• 24 posts
  • Page 1 of 2
Hoodlum wrote:
I'm a fan of the current capitals game, it's fun, and it's popular, but it really is inferior as a strategy game. It's a card game, maybe drop game, or a lucky win from a misfortune of dice or poor play which there is no coming back from. Still, it's my fav gametype, which i play with sametime mode..

There's been a few suggestions to make it better with regards to ruined games. I have made one link & dough_boy has made one link but i think I like Cireons proposal, which i think should be the default capitals game as it is more familiar to risk players new to the site if they have played a Risk Capitals game before.

Another alternative game mode is where players are not eliminated after their capital is lost, but the player who owns all the capitals on a map wins: Capital Domination?

I would just rename it Capitals, and we can also have a more time convenience one called Capital Domination as well? Maybe too messy to have too many options.

Object of the game.
Capture all opposing capitals while still controlling your own capital. Players are not eliminated after their capital is lost

Capitals Domination
Object of the game.
3 players: Capture any 1 opposing capital while controlling your own capital.
4 players: Capture any 2 opposing capitals while controlling your own capital.
5/6 players: Capture any 3 opposing capitals while controlling your own capital.
7/8 players: Capture any 4 opposing capitals while controlling your own capital.
9 players: Capture any 5 opposing capitals while controlling your own capital.

Control (current d12 capitals) or other name ideas. Convert / Conversion relating to religion and war. Maybe capture?

Object of the game.
Capture an opponents headquarters (capital) to eliminate them and control their remaining armies. Players are eliminated after their capital is lost. Control all opponents armies to win the game.
Cireon wrote:
Capitulation could be the name of the current capitals game type.
“This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question.”
- Speaker for the Dead, O.S. Card
Hoodlum wrote:
Capitulation could be the name of the current capitals game type.

I've never heard that word, but the definition fits!

Capitulation: Capitulation is an agreement in time of war for the surrender to a hostile armed force of a particular body of troops, a town or a territory.
dough_boy wrote:
I agree. I was venting to hood how someone decided in a 3 person remaining caps game to go 5 on 17 against my cap. They lost leaving me with 11 left and a clear path for the other player to easily kill me. Their only excuse was "it was my only option". Basically, to get lucky. So their roll of the dice handed the game to the other person when I was clearly going to win.

Not sure if it was murder-suicide as it wasn't the intention, it was just a horrible decision.
Matty wrote:
I'm a bit against renaming 'capitals' though. It will suddenly mean something else, and ppl can only now that if they read things. But ppl never do.
"The true mind can weather all the lies and illusions without being lost. The true heart can touch the poison of hatred without being harmed. Since beginningless time, darkness thrives in the void, but always yields to purifying light." ~The Lionturtle
aeronautic wrote:
I'm okay with changing the game type and making the current Capitals an advanced option, after all, many things have changed on the site over the years and after a period, players acclimatized to the changes and forgot the old way.

By changing something and leaving the old way still available as an option, it keeps the stalwarts happy and offers improvement to the game.

Can I suggest a mass PM to all players and a few posts in the Live Lobby should suffice?

Slightly off topic:
With regard to the current Capitals game, I would have liked to have seen a Reality Warning for anyone about to ruin a game with an ill-equipped attack, e.g. 10 v 50
Warning! you have 0% chance of winning this attack, this attack may ruin the game.
BTW 0% is accurate for those numbers over 212206 simulations. The only way this would work though is if a smaller Risk Dice Odds Calculator was embedded in the attack code and only triggered a warning if less than 51% odds. However, I fear that it would slow the game.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
dough_boy wrote:
It won't matter aero. Some will think hey, that is my only option, 10 on 50. I will lose either way, maybe a slight chance at a win.
elysium5 wrote:
Those players (who take that much of a chance) should be reported. There is a difference between 'Risk" and my only hopeless chance.We need to be able to tell those players that just because they see it as a Hail Mary, it is in fact nothing but a game ruining move for others. Just because it is desperate it doesn't mean it should be done. Ruining another players games with no chance of winning yourself is not really an acceptable strategy. We all remember Westchester...
"And if you think this might be bringin' me down, look again cause I ain't wearin' no frown, get down."

elysium5 is online.
Hoodlum wrote:
the current capitals tournament is interesting. i'd be interested in the statistics afterwards of how many games were won by cleaning up someones mess.
Hoodlum wrote:
How bout this for an idea to eliminate that mentality. The player that makes that kind of move pays the total sum of loss points of remaining victims, to the winner, while the victims get refunded.

How would it work? Maybe two or more reports for a request points refund sends a notification and a moderator can assess the game. If the game ruiner reports himself, then it's an easy assessment.

I think this would encourage players to use the reporting system, players would rather want their points back, than care about a players fairplay score deducted. atm Players aren't really using the reporting system or encouraging others to, because it's a task to get them to. snitch mentality. but if they want their points back..maybe a different story.
 The heavy points loss, may discourage those gamblers from messing up games but i think some players would be happy to pay the extra points to the winner, if they feel bad about screwing it up.


To unlock the refund option, you have to report first?

dough_boy wrote:
Part of my problem with reporting is the "must be backed by second player warning". I never want to report murder/suicide because the game is over and no one else will bother.

Here is another game that just happened: https://dominating12.com/game/85611

Failed attack (again).

If I request a points refund, would a mod just give it to me? What about everyone else? Would they have to ask too? Where would the points come from? Would it come from the person who messed it up? Or would it just be manifested?
dough_boy wrote:
And here is another crazy one.


I had 7 armies, had to move 2 territories and ultimately go 5 on 14 and I won. Granted even if I lost and weakened them, I was the only one left.
Hoodlum wrote:
the extra incentive is points back, to get the second report. the detterent for the suicider is, that he gets punished by losing a lot of points if he tries those outrageous moves, or deliberate suicide.
atm there isn't that much incentive for other players to report suicides.
currently, when it's reported, it only deducts a fairplay point from the reputation scores. the reputation scores are meant to be an indicator to let other users and staff know who the serial offenders are. designed for players to moderate themselves, possibly to use the avoid feature. lock games for low attendance players / low fair play socres. but the report system it isn't getting used enough. players still have that, "i don't snitch", or payback mentality with chat/play that ends up getting their own account scrutinized by moderating staff.

When a players fairplay score goes down too much, then moderating staff would send messages to serial offenders, and possibly implement ban types like 2p only restriction, till their fair play points increase. The report system is genius imo, but it doesn't get used as much as it should.

the points would come from the points would be deducted from the player at fault.
Thorpe wrote:
The game 855987 was not under
 for the suicider is, that he gets punished by losing a lot of points if he tries those outrageous moves, or deliberate suicide.
I went against his cap with 32 and he had 24 in cap ...I lost them all and then had 14 in my cap and he should have never won that game unless he did have a trade-in...which he did not have...so he moved 7 armies two territories to get to me and went against my 14 in cap with only 5 and won....SMH

Should there be a options for the site causing me to lose the game.. if so I like to report the site
By the way this is the first time I have seen this in a cap game ever, and I play a lot of cap games as you well know.
95.5% of the time you kill a players cap before your 2nd turn in... you fail or die next
dough_boy wrote:
In this game Thorpe it was NOT suicide. There was only 2 players and only 1 option. I was dead either way if the attack wasn't successful.

It was just crazy lucky dice rolling that allowed the victory to happen. There is no recourse in situations like this.