Don't be desperate

There is 1 fundamental problem with trying to get players to avoid extreme risks and that is that even if you could get all the players to agree to a certain standard of risk-taking you would soon find that they would abandon this standard.
Why?
Because you don't win this game by doing what all the other players are doing so after a while you will find players looking for ways to deviate from the norm.
A simple example is in an increasing game ( and many other games ) most players try to get 5 cards before turning them in but the seasoned players know that a well timed card turn-in when you only have 3 cards can sometimes yield much better results than when you wait 2 more turns.
In a way this game is a lot like backgammon, a game that is generally considered a good measure of a persons ability to deal with risks.
Most play it safe and only take huge risks when they are forced too.
The great players mix it up.
Another factor is the definition of a ruined game.
What's is ruined for 1 players is a great game for another.
I had a game recently where we had a nice 3-way stalemate after all the other players where eliminated.
We each attack the strongest player as you are supossed to do if you want to keep it ballanced and not give the game away but we were each still trying to manouver each other around to find the most adavatages position.
After a couple of rounds of trying to get an advantage but still keeping the game ballanced 1 of the players got mad and decided to block the other player and his access to a tradecard leaving me in a great position to keep getting tradecards while they both could not.
Playing what many good players would consider the right way in a 3-way stalemate was in this players mind ruining the game.
If a game reaches a stalemate of any kind some players think the game is ruined.
If 1 player tips the scale of ballance 1 way or the other to fast many would consider that a ruined game.
The point is definitions vary and it's hard to get a consensus and thus hard to avoid ruining the game for everyone.

Definitions of a ruined game...game over in less than 4 turns.
Players killing another when they had no real chance...they got lucky...and left themselfs weak for another player to kill them.
How can a stalemate game be called a ruined game even if what you said happened? I wish I could get in a stalemate game.

Be careful what you wish for, Thorpe!

It has been soooooo long agooooo

I'm in 7 stalemate games right now, on average they have lasted more than a 100 days allready and no end in sight.
A stalemate countdownclock or button would be very welcome right about now

Lol, if you get a stalemate button you will never learn how to play these games.

Just go get killing and lower the troopcount, see if you can manage a stalemate if theres no territory with more than 10 troops on it


P.S. @Cireon, I think I'll clean up this topic at some point, but lets keep chatting for now

Trouble is often you try to initiate this kind of "troopreduction" only to find the other 2 players don't cooperate.
I've won plenty of stalemate games ( including 1 against you if I'm not mistaken .
A stalemate countdownbutton would help to speed this up because it would do what you proposse we should do.
Namely, reduce the number of troops until a stalemate is either not sustainable or unwise ( and probably both ).
The 5 card turn-in rule was abandoned because of the many stalemate games.
With it's propossed return it would be a good thing to have this button to counter the return of the stalemate plague that apparantly infected so many long term games.
If you look at all the things that have been implemented to avoid the stalemates ( the 3 card turn in, increasing card values, fog of war ) I think it's pretty clear that stalemates are the biggest flaw in this type of game.
Why not try another sollution.
Let's say you programe the game that after 10 rounds of no attacks or 1 army attacks to get a tradecard the stalemate button is activated.
Programming this would probably be easier if you take x amount of round with less than 1 % of all players armies defeated as the basis for activating the button.
You then make it so that if a majority of players push the stalemate button ( they can't see it if another player has pushed the button to avoid teaming ) the stalemate countdownclock begins.
Every round all the players lose 5 %of their armies until 1 of the players launches a mayor attack ( more than 1 % of enemy army defeated ).
Then the countdownclock stops and the game resumes it normal course again unitl the game ends or another stalemate takes place.

The problem with reducing troops during the game in a stalemate situation is, that someone gets to act first after the reduction giving an unfair advantage where there was previously none!

In all the stalemate games I have been in, someone always gets an opportunity arise that changes the games, even if it is gaining 1 or 2 more reinforcements than the others each turn giving enough of a majority in troop numbers after 20+ rounds to warrant an attack, or an opponent being caught with 5 cards when you have 3 or 4, making an all-out attack worth while for a guaranteed double turn in!
Experienced players in my stalemate games always reduced the numbers themselves by attacking within the odds. Watching this taught me something new!

A countdown clock, should give you a set amount of turns to do something significant or the game will be voided. Troop reduction should only be carried out by a Risk player and to the extent they decide or are willing to risk. As Thorpe rightly pointed out:
Still no response to this part of the previous game ruining post.

One idea has already been happened upon by accident by, I think Vexer who suggested making the Dominator contest from monthly points/wins instead of total points. I strongly believe the Dominator position is directly responsible for X players using any means at their disposal to gain rank/points to get in the Dominator contest! If there was another way to decide who gets in that didn't involve points at all, it would be pretty much eliminated! However, there would be no reality to the Dominator then!

@Bluebird, yes, you won that one

If 2 players don't cooperate, well, than just let it stalemate for another month - afterwards try again. At some point they will realise something has to be done.

If 1 player doesnt cooperate, well, just work together with the other player and reduce troop count that way.


But if you make a button that does that, than players will never properly learn how to play a fixed cards risk game (apart from the fact that it's hard to do on a fair way).


If you void games that take longer than a month, the same problem arises: ppl will never learn how to play fixed games properly (in fact, I would never play them, because after a month of hard work the game will be either jos over, of ppl will rush to let it finish before the month is over).



Right now the top 12 consists of players who are really good.
You don't need to get lots of points to reach it - you need to be really good - points will come by itself.
I think the D12 tourney works well for now.

Games would not "void" after 1 month, they would slowly recduce the number of armies until it is either unwise to continue the stalemate or impossible to continue.
Why would you refuse to play a game if there is a limited amount of time until it reaches the end-stages.
Increasing games have the same built-in mechanisme.
How many increasing games do you know off that lasted more than 20 turns?
A stalemate clock would regulate what you think should happen anyway.
Relying on players goodwill to reduce army numbers or waiting another month to try again to end the stalemate seems like a roundabout way to accomplish the same thing; avoiding endless stalemates.

The second part of my reaction was at Aero, who wants games to void after a specific time.

In the tournament rules of the Italian Risk (which is called Risiko) there's a maximum amount of troops one can have on the board (usually 120 or 130). That cause people to attack more rather than lose their reinforcements. But you completely derailed the topic.

In increasing games stalemates are rare, ruined games are very common, especially lastly. I don't think the turn-in rule restored will entirely solve the problem. Players mentality is the problem in my opinion, not the game rules.

The site has growth too fast, there's a new generation of players that has never met the old generation. They have a new conception of the game mostly based on luck and gambles. They have no idea of what "ruined game" means, they think it is just how the game works!

Rule violations should be punished: the rule is "play to win". By the way to re-rail the topic, Matty wasn't speaking about any rule violations. He just suggested why avoid to do moves with little chances even when it's the best move to do by theory. I think it was a smart suggestion.

A capped troop mode sounds intriguing.

What base are you going to determine what is a ruined game?
The punish-ment for that rule violation?

blubirds earlier comments made great sense to me.

i would like to point out that game ruiners will always happen no matter the default setting, being done-in or halfway done-in by a suicidal noob will always be a factor, it has always been a factor in every risk site i have played on,, i hear nothing new in the complaints part of risk chats.

We cant regulate that people play with impeccable strategy , obviously, and trying to does work to remove the risk element of risk .
The key in managing that problem is ~know who you are playing with~ and its prevented , play in no noob games and relax .

And ,,consider a button that a 'game creator' can prevent a certain player from joining that game, it would help keep out known riff raff,,