It was funny. I think Pete could've prevented the first break. The turn before orange broke him it occurred to me that orange had never seen his cap, and after taking the alps he'd be looking for places to expand. Pete's bonus was a logical next candidate. For all he knew Pete had just spawned with a random 2 there and the bonus was up for grabs. So on Pete's turn preceding the break I think had he highlighted the territory next to Orange (and maybe used his two to indicate a break on the Alps once or twice) and then gave a fist bump and said 'thanks' he could've let Orange know he was there and I doubt Orange would have broken. You could say that he would have due to the collab with red, but orange didn't break for a number of rounds following this so I think he would've left Pete alone. He clearly wasn't very good at long term planning so didn't realize until Pete cleared red out how big of a threat he really was.
@@runningriot6399 Hi running. I was referring to when Orange broke him early on in the game and said "oops". I felt that break could have been prevented. Clearly there was obvious collusion later, I was just talking about a strategic opportunity to preempt a break.
So a little story from me. A season or two ago, I decided to go for the GM rank. I mostly play for fun and don’t really mind where I’m ranked but I made the effort to go for it. My last possible game of the season (the season closed in about 90mins when the game started) I had a decent position and could have potentially won, except I got collabed on. The collab was on this level of obvious and one them won the game. It annoyed me so much I quit Risk for a month. The point of the story is that this game doesn’t do enough to punish cheaters, and feels like it punishes the players who want to get better by allowing these cheaters to thrive. The game needs fixing!
@@FreePete maybe a potent system like in any other games would help, for example you "queue" up for games and it drops you to a random one instead of just scrolling through all the possible maps with your friend and you join the same time. Crazy system.
Pete seems like the kind of guy who would give you a hug when you were sad, but dont get me wrong when this guy sees a cheater he becomes a full on super villain
I gotta say been watching along time... philosopher Pete is cool to talk to ... But angry vengeful Pete is just good family fun and I would have a drink with that guy!
Nothing is more frustrating than devs having zero interest in fixing/bettering their game. Risk could be such a loved game by the masses like it once was on table top but they show zero interest in taking care of it. Imagine if it got the attention that monopoly gets? That game is hasbro too (although different devs) and it’s EVERYWHERE
Hey Pete I never commented before but just wanted to relay that the view of the map was the most visible for troop counts. I enjoyed that and thought I’d relay. Thanks for the content.
The actual numbers and shape around it was larger than most of the time and clearer. Not sure what was the cause in the settings. I have seen it this way periodically as I watch a decent amount of your content in the last year. I typically watch on mobile and maybe that is a factor but not sure exactly but keep up the good job player.
I wondered why purple didn't make a move on you when he saw red and orange team up on you. Also he was in Africa and saw tour Africa Cape but never went and sneaked a peek at your Spain cap, which at the time ony had 3 on it. Strange backwards play by purple I guess are decided to let you get Africa and figured after he saw red snd orange that letting you keep Greece would keep them off his back and he could continue to stop yellow from keeping Russia. Whilst he played a backwards game bring pincers between you and yellow gave him enough pause to just want to keep getting his troops for Asia. As you mentioned his cap choice was really bad.
I totally figured he was gonna involve himself on the shenanigans too. I gave him a hard time for capping in a corner but I don't know that he had many other options?
The part that sucks is that being this is mobile and PC makes this much harder for them to get collabs. Its easy if more then once but before that it harder with mobile able to have more frequent change in IP's.
Funnily enough, the orange/red collab wasn’t evident til after the second break of your bonus, and when red stupidly rolled that garbage cap in North Africa. It was straight up RAGE anger vengeance rolls on you for that cheater after you cleaned red out of Africa lmfao
I don't know what Orange was doing. However, Red's play made sense to me. I can only win in Zombies and small maps because I lack negotiating skill and speed. I enjoy Advanced Europe. But, I never try to win. I just grab a small bonus and defend my "kingdom." When someone invades/breaks me, I spend the rest of my game trying to kill them or feed their kill to another. That is what I saw with Red. You took "his" Spain and then he attacked you. Exactly what I would have done. (Although, I have learned from you to keep troops on my capitol and I almost always never lose my capitol until the turn I die.)
I had to rewatch this twice. You can really only hope this was collab, since the alternative would be orange being incredibly dumb. I mean what was the plan there if he wins the roll on your cap? He will have close to 0 troups left to defend 2 capitals. I bet if he had won the roll red would have just removed you from Germany while completely ignoring the empty capital on the alps…
I remember that game you comment on at the end. I think I was the one who asked why you didn't break black's other bonuses. Black ended up winning that game, right? Edit: Never mind, you said it was a Q&A question. I think I asked on stream.
