[Official] Freestyle Changes -- Give us your feedback!

[Aerial Attack]

Its late, and i believe i understand what you are saying. I don't think you quite understood my suggestion.
I was thinking that if it was possible to somehow make any game created or that boils down to a 1 vs 1 freestyle to not lose the effect of freestyle with the waiting until the other player has taken their turn, they just have to wait until the turn it begun. It is a good idea for 3 or more players though.

What you indicate that you want is exactly the reason WHY these changes are being made. You want the de facto double turn. Whilst this does provide an adrenaline rush, it is not inherently fair to all players. Remember, lack wants the games on this site to be somewhat fair and balanced.

I've also previously addressed a way to still get your adrenaline rush: join a freestyle speed game and agree that no one moves until at least 2 minutes and 29 seconds into the round. OR for freemium members, wait the 12 hours to do so (obviously it's much better to be Premium in this situation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IF I were to vote in favor of allowing Player A to NOT wait until Player B had finished a turn ... I would definitely say that Player B should at least have begun attacking (Begin Turn, Deploy, Attack 1st Territory) before Player A can move again. This would cut down partially on the de facto double turn, and still allow both players to make simultaneous/overlapping moves (cause of the adrenaline rush).

[Skittles!]

I like it the way it is.

for the first and probably only time

QFT

if this does get implemented please make it an additional option and not a whole change to freestyle.

I agree with Firth and Kyle.

Make two different types of Freestyle.. New and old.

[The1exile]

I think that'd be a good idea (what skittles said).

[treefiddy]

I like the proposed change for the 12 hour minimum turn time. After that change, I believe that freestyle should stay the way it is.

That would almost totally negate the abuse, while keeping the joy of Freestyle.

[thedude13]

I agree with Firth and Kyle.

Make two different types of Freestyle.. New and old.

I was going to argue the fact that both players can wait for the other player to begin their turn so they can have a double turn. Therefore, essentially making it a fair game. Basically fighting fire with fire.

However, Skittles! proposal would be the best solution so far.
I think it should be added to the poll.

thedude13

___________

The Dude abides.

[Fircoal]

OH GOD NO!

please don't do the first thing in speed games. 1 vs. 1 freesytle doodle earth, is meant for a fast game, I like the fact, that both people can play at the same time, and finish it up in 5 minutes, I don't want to make it longer.

[juventino]

My 2 cents: The idea of opening the game after 12 hours. Very good.

The idea to have a block is bad... The lurking is a fun part of such a game.. And doesnt this make it a seq game almost?

[turtle32]

skittles has the best idea, just make two types

[Skittles!]

I don't think it was really my idea, I thought I was just revising what Firth or something was saying :/

But anyway; Yeah, two different types of Freestyle would be better than just closing off the current one as many people like it the way it is.

[alster]

Make two different types of Freestyle.. New and old.

Or take back the now closed freestyle setting - "double turns allowed".

The two original settings:
- double turns allowed.
- double turns not allowed.

Was good. I believe the former option was removed with a KISS-argument ("Keep It Simple Stupid").

But this proposed change is not simple. Not at all. It's to complicated to be a decent setting. Blocks and windows like this destroys the freestyle setting.

Why not:
- double turns allowed. As it was.
- double turns not allowed. That doesn't allow for de facto double turns, i.e. the game opens up after 90% or so when the round has passed (which allows for lurking, but gives a window for those who in fact want a seq. game even though having signed up for a freestyle one) If only 2 players (left) in a game, the game will turn sequential.

But that's just my two cents.

[thedude13]

Lack, you have more than one change in this thread. You need more than just "Yes" or "No" in the poll. Something simple like:

Change 1.
Change 2.
Both.
Neither.
Other Changes. (or Other would do)

Or something complex would work too, but it would probably be easier to do after the outcome of the first poll. Ooh, add "Other Changes." If "other" wins out, start new thread with a poll using ideas from this thread and have people add new ideas in the new thread. Sound copacetic?

thedude13

[lackattack]

Yes, I should have done the poll differently, but I'm not going to drag this out.

It seems that the first change is quite controversial, so I'll shelve it and go with the 12 hour expiry on the block.

Oh, and I don't want to confuse people with multiple variations of freestyle, so let's forget about that proposal too

Thanks everyone for the feedback!

[thedude13]

Your quite welcome Lack. Thank you for the chance to debate the changes. The Dude abides.

thedude13

[deathscythe30]

what about a player intentionally missing his/her turn and getting multiplied armies every time?


I'm going to copy and paste the problem here so that maybe I could get some feedback for it.


Assuming you had 3 armies each round, you would get 6 every time while others only got 3, and technically, you aren't even missing a turn.

Let's say its a 4 person game...

The other 3 people take their turns while you intentionally miss your turn.

You show up just as the 24 hour time limit expires, and you take your turn, with your multiplied armies, then the other 3 take their turn.

Rinse.

Repeat.

You aren't really missing any turns, and yet you get multiplied armies each turn.

This should be changed so that if you miss a turn, you cannot take your next turn until at least someone else has taken a turn.

All I've heard is that, "well, you won't get any cards that round"

Well laady fucking da. When you can get multiplied armies without really missing a turn, who gives a shit about cards?

[Armored-Blue]

I understand the difficulty with changing the system and frankly I wouldn't want to build some sort of block that doesn't allow a person to gain their continent in rt, it is just the idea of forcing someone to play at exactly 23 hours and 55 minutes after the round starts that gets me... So this is my proposal:

Add the time lost from the blocked player back to him when his turn is available

Let's say there are 3 players: Player 1, 2, and 3, have each taken their turn in that order so player 3 must wait until 1 or 2 starts. Whatever time it takes for 1 and 2 to start their turn should be added to the available time for player 3, but not to the other remaining players. Thus when there are only two players remaining, if player 1 takes 23 hours to start his turn, then player two gain those hours back, but if that other player is dead beating and it only took player 1 one extra hour to play, then he doesn't have to wait the full twenty four hours...
This would only lengthen games a little bit in most cases but would solve the problem of people giving people only 5 minutes to play a turn in a two player or two team freestyle game!

