Worst game settings

[rhp 1]

But to come back to an earlier point, lets use an analogy so to ensure that no nerves are touched regarding the specific "freestyle" setting.
Let's say that I pick an unpopular map, let's say... Madness or something like that. Most of the time I set up a non-private game on that map it fills up with cooks, etc. and I end up crushing these players with ease. I can say "Is it my fault all these unskilled players joined my game?" but there comes a point where your conscience should kick in and ask "Is this really not farming?". It's one thing if you've got buddies or acquaintances whom you invite to your games where it's more or less an even playing field and everyone has a fair chance, but to continue setting up public games when, odds are, you aren't going to be challenged and will most likely get some easy points out of the deal certainly begs a question.

And to this I say, it isn't farming because you may very well be playing the hardest competition you can get. In my opinion it isn't farming to play something only cooks join, as long as that game is open. If it is open to all and you aren't exclusively doing it with the intention to get noobs then it isn't farming. Take for example, I LOVE conquer rome 1v1 freestyle, no spoils, sunny, 1 min. LOVE it. And even when I lose I've enjoyed them. I would be so bold as to say I'm the best on the site at it. Then again not many people play it, I just have a certain love for it. And I think I've lost 2 or 3 games on those settings out of something close to 15 or 20 games maybe. No I'm not farming because people who don't know the settings join. I'm only farming if there is competition on that specific setting and I purposefully avoid it, either by disallowing players to join or by inviting lower skilled players to join.

I suppose the question is whether or not you can technically not be farming but still get the same results and benefits of a farmer. Why not create private games if you know full well what competition you will draw in an open game? It's obvious at this point that no one is pleading ignorance to the fact that there is little competition in this type of game.
I like using analogies to try and clarify my point:

Lets say you are at a grocery store and you put a quarter in a gumball machine and out drops your gumball. On a whim you turn the knob again and another gumball drops out. Again, another drops out. Ok now you can do a few things: you can keep turning the handle and getting free gumballs, you can call the manager to get someone to fix the machine so that you have to pay another quarter for another game or you can leave the machine entirely. It does seem a bit like stealing if you keep coming back for more gumballs. This is basically what farmers do. An outright farmer jams a screwdriver into the machine to break it but the passive farmer just says "hey, its not my fault the machine is broken.". Both are still farmers IMHO.

the problem with your analogy is I'm the one who OWNS the gumball machine... and the people who join my games are putting quarters in and NOT getting any gumballs even though in a perfect world, they should... they are the one's that should raise the issue about the broken machine to someone who can do something about it, not me... I just wanna play the game and settings that I like to play... or get money outta the gumball machine at the end of the day to take the analogy to it's conclusion....

[Funkyterrance]

The problem is, if I create private speed games for freestyle of settings not many people like, no one will ever join. You can call it "unintentional farming" if you want to, but to me farming IS intentional, so to me it can't be any form of farming. I play because I enjoy those game types, so I'm not going to feel bad about it. and I really can't say anything that you have said changes my opninon. I wish I could say that I had competition, I love a good game, check my chats if you like, I ask the good players and the ones who beat me, to play me again cause I get bored of playing losers. Freestyle isn't a farming player type. In my opinion it is just the higher skilled players type. Not saying people who can't play it are any less of a player, but I think the real elites on here can play can play both speed freestyle and normal games. If you can't play speed freestyle, try going to a friends house with a good connection, and try it. See if what you stay still stands. Its not all about the connection, trust me, it tooke me many games to learn how to play. And I still respect those better than me. I know that its about how good you are, speed has something to do with it but not everything. Its about how you play the match, more so than any sequential game you play 1v1.

I'll consent to the term "unintentional farming", swimmerdude99. I think it's a very good term tbh since it suggests farming points without necessarily nefarious intent.

But to come back to an earlier point, lets use an analogy so to ensure that no nerves are touched regarding the specific "freestyle" setting.
Let's say that I pick an unpopular map, let's say... Madness or something like that. Most of the time I set up a non-private game on that map it fills up with cooks, etc. and I end up crushing these players with ease. I can say "Is it my fault all these unskilled players joined my game?" but there comes a point where your conscience should kick in and ask "Is this really not farming?". It's one thing if you've got buddies or acquaintances whom you invite to your games where it's more or less an even playing field and everyone has a fair chance, but to continue setting up public games when, odds are, you aren't going to be challenged and will most likely get some easy points out of the deal certainly begs a question.

