Major Command Risk Honor Points
So a feature that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention is the Honor system which is rating you by honor points. You can find the number of your honor points on your Major Command profile. It is designed to be a score how you play in terms of your behavior. It should highlight honorable Risk players and warn of dishonorable players. That’s how it’s supposed to work, but in order to really test it, we need to put it through its paces.
So watch the video below describing how it works and how to use it. Then get on rating!
Your honor points are calculated like this. The first number is the percentage of honorable votes. The second number is the total number of votes, honorable or dishonorable. So a score of 80 (17) means 17 people have rated you, 80% of them were honorable. Any questions, just ask. There is also a few threads in the forum about it.
17 thoughts on “Risk Game – The Honor Points system”
The honor system has a MAJOR flaw. I normally don’t use the FORMAL diplomacy for 2 reasons. 1, it gives other players important info they don’t NEED ie length of agreement. 2 If at the end of the game the agreement is still in place it almost forces you to violate the agreement, lowering your diplomacy score. I use informal agreements between 2 players of honor. This however has drawbacks. I have had 2 players (frankiegoes & neosyn9) violate our informal agreements. When I commented in the game chat they denied it and played dumb causing me to want to backhand them lol. I have recieved 5 diplomacy votes with 60% positive. I have NO DOUBT those are the 2 negatives. Your format and mine both have drawbacks that is unfair to a player who believes in honor. Might I suggest leavig the diplomatic agreements blind to the other players. Just like in real life your adversary does not know what you and your allies have agreed to. Though they may want to know, they have no need to know. THX for your time.
Nobody dares rate Bado dishonorable.. those that do get taken into the desert late at night and are never seen again.
Two suggestions: (1) Since some players will log a dishonor for no valid reason, have the “honor rating” disappear after a period of time (say 6 months) so one isn’t strapped with “dishonor” for ever – if this is too complicated to do by player, then reset all ratings after 6 months … (2) allow any given player to only do an honor rating ONCE on the same player (positive or negative) every 6 months … that way the same player can’t keep blasting away at someone just for revenge and the like.
I think only players with X amount of honor should be able to rate others. That way maybe some of the crybabies that leave bad ratings for no apparent reason will be filtered out to an extent.
Though if it were up to me, I would eliminate the honor rating system…
bcr914, or they can just not join a game with them again…right?
1. Agree with Marcos – other players should not be able to see agreements they are not involved in.
2. When game is down to two players, either enable a cooperative victory, or all agreements become null and void.
3. Remove rating by other players. Have dishonorable ratings set by the system when agreements are violated.
Some good points Pneuma. Good luck getting them enacted. You have my vote on all 3 bullets.
As a side note, I’m currently in a game in which if all goes according to my plan, I will convince a specific player into an agreement that I have every intention of breaking.
The game now uses a database to log all moves for all game types. The pturlapioy for a move is compounded whenever the same move is performed for a certain board layout. If a move doesn’t exist, the chess client picks a move for the AI player. This allows for rudimentary training of the AI by human players. If playing the computer, press the take back move’ button if the AI move is a bad one. Playing alternatively as white and black against the AI will also increase the training.
Agree with pneuma on all 3 points
Am presently involved in a Classic Evolved game where I was in possession of Mexico. Very early in the game at the request of the player owning Columbia I agreed to a truce between the 2 regions. next move he came from Nunavut and took Mexico to slow by build up in N America. Next move I re-took Mexico and when I attempted to cross into Columbia (payback!) it accused me of breaking the truce! I was amazed that it was still in existence but carried on as I felt he was using the truce to do damage to me while being protected by the ‘rules of diplomacy’!
Sorry for being so long winded but the thing is he now has the opportunity to give bad ‘honour ratings’ to me so I think that this is another instance where the ‘truce’ rule needs to be looked at in regard to ‘honour’.
I think you should just do away with the chat in the diplomacy department, if there is something to say then it should be said for all to hear, and the rating system, should be done by the system not the players, as there are a lot of crying games going on…. if I win, and it pisses someone else off they can now go in and rate me dishonorable as many times as they like, which isnt a true reflection of my play. Just my thoughts …
Secondly if there is a truce, I think the game sould enforce the truce, and not allow the attack to take place, this would solve all the bickering as once agreed to you whould have to ask to change the agreement, before you could proceed.
Honor is overrated. In war, victory trumps honor. Trust no one. Frankly, a very high ‘honor’ rank may be seen as a ‘sucker’ sign to others.
I vote scrap the honor system and the secret diplomacy it just makes people angry to one another
I’ll cloak myself in Honor and Diplomacy. That’s what it takes to win games. Heck, I’d dump a bucket of poo on me. If it win me more games.
1. I don’t understand people who (from what they’re saying) are good players, if not GREAT players, are afraid of a rating system. I don’t wish to get knocked out by players who triple my rating points.
2. If i may suggest: I wished the rating system for MajCom was like the chess system. Thus, giving you the opinion of accepting or refusing or denying an opponent the choice to accept or refusing an opponent who might be a totally out of ones league.
Just a suggestion, take it or leave it.
ie: some players leave because they can’t seem to be able to win.