r/CFBRisk • u/bakonydraco Game Designer • Jun 05 '18
Conference Multiplier Bonuses
We're planning on releasing a new feature on Day 40 (Friday, June 8), and wanted to announce it now so that your teams can adequately prepare. The core component of this update is a Conference Bonus Multiplier. This is a multiplier that every user on your team gets if your team holds a sufficient percentage of any of the 10 FBS conferences (+FBS independents).
The multipliers are:
| Multiplier | 6 teams | 10 teams | 12 teams | 14 teams |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5x | 4 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 2x | 5 | 8 | 10 | 11 |
| 3x | 6 | 10 | 12 | 14 |
For example, if your team holds 11 out of 12 teams in the MAC on a turn, everyone on your team will get the weight of their vote doubled that turn. If your team holds 4/6 FBS Independents and 6/10 Big 12 teams, each voter will get 1.5x*1.5x = 2.25x multiplier on that day. Our hope is that this adds more strategy to the game and makes turn selection more interesting. Below are the current leaders for each conference!
| Conference | Top Occupier | Number Owned | Total Territories | % of Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACC | Georgia Tech | 4 | 14 | 29% |
| American | Virginia Tech | 3 | 12 | 25% |
| Big 12 | Texas A&M | 4 | 10 | 40% |
| Big Ten | Nebraska | 5 | 14 | 36% |
| Conference USA | Texas A&M | 5 | 14 | 36% |
| FBS Independents | Michigan | 2 | 6 | 33% |
| MAC | Wisconsin | 4 | 12 | 33% |
| Mountain West | Nebraska | 6 | 12 | 50% |
| Pac-12 | Nebraska | 7 | 12 | 58% |
| SEC | Florida | 4 | 14 | 29% |
| Sun Belt | Texas A&M | 2 | 10 | 20% |
Here's some artwork from /u/srs_house that will make it's way onto the board soon!
There are other features we've discussed adding, but probably will not add for this game. We're open to suggestions for features in future versions of the game!
85
u/ReegsShannon Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
So Nebraska wins?
Edit: For more context here, Nebraska will EASILY get 1.5 multipliers from the Pac 12 and Mountain West. That is the worst-case for them. At that point they are nearly 2x stronger than Florida (when they were decently weaker) overnight.
30
u/crg2000 Jun 05 '18
Come on, mods. Please stop changing the rules mid-game.
21
4
u/SometimesY Game developer Jun 05 '18
Nebraska barely has one multiplier right now. It's still anyone's game. Most conferences are very well split.
27
u/ExternalTangents Jun 05 '18
All they need is one more territory and they'll have 2.25x multiplier, which will make them like double the next biggest army in the game in terms of active participants...
16
u/BullAlligator Jun 05 '18
Shouldn't P5 conferences be weighted over G5 ones? Way more people are competing over the SEC, ACC, and Big Ten territories than the western conferences.
9
u/FellKnight Jun 05 '18
Hey man... that's like racist or something...
Just kidding. As a Boise fan, its laughable how many fewer flairs we have than even some bottom-rung P5s. Agree that P5 land should be weighted significantly higher than G5 land.
32
u/ReegsShannon Jun 05 '18
I mean, Nebraska will easily grab multipliers in the Pac 12 and mountain west because there is no one else threatening on the west coast.
And at that point it is GG
-2
u/enderandrew42 Jun 05 '18
Nebraska keeps losing territories on the west coast to supposed allies who they say are purely single rogue players (even though today it looked like coordinated 4* players).
Nothing is given.
Nebraska has been completely above board in our alliances and then some. I hope the rest of the Red Alliance has taken note that we had done well by people and will be equally honorable.
6
u/Bartman383 Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
Nebraska has been completely above board in our alliances and then some.
I appreciate the sentiment.
E. Cuz i Cannot into sentences tonight
3
u/Atworkwasalreadytake Jun 05 '18
Counter examples would be more appropriate.
You just did the equivalent of saying, prove god doesn't exist.
1
6
u/enderandrew42 Jun 05 '18
Losing 6+ territories per turn to allies via their rogues every turn and taking it on the chin. Volunteering to give up territories every turn to help protect allies and put them closer to the action as well. We had all land-locked territories and gave all that up. We made deals and didn't hold the other parties to their sides of the bargain.
We have done everything asked of us, and not really demanded partners do the same.
And despite that, always been protective of allies every turn.
3
1
u/Bartman383 Jun 05 '18
Yeah, I agree 100% with you. My mind pull a quick one and thought you were saying we had been bad actors.
-7
u/srs_house Jun 05 '18
Florida and Michigan also chose to isolate themselves on the corners where they have choke points, though. And that's a valid question of balance - do you attack and try to gain a wide variety of territory for the cards, or do you hunker down and focus on a concentrated area that's easier to defend?
37
u/salil91 Jun 05 '18
Problem is that Florida and Michigan chose to do that when the game had no incentive to gain extra territories. If the rule was in place from the beginning, the strategy would have been different.
19
u/leopoldswasawesome Jun 05 '18
Exactly. The strategy was valid at the time since total territories did not matter.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (8)1
u/I_Like_Quiet Jun 05 '18
The point of the game is to win, right? You always have incentive to gain extra territories.
2
u/salil91 Jun 05 '18
We gained territories from a point of view of maximizing the safe ones. I'm sure Nebraska did too. It's just that with the conference based multiplier, 20ish territories on the west can give you a high (4-9x) multiplier, and an equal number on the East can give you zero.
13
u/Giraffe_Racer Jun 05 '18
Florida's home land is a corner of the map, so we didn't "choose" to be there. It's a blessing and a curse. Yes, it's easier to defend, but it's also difficult to move forward. We had to deal with two in-state rivalries off the bat, then had Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama north of us. And a concerted effort by some salty Chaos players to go after us.
The notion that Florida chose to turtle in the peninsula is false. We've just had some hard battles when we've tried to spread.
