a child there was a card bonus value that did not increase, at least not in the original versions of the game. When and if this ever became part of the standard board game, I honestly don't know. The bonuses in RISK are based on weighted cards. Now the three colors that we have are just like the artillery, calvary and infantry cards of risk except the colors are not weighted. [b]3 infantry cards = 4 units. 3 cavalry cards = 6 units. 3 artillery cards = 8 units. 1 of each type = 10 units. Of course if you own those countries you get two units on those countries as well. [/b] Here's the problem. In RISK, the way it was originally present, ONLY through good strategy and clever use of your troops can you overcome your opponents. With the increasing bonus, all you have to do is nothing, not take or control regions (it is even mentioned in the forum strategy guides to NOT hold territory), just attack little 1 unit countries, and retreat after getting your card. Don't believe me, watch any game where someone takes Australia first, lol. All they do until they get their cards is use the 2 bonus to attack a 1 unit country, and then retreat, and hope that someone takes the country back so they can do it again. Right around the time the bonus gets to 35 units, (which lets face it, for doing nothing, you deserve 35 units trade in, lol), there are almost no legitimate players who have been using strategy and thought, who can turn back an attack that can come from almost anywhere with 35 plus troops. The result? This has led to just 4 or 5 roving huge masses of armies, who hold nothing, and do nothing, just attack tiny 1 unit countries, and.. wash, rinse, repeat.… Sure, almost ALL games are over shortly after the 35 unit range is reached (most even before that), and in the games I have played recently, the only factors I have needed to consider, prior to my turn, is who is going before me and how many cards THEY have, who is going after me, and how many cards they have, and how long till I get a full set for trade in. The positions of my troops, lay of the board, are all irrelevant next to the card trade in issue, and that is truly sad. [b]This bonus situation also leads to other problems as well. [/b]Problems that really dont exist without the increasing bonus option in play. For example I never heard a [b]murder-suicide[/b] till I got here. When you know that the absolute maximum that you can receive for a trade in bonus is 10 (and maybe you own a couple of the countries, so call it 12 or so), is that you value your troops more, and you actually think strategically. The reason that one might decide to risk it all (which by the way is the name of the game) and go for broke by attacking another player in a winner take all scenario, is usually because the player going next, is set to trade in cards at a trade-in value of possibly 25+ units. If the current player does nothing, the following player is going to wipe him out based solely on the strength of that bonus alone, so why wouldn't he try whatever he could to avoid losing? Ironically, the definition of suicide would actually be met more by sitting still and doing nothing. The irritating thing about that is, through no fault of your own, you could've played a very good and strategic game, but somebody else decides to plan their entire game around going “card chasing”, and if they get lucky and have a set to trade in (rather than the having 4 cards you cant use, that kills us all), then you really have no chance. Plus, we have all seen (and probably done) exactly that, we see a target that strategically would never have been significant, but they are holding 4 cards! So we throw everything at them following a huge bonus, get lucky, kill them, and now we get to cash in yet again, at an even higher bonus, which essentially means the game is over. All you do then is “add time” and viola, victory for the guy who did nothing. It is odd that you can add time to a game where the first option one selects is the duration of time allotted for each turn, isn't it? Bet that the Atlanta Falcons wish they could have “added time” to the end of the last Super Bowl, but a quarter is 15 mins, and thats it. When you think about it, remove that and much of the “card chasing” would be at least partially neutralized, but thats another discussion. The only mildly valid reason I can see for ever having the “increasing bonus” selected, is for those who were heavily effected by the MTV destruction of attention spans, because the increasing bonus essentially ensures that the game ends much sooner than it would if strategy were the focus, and that is fine, but that is not the strategy game I came to know and grow up playing, and if I wanted to play cards, I believe Pogo has an excellent reputation for card games, I would likely head there. However I like RISK, and choose to play that, which I am guessing is why we are all here, isn't it? Maybe it isn't that big a deal, and if that is the case, I apologize, but if nothing else, the “increasing bonus” should be an option that is not used often and certainly not the default setting. OK, Im done. Just wanted to spur some conversation about this, and share my thoughts. Im ready for the inevitable wave of hate mail that is sure to follow, I only ask that you remember that I am bringing this up in a friendly manner, and not personally attacking anyone, and I would appreciate the same. Thanks, Damage

Ok, so you say that the increasing cards should not be the default, but what should be? Fixed cards? No cards? These games have a disadvantage as well: they can take hours and hours (live) or years (long term). Feel free to make games that don't have the default settings though, nothing wrong with that. But the defaults are as they are because they are very popular and make for good games generally. Of course, suicides make things bad, but these are not limited to fixed card games (though they do happen more often there, I must admit that).

