Moderator: Community Team
I don't think you understand the argument. This should not be a legal tactic. Everything else that falls within the rules is fine. I don't think anyone will complain about teammates taking their turns at the same time unless they are complete idiots.bbqpenguin wrote:i strongly oppose this. double turns is just basic part of freestyle strategy. stopping this is akin to prohibiting teamates form taking turns at the same time, blocking, hedging, or any other basic strategy usable in any game. double turns simply takes advantage of the rules of a certain gametype; something which you should always do. if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. if you play freestyle regularly (which i don't), then you need to be prepared to take double turns, it helps you win. if you are unable to or don't like this strategy, then don't play freestyle.
This says that the last person to go in the round is blocked from taking a second back-to-back turn. Now, don't say that because you don't end your turn that doesn't trigger the new round, so you can start another turn right away. Thats the loophole that we want to get rid of. You chose to go last so you shouldn't be able to go first in the next round.Page of Instructions wrote: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.

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.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.
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.poo-maker wrote: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.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.

poo-maker wrote:God damnit, what is it with people trying to change things that others like. First classic, now freestyle...
If that would be true then there wouldn't be any need for the "no back-to-back turns" rule that is set now would there???bbqpenguin wrote:double turns is just basic part of freestyle strategy.
Fair enough... though, because of the loopholes, there are more tactics that you can use.yeti_c wrote: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.poo-maker wrote: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.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.
C.
PS - congrats on Conqueror again.
Yes - but it would stop them from starting the turn though... therefore the next player could wait for a few hours if they wanted - and it's their decision - not the 'cheaters'...poo-maker wrote:Btw, I have just read over the original suggestion again. Tbh, it wouldn't actually change speed freestyle that much... I mean, most of the best players can start 2 or 3 seconds after the round starts. Those using clicky maps can also start a fraction of a second after the round starts or a fraction of a second after the first person triggers their turn. There wouldn't be time to break them....

Not really though. This loophole brings a quite dominant strategy and hence it would reduce the amount of usable strategies atm.poo-maker wrote:though, because of the loopholes, there are more tactics that you can use.
Yea this isn't meant to change that, just stop people from taking 2 turns without giving someone else the chance to respond.poo-maker wrote:Those using clicky maps can also start a fraction of a second after the round starts or a fraction of a second after the first person triggers their turn. There wouldn't be time to break them....
I don't think its that dominant. If you're playing esc or flate rate, you have to make a sacrifice by skipping a card for this to work. Though, i agree that it is a v.dominant strategy in no cards. (due to bonuses being so important)Thezzaruz wrote:Not really though. This loophole brings a quite dominant strategy and hence it would reduce the amount of usable strategies atm.poo-maker wrote:though, because of the loopholes, there are more tactics that you can use.
I like the way I described it. If any player is active (yellow arrow next to name) when the round ends; it locks them out the same way it would if they were the ones to trigger the new round.poo-maker wrote:Do you guys have any ideas in mind as to what you would like a new rule to be? We definitely don't want a rule change that resembles anything like the old system where players would play at the last minutes. Leaving only a couple of minutes for their opponent to play in that round.
As I see it it should work as it does now but with players being active when the clock runs out being counted the same as if they had activated the new turn. It won't be that big a difference but it should stop any blatant abuse of the "no back-to-back" rule.poo-maker wrote:Do you guys have any ideas in mind as to what you would like a new rule to be? We definitely don't want a rule change that resembles anything like the old system where players would play at the last minutes. Leaving only a couple of minutes for their opponent to play in that round.
Ah, ok... I don't mind this rule that much, but if i could decide, I wouldn't change it. It's a part of freestyle that I like. Though, I understand why people would like this to be implemented. It would make the game fairer.treefiddy wrote:I like the way I described it. If any player is active (yellow arrow next to name) when the round ends; it locks them out the same way it would if they were the ones to trigger the new round.poo-maker wrote:Do you guys have any ideas in mind as to what you would like a new rule to be? We definitely don't want a rule change that resembles anything like the old system where players would play at the last minutes. Leaving only a couple of minutes for their opponent to play in that round.
Yes, nothing about starting your turn right after someone needs to be changed.bbqpenguin wrote:i would like to change my opinion, at least somewhat. i admit i didn't read the op well enough to fully understand it. i fully oppose using "running out of time" as a tactic and i agree that this is an exploitable loop hole. however, double turns taken via the lest person to take a turn on round x starting his next turn 2 seconds after another player starts on turn y should still be allowed