Freestyle Adjustment

by **hmskc** on Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:03 pm

I agree. If a player times it they can get 2 turns back to back. Grabing continents they can't defend then receiving the full value of armies before anyone can hit back. It may be within the rules now but does seem unfair overall.

Keep up the good work

by **lancehoch** on Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:53 pm

hmskc wrote:I agree. If a player times it they can get 2 turns back to back. Grabing continents they can't defend then receiving the full value of armies before anyone can hit back. It may be within the rules now but does seem unfair overall.

Keep up the good work

That is not what the original post is talking about. The OP is saying that the last player in a round in freestyle should not be allowed to start their next turn until the at least one person in the next round has ended their turn.

I do not like this idea because it will turn the game into sequential, especially when there are only two people left.

by **FabledIntegral** on Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:58 pm

mwaser wrote:Concise description:
If the last player for a turn hangs out and waits for the next person to log in (normally quite quick with e-mail notification being what it is), they can immediately start their turn right after the next person STARTS and benefit from any shakily held continents/blocks before anyone can do anything about it. This is a real bummer!

Suggestion/BUG FIX:
Make it so the last player for a turn can't start their next turn until after the next person FINISHES their turn. At least then, one person has a shot at reversing any unsustainable land-grabs.

If that is too difficult, then please make it so that the last player for a turn can't start until the second player starts.

Thanks (and thanks for all the hard work and the great site!)

Definitely not, it would screw up a significant amount of gameplay, and completely throw off the entire system. Firstly, it would be no different than sequential in 2 player games. Secondly, absolutely HORRID, HORRID effects on gameplay in speed games - I hope this isn't even remotely considered.

by **mwaser** on Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:01 am

Look at the game log at http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2585877

hmskc won because he repeatedly waited to be the last person, performed a continent grab that he couldn't hold, and then waited for the next player so that he could grab his armies.

While I agree that this fix shouldn't be implemented for speed games, it definitely does NOT! make the game sequential for normal games. Waiting for one of the possibly seven other players is not that much of a burden -- particularly since if this bug is not fixed, there is frequently a huge incentive for players to delay their turns.

Actually, why not make this a five-way parameter with

sequential,
never-allow-simultaneous-turns,
never allow last player in a turn to start before one other finishes,
only allow last player in a turn to start before one other finishes when less than 3 (or 4) players are left,
total free-for-all

This should answer the objections of the other posters (who obviously have never experienced this to the magnitude that it occurred in the referenced game).

Despite the fact that hmskc seems to be a nice guy and plays well, his ability and willingness to exploit this loophole makes it *really* not fun to play with him. In a speed game, this makes perfect sense -- in a non-speed game, it penalizes those of us who have a life outside hanging out and waiting to play. If a large number of other people took up hmskc's style of play, I would quit the board. As it is, I'm marking him a foe even though he's a nice guy and a good challenge.

by **FabledIntegral** on Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:10 am

mwaser wrote:Look at the game log at http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2585877

hmskc won because he repeatedly waited to be the last person, performed a continent grab that he couldn't hold, and then waited for the next player so that he could grab his armies.

While I agree that this fix shouldn't be implemented for speed games, it definitely does NOT! make the game sequential for normal games. Waiting for one of the possibly seven other players is not that much of a burden -- particularly since if this bug is not fixed, there is frequently a huge incentive for players to delay their turns.

Actually, why not make this a five-way parameter with
sequential,
never-allow-simultaneous-turns,
never allow last player in a turn to start before one other finishes,
only allow last player in a turn to start before one other finishes when less than 3 (or 4) players are left,
total free-for-all
This should answer the objections of the other posters (who obviously have never experienced this to the magnitude that it occurred in the referenced game).

Despite the fact that hmskc seems to be a nice guy and plays well, his ability and willingness to exploit this loophole makes it *really* not fun to play with him. In a speed game, this makes perfect sense -- in a non-speed game, it penalizes those of us who have a life outside hanging out and waiting to play. If a large number of other people took up hmskc's style of play, I would quit the board. As it is, I'm marking him a foe even though he's a nice guy and a good challenge.

1. I said it would be like sequential in ONE v ONE. Thus there would be no difference.
2. You can do this anyways by timing out your turn - so it wouldn't fix the problem.
3. THAT is the point of freestyle. THAT is the reason people do that strategy. If you don't like it go play sequential, but freestyle strategy is completely different. In freestyle you're SUPPOSED to do what he did.
4. It's not a huge bug and that's the point - there is SUPPOSED to be a delay to not take your turn. Most freestyle games that are casual, people playing escalating will wait until the last few minutes to cash on their 24 hour turn.

