Conquer Club

lancehoch wrote:The people that play speed freestyle keep saying that only the last few seconds are important. What they do is essentially, start their turn to receive the maximum amount of armies then sit for three or four minutes. This would not affect them, since they would just have to wait 2.5 min to get the maximum amount of armies. For 24 hour turn games, it would actually stop people from doing this. They would realize that the strategy forces them to waste their time (12 hours) waiting around. Maybe people would stop using the strategy, which was the intent of this thread in the beginning.

it would affect them because the faster player could possibly do all he/she needs to do and end turn with a second or two left and the other player doesnt see this and thus is locked out

this whole idea IMO is just dumb

Herakilla wrote:it would affect them because the faster player could possibly do all he/she needs to do and end turn with a second or two left and the other player doesnt see this and thus is locked out

Well, don't be slow then. This is encouraging people to be quick and finish their turns. If they don't - too bad for them. Unfair? I don't think so because all they have do do is wait for someone else to start, then they can start. Everyone should be online and ready to go if its a speed game. No?

Honestly, I don't play speed freestyle games - so I'm not exactly sure how this would affect those. But in casual games, the double turn exploit needs to be fixed!

leave speed games alone at least, the block and the whole idea of it will really hurt it

Herakilla wrote:leave speed games alone at least, the block and the whole idea of it will really hurt it

Yea following the rules can be a bitch...

cramill wrote:...the thing is that there would be a period of time that no one is able to do anything in the game. In a casual game, it sits there for 12 hours with no one being able to do anything...

That would only happen if everybody was active in their turn at the end of the round, meaning that everybody is waiting 23hrs before taking their turn and letting the clock run down.

cramill wrote:...Now, I've never played a speed freestyle game, but I'm sure those who do don't want to be waiting half the round while everyone sits there, not being able to do anything.

That would only happen if everybody was active in their turn at the end of the round - which only happens due to the 'double-turns-loophole' strategy. As somebody else mentioned, most serious/successful speed freestlyers sit around waiting in any case; and 2.5 mins is nothing compared to the 12hrs of half-a-standard-game.

The intention of this suggestion is to stop people taking advantage of the last-minute-sniping that is a consequence of the loophole. Freestyle speed games are currently unecessarily slow due to the loophole... I see no real reason why not to implement this suggestion.

MrBenn wrote:That would only happen if everybody was active in their turn at the end of the round, meaning that everybody is waiting 23hrs before taking their turn and letting the clock run down.

Thats exactly what i was saying. It would be silly if everyone ran out of time and then everyone had to wait untill half the round passed to take their turn. Especially in a casual game where the game is sitting there for 12 hours with everyone not being able to do anything.

cramill wrote:Thats exactly what i was saying. It would be silly if everyone ran out of time and then everyone had to wait untill half the round passed to take their turn. Especially in a casual game where the game is sitting there for 12 hours with everyone not being able to do anything.

Yes, it would be silly. Thats what we are trying to avoid. Those of us who do not want to end the double turn do not want people using this strategy at all. So, if it is silly and people are waiting half of the round, we do not care. We want these people to be put off and not to use this strategy any more. This is the best way to stop them. Why would we let a larger group get away with this strategy (a full game) when if an isolated person in a game does this they have to wait for half the turn.

cramill wrote:Thats exactly what i was saying. It would be silly if everyone ran out of time and then everyone had to wait untill half the round passed to take their turn. Especially in a casual game where the game is sitting there for 12 hours with everyone not being able to do anything.

Yes it would be silly. But it would almost never happen as the benefit of having the possibility to act directly is great enough for people make sure they end their turn in time. It's a non-issue IMO.

wicked wrote:Then both have to wait 2.5 minutes. Or should this not apply to speed games?

It should not apply anywhere. Letting your time run out is a very good tactic when playing freestyle and it shouldn't be changed

Well Personally I like the double turns... It's the other person or teams fault if they don't get there move done.

pimphawks70 wrote:

wicked wrote:Then both have to wait 2.5 minutes. Or should this not apply to speed games?

It should not apply anywhere. Letting your time run out is a very good tactic when playing freestyle and it shouldn't be changed

I disagree. Its an exploit, not a tactic.

JesusReigns wrote:Well Personally I like the double turns... It's the other person or teams fault if they don't get there move done.

??? I don't understand what you just said. Its the other person or teams fault if they don't get their move done? What do you mean? Are you saying that the person who gets screwed over because someone took a double turn is to blame? Or, are you saying that the person who ran out of time because the round ended - its their fault for running out of time and therefore they should be able to take a double turn? That doesn't make much sense. I don't understand your logic, or what you are trying to say.

