Conquer Club

meathead wrote:

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.

You still didn't expalin what you meant by "blocking."

Ok, maybe in a casual game, its not all that realistic to be camping a game for 12 hours. But why would you play a 2 player freestyle casual game anyways? In a multi-man freestyle game, when it gets down to two people, its pretty much sequential when it gets to that point. So what advantage do you have going first when you both are taking turns one after another? I think its pretty lame if you have to take a double turn to get the advantage and win a game.

Ugh. I just got dirtbagged by meathead on this very issue in a no cards game. I am in favor of fixing what is CLEARLY a loophole and an exploit. There is no way it was intended that people get to go two turns in a row. Further, there is no penalty in a no cards game.

Change it and it becomes a sequential game with the last to join the 1st to go. If you want it like that then just play sequential.

meathead wrote:Change it and it becomes a sequential game with the last to join the 1st to go. If you want it like that then just play sequential.

You've already tried convincing people of this and I still think you are wrong. There still is the possibility of people going at the same time. Why does it even matter the order of play when its down to two people or teams anyways? The way it should be is one person or team gets a go, then the other person or team gets to go - each responding to the last move of the other. And there still is the possibility of people being online at the same time and if you wanted to switch the play order you could finish your turn before them. If you have to use the cheap double turn exploit to win, you aren't that good and should consider better strategies. Try beating people the fair way sometime.

If the 1st player is smart, he will always be able to keep going 1st, especially in 24hr games, and even in 5min games to an extent.

And I have never been told by someone with half my points that I am not that good...

meathead wrote:If the 1st player is smart, he will always be able to keep going 1st, especially in 24hr games, and even in 5min games to an extent.

And I have never been told by someone with half my points that I am not that good...

I'm not saying that you're not good. I'm just saying that you use sketchy tactics to get an unfair advantage and to win. The question is: would you have such a high score if you didn't use the double turn exploit to win games? Thats the point i was trying to get at.
(edit:) If you (someone) can't win without it - that means you're (someone's) not that good. I wasn't targeting anyone when I said what I said earlier.

A bit of a *bump* asthe same issue but for team games came up...

I vote: it's a loophole and should be fixed. Here's my thread as well:
Freestyle, player running out of time gets to play rightaway

Thanks

Thezzaruz wrote:A bit of a *bump* asthe same issue but for team games came up...

I think its pretty much the same issue - the same exploit for team and non team games.

I think this is a problem only because the Instructions lead you to believe that it is not possible. This means that, until you have lost to someone because of it, there is no way of knowing you can do it. In effect it gives newbies a disadvantage. Either double tuns should be allowed or not allowed and loop-holes should be closed.

djdee wrote:I think this is a problem only because the Instructions lead you to believe that it is not possible. This means that, until you have lost to someone because of it, there is no way of knowing you can do it. In effect it gives newbies a disadvantage. Either double tuns should be allowed or not allowed and loop-holes should be closed.

I don't think its a matter of the instructions "leading you to believe that its not possible." It shouldn't be allowed because of what the instructions state. It is a loophole that should be closed.

cramill wrote:I don't think its a matter of the instructions "leading you to believe that its not possible." It shouldn't be allowed because of what the instructions state. It is a loophole that should be closed.

Nah. Just change the desciption. It's a very neat tactic in certain situations.

Concise description:

• If you run out of time in a freestyle game at the end of the round, you can't immediately start your turn in the next round.

Specifics:

• If someone waits one hour in a 1vs1 freestyle turn to run out of time at the end of the round, they can immediately start another turn. This is a major advantage in most of the games, because a team has two turns in a row.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Players will be less frustrated and new players have a better shot at actual playing, instead of almost inevitably losing the game.
• This destroys the double turn possibility in freestyle games.

It has been used against me sometimes and it is very annoying losing because of this 'tactic', even when playing with friends. Mainly there are a lot of complaints about this. It isn't hard to fix, I think, but I hope someone can look into that. If someone runs out of time they shouldn't be able to start first, but (like normal freestyle games) the player would have to wait until half of the round is over or until a player has made a move.

Urs,

Koganosi.

PS. I am very sorry if this was already suggested, but I couldn't find any topics concerning this matter.

Edit: Spelling and grammar

The thing is, the turn needs to be started within one hour of the time the round would end on its own. So the theory from the admins is that because everyone knows when the round will end, this isn't an unfair tactic, because you can arrange to be online when the round would end (and hence when the person is using the de facto double turn). In practice it doesn't happen, and I agree that players who use this are cheaters (see memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=149421) but that is the reason given when others have asked to have it fixed.