It's not a bug, and is completely intended. If you don't like the playstyle, play sequential, but what you're describing is a fundamental part of freestyle.

by **hmsps** on Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:17 am

We are playing the games over many different time zones. It is silly to suggest that that is all hmskc does to win games. He cannot be awake 24 hours every day.

by **Thezzaruz** on Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:24 am

FabledIntegral wrote:Definitely not, it would screw up a significant amount of gameplay, and completely throw off the entire system.

I agree. Cutting someone off when he's going for the kill of a third player or chewing away at the back end of a players territs when he's expanding on the other side and such things is what makes freestyle fun. I don't like double turns but this definitely ain't a double turn.

mwaser wrote:Concise description:
If the last player for a turn hangs out and waits for the next person to log in (normally quite quick with e-mail notification being what it is), they can immediately start their turn right after the next person STARTS and benefit from any shakily held continents/blocks before anyone can do anything about it. This is a real bummer!

One of the basic ideas with freestyle is to allow players to take their go simultaneously so I can't see this ever being implemented. And also if it's people using notifications that you have a problem with (mail or scripts) then he really wasn't a weak as you make it out, you should still have a minute or two to do damage (speedgames are a it different though).

lancehoch wrote:I do not like this idea because it will turn the game into sequential, especially when there are only two people left.

The specialties of a freestyle game will always work poorly for a 1v1 game so this doesn't really bother me.

by **mwaser** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Let me rephrase my request since people seem to be very vehement . . . .

It would be REALLY nice if there were something between total freestyle (where people who hang out on the computer have a huge advantage) and total sequential (where games take WAAAY too long). After my last suggestion, it should be obvious that I'm not asking to mess with people who like the current freestyle -- merely that there be another reasonable alternative.

by **mwaser** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:25 pm

In reply to Thezzaruzz, while there were several instances of people being cut off in the game in question (which I'm not griping about) -- there were also two MAJOR instances of double turns where hmskc started his turn RIGHT AFTER the first person started his and was therefore able to cash in on major continents that were totally unguarded. If hmskc had not been allowed to restart until after the first person finished, he wouldn't have been able to do this. Notice how close time-wise his first turn ended, the next person logged on in response to the e-mail, and hmskc IMMEDIATELY piled back in to collect his bonus before anyone could do anything.

by **lancehoch** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:12 pm

mwaser wrote:In reply to Thezzaruzz, while there were several instances of people being cut off in the game in question (which I'm not griping about) -- there were also two MAJOR instances of double turns where hmskc started his turn RIGHT AFTER the first person started his and was therefore able to cash in on major continents that were totally unguarded. If hmskc had not been allowed to restart until after the first person finished, he wouldn't have been able to do this. Notice how close time-wise his first turn ended, the next person logged on in response to the e-mail, and hmskc IMMEDIATELY piled back in to collect his bonus before anyone could do anything.

That is called strategy. If you know that you do not have to defend your bonuses, why would you. Changing this would, or implementing a new style like this would change the entire way people are playing. Also, this would not be different enough from freestyle for lack to implement it.

by **mwaser** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:54 am

>> Also, this would not be different enough from freestyle for lack to implement it.

Not true at all. It's different enough that you're desperately arguing against it. Why not let them implement it? I absolutely *HATE* playing against people who are willing to spend their lives scheduling their turns and waiting around so that they can win.

I thought that the point was to have quick, clean, fun games . . . . this just encourages people to wait around and be last so that the can grab a huge advantage via what I consider to be a rules/implementation loophole.

by **ParadiceCity9** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:56 am

I don't like this idea.

by **karelpietertje** on Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:50 pm

Interesting idea, but DON'T!
I think the waiting for someone else to start and hop in too, is part of freestyle. it is what makes freestyle different from sequential

KP

by **lancehoch** on Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:13 am

If you did not like the idea, then why bump a thread that was past page 5?

by **philstar** on Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:20 pm

I like the option of non-simultaneous freestyle.

by **Prankcall** on Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:36 am

Another bad idea.What if you miss a guy by a few armies and went last in the rd but are able to fort on him next turn eliminating him but due to the fact you went last you cannot go until a player has took and ended their turn in the next rd.Kinda shitty don't you think?!