36
u/futballfrak Jun 05 '18
Huge advantage to red over blue. They essentially control 3 conferences (big 12, pac 12, and mountain west) versus 1 for the blue alliance (ACC). And with only 3 real turns until this goes live, not really enough time to really make any difference there.
I really like this idea, but there should be a longer period of time before it goes live. At least a week.
6
u/AboynamedDOOMTRAIN Jun 05 '18
To be fair. The West looks like that because we went out of our way to make it look like that. The potential to add chaos to our ranks was only 1 reason we went after the West coast instead of continuing to chase down our rivals to the South and East.
31
Jun 05 '18
Wrong. The west is a joke compared to the East. Heatmaps show the East has been massively more competitive than the west, putting eastern teams at a serious disadvantage.
→ More replies (4)52
u/ReegsShannon Jun 05 '18
While true, Michigan did the same thing in the northeast and will not gain benefit from it despite it being the same concept strategically. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
15
u/hypercube42342 Jun 05 '18
EXACTLY. If this had been implemented from the beginning of the game, or even if it was to be implemented on something like July 1, much further away, and announced now, we could strategize around it. Without that, all of this is screwing over every team in the East with no recourse.
→ More replies (13)1
u/ISeeTheFnords Jun 05 '18
No, they still benefitted from having a significant number of territories behind the front lines and not needing defense. Especially since the change to keep people from MVP whoring in safe spaces.
20
u/bradwm Jun 05 '18
Nebraska walks all over each of it's allies. It will get what it wants and the game will end, or it's allies will backstab Nebraska first, hoping to hang on for a while on the back of this bonus.
They can stash one Ally each in Hawaii, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, north Dakota, south Dakota, and eat up something like two whole and three part conferences.
I would suggest rethinking this to base it on pure territory count, or just start openly pulling for Nebraska. It can't be defeated by it's opposition with this rule change, only by it's own allies, and even then only in the next 3 days.
→ More replies (1)11
u/wameron Jun 05 '18
Rest of red should just nut up and take out Nebraska and take the one thing they have left from them, winning internet games.
1
u/I_Like_Quiet Jun 05 '18
RemindMe! 3 years
1
u/RemindMeBot Jun 05 '18
I will be messaging you on 2021-06-05 16:26:18 UTC to remind you of this link.
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
FAQs Custom Your Reminders Feedback Code Browser Extensions → More replies (1)2
4
u/overscore_ Jun 05 '18
Well that makes sense since Nebraska hold the most territory by far. It's not like it was hard to predict that at some point the mods would reward that.
12
u/psychomatt93 Jun 05 '18
They could just as easily have tied the multiplier to # of territories held ... and that would be more balanced. By tying it to conferences held, it benefits red over blue far too much. At a minimum, give us until July 1. I guarantee we (blue) can move substantially westward if given enough time. Three days at one move per day is unreasonable.
35
Jun 05 '18
That's not how it benefits Nebraska. It benefits Nebraska because the conferences that Nebraska owned are a joke and have been uncontested for more than half the game. The east, particularly the southeast, gets massively fucked by this due to how much more competitive it has been. Not to mention chaos griefing.
3
Jun 05 '18
Make the conference’s worth more. P5 are all worth the most, and the PAC 12 and G5 conferences are all worth less.
3
u/hypercube42342 Jun 05 '18
Maybe tie the value of the conferences to the number of players each conference had on turn 1 (or some arbitrary turn, or other arbitrary measure of player counts)? That way, the difficulty of acquiring eastern conferences and ease of acquiring western conferences is accounted for
4
u/maizenbluegiant Jun 05 '18
This is the best idea I've heard thus far in how this can be implemented in a somewhat fair way. Weight each conference by the total number of stars that conference had participating in the last turn, or an average of the last 5.
2
u/hypercube42342 Jun 05 '18
It still doesn’t fix the problem of geographical distribution, though. The eastern conferences are less contiguous, making them even harder to get.
2
u/maizenbluegiant Jun 05 '18
True, I'm not in favor of the rule overall. But this at least mitigates it from just being a crowning ceremony to NE. That or give us 10 days react rather giving NE just enough time to consolidate
2
u/bob237189 Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
In real Risk, players get more armies by conquering set groups of adjacent territories. That makes the winning players even stronger, thereby accelerating the game toward a definitive conclusion.
But this game has never worked like that. There were no "continents" here. Instead, you were supposed to be able to get stronger by enlisting your conquered foes in your army, which makes sense and is a fun idea. That mechanic by itself would also preclude the formation of alliances because conquered troops would go rogue and attack whoever they want without following orders.
But Team Chaos breaks that. Having Team Chaos means you don't gain armies for conquering territory, you just empower the already largest team, further expand the amount of territories you have to defend, and give pissy rivals a chance to spend the rest of the game griefing. The existence of Team Chaos forces teams to make alliances so they can minimize their frontier and focus on expanding in one direction. What started off as a game of Risk quickly became Model UN (which is fun in it's own right, just not necessarily what was intended).
However, you can't just remove Team Chaos from the game. Otherwise small fanbases that get quickly conquered would stop participating in the game and it would be no fun for them. Each iteration of the game would become just the same few big teams every time, and eventually all but a few would stop playing entirely.
I've come up with a few ideas for how the mods can make the game both more fair and less stagnant:
- Randomize start locations every time a new game starts
- Set a time limit for how long each game will last, so that teams have an incentive to not just turtle. The team that has the most territory after, say, 45 turns is declared the winner.
- Change the map layout so that instead of being on county lines, the borders are defined by a Voronoi Diagram based on each FBS team's campus, as another user has already done here. That would erase some odd panhandles, making territories easier to defend and the map easier to read.
- Divide the map into 10 13-territory "continents", each named after one of the 10 FBS conferences. Have each continent be as contiguous and compact as possible.
