Conquer Club

sorry, horrible idea. i play mostly team games with real life friends, that i know i can communicate with if there is a question of strategy, and i know that they can cover my turns if i go out of town or will be on location unable to take turns for a day or two. no way i am going to play team games with people i don't know. good teams take a long time to develop, and i shouldn't be penalized for taking the time to learn how to be better partner to the people i play with... the black jesus has spoken...-0

lgoasklucyl wrote:We play with other similar ranked players because we know them to be decent at playing, not to pray on lower ranked players. I play with them because I know they know the maps and won't miss turns.

Completely agree there. The reason you see the same team making several games is not because they want to prey on low ranked people, those who do JOIN the low rank created team game.

I started playing team games with most of the people I still play team games now, back then most of us were Corporals, so if we found good team mates that we know we can communicate well and play a good game, why shouldn't we be able to keep playing with them?

As an option it would be good tho, and I would probably use it every now and then.

I agree it may prove an interesting option- giving people new players to potentially team with without going through callouts. Those ballsey enough to click 'random teammates' that is

Rigged teams? Kind of like the rigged dice?

Instead of complaining that they're too good, get better at the game, get your friends better at the game, and go through and farm them.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear earlier - I realize people want "good players" on their teams, and I realize how awesome it is to play with people who "know the maps". I used to rig my teams, too. They are usually easy wins. I have also challenged rigged teams, and have done decently with that, too. There is no point in telling me you like playing with good players or that stacked teams are still beatable.

This idea would only apply to PUBLIC games - if you want to set up a team with some RW friends or rig a team, that is what PRIVATE games are for, as well as tourneys.

I like the option but not requirement idea. If randomized teams was made an option, that would take care of the 17-pages-of-team-games problem, too, because you could sort your search.

If this were an option I'd get into team games again... I played them a bunch when I first joined but had to stop because I didn't want to play with the same team over and over, but I also didn't want to get my ass kicked over and over by people who have their own team and such.

hecter wrote:If this were an option I'd get into team games again... I played them a bunch when I first joined but had to stop because I didn't want to play with the same team over and over, but I also didn't want to get my ass kicked over and over by people who have their own team and such.

oh... you weren't on a good team, and instead of getting better, by playing over and over together, you simply blame the teams that were better for your less than stellar team career? um, ok... the black jesus is perplexed...-0

p.s.-there is nothing "rigged" about setting up a public game that anyone can join.

how bout this

public games with purposeful teams must be joined as teams

if someone who has a team wants to join a game, when they join, it will have the player enter what who they're teamates are so they can join. their teammates recieve notification for the games they're teammates have signed up for and then they can then finish(or continue if they are not the last of a triple or quad) the joining process as long as another team hasnt beaten them to it.

the only flaw i see with it is that freemiums who cant afford to sign up for alot of games and have to wait on there teammates might never get into thier games. this could be fixed however by them being allowed to start the joining process for many several games as long as the the number of games they finished joining didnt go over there alloted amount. (there teammates dont have to join all the games that they given the opportunity for)

this is beneficial for players who both care and dont care who they're teammates are. the competitive high ranks will now be able to more easily challenge themselves without having to seek people out(if they dont want to) and players who dont have a team but still like team games can get a better experience with random teams.

You know the suggestion is bad if it says please in the title of the thread...

p.s.-there is nothing "rigged" about setting up a public game that anyone can join.

Thank you!

If they were randomized in all games, then that would be horrible. Why should I have to play with some player who does not know how to play and has a 50% turn ratio than with my friends? Most of the time, people want to play with people they know.

If this were optional, then you lose all solvency. The games for farming would still be up there, what is stopping them? Someone will still join.

Good as an option, I like it. But just letting you know that there is no solvency for farming.

owenshooter wrote:

hecter wrote:If this were an option I'd get into team games again... I played them a bunch when I first joined but had to stop because I didn't want to play with the same team over and over, but I also didn't want to get my ass kicked over and over by people who have their own team and such.

oh... you weren't on a good team, and instead of getting better, by playing over and over together, you simply blame the teams that were better for your less than stellar team career? um, ok... the black jesus is perplexed...-0

I explained quite clearly what I meant. I wasn't on a "good team" because I was never on the same team, which is the way I like it. I didn't blame anybody, I just didn't like the way the current system was, so I stopped using it. It's pretty simple, actually...

para wrote:how bout this

public games with purposeful teams must be joined as teams

if someone who has a team wants to join a game, when they join, it will have the player enter what who they're teamates are so they can join. their teammates recieve notification for the games they're teammates have signed up for and then they can then finish(or continue if they are not the last of a triple or quad) the joining process as long as another team hasnt beaten them to it.

the only flaw i see with it is that freemiums who cant afford to sign up for alot of games and have to wait on there teammates might never get into thier games. this could be fixed however by them being allowed to start the joining process for many several games as long as the the number of games they finished joining didnt go over there alloted amount. (there teammates dont have to join all the games that they given the opportunity for)

this is beneficial for players who both care and dont care who they're teammates are. the competitive high ranks will now be able to more easily challenge themselves without having to seek people out(if they dont want to) and players who dont have a team but still like team games can get a better experience with random teams.

