Kill Freestyle Now

[elfish_lad]

Some interesting thoughts here in this thread. I'm sure, since I would like to move forward in medals that freestyle will be for me soon enough. But, like others before me, I still wonder about the fairness of this option from the point of view of the tools each player starts with. I sit on the board of a local softball league and we have this conversation every single year: which composite bats will be banned this year because they give an unfair advantage or are dangerous. And there is always debate on the issue. Especially from those who have been using $500 bats that have been proven to increase bat speed and thus the speed and distance the ball can travel.

But in the end? It's no big deal with regard to freestyle.

Cheers.

[stahrgazer]

I get what you are saying, and in truth I haven't played many freestyle games. I just don't think it is an even start is all. I'm sure I'll give freestyle a go at some point.

I agree, it's an uneven start. My puter doesn't like the freestyle setting, as I learned early on (nor does it like speed setting) - tends to slug and freeze up alot because of the extra intereaction required - system feeding back what else is occurring. If i had a better system, one capable of more RAM (mine keeps rejecting new cards) and since I have a fairly fast isp and modem, I'd probably be a step up. As it is, the RAM thing controls those games for me. So, it's an uneven start. So, I don't play them, or only rarely play them.

There's also the possibility that two players have systems and modems capable of pretty much the same speeds, in which case, skill rather than system would control the play (outside of dice of course). Does it happen often? Meh, probably not. So, it's an uneven start.

So, agree to that or don't play them, or rarely play them. Or shell out the bucks I won't and get a superfast high-RAM system and extraordinary ISP speed with a powerfully efficient modem and be on the topside of the uneven start so you can display your prowess on the chart of champions and wall of warmongers and chestpound about being freestylist of the world and how much better it is than seq and how much more skill it shows; so you can then negate the ideas of and expound upon the very audacity of those who say, "hmm... freestyle...it's an uneven start."

Provocative topic, Elf, I'm sure you'll have fun with the responses you get in the next newsletter

[Caymanmew]

Over the last couple of weeks I've done what I like to call the "ownshooter search" (such as "search is your friend n00b") on the origin and conversation around "freestyle" play here at CC. I find it interesting. But here is the bottom line for me: I think freestyle play is bullshit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying freestyle players are poor players. By no means. If you have read my stuff you will know that I have a pretty high opinion of those in the top 100 whom some consider only freestyle players. I've seen their other games and believe that the top couple of pages of players on the scoreboard, generally speaking, are there because they are good. That's not what I'm talking about. I am saying that freestyle is bullshit because of the variables involved. It may be a good business model (giving customers options that jam the rush factor) but I still believe it is crap.

I see tons of players of higher rank offering freestyle speed games on maps I am interested in that I refuse to play because of the "uneven freestyle factor." Eh? UFF: Internet speed. Screen refreshment rate. Server load. Clickies add-on. Blah, blah, blah. The Elf goes out on a limb here and thinks that it should be removed from CC. Or at the very least confined to non-rated play. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here but who cares? More than farming, more than settings whoring, freestyle skews CC ranks and play.

I say we chase the monster down and put a stake through it's heart... or someone finally take my offer to teach me clickies so I so too can have a fancy hat.

Vote.

Elf Edit: I guess what I'm really talking about here of course is SPEED freestyle.

E.

if you hate it why dont ya not play it

[jsnr75]

If you deploy first, then you start first next round, and hence auto your opponent's stack first and win because of attacker's advantage.

Unless you deployed in different areas or split the deploy.

That's not true in one on one. I've had one on one manuals where I deployed first and the opponent deployed and then had first go. It is true in more than two player games that the last person to deploy does not go first.

This thread is really only good for people venting. Freestyle is a great gamestyle, and as others have said...if you don't like it, don't play it. Why take away a game style that many enjoy because you don't care for it? There's really only one reason for you to want this...so you can advance up the ranks past the players that make their way to the top on freestyle. THAT is not a rational reason to neuter a game style.

jsnr75

[elfish_lad]

If you deploy first, then you start first next round, and hence auto your opponent's stack first and win because of attacker's advantage.

Unless you deployed in different areas or split the deploy.

That's not true in one on one. I've had one on one manuals where I deployed first and the opponent deployed and then had first go. It is true in more than two player games that the last person to deploy does not go first.