And to this I say, it isn't farming because you may very well be playing the hardest competition you can get. In my opinion it isn't farming to play something only cooks join, as long as that game is open. If it is open to all and you aren't exclusively doing it with the intention to get noobs then it isn't farming. Take for example, I LOVE conquer rome 1v1 freestyle, no spoils, sunny, 1 min. LOVE it. And even when I lose I've enjoyed them. I would be so bold as to say I'm the best on the site at it. Then again not many people play it, I just have a certain love for it. And I think I've lost 2 or 3 games on those settings out of something close to 15 or 20 games maybe. No I'm not farming because people who don't know the settings join. I'm only farming if there is competition on that specific setting and I purposefully avoid it, either by disallowing players to join or by inviting lower skilled players to join.

I suppose the question is whether or not you can technically not be farming but still get the same results and benefits of a farmer. Why not create private games if you know full well what competition you will draw in an open game? It's obvious at this point that no one is pleading ignorance to the fact that there is little competition in this type of game.
I like using analogies to try and clarify my point:

Lets say you are at a grocery store and you put a quarter in a gumball machine and out drops your gumball. On a whim you turn the knob again and another gumball drops out. Again, another drops out. Ok now you can do a few things: you can keep turning the handle and getting free gumballs, you can call the manager to get someone to fix the machine so that you have to pay another quarter for another game or you can leave the machine entirely. It does seem a bit like stealing if you keep coming back for more gumballs. This is basically what farmers do. An outright farmer jams a screwdriver into the machine to break it but the passive farmer just says "hey, its not my fault the machine is broken.". Both are still farmers IMHO.

the problem with your analogy is I'm the one who OWNS the gumball machine... and the people who join my games are putting quarters in and NOT getting any gumballs even though in a perfect world, they should... they are the one's that should raise the issue about the broken machine to someone who can do something about it, not me... I just wanna play the game and settings that I like to play... or get money outta the gumball machine at the end of the day to take the analogy to it's conclusion....

The focus of my analogy is not on who owns the gumball machine, it's on the taking of the "free" gumballs.
We can discuss your different analogy if you want but I don't think you will like the conclusion of that one either...
In your analogy you are the owner of a gumball machine that doesn't work or your customer at least doesn't get out of your gumball machine what he/she is lead to believe they will. So let's say you have one of those rigged claw machines to be more accurate? Your machine takes people's money all day long and they very rarely get anything in exchange. You are knowingly running a machine that is, in effect, "farming" rubes of their money. This seems at best a lateral move from my own analogy.

[rhp 1]

LOL...

my analogy was actually awful.. drunk and tired at the time and forgot I typed it... the simple fact is, ranching/farming is a definitional construct of this site... I start games with settings that I like to play and that's pretty much it.. your argument seems to be that people really shouldn't do that, because it's possible (or possibly likely) that people who join them (in a public setting of their own free will) might not have the skills or tools to put up a decent fight... My only response would be, so? How can I possibly control who joins my games? I start the games I enjoy playing, someone joins, I win... sorry? I'm not going to stop making them because the likelihood of a good fs player joining has diminished over recent times... I wish that wasn't the case.... It really is a ridiculous thing to argue about.. but I (shockingly, no sarcasm here) understand your position...

[Funkyterrance]

LOL...

my analogy was actually awful.. drunk and tired at the time and forgot I typed it... the simple fact is, ranching/farming is a definitional construct of this site... I start games with settings that I like to play and that's pretty much it.. your argument seems to be that people really shouldn't do that, because it's possible (or possibly likely) that people who join them (in a public setting of their own free will) might not have the skills or tools to put up a decent fight... My only response would be, so? How can I possibly control who joins my games? I start the games I enjoy playing, someone joins, I win... sorry? I'm not going to stop making them because the likelihood of a good fs player joining has diminished over recent times... I wish that wasn't the case.... It really is a ridiculous thing to argue about.. but I (shockingly, no sarcasm here) understand your position...

Yeah, I'm not out for blood either, tbh. The only reason I started the whole explanation is that people were objecting to the idea that these types of games were opportunistic to farming which I felt I had to defend. I don't think I ever claimed that only deliberate farmers play these types of games. I just feel that if someone continues to create these games knowing that odds are, they are going to be at least passively farming points by doing so, they can at least submit to this fact. I'm basically just exercising my right to call a spade a spade.

