Why HBD is just like Risk Topic

You remember Risk, right?  Roll the dice, conquer you enemies, rule the world.  Perhaps, like me, you enjoyed the game as a kid.  Then, however, sometime around age 10 or 12, one of your friends showed up to play with the "South America" strategy. 

You know the strategy:  take over the four South American countries, put half your armies on Brazil and the other half on Venezuela.  Then wait.  And wait some more.  Collect your five armies per turn and watch all the other players enjoy themselves by attacking each other.  Perhaps they are having a good time participating in a game, but the strategic genius don't care.  You wait some more.  And more.  Finally, when you've accumulated a boatload of armies and everyone else is spread thin by constantly attacking each other you methodically take over the world.  The end.

When playing against someone employing this strategy it is typically frustrating.  No one wants to hear Mr. South America continue to spout about how he is a strategic genius, but there really isn't a good way to counter the strategy.  Players who are actively playing are at a huge disadvantage to the guy sitting there and collecting his armies.  At this point your options are to pursue a similar strategy or make up a bunch of silly rules in an attempt to stop that strategy. 

Eventually you decide to stop playing Risk.  Most likely - like me - you moved on to different games like Diplomacy or Axis and Allies.  More complicated to be sure but with a better set of rules.  Rules that encouraged players to be active, to be bold, and to engage.

HBD certainly qualifies as a "more complicated" game to be sure.  But, unfortunately, the strategic elements of the game more closely resemble Risk.

It is a pity that WIS can't work on the rules to encourage the kind of gameplay that we see - for example - in the more complicated war games as opposed to settling for - and aggressively defending - the gameplay encouraged by the current set of rules.
12/31/2010 2:00 PM
Many private HBD worlds have rules specifically designed to combat (no pun intended) that kind of strategy.  Win minimums, anti-tanking, restrictions on cash trades, etc.

If you're in a world where your "South America" strategy happens, look for another world that has 31 other like-minded owners who want to play by the same spirit of the rules as you do.  Your enjoyment factor will increase dramatically.

In short: this is not a problem for WIS to fix.  You just need to find the right world to play in.
12/31/2010 2:06 PM
When playing Risk, I would always make sure to deny that opponent Venezuela. When playing HBD, I always sign the Venezuelan IFA's - just in case.
12/31/2010 2:27 PM
I love Risk. But I bet the "South America" strategy guy wasn't having any fun. Not do a thing for most of the game just to get an easy win?

In HBD terms, I see it as the guy who doesn't do a thing for several seasons but collecting draft picks, trading their star players and waiting, waiting until 6 seasons down the road so they can dominate for 2 seasons in which they might, MIGHT win a title and then start the process all over again.

Boring.

Do what TEC says.
12/31/2010 2:37 PM
Plus armies don't have the problem of pulling their hamstring or ruining their rotater cuff.
12/31/2010 2:47 PM
Tecwrg -

I don't play in leagues where there is widespread tanking.  However, every league that I'm in (and I'm in a lot of good ones) has teams that are making questionable moves.  My complaint isn't about tankers, per se.  It is hard to argue with a successful strategy that is endorsed by the people that designed the game.

I don't want to set up artificial win floors or artificial transfer maximums or artificial trade rules, etc.  I don't want to micromanage other people's teams.  I don't want my leagues to vote on whether a stud prospect has been at AAA too long.

I want to know why WIS hasn't designed the game - or made a single notable change to the design - to dissuade people from "aggressive rebuilding" or whatever people want to call it.  When you design a GOOD game, shouldn't you be thinking, "Let's not make sitting there and losing a successful strategy."

The root problem is that the mechanics of the game suck.  There have been tons of fixes suggested in the forums and elsewhere.  I'm not trying to debate the merits of any particular change.  I know that even changes that look good on the surface might have horrible consequences.  I want to know why WIS doesn't seem to make any effort to address these issues.


12/31/2010 3:04 PM
Because it's not a WIS problem to fix.  They designed a game.  They have a couple of thousand customers willing to pay $24.95 every three months to play their game.  If they make widescale changes to take away what some users employ as a "successful strategy", then they are just going to lose customers.  I don't think they'll see that as a desirable business model.

You, on the other hand, as a paying customer have a viable option to avoid playing in worlds where this happens, which I described above.
12/31/2010 3:15 PM
" 'When you design a GOOD game, shouldn't you be thinking, "Let's not make sitting there and losing a successful strategy.'"

How successful is it?

At best, you're talking about spending $75 or so for for a chance at a few year run.  You have to be a good talent evaluator, and be willing to spend the time to do it.  I just don't think short-term tanking is even a viable enough strategy to be worried about.                    
12/31/2010 3:31 PM

@i24-- it's moderately successful (if you read ratings well) because it can self-perpetuate.  If you develop a roster that can win with 110 games with a salary commitment of $30M, you can win championships and continue to "rebuild" at the same time.  Even in a world with smart opponents you can sacrifice 3-4 seasons to run for 8-10 successfully.