This thread is really only good for people venting. Freestyle is a great gamestyle, and as others have said...if you don't like it, don't play it. Why take away a game style that many enjoy because you don't care for it? There's really only one reason for you to want this...so you can advance up the ranks past the players that make their way to the top on freestyle. THAT is not a rational reason to neuter a game style.

jsnr75

Nah. I'm just talking smack really and interested in interesting discussion on this topic. For, I still maintain, that the game platform doesn't necessarily mean an even start for all players. That doesn't mean it is easy. Or doesn't require skill or talent or ability. And of course no one can force me to play or not play a game. However, when you enter the room for a competitive game it's nice to know that, regardless of talent and technique your opponents begin at the same starting point you do. It would be like playing "freestyle chess" where your adversary has better tools or access to tools others don't.

I'm not questioning the joy of playing this form, I'm sure I'll enjoy it when I begin to work on my freestyle medal, and I'll probably look back at this post and think, "meh, who cares" but for the moment I will freely share my thoughts and listen to differing ones from others.

e.

[Mr Changsha]

I'm not questioning the joy of playing this form, I'm sure I'll enjoy it when I begin to work on my freestyle medal, and I'll probably look back at this post and think, "meh, who cares" but for the moment I will freely share my thoughts and listen to differing ones from others.

e.

Quite right too. Keep 'em coming I say!!

My regret is that I didn't move beyond my played 2 won 2 freestyle (casual) 2.1 large standard game record (phew!! ). I played them early in my CC career and won them both very smartly. I realised that my inherent understanding of the game + the ability to influence the turn order combined with the fact that I am near a computer most of my waking hours would equal serious winning. Thai-Robert-like, no doubt. Yet that real sense of fair play of mine wouldn't allow it. If I win I must win hard. Every sinew of my body straining to get over the finish line. But I regret this christ-like sense of fair play I have...imagine Jesus being brought up in the English private school system being taught by Robin Williams in his dead poet society guise. Who else hollers "Carpe Diem!!!" when they roll and jumps on the table while imagining a teenage boy up there with him? No one else...I am sure. But I do...when my wife is out and the curtains are drawn, naturally.

So I can't play casual freestyle: I have to win without these kinds of 'sleight of hand' tricks. But casual freestyle large standard is still a world away from the kind of freestyle being discussed above: think Fitz playing 2on2 casual freestyle or Thai Robert playing 8 man casual freestyle. Both on 2.1, but they are a world away from each other. My suggestion to you would be to have a crack at a 6 man standard flat, casual freestyle game...I'd go with 2.1, but then that's just me. If your happy glands respond well to those "Ah ha!! No one can stop me now mwah ha hah ha hah..." moments (which mine sadly don't; they just swell up and give me a 'god complex' headache) then this might be the setting for you. The mere fact that you started this thread suggests you have a touch of the dark side in you. Go with it my friend, find your mwah hah ha ha....

[elfish_lad]

Thanks Mr. C. An interesting read.

I think what is amazingly interesting is that the permutations of CC are seemingly endless and significant. It's not just the type of game but the settings and maps in conjunction that make for a wild ride. I'll give you an example. Players will often grouse about manual 1v1 being the luck of who goes first. There is often a lot of truth in that. Unless... you assume you are going second. I'll have to run through my manual 1v1 games and tally the times I have won going second. It's a pretty good percentage. Probably not as good as when I have gone first, but still pretty good I think.

In part because I know the map and its troop movements and bonuses. But I also play adjacent. Which throws some players. And assuming that I'm going second means I'll try to place my troops in a spot my opponent can't hit me with his stack the first round. Or I'll strategically divide my troops for bonus potential in the second round. None of this assures victory in a 1v1 manual game, but gives me a big chance in the event I am going second.

And I'm sure I'll find that as well when I start playing freestyle with vigor. Thanks for your thoughts (as well as the input of others).

E.

Elf Edit: I quickly looked at 33 of my games. Map: American Civ. War. All Standard/Manual/Sequential/Flat Rate/Adjacent/Sunny

If I have this right (I was tallying this while on the phone so no guarantees) this is the breakdown:

First Turn: 12 times - 7 wins, 5 loses
Second Turn: 21 times (yikes) - 13 wins, 9 loses

What does this mean? No idea really. I'm sure flat rate had something to do with this but I think it also goes to show that settings can also make a difference. It also shows me that if I could learn to win more often going first I would be a better player. I'm probably being too aggressive and falling into the trap other players have: "Woo! Hoo! First turn I win!!!" Meh. Enough on this topic. Moving on now...