The Trick to Survive the Early Game on Fixed Friday!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ย. 2024
- FreePete YT ► / @freepete
Twitch ► / thekillpetestrategy
Discord ► / discord
Instagram ► / thekillpetestrategy
TikTok ► / thekillpetestrategy
Patreon ► / thekillpetestrategy
For Business & Sponsorship Inquiries Email: thekpsmgmt@gmail.com
I am so grateful for your time, attention, support and kindness!
Donations are never expected and always appreciated. Thank you!
#Risk #RiskStrategy #RiskGlobalDomination #boardgames
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
I honestly have no idea how I got here in my youtube surfing, but I love hearing "What... Is..... Up... Risk TAAAAkers!" over and over again in every video.
Ohhhh babyyyyy
Risk takers! Gives me chills every time 😊
The white alliance request into a heart and getting absolutely murdered cracked me up
Question for you Pete, what is your philosophy behind sending alliance requests? In some videos, I see you send one to every player during the first couple of turns of the game. At the beginning of this video, you said, "Don't suppose I have to ally with any of these folks yet, but if it turns out that I must, then I shall." Are there certain criteria that dictate sending and/or accepting requests? I was under the impression that alliances are always good to have because it allows for extra communication...
Hey Pete, love your content! If I could make a request, could you maybe try playing a progressive game with blizzards, capitals, alliances and with neutral bots and no fog of war on the original, non-Advanced Europe map? Would love to see that oldie in a modern light. Thanks!
Hi, one thing you could perhaps explain in a bit more detail is why adding extra troops causes potentially additional losses. I think I do get it now. the fewer troops you commit the more you take advantage of the 15% roundup of chance. the fewer troops that are committed to the battle, the larger percentage of those units are required to be guaranteed winning rolls to guarantee winning the battle. But balanced blitz only guarantees that you win the battle it does not guarantee not losing troops. so the larger amounts of units you commit the more of them can die (by random odds) but still win the battle. You take advantages of the rounding up of successful rolls more the fewer troops you commit.
If my hypotheses is right then they can't really fix the math because the math is not really wrong. so fixing the slider to default to fewest amount of troops with still 100 chance would be the best fix probably. or simply calculate it as if you attack with that amount even if you really commit more.
So it is not really a bug but more of a feature I would think. and that might make them hesitate to fix it I think. But I definitely agree its a design flaw.
I kinda wonder too, if you wanna attack a player with just a bit of your stack to scare him away or something. You cant really do that with balanced blitz if you are under 20%chance you will get the same results but in reverse. so you really can't do that then?
Also isn't it simply better to play with true random, not sure if many people play it.
It sounds like you understand what's going on
I think what they can do is use an internal slider to always ensure you get same result as optimal slidering. Would not require any interface change, but would be much the same as always putting the count at min troops for 100%
Magenta had no reason to hit white, he was chillin while you two were fighting
Agree. I thought Magenta was slow but tactically did nothing wrong. I thought they were probably intermediate when watching the game
Looked like a good player but you can't trust Pete to be objective lol
About slider: What is the maximum number of troops lost you've seen, when attacking 1 troop (with 5+ troops)?
Like 12 I think
Pete, if I were you at 31:52 I would fortify some troops from Middle East to ukrain and not let white to break(considering white's stack was locked and couldn't break through 30 or 40 troops). Maybe in a world there would be some chance to win the game.
Yea that’s what I assumed too. Was there a disadvantage to doing that?
@@JarrekAsF I don't think so because magenta wouldn't break. And if white wanted to break anyway, pete could merge the ukrain and middle east troops next round and not loosing too much troops.
I agree. There is still a good chance white sues pete, but he has enough of a troop lead on white to kill them even in that case. There is the risk of pink slamming pete, after he loses some troops, but I think pink was locked at that point.
I agree. It would have allowed a card block on white while Pete and Magenta trade in Europe.