I can almost guarantee that I've been reported for "collab". I was playing green on Alcatraz 5 players, blizzards, fog of war, fixed. Guy was playing red. We were.... blocking each other with our caps. I was the last capital on basement while red was right above me. Purple spent all game trying to killing off my outside stacks. Red literally moved all of his troops off his cap so I could pull my troops out. I pulled my troops out and left his cap with 1 troop so he could retake it. Now you can say I'm stupid for not back stabbing red. Sadly, me and red had 1/2 the amount of troops combined as purple. That being said, we controlled more bonuses... despite purple constantly killing my stacks off so I was stuck behind red. Again, you can call me stupid for giving red his cap back, but purple killed off my stacks 4 times. The 4th time, I didn't have a spare stack out there and red moved off his cap to let me get another 100 troops out there. If we weren't reported for "collab" despite not knowing each other, I would be surprised. My hatred for purple was so deep, I wasn't willing to give red a reason to fight me. Red and I went 1st/2nd despite being setup for 3rd/4th. The only problem I had is that I had to give yellow 4th to secure mine and reds position to take out purple and give him 3rd. All of that being said. When I checked everyone's rankings, red and I were Masters while the other 3 players were expert or lower. So in that game, the only players stupid enough to give up caps were the ones ranked master.
That was obviously cheating. Not only did Red never see your cap, that never even tried to go out that way or through orange because they knew where those caps were since red and orange were the same.
So...why is collaboration considered cheating? On a normal risk boars that's a part of diplomacy hell in this game that's what you're trying to do with emotes. Is it just because of the settings?
It comes down to fairness. In order for a game to be legit each player has to be on a level playing field. With settings like fog if one player is playing two accounts they can see the whole board. Collab in game happens and makes sense. In this case it's one guy playing as both red and orange and you can immediately see how unfair though be we if he was actually good.
@@FreePete oooh so it's not collab in the sense of 2 players working together the dudes just boosting himself on two accounts....which would explain how that dingleberry was a Master...
29:33 it happens a ton. I play auto match mostly because its quick and easy. Imagine huge games like eve online have elaborate mutli box systems to allow players to control 8-10 accounts flying sophisticated ships. Totally legit in eve. Mutli boxing risk is literally childs play. If you play enough automatch you can see how the connection is gamed. When you have 3 players banging you its pretty obvious. I can only imagine its much worse in player controlled lobbies. This player will end up being a much better cheater by facing you early in his career. Happy to see you punished him but ya noob cheaters are still noobs.
When I see cheating, especially cheating like *THAT*, I am no longer playing for first, I play to destroy them. I want cheaters to have nothing to gain and a lot to lose.
I don't understand the fix your game Pete put in the report. How can the game creators stop two players communicating while they play. At least that's what I'm guessing was happening?
They can prevent any two accounts from playing eachother ranked over a certain period of time. This would stop almost all collab since the bad actor would have to make a new risk account every time in order to cheat.
Risk Meta Settings: Game Mode: Capitals Bonus: Progressive Map: Europe Advanced Fog: On Blizzard: On Alliances: Off AI: Expert (though, I think this fluctuates a little... Sometimes you see neutral.)
They need to accept the collab and let it happen and make it a function of the game instead of letting people get tricked into 3 on 1s. If the game is a known team game they can add things like being able to fortify to/through your allies territories. Making the teams resources cruelly shared rather than rely on an alliance where it's not a real alliance they're just looking for the first chance to screw you. They also shouk change the zombie mode/ or do like instances or battle recreations where players actually have to team together against a overpowered/well positioned/advantaged invasion/stronghold/zombie infection.... wouldn't be surprised to see powerups first they'll be broken and unbalanced because to truly be fair they'd have to be overpowered and I herently balanced like a Thanos snap that cuts everyone's troops in half and re rolls all the 1s and mixes up the owners (user loses half their 1s then user takes a second turn. Can't do 2 turns in a row unless there's a negative. Invincibility for x nunber of attacks or increased odd on a roll. Obviously that would require adding obvious defensive or trap style(give a territory the power of a Capitol, hidden troops/ etc) powers. Also adding a mechanic that let's you build a hidden reserve(invest early and see a increased return/gain on troops when you pull them out. Randomly re roll everyone's Capitol location/shuffle troop totals around regardless of if they can fortify. Letting someone have something like 2 fortify on a turn or fortify out of turn while usefull rarely, would not be enough or woukd be easy to exploit/abuse
SMG can literally see ip address. Just block same IP's and stuff from joining the same non PWF games. i dont understand. that alone would stop like 90% of collabs. maybe theres some massive server side problem that makes it harder than i think but i mean.. good lord
Now you just took magenta's cap and I have to say this. Remember like one episode ago white also in the first seat had a god cap mid board to choke with blizzards. And they also didn't take it and at least they took third refused to card block purple who was quite gentleman and stepped off caps even after it became a one v one. Yeah people just aren't ready for caps.
