Contests / The Next Contest

-Battles-

Battles are the meat and potatoes of Risk: NE Edition. Battles are won based on the skill of the Lieutenant fighting the battle. Battles are fought using parks built on a 25x25 scale (or smaller), with each contending Lieutenant building a park. The parks are then judged by a team of judges to determine which park wins the battle. Each park is given a score from 1 to 20 (much like the accolade voting system). The park with the higher score wins the engagement. Winning or losing is determined by who is attacking and who is defending.

If a Lieutenant is attacking another territory and wins, the Lieutenant takes over that territory. If a Lieutenant is attacking another territory and loses, the opponents territory is not taken. If a defending Lieutenant loses to an attacker, that Lieutenant loses his/her territory. If a defending Lieutenant wins against an attacker, than the Lieutenant keeps his/her territory. If park scores are tied, then the defending park will always prevail.

It is important to remember that only one Lieutenant can legally be ordered to attack any enemy territory at one time. ex) If Fr3ak is ordered to attack Cocoa, then zburns must be ordered to attack someone other than Cocoa, if zburns is on Fr3ak's team. If zburns is not on Fr3ak's team, then this rule does not apply.

It is also important to remember that only adjacent territories can be attacked. A Lieutenant in China cannot be order to attack a Lieutenant in North Africa because China and North Africa are not connected.

In some instances, a Lieutenant may not be ordered to attack or defend. They may not have any enemy territories adjacent to them to attack, or the General may decide not to use them. In this case one of two actions may be taken.
1. Aid: After all attacks have been issued, phase two of the turn system is entered. In this phase a General may order a Lieutenant to build a park that will aid a weaker player. (A stronger player may be aided, but it is not advisable for the following reasons.) Once both parks are complete and scored, their scores are combined and averaged. In this way a strong player can bolster the score of a weak player, making victory more likely. Since the scores are combined and averaged, this means that a weak player may hurt a strong player through aid.
2. Neutral Park: A Neutral Park is a park that is not used to attack or defend. Instead, the Neutral Park is scored like any combat park would be, and then a portion of the score is added to the Lieutenant's next combat park. The score appropriated to the next combat park is determined by the Lieutenants rank which is assigned at the beginning of the game. ex) A rank 7 Lieutenant that makes a Neutral Park with a score of 8 will have 2 extra points added to the next combat park. (A rank 7 or lower Lieutenant will get 1/4 of the Neutral Park score added to their next combat park; a rank 6 will get 1/5; a rank 5 will get 1/6; a rank 4 will get 1/7; a rank 3 will get 1/8; a rank 2 (Vice-General) will get 1/9; a rank 1 (General) will receive 1/10. No fractions will be awarded above 1/4. Thus, a rank 8 Lieutenant is on the same platform as a rank 7 Lieutenant.)Neutral Park points are cumulative. If a Lieutenant makes two Neutral Parks before making a combat park, then both fractions Neutral Park scores are added to the combat park's score. ex) A rank 7 Lieutenant makes a Neutral Park with a score of 8, and gets 2 extra points toward the next combat park. That Lieutenant then makes another Neutral Park with a score of 8 and receives two more extra points. When the player is then engaged in combat, he/she will have 4 extra points to add to the score of their combat park. If the next combat park is an Aid park, then the Neutral Park bonus still applies, and is added in before the two parks' scores are averaged.

NOTE FROM THE CREATOR: Neutral Parks are actually my favorite part of the game. Why? It ensures that weak players won't be left out because of their skill, and it allows weak players to be serious contenders alongside their more skilled comrades.

If a Lieutenant loses a territory that they are defending, the must retreat to the nearest team-owned, unoccupied territory. If no team-owned territories are unoccupied, then they must retreat to the nearest territory with the least amount of occupants. If all territories contain equal occupants, then the General decides where the Lieutenant will retreat to.

Should a territory be attacked that is being occupied by more than one Lieutenant, than the Aid rule is followed.