BaldAdonis wrote:The thing is, the turn needs to be started within one hour of the time the round would end on its own. So the theory from the admins is that because everyone knows when the round will end, this isn't an unfair tactic, because you can arrange to be online when the round would end (and hence when the person is using the de facto double turn). In practice it doesn't happen, and I agree that players who use this are cheaters (see memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=149421) but that is the reason given when others have asked to have it fixed.

It doesn't make sense at all during freestyle speed though, because the dominant strategy in most cases is to run out of time instead of ending turns which just lengthens the game.

i agree that people shouldnt be able to double turn

its open to abuse

Jeff Hardy wrote:its open to abuse

It's not just open to abuse. It is abuse.

Sounds good.

Ty for supporting it. ll hope Lack or someone else can look into it to see if it can happen. Because clearly freestyle is playing at the same time. Not taking double turns, wich some accusing with cheating (I am myself do to) and some don't. I mean what is the purpose of 1vs1 freestyle then.

Urs

Koganosi.

The suggestion sounds perfect to me. Freestyle is already a bit tricky and people will say that if you don't want this to happen, you shouldn't play Freestyle, but this is not what Freestyle was made for. New players who want to play a team game on Freestyle already have a hard time when the turns are timed, but having two turns in a row destroys the game and takes away the pleasure.

Highly in favour of this suggestion.

For Casual FS maybe something... but in Speed games... this would be terrible.

I said in above, that in speed games, it could be different, but u guys just start in seconds so it wont be of a big matter. But in normal it would be pretty good working.

Urs

Koganosi,

I think this needs looking into again by the site staff. Check out Game 4235041, Red waited for the clock to run out and then immediately started his turn again. I don't mind Red winning by taking the Grand Oasis, I would if I had the opportunity, it's just the way he went about it that stinks. The game code definitely needs fine tuning to stop this sort of nonsense in casual games(but not speed games).

Before the usual suspects descend with the typical well worn record of "If you don't like Freestyle, play Sequential instead." It's not Freestyle I've got the problem with, so take a back seat and listen carefully. It's the unintended exploit that is the result of a minor oversight when the Freestyle Turn Delay was first implemented.

Ran Taro wrote:There definatley needs to be some mechanism to prevent double turns.

I would suggest that, rather than a delay, the game simply doesn't allow a player to take two turns in a row. The last player in each round's dot would be red at the start of the next round, and they can't play until someone else has made a move - at which point their dot turns green again.

If you wanted to get fancy, you could add another colour dot for this (orange?) or even mouse over text that says "Played last last round, cant play first this round". Else you could just add it to the rules page if that's too hard.

This seems to be a good idea. Only the fact that the player is last already gets a red dot. I am more assuming that if he runs out of time and he is the last turn player. He gets a red dot to. This infact helps to delete the possibility of double turns.

Artimis wrote:I think this needs looking into again by the site staff. Check out Game 4235041, Red waited for the clock to run out and then immediately started his turn again. I don't mind Red winning by taking the Grand Oasis, I would if I had the opportunity, it's just the way he went about it that stinks. The game code definitely needs fine tuning to stop this sort of nonsense in casual games(but not speed games).

Before the usual suspects descend with the typical well worn record of "If you don't like Freestyle, play Sequential instead." It's not Freestyle I've got the problem with, so take a back seat and listen carefully. It's the unintended exploit that is the result of a minor oversight when the Freestyle Turn Delay was first implemented.

Ofc they would always bring the argument If you don't like Feestyle, play Sequential instead. Fact is I love freestyle and how they made it. I only hate guys who take double turns, if you can get the option out. It would be almost perfect (nothing is perfect).

I dont see the option of not doing it in speed games also. The person will just start in seconds after you, so you can start in seconds again. But still if it is possible to get it only in casual that is fine with me. Double turns in freestyle is rather impossible already I thought, because of the fact u immediatly can start after one person.

lackattack wrote:Here's the deal with turn delay: when the last player takes his turn, a new round begins and he/she can immediately take a second turn. You can take advantage of the double-turn to conquer a continent and earn the bonus before anyone has a chance to bust you. or take out a weak opponent before he/she gets a chance to play. that is arguably unfair.

So I put in a turn delay rule that makes you wait 180 minutes between turns, to give some time for other players login.

There is no turn delay on sequential games, because you can't take a double-turn in sequential.

So, should I remove turn delay? it could make double-turns a huge part of the strategy, but at least you cannot do two double-turns in a row. people won't be annoyed with having to wait.

Seems to me a good idea 2. I love the idea more of the fact that player wich runs out of time, is just the last player who took the turn. And so cannot play untill someone has started again.

All comes from the thread Artimis has noted.

Urs

Koganosi.

Makes it more strategic. Know how freestyle works before you join any games, that's what I say.