Random Turn Order (Variable)

[jefjef]

ONLY if in team games the turn is still randomed one team to the other. But this still can be a CC random screwing like the dice and the drop.

[trekwest]

Good point on the team games. Was thinking as a primarily singles player who plays standard-kinda games, I haven't fully thought out the impact on all the other game varieties. But if it could be put into place for team games, all the better.

One other advantage I just thought of. It would have a Freestyle feel to it, yet it would prevent simulaneous play (which I deplore in Freestyle).

[squishyg]

i like this idea. i don't care for freestyle, and this could be a fun variant on sequential play. in team games, it would be really interesting to not know which team member will go next (obviously, it would have to be coded so that it still switches between teams every turn).

[wolfpack0530]

i like this idea as well. i also 100% agree with jefjef regarding the team aspect

[BrutalBob]

Of course we all know it wont really be "random" but it would provide another mechanism for this site to screw me over.

Getting two turns in a row could really reduce the value of ability and strategy even further

I like it.

[The Voice]

Along with having sequential and freestyle, we should also have the opportunity to play in a game with a random play order. This play order would work both in singles and team games. After each round, a player is randomly chosen to start the next round. For example, if I started round 1 in an 8-player singles game, the likelihood I start the second round would be a 12.5 percent chance. I could start first again, or I could start last, or anywhere in between.

In team games, a team will be randomly selected to start the upcoming round and then a player will be randomly selected. Then a randomly selected player from another team will start.

NOTE: Players on a specific team will still not get to take turns in a row unless one member took the last turn in a round and the same or different member was randomly selected to begin the next round.

NOTE: Even in team games, the randomizer would not enable an individual player to take more than one turn per round.

NOTE: To elucidate this matter, I liken this to sequential in the sense that only one person will take a turn at a time and liken it more to freestyle in the sense that play order will rarely go from top to bottom, because a player will be randomly selected rather than the first-come first-serve nature of freestyle.

POSSIBLE CORRECTION: A player who is chosen to take the last turn in the round should probably not be able to randomly be picked to take the first turn in the next round (just as in freestyle, the person who takes the turn last in the round cannot turn around immediately and take the first turn of the next round). This might, however, make it pointless to play 1 v 1 with random order because it would simply be seq. order, just as a 1 vs 1 terminator game is just a standard game.

[blakebowling]

I like this suggestion, assuming that the player that went last would not be able to go first in the next round.
I also think it would be interesting if it picked each player, instead of just the first and continuing through the list, it would randomly choose a player until all have taken their turn and then it would repeat.

[InsomniaRed]

Yes I like what blake said about the whole turn being random not just the first player. Good idea, it would definitely be fun to play!

[The Voice]

Thank you. I understand why it would be a problem if the person who took the turn last got to start the next round, just like in freestyle.

I actually did mean to say that each turn within a round would be picked randomly. Thank you for bringing that up. I think that aspect of the play order would make it the most interesting.

[Jatekos]

I actually did mean to say that each turn within a round would be picked randomly.

A player who is chosen to take the last turn in the round should probably not be able to randomly be picked to take the first turn in the next round

That would be great.

[nebsmith]

Sorry, a no from me. This seems like another suggestion which would increase the luck element and decrease the skill element of the game.

[Evil Semp]

I like this suggestion, assuming that the player that went last would not be able to go first in the next round.

If you take away the last player in a rounds chance of going first in the next round then it really isn't random. If you want to make it random, then make it random.

I can see an 8 player game, and it will happen, that the first player will have to wait 2 weeks because new recruits or cooks joined the game and never come back.

[greenoaks]

I like this suggestion, assuming that the player that went last would not be able to go first in the next round.

If you take away the last player in a rounds chance of going first in the next round then it really isn't random. If you want to make it random, then make it random.

I can see an 8 player game, and it will happen, that the first player will have to wait 2 weeks because new recruits or cooks joined the game and never come back.

new recruits can't join 8-player games

i was thinking of a similar idea with it being all players random

that means you may get back to back turns or go first then last

but the server works out the play order for the entire round at the start of the round

i just don't know how that would be shown on the screen as the list of players names is the order we play in.

[rdsrds2120]

Well, this would be incredibly luck based as it is then possible for, in an 8 player game, some players would get the opportunity to go two times before a different player got their second turn. I think I would become quite annoyed with this option - but let's leave it to community to decide.