[swimmerdude99]

LOL...

my analogy was actually awful.. drunk and tired at the time and forgot I typed it... the simple fact is, ranching/farming is a definitional construct of this site... I start games with settings that I like to play and that's pretty much it.. your argument seems to be that people really shouldn't do that, because it's possible (or possibly likely) that people who join them (in a public setting of their own free will) might not have the skills or tools to put up a decent fight... My only response would be, so? How can I possibly control who joins my games? I start the games I enjoy playing, someone joins, I win... sorry? I'm not going to stop making them because the likelihood of a good fs player joining has diminished over recent times... I wish that wasn't the case.... It really is a ridiculous thing to argue about.. but I (shockingly, no sarcasm here) understand your position...

Yeah, I'm not out for blood either, tbh. The only reason I started the whole explanation is that people were objecting to the idea that these types of games were opportunistic to farming which I felt I had to defend. I don't think I ever claimed that only deliberate farmers play these types of games. I just feel that if someone continues to create these games knowing that odds are, they are going to be at least passively farming points by doing so, they can at least submit to this fact. I'm basically just exercising my right to call a spade a spade.

I guess the problem with this is that FARMING. Is illegal on this site. That means we are cheating even if we are doing so "passively." Therefore I have to disagree and just say that its as if a map was created that is too hard for anyone but me to understand so I mop up the competition on just standard 24 hour games. Am I farming? no. I'm just better than everyone on the site. Am I so called "passively farming?" still yes. So that is why I take issue with your claim. Is it farming for guys like Kaskavel to play Hive 1v1 against people? no it really isn't, they are good players. Is it passively farming? Yes, they don't have many people their skill level. Basically what it comes down to is your position puts the BLAME on the good players and say because they win, they are farming. Instead I put the blame on the other players. People don't want to take the time, energy, and brain power to learn the way that ljex, rhp, Krapht, fusibaseball, and some others play in freestyle settings. You can't blame them for being good. Thats what Politics do to successful people. thats for another thread.
But really you have to realize at some point or another, whatever you feel like calling it, it isn't the fault of hte good freestyle players for destroying every opponent. If its an open match and they don't foe every good player, then they aren't farming. Plain and simple. They can be beat, and if you are tired of people's "passive farming" its time for you to work your butt off to become as good as they are. You think they bought their new internet system hopped on and won games? heck no. They had to learn like anyone else.
Being good at 1v1 freestyle speed, or any other type, takes dedication and skill. I don't play those games as much or as often as the pros do, so I'm not as good. Its that simple, they are better than me. Do they "passively farm?" sure, but get a different name. Farming is against the site rules, freestyle speed players don't do that, they are experts at a game type, just like anyone else.

[tzor]

I love adjacent forts and I'm getting used to trench settings but I have always had the opinion that freestyle blows, across the boards. Freestyle just seems a party for farmers and I don't think risk was ever intended to be played that way.

The only thing I've seen that was similiar to freestyle and still workable was a variation on a non online risk game. Basically it was a pseudo-trench warfare style where the attacks were queued and in theory all took place at the same time after all the players recorded their actions. In that variation you had to indicate the number of troops you were going to dedicate for the attack and the number you were leaving behind. Those troops behind were important because someone else could attack the territory you were attacking from (you could even attack each other). The idea, while interesting was exceptionally complex to code, I would imagine, given all the possible scenarios you could do.

[Funkyterrance]

I love adjacent forts and I'm getting used to trench settings but I have always had the opinion that freestyle blows, across the boards. Freestyle just seems a party for farmers and I don't think risk was ever intended to be played that way.

The only thing I've seen that was similiar to freestyle and still workable was a variation on a non online risk game. Basically it was a pseudo-trench warfare style where the attacks were queued and in theory all took place at the same time after all the players recorded their actions. In that variation you had to indicate the number of troops you were going to dedicate for the attack and the number you were leaving behind. Those troops behind were important because someone else could attack the territory you were attacking from (you could even attack each other). The idea, while interesting was exceptionally complex to code, I would imagine, given all the possible scenarios you could do.

This actually sounds pretty cool.^

As far as freestyle is concerned, I still feel that if you want a fast action game there are way better options like ping pong for instance.
Is anyone going to argue that their strategy is more advanced in freestyle than the strategy they use in standard?
It's like speed chess, the player that wins doesn't necessarily have better strategy, they are just faster. Not that there isn't skill involved in being a good freestyle player, it's just a different skill set than the ones needed to be a good risk player.

