Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Win at Risk by using systems thinking

thesystemisdown.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 242 posts

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#171

Post by wearywanderer »

paulluuk wrote: post #56

This article suggests that you should not play too aggressive and not take continents too early (maximizing Reinforcing Feedback), because other players will then unite against you (Balancing Feedback). However, this article fails to understand that in Risk, most players are not willing to unite. In fact, if player A and player B decide to unite against me and player A had his turn and stopped me, player B is highly…

> In fact, if player A and player B decide to unite against me and player A had his turn and stopped me, player B is highly likely to backstab player A and then emerge as the winner.

The fun in Risk is the other player knows they will be backstabbed, but can't resist the temptation to team up anyway, hoping that they might be the one to do the backstabbing. Everbody knows that backstabbing will occur, and yet, invariably, some players are still willing to team up.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#172

Post by aflag »

jcelerier wrote: post #135
0xRCA wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate hate HATE that behavior. Games are games. Obviously you can be unnecessarily rude or cruel in a way that will sour someone's taste for playing with you or playing the game again. But the point of games is to win. When people refuse to act in their best interest or are "nice" its so frustrating because it makes the entire game pointless. edit: In a way, it feels like people who wave you on when they have the ri…

> But the point of games is to win games in themselves have no point. The act of playing games may have a point: it is generally to have fun, not to win. > edit: In a way, it feels like people who wave you on when they have the right of way at a stop sign. It's not nice, just follow the rules and drive predictably. /rant you're not nice.

True, people find different things fun. I sympathize with the idea that playing a game not following the rules and not making the best logic choices make the game less fun, because it becomes more about luck than skill. I, for one, have no joy winning or playing something entirely random, whereas beating other people on a skill based game is fun.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#173

Post by Syzygies »

I always beat my sister at Risk as a kid. Then she was on a bus trip that waited out an epic snowstorm, three days holed up in a church. A Risk board was the only amusement, and the winner got to play again. She never left the board.

"Start in Australia" is all I remember of my strategy. It's a great metaphor for so many problems. Certainly, for HN, as a startup strategy. What's the "Australia" for your imagined market?

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#174

Post by LudwigNagasena »

tialaramex wrote: post #126
sdenton4 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the ever evolving online game world (eg, hearthstone), group think is basically 'the meta.' Lots of people get the same common advice, or learn a new trick, so suddenly it becomes advantageous to use strategies which defend against the trick or take advantage of some weakness which opens up due to a trade-off... And then repeat. Afaict, being really good at these games requires a good grasp of the fundamentals, kn…

When a game is "evolving" in the sense that the rules (or some element of the game which in effect alters the rules, such as player classes or unit compositions and their statistics) are changed periodically, the meta can influence that, mostly in an unfortunate way. If the general perception is that Bears are too powerful while Geese aren't powerful enough, developers may subsequently alter the game to reduce the po…

> If the general perception is that Bears are too powerful while Geese aren't powerful enough, developers may subsequently alter the game to reduce the power of a Bear's attack, or allow Geese to fly further. These are often called "balance tweaks" but it's almost unavoidable that they'll focus on the meta, rather than addressing a proven flaw in the game itself because most of these games aren't subject to any theoretical underpinning.

This is easily solved with data analysis of actual games.

The only problem is if there are strategies and play styles that weren’t discovered by players.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#175

Post by wearywanderer »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #17

In our gaming group, we decided Risk just isn't that good of a game. It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. Our main plays have been Dominion, DnD, Gloomhaven, Wingspan, and Crokinole, all of which we greatly prefer.

If Risk isn't a great game, then why do people playing it get so angry when they start to lose? There is something about Risk that makes players get emotionally invested in a way I just haven't seen in other board games.

In most other games I don't care if I win or lose. This is doubly true in the sort of board games my board game 'aficionado' friends play. In those, there are often multiple different ways to win and everybody might have their own unique win condition, that may not be known to other players. I guess this sort of design is meant to minimize conflict. But the way these games minimize conflict seems to be by making people care less about winning.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#177

Post by kqr »

0xRCA wrote: post #130
the_lonely_road wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might just be a friend group thing but I will also add on that very few games of risk I ever played didn’t involve some level of ‘meta’ strategy like a husband/wife not attacking each other or that guy that doesn’t like you refusing an obviously mutually beneficial alliance.

