Velvecarrots wrote:I like the idea, but I have a question:
Dubs freestyle speed game no cards Classic 4 players. Elite players know that in these games running out of time is the best strategy. What happens when all 4 players run out of time, like in Game 2111453 for example? Do they all get locked out and miss a turn?
This probably also happens in 2 player speed no card games, but I'm too lazy to confirm it.
I guess that everyone would get to start at the beginning of the next round since no one actually ended their turn. But if everyone gets locked out, it wouldn't force any one to miss a turn, you would jut be locked out until half of the round passes.
yeti_c wrote:Double turns due to running out of time is a tactic that should be disallowed from the rules - claiming that it's a tactic is a load of shit and all of you know it... very shocked at Poo Maker for his comments - I thought that you were better than that.
C.
Yeti, the double turns in freestyle are what helps to make freestyle so much fun. Anyone and everyone can do it, so I don't see anything unfair about it.
Exactly a reason why I don't play Freestyle... it doesn't make it fun for the people that don't use the loopholes... it just makes it a guaranteed way to lose.
Before I had premium, I always used to try and play/join freestyle games, as this way I knew I'd at least be able to take some turns every day - which to my mind, is the major advantage of freestyle over standard.
Since having premium though, I have seen/experienced enough abuse of the 'run out of time' loophole to put me off playing freestyle games - primarily as I have a life to get on with in between turns, and dislike behaviour that feels unfair and distinctly like cheating.
I would support a rule change as the OP proposed - any players still active in their turn at the end of the round would be 'locked out' until half way through the next one; in the same way that happens currently to the last player to end a round.
I brought it up for discussion with Lack, but there wasn't an elegant fair solution we could come up with. So if you have any bright ideas, please do share.
edit: Just reread thread (thought it was an old one, not a new proposal) and see the suggestion for whoever's "active" at end of turn can't start. That may work.
Herakilla wrote:so what happens in 1v1 freestyle speed when both players are active and time runs out? that happens very often
If they both time-out, wouldn't that cancel each other out, since neither one ended last?
edit- I don't actually play freestyle, so I wouldn't have ever seen this, but what happens if both players end their turns (by clicking "end-fortification") at the exact same time?
wicked wrote:edit: Just reread thread (thought it was an old one, not a new proposal) and see the suggestion for whoever's "active" at end of turn can't start. That may work.
Yea I don't know how hard it is to code but at least it seemed to be a clear way to tell who should be allowed to start.
Timminz wrote:edit- I don't actually play freestyle, so I wouldn't have ever seen this, but what happens if both players end their turns (by clicking "end-fortification") at the exact same time?
One will always go through before another. Like if you and I post at the exact same time, one post will still be posted before the other.
wicked wrote:Then both have to wait 2.5 minutes. Or should this not apply to speed games?
I think that in a 1 vs 1 game if both run out of time, they both should be able to go when the new round starts, no? Or any time if everyone runs out of time, because they ran out of time they would be locked out of starting when the new round starts. Just check if everyone is locked out, if thats the case, let everyone be able to go.
I agree with this. Basically in No cards games, people ALWAYS let the timer run out, because they don't lose anything. It's actually detrimental to end your turn in these types of games... if you run out of time the other person should be able to start first, thus rewarding the player who ends first. My opinion.
Though I do not particpate in this activity I feel I must comment.
Any double turn taker loses his ability to fortify - depending on the map and fort settings, this can be huge.
I also don't see this being a problem for 1 v. 1 speed freestyle games. The other player has equal opportunity to start his turn. Also relevant to speed games: the other player can keep tabs on you...if it is 10 seconds...5...2 seconds; be prepared for a double turn taker.
However, for casual freestyle games, I see how the possibility of exploiting this could become very relevant.
FabledIntegral wrote:I agree with this. Basically in No cards games, people ALWAYS let the timer run out, because they don't lose anything. It's actually detrimental to end your turn in these types of games... if you run out of time the other person should be able to start first, thus rewarding the player who ends first. My opinion.
I don't =p
But then again, you understand and appreciate my strategy.
Everyone keeps asking about a 1 v 1 game where they both let the time run out. It is impossible to start your turns at the exact same time, so whoever begins their turn first will run out of time first. Thus, if they both let their time run out the person who started their turn first, then starts the next round. In this scenario, it is stupid for player 2 to let the time run out.
kentington wrote:Everyone keeps asking about a 1 v 1 game where they both let the time run out. It is impossible to start your turns at the exact same time, so whoever begins their turn first will run out of time first. Thus, if they both let their time run out the person who started their turn first, then starts the next round. In this scenario, it is stupid for player 2 to let the time run out.
Are you sure? It seems like you are thinking of the case that there is plenty of time left in the round so both players run out of time before the round timer runs out - so each player times out individually. People are wondering about if both players start and then their turns run out of time because the round timer ended, not their individual turn time. So, if both players are going when the round timer expires, does it say that the person who started first ran out of time first? Does it matter?
kentington wrote:Everyone keeps asking about a 1 v 1 game where they both let the time run out. It is impossible to start your turns at the exact same time, so whoever begins their turn first will run out of time first. Thus, if they both let their time run out the person who started their turn first, then starts the next round. In this scenario, it is stupid for player 2 to let the time run out.
Are you sure? It seems like you are thinking of the case that there is plenty of time left in the round so both players run out of time before the round timer runs out - so each player times out individually. People are wondering about if both players start and then their turns run out of time because the round timer ended, not their individual turn time. So, if both players are going when the round timer expires, does it say that the person who started first ran out of time first? Does it matter?
If all active (still alive) players are mid turn when the turn timer ends then it's just a free for all to begin the next turn. After all they were all mid turn so they should all be active.
If not all active players (still alive) are mid turn when the turn timer ends then they can't start the next turn but anyone else can.
I think someone stated it perfectly before. If all of the players run out of time due to the round ending, they should all be locked out until half of the next round has passed. This is the most simple solution to code, it is also the most fair solution.
lancehoch wrote:I think someone stated it perfectly before. If all of the players run out of time due to the round ending, they should all be locked out until half of the next round has passed. This is the most simple solution to code, it is also the most fair solution.
But, that doesn't make much sense. I have no idea if it would be hard or easy to code (although i think it wouldn't be too hard if it required a few extra lines of code), but 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. 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.
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.
lancehoch wrote:I think someone stated it perfectly before. If all of the players run out of time due to the round ending, they should all be locked out until half of the next round has passed. This is the most simple solution to code, it is also the most fair solution.
But, that doesn't make much sense. I have no idea if it would be hard or easy to code (although i think it wouldn't be too hard if it required a few extra lines of code), but 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. 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.
Easy solution, don't let time expire on your turn. Then you'll be assured that you can go as soon as the turn pops.