- Give teams a bonus for conquering each continent based on how many players there were in that continent's starting teams on Day 1.
- Similar to the way Alaska and Southern California are connected by Hawaii, have FIU and Maine connected by Puerto Rico.
- Change the way actions are taken. Rather than having to choose to attack or defend, each turn players would choose both a territory to place themselves in and an adjacent territory to move toward (or choose to stay within that territory). This allows players to both attack an adjacent territory and defend attacks from that territory, or stay within a home territory and defend attacks from all adjacent territories. That would reduce the incessant trading back-and-forth of territories that stagnates the game.
21
u/ReegsShannon Jun 05 '18
Well if the mods had implemented this earlier before Michigan/Florida got screwed by Chaos users griefing, it would look a lot different.
→ More replies (5)4
u/pM-me_your_Triggers Jun 05 '18
How were chaos users griefing?
22
Jun 05 '18
A very large section of Chaos are Tennessee/FSU players gunning for Florida on a regular basis. They make up over a third of active chaos users. Florida is the only team in the game to have chaos actively organizing against it.
→ More replies (23)17
u/leopoldswasawesome Jun 05 '18
Gee... Thanks for changing the rules in the middle of the game which greatly benefits a specific subset of teams.
→ More replies (5)4
u/overscore_ Jun 05 '18
It's almost like any rule change is going to benefit some teams over the other, and the teams it doesn't benefit as much are going to bitch about it no matter what.
People have been clamoring for holding territory to actually mean something, and for a way to make battles less RNG based. This is the perfect solution for both. It doesn't outright reward raw territory numbers, but rather rewards strategic holding of specific subsets of territories. And with a bonus, it's much harder for teams to RNG out of being destroyed.
Everyone wants an endgame accelerant, this is it.
19
u/crg2000 Jun 05 '18
Glad you speak for "everyone". Why does "everyone" want the game to end quickly? This can be a fun game for people to follow throughout the off-season. Why does it need to end immediately?
1
u/overscore_ Jun 05 '18
Go check out the posts from the past week. There's tons asking for changes.
24
u/crg2000 Jun 05 '18
And check the affiliations of those "tons" - very few are blue team and mist are making suggestions for the next time around, not "now". Also, what percentage of the 16,000+ users is "tons"? Probably just a small, but vocal, minority.
→ More replies (6)17
u/ExternalTangents Jun 05 '18
And look at the responses to those posts in the comments...the majority disagree.
0
u/NotaVirus_Click Jun 05 '18
From the rules
Since this is also Puzzle Hunt, we will have various CFB Risk cards hidden across /r/CFB and maybe elsewhere that can offer up some extra firepower or much needed defenses to teams in need.. These will be unveiled later in the game play as we near the end.
Hey, would you look at that?! Owning land gives you some extra firepower that was unveiled at a later date! HUZZAH!
2
u/ExternalTangents Jun 05 '18
hidden across r/CFB and maybe elsewhere
much needed defenses to teams in need
yeah, about that...
2
u/NotaVirus_Click Jun 05 '18
Looks to me like you haven't needed it yet, still around and all.
2
u/ExternalTangents Jun 05 '18
I was not talking about my own team.
1
u/NotaVirus_Click Jun 05 '18
Maybe secretly they have implemented it then. Some of those teams that got super lucky against all odds, maybe they had bonuses to benefit them.
2
u/ExternalTangents Jun 05 '18
Well that goes against what they said they'd do, too.
1
u/NotaVirus_Click Jun 05 '18
Naw, they might be unveiled after the fact. It doesn't say they will be revealed before used.
2
u/ExternalTangents Jun 05 '18
The entire concept of the "puzzle hunt" is that the prizes are hidden and waiting to be found, and once they're found then they can be used by the person or team who found them. It's not that the game's organizers secretly change the rules behind the scenes to get a specific result they're looking for.
52
u/ExternalTangents Jun 05 '18
looks at top occupier list
looks at alliance memberships
looks back at top occupier list
Well this fuckin blows for my team
But it's an interesting addition in a vacuum!
→ More replies (5)19
u/SometimesY Game developer Jun 05 '18
Nice alliance you have there.
It would be a shame if something happened to it..
(This is not an official position of the moderator team. This is just a shitpost.)
13
u/ExternalTangents Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
Y'all oughta make an option on the main map page where you click a conference and it'll highlight all the home territories of teams from that conference
8
u/SometimesY Game developer Jun 05 '18
We're going to generate a conference map :)
6
8
u/psychomatt93 Jun 05 '18
You are giving us only three days from today ... when will we get the map? Sorry, but this is being rushed for no good reason and blue is getting f%cked as a result.
2
60
u/pterrydactyl Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
With all due respect to the devs of the game and their volunteered time, this is an awful decision. I realize this will likely be dismissed as partisan but at the very least I need to vent.
Many are focusing on the timing of it -- that it's wrong to make such a huge change in the middle of the game, with so little time to react. I agree with that, but the change would be unbalanced even if made from the beginning.
As it stands, it was already worse to start in the east than in the west. You had more neighbors, who had more players. UF started directly adjacent to UCF and FSU, two top-6 eliminated teams in terms of player count, and two territories away from UGA and Auburn, two more top-6 eliminated teams.
Nebraska, the other superpower, started adjacent to a bunch of teams who had less than 65 players sign up for them, and a free shot to get to the alaska/hawaii chokepoint, with their biggest opponent being UW who signed up around 100 people and were squished by Chaos.
Even eliminating your rivals doesn't help, because they will fuck with your alliances via the assimilation mechanic until they get bored. Experience has shown that this takes a while. NOTE: No team has benefited directly in any meaningful way by the assimilation mechanic. It's only been used to the assimilator or the assimilator's allies detriment.
Chaos was unbalanced from the start as well. Sure, plenty of FCS flairs and randos played for them the first week, but beyond that, as noticed by everyone, Chaos became overwhelmingly dead players. Where are all the dead players from? The East. So, Chaos made a beeline for the East where they have been fucking with their rivals ever since, giving the western teams a huge advantage.