Thank you for your input MATTY. I have read many of your posts, and know you are a respected and thoughtful individual here. You are correct that each has advantages and disadvantages of course. But one thing RISK has NEVER been is a lightening fast game. Monopoly didnt make the Chance and Community Chest pay out in increasing amounts just to make a game take 5 mins. That setting BTW actually IS available, in the form of the most selected game on the site, the 1 V 1 Deathmatch. That is a 5 min game, and although not my fav, os easy to play, needs minimal people, and is completed quickly (usually without even finishing). I am glad you asked for my thoughts on what SHOULD be considered, as I felt to just offer them was arrogant at best. But, since you asked.....Either: A. A fixed amount seems to be the easiest and most practical solution. Maybe Capped, at maybe 12 or 15. That is sort of 6:5 and pick em. Or, the method I think I prefer is B. Have some of the site designers (people a lot smarter than me) actaully weight the cards, not unlike the game RISK itself. Now, I have played at MANY sites over the years, and there was one which attempted something similar to that and ran into Copyright/Trademark infringement issues. Thats expensive and no good. And the colors avoids that, but cant weight the cards appropriately. So my thought is to perhaps combined the 2, and completely avoid the Infantry, Cavalry, Artilery that is a potential problem, and maintain the colors, obviously with the understood equivalencies (the old wink wink approach), where maybe Green is understood as Infantry, Red being Cavalry, Blue Artilerywith the corresponding weights added to them for trade in purposes. The reason I feel this is the proper way is that in RISK, just because you turn in cards, you are NOT assured the max value available. This is key. If you want to bring strategy back, and reduce card chasing being the determining factor, think of this.....You trade cards in and get your armies, there is a smaller opponant with cards, and few forces. If you get those, you could really set yourself up well. So you throw everything at the player, throwing strategy to the wind. You kill him, and get your.....Uh-Oh, minimum value trade in cards!!! You have just screwed yourself. Now you mentioned game length..... the Maximum trade value is still available, and canbe reached, IF you apply good strategy with your cards! Ahhh, more strategy! Merely waiting 3 rounds to cash in so you get 2 back to back high bonuses is NOT strategy. Well it is, but not really much of it. This brings that back into play. Additionally, I assure you that a bonuse of 12 armies is significantly situational changing, and will provide the extra attack power a player needs for certain attacks, or fortification against an aggressor. What will NOT happen, is the race to the 30 army mark and whoever gets there fiorst wins. It will also reduce the amount of rediculous runs that merely cashing in cards produces (like when you get 25 armies, place them ANYWHERE), and because most people will be thinned out, you take literally at least 20 territories all that had 1 army each, and now have 1 army each. In short, it makes someones breakthrough due to cards non fatal for the most part (and why lose because someone who did NOTHING all game waited and got the bonus after it got jacked up?), and makes it so that just one trade in cannot make someone either invincible or impenitrible. I just feel that it is much closer to the spirit of the RISK game, and actually makes strategy matter more. I have seen threads with beautiful mathmatics on them describing 3 vs 3 attacks, etc., but they all fail to extrapilate down the road, because they cant. Does it make sense to have all the math, and thought, and probability mentioned for the first m,oves, but then after the bonus passes 8 or 10, that the consensus is then its time to card hunt? Or better yet, look at the most basic map, the standard world map.... there are forum strategic posts (and I happen to agree with them btw), that suggest players ignore the colors, take no territories to obtain in game EARNED MERIT BASED bonuses, and simply make 1 or possibly 2 massive armies and free float around, until the binus gets so high, that you take it and THEN attack, and win? Thiose threads ARE in the forum, and ARE the best suggestions for current play. Why bother to make regions on the map, and just make giant freeways of 1 unit territories that all can just stream down till they hit the 390 or 35 bonus, then win the game? I suppose the same thing could be accomplished by making regional bonuses like 30 armies per turn, but I dont have the desire to even think about that. lol. Anyways, Im not saying I have ALL the answers, and I am not saying that ALL the considerations that go on behind the scenes (legal positions, game development, etc.) are addressed here. And the game devs do a great job. But when so much more is possible, why not at least talk about it, and see what people think? Thanks for your prompt reply to my posting - Damage

If you have the time, look at this game, it is just a standard game that went the way most do, but look at the Game log, and see the sequence in your head. Then tell me what the determining factors were in the game, and if this game would have been better served with different settings. [url=]https://dominating12.com/game/758159[/url]

Sorry for having to say this, but I don't understand what you try to say. The point is that you are in a forum thread here, not a conversation or a speach. Usually using short and to-the-point arguments works better then using a lot of words (also known as "a wall of text"). I don't know how old you are, but being short and to-the-point is a good skill to learn. Could you please try again to say what you tried to say? It is true that increasing card games and fixed card games are really different and that you like fixed card games better? But please don't just say: "this is the problem", but also "and this is the solution I propose".