VC in risk? Hell no. Or at least only in friend games. Can you imagine the amount of trolling, flaming and abuse some of the people would put out in VC?
The grandmasters tournament has had VC competitions the entire time. We're currently in season 10. I'll be publishing the episodes on FreePete
Nine months old game, so it hardly matters, but if I may give my two cents: Around 32:45 you mention White breaking you, but not Pink. And based on some comments, you might've suspected them of collaboration. Which may or may not be the case. My read on it however was this: White wanted to break Pink, too, but your 6 in Venezuela prevented him from it. His set simply wasn't big enough (Heh!) to punch through (which he nevertheless tried). Now part of that is due to him locking his stack in siam. But he's hardly the first player to make that rookie mistake. I believe he invested all his troops from a set into trying to break you both, but because of how everything was laid out, he only managed to break you. Pink was only vulnerable in one spot - and to get to it, White had to move through your continents.
And if you look at it from White's perspective, I think it's understandable if he felt he had to do something. Just holding Australia meant you and Pink were going to outgrow him even further. So he tried to stir up some shit - while at the same time not giving up the only bonus he had. Which is why he used a set and not his (locked) stack. But Pink was too well guarded on the northern fronts, so White only had two options: Do nothing, or go through Africa and SA.
I might be wrong, but I think there was an opportunity at the end to even team-up with White. The kill and throwing of the game felt a bit prematurely. Correct move if he was going to break you over and over, but it might've been an option to wait one more round, allow him into NA instead and see if he goes for it. (And come to think of it, perhaps a better move than killing White would've been to break NA and sit in Central America with all your troops. Force Pink into action by blocking his bonus. In essence it felt like there were some moves left to try before taking out White and going into the 1v1 at a disadvantage.
hey Pete , can you please explain why can i loose a dice roll with 77 troops vs a 65? i don't know what the % chance can be to lose at this ratio, but not only that, the opponent was left with 14 troops ... So 65 troops starting, rolls against 77 troops, wins and is left with 14 troops ... i mean? What's up with this ?
The only time you would want the slider to use more troops is in a time situation, which is very unlikely to even happen often enough at all. It would save time if you were to lose the roll, skipping that animation.
I use the attack color then thumbs up, thumbs down to try and communicate it as a question not a demand.
Having a question mark would be nice.
So for this season after being reset to 16000 from 25000, i have been getting noob slammed and fed to others. Dumb attacks galore that end up giving others wins that have no business winning. 😔
Hello Pete, I want to ask what times you stream so I can pop in and say hello, just wondering.
Logically, without knowing the details of balanced blitz, you would think that dedicating more troops would lead to less losses. What were they thinking with balanced blitz?
Love when Pete says "It's really risky", because it really is 'risky'
I get it, cause the game is called Risk!
I just started playing Risk after about a month of watching daily Peteman and I've essentially started my rank "ladder" from the Expert rank. Thanks!
My thing w collaboration is smg could easily catch them by seeing players play together regularly... Its not even that complex?
Love this channel. I occasionally win now when I play. Lol
I would have considered just slamming pink and hoping white took the kill since pink was obviously wanting to just sit back for an easy win, and first was unlikely. Not in tournament, it is risky, but for random game.
3:50 Slider Talk. Thanks. 4:1 don't ever throw higher, could lose more if you throw more.
18:17 we have to be in the midgame now, I mean 2 players have been killed, and blue and white are so thin. Pink and orange are the only ones with any stacks, and no one has more than 3 cards. No one but pink has a bonus, and we are on fixed.
He suicides into white, it went terrible -3/-1 his loss, of course he bots out.
20:24 you have another set on 10, do you not just put both out, and leave yourself with no cards and an undesirable kill?
26:09 please tell me you clean white out of europe and northern asia so he has to step out. I don't know if that's the right move though.
The nonsense 30-40 minutes in, just tragedy.
Have you ever seen results of a report during the same game you issued the report?