A General may fight his own battles, but there is a price to pay for doing so. Should a General order him/herself to attack a territory and lose, then they lose their status as a General. A new General is then chosen by the team. The Vice-General DOES NOT become the new General. The General then loses his rank of 1 and gains a rank of 2 alongside the Vice-General. Any Neutral Park bonuses accumulated are also lost. The new General chosen receives a rank of 1. If the General does not order him/herself to attack and is instead forced to defend from an enemy invasion, then the demotion does not apply. Instead, they receive 3 bonus points for being on the defensive.

-Cascade Rule-

If more than two territories are involved in a battle, then the Cascade Rule is followed. The Cascade Rule is based on score. In the Cascade Rule, the actions of the highest scoring park (or an Aid's average) takes precedence over the actions of lower scoring parks. After the actions of the highest scoring park is determined, then the next highest scoring park has their actions put into effect.
ex) Three parks are in a battle; Park A is defending, Park B is attacking Park A, and Park C is also attacking Park A. Park B gets the highest score of the three, so Park B gets to attack first. Since Park B's score is higher than Park A's, Park B takes over Park A's territory. Park A was the second highest scoring park, but since park A is no longer in the battle, Park C comes next. Park C would've taken Park A's territory, but because Park B got to attack first, Park C must now deal with Park B. Park C fails in taking Park B's newly acquired territory.

If any territory becomes unoccupied during the course of a battle and is then attacked by a Lieutenant, then the park that was made by the Lieutenant who vacated the territory is used, even if that Lieutenant's park lost to another. However, for being an unoccupied territory, the defending Lieutenant's park loses 1 point.

-Victory-

Finally, victory. The part you've all been waiting for. Victory is achieved when:

1. One team owns all territories on the Risk map.
2. The time limit for the game ends, in which case the team with the most territories wins.

If more that one team has the same number of territories, then a Death Match will be used to decide the victor. The General may not participate in a Death Match. He/She must choose a Lieutenant to participate, or choose the Vice-General. The park with the highest score then wins, regardless of the number of participants. The winner of the Death Match then takes his victory to his teammates and they celebrate.

---------->[End of Rules]<-------------

It sounds incredibly complicated and quite similar to Head to Head, but for some reason I am strangely compelled to want to try it.

It's not bad actually. I like the overal idea but I think it would be a little better if multiple people on a territory could do one map. I also think a little too much stock is put into one person's decisons (the general) and the vice general seems pointless almost. It's good to have a backup I guess but it just adds complications... for example can the vice general actually participate in battles? (if I missed the answer to that sorry)


And the obvious problem is that most contests look great on paper but when it comes down to it I don't know if inspiration for this contest will last as it seems like there would be a tendancy for most people to be sitting in a round. It also seems like it would be tough to set up and keep organized.

yes to both of those, and I'd like to add that the general nature of risk games is to take a really, really long time to reach completion.
great idea,really- but i get the feeling it would have worked in 2005 or so.
I'm not really positive or negative feeling here, but the fact that it is more complicated than is probably necessary speaks for itself.

In my experience, I can never find enough people to play the actual board game, because it is so time consuming. Therefore I conclude that interest in this will be high for about a week and then you will find yourself with no participants. Good thinking though.

haha the last time I played risk was like 2 years ago and after what felt like 12 years we called it a draw because everyone was just hanging on to what they had and playing defensive

I could see that happening with the contest...

Well, thanks for the comments, all. I agree that it probably wouldn't work, but, like Steve, I would like to give it a try.

This idea is awesome...

H2H was also awesome.

We should do something crazy like this. I would be in.

Ride6

One thing is important for the whatever contest we are having next in my opinion.
It must be a team contest and there must be collaboration parks. I personally am getting a lot motivation from building parks with other people.

Another very important actuality is how to react to possible drop outs. Whatever contest we run it must not end like the one cancelled H2H season.

Maybe a team/duo version of Quest for the Best?