I took a quick look and I think the issue isn't necessarily that it was due to escalating bonus, it appears more so that Jones was able to cash 3 times in 3 turns (cards, kill, cards). He got 25, 30, 35 and even if it was capped at 20, getting 20 a turn is enough to do someone in. Looks like the first time he saved a lot of the 20 and positioned to kill Vino the next turn which you didn't prevent. On his second to last turn he was able to kill Vino with just the extra 3 reinforcements. Long story short, don't play increasing if you don't want to, but in this case I don't think the increasing is what did you in...just the frequency of cashing.

I addressed many points, and since this is not an issue that only effects on thing, I had no choice but to attempt to provide the argument needed into a thought provoking format, rather than 30 second highlights. It seems I have failed. For that I apologize. I suppose the better way to have put this (for those who dont choose to examine all aspects of it, from front end to back end), is as follows: 1. Have you EVER seen a "murder-suicide situation in a game without obscene numbers of troops as a bonus? 2. Is the reason for playing to get in and out before the A.D.D. kicks in and we lose concentration, or to play a strategy game? 3. Do you feel that without receiving overwhelming numbers of troops at one time, that you cannot use strategy to win (like 45 in a trade in, which there are no defenses that can resist that) ? 4. What do we want the determining factor that leads to a win to be, strategy, careful planning and movement, or card trade in values? 5. What should reward you more, attacking a territory with one army, 3 times, and receiving a bonus, or holding many territories in the same region for a round? 6. Are we all ok with the fact that the increasing bonus has eliminated the regional bonus (except for Australia it seems) from relevance, in favor of having one massive army and a ton of 1 unit territories in our wake? I was not trying to address one issue like an on or off thing, I was addressing a concept. One that has changed the very manner of the game. Sometimes change is good, and the purpose of my forum post was to provoke thought, and show those who read it what I have observed, because as we all know, it is often difficult to see the trees when you are in the forest. So I put it to anyone who wants to, to answer the above questions to themselves, and use that to form your opinion, and avoid the "thats just the way it is", line of thinking. If you are happy with no regional significance in the game, and each player having one massive army and nothing else, and you enjoy the debates about murder suicide, then there is no issue, and I would never try to change the mind of someone after they have said "YES, that IS what I want". It is insulting to attempt to do so.. If you decide that it is NOT what you prefer, then perhaps we can examine other options as defaults. DOUGH_BOY, I thank you for taking the time, as did MATTY, to examine what I was providing, however, the point that example was supposed to make is that while Jones played a fantastic game, IF and that is IF, he had NOT attempted those card chasing moves, he was done. Now, HAD he not been successful, then he IS guilty of murder suicide, is he not? And we ALL know there are mopre than enuff players who cant wait to report and whine about that. Of corse that is absurd. And EVERY GAME WITH THOSE SETTINGS ENDS THAT WAY, completely decided by a massive card bonus, and a move that is murder suicide IF YOU FAIL, but is great play if you win. That is mind blowing to me, and I have NEVER seen games end that way without obnoxious card bonuses being involbved, and I have played many places. That was all I was saying

Sorry, I almost forgot.... QUICK FOLLOW UP.... One of the things that excited me to play here was NEW variations of the game (not the increasing bonus, but pother ones), in games like CAPITOLS!!! I was VERY excited to try that, and knew I would suck while learning the ins and outs of the game. It IS fun. And it almost always is played with Increasing bonuses. At first this put me off for all the reasons mentioned above, lack of strategy, lack of thinking, etc., but with that version of the game, I actually CAN see where that does add something to the game!!! In fact, I think it ADDS as much to CAPITYOLS, as it takes away from the regular game, but I DO admit it has its place!!! That said, I think it should be capp[ed before the bonuses go north of 20 per trade in. Otherwise, all that is needed to win is ONE bonus that is higher than the amount of troops in any capitol, and that does take very long to happen. Otherwise, that variation of the game does benefit from rewarding absolutely nothing. and I still suck at CAPITOLS, but enjoy [playing it. lol.

