Since the topic is "hot" in other threads, I want to suggest two ideas I've had floating around for a while. And before you start saying "things are fine", I want you to know that I think so too. But these are fun:

1) Enforceable Treaties: The name speaks for itself. You offer a contract/treaty to an opponent. If they accept, the game engine simply doesn't allow you to break it. A simple first approximation would be "no attack for n turns" treaties. As the Treaty Engine grows in sophistication, it might allow "border specific" treaties, enabling you to attack your ally elsewhere, but not across that border. 

2) Super-Blinding: In-game messaging, public and private, is turned off. In fact, there is no trace anywhere of you having joined. When you play, you only know that your opponents are red, blue, green, and yellow. Even when the game ends, scouting is difficult as no names are revealed, and the public games of this type wouldn't show up in the public list.

In super-blinding, you might still ask a friend, "I'm in the Super-Blinded game called Awesome. Are you? How about a truce?" Enforcement will lean towards the usual no pre-game alliances, but technically this form of communication would be declared cheating. (Though it may not be enforceable, it would be hard to do regularly without getting into the pre-formed alliance habit anyway.)

Idea #1 is more Risk-like. Idea #2 is very un-Risk, so I anticipate resistance to even mentioning this idea out loud. But, the primary purpose of idea #2 is to enforce fog. There are some interesting potential consequences for non-fogged games as well, but those are secondary.

Idea #1 is a good one and was included as part of Ha$bro's Ultimat3 R!sk for PC.

+1

I like idea #1.  I think I mentioned something similar a few years ago, but reception was lukewarm.  Idea #2 is fine with me, but I would probably not take advantage of it.  I like when I recognize some names.

Both would appeal to people.  I am not a big truce guy, so #1 is eh for me.  #2 may hurt the community-building aspect of the site some, but I would play in such games.  I would want all to be revealed at the end though -

Amidon37 wrote:

Both would appeal to people.  I am not a big truce guy, so #1 is eh for me.  #2 may hurt the community-building aspect of the site some, but I would play in such games.  I would want all to be revealed at the end though -

I'm pretty much with Amidon..  I'm trying to think of why all shouldn't be revealed with #2?  It seems to me that if all is revealed, it would be easier to out cheaters.

On the other hand, one down-side of idea#2 is that it may actually be easier for a multiple-account cheater. They will know the name of the game.

Again, good ideas ..#1 is not my cup of tea.  #2 might be interesting, but I suspect I'd only try a game or two.  I enjoy the occasional banter and trash talk, and playing the with regulars. 

Hugh wrote:

2) Super-Blinding: In-game messaging, public and private, is turned off. In fact, there is no trace anywhere of you having joined. When you play, you only know that your opponents are red, blue, green, and yellow. Even when the game ends, scouting is difficult as no names are revealed, and the public games of this type wouldn't show up in the public list.

In super-blinding, you might still ask a friend, "I'm in the Super-Blinded game called Awesome. Are you? How about a truce?" Enforcement will lean towards the usual no pre-game alliances, but technically this form of communication would be declared cheating. (Though it may not be enforceable, it would be hard to do regularly without getting into the pre-formed alliance habit anyway.)

 

Great idea. Had it too (http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1078p1/Unjust_Ranking_Calculation post #20).

Amidon is right though about the community-building.  I would also want all to be revealed at the end, to help to out cheaters, like M57 said.

Not sure about idea #1.

Would super-blinding games be counted as ranked? That's always the problem I had with it. Otherwise it will be advantageous to highly ranked players to always play blind to prevent other players from realizing they are playing against a top player.

tom wrote:

Would super-blinding games be counted as ranked? That's always the problem I had with it. Otherwise it will be advantageous to highly ranked players to always play blind to prevent other players from realizing they are playing against a top player.

In reality it sounds like the super-blind games would always be ranked/public.  Otherwise, you could just play a private game with invitations.  I wouldn't see any value in playing a private, super-blind game.

But as far as a super-blind tournament, that would be pretty cool.  It would be pretty neat to see the Leaderboard updating but never knowing who is in each individual game.  You would have to assume that ANY game you play could potentially be against the tournament leader :)

tom wrote:

Would super-blinding games be counted as ranked? That's always the problem I had with it. Otherwise it will be advantageous to highly ranked players to always play blind to prevent other players from realizing they are playing against a top player.

Part of what I like about non-blind games is that I know something about who I'm playing against ..not just their overall strength, but also their playing style.

Which brings us back to the question ..Who would want such an option?

Players who think it will discourage alliances and cheating,  which I think can still be accomplished by resourceful players..

Stronger players who wish to avoid being targeted.  I think this is a two edged sword.  Paradoxically enough, I prefer losing to a stronger player because I lose less points.

I really like Super Blind idea.  I usually don't pay attention to who I am playing against because I am self-centered, but if I have to make a choice during a game I might decide to weaken a player I know is a good player rather than someone who I don't know.  I understand that is part of strategy, but as an option of play I like being able to NOT have that be a factor.

@tom: The intent is that public games are allowed. We aren't such purists that we separate Fog vs Non-Fog for a board even though win rates for each type are usually different. I don't think the difference would be that great. Strong players sometimes use selection to avoid each other. In a blinded game, two strong players who don't like to sign up against strong players will accidentally be in the same game together. This negates some of the advantage. The other negating factor occurs when a strong player gains significant edge from being able to speak. I'd be surprised if this were a tremendous boon for strong players, but I'd also question why it'd be devastating if it were. Plus, nervous weaker players could just avoid blinded games if they didn't like the prospect of not knowing about the strength of their opponents.

Reveal versus non-reveal: I go back and forth and am not attached to my original decision. With reveal, I was worried about it becoming known that "Player X" always starts blinded games on a certain map and then people might message that player knowing they'll be in the game. But, that's probably not a great exchange for an entire community that's good at spotting cheaters once the history is in hand. So, yeah, I'd concede that point.

Hugh wrote:

The other negating factor occurs when a strong player gains significant edge from being able to speak. 

You mean as in "strong" negotiators ..not necessarily strong players, right?

Plus, nervous weaker players could just avoid blinded games if they didn't like the prospect of not knowing about the strength of their opponents.

I'm reminded of the chess world.  Are there "sanctioned" blind games at the highest levels?  I always hear about how players like to "prepare" for their opponents.

Hugh wrote:

Strong players sometimes use selection to avoid each other.

I actually use selection as a way to find quality players. I look for games with people that know how to play, regardless of rank.  I can't stand when a noob screws up good strategy on my part.

So as for #2, I wouldn't play those games, but I also see how it might be fun for others.

#1 would be interesting but I also avoid truces so I am not sure it would be useful to me.

I think both ideas are good features as long as they are optional and clearly marked.  I wouldn't want to accidentally join a game with enforced treaties.

For the blind games, I see no reason why public chat should be turned off.  Also, some sort of random moniker should be assigned (or maybe just use the map default names for each color)

BlackDog wrote:

For the blind games, I see no reason why public chat should be turned off.  Also, some sort of random moniker should be assigned (or maybe just use the map default names for each color)

The primary motivation of the idea is to enforce fog in fogged games. In fogged games now, you get everything from descriptions of where people are to a vague-sounding "ah, you got it" to warn other players. It could be like levels of fog where public chat enabled is on option and disabled another option.

And, to be clear, I like that people do these things in fogged games right now. I just think it would be a fun option to have. (I generally refuse to listen to the "not Risk-like" as a counter-argument since the engine produces many Unrisk-like games.)

Random monikers would be fun, especially if mapmakers could specify the monikers.