Risk Controversies: AKASpudTopped vs Math! KPO2 R7

Risk KZbin ► / thekillpetestrategy
Twitch ► / thekillpetestrategy
Discord ► / discord
Instagram ► / thekillpetestrategy
TikTok ► / thekillpetestrategy
Patreon ► / thekillpetestrategy
For Business & Sponsorship Inquires Email: [e-mail]
Fan Mail: PO Box 87537 300 John St. Thornhill ON Canada L3T 7R4
I am so grateful for your time, attention, support and kindness!
Donations are never expected and always appreciated. Thank you!
#Risk #RiskStrategy #RiskGlobalDomination #boardgames

[@AKASpudTopped]

What is up SpecTaters?! 💜🥔

[@FreePete]

🤜🤛

[@dwarian5252]

I do think that objectively the play was correct, but I personally would have let them have the win IF I could tell that that was their intention for *GIVING* ME SECOND. If I were in blue's position, I would have either kept emoting until the other person was completely on board with my plan, or I would have just won right there.

[@BoofDoofus]

Scum bag move

[@SirTylerGolf]

All these guys are missing the big picture, they should've done what I did and got eliminated really early to ensure that they couldn't get in any controversy!

[@risk_live]

This is the way

[@FreePete]

This was my solution so I wouldn't have to face you in the Assassin's final.

[@FLUMBARDING]

Even after Spud eliminated the five, blue had clearly demonstrated a 100% kill line, through balanced blitz, giving Spud a higher placement without conflict. This should have symbolized the theoretical end of the match. Spudly not recognizing that, then backstabbing Math's generosity, should garner nothing but resent. Spudly behaved extremely unsportsmanlike in this match.

[@konstantinkomorowicz243]

Spud is trading long term benefits for short term rewards at the risk of gaining an untrustworthy reputation. Pete is trading short term rewards for long term benefits and a trustworthy reputation in hopes of gaining opportunities that reciprocate his good faith in the future, which would not appear for a person with a reputation to betray players.

[@RealClintCapela]

i didnt even think of the reputation aspect. The fact this match was made so public and evident he simply did not care for mercy grinning shows a lot about his character (not saying he is a bad guy, but his respect for others is rather lacking) and thus primarily his trustworthiness. Not worth it imo for such a minor game value (it's only round 7)

[@richard_nj]

​@@RealClintCapelaIt's a risk tournament. Playing with the intent to finish with the most points possible should be the baseline behavior for all players at all times. I don't see how you're in any way obligated or can even be expected to take 2nd place when an opponent offers it to you while you still have a shot at 1st.

[@jeanwilli2478]

Hi Pete. I really enjoy these controversy videos. Any chance you could get the people involved on voice chat to hear there views as you go over it? That would be cool.

[@FreePete]

I'm down to do it if there's enough demand

[@myketh1196]

What’s the controversy? Seems like spud and a couple others think he did the right thing (to win the game, of course he did, but he lost other things that matter more), winning isn’t everything, sportsmanship, reputation, respect for players, respect for the game, and respect for the fist bump matter more than winning a tourney game (and especially because it’s a tourney game played in public and shared with the community) I don’t think spud will be offered second in a tourney match again (except by those unaware of this game; though I don’t think spud particularly cares, he is a skilled player who relishes a challenge and always plays to win, which we all do, but most of us who signal an agreement to 2nd would follow through and not do something this distasteful) and now a lot of players will be much more wary when about to win and see the fist bump come out, imo the game overall has lost something as a result of this game (that’s just my two cents though, feel free to toss them to the wayside)

[@loganjoseph9361]

Seems a bit scummy on spuds part, but there were 3 major points where blue should of saw he wasn’t giving up and killed him. (Hitting his position out, taking cards, trading)

[@OpenTanyao]

I think that play would've worked better in Fixed. In the FFA fixed zombies game, Truth had way more troops than I did, and there was practically no way for me to get the upper hand. I even risked an easy 3rd place by taking out a significant portion of the zombies, but Truth did give me 2nd. I agree the decision point is good and tells a lot about players.