Orange attacking your cap... But why orange? Like you are making it feel like Pete should have hit your bonus. Also no cheating yet that I have seen. I'm sure I'll find out eventually. Oh it's collaboration got it like a few seconds later got it.
I didn't even catch that until now. There are two caps on the pocket. The Spain one which was probably reds I didn't catch until now. So many bad players this game.
there is always the tiniest chance it wasn't a collab and just an alliance of dummies.. my concern is when it's just a tiny bit less obvious.. where do we draw the line.. can two players never attack the same player or what? ..there's no point in judging this one example.. but it does raise the question of proof and where the line is.. when alliances are off should there be rules of some kind.. should there be rules if alliances are on.. i don't know how many times the two lowest players attacked the highest and turned the game.. and i know people will say it's not the same thing.. but it can get very close to the same thing.. so again where's the line.. what makes it so obvious.. and i really think the person it happens to is more biased to believe it was a collab.. you saw Petes anger over it.. it's an emotional thing.. we're quick to judge with no real proof after all.. but we can define collab to be something that doesn't require proof... that way there's no need to police people's systems or communications which is virtually impossible anyways.. i think maybe we should consider the implications of a rule that's even enforced by the game mechanics.. if you were attacked last round you can't be attacked again by another player.. omg that changes the game a bit.. or maybe only a one territory break is allowed.. another game changing rule.. and if we find a version that works really good it could become the best new game mode ever.. no real worries of collabs.. how good would that be.. anyways just my thoughts
this just made me think some more new game modes using different cards... might be fun... like an immune card. a peace treaty card that last X turns... a sabotage card.. a fake troop card hrm... a trojan horse card.. so many fun cards could be created.. imagine a card that lets you inject troops into someone's bonus .. we'd have to protect all territories not just borders.. would make for some crazy matches i bet.. maybe the troops have to be stashed for 3 turns so you get less troops on one turn and people know you stashed some but not where.. so many options... oh make them grey anonymous troops.. after last player acts the anonymous troop stacks attack.. that'd be so sick
Red never saw my capital. And I predicted them setting and rolling it before they did while orange was rolling it. The whole 'theres no way to know for sure' thing, while true, isn't particularly productive. There's no way to know anything for sure and that's a very long conversation to have with a philosopher. In this game we see an example of collab that is not ambiguous to any reasonable player. Which I also mention in the video. The fact that I called the collab as the only reason that type of play made sense before it happened is more satisfying than proof.
@@FreePete I think it's productive because it points out that every situation is different and that eventually it's not as clear cut. It's not productive to analyze your one instance but we can if you want. You predicted the collab as Orange started attacking. Doing so could of made you more willing to believe your own prediction was true without evidence. The fact is there was two blizzards funneling any movement right to you. The fact is you've predicted the location of caps many times and have gone looking for them many times. The fact is that you took red's cap and stole his bonus on top of it. Obviously if he finds you he's wanting to hurt you even if it's just a few shots on your cap. So the fact is there's a tiny chance it wasn't a collab. But what's really important is that this all leads us to the need for a better system imo.