I really like something along the lines of this idea.

I am a mid-level player who has friends much higher ranked. I could pull them into team games, but we typically just stick to tourneys b/c joining public games is too risky. If I wanted to play one of these team games that's already top-loaded with high-powered players, I would risk some or all of my cohort not getting their "please join" messages before some random ppl jumped in. An option that allowed an individual to take on all the spots of a team (for a limited time) would be very welcome.

I joined by mistake 2 team games (by forgetting to check the "Standard, terminator" boxes, due to the new gamefinder layout.

Both of them have high level paying members as the top team, and at the most cadets in the lower end team. I guess either the more favored players do not join just arrangement, or they get kicked by the game author, until they have a perfectly balanced colonel vs cooks game

I am banging my head on the wall for having to stick with those 2 games.

i like the original idea but it would have to be an option

why stop friends playing on the same team just because they are better than you and your mates? if they wanted to team up with you they would ask

if it were an option however people could set up games in the hope to learn new players without getting pwned by a good team that know each other

I have a couple of players that I like to team up with, this would make a useful option for those who want more excitement in their games, but only as an option and not a replacement of the current team arrangements in team games.

blakebowling wrote:I don't think that teams should be randomized in all games, but I do think it would be a good option. I know it'd be interesting, I'd try it.

I, too, like the idea of making it an option. I don't play team games specifically because it seems like two players who play together all the time (often on the same board over and over again) start the game and everyone else who joins, including me, is given a random partner who may or may not be experienced, a good teammate, a question mark, a deadbeat, etc. If this made an option I'd definitely try more team games.

laci_mae wrote:...but we typically just stick to tourneys b/c joining public games is too risky.

What's risky about joining a public game?

what a great idea. this absolutely takes away any notion of collusion. why not randomise the whole process

wannaseemytreat wrote:what a great idea. this absolutely takes away any notion of collusion. why not randomise the whole process

huh? collusion in a TEAM GAME? what are you going on about? oh my... was this uber-sarcasm? the black jesus is thoroughly confused...-0

hmm, do people like the additional sugestion i made to making this an option?

para wrote:hmm, do people like the additional sugestion i made to making this an option?

I can't see it being made as anything but an option.

making it a requirement only eliminates the ability for an already organized team to create a game where random people will be thier opponents?


is that something you want?

2009-01-12 11:57:35 - RADAGA: DAMN! joined another team game without really wanting...
2009-01-12 11:58:08 - RADAGA: And, of course, another rigged one....
2009-01-13 14:48:22 - L M S: how can it be rigged, you joined and last at that..... quit whining
2009-01-13 15:00:53 - RADAGA: Rigged ... you 3 joined together, making a team already fine tuned. And I bet you have been kicking anyone with 2 or more stripes until you have a low rank team to deal with. Dont play lamb when being a wolf.
2009-01-14 14:42:03 - L M S: we didnt join together
2009-01-15 11:14:37 - RADAGA: Worse. then he kicked every one who did not matched his perfect standards, and then kicked afterwards anywone that he perceived as good enough.

Game 3941437

This proves people are rigging the game. They are not friends, so the guy who made the game probably kicked whoever he perceived as "not good enough" on his side and then kicked whoever he perceives as "way too good" on the other side.

For one person to have such power, to have the ultimate call on who joins which side, while the others have to simply folow his choices is blatantly biased towards the game creator.

The game have 1 captain and 2 lieutenants (paying) against a private (paying) a cook (fremium) and a cadet (me)

Since LMS (one of the lt) claimed they were not together, how can this arrangement happen? DOnt insult our intelligence and say it was coincidence.

Selective player kicking detected.

RADAGA wrote:Selective player kicking detected.

There's your problem. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Where did you get the idea that anyone can kick players from a game?

RADAGA wrote:This proves people are rigging the game. They are not friends, so the guy who made the game probably kicked whoever he perceived as "not good enough" on his side and then kicked whoever he perceives as "way too good" on the other side.

For one person to have such power, to have the ultimate call on who joins which side, while the others have to simply folow his choices is blatantly biased towards the game creator.

Selective player kicking detected.

yeah, just imagine if this were ACTUALLY POSSIBLE. this is simply not true, but nice try... person who doesn't know how games work detected. the black jesus has spoken.-0