[@whythecows]

Agreements can be made in game so long as they don't violate the rules. As soon as Spud kept taking cards it should have been over. I think when he took another card, you or I would have seen it as hostile and ended him. We play the long game. Most of us (Lord Willing) want to be in future tournaments. I can see how blue was trying to be honorable. This will affect how both are viewed in later games. In the season 3 of last year's FFA, EG Sneaks gave me 2nd in that horrible orbital objectives fixed zombies match. I understood that if I took a card or showed aggression, the deal would be off, and i would end 3rd and 1 instead of 2nd and 1.

[@FreePete]

I remember those settings. Can confirm they were horrible.

[@seansoccer100]

I think spuds issue is wearing that gold chain.

[@michaelharbach1987]

Objectively, Blue made a massive mistake the moment he didn't take the kill after being betrayed by Purple. Objectively, Blue knew at that point (and even emoted to indicate such an understanding) that Purple was not willing to be friendly. Blue also knew that if Blue didn't kill right there, then the Purple player would likely have a set (they were now on 4 cards, which is probably a set), which would allow them to flip the tides of the war.

[@Mersham_Bluechew]

No good deed goes unpunished!

[@theinacircleoftheancientpu492]

Always interesting to see your recaps.

[@mattbiggs1992]

To me it wasn't hitting that 5 that was the controversy, it's the fist-bumps on the next turn at 7:23 that's implying Spud has changed his mind and is now begging to be given second rather than third. Math accepts. Spud reneges on the deal later when he thinks he's gained the upper hand. Yes you absolutely play to win in a tournament but if you do it by betraying someone who's trying to help you then don't ever expect anyone else to help you further down the line. Content creators' games are very public and any short-term benefit for a long-term reputation loss are magnified and have a far further reach than you might expect. Having seen this, if I ever was in this situation and had the opportunity to give Spud more points I now wouldn't do it because I cannot trust him to keep to his word. Especially if it creates a situation where my own points are now at risk. Congrats to Spud on beating Math in the 1v1 but only Spud can determine if that was the correct decision for his future games.

[@Math2Law]

@13:05 -- I think that there can and are in fact "agreements" among players in tournaments, particularly among top players, even with emojis and without voice chat (VC). Because agreements can be made, based on that premise, it's fair to think someone shitty for breaching the agreement. I take it you agree, Pete, that IF an agreement is reached in game, the promising player should ("must," per the agreement) follow through -- even if the state of the board wouldn't allow the other player to force that result? Right? Thanks for the video Mr. Peteman! ❤❤❤

[@FreePete]

If an agreement is made, then cheating has occurred since the entire tournament is non-collaborative. So in this case I can't agree that it's possible for any sort of agreement to be made via the in game emotes and any deals that may be percieved to exist are one-sided. No meeting of the minds can occur and if they could that would meet my standard for violation of the rules against collab in the KPO.

[@russell10]

The whole point of having the emotes is to try to engineer a “meeting of minds” though through the limited interaction tools available (I.e. without voice chat or official in person deals). The emotes aren’t there simply for the fun of it - they are tools to communicate to other players, convey messages, and yes signal arrangements. In this case Blue is clearly signalling to Spud he is giving him 2nd - I don’t believe for one second that a top player like Spud failed to recognise this. It was a pretty crappy behaviour in my book, fair play to Math for giving Spud a chance for 2nd.

[@truth_powers]

I remember doing this in round 3 of the legends tournament in a game I had with you. I fist bumped sent the guy a heart cuz I was gonna give him second. Long story short he took a card so I killed him for 3rd place instead.