I hate hate HATE that behavior. Games are games. Obviously you can be unnecessarily rude or cruel in a way that will sour someone's taste for playing with you or playing the game again. But the point of games is to win. When people refuse to act in their best interest or are "nice" its so frustrating because it makes the entire game pointless. edit: In a way, it feels like people who wave you on when they have the ri…

Wait, I must be missing something here. If people are nice to each other and that's a bad strategy, surely you get to wipe the floor win them (i.e. fulfill your objective of winning) and if people are nice to each other in a way that makes them hard for you to beat, surely it is you who are playing the worse strategy by not doing the same?

In my group of friends, whether it is Risk or Monopoly, being nice makes it much easier to win. People are happier to enter into mutually beneficial agreements with nice people who they know are honest and keep their word.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#178

Post by deadbunny »

gowld wrote: post #161
j1elo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Risk Legacy (2011) is ranked in position 368. So if that list is of any use, then this variation of the classic Risk must be immensely better! To be honest I'm curious. The description of the game seems to imply that the game itself changes every time you play it, because some of the cards used should then be destroyed and thrown away from the game box, never to be used again. That, and the game concept covers comple…

Do people actual follow those Legacy game rules that try to trick you into destroying the game?

You're not destroying the game, your changing future playthroughs. Sure you tear up cards but those get replaced with new ones. You change the gameboard, rules, factions every time you play meaning every subsequent game is different.

If you play with the same people it makes those (hopefully friendly) rivalries across play sessions have weight and maybe even consequences.

Sure you might only get 2 dozen games out of it before you've "completed" it and need a new copy but this isn't the 80s where people have a choice of Risk, Monopoly, and Cludeo. 2 dozen games can last years, if not decades.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#179

Post by th389200001 »

einpoklum wrote: post #163
0xRCA wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate hate HATE that behavior. Games are games. Obviously you can be unnecessarily rude or cruel in a way that will sour someone's taste for playing with you or playing the game again. But the point of games is to win. When people refuse to act in their best interest or are "nice" its so frustrating because it makes the entire game pointless. edit: In a way, it feels like people who wave you on when they have the ri…

> But the point of games is to win Different people, or groups, play games for different reasons: * Sublimate conflicts (it's probably better than physical fighting) * Learn / hone skills * Feel personal challenge, tension, suspense * Passing the time. * Experience other players' "game-table-side banter" * Attention diverter from munching snacks. * Making a romantic pass at another player (it's been known to happen!)…

See also the investigation of So Long Sucker in The Trap. Quoting Wikipedia:

>The programme traces the development of game theory, with particular reference to the work of John Nash [...] He invented system games that reflected his beliefs about human behaviour, including one he called 'Fuck You Buddy' (later published as "So Long Sucker"), in which the only way to win was to betray your playing partner, and it is from this game that the episode's title is taken. These games were internally coherent and worked correctly as long as the players obeyed the ground rules that they should behave selfishly and try to outwit their opponents, but when RAND's analysts tried the games on their own secretaries, they were surprised to find that instead of betraying each other, the secretaries cooperated every time.

Re: Win at Risk by using systems thinking

#180

Post by deadbunny »

j1elo wrote: post #139
distances wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's old and clunky and extremely long, there are 100 other better board games now. And to just put this into numbers, BGG ranks Risk on position 19,955. By this ranking there are just shy of twenty thousand games better than Risk. And I agree, I will never play Risk again as it's not worth the time with the competition today.

Risk Legacy (2011) is ranked in position 368. So if that list is of any use, then this variation of the classic Risk must be immensely better! To be honest I'm curious. The description of the game seems to imply that the game itself changes every time you play it, because some of the cards used should then be destroyed and thrown away from the game box, never to be used again. That, and the game concept covers comple…

Basically the game has packets with instructions like "open on game 3" or "open the first time an army is defeated". These packets then have things like extra cards, new rules, new marks for the board.

Speaking of which there are marks you put in the board for different victory conditions, like you can "own" a continent whicheans in future games if you own that continent you and only you get a bonus. Same with naming a country or buffing a country so it has a permanent +1 army.

If you have enjoyed Risk previously and have a group of friends that you can continually play with I'd highly recommend it. It can still work with mixing in new people but half the fun is the shared history and friendly rivalries between game sessions.

Also there is a certain feeling when you tear up game pieces (or burn them as the winner in our case).

Post reply on HN