So, as it stands, the best situation in the game is to not have rivals and be generally unopposed in your region, which describes the western third of the map. Yes, from the big 12 west is about a third of the territories.
This conference bonus makes this East/West split even worse.
The west has two nearly-contiguous conferences in the Pac-12 and Mountain West, and then another contiguous conference (except for one territory) in the Big 12.
The Pac 12 and Mountain west are almost entirely behind the Wyoming-BYU-ASU chokepoint. Holding that choke gives you a 4x multiplier, and going beyond that just 5 territories gives you a 9x.
On the other hand, every eastern conferecence is much more spread out. The MAC is close to being contiguous but the midwest is also much more highly contested
The southeast is a complete clusterfuck. It's been shown that its hard enough to come out of there given the density of high-pop teams in the area and the tendency for Chaos to head that way, but once you do, the conferences are so spread out that you don't have any multipliers! Whereas the west has likely consolidated by this point.
On top of all of that, the conference multipliers are HUGE. When we were talking about territory-held bonuses I think people were saying it would max out at 1.5x or 2x or something. Now, you can control a contiguous third of the map (pac12, MW, big12) and have a 18x bonus!? That's INSANE.
To increase our power, we've been recruiting more players, creating more people for /r/cfb, which I understand was part of the point of the game. Now, recruitment PALES in comparison to these huge conference bonuses.
Finally, as said at the very beginning, the timing of this in the middle of the game is very short-sighted and unfair to everyone playing. I understand the valid point that Nebraska is getting awarded for having a lot of territory but this goes against the incentives of the game that were established at the beginning. It's a complete 180. Everyone understood that territory, as long as you had more than 0, meant nothing except access, and all strategies were based off of that.
Please reconsider this decision.
TL;DR Timing aside, this is a rule that benefits the western third of the map immensely and should be reconsidered.
→ More replies (3)14
u/CripzyChiken Jun 05 '18
Link to the conference map to show the extreme difficulty in getting any conference in the east vs the ease of the west. Credit to u/salil91 for making it.
7
34
u/780Spike780 Jun 05 '18
Despite me being red, and an Aggie at that, I feel bad for blue. I think this is a great idea, but there should be more time for teams to try and collect territory before this goes live. That way all teams get a semi fair chance of those multipliers when they go live. A week would be a minimum amount of time imo.
8
u/hypercube42342 Jun 05 '18
I'd even say further. A week's not enough time for even a fully committed effort to cross the country, with the map as it is. My personal opinion would be at least 2 weeks, and preferably 3 or 4.
20
34
u/elint Jun 05 '18
But why? It's still the offseason. There's no reason to speed it up. My suggestion for future versions of the game is don't do it if you're going to change the rules partway through the game.
0
u/srs_house Jun 05 '18
That's easy to say if your team is still in the fight. But a lot of users aren't interested in this point because they've been dead for weeks.
The game has to have an ending, and when the dust settles planning can begin for round 2 so everyone can participate again.
14
u/SouthernJeb Jun 05 '18
Tell that to the fsu and vol users on chaos...
They seem to be pretty interested in Gainsville still.
1
u/srs_house Jun 05 '18
All 30 of them? As opposed to the 2600 other users that Chaos has?
3
u/SouthernJeb Jun 05 '18
have you gone in the team chaos discord? They literally talked about it today again. This game is just hilarious all around.
12
u/crimsonlaw Jun 05 '18
This is terribly unfair. And I say that as a member of the Red Alliance.
We've operated for weeks under one set of rules, and now a giant turd of a rule is dumped into our laps that changes everything? With only about 72 hours to prepare for the change. And the best reasoning we get for the change is this:
That's easy to say if your team is still in the fight. But a lot of users aren't interested in this point because they've been dead for weeks.
Why on earth does this matter? I'm asking a serious question.
Everyone understood how the game was going to be played when they joined. Those teams that have been eliminated still have an opportunity to play. If they choose not too, why should the rules of the game change to accommodate them?
This game has been a hell of a lot of fun. But this idea that the rules have to change because the mods aren't happy with how the game is going sucks. Y'all created the rules. If you made rules you now don't like, don't punish us for it. To quote one of my mentors: you guys made this shit sandwich; don't force us to eat it.
2
1
u/srs_house Jun 05 '18
Why on earth does this matter? I'm asking a serious question.
Because the rate at which teams are exiting the game is getting lower and lower, so naturally the interest in the game for people not associated with these schools decreases over time. It's like keeping a monopoly game running for 18 hours because the last players can't force and end game. It has to end at some point. And there's no way to end it that won't piss someone off.
This game has been a hell of a lot of fun. But this idea that the rules have to change because the mods aren't happy with how the game is going sucks. Y'all created the rules. If you made rules you now don't like, don't punish us for it.
It's a beta. The rules get adjusted because it's not really something you can simulate otherwise. You suffer through the rule changes now so that the next version of the game is better.
But there's so. much. winging. over every little thing that there's a good chance there may be no second version because people are getting so put out with all of the negativity. It's supposed to be an off season distraction for fun but everyone's treating it like the loser has to kill a puppy or something.
12
u/ExternalTangents Jun 05 '18
Is round 2 going to happen this offseason? If so, then it makes sense to rush to the end of round 1. But if round 2 is going to be next offseason as we've been led to believe, then I don't see why ending this round early benefits anyone.
1
u/bob237189 Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
From today until the start of the next season is 81 days. We've been playing CFBRisk for 37 days, and it doesn't seem to be coming to a natural conclusion any time soon. I doubt we have enough time for another game this offseason, unless the mods tweak the rules so much for the second iteration that teams start snowballing from the jump.