[@RealClintCapela]

i mean when you are the merciful one/the one who can choose to kill or live/the stronger one, you can for sure kill morally purely for the sake of increasing your odds to win the game as a whole. The way I see it, with someone being spared however, should theoretically feed the nice person in a matchup against some ai eg. the zombies game here, because they have basically been gifted a better finish. Now if it is a 3 player end and one person is spared, it is relatively fair game due to the fact the strong guy may be using you for cards or something, or you can get a better placement from the other two going into a battle of attrition whilst you evade them and get strong turtling or something (unless it is prog where one or the other will likely kill you). Against an AI though, I morally see purple as in the wrong because I simply see the game as over and him getting 2nd points value as opposed to 3rd place points value. Also, he is very much interpreting the emotes and blatantly ignoring/acting as if he doesnt understand them when he has a literal grin on his face.

[@Math2Law]

That's gotta be the play, especially with folks like Spud ❤

[@nyaanyaamewmew]

Within the match, blue made a mistake by giving Spud another chance after the betrayal. But in the longterm I think blue's willingness to give him another chance did quite a bit of damage to Spud because now everybody saw that and no one's gonna want to offer Spud second like that again.

[@JonCookeBridge]

Agree with “the Peteman”, but one additional point. Clearly, Spud thought he had play if his opponent missed his set so he hit the 5 and took a card. That choice cost him a guaranteed second over his alternative of sitting pat/helping blue kill the Zombies quicker. When blue DID have a set he expected to die and should have been killed.

[@MppMajik]

There would only ever be a deal if Spud sat on 3 cards. But instead he sent two messages: 1) I take a 4th card 2) I hit YOUR position There is no deal. There is no controversy. Blue made a serious mistake that he won't make again (on Spud or ANY other player in those situations)

[@fanti13]

This is the same sort of "deal" as good neighbours just the consequences are different. So basically Spud (or anyone else in his spot) earned 7 pts in this tourney and potentially lost X amount of points in future tournyes where this sistuation will present itself. As no one will try be kind enough to try to give him second. + if you like it or not (althought i think you mentioned it in your streams) we "normal" people put you guys streamers/content creators to a higher level of standards. I always tried, in those spots to give a person 2nd (i learned it from you or Kylted a year ago) but after this and many more examples i will only do it people i know i can trust. It's a shame cause i felt like this is very good example of sportsmenship and good for community.

[@FreePete]

The place I mention where Spud and I disagree here is the notion that giving free points to others is a negative. Spuds argument is that it can be negative in the existing competition, it also can be neutral. But I think it's positive when we account for the long term reputational aspect. Being known as a person who is always playing to win, including this situation is something that Spud is choosing to be known as. Whether the audience views that as a standard or not I see it as binary. I also make it known that I am playing to win but I extend my definition out to the series of games which is why I will not intentionally lie to get a win in a game. As far as whether the communication using in-game emotes counts as any sort of agreement is where Spud and I see perfectly eye to eye. There was no deal made, in fact no deal can be made because that would be in violation of the rules of this tournament. So despite any player or viewer reading into what those emotes might mean there is absolutely no 'meeting of the minds' taking place.

[@robbarnes7143]

Why do you give a placement to the Zombies? It's not like they can progress to the next round! What about a scenario where spud gets killed for second - Math gets first - but he gets the chance for bonus points. The last three more turns of zombies - get +2 points - kill the zombies at the end - get +5 points.

[@heyguysitsmallorie]

I think blue's mistake was not killing spud when he took a card. I gave someone second. That person sat on 4 cards without trading. If they had taken a card, I would have immediately killed them. Spud gave blue a lot of opportunity to realize he wasn't interested in 2nd. Blue should have pivoted to realize he was now in a 1v1.

[@FreePete]

I wouldn't mess around with you if I knew what was good for me.

[@heyguysitsmallorie]

@@FreePete really, i recall a card block situation that i'm still working through in therapy

[@FreePete]

That sounds like a false memory. I would never card block you. @@heyguysitsmallorie

[@heyguysitsmallorie]

@@FreePete 🤨 I will come at you with receipts 🤣🤣🤣

[@blahjah1830]

This was tough because i would of done literally the same thing they each did had i been either player. Me being blue, being generous and offering points and me being purple, playing my best line to win. Spud loses some sportsmanship points but blue loses tourney points so who really loses.