@@FreePete also dumb decisions are certainly not proof of anything.. if anything it's more proof of emotional actions.. and predicting something is surely not proof of anything either.. but i don't fault you at all.. it is very likely that it was a collab and, in the heat of the moment when you're the victim, i would mostly likely assume the same exact thing.. but! if they were collaborating they would of likely just guarded each other in so many ways and won so easy.. share borders with no worries.. build until they could really do a team kill.. the more you look at it the more the tiny chance it not being a collab grows.. and that's really been my point.. it's not easy to take all the factors into consideration.. the line between being reasonably sure and not sure enough is so thin.. so thin that we need a better system
@@FreePete it horrifies me to think of an innocent person being found guilty of a crime they didn't commit.. like people often say they'd rather 10 guilty people go free than have 1 innocent person go to jail.. for me it's more like a million to one.. but a good person would want to sacrifice a little for the common good.. so if a conviction of a crime is based solely on a large amount of circumstantial evidence then I think that the judge should sentence the person based on the amount of evidence.. i mean first it has to be overwhelming just to start.. but then we have to consider how overwhelming.. perhaps, if the sentence is normally 10 years... they could multiply it by a factor of .1 to 1 based on their opinion of the evidence.. and maybe sentence the person to a quarter of the time... so now it's 1/4 of a year to 2.5 years maximum... the fact is we will be wrong sometimes and good people will suffer.. things just look really bad sometimes and we just can't except it was just a perfect storm of events... but we do need to punish bad people and set a minimum level of deterrent to prevent at least the most unrewarding crimes and having total anarchy in the streets.. i think we have to give people the benefit of the doubt and not be so quick to judge people.. we may feel it in our gut and soul but how many times are those proven wrong... sure they're often right.. but they can be wrong.. they are not infallible.. we cannot trust feelings when it comes to crime.. friendship sure... romance sure.. poker sure lol.. but not crime.. anyways.. i guess this issue triggers me a bit.. peace out
My God its like 2024 devs in risk should make a que system for ranked. Just choose which map you want to play and you can filter by bracket if you like or play with whoever shows up. Mobas have had this for years, it can't be that hard.
A lot of simple things can be done. I've tried talking with the community a lot of times about this, but part of it and the devs don't hear apparently. The time system having a +2 or +3 second increment and 30 seconds turns will make the game playable on both platforms. what you said + maps being free. a stalemate condition for capital conquest mode, if 10 turns pass without any cap change the game should be draw. nobody cares man, the game is trademarked, they can do whatever with it.
I'm no longer operating on the assumptions I used to have an I expect nothing to improve. So if anything does that's a bonus and that way I'm not disappointed
The dude literally saw the most blatant level of cheating target him and has many times asked smg to fix their game. It'd be weird to not express some frustration to that. Outside that, the dude was laughin and havin a great time so your question seems a bit weird
The most blatant cheating I've ever seen in Risk. They didn't even try to hide it.
Yep! I love it. Not remotely ambiguous.
@@FreePete can you follow up with a dev for the good news story?
@@mileshanson5527 That would require the devs caring about the game...
That was 100% collab and I also wud argue both of them are actually one player on a multiple accounts , gj Pete for beating the crap out of him/them
Yep, that's why the red accunt is a master, he uses the other account to wear down his opoonents and then tries to win with the red accound.
Now the "oops" Orange gives after seeing your capital has a different meaning ! 😂
Know his buddy red was stuck in a pocket. Look two people put capitals in the pocket.
It was funny. I think Pete could've prevented the first break. The turn before orange broke him it occurred to me that orange had never seen his cap, and after taking the alps he'd be looking for places to expand. Pete's bonus was a logical next candidate. For all he knew Pete had just spawned with a random 2 there and the bonus was up for grabs.
So on Pete's turn preceding the break I think had he highlighted the territory next to Orange (and maybe used his two to indicate a break on the Alps once or twice) and then gave a fist bump and said 'thanks' he could've let Orange know he was there and I doubt Orange would have broken.
You could say that he would have due to the collab with red, but orange didn't break for a number of rounds following this so I think he would've left Pete alone. He clearly wasn't very good at long term planning so didn't realize until Pete cleared red out how big of a threat he really was.
@@runningriot6399 Hi running. I was referring to when Orange broke him early on in the game and said "oops". I felt that break could have been prevented.
Clearly there was obvious collusion later, I was just talking about a strategic opportunity to preempt a break.
So a little story from me.
A season or two ago, I decided to go for the GM rank. I mostly play for fun and don’t really mind where I’m ranked but I made the effort to go for it. My last possible game of the season (the season closed in about 90mins when the game started) I had a decent position and could have potentially won, except I got collabed on. The collab was on this level of obvious and one them won the game. It annoyed me so much I quit Risk for a month.
The point of the story is that this game doesn’t do enough to punish cheaters, and feels like it punishes the players who want to get better by allowing these cheaters to thrive. The game needs fixing!
Agreed! We need more protection in addition to reporting.
@@FreePete maybe a potent system like in any other games would help, for example you "queue" up for games and it drops you to a random one instead of just scrolling through all the possible maps with your friend and you join the same time. Crazy system.
the amount of incompetence red and orange were/was portraying is absolutely hilarious xD
It shows that Red reached Master rank via cheating as there is no other explanation due to how poorly they play (plus we just saw them cheating)
15:41 this man did a full-on supervillain laugh
Yeh the cackle is real. And hilarious.