@dcbove-- A rule in my professional field is:  don't criticize something unless you can think of a better way to do it.
           It's very hard to create a strategy that works for all worlds to combat the "megatank."  Relatively severe minimum win rules (as we use in Cooperstown), if applied to all worlds, would drive out a fair number of n00bs who want to learn the game but are afraid to lose their franchises if they make mistakes.  Tying budget to performance (which is why the "megatank" doesn't work all that well in real life baseball, bad teams lose too much money) is an even bigger disaster; it either creates horribly decimated franchises, or (if you allow budgets to reset under a new owner) invites massive alias usage.  
           I actually agree with you that it is WiS' responsibility to fix this, insofar as it can be fixed-- but I'm not sure that any treatment isn't worse than the disease here.

12/31/2010 4:01 PM
@dedelman

I agree that in general that it is good to avoid criticizing without proposing a solution.  However, what appears to happen in the forum is that everyone gets bogged down in the minutiae and wanders off topic.  I'm trying to avoid discussing the merits of anyone's particular fix.  My point was:  much like the game Risk, after someone figures out the South America strategy then everyone either:

-- makes silly artificial rules (e.g., you can't collect armies unless you've conquered a country in the last 3 turns, you can't transfer more than $10M to prospects)
-- gets bored and moves on.

I want WIS to design a game that removes the South America strategy from being a successful strategy.  I like the game but I'm started to get bored.  Sometimes I make moves that I think are less than optimal but I'm trying to make certain that I'm not perceived as tanking.  Sometimes I see other people's moves and I think that they're just making that move to lose on purpose.

I wouldn't care if people tried to lose on purpose if there were some appropriate consequences for losing.  But there are none.  In a well designed game that would not be the case.

@tecwrg

If their goal is to set up a game where they are merely trying to snag $24.95 per person per season then you might be correct.  A tanker spends their money, happily loses year after year, and the world spins on.  But - and perhaps I'm naive - doesn't WIS think that the game would see more growth and they'd make more money if the quality of the game improved?
12/31/2010 5:16 PM
It's baseball. Florida Marlins, they win a title, sell the team off, time goes by, win a title, sell the team off. It's BASEBALL. You make it sound like WIS is way off from real baseball. They have their strategies too just like the customers of HBD.
12/31/2010 5:20 PM (edited)
"However, every league that I'm in (and I'm in a lot of good ones) has teams that are making questionable moves"

There's a lot of really, really stupid people out there. There's no IQ threshold to play HBD, we're stuck with 'em.
12/31/2010 5:32 PM
A minimum win rule works. It's not a silly artificial rule. It still allows owners to pursue myriad strategies, and it a simple but effective way to prevent making moves that are "less than optimal",
12/31/2010 5:53 PM

mitchrapp,

It isn't quite like the Florida Marlins.  When the Marlins sell every good player for prospects they are acquiring folks with pretty unknown futures...or with some relative degree of unpredictability..  HBD isn't quite like that in the sense that projections tell you just how good a player will get (or...give you an idea of how close they can expect to get to being how good).

Same applies to draf picks and IFA's

So here you're selling player for a sure thing.  Sell enough players for enough sure things and tanking always pays off.

And you win in two ways...because you can sacrifice salary for scouting...you can see more sure things than everybody else.

Projections are too accurate.  How many 15th round draft picks make it to the bigs in HBD?  Not very darn many...Well...probably none.

Yet 15th, 25th 40th round picks make it in real life.

And there is no real salary risk for tanking.  Yet if a team inreal life wins 50 ballgames...their budget will greatly suffer becasue they won't put folks in their seats.

Hey, don't get me wrong.  I love this game.  I'm much for fascinated with it than I expected.   But dc is right.  There are some fixes that can be made.

But dc and I are in the same world....and we've really struggled with one complete tanker (multiple seasons) who we couldn;t get rid of until this season. We've tried to effectively deal with him, too.  Hasn't been easy.   Now that he's gone, the new owner will reap the benefit of his tanking, an unbelievaly loaded AAA and AA lineup.  Essentially he had a 100 win MLB team in the minors.  Now that doesn't happen in real lfe,either.


 

12/31/2010 6:19 PM
@cbriese

A minimum win rule can be effective but is still an artificial rule. 

The point I've been trying to make is that a well designed game - and I assume that WIS wants to run such a game - would include appropriate incentives and disincentives so that the owner could follow any strategy.  There would be negative consequences for losing that balance out the higher draft pick, the additional funds that might be available from running a lower payroll, etc.  An owner can then chart their path, employ the strategy of their choice, and not be concerned with essentially arbitrary rules.

That sort of positive and negative feedback would be integral to my idea of a well designed game.

All right, I appreciate all the constructive comments and feedback.  I'm going to try to avoid posting on this thread again to avoid beating this topic into the ground (which I probably already did).  Plus, I have drinking to do.  Happy New Year everyone. 
1/1/2011 5:03 PM (edited)
123 Next ▸
Why HBD is just like Risk Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.