[@thetimssportstalk3160]

Those saying ‘he didn’t have a commanding lead’. You do realize that a 13v8 is a 100% roll? He literally had the win. He decided to be a good person, and give him more points. This should be out right condemned. Not because risk is so important, its because we should encourage good behavior and not scummy piece of shit behavior. If someone gives grace, you should reciprocate. Not be a scum bag.

[@alexmarsch1877]

You play to win no? He surrendered basically or am I missing something? What in the world is shit behavior in a war game xD

[@thetimssportstalk3160]

@@alexmarsch1877 You think he surrendered? There is no way you actually think that. He offered to give him 2nd instead of 3rd. That is clearly what happened. So, yes, it is shit behavior to throw someone’s generosity in their face and steal a game after agreeing to 2nd to be spared. Which fist bumping back was a clear agreement to anyone who has played this game for any length of time. But, defend the shit behavior if you want 👍 it just makes you a piece of shit to 👌🏼

[@alexmarsch1877]

It looks like it, because he could have won easily. If he offered his opponent a higher ranking, and in doing so too a risk, he made a mistake, if he is playing to win. Possibly he isn't. He wasn't generous, he made a mistake in accomplishing the goal. It is a weakness that is apparent within you. Nothing was stolen, a mistake was taken advantage of, as it should be within a game where that is part of the game and constantly happening. I am not defending anything except my questions which you did a shit job at answering. Shame you are a weak loser 'to' lol @@thetimssportstalk3160

[@alexmarsch1877]

Just re-read your initial comment and regretting my decision to reply. I should have seen your lack of grace!

[@alexmarsch1877]

Guess my other message was removed. I showed how your pathetic thinking lead you to these conclusions and name calling. You suck loser @@thetimssportstalk3160

[@dapeck04]

My problem was spuds playing up the fact that he was ok with the plan with hearts and fist bumps after he first attacked like ok ok I’ll take second

[@user-jp4ui8ws3r]

We're playing the game Risk; we're all opportunists. Blue has more troops but it's not an absolutely dominating lead. If Blue didn't hit Purple, Purple's next set would put them around 10-ish troops apart. Much too close in a progressive game for Blue to make the assumption that Purple would give up. Bad card luck for Blue in a later round of sets and their positions would invert. I can appreciate the attempt to highlight the troop difference and trying to indicate to Purple that "Hey, I could kill you now but I'm choosing not to. Do you accept 2nd?" Purple's hit on Blue should have been a very clear "No" and then Blue should have eliminated him on the next turn when he had an even better chance the 2nd time. Allowing him to live--even with only 1 position--while sitting on 4 cards and the next set bringing them to parity was the mistake. Eventually Blue does have that bad card luck and loses.

[@user-jp4ui8ws3r]

To stay ahead of the zombies, Purple would have needed a card and trade eventually but could have indicated to blue he'd accept 2nd by skipping a card on that 1st turn (when troop difference was 21 w/ sets worth 30) and then hitting a zombie stack the next turn. Then Blue could go around eliminating Green over the next couple/few turns, but he'd still have to keep a watchful eye on Purple to make sure a set didn't put him back in the game. He'd also have to ensure he had enough troops to kill Purple on the same turn that Green was killed or he'd risk an infection that reset the whole board again.

[@Bra-a-ains]

I don't see how Spud could come in Second. To kill all the zombies, while keeping Spud alive, would be difficult, tedious, and open to back stabbing at any time. You would have to kill the zombies and Spud on the same turn, or the zombies respawn.

[@Math2Law]

It's pretty easy for top players. I did it in my game this very round. But my opponent was honorable 😂❤😅💀💀💀

[@elasticass]

One angle of this I haven't seen discussed is that by giving extra points tp someone you are screwing ocer someone else. Let's say top 100 qualify in a tourney and player A is #100 placed and 2 gift points are given to player B in #101 which then helps B qualift and puts A out of the tourney... In that case you are screwing over player A. The way to counter this is to make placement gifting illegal in a tournament, similarly how negotiating placement in voice chat tournaments is sometimes forbidden. I am not letting Spud off the hook with this though. I think him fistbumping and then backstabing on what is an implied agreement is scummy.