The maps would be smaller so deadlines would be met more easily than H2H plus it's building something more like a design than a whole park which again would be less time consuming.
Plus if it's a duo there should be less drop-outs as the duo would be working so closely together all the time, and if there was a drop out that one person could just carry on or get a new partner?

This then combines the team/collaberation aspect that everyone seems to want, is less time consuming, and brings back a classic contest.

Just throwing this out there. I think the community is strong enough now for the RCT Olympics to be held again.

We can have a catergory for best group park (throw the h2h influence in there but with a global twist.) Have a MM catergory (obviously scaled down the number of players to maybe 8 ) A mini QFTB or high rollers (not sure the rules of each so don't know if it would be scaled down easier) and just have alot of fun with all the different catergories.

Everyone gets the chance to win gold silver or bronze in a large number of events.

Just some are Best steel coaster, Best wooden, Best group park, Best Micro, Best adventure ride, Best LL park, Best Rct park. We could even make some up to fit in with the theme of some events.

This would be good as we can please EVERYONE with the different events, we get lots of variation, revive the rct olympics whilst the community is so strong and it gives us chance to see some awesome parks of all sizes.
It's also good because it would create such a good buzz around the community, maybe draw some new players to the site then theres always the competitive factor with your own park and your country.

I can't express how awesome an Rct Olympics would be.

whast that one where you have to complete like half a ride thats been made?
you could do that NE style and they are voted on.

and theres say 4 rounds with the most awkward and difficult to "make well" rides to the end?

kind of a knockout thing in the rounds?

that risk thing it extremely complicated. perhapd simplify it and make the teams smaller and things.....

^ RCT Olympics was on a site basis and with NE reallly the only active site anymore there isn't much point.

I remember the Olympics we had, I was on the ne gold medal team and got one even tho all I did was 1 coaster layout

I don't think that would work again and it was not that much fun imo. Also Xin's idea is okay, but I think it is a little too complex for this smaller community we have now.

I think we need something where people work together since the last two contests (MM & PT3) were solo contests. So H2H, or maybe that team qftb idea. Also dropouts should be low with multiple builders.

What about track tennis contest where theres a set number of teams containing a set number of players.Each team must complete a themed ride but all members of the team must contribute in some way to the final submission.It would be a short contest with public judging (polls) taking place at 4/5 main stages through the building process (i.e layout,layout+supports etc etc) followed by a final vote.This would allow each team to improve on there submission (minor tweaking) before the final deadline and would mean that final submissions would be nothing like the first entry.Each team member would only be allowed to compete once

^Maybe a little too 'lazy' so to speak.

I'd really like to think that something resembling h2h could still happen. It's certainly a contest I'd just out of so called "retirement" for. I'm not sure I would want to captain again considering how poorly that went. I really didn't take all that much time studying up on just who (beyond about the 5th round or so) was really getting their shit together.

I think the thing that happened in h2h (starting in h2h2 particularly) was the expectation that each and every park had to be pretty damn mind blowing. Everything had to be on the level of Toon, Coaster Ed, X-sector, or Fatha'. Well that's bullshit... Clearly the contest would work better if a complete park was turned in every week and that was that. But I understand that kinda ruins it...

H2h5 would still be my vote... This time map sizes should be more contained ( under 50^2) and the teams should be reduced in size to maybe 7 or 8 players. The new twist would be a two-week bye in the middle of season for all teams that begins with a "layoff and draft" time. At the beginning day of this bye the teams would announce a list of players they're 'firing' (up to half of the team) and a sign up would be posted for the "mid season draft". On the middle day (after the week-long window for sign up) the teams would draft for however many slots they have open. The order of this draft would be chosen by the team captains based on the team's standings at that point (so the last place captain would get to choose where in the draft he would want to be: 3rd pick first round and 4th pick 2nd, or 1st pick first round and 6th pick 2nd, etc). There should also be a way that three people can work on a park (so if someone bails after doing something major the whole thing doesn't have to get scrapped).