[Fewnix]

Nuke Assassin Fog Freestyle Speed Adjacent Trench 20 round limit ?? 4 player??

[BigBallinStalin]

I love adjacent forts and I'm getting used to trench settings but I have always had the opinion that freestyle blows, across the boards. Freestyle just seems a party for farmers and I don't think risk was ever intended to be played that way.

The only thing I've seen that was similiar to freestyle and still workable was a variation on a non online risk game. Basically it was a pseudo-trench warfare style where the attacks were queued and in theory all took place at the same time after all the players recorded their actions. In that variation you had to indicate the number of troops you were going to dedicate for the attack and the number you were leaving behind. Those troops behind were important because someone else could attack the territory you were attacking from (you could even attack each other). The idea, while interesting was exceptionally complex to code, I would imagine, given all the possible scenarios you could do.

The PC game called "Risk The Game" (or something) does this. IIRC, it was the "simultaneous turns" option.


(I'm pretty sure it was Risk for PC...) Anyway, the code's there!

[rhp 1]

I love adjacent forts and I'm getting used to trench settings but I have always had the opinion that freestyle blows, across the boards. Freestyle just seems a party for farmers and I don't think risk was ever intended to be played that way.

The only thing I've seen that was similiar to freestyle and still workable was a variation on a non online risk game. Basically it was a pseudo-trench warfare style where the attacks were queued and in theory all took place at the same time after all the players recorded their actions. In that variation you had to indicate the number of troops you were going to dedicate for the attack and the number you were leaving behind. Those troops behind were important because someone else could attack the territory you were attacking from (you could even attack each other). The idea, while interesting was exceptionally complex to code, I would imagine, given all the possible scenarios you could do.

This actually sounds pretty cool.^

As far as freestyle is concerned, I still feel that if you want a fast action game there are way better options like ping pong for instance.
Is anyone going to argue that their strategy is more advanced in freestyle than the strategy they use in standard?
It's like speed chess, the player that wins doesn't necessarily have better strategy, they are just faster. Not that there isn't skill involved in being a good freestyle player, it's just a different skill set than the ones needed to be a good risk player.

haha.. you make my point for me.. yes.. the strat is about the same in a lot ways (with variations)... you have to have all the knowledge of seq strat and apply it to a miniscule time frame and think, act, and react in seconds... it's far more difficult mentally than seq... I don't even think this is debatable...

[Funkyterrance]

I love adjacent forts and I'm getting used to trench settings but I have always had the opinion that freestyle blows, across the boards. Freestyle just seems a party for farmers and I don't think risk was ever intended to be played that way.

The only thing I've seen that was similiar to freestyle and still workable was a variation on a non online risk game. Basically it was a pseudo-trench warfare style where the attacks were queued and in theory all took place at the same time after all the players recorded their actions. In that variation you had to indicate the number of troops you were going to dedicate for the attack and the number you were leaving behind. Those troops behind were important because someone else could attack the territory you were attacking from (you could even attack each other). The idea, while interesting was exceptionally complex to code, I would imagine, given all the possible scenarios you could do.

This actually sounds pretty cool.^

As far as freestyle is concerned, I still feel that if you want a fast action game there are way better options like ping pong for instance.
Is anyone going to argue that their strategy is more advanced in freestyle than the strategy they use in standard?
It's like speed chess, the player that wins doesn't necessarily have better strategy, they are just faster. Not that there isn't skill involved in being a good freestyle player, it's just a different skill set than the ones needed to be a good risk player.

haha.. you make my point for me.. yes.. the strat is about the same in a lot ways (with variations)... you have to have all the knowledge of seq strat and apply it to a miniscule time frame and think, act, and react in seconds... it's far more difficult mentally than seq... I don't even think this is debatable...

Well, to be accurate I didn't say it was more difficult, just different. It's just a matter of learning a specific way of playing. You have to know how to play risk to play freestyle but you don't have to have exceptionally good strat to win at it, you just need good computer reflexes and have experience with the settings. Perhaps freestyle requires more practice to do well but it doesn't require any better strategy than your average level of sequential.
I guess you could compare the two to pogo-sticking and skateboarding. It's a lot easier to learn how to just roll along on a skateboard than it is to just bounce on a pogo stick but with experience each person gets skill sets on a skateboard that set them apart from other skateboarders while once another person learns how to pogo stick well, that's it. It's also like comparing someone who is good at multi-tasking to someone who is good at writing. You can't really even compare the two. This is why I think that freestyle and sequential should be two completely different scoreboards because they each represent a totally different group of skill sets.