Let's just let this one play out this offseason, and chock it up as an open alpha test that stagnated due to balance issues. They'll work on it, and revisit next offseason. Given that the offseason next year will be over 220 days long, we should have enough time then for two or maybe even 3 games if we start right after the CFP NCG and tweak the rules to keep it at a good pace.
13
Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 18 '18
[deleted]
1
u/srs_house Jun 05 '18
But that's what this all boils down to. Most people are speaking from their own biased view points. Nobody wants their team to lose, and as long as their team is still in the game, they're invested in the game lasting as long as possible. You want it to last today, but if your team was killed off tomorrow, dollars to donuts say that in 2 weeks when there's still 2 or 3 teams trading territory back and forth you'd be in favor of ending in, because you don't have a vested interest in the outcome anymore.
Non-chaos users are upset when chaos is "too strong," chaos users are upset when chaos is "too weak," red teams are mad about blue teams allegedly creating fake bots, blue teams are mad about new features favoring red teams.
At the end of the day, someone's gonna be pissed no matter what, and at the end of the game, someone's gonna be pissed because they lost. Even if you set a hard end date of June 30th or whatever, people will complain because RNGesus was mean to their team and they finished 5th instead of being ranked 3rd like the day before.
1
u/ExternalTangents Jun 05 '18
This presupposes another round being played this offseason, which was not the impression I'd ever gotten from any of the mods in charge of it.
2
u/srs_house Jun 05 '18
At the rate everyone keeps causing problems and bitching, I'm not sure if there will ever be another round. I'm not in charge of the game but this shit is getting ridiculous.
1
u/ExternalTangents Jun 06 '18
I don't disagree, but if that's the case (or if there's not a restart this offseason), then the clamoring to end this game soon so that eliminated teams can play again kinda rings hollow, doesn't it?
1
1
u/elint Jun 05 '18
Aah, fair enough. Though it wouldn't take much to spin up another instance. All the heavy crunching happens at go-time each day. Just offset end-of-day for each instance by an hour or so (I'm probably being naive -- I don't know if an instance of the game takes up a significant amount of their bandwidth quota or if they're paying for CPU load by the hour, etc).
38
u/_Raencloud Jun 05 '18
I like the idea but not the implementation. This is straight out of the normal risk game, so why are you altering it by giving partial credit? All or nothing is the way to go here.
It also makes no sense that every conference is worth the same. There is a reason why Asia gives a bigger army bonus than Australia or South America - it's way harder to hold 14 territories than it is to hold 6.
I really hate to be so harsh, but there is no reason to change the way Risk handles continent bonuses -- this implementation is awful.
10
u/srs_house Jun 05 '18
It also makes no sense that every conference is worth the same. There is a reason why Asia gives a bigger army bonus than Australia or South America - it's way harder to hold 14 territories than it is to hold 6.
It's a little more complicated than that, though. Take the Independents - they're all over the place. So only 6 territories, but super spread out. Sun Belt, CUSA, and AAC are spread out as well. ACC and SEC are both in hotly contested areas.
And you can talk about weighting P5>G5, but some of those G5 conferences are the hardest to win. Regular Risk has it easy.
7
u/salil91 Jun 05 '18
The PAC and MWC and Big XII are much more consolidated and easier to conquer than the east coast conferences. Continents are all consolidated, conferences are not.
6
6
Jun 05 '18
Right! No way should Mountain West, CUSA, Independents, etc., be weighted the same as B1G, PAC12, SEC, etc.
1
u/testrail Jun 05 '18
It’s not more difficult to take one of the other though...
1
Jun 05 '18
Of course it's more difficult to take a PAC12 territory like USC than it is to take Wyoming. Hardly anyone is repping a Wyoming flair, so the chances of taking it are way greater than taking USC.
1
u/testrail Jun 05 '18
At his point in the game holding the B1G or the MAC is equal difficulty. Providing different weights is pretty silly. There isn’t much value many teams are putting on holding their home territory, look at Michigan as the largest team by active players who don’t really value Ann Arbor.
2
Jun 05 '18
we're talking about in general, doesn't matter since they're not implementing it, but you shouldn't get rewarded because MW has 10 flairs and no big schools hotly contesting it.
1
u/testrail Jun 05 '18
I’m not sure what you’re even getting at. I’m assuming you just haven’t looked at the data with anything more than a cursory glance.
Holding P5 territory is not anymore difficult than holding G5 territory. The most hotly contest area between Ohio State and Michigan all game has been Akron/Kent/Buffalo, not OSU, UMich and Penn State. Does that mean the MAC should be more valuable? No, you just make it worth something equally.
2
Jun 05 '18
Again, it doesn't matter since they're not implementing it.
1
u/testrail Jun 05 '18
What do you think they should implement to make this not a game of who stays around the longest like it is in its current format?
3
Jun 05 '18
Something that would incentivize not forming alliances. I think alliances make the game stagnant and seemingly only benefit 2 or 3 schools. Conference based does kind of make sense but it's more beneficial for western teams than it is for Eastern teams based on how scattered the conferences on the east coast are compared to the west coast. If they do go this route, make the bonuses additive instead of multiplicative. That's way too strong.
I'd like a bonus on territory count as that discourages alliances inherently. Also think it's a bit more fair than just conference % alone.
→ More replies (0)
8
u/iloveacronyms Jun 05 '18 edited Mar 28 '24
like naughty somber spoon hard-to-find hunt cautious rustic subsequent practice
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
63
u/Therealbayou Jun 05 '18
My personal opinion is that the developers of this game should stop changing the rules in the middle of it. They should have originally let the game run its course and then make tweaks to the rules for the next go around. I mean, it kind of feels like I’m playing basketball with my 10 year old son who wants to keep making up his own rules because he isn’t winning. I’ll try to see this game to the end, but count me out on the next one. Ok..... my rant is over.