Freestyle speed games are speed games, if you can't play fast enough to end your turn in time don't play.
Freestyle casual games were intended to have only one turn, no back-to-backs, if you don't like it and can't win playing by the rules and not exploiting loop holes, then don't play.
Stop telling people who follow the rules and win, when the rules are followed and sometimes when not, to play sequential if they don't like it.
People who use this "tactic" are like little kids who play a game and say, "the rules don't specifically say that you can't do this," even when it is highly implied, just to win. The only difference is the rules specifically forbid double turns.

The player who triggers a new round is blocked from taking a second back-to-back turn and must wait until either an opponent begins their turn or half of the round passes.

kentington wrote:Freestyle speed games are speed games, if you can't play fast enough to end your turn in time don't play.
Freestyle casual games were intended to have only one turn, no back-to-backs, if you don't like it and can't win playing by the rules and not exploiting loop holes, then don't play.
Stop telling people who follow the rules and win, when the rules are followed and sometimes when not, to play sequential if they don't like it.
People who use this "tactic" are like little kids who play a game and say, "the rules don't specifically say that you can't do this," even when it is highly implied, just to win. The only difference is the rules specifically forbid double turns.

The player who triggers a new round is blocked from taking a second back-to-back turn and must wait until either an opponent begins their turn or half of the round passes.

It is part of the game people use the rules to there avantage do not play freestyle if you cannot handle how it is played...

If this suggestion was implemented it would likely turn the game into a sequential game with whoever joined last going 1st, which isn't fair either. This would hold very true in casual games especially as the player who goes 1st can chose a tme when their opponants are offline to start and end their turn, blocking them from going until they have finished.

meathead wrote:If this suggestion was implemented it would likely turn the game into a sequential game with whoever joined last going 1st, which isn't fair either. This would hold very true in casual games especially as the player who goes 1st can chose a tme when their opponants are offline to start and end their turn, blocking them from going until they have finished.

Yes, the last person to join gets to go first. What is the problem with that? They get an advantage, but you know about it and it doesn't go against what the rules say, but it is fair. It does not block anyone from going until they finish their turn. It is freestyle, simultaneous, which makes it very different from sequential. This does not creat an order like sequential and it is very easy to be first on the next round unless, you are the last to sign on and see everyone else has gone, which would be your fault for not checking. I have seen someone go first and get crappy dice and everyone after picked them off. It is fair.

Soloman wrote:It is part of the game people use the rules to there avantage do not play freestyle if you cannot handle how it is played...

Did you not read my post? People are not using the rules to their advantage they are going against what the rules say about back-to-back turns. Please re-read my post and the quote inside it. I think you just typed as fast as you could to say, "Don't play." If you find in the rules that it is okay to do this post the quote and show me. I will admit I was wrong.

meathead wrote:If this suggestion was implemented it would likely turn the game into a sequential game with whoever joined last going 1st, which isn't fair either.

It wouldn't turn the game into sequential because you can still take your turn at the same time as your opponent. Or if your opponent isn't around for half of the round (if you ended the last round) you can go before him. Or if you have to wait for your opponent to start, you can then start and end your turn before him to go first next round.

meathead wrote:This would hold very true in casual games especially as the player who goes 1st can chose a tme when their opponants are offline to start and end their turn, blocking them from going until they have finished.

I don't understand what you mean by "blocking" here. The only "blocking" this suggestion gives is that the person who ended last in the previous round (by ending their turn or by not ending their turn before the round timer runs out) has to wait for someone else to start or until half the round passes. You don't have to wait until somone starts and finishes their turn - they just have to start, then you can go as well. People can still be taking their turns at the same time.

kentington wrote:

meathead wrote:If this suggestion was implemented it would likely turn the game into a sequential game with whoever joined last going 1st, which isn't fair either. This would hold very true in casual games especially as the player who goes 1st can chose a tme when their opponants are offline to start and end their turn, blocking them from going until they have finished.

Yes, the last person to join gets to go first. What is the problem with that? They get an advantage, but you know about it and it doesn't go against what the rules say, but it is fair. It does not block anyone from going until they finish their turn. It is freestyle, simultaneous, which makes it very different from sequential. This does not creat an order like sequential and it is very easy to be first on the next round unless, you are the last to sign on and see everyone else has gone, which would be your fault for not checking. I have seen someone go first and get crappy dice and everyone after picked them off. It is fair.

Soloman wrote:It is part of the game people use the rules to there avantage do not play freestyle if you cannot handle how it is played...

Did you not read my post? People are not using the rules to their advantage they are going against what the rules say about back-to-back turns. Please re-read my post and the quote inside it. I think you just typed as fast as you could to say, "Don't play." If you find in the rules that it is okay to do this post the quote and show me. I will admit I was wrong.