I feel 22:20 was even more sinister.
"Take second purple you earned it you corner capper" made me laugh harder than it should have 😂
No matter how egregiously Pete is offended, he never loses his aplomb.
I’d say he’s dropped it once or twice, though
This is what I call well done :)) You literally smoked them. Lol.
Thanks 👍
36:10 😂🤣
43:05 Same reaction to the dice in both videos as well! 😂
There is very little separation from the guy you see and the guy inside I suppose.
Oh god this video was gold. Love Pete’s reactions throughout. 😂
Pete seems like the kind of guy who would give you a hug when you were sad, but dont get me wrong when this guy sees a cheater he becomes a full on super villain
"Righteous Vengeance Pete" is my favourite Pete.
I gotta say been watching along time... philosopher Pete is cool to talk to ... But angry vengeful Pete is just good family fun and I would have a drink with that guy!
Nothing is more frustrating than devs having zero interest in fixing/bettering their game. Risk could be such a loved game by the masses like it once was on table top but they show zero interest in taking care of it. Imagine if it got the attention that monopoly gets? That game is hasbro too (although different devs) and it’s EVERYWHERE
It has absolutely massive potential.
When the necessary resources are put toward it the game will start to reach it.
The funniest thing is Red & Orange still lost. Playing badly, cheating badly, loosing badly.
lollll gottem
The Pete and Re-Pete collab at 36:11 was priceless!! 🤣🤣 I love it!
I love that guy!
When Pete starts holding his chest and laughing you are in trouble 😂😂
I love your titles i didnt even clicked on video and i got so exited 🤣
Let's go!
That was indeed hilarious. I was laughing right along with you, Pete!
How to make it obvious!
Hey Pete I never commented before but just wanted to relay that the view of the map was the most visible for troop counts. I enjoyed that and thought I’d relay. Thanks for the content.
What do you mean, I’m trying to understand what you said but I’m so confused lol
Because of the larger UI scale?
The actual numbers and shape around it was larger than most of the time and clearer. Not sure what was the cause in the settings. I have seen it this way periodically as I watch a decent amount of your content in the last year. I typically watch on mobile and maybe that is a factor but not sure exactly but keep up the good job player.
Pete, i don't know if you've watched the old bond film Diamonds are forever but trust me, red and orange are Mr Kidd and Mr Wint.
I’d love to see the update they gave you about those two accounts. If they aren’t banned then there’s no point in reporting anything
I still think better prevention is what we really need
@@FreePete did smg tell you that the accounts were banned or are they still cheating and ruining the game for others?
it is 4:38 in the morning 😭
I wondered why purple didn't make a move on you when he saw red and orange team up on you. Also he was in Africa and saw tour Africa Cape but never went and sneaked a peek at your Spain cap, which at the time ony had 3 on it. Strange backwards play by purple I guess are decided to let you get Africa and figured after he saw red snd orange that letting you keep Greece would keep them off his back and he could continue to stop yellow from keeping Russia. Whilst he played a backwards game bring pincers between you and yellow gave him enough pause to just want to keep getting his troops for Asia. As you mentioned his cap choice was really bad.
I totally figured he was gonna involve himself on the shenanigans too. I gave him a hard time for capping in a corner but I don't know that he had many other options?
Purple saw that double manual from Istanbul
I was definitely worried he'd roll me
Great victory from a hard start!
The part that sucks is that being this is mobile and PC makes this much harder for them to get collabs. Its easy if more then once but before that it harder with mobile able to have more frequent change in IP's.
18:22 this should be a short 😂
Haha, it's a good moment for sure!
Funnily enough, the orange/red collab wasn’t evident til after the second break of your bonus, and when red stupidly rolled that garbage cap in North Africa. It was straight up RAGE anger vengeance rolls on you for that cheater after you cleaned red out of Africa lmfao
I don't know what Orange was doing. However, Red's play made sense to me. I can only win in Zombies and small maps because I lack negotiating skill and speed. I enjoy Advanced Europe. But, I never try to win. I just grab a small bonus and defend my "kingdom." When someone invades/breaks me, I spend the rest of my game trying to kill them or feed their kill to another. That is what I saw with Red. You took "his" Spain and then he attacked you. Exactly what I would have done. (Although, I have learned from you to keep troops on my capitol and I almost always never lose my capitol until the turn I die.)