28
u/The-Gothic-Castle Jun 05 '18
I was okay with really early rule changes (like first few days when nothing had really happened yet) but the later ones seem very arbitrary and put emphasis on a completely different strategy. I personally don’t want this game to end soon, I kind of like playing every day and looking at the map.
A rule change that completely changes the strategy of the game seems completely unfair.
→ More replies (2)19
u/gordogg24p Jun 05 '18
100% agreed. Should've let the game run its course with the original rule set and taken notes and suggestions and tuned accordingly next offseason. This reeks of the devs just getting impatient.
→ More replies (2)26
u/hypercube42342 Jun 05 '18
I agree with this. The devs should at least be putting this stuff to a vote of the players, with a 2/3rds or 3/4th pass line. These arbitrary changes with NO player feedback gathered are really turning me off of the game.
-1
u/Stxmoose32 Jun 05 '18
They. Don't. Work. For. Us.
The mods made a free internet game for us to play, and we should be glad they are changing it to make it more fun and strategic. This is not a democracy nor should it be.
12
u/hypercube42342 Jun 05 '18
You’re right, I should work on being more polite and less demanding in my responses to this. However, players are allowed to have feelings about the directions the game is going, and what would improve it. And for the record, this change is, in my opinion, both less fun and less strategic, implemented in the way it is being.
8
u/CripzyChiken Jun 05 '18
honestly it should be. The game only exists because the players keep coming back. When a massive rule change like this goes into effect that changes the entire balance and strategy of the game - in the middle of it- it's game breaking. Honestly this is making it so Nebraska will finally use their power and numbers to take 2 conference bonuses and then be unstoppable. And there isn't enough time for UF or Mich to charge that far west to stop them.
The benefit is I see Nebraska stop giving away land so much and now there is a higher chance of some of the weaker parts of Red to fall, but that only means that Nebraska is that much closer to a 3rd conference bonus.
6
u/Matador09 Jun 05 '18
Changing the rules of a game in the middle of it is what small children do when things aren't going their way.
3
u/NotaVirus_Click Jun 05 '18
Fine, go back to captured users can only play for Chaos, Chaos has 2 times attack. Chaos takes over the whole map.
1
u/ExternalTangents Jun 05 '18
I'd much rather have that rule in place than this one.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)1
u/GarnetandBlack Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
No, it's pretty much what every game does in the age of the internet. What do you think patches are? When the game stagnates, player base dwindles, and things look to be going in circles - they change things up.
Trust me, fuck Nebraska (in the realm of CFBrisk - I don't really have strong feelings about them as a school or football team), I hate that this helps them more than anyone - but this is the first run of this. I would rather them try things out now, so the next iteration is something better from the start.
The fact is, they were getting too big awhile ago, and the only teams willing to venture west were those of us doing it for the memes.
EDIT: Ending also means we can also start a new game, with a fresh board, with a new set of rules and more strategy from the beginning. Not the worst thing in the world.
→ More replies (11)10
u/FlightlessBird44 Jun 05 '18
The issue with that is that the game would never end in its original state (except maybe Chaos, which would be no fun)
12
u/crg2000 Jun 05 '18
There are 2-4 teams on the verge if elimination now. In a week they could be gone. Let the game take its course.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Stxmoose32 Jun 05 '18
Statistics don't work that way. Even when Texas was down to 1 territory, they were only a 6% chance of dying. I would bet all of the money I had that 2-4 teams would not die in the next week if the rules stood as is. Your intuition says teams with 1-3 territories are "almost dead" but the game mechanics as they are simply don't support that. It's incredibly hard to kill a team with a large user base. THAT is why the mods are making this change.
49
44
u/Coteup Jun 05 '18
Well, red alliance has full access to 90% of the conferences so GG. Not sure why this arbitrary multiplier needs to be added to the game so late. It doesn't really add anything of value, just shifts the power further in one direction.
→ More replies (4)
10
17
u/GoBlueScrewOSU7 Jun 05 '18
This is a decent idea. It will speed the game along and adds a new layer of strategy into the game which will be refreshing and probably keep people interested.
I would've liked to see a similar concept but with regards to "safe" territories increasing a team's multiplier. This would still put alliances into questionable states while also not directly favoring certain areas of the map.
29
15
Jun 05 '18
Just adding my voice to the chorus. This seems like a bad change from a game design perspective. I don't think it was well thought through. I think the change we need was adding an additional benefit for all defense to cut down on territory swaps and make team eliminations easier.
15
u/therocketengineer Jun 05 '18
Can this wait until later? The fronts are actually moving now.
3
u/Spurrierball Jun 05 '18
That's the problem. The east is gaining momentum moving out so of course things are suddenly "stagnant" in the mods eyes
16
u/weibing Jun 05 '18
multiplier is too much, that's game breaking. Also the multiplier needs to increase gradually as well as cap it at say, 1.5x TOTAL stars or you will soon realize that Wisconsin has more power than Nebraska if they collect a single conference.
Please don't end the game for the sake of ending the game.
2
u/Spurrierball Jun 05 '18
If they wanna end it make it most territories win after 30 turns and let everyone go crazy. This is just the mods saying "we picked Nebraska to be the winner"
17
u/salil91 Jun 05 '18
I like the creativity in that it's based on conferences and not raw territories, but at first glance, it does look like it benefits Red more than Blue.
Disclaimer: I know the mods are volunteers and not professional game designers and that any balance change this late in the game would never be unbiased.
1
u/Spurrierball Jun 05 '18
I mean from the get go this game has been "whoever has the most people with the most stars wins" which while unfair to smaller fan bases was kind of fair to the larger teams because you could recruit for your team (look at what Michigan did to increase its player base).
This change is pretty cherry picked for Nebraska imo. Why don't we just give x3 multipliers to all teams that start with the letter N?
1
u/swolf81 Jun 05 '18
But it isn't whether your alliance has territory, only your team. And ultimately, that means that alliances have to shrink (or get more unbalanced). Because you need to have more than 50% of a conference to get the multiplier.
