[GP/UI] Delay Start of Freestyle Games

[JoshyBoy]

This original suggestion for a 20-30 second wait period for speed freestyle has now been submitted, as it has been around for a while and seems to have plenty of support. For the poll, a 41 - 6 is an overwhelming majority. Admin, as always, will decide it's fate.

[pamoa]

Now with the 1 minute games the 30 seconds waiting period is almost compulsory

[skychaser]

Just to say it plainly, there's abosolutely NO strategy at freestyle. No when there's game objectives.
5 minutes waiting time woud mean the player who did the last turn will have to wait 5 minutes to play the next round no matter what.
The one who finished the turn would have to wait 5 minutes after someone started the next turn or still his half the round.


This would greatly, greatly, ennormously improve the meaning of scores as it would take some of the farms who specializes at waiting till last second to get the objective and them use tools to start the round at insane network speed.

It would dimnish the value of internet speed.

It would give some basic strategic feature to freestyle when there's objectives. By now it have NONE.

It would give some time and give more balance in 2players freestyle.

Better gameplay and more strategic so everyone wins.

[patrickaa317]

Hate to be that guy but if you don't like it, then don't play it.

[nicestash]

Freestyle is an awesome setting for speed games and that would just ruin those.

It's also fun for multiplayer games, and I think it would hurt those as well.

[jsnyder748]

I have said it before. Skychaser your an idiot lol

Hate to be that guy but if you don't like it, then don't play it.

simple yet...elegant

Just to say it plainly, there's abosolutely NO strategy at freestyle.

Oh, really? let me get back to you on this one....I have some thinking to do about my life

[skychaser]

Well. Be it.

I thought this could give some strategy into the game since this mode has none. After posting I recognized I was a fool. If someone wants free farm then lack of strategy is not an issue.

[mr. CD]

I'm going to say something crazy here:
What if... both people would try to get the victory objective?
But... but... that'd mean they have a conflict and they'd have to, they'd have to... fall back on strategy to make sure they get it. NOOOOOOOOO!

[jsnyder748]

I'm going to say something crazy here:
What if... both people would try to get the victory objective?
But... but... that'd mean they have a conflict and they'd have to, they'd have to... fall back on strategy to make sure they get it. NOOOOOOOOO!

I hate when that happens

p.s. skychaser your not an idiot, but saying there is no strategy was very bold of you lol

[betiko]

I thought this was meant to be a constructive suggestion, such as 5 minutes waiting time once every player had joined a freestyle game so a team or the last player to join don't have necesairly the starting advanage.

[jsnyder748]

I thought this was meant to be a constructive suggestion, such as 5 minutes waiting time once every player had joined a freestyle game so a team or the last player to join don't have necesairly the starting advanage.

that would be constructive but what skychaser suggested was for games that are already underway. basically it would take away he double turn aspect with freestyle. This would make it easier to brake objectives. It would hurt people who take bonuses in the last few seconds who are hoping to begin and get large troop deployment.

[eddie2]

it would hurt speed games even more, they have declined over the last year due to the 1 min rounds.. this would just totally eliminate players playing more than 1 game at once.

[skychaser]

I thought this was meant to be a constructive suggestion, such as 5 minutes waiting time once every player had joined a freestyle game so a team or the last player to join don't have necesairly the starting advanage.

that would be constructive but what skychaser suggested was for games that are already underway. basically it would take away he double turn aspect with freestyle. This would make it easier to brake objectives. It would hurt people who take bonuses in the last few seconds who are hoping to begin and get large troop deployment.

I was not thinking about large troops but instant win.

And there's no conflict at these games. May have conflict or so but it's more an exception than anything. A once in a 2000 games situation at least.


At these games one just waits till round n, exchanges and go for the objective at the last second. Then one finishes and uses a tool to start one's round as fast as possible and win. It's good and reasonable if its 1x1 but it's used only as legal farming. 2 or maybe 3 of the people know the strategy and they "bet" the points of the ones who don't know and join since they join an already lost game for not having either the knowledge, the tools or the fast internet connection.

[puppydog85]

I thought this was meant to be a constructive suggestion, such as 5 minutes waiting time once every player had joined a freestyle game so a team or the last player to join don't have necesairly the starting advanage.

Now this is an idea- speed chess has something like this: you get notification the game has started, however there is a 15 sec. countdown clock before you can make your move.

That would be a good idea for freestyle speed (maybe a longer wait), but probably too hard to implement.

[betiko]

I thought this was meant to be a constructive suggestion, such as 5 minutes waiting time once every player had joined a freestyle game so a team or the last player to join don't have necesairly the starting advanage.

that would be constructive but what skychaser suggested was for games that are already underway. basically it would take away he double turn aspect with freestyle. This would make it easier to brake objectives. It would hurt people who take bonuses in the last few seconds who are hoping to begin and get large troop deployment.