Very satisfying result, Pete!
Oh yeah!
I had to rewatch this twice. You can really only hope this was collab, since the alternative would be orange being incredibly dumb. I mean what was the plan there if he wins the roll on your cap? He will have close to 0 troups left to defend 2 capitals. I bet if he had won the roll red would have just removed you from Germany while completely ignoring the empty capital on the alps…
Yeah man it's the only way that play makes sense. lol
General Ando 21592
&
General Cheese 21988
Yeah, that‘s most certainly not the same person! 😅
I remember that game you comment on at the end. I think I was the one who asked why you didn't break black's other bonuses. Black ended up winning that game, right?
Edit: Never mind, you said it was a Q&A question. I think I asked on stream.
I can almost guarantee that I've been reported for "collab". I was playing green on Alcatraz 5 players, blizzards, fog of war, fixed. Guy was playing red. We were.... blocking each other with our caps. I was the last capital on basement while red was right above me. Purple spent all game trying to killing off my outside stacks. Red literally moved all of his troops off his cap so I could pull my troops out. I pulled my troops out and left his cap with 1 troop so he could retake it.
Now you can say I'm stupid for not back stabbing red. Sadly, me and red had 1/2 the amount of troops combined as purple. That being said, we controlled more bonuses... despite purple constantly killing my stacks off so I was stuck behind red. Again, you can call me stupid for giving red his cap back, but purple killed off my stacks 4 times. The 4th time, I didn't have a spare stack out there and red moved off his cap to let me get another 100 troops out there. If we weren't reported for "collab" despite not knowing each other, I would be surprised.
My hatred for purple was so deep, I wasn't willing to give red a reason to fight me. Red and I went 1st/2nd despite being setup for 3rd/4th. The only problem I had is that I had to give yellow 4th to secure mine and reds position to take out purple and give him 3rd.
All of that being said. When I checked everyone's rankings, red and I were Masters while the other 3 players were expert or lower. So in that game, the only players stupid enough to give up caps were the ones ranked master.
That was obviously cheating. Not only did Red never see your cap, that never even tried to go out that way or through orange because they knew where those caps were since red and orange were the same.
Yeah man, that's my favourite part about this video. Not only do I beat the cheater, but the cheating is completely unambiguous.
There are more collaborators in the game now than before SMG supposed crackdown
Don't be too harsh with them, they will probably get better at cheating after their fourth or fifth strike they are allowed by SMG.
17 strikes you're out
@@FreePete We joke, but when SMG informed me of their 'six strike' policy for dealing with cheaters I was shocked.
@@billhendrix3641 I actually thought you were joking
So...why is collaboration considered cheating? On a normal risk boars that's a part of diplomacy hell in this game that's what you're trying to do with emotes. Is it just because of the settings?
It comes down to fairness. In order for a game to be legit each player has to be on a level playing field. With settings like fog if one player is playing two accounts they can see the whole board. Collab in game happens and makes sense. In this case it's one guy playing as both red and orange and you can immediately see how unfair though be we if he was actually good.
@@FreePete oooh so it's not collab in the sense of 2 players working together the dudes just boosting himself on two accounts....which would explain how that dingleberry was a Master...
well played punishing those fucking cheaters
29:33 it happens a ton. I play auto match mostly because its quick and easy. Imagine huge games like eve online have elaborate mutli box systems to allow players to control 8-10 accounts flying sophisticated ships. Totally legit in eve. Mutli boxing risk is literally childs play.
If you play enough automatch you can see how the connection is gamed. When you have 3 players banging you its pretty obvious. I can only imagine its much worse in player controlled lobbies.
This player will end up being a much better cheater by facing you early in his career. Happy to see you punished him but ya noob cheaters are still noobs.
There is no fix for thix kind of cheating.
You can make it harder to achieve but can't stop it.
Reports is the only way to detect it.
How do you even manage to lose as a duo in risk against individuals???
Lollll
When I see cheating, especially cheating like *THAT*, I am no longer playing for first, I play to destroy them. I want cheaters to have nothing to gain and a lot to lose.
I don't understand the fix your game Pete put in the report. How can the game creators stop two players communicating while they play. At least that's what I'm guessing was happening?
They can prevent any two accounts from playing eachother ranked over a certain period of time. This would stop almost all collab since the bad actor would have to make a new risk account every time in order to cheat.
@@FreePete oh that makes sense. Thanks
What settings are these? They're super great! GL and GG Pete!