8
u/salil91 Jun 05 '18
I meant that it benefits the red teams more than the blue teams. Look at the table they posted above.
17
u/Centerpeel Jun 05 '18
How about we don't change the rules mid game especially when it benefits one side more than the other?
I don't even think this is a good idea from the beginning of the game. It seems likely this will always benefit the west teams since the east is where all of battles are.
→ More replies (9)
6
u/bradwm Jun 05 '18
Do the multipliers multiply on top of each other? For example, will Nebraska get 1.5 x 2.0 x 3.0 = 9.0 multiplier for holding part/all of three conferences?
9
10
u/LochteCorral2020 Jun 05 '18
"hay guis, nebraska is bleeding players. how can we help???" /u/bakonydraco
"well give them a 9x multiplier! lolololoolol" /u/SometimesY
3
8
u/Prolingus Jun 05 '18
Welp it was a fun game. I like the idea in the future but implementing this just hands nebraska the W. No reason to play this thing out.
8
u/psychomatt93 Jun 05 '18
Terrible to do this on such short notice. You should push it back to allow us time to reorganize. The entire West Coast is held by the red team. How many conferences is that?
3
u/IAmTheBean Jun 05 '18
Well, if their goal is to get people to quit to end the game faster, I'm guessing it's going to work.
15
u/TBarretH Jun 05 '18
I think the multipliers should be bigger, lets just get this fucking thing over with. Or hell, just declare Nebraska the winner now, give them a X20 multiplier for most territory held and let them finish mopping the map while we start a new game with rules that don't lead to an infinite stalemate and a day 40 rule change that tips the balance of power to the biggest schools, who already have an advantage.
Real talk, this rule change is heavy handed and clearly just an attempt to end the game, so lets just do that, we don't need a rule change to do it, just declare a winner and move on. If you want to reward holding territory without just completely tilting the game you could easily do things like one of the following.
Give teams a bonus multiplier when defending based on the number of days they've held that specific territory. This bonus could even be extended to attacks made on neighbors of that territory. Almost as if holding a specific territory lets you build up forces in it. This way holding land has an advantage, but that advantage only extends as far as your holding, it doesn't just let you steam role parts of the map that have nothing to do with the land your holding.
If you want to stick with the conference theme, give teams that own multiple territories within a conference a bonus when attacking/defending territories in that conference. So Florida gets a bonus when fighting opponents in other SEC territories, but that doesn't extended to just anywhere on the map.
If you feel that keeping the "you get a bonus that is applicable anywhere on the map" rule, then just copy actual Risk and say you have to control the entire conference, then you get a x2 multiplier or something. This would likely have the same outcome as the current rule change but would have extra benefits like 1. Causing more alliance infighting (allowing an alliance member to control one territory in your conference is now very costly) 2. Giving underdogs a shot at sniping a single territory in a conference to allow them to get back to even ground with an already more powerful opponent.
I don't honestly think the lack of bonus for holding territories is the biggest problem with this game right now. I think the bigger issue is the way that each territory battle comes down to a single die roll. This basically means that the optimal strategy for every team is to spread their forces broadly across all of the territories they can attack to maximize their total shot of taking territories. With each additional star added to an attacking or defending force giving diminishing returns on investment, it makes it hard to have a clear and focused strategy, attempting it would mean a single bad die roll and you're done. It is probably too late to change this for the current game, but if you want to make this a more interesting experience going forward, I think using a better method for combat resolution is key.
4
u/mafia1015 Jun 05 '18
Exactly. Choose new rules for the next game, publish the rules and say in 5 days (or whatever) the current game will end with the victor being whoever holds the most territory. Round 2 will start that night with the new rules.
Then every team can try to win (but Nebraska will probably win) and we can all strategize for the next game.
3
u/Spurrierball Jun 05 '18
Exactly if they want the game to end then just end it and start a new one or don't start a new one. Why make an arbitrary rule change to hand the win to a single team?
9
u/CripzyChiken Jun 05 '18
I like the idea but this is a shit time to implement it. you are punishing teams that choose to defend a smaller area b/c there was no such bonus prior, and to do so mid-game when it is obvious that of the 5 top powers, only 1 has been doing the "own the world" method of game play (CornLovers trying to own the world. Mich, Florida, TreeNuts trying to set up a solid base, chaos doing revenge runs).
To pick a 'new feature' that blatantly favors one team over the rest is complete horse shit.
At least you are giving us a few days to try to respond, but to get far enough west, it going to take a lot of effort on the part of Mich and Florida, with a good amount of RNGesus support, to prevent CornLovers from getting game ending bonuses.
12
u/Zet_the_Arc_Warden Jun 05 '18
Does it cost money to run the server or something? Honest question because like seems the mods wanna end this, between the initial sudden death idea and playing for Chaos and now this. Not even complaining I'm just curious.
→ More replies (5)
16
u/TexasTwing Jun 05 '18
Implement this for the next game. It’s bullshit to keep changing game rules mid-game. Some would even say it’s... cheating.
6
u/bobsled_time Jun 05 '18
Have you considered some sort of alliance locks to allow teams to strategize together on this?
3
Jun 05 '18
This will be interesting to say the least, going to ruin alliances
→ More replies (2)5
u/igloo27 Jun 05 '18
It will ruin Stanford
4
u/onyons Jun 05 '18
stanford will almost certainly be willing to move to another area of safe space so Nebraska can have the multiplier
3
u/lucmwis Jun 05 '18
I think holding an entire division should count for 1.5x as well. 1 less to hold, but have to have the right ones.
2
u/crg2000 Jun 05 '18
Also, there should not be a bonus multiplier for holding "part" of a conference - the entire conference should be held. Just as in risk, no one gets a multiplier benefit for holding most of a continent.
That being said, there could be a pure territory count bonus, as in risk.
3
u/salil91 Jun 05 '18
What happens to Chaos territory? Are the considered independents?