Personally I look at murder-suicide as an intentional pissed off act. HOWEVER, I do not look at someone attempting to make a move only to end up one short as murder-suicide. It was luck of the dice. If I see someone continue to attack when it is mathematically impossible for them to finish the kill...that is murder-suicide. There have been several times where I will have to attack on multiple fronts and if I fail at one, I stop. If someone else continued, I would call them out on it. I got accused of it on a game where I ended up 4 armies short (but I had to go through dozens and even lost 15:1 on a territory). I had to roll the dice that I could kill them, get their cards, make it one turn, and then turn the tables.

[quote=Damage Inc.]1. Have you EVER seen a "murder-suicide situation in a game without obscene numbers of troops as a bonus?[/quote] Yes [quote]2. Is the reason for playing to get in and out before the A.D.D. kicks in and we lose concentration, or to play a strategy game?[/quote] No. I also find this statement somewhat offensive - I'm 100% sure that there exists lots of people who do not have that condition and still enjoy increasing card risk. [quote]3. Do you feel that without receiving overwhelming numbers of troops at one time, that you cannot use strategy to win (like 45 in a trade in, which there are no defenses that can resist that) ?[/quote] No. Or somewhat more helpful: you can have a good strategy game with both the overwhelming number of troops and without - I've played both. [quote]4. What do we want the determining factor that leads to a win to be, strategy, careful planning and movement, or card trade in values?[/quote] All of them. [quote]5. What should reward you more, attacking a territory with one army, 3 times, and receiving a bonus, or holding many territories in the same region for a round?[/quote] This depends on the situation. There are situations where getting a lot of territory is good. There are also situations where it's not good. This is a part of the strategy. [quote]6. Are we all ok with the fact that the increasing bonus has eliminated the regional bonus (except for Australia it seems) from relevance, in favor of having one massive army and a ton of 1 unit territories in our wake?[/quote] This statement is false. Region bonusses do play quite an important role in increasing card games. Just not the way you think about it. ------------------ So let me try to address the real thing here: risk with increasing cards is played different then risk with fixed cards (or 4/6/8/10 cards, or no cards, or capped cards -whatever). In principle the game is the same, but in the details of the strategy it's different. Increasing card games require good timing, good positioning, and good anticipation of what the players around you are doing. I don't think you realise, but there is a huge difference between a skilled player and a newbie in increasing cards games. In low value card games you can make more mistakes, the game is a bit more lenient on you, and a lot more goes into patience and long term planning. It's kind of the difference between a WW2 blitzkrieg style war, and a WW1 trenched style war. So in both variants of risk luck and dice plays an important role. And in both variants skill plays an important role. The main good thing that increasing games have and fixed games haven't is that they don't take as long. The main bad thing about increasing games is that it's much easier for one player to ruin the game then it is in fixed cards games. I'm not saying you should start playing increasing games, by all means, play fixed card games - they are great! It's just that there are good reasons to play increasing games as well, and a lot of people enjoy it, which is why it's the default option.

i cant believe i just read all of that

Darn it lazer you just made me read this too... I agree with Matty, risk is a strategy game regardless of card turn in settings. I appreciate where Damage is coming from though, and I can see how one would get frustrated trying to play classic risk strategy with the catalyst of increasing cards. Fixed card games take a lot more work but hard work is not equivalent to strategy and planning, it is merely the action after the thought.

lol

My opinion. I think there is always a desire to have an online Risk game where you can play with a few real players (not AI) and experience the same feelings we get when we strategise against our friends and family (all in good fun, but serious fun with a hidden desire to dominate and win). However, [b]online games[/b] are with strangers and we can't even talk to them in person or call them up on the phone and the game boards, cards, armies and actions are all [b]virtual[/b]. This poses a need for a whole new programming and control requirement for the traditional game. Games can become everlasting if nobody is able to break the deadlock and you can't leave the board and come back to it the next time you all have time to get together. The online game has to be fair to all parties and allow them to play and finish the game within their timescale and availability to play and so, the controls for the game are always optional, [i]including capping card values to give more realism to the original game[/i]. I like the idea of weighted cards, this could add another option to the game set up that gives even more of the original board game feel. There are ways of doing this without using the Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery method, which would infringe copyright. Please bear in mind that even if the site owner and senior staff eventually implemented it (after much discussion and refinement), it would never be a default setting, due to game lengths and fairness to all.

I think Matty's first post should have finished the conversation. If you don't like increasing cards games, don't play them. Is it a default setting? 5 minutes turn length is a default setting too, and I don't see any game using that. Do you wanna play hours and hours? Great, not me (maybe on monday), this is an online game and I have a life. Long term games exist (and bad strategists crying too).