This mid-season draft thing should work as both a motivator and a way of preventing the fall-off we saw last time. I've officially reached the point that I don't think running it in a particular time of the year will really help. To further increase the feeling of competition and fuel rivalries there should be someone (or several someones) officially creating a ranking poll, probably updated after every week's competition (in the spirit of college and professional sports). This poll would also help (along with win/loss stats) to decide which team captain gets to choose their mid-season draft spot first. At the end I'm not sure we should hold 'divisional' championships or if the 4 highest-ranked teams should go into a playoff system; in all likelihood they'll be the same teams anyway, but seeding could make for some really interesting upsets in the bracket...

But this is what I'd want to do...

Ride6

H2h5 would rock my world to be fair.

hmmm while I think there have been some nice ideas for new contests but imo trying to modify h2h in some way would be the easiest thing to do if a team contest ends up being the type selected

Ride6, that midseason draft idea is very good. I've actually thought about some different ways h2h could be changed since this topic has been brought up again. I had never thought of anything like that though but I think that is not only doable but would be really nice to do. An extensive redraft is a bit of a toss-up because teams could do that throughout the season anyway... although if the season is shortened it could be turned into the only time a team can drop players and pick up. I'm not real sure what the best way to do it would be but it offers a whole bunch of possiblilities. Even just a chance for teams to catch their breath and get a solid plan for the second half.

Here is a short list of ideas I had in ways h2h could be changed. I'm not really suggesting anything particular but just listing options.... all, none or any mix of them could be done. It's here for discussion though.

H2H Changes

The easy (imo)
- change map size (either 50x50 or below most likely) although a range of map sizes is also a possibility. Saying entries can be anywhere from 40x40-60x60 could be a way to resolve any issues with changing this rule

- change the number of people who can work per map... the one solo rule obviously added a bit of strategy to the game but nowdays I don't see much of a point. I also like the idea of being able to have a park or two that more than two people could work on. To stay conservative, maybe a one solo/one full collabo park rule?

- Ride6's midseason draft/break....

The Not-So-Easy imo
These are the not-so-easy because changing them would change the contest dynamic a lot... it all depends if you want to remain a purist or not I guess.

- Season length could be dropped down. 10 is too long and 5 is too short imo. 6 or 8 weeks could work out with a midseason break.

- Team amount and size could be reduced and it goes hand in hand with the season length. Honestly I'm all for keeping the teams at 10 players each even if the number of weeks is reduced because shrinking the teams just puts as much pressure on each individual if there are dropouts and that goes completely against the idea of trying to make this contest more friendly to current times.

^to further complicate things maybe some sort of "reserve list" could be drafted for each team. That is, 1 or 2 players that are drafted on the team but are exempt from having to be used in the regular season. That way if the team gets in a jam for a week they can pull from this list Special rules could apply like they can be only used once and only in the regular season as well. Might be worth doing in the long run.


a lot of this depends on the kind of response a h2h would get these days so whatever. Just tossing in my 2 cents on the matter.

now... talk amongst yourselves.... I'm feeling verklempt

The point of the mid-season draft is that you're removing underachieving or non-communicative players but you have NO IDEA who's going to be in the draft at that point (for sure anyway) so you might land some serious talent or an absolute nobody. There should also be some rules about who you can drop: if something has contributed to one or no parks I think they can be dropped, but if they were a part of two parks released before the draft you have to keep them regardless... Additionally the mid-drafted individuals may only build 2 parks rather than the usual three, this is including the post season.

The number of people who may work on one map MUST be changed, but it gets complicated when you have more than two people because clearly you could just have a team with say RRP and Geewhzz, and they build three parks together with one other person throwing in a building or something minor on each one... This is bullshit... But by the same token if every three-player map eliminated all THREE combinations of pairs that would make it nearly impossible to complete the season. So this rule gets tricky.

But H2H fucking rules.

Ride6

Simpler the better. Colour me a pessimist, but people have been signing up for contests and not turning shit in for as long as the the site has been around. It's only gotten worse as our parks get more detailed and complex. If you're looking to get any kind of quality work, this multi round type of contest isn't your answer.