[@alexmarsch1877]

He won the game. Summy? No, clever.

[@daglishhhhh]

Honestly for me it’s like a party foul and I’m more annoyed by the fact someone as seasoned as spud is playing dumb in that moment. Why did he let me live? It’s clear you were dead and he was giving you 2nd instead of the zombies. Trying to even suggest why would anyone give me a leg up in a competitive tournament. This is not the first nor the last time a situation like this has come up in a risk tournament in fact it’s happened in Pete’s tournament games before. I don’t buy for one second you didn’t know what the guy was trying to do and you saw an opportunity when you had a set and he didn’t just own it. Also I think it points to a more fundamental flaw in the zombie scoring system and placing as a lot of people feel it’s an injustice to let the zombies take a higher placement from a human player. Like something to the effect of why do the zombies even place when they are AI controlled? Or man it would really help the risk community to not let the ol Peteman get knocked out of a tournament cause I killed him before the zombies. With that said to be fair to spud the blue player when his stack was hit probably should of been like okay well I tried fu dude now your getting 3rd. At the very least he did make his intentions clear. But for me at the end the guy was trying to be nice help out a fellow player and it bit him in the ass. Nice guys don’t finish first that’s for sure. It’s not my reputation or in game player name so who the hell am I to tell another what to do 🤷

[@USCMM09]

I wonder if SMG can add an emote(s) to better communicate the desire for in-game collaboration without the use of alliances... Maybe the use of a new "let's team up!" emote followed by an "attack green" could solve the issue? Or maybe SMG could add an emote that is just a "?" to indicate a question that can be used in combination with any other emote to broker an agreement. Hmmm...or maybe SMG could add gold, silver, and bronze medal emotes with 1st, 2nd and 3rd engraved on them, respectively? Like, blue could have thrown an attack green emote followed by the bronze medal emote, followed by the thumbs up/down?

[@SirTylerGolf]

Relying on smg to do things hasn't worked very well in the past lol

[@thomasanderson8446]

From what I can see of it without looking up the full vid, Blue did a good but risky play of the offer of second. It would be a lot easier to reduce the zombies with two players working together, then Spud suicide to make the board wipe easy. However, Spud clearly refused the offer with his play and Blue should have killed him ASAP at that point. I don't blame Spud for playing to win. I don't blame Blue for making the offer. Maybe there could be some blame to Spud for not getting the offer, since his audio shows he expected to die and never hinted, in the parts this video showed at least, that he saw an offer for second; or that Blue missed the obvious rejection of his offer, however there's nothing blameworthy in my mind. Both players played the best game they saw.

[@samboyea]

This wouldn’t be a controversy if we stopped giving the zombies a placement. I don’t understand why this is the case because it only matters in super niche scenarios when your opponent is knowledgeable enough to save you for 2nd. Just don’t count the zombies, and this isn’t an issue.

[@FreePete]

Yeah I forget the rationale. Maybe it's to keep the meta from becoming everyone kills the zombies and then plays a prog game?

[@myketh1196]

@@FreePete why would that be a bad thing? Zombies is terrible

[@FreePete]

I agree. I wonder what an all WD tournament would look like. I haven't seen it yet in my time in the community which is funny that Risk tournaments aren't interested in/able to play just Risk and need the gimmicks...@@myketh1196

[@myketh1196]

@@FreePete would love an all WD tourney! Or even a caps tourney (despite the stalemate potential); I mainly play fixed caps games in ranked and haven’t been able to find a fixed caps tourney (which I understand why, but if a caps tourney could somehow tie tourney points to how many rounds a game takes to play out, it may make a caps tourney more feasible and discourage stalemating, but I’ve never planned a tourney before or have much of an idea of the level of planning that goes into one, aside from knowing it’s a lot, so idk if an idea like that could work or is implementable)

[@samboyea]

@@myketh1196caps with a turn limit could work

[@jibbiddy]

Spud may have made the correct strategic decision by being deceptive with the back stab. However, having watched this, I don't think I will ever watch any of his content. It makes me dislike him a lot. Don't know how many more people are like me in that regard.