What does everyone else think of this idea? (Or is it totally unclear?)

[lackattack]

I think you are describing this:

Another solution, the "rolling 24 window", would have been to extend the time for Player A to 24 hours after Player B ends his turn. The reason I'm chosing against this is that (a) it is harder to program and (b) it can lead to longer rounds, up to 48 hrs.

[NESconqueror]

As discussed many times in this forum, the most pressing issues with freestyle games stem from the "anti-double-turn block":

The player who triggers a new round is not allowed to take a second back-to-back turn and must wait for someone else to begin their turn.

I am thinking of changing it as follows:

The player who triggers a new round is not allowed to take a second back-to-back turn and must wait for either someone else to end their turn or half of the round to pass.

Let's say Player A went first the previous round and is blocked, waiting for Player B to go.

The first change, extending the block to the end of the Player B's turn (instead of the beginning), is designed to prevent situations where Player A conquered a continent he can't hold and lurks around waiting for Player B to begin his turn, at which point Player A will immediately refresh, click Begin Turn, and gets the bonus before Player B has time to attack.

The second change, timing out the block after 12 hours (or 2.5 minutes in a speed game) is designed to prevent situations where Player B delays his turn to the last minute in order to block Player A from playing at all. Another solution, the "rolling 24 window", would have been to extend the time for Player A to 24 hours after Player B ends his turn. The reason I'm chosing against this is that (a) it is harder to program and (b) it can lead to longer rounds, up to 48 hrs.

I think these two changes will balance out freestyle so it is more fair, but is still flexible and still allows players to use timing to their advantage. Please post your feedback here, before the changes are set in stone (well nothing is really set in stone, but I do plan to put this in the upcoming update).

And just to clarify, anti-double-turn block is only meant to prevent "surprise" double turns when the round ends before the 24 hours are up. Any other sort of double turn (e.g. when someone didn't play or ran out of time) is allowed because everyone knows when the turn expires and it isn't a surprise.

I so approve of these changes.

[Skittles!]

You're changing it?

If so.. I don't think I'll play it again

[thedude13]

Jesus Christ, he's only implementing the second change, sheesh!!!

thedude13

[Skittles!]

Jesus Christ, he's only implementing the second change, sheesh!!!

thedude13

Well, I didn't actually read the thread.. So..

What's the second change? Lack makes it so difficult to understand, my poor brain can't compensate the logic put into it.

[alster]

Yes, I should have done the poll differently, but I'm not going to drag this out.

It seems that the first change is quite controversial, so I'll shelve it and go with the 12 hour expiry on the block.

Oh, and I don't want to confuse people with multiple variations of freestyle, so let's forget about that proposal too.

Thanks everyone for the feedback!

Hmmm... For the record, I believe that tampering with the freestyle setting in this way may risk destroying it all together. Note the word risk though, it may be a success, but dunno. Maybe not.

Perhaps two different freestyle settings would make it more confusing. But aren’t many other settings “confusing” in that case? Assassin, terminator and standard? Three settings, confusing? I think not. Three card settings, three fortification settings, confusing? No, not really. Of course everything may be confusing in the beginning, but everyone has to go through a learning curve here.

I don’t remember people saying that the two original freestyle settings were confusing. And why not continue to expand into various settings, making the game more fragmented, more challenging and continuously giving people new challenges that keeps them playing?

As far as I can tell, quite a number of people seem to be quite all right with the current freestyle setting. Then why remove it? Why not instead add a new, optional setting. After all, how many settings are there now? 10,12? One more won’t make people utterly confused.

But that’s just my two cents.

[yeti_c]

I've had a thought here...

Team Freestyle games are currently setup so that the team who just played can't play until the other team has played...

So let's take a triples game for instance...

Team A has finished the turn... Team B must start and Team A must wait til one player has finished their turn or 12 hours are up.

So all 3 players start their turn together - they can then easily co-ordinate as they've got an hour to play all their turns - as long as they finish at the same time...

Fix suggestion - if more than 1 player is playing a turn from a team then the other team(s) are open to play...

C.

[Skittles!]

Hmmm... For the record, I believe that tampering with the freestyle setting in this way may risk destroying it all together. Note the word risk though, it may be a success, but dunno. Maybe not.

Perhaps two different freestyle settings would make it more confusing. But aren’t many other settings “confusing” in that case? Assassin, terminator and standard? Three settings, confusing? I think not. Three card settings, three fortification settings, confusing? No, not really. Of course everything may be confusing in the beginning, but everyone has to go through a learning curve here.

I don’t remember people saying that the two original freestyle settings were confusing. And why not continue to expand into various settings, making the game more fragmented, more challenging and continuously giving people new challenges that keeps them playing?

As far as I can tell, quite a number of people seem to be quite all right with the current freestyle setting. Then why remove it? Why not instead add a new, optional setting. After all, how many settings are there now? 10,12? One more won’t make people utterly confused.

But that’s just my two cents.

A big, fat, smoking QFT

[lackattack]

If you can block someone from playing at all in a round, that is clearly a fault in Freestyle. I'm all for adding options for new and different features like Terminator, but I think it's dumb to have 2 similar settings for Freestyle, fixed and broken, just to appease a small yet vocal minority. We'd still get complaints from people burned by the loophole.

[Blitzaholic]

The player who triggers a new round is not allowed to take a second back-to-back turn and must wait for someone else to begin their turn.

agreed