Random Turn Order (Variable)

[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.

[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?).

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.

If it's random than it's completely fair. Just like dice and cards.

[DoomYoshi]

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.

If it's random than it's completely fair. Just like dice and cards.

Fair by opportunity in an abstract way. It is not fair by outcome or fair by opportunity in a concrete way. Also, while it may be "fair" in some specific sense of the word, it won't be fun, in any sense of the word.

[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?).

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.

If it's random than it's completely fair. Just like dice and cards.

Fair by opportunity in an abstract way. It is not fair by outcome or fair by opportunity in a concrete way. Also, while it may be "fair" in some specific sense of the word, it won't be fun, in any sense of the word.

Ahh Doom, I think that is a completely debatable point. I don't see how it's really much different than the dice. You ever have a stack of 20 that takes 19 territs? Or had it happen to you? Same basic thing as getting multiple turns in a row. Randomness is fair, it's just ... different. But it can still be fun. Or else no one would play this site, which is based on randomness.

[chapcrap]

If it is not random within the turn, then it is not fair. In a 1v1, someone could get 3, 4 , 5 turns in a row if it's not random within a turn and is only random for every new turn.

It has to be random for every new round of play or it isn't a viable option.

[maxfaraday]

No...

[haha]

i believe they have that kind of option on the risk computer game or at least did in the original one
HAHA

[DoomYoshi]

i believe they have that kind of option on the risk computer game or at least did in the original one
HAHA

Nope. I can verify that neither RISK nor RISK II had this option.

[pimpjoosse]

One turn per player per round. Turn order is randomized each round. You can't predict who has gone before or after you so you have to watch everyone (unless of course you have a truce/alliance). Planning is already quite difficult because the game changes drastically between turns given the unpredictability of what others will do. I feel rather than hindering planning, it would even the playing field given sometimes someone will target someone else specifically because their turn comes after/before. It's the best aspects of Freestyle and Sequential turn order combined. Let's call it Freequential.

[spiesr]

MERGED:

• Random Order
• Random Turn Order
• Suggestion: Random Play Order
• Random Play Order
• Random play order (in addition to Sequential and Freestyle)
• RANDOM TURN ORDER OPTION