[rhp 1]

I love adjacent forts and I'm getting used to trench settings but I have always had the opinion that freestyle blows, across the boards. Freestyle just seems a party for farmers and I don't think risk was ever intended to be played that way.

The only thing I've seen that was similiar to freestyle and still workable was a variation on a non online risk game. Basically it was a pseudo-trench warfare style where the attacks were queued and in theory all took place at the same time after all the players recorded their actions. In that variation you had to indicate the number of troops you were going to dedicate for the attack and the number you were leaving behind. Those troops behind were important because someone else could attack the territory you were attacking from (you could even attack each other). The idea, while interesting was exceptionally complex to code, I would imagine, given all the possible scenarios you could do.

This actually sounds pretty cool.^

As far as freestyle is concerned, I still feel that if you want a fast action game there are way better options like ping pong for instance.
Is anyone going to argue that their strategy is more advanced in freestyle than the strategy they use in standard?
It's like speed chess, the player that wins doesn't necessarily have better strategy, they are just faster. Not that there isn't skill involved in being a good freestyle player, it's just a different skill set than the ones needed to be a good risk player.

haha.. you make my point for me.. yes.. the strat is about the same in a lot ways (with variations)... you have to have all the knowledge of seq strat and apply it to a miniscule time frame and think, act, and react in seconds... it's far more difficult mentally than seq... I don't even think this is debatable...

Well, to be accurate I didn't say it was more difficult, just different. It's just a matter of learning a specific way of playing. You have to know how to play risk to play freestyle but you don't have to have exceptionally good strat to win at it, you just need good computer reflexes and have experience with the settings. Perhaps freestyle requires more practice to do well but it doesn't require any better strategy than your average level of sequential.
I guess you could compare the two to pogo-sticking and skateboarding. It's a lot easier to learn how to just roll along on a skateboard than it is to just bounce on a pogo stick but with experience each person gets skill sets on a skateboard that set them apart from other skateboarders while once another person learns how to pogo stick well, that's it. It's also like comparing someone who is good at multi-tasking to someone who is good at writing. You can't really even compare the two. This is why I think that freestyle and sequential should be two completely different scoreboards because they each represent a totally different group of skill sets.

completely wrong... I have more seq games than freestyle games under my belt by far which I believe gives me more credibility in this argument than you..... freestyle is MUCH more challenging than seq on almost any level and most boards... A suggestion might entail you actually playing fs games with a bit of frequency so at the very least your reasoned opinions will have some validity and foundation in actual gameplay.. I believe without this experience, your opinions on fs should pretty much be dismissed out of hand.. though I enjoy the conversation, so please, by all means, retort..

[KiIIface]

Ohhhh snap! What we got here is a gentlemen's throw down!! Sirs, en garde!

[Funkyterrance]

completely wrong... I have more seq games than freestyle games under my belt by far which I believe gives me more credibility in this argument than you..... freestyle is MUCH more challenging than seq on almost any level and most boards... A suggestion might entail you actually playing fs games with a bit of frequency so at the very least your reasoned opinions will have some validity and foundation in actual gameplay.. I believe without this experience, your opinions on fs should pretty much be dismissed out of hand.. though I enjoy the conversation, so please, by all means, retort..

You are going to have to do better than that...
You've just refused to supply actual evidence and replaced it with "Well, I've played more of both so...." This proves nothing. How do I know you aren't just in denial since you gain most of your points through this style of game? I could very well dismiss your opinion for this very reason. I've not mastered freestyle but I've played it enough to understand the concepts, I'm just not good at it. So please submit an actual retort showing how what I said was incorrect, for example, explaining what makes freestyle so exceptionally advanced compared to sequential?

[swimmerdude99]

You think one thing and any person who has spent time playing freestyle will think another. I'm pretty sure anyone who actually PLAYS. by that I mean knows how to win against anyone decent, would admit that freestyle speed takes a BUTTload mor skill than any other game type. I would consider myself wellversed in all game types and I know for a fact that freestyle speed is the hardest to learn and the hardest to master. Anyone can play sequential, Freestyle just takes more thinking on your feet, reaction timing etc. You don't have to go "OH CRAP... he just did that! now what?" and save your butt in sequential. In freestyle ist the standard strat plus some. Not sure how that could be viewed the other way around.