Risk Meta Settings:
Game Mode: Capitals
Bonus: Progressive
Map: Europe Advanced
Fog: On
Blizzard: On
Alliances: Off
AI: Expert (though, I think this fluctuates a little... Sometimes you see neutral.)
Haha
They need to accept the collab and let it happen and make it a function of the game instead of letting people get tricked into 3 on 1s. If the game is a known team game they can add things like being able to fortify to/through your allies territories. Making the teams resources cruelly shared rather than rely on an alliance where it's not a real alliance they're just looking for the first chance to screw you. They also shouk change the zombie mode/ or do like instances or battle recreations where players actually have to team together against a overpowered/well positioned/advantaged invasion/stronghold/zombie infection.... wouldn't be surprised to see powerups first they'll be broken and unbalanced because to truly be fair they'd have to be overpowered and I herently balanced like a Thanos snap that cuts everyone's troops in half and re rolls all the 1s and mixes up the owners (user loses half their 1s then user takes a second turn. Can't do 2 turns in a row unless there's a negative. Invincibility for x nunber of attacks or increased odd on a roll. Obviously that would require adding obvious defensive or trap style(give a territory the power of a Capitol, hidden troops/ etc) powers. Also adding a mechanic that let's you build a hidden reserve(invest early and see a increased return/gain on troops when you pull them out. Randomly re roll everyone's Capitol location/shuffle troop totals around regardless of if they can fortify. Letting someone have something like 2 fortify on a turn or fortify out of turn while usefull rarely, would not be enough or woukd be easy to exploit/abuse
SMG can literally see ip address. Just block same IP's and stuff from joining the same non PWF games. i dont understand. that alone would stop like 90% of collabs.
maybe theres some massive server side problem that makes it harder than i think but i mean.. good lord
What is up risk takers!!!!!!!!!!!!
Before watching the video, how do you even cheat in Risk?
The only way I can think of is collaboration.
ding ding ding
Now you just took magenta's cap and I have to say this. Remember like one episode ago white also in the first seat had a god cap mid board to choke with blizzards. And they also didn't take it and at least they took third refused to card block purple who was quite gentleman and stepped off caps even after it became a one v one. Yeah people just aren't ready for caps.
Orange attacking your cap... But why orange? Like you are making it feel like Pete should have hit your bonus. Also no cheating yet that I have seen. I'm sure I'll find out eventually.
Oh it's collaboration got it like a few seconds later got it.
I didn't even catch that until now. There are two caps on the pocket. The Spain one which was probably reds I didn't catch until now. So many bad players this game.
there is always the tiniest chance it wasn't a collab and just an alliance of dummies.. my concern is when it's just a tiny bit less obvious.. where do we draw the line.. can two players never attack the same player or what? ..there's no point in judging this one example.. but it does raise the question of proof and where the line is.. when alliances are off should there be rules of some kind.. should there be rules if alliances are on.. i don't know how many times the two lowest players attacked the highest and turned the game.. and i know people will say it's not the same thing.. but it can get very close to the same thing.. so again where's the line.. what makes it so obvious.. and i really think the person it happens to is more biased to believe it was a collab.. you saw Petes anger over it.. it's an emotional thing.. we're quick to judge with no real proof after all.. but we can define collab to be something that doesn't require proof... that way there's no need to police people's systems or communications which is virtually impossible anyways.. i think maybe we should consider the implications of a rule that's even enforced by the game mechanics.. if you were attacked last round you can't be attacked again by another player.. omg that changes the game a bit.. or maybe only a one territory break is allowed.. another game changing rule.. and if we find a version that works really good it could become the best new game mode ever.. no real worries of collabs.. how good would that be.. anyways just my thoughts
this just made me think some more new game modes using different cards... might be fun... like an immune card. a peace treaty card that last X turns... a sabotage card.. a fake troop card hrm... a trojan horse card.. so many fun cards could be created.. imagine a card that lets you inject troops into someone's bonus .. we'd have to protect all territories not just borders.. would make for some crazy matches i bet.. maybe the troops have to be stashed for 3 turns so you get less troops on one turn and people know you stashed some but not where.. so many options... oh make them grey anonymous troops.. after last player acts the anonymous troop stacks attack.. that'd be so sick
Red never saw my capital. And I predicted them setting and rolling it before they did while orange was rolling it.
The whole 'theres no way to know for sure' thing, while true, isn't particularly productive. There's no way to know anything for sure and that's a very long conversation to have with a philosopher.
In this game we see an example of collab that is not ambiguous to any reasonable player. Which I also mention in the video. The fact that I called the collab as the only reason that type of play made sense before it happened is more satisfying than proof.