SMG has a "six strikes suspension system", so these guys are probably only on strike 4 or 5. So it's fine.
but not every report is confirmed. that would be really bad if that was the case.
Guys , I’m like 0 wins , but I love the game so much , I’m like the top no.2 player for almost every game 😂
Great game pete as always 👍🔥🔥🔥🔥❤️
Pete playing the best color
So you think we shouldn't have to report players for cheating in some way. Do you have any way to fix that issue? I've thought about it for alittle bit but cannot come up with an efficient way for the devs to combat collaboration, stream sniping, etc.
the only thing I can come up with is an AI that flags suspicious behavior. but um, it would flag noobs all the time too and so it probably wouldn't really work. I think it's unrealistic to combat this without player reports. in fact even with player reports it might be dificult.
I mean how do you define that something is collaborating? What about the deadliest chocke strategy it can feel like collusion but it's also a legit strategy ofcourse thats different but that will be difficult to see/judge.
@lightlayagajoie5739 see that's my point, I couldn't come up with a viable solution to this problem. It may suck but I think the best option IS to let the players tell and then investigate from there.
Well the first way is if 2 accounts playing in the same game have the same IP address. Instant ejection from the game lobby, stop it at source. As to 2 friends doing it from separate IPs, as you're not allowed to play with anyone you know, 2 accounts playing games in the same ranked lobbies regularly should be enough to flag. Hard to stop every loophole though. VPNs being one
Quite the opposite tbh. They can much more easily catch cheating.
Collaboration is so obvious if you look at their game history and check overlaps. It's basically impossible to hide, at best, you can make it less obvious. Even if you created a new account to collab with every game, that'd still be detectible with very high confidence.
Reading a lot of history content teaches you geography by default, by the way. The flags are another story...
A middle finger emoji would feel good from time ti time...
My 1st game new season 8 man cards in row 2nd game 6 man cards in a row 3rd game 3 man cards in a row this is my 1st 17 turns of 3 games Done
have you ever seen someone lose more than 1 on a X v 1?
I've lost 12 to a 1 before
@@TheKillPeteStrategy 🫢😱🤯 that’s outrageous!!!! I tend to watch a lot of your videos (love the thought process, strategy, and commentary), but I don’t think I ever saw that happen. Certainly something that the game would benefit from updating
spoiler block x
Entertaining content, as always. Been starting to watch your videos lately. Keep it up :)
One thing pretty obvious is you are kind of a sore loser. Sometimes it’s like you believe you always should be the one to win. In this game, like most games, you are the best player, but pink took advantage of white breaking you. Why on earth would he even the playing field by killing white. Obviously he played the situation perfectly to his advantage and I think you should learn to appreciate other players doing what’s best for them and not get so noticeably pissed off over coming in second every once in a while.
Also, I take it you reported pink and white for some sort of collaboration? Sorry, I just don’t see it. Im sure you’ve been victim of it plenty of times being a streamer, but this game was no reason to believe so. Your anger clearly blinds you.
Oh well, i hope you don’t take this too bad, just pointing out what I’m seeing. Cheers
The ish with collab in the game is since I'm so high profile when I stream a live game it drastically increases the odds of it happening. And since the game doesn't actually protect us from it and relies on a (terrible and super toxic) reporting system I always default to over reporting if there is any suspicion. The truth is we never really know for sure if we're being collabed on but this should explain more about why I behave certain ways when I'm streaming vs when I'm not.
In order to get more fair games I can't actually work live. The difference is very noticeable.
Does anyone else think Pete really likes coke?
no
Acid
Algorithm boost 🔥
Third
Turned into a big baby when you knew it was over and couldn't even show your screen.
Pretty sure he was reporting Magenta for stream sniping & didn’t want them to see that.
He suspected magenta of foul play and was reporting him and/or stopping magenta seeing his screen. Calling someone a big baby without full knowledge isn't on squire