[@dapeck04]

I think that was dirty. He was fist bumping and throwing hearts like he was going with the plan then stabs dude in back. Nah other dude clearly won the game. Now that dude is never gonna give anyone points again because spuds lil confidence art play

[@Kryogenikz15]

This seems to me like people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. For goodness' sake, people: you play to win. Math absolutely should have killed Spud on 4 cards, and I'm not going to fault Spud for taking an opportunity to win even if it looks like he's betraying his OPPONENT. This is a Tournament Game; not Play With Friends.

[@dslwoodworks]

I said it on stream. Spud made the right choice. U cannot give someone 2nd place unless you sre WAY ahead. Blue handed spud a chance to win and he took it. As he should have.

[@illuminatedstorm]

I understand this entire Risk community is pretty awesome. But the competitive nature in me will NEVER understand the giving someone 2nd thing in a tournament setting. In a casual game or whatever, fine. But gifting free points in a tournament is beyond dumb imo. Maybe that'll be looked at as "unsportsmanlike", but I feel not playing to just win and eliminate opponents when you can is the actual unsportsmanlike thing. Also, in a game where deceit is a huge factor, you're just asking to bring more controversy to the table. It's just a bad practice all around imo, and I would never ask for it on my behalf or honor it for someone else. But that's just me. 🤷‍♂

[@FreePete]

I don't think of it as an honour thing or an ethics thing. I think of it as a long term strategy. It's like the prisoners dilemma in game theory. If I always play to give my opponents max points the hope is that they expect that and reciprocate it.

[@illuminatedstorm]

@@FreePete I understand that. I just also think it's playing with fire in a points based setting bc you never know if those points you give to someone else are going to come back to bite you when it comes to advancing yourself or who you let advance to be up against later. I didn't explain that well in the initial post. I just see it as an almost no win situation. Yes reputation and favor curried with that player, but the chances of running into them down the road and them being willing to return the favor as stakes raise aren't worth the risk/reward benefit I would think? Maybe I'm just over thinking it and it does boil down to just good ethics. Idk. Like I said my competitive nature from a sports background won't allow me to even fathom allowing an advantage that's unnecessary for another player.

[@user-jp4ui8ws3r]

I cannot see how this would hurt Spud's reputation long term nor why it should be terribly controversial. He kept playing to win in a progressive game where the troop count difference was about the same as the value of a trade. I can understand why Math would be upset but he shouldn't be upset with Spud, only himself for the miss. It would fall under the "should be able to do it but I'm going to make you show your work" and Math failed to show his work.

[@FreePete]

I can say for sure that Math is not upset at Spud about this.

[@toddyoung913]

Yeah the risk community is small. This will stay in peoples mind that Spud is an absolute opportunist. How much that will hurt him in future is debatable because he is a really good player, but games turn on how other players view your reputation. You now have to take into your calculations that any exposure in working with spud that leaves you vunerable means he is more likely than your average player to turn on you meaning with a choice between two viable alliance choices maybe you choose not to ally up with spud. The blue player though should have as soon as spud hit that 5 after the proposal known that there was no deal. So maybe the top calibre of players believe like pete that the hit on the 5 stack was an indication that the deal was not accepted and thete willbe no reputation damage to Spud.

[@thetimssportstalk3160]

There was a clear fist bump on a 100% roll. Both fist bumped. Indicating Spud understood, yes, I am lost, I would appreciate 2nd. The attack on the 5 was hopeful he had no trade on 4, and spud technically still had a chance to win. Once the 13v8 was shown, and the fist bump, Spud should have conceded. But, instead, revealed he is a scumbag

[@CA2AD0R]

Do we know who Math is? Is he a streamer or known? If not, the controversy shud be whether this is collab or a 2nd account/friends acct Nobody w/ a brain is giving 2nd after spud clearly wasnt taking 2nd..

[@FreePete]

He's been around the community for a while and he's EH for the KPO