@@FreePete I think it's productive because it points out that every situation is different and that eventually it's not as clear cut. It's not productive to analyze your one instance but we can if you want. You predicted the collab as Orange started attacking. Doing so could of made you more willing to believe your own prediction was true without evidence. The fact is there was two blizzards funneling any movement right to you. The fact is you've predicted the location of caps many times and have gone looking for them many times. The fact is that you took red's cap and stole his bonus on top of it. Obviously if he finds you he's wanting to hurt you even if it's just a few shots on your cap. So the fact is there's a tiny chance it wasn't a collab. But what's really important is that this all leads us to the need for a better system imo.
@@FreePete also dumb decisions are certainly not proof of anything.. if anything it's more proof of emotional actions.. and predicting something is surely not proof of anything either.. but i don't fault you at all.. it is very likely that it was a collab and, in the heat of the moment when you're the victim, i would mostly likely assume the same exact thing.. but! if they were collaborating they would of likely just guarded each other in so many ways and won so easy.. share borders with no worries.. build until they could really do a team kill.. the more you look at it the more the tiny chance it not being a collab grows.. and that's really been my point.. it's not easy to take all the factors into consideration.. the line between being reasonably sure and not sure enough is so thin.. so thin that we need a better system
@@FreePete it horrifies me to think of an innocent person being found guilty of a crime they didn't commit.. like people often say they'd rather 10 guilty people go free than have 1 innocent person go to jail.. for me it's more like a million to one.. but a good person would want to sacrifice a little for the common good.. so if a conviction of a crime is based solely on a large amount of circumstantial evidence then I think that the judge should sentence the person based on the amount of evidence.. i mean first it has to be overwhelming just to start.. but then we have to consider how overwhelming.. perhaps, if the sentence is normally 10 years... they could multiply it by a factor of .1 to 1 based on their opinion of the evidence.. and maybe sentence the person to a quarter of the time... so now it's 1/4 of a year to 2.5 years maximum... the fact is we will be wrong sometimes and good people will suffer.. things just look really bad sometimes and we just can't except it was just a perfect storm of events... but we do need to punish bad people and set a minimum level of deterrent to prevent at least the most unrewarding crimes and having total anarchy in the streets.. i think we have to give people the benefit of the doubt and not be so quick to judge people.. we may feel it in our gut and soul but how many times are those proven wrong... sure they're often right.. but they can be wrong.. they are not infallible.. we cannot trust feelings when it comes to crime.. friendship sure... romance sure.. poker sure lol.. but not crime.. anyways.. i guess this issue triggers me a bit.. peace out
What's with the internet being off top left?
very disgusting this cheater got all the way up to master with this strat. guess it’s easy when you’re 2 people every game…
I'm glad the Q+A question included a clip (hopefully time stamped) always love to hear additional explanations for strategy.
Definitely one dude playing with two accounts
you shouldve just looked at your camera during your stream and told them (assuming they were watching the stream) to f off
This one was not live
💪🏻👍🏻❤️
My God its like 2024 devs in risk should make a que system for ranked. Just choose which map you want to play and you can filter by bracket if you like or play with whoever shows up. Mobas have had this for years, it can't be that hard.
A lot of simple things can be done. I've tried talking with the community a lot of times about this, but part of it and the devs don't hear apparently. The time system having a +2 or +3 second increment and 30 seconds turns will make the game playable on both platforms. what you said + maps being free. a stalemate condition for capital conquest mode, if 10 turns pass without any cap change the game should be draw. nobody cares man, the game is trademarked, they can do whatever with it.
I'm no longer operating on the assumptions I used to have an I expect nothing to improve. So if anything does that's a bonus and that way I'm not disappointed
Spoiler block ❤
I haven’t watched Pete’s channel in a while. He’s starting to look a bit like Khal Drogo from Game of Thrones
This is probably the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me
Pete, do you actually enjoy playing Risk?
Every time I watch, you seem so angry.
Seems to me he had a great time playing this one
The dude literally saw the most blatant level of cheating target him and has many times asked smg to fix their game. It'd be weird to not express some frustration to that.
Outside that, the dude was laughin and havin a great time so your question seems a bit weird
This game was pretty fuckin fun!
The spoilerest of spoiler blockers. 🚫🚫🚫
😆😆😆😆😆😆
very disgusting this cheater got all the way up to master with this strat. guess it’s easy when you’re 2 people every game…
Spoiler block ❤