I was not thinking about large troops but instant win.

And there's no conflict at these games. May have conflict or so but it's more an exception than anything. A once in a 2000 games situation at least.


At these games one just waits till round n, exchanges and go for the objective at the last second. Then one finishes and uses a tool to start one's round as fast as possible and win. It's good and reasonable if its 1x1 but it's used only as legal farming. 2 or maybe 3 of the people know the strategy and they "bet" the points of the ones who don't know and join since they join an already lost game for not having either the knowledge, the tools or the fast internet connection.

this is 100% part of the strategy, if you know how to play the game you don't let your opponent with tons of time and the possibility to go for obj easily. know your timings man.

[rhp 1]

here we go again... another clueless chap explaining in ridiculous ignorance how fs has no strat... maybe if you knew how to play fs? yeah... try that...there are plenty of top players that have relatively slow connection speed, yet seem to be able to win a shitload of games against solid, average, and weak players alike.. wonder how that is possible? hmmm


and before I really invest the time to give a more comprehensive defense of fs... specify if you're talking about speed fs (really the only legit fs gameplay) or casual fs which is a farmers/ranchers/sit by comp all day waiting to hit the b key because I have no life paradise...


I re-read some of the posts.. It sounds like you're talking about casual fs though your explanation and descriptions leave something to be desired.. if that's the case.. I really don't care what you do about casual fs to make it more "fair".... it's a bs settin to begin with...

[rhp 1]

it would hurt speed games even more, they have declined over the last year due to the 1 min rounds.. this would just totally eliminate players playing more than 1 game at once.

not attacking here bro... just asking.. but, do you really believe the 1 minute rnds have actually made speed games decline? do you have any evidence for this? I don't know the answer, I'm just asking if your statement can be proven or if it's your opinion... I actually started playing more speed games when the 1 min turns came out... Hell.. I'm waiting for 10 second rounds...

[chapcrap]

MERGED three threads and updated the OP.

[nicestash]

Whoa! The suggestions are COMPLETELY different chapcrap!
The original one wants a delay at the beginning of the first turn while the most recent one wants a delay for every turn!

[chapcrap]

Whoa! The suggestions are COMPLETELY different chapcrap!
The original one wants a delay at the beginning of the first turn while the most recent one wants a delay for every turn!

I don't know if that's completely different... I didn't understand that's what the latest suggestion wanted. There is a different suggestion that I can merge it with. I'll have to look later.

[spiesr]

IMPLEMENTED

[Fazeem]

question though on a manual freestyle game there is no unfair advantage to the deploy of troops is there anyway this could be tweaked so it starts with 1st active round instead of on deployment round?

[Darthpikachu]

okay so I just want to get this straight...if a friend and I want to play a freestyle game, and we don't have premium membership, we will now have to wait 12 hours after we start the game to be able to play? coz that kinda defeats the purpose, if I have read this correctly.

[Fazeem]

okay so I just want to get this straight...if a friend and I want to play a freestyle game, and we don't have premium membership, we will now have to wait 12 hours after we start the game to be able to play? coz that kinda defeats the purpose, if I have read this correctly.

it only delays an hour but still is a pain and does so even on manual deploy so you cannot even place your troops.

[Darthpikachu]

as I read through these posts, I have come to realise that the conquerclub player base is ultra-competitive...don't get me wrong, I play to win too, but the things being talked about in this thread are a LONG way from the original board game. And there is a big difference between playing to win, and winning at any cost.
where is the room for the friendly game? "Designed for the casual gamer, playing Conquer Club..." no, I think this needs to be changed to "designed for the super-competitive gamer".
I'd like to see a "friendly game", with no ratings or points to score. But from the 200 members or so I have met I would be the only one to play it! And way too many of those I have faced used the anonymity of the internet to say a lot of mean things (or flat out lie!) to deliberately try to mislead and upset other players.
After reading through the posts, I realise the small problem I brought up (slow start to casual games) is SO FAR REMOVED from the problems of the "average" risk player as to be laughable. But I had to reply again because of this post:

"Postby patrickaa317 on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:37 pm

Hate to be that guy but if you don't like it, then don't play it."

You are saying that a game with problems shouldn't be fixed, nor a game working okay be updated, because YOU like/take advantage of those problems...or maybe because you cant handle other people having an opinion and voicing it? If I followed your advice, I would not be playing ANY games online anymore, because over the years ALL of them have made changes at some point that I did not like.

Am I alone here? ARE there still other gamers out there looking for a fun game when you cheer your opponent for making a great/clever/lucky move? ... either way, good huntin all!