Just curious why non-members don't have the ability to change the luck settings from 75%. In the autogames (ie what most people learn to play on) the luck percentage is quite low, and in most member created games this is also the case. With all of the customization available for non-members, why is this the one thing that cannot be changed? It really changes the strategy of the game, and the vast majority of created games are made by non-members.

It's been discussed many times before and it's just another (small) reason to keep it interesting to buy a membership instead of playing for free.

I'd say it's a pretty big reason. I mean there are all sorts of ways to make it more "interesting" without fundamentally worsening the gameplay.

From one cheap bastard (me) too another (you). Don't complain about a free game. Or if you do, don't expect people to be sympathetic. Johnny Ca$h rules by the way.

It is a big reason, 75% luck is horrible, can ruin games easily if one person gets luckier than another. That is why I like the cyclic move order as well. Their need to be reasons why people should become members, not like it costs much. Most games out there cost twice as much as WL and then charge monthly fees, this game is a hell of a deal. No sympathy for non members, Would be nice if they had a 5 or 10 game max that they could play at a time. Then more people would upgrade.

Obviously I am a member, and this was one of the reasons I bought the game. But I think enticements for membership should be things that make the game BETTER, such as the suggestion about limiting amount of games one can join at a time. Things that fundamentally alter gameplay should not be used as enticements. Like I have said, most of the user-created games are not made by members.

I agree with both of you guys that membership should involve other things than gameplay. Limiting the games created by non-members to six isn't a bad idea, and is quite similar to the suggestion of limiting the number of games at a time.

Luck is an entirely different category. Personally, during the time I was a non-member, I rarely created games, and just joined the games that members created. It limited my ability to create games I want, but didn't limit my ability to use reduced luck. In other words, in order to get the member only feature, I couldn't use the features that were allowed to non-members. I opted for the member-only feature that drastically changed games.

Limiting games .
no way...
the only reason i left other risk sites is because of limits on games..

Yoshi... thats the point though. You have a limit for non-members to entice them to pay and become a member.

or stop using the site...

On a slightly off-topic note, not being able to create (even singleplayer) games with more than 6 people is also a good reason to go for membership. And certainly to be able to create customised games. I would especially find it fun to find ways to make, for example, 1v3 battles worth it.