-rd

[TheForgivenOne]

Well, this would be incredibly luck based as it is then possible for, in an 8 player game, some players would get the opportunity to go two times before a different player got their second turn. I think I would become quite annoyed with this option - but let's leave it to community to decide.

-rd

Does this not happen in Freestyle?

[Eddy_26]

Well, this would be incredibly luck based as it is then possible for, in an 8 player game, some players would get the opportunity to go two times before a different player got their second turn. I think I would become quite annoyed with this option - but let's leave it to community to decide.

-rd

Agreed, this has the potential to cause a lot of frustration in large escalating singles. Someone might cash in at 12 and not get another crack until 60 - meaning he'll probably get taken out.

[greenoaks]

Well, this would be incredibly luck based as it is then possible for, in an 8 player game, some players would get the opportunity to go two times before a different player got their second turn. I think I would become quite annoyed with this option - but let's leave it to community to decide.

-rd

that happens now in freestyle

[Eddy_26]

Well, this would be incredibly luck based as it is then possible for, in an 8 player game, some players would get the opportunity to go two times before a different player got their second turn. I think I would become quite annoyed with this option - but let's leave it to community to decide.

-rd

that happens now in freestyle

Exactly. And it's annoying.

However with freestyle the player has the ability to prevent this, instead of having to stand by and watch the cashes overtake his troop count over like 12 turns.

[Jatekos]

I like this suggestion, assuming that the player that went last would not be able to go first in the next round.

If you take away the last player in a rounds chance of going first in the next round then it really isn't random. If you want to make it random, then make it random.

It would be more random than it is now, but without being too much luck-based (as it would be without the above stipulation).
Currently you can expect certain moves before your turn, based on the experience of the player who takes his/her turn just before you. That's why signing up after someone with poor strategy is often more beneficial than joining a game after an expert. The suggested game type would create a completely different situation, as you could not count on the previous player's moves, as you would not know who that will be. It would be a very interesting option in my opinion.

I can see an 8 player game, and it will happen, that the first player will have to wait 2 weeks because new recruits or cooks joined the game and never come back.

As pointed out above by others, this could not happen in 8-player games. On the other hand, in e.g. a 5-player game, it could make deadbeating players drop out earlier in some lucky cases. Would it really be a problem?

[rdsrds2120]

Well, this would be incredibly luck based as it is then possible for, in an 8 player game, some players would get the opportunity to go two times before a different player got their second turn. I think I would become quite annoyed with this option - but let's leave it to community to decide.

-rd

that happens now in freestyle

Sometimes, but haven't we tried to take steps to prevent this from happening? Point in the fact that we had a site update not long ago to help prevent this?

-rd

[pimpjoosse]

Concise description:

• An option to create a game that will randomize the turn order for each round so there is no predictability on who goes when. It adds the balance of free style play without taking away the casual play-when-you-want element of 24 hour turn time games.

Specifics/Details:

• Two options. Option one: Display the new turn order to the players once the round begins so they know who goes when using numbers or re-listing the player order next to the map each round. Option two: Randomize the placement of the turn marker without giving the players any clues to who is before or after them.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This adds a new luck element to the game to balance it out more often than not.

[DoomYoshi]

Support.

Although apparently I am not allowed to support suggestions so soon after signing up for mafia games.

[chapcrap]

This would be neat for each round. Make it difficult to plan things out sometimes though.

[agentcom]

Cool idea. In your second option where the turn order is random, would it be completely random or only random within each round? That is, could a player play twice or more (or not play at all) in a given "round"? I like the idea either way, but I would think that a completely random system may cause problems with the round numbering system that is used for all the games (i.e. in a six player game is round 1 over when six turns have been taken or when all six players have played at least once?).

[chapcrap]

Cool idea. In your second option where the turn order is random, would it be completely random or only random within each round? That is, could a player play twice or more (or not play at all) in a given "round"? I like the idea either way, but I would think that a completely random system may cause problems with the round numbering system that is used for all the games (i.e. in a six player game is round 1 over when six turns have been taken or when all six players have played at least once?).

Has to be random within a round. Someone getting 2 turns in a round and the other person getting none isn't fair at all.