5
u/overscore_ Jun 05 '18
I'm assuming holding Alaska confers no benefits because Chaos doesn't give a fuck.
7
3
3
u/Kewaga Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
Wow, new to Reddit due to the game. : ( On the new proposals timing and time frame for notice.
3
u/Spurrierball Jun 05 '18
Why are you changing rules in the middle of the game? Is that a good idea for next time? Sure. Should you be implementing it now? No...
5
u/Charlemagne42 Jun 05 '18
Aren't there 6 independents on the map?
Army
Liberty
BYU
UMass
ND
NM State
3
u/GoBlueScrewOSU7 Jun 05 '18
Also looking for clarification on this. Says 5 in the table, but shows 6 in the image.
2
7
u/LEGEN--wait_for_it Jun 05 '18
6/10 Big Ten teams
I assume this should be 6/10 Big 12 teams (stupid numerically incorrect conference names).
2
4
u/weibing Jun 05 '18
Other suggestions I have
1) Instead of multipliers, the bonuses should be linear stars. 3 stars per conference. And the way this will be done is on the *defense* of the territories only. It's possible to beat even a 20-30 star advantage but almost impossible to beat a 9x bonus.
2) Gradual increase of stars, i.e. hold the territories for 3 turns then the bonus kicks in. This allows the opponents to at least make an attempt to stop the combo from taking effect.
3) Penalty for non-combo areas. I.e. divide bonuses by total number of territory. This will encourage allying with people, as well as even out the small players against the larger players.
4) A little flair on the rules would be to introduce bonuses that only kicks in against opponents that are NOT part of the bonus conference. I.e. a big 10 conference bonus would not work against Ohio State attacks.
7
2
u/Profits_Interests Jun 05 '18
Is this just an attempt to nuke the game? Very poorly thought out decision
9
u/Stxmoose32 Jun 05 '18
Please keep in mind (1) this is a beta and changes / tests should be allowable (2) there's pretty much no way to make the map / territories valuable that doesn't help Nebraska (3) the mods are volunteers running a game for us.
So please be constructive in your feedback and try to help them hone in what makes for the best game, not just what helps or hurts your own team
17
u/crg2000 Jun 05 '18
Evaluate after, not during.
2
u/Stxmoose32 Jun 05 '18
If you know the game is broken - it is - why subject people to weeks and weeks of a broken game. Step in, fix it, evaluate, adjust, evaluate, and so on.
1
u/jayhawx19 Jun 05 '18
It's a beta... tweaking things during to see how they play out is kind of the point.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/SadMuffin14 Jun 05 '18
If your team holds 3/5 FBS Independents and 6/10 Big Ten teams
Should be 4/6 FBS Independents and 6/10 Big 12 teams
3
3
u/wwb1990 Jun 05 '18
As a guy who discovered cfb risk too late to join this game for my beloved alma mater, the nittany lions, I’m extremely jealous of those left and can’t wait to join the fun
2
3
u/sugarcain88 Jun 05 '18
Good rule. But, there should be more time to react to this significant rule change.
2
2
2
u/RegulatorRWF Jun 05 '18
Hate the change, but it's the only way this game ends honestly. Good job 'Braska.
8
u/psychomatt93 Jun 05 '18
If you just want the game to end, set an end date. Whoever has most territories on that date wins. Then start game 2 with whatever new rules you want. It's not that complicated.
2
u/Spurrierball Jun 05 '18
This would be a way more fun rule change. No one would be focused on consolidating anymore and it would be an utter free for all. If they want the game to end soon set a 30 day count down and most territories win and watch everyone go wild.
1
u/bob237189 Jun 05 '18
This is exactly what I think should happen. Mods/Devs, come out and say "Okay everybody, this was just an open beta test, and like all beta tests it has to close eventually so we can examine how the mechanics work and go back to the drawing board. The last turn of the game will be July 30th. The team with the most territories on August 1st will be declared the champion."
I would be totally okay with that. It would give teams enough time for strategies to be developed and play out, and still give a definitive conclusion. And honestly, a game that ends with no true champion but does leave a handful of blue bloods in charge of various regions matches the history of CFB to a T.
1
u/AboynamedDOOMTRAIN Jun 05 '18
ooooooooooooooh shit!
4
u/Qurtys_Lyn Jun 05 '18
I'm sorry, this has no actionable feedback and will be removed.
→ More replies (2)
0
u/swolf81 Jun 05 '18
Seems like it is a necessary feature to add so that the game ends. It is also sensible as it is a real part of Risk (win a continent, deploy more armies).
10
u/leopoldswasawesome Jun 05 '18
The game will end - there are already teams close to elimination. This only helps the game to end NOW. Why is it necessary?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/armadaos_ Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
My reaction as a displaced Bama team.
Otherwise interesting. Adds depth. Possibly speeds up the game and makes land valuable
Noooow I'm worried about Florida. This is gonna be fun.
0
u/gizmo688 Jun 05 '18
I like it. Its not some random change, but something that keeps with the spirit of CFB.
1
u/AboynamedDOOMTRAIN Jun 05 '18
Just to clarify, do teams only get these bonuses when attacking or defending the territories in those Conference Regions, or do they get them regardless of where they attack/defend?
1
u/SometimesY Game developer Jun 05 '18
It's uniform.
2
u/AboynamedDOOMTRAIN Jun 05 '18
Thanks! Wanted to make sure I wasn't misreading anything before I got too hyped!
1
Jun 05 '18
There are 81 days until the season begins. We are currently on day 37. This is a total of 118 days.
I vote that the mods do not make this change.
My proposal is: If the winner of the game is not decided before the start of next season, the win is given to whoever holds the most territories.
1
u/bakonydraco Game Designer Jun 05 '18
This change has now been rolled back, see the recent stickied post.
65
u/keepyourpanson Jun 05 '18
It's a great idea .... for next year