Instead of everyone taking turns simultaneously as in current freestyle mode, only one player per team is allowed go play at any given time.
For example, in a 6-player doubles game, only 3 players would be allowed play at once, the first from each team to begin play. After all 3 players have ended their turns, the other 3 players (remaining player on each team) would be allowed to play simultaneously. After those 3 turns, all 6 players have completed 1 turn, and thus 1 round, and then it begins again, first player from any team (except the team that finished the last round) begins round 2, and the other 3 players would be allowed to play after the first 3.
No team would have more than one player playing at any given time simultaneously.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Yes, currently when you play a freestyle mode team game, everyone can play simultaneously ("freestyle") ...my suggestion is a new mode that modifies that to only allow one player from each team in the game to play simultaneously ("freestyle"). Sorry, maybe I'm not explaining it very well... in other words, the "freestyle" game play is limited to one player in each time at a time, instead of every player in the game.
What's the point of having a freestyle team game if your teammates can't go at the same time? Why would anyone want to do this? That would only hurt your team. How does that improve strategy or gameplay?
tubaman wrote:What's the point of having a freestyle team game if your teammates can't go at the same time? Why would anyone want to do this? That would only hurt your team. How does that improve strategy or gameplay?
It wouldn't "hurt" your team, as every team would be playing with the same restriction.
tubaman wrote:What's the point of having a freestyle team game if your teammates can't go at the same time? Why would anyone want to do this? That would only hurt your team. How does that improve strategy or gameplay?
It wouldn't "hurt" your team, as every team would be playing with the same restriction.
It would still hurt your team. Just because all the teams have that restriction, doesn't mean it would hurt any of them. It means it would hurt all of them.
I dont see how it would "hurt" anyone... but what it would do is prevent teams from waiting until no one else is online and then taking turns in a row. This isnt a bad strategy but it does slow games down alot.. I have been in games where players have be online and went off without taking their turn... and kept doing this until their teammate was online too.
It would hurt because you are much more effective going together than you are seperately. Atleast I am. And waiting for your teammate may slow down the game, but it's better because you play as a team and not individually.
tubaman wrote:What's the point of having a freestyle team game if your teammates can't go at the same time? Why would anyone want to do this? That would only hurt your team. How does that improve strategy or gameplay?
It wouldn't "hurt" your team, as every team would be playing with the same restriction.
It would still hurt your team. Just because all the teams have that restriction, doesn't mean it would hurt any of them. It means it would hurt all of them.
It wouldn't "hurt" because it would be equal. It wouldn't be a disadvantage, since everyone has the same issue, it would be a stipulation. That's like saying that your team is at a disadvantage because you're playing sequential.
t-o-m wrote:if you want it so much just play a team game, but on sequencial!
its the same thing! (ish)
that is kind of my point - it's not quite sequential, and not quite freestyle. think of it being like a normal freestyle game, but each "team" is acting as one player... so, each team gets to play at the same time, but only one member from each time.
maybe it isn't such a good idea, I don't know, I was just suggesting it.
a lot of freestyle strategy revloves around being able to play at the same time, the whole team starts, one person goes and then passes some armies on but doesnt end and the next players go and all that. before they end they pass armies between themselves and it makes for a shitload of strategy and communication. taking that away dummies the game down and makes it less exciting
Herakilla wrote:a lot of freestyle strategy revloves around being able to play at the same time, the whole team starts, one person goes and then passes some armies on but doesnt end and the next players go and all that. before they end they pass armies between themselves and it makes for a shitload of strategy and communication. taking that away dummies the game down and makes it less exciting
I believe the point he is trying to make is that this is a completely different type of game from freestyle or sequential. It is a mix of both, where on each team the turns are sequential, but the different teams can have players playing at the same time. This would present a whole new type of strategy from team freestyle. Who knows, people may actually like it more than team freestyle because you cannot have people playing at the same time. Also, this would help curb some of the abuse, where people team babysit.
tubaman wrote:What's the point of having a freestyle team game if your teammates can't go at the same time? Why would anyone want to do this? That would only hurt your team. How does that improve strategy or gameplay?
It wouldn't "hurt" your team, as every team would be playing with the same restriction.
It would still hurt your team. Just because all the teams have that restriction, doesn't mean it would hurt any of them. It means it would hurt all of them.
It wouldn't "hurt" because it would be equal. It wouldn't be a disadvantage, since everyone has the same issue, it would be a stipulation. That's like saying that your team is at a disadvantage because you're playing sequential.
Techically, I am at a disadvantage in sequential games because I'm much better at freestyle. I'm not saying it's an unfair disadvantage, just that other teams generally do better against me in sequential than in freestyle.
Anyway, back to the main point, I really don't care if it's implemented, as long as it doesn't replace any other gamestyles. I probly wouldn't use it, but other people might enjoy it.
lancehoch wrote:I believe the point he is trying to make is that this is a completely different type of game from freestyle or sequential. It is a mix of both, where on each team the turns are sequential, but the different teams can have players playing at the same time. This would present a whole new type of strategy from team freestyle. Who knows, people may actually like it more than team freestyle because you cannot have people playing at the same time. Also, this would help curb some of the abuse, where people team babysit.
That's exactly what I am suggesting. Thank you for clarifying what I had a hard time doing myself. How do I go about garnering more feedback or escalating this suggestion?
lancehoch wrote:I believe the point he is trying to make is that this is a completely different type of game from freestyle or sequential. It is a mix of both, where on each team the turns are sequential, but the different teams can have players playing at the same time. This would present a whole new type of strategy from team freestyle. Who knows, people may actually like it more than team freestyle because you cannot have people playing at the same time. Also, this would help curb some of the abuse, where people team babysit.
That's exactly what I am suggesting. Thank you for clarifying what I had a hard time doing myself. How do I go about garnering more feedback or escalating this suggestion?
IMO it's a really poor idea as it keeps the bad parts of both formats and throws out the good parts and in this case I don't think that 2 negatives makes for a positive.