Play Order
In a freestyle game it doesn't matter in which order players take their turns. Players can even play simultaneously! After the last player takes his turn, a new round begins immediately. The player who triggers a new round is blocked from taking a second back-to-back turn and must wait until either an opponent begins their turn or half of the round passes.

In a sequential game player 1 is first, then player 2, then player 3, etc. Sequential games are slower but they mimic the sitting-around-a-table boardgame experience. When playing a sequential game with teams the order is staggered, alternating between teams.



The devil is in the wording it does nort say the last player to end it says the player that triggers a new turn so if time triggers a new turn then no player triggered it and it is open game so they are using the rules to there advantage to the t...

Soloman wrote:The devil is in the wording it does nort say the last player to end it says the player that triggers a new turn so if time triggers a new turn then no player triggered it and it is open game so they are using the rules to there advantage to the t...

Yes that is correct, that is why it isn't considered cheating. BUT it isn't how the rule is meant to work and hence it is an exploit.

Thezzaruz wrote:

Soloman wrote:The devil is in the wording it does nort say the last player to end it says the player that triggers a new turn so if time triggers a new turn then no player triggered it and it is open game so they are using the rules to there advantage to the t...

Yes that is correct, that is why it isn't considered cheating. BUT it isn't how the rule is meant to work and hence it is an exploit.

Personally I like freestyle the way it is and the wording is sufficient for me If people are afraid or find this style of play unfair I suggest sequential...

Soloman wrote:Personally I like freestyle the way it is and the wording is sufficient for me If people are afraid or find this style of play unfair I suggest sequential...

Thankfully you aren't running this site...

Soloman wrote:Personally I like freestyle the way it is and the wording is sufficient for me If people are afraid or find this style of play unfair I suggest sequential...

Many people play freestyle for a reason and an exploit shouldn't steer people away from freestyle. This needs to be changed. Probably the majority of the people who play freestle do not use this tactic and probably the majority of people who play freestyle want this changed. I think you're in the minority of people who like to bend the rules to their advantage. It will be more fair - and acording to the description on the instructions page if this suggestion is put in to effect. Also, it will be more fair to newcomers to freestyle - people who start playing freestyle usually find out about this exploit when it is used on them to get an unfair advantage.

cramill wrote:

Soloman wrote:Personally I like freestyle the way it is and the wording is sufficient for me If people are afraid or find this style of play unfair I suggest sequential...

Many people play freestyle for a reason and an exploit shouldn't steer people away from freestyle. This needs to be changed. Probably the majority of the people who play freestle do not use this tactic and probably the majority of people who play freestyle want this changed. I think you're in the minority of people who like to bend the rules to their advantage. It will be more fair - and acording to the description on the instructions page if this suggestion is put in to effect. Also, it will be more fair to newcomers to freestyle - people who start playing freestyle usually find out about this exploit when it is used on them to get an unfair advantage.

Well I put a poll in general we will see who likes and dislikes the idea so go voice your oppinion on it there so we can see how the larger community feels about the subject...

Soloman wrote:Well I put a poll in general we will see who likes and dislikes the idea so go voice your oppinion on it there so we can see how the larger community feels about the subject...

I find it interesting that you are so pro this exploit but also so very against people exploiting FoW. Both tactics are withing the current rules but against the spirit of the rule.

Soloman wrote:Well I put a poll in general we will see who likes and dislikes the idea so go voice your oppinion on it there so we can see how the larger community feels about the subject...

Vote here people: viewtopic.php?t=52964

cramill wrote:

meathead wrote:If this suggestion was implemented it would likely turn the game into a sequential game with whoever joined last going 1st, which isn't fair either.

It wouldn't turn the game into sequential because you can still take your turn at the same time as your opponent. Or if your opponent isn't around for half of the round (if you ended the last round) you can go before him. Or if you have to wait for your opponent to start, you can then start and end your turn before him to go first next round.

meathead wrote:This would hold very true in casual games especially as the player who goes 1st can chose a tme when their opponants are offline to start and end their turn, blocking them from going until they have finished.

I don't understand what you mean by "blocking" here. The only "blocking" this suggestion gives is that the person who ended last in the previous round (by ending their turn or by not ending their turn before the round timer runs out) has to wait for someone else to start or until half the round passes. You don't have to wait until somone starts and finishes their turn - they just have to start, then you can go as well. People can still be taking their turns at the same time.

In a 8 player game its not a big deal, but in a 2 player game the last person to join could easily go 1st every round if he is clever about it, giving them an unfair advantage and rendering the freestyle aspect obsolete.

It doesnt take a genius to work out that you just wait for your opponant to go offline then make your move. Your suggestion implies that the person going second should be at his monitor 12hrs straight waiting for the guy that goes 1st to make his move, if he wants to be on a level playing field.