[GO] Random Team Games

[sailorseal]

Sorry, I'd rather be having fun and playing my turns with my real-life friends, rather than being stuck with a clueless, ignorant chef. Not a great idea in my opinion, and at the very most, it should be an option. The only use I can see for this is for inner-clan practice games.

Amen

[jonka]

high ranked players being in the same team does not mean they're teaming up on newbs, it's just because those high ranked players trust each other...

Its almost like new player farming.

[Joodoo]

high ranked players being in the same team does not mean they're teaming up on newbs, it's just because those high ranked players trust each other...

Its almost like new player farming.

yes, that is occasionally true, but this option would only encourage high ranked players to join/create private team games because they may not want to be in the same team with a low ranked player...
the good thing is this could stop newb farming, but it could also increase the "segregation" (as in they don't play with each other often) between low ranked and high ranked players...

[Phlaim]

I'm tired of taking on 4 brigadiers with 3 cooks, there should be an option to make random teams, or matched point values. Is it just me or do others want to get rid of all those games that are clearly experienced players preying on beginners?

Tired? You havn't even played a team game against such ranks...

[cowboyz]

I'm tired of taking on 4 brigadiers with 3 cooks, there should be an option to make random teams, or matched point values. Is it just me or do others want to get rid of all those games that are clearly experienced players preying on beginners?

Tired? You havn't even played a team game against such ranks...

LOL multi or just full of it?

[jonka]

But I have dropped out of games where it was going to happen.

[laci_mae]

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

What's risky about joining a public game?

All my CC friends are casual players that I don't know in person. Attempting to set a time to find and sign up for games together is a nightmare. There should be more options to allow players to join half-filled public games w/their friends. This might include some version of being able to "save spots" for a reasonable amount of time.

[tyler197802198]

There should be more options to allow players to join half-filled public games w/their friends. This might include some version of being able to "save spots" for a reasonable amount of time.

So you want to play with certain people? That is why they made Private games.

You guys are still missing the point. There are already plenty of ways to make sure certain people end up on your team. Heck, if you are afraid of Private games you can even create public games until your ideal teammates join and leave any games where players lower than [whatever rank] join your team. This is not likely to change, so quit whining about problems that aren't problems.

There is NOT a way to keep (team) games roughly even without rigging teams (inviting friends, whatever). Random teams would help this. At this point I have basically stopped playing on CC, and this was the major reason why. Playing evenly-matched games should not require large amounts of work.

The deeper problem is that people are too worried about ranks, and that is why they are afraid to join team games with non-ideal teammates. I already suggested a way to fix that (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30780) but it was rejected.

[PLAYER57832]

I have wanted this for a long time and never really understood why it was rejected before.

I have no problem with people who want to play each other on "set" teams. The problem is that I can't start a team game unless I do have a set group ready to play. If I try, over half the games wind up filled with "pouncers". I just don't play teams any more for that reason.

The one problem I can see is lop-sided teams. That is, one team could theoretically wind up with 2 majors and 2 cooks just through random selection. However, that is no worse than the current system.

[laci_mae]

There should be more options to allow players to join half-filled public games w/their friends. This might include some version of being able to "save spots" for a reasonable amount of time.

So you want to play with certain people? That is why they made Private games.

You guys are still missing the point. There are already plenty of ways to make sure certain people end up on your team. Heck, if you are afraid of Private games you can even create public games until your ideal teammates join and leave any games where players lower than [whatever rank] join your team. This is not likely to change, so quit whining about problems that aren't problems.

There is NOT a way to keep (team) games roughly even without rigging teams (inviting friends, whatever). Random teams would help this. At this point I have basically stopped playing on CC, and this was the major reason why. Playing evenly-matched games should not require large amounts of work.

The deeper problem is that people are too worried about ranks, and that is why they are afraid to join team games with non-ideal teammates. I already suggested a way to fix that (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30780) but it was rejected.

I'm going to try very hard not to take this post personally. Your tone and implications are quite insulting.

The point I was trying to make is that, for casual players, the options for maneuvering into team games could be improved. After all, improvement is the goal of the suggestions forum. Not just "whining about problems that aren't problems", which, incidentally, doesn't really even make sense.

Your advice to simply leave games when certain others join is not always possible. Games that idle, half-full, for weeks can fill in a matter of minutes.

More to the point, you say that "There is NOT a way to keep (team) games roughly even without rigging teams." Even-matching (based on ranks or some other criterion) is not my objective. When I see a long list of public games (that are the exact same settings & teammates), I know that this is likely a good, experienced team. I would like to challenge them with my own team. However, the current system is not optimized for that situation. To make it happen, I've got to get everyone online at the same time, pass out the game numbers, and hope that no one else jumps in the way. Instead, we could have a simple option that would improve team game joining for some people.

We do agree on one major point, "Playing evenly-matched games should not require large amounts of work." Perhaps, more evenly matched team games would be created if there was a better way for one person to get his or her team matched up against teams that have already staked out a bunch of games.

[PLAYER57832]

Team 1

1 high ranked started the game.

2 other high ranks individually decided that they would like to play with this(these) high rank(s) because they assume one with a higher rank has more skill.

Team 2

Private joins game. Likes the map, settings, wants to win points?
Cook joins game. Cooks usually aren't worried about their score.
You join game. I have no idea why, looking to try to get a lot of points if you win, and lose little if you don't?

I'm not sure how something can be 'rigged' if you were able to look at the game, see who your partners would be, and still choose to join it! Come on!

Randomizing the teams would be... interesting?.... I'd never use it.

First, this would be an option.. no one would have to use it.

Second, your scenerio is not realistic.

The TRUTH is that I have started team games as a private, Sergeant, etc. Maybe a major even joins, maybe not. Then I find a group of "ready made" teammates who join.

The OTHER thing that happens is a game will start, again, maybe there is a major, a sergeant, etc. However this is not a "set" team. It is just a group who happens to want to play, probably having played few team games before. Then POUNCE, in comes that ready made team. This is farming at its worst. I know of many people, myself included, who plain avoid team games because we just don't have set teams, don't have the time or ability to form them. This gives those of you who do this a few extra points, yes, but drives everyone else away from teams. I fail to see how that either enhances the true spirit of honest competition or enhances the CC playing experience for the majority.

The THIRD thing that happens is, yes, that a "set" team will start a game. It used to be that they would pretty much have to join as a set. IN that case, I would say "player beware", if they started the game. If they came in after the first team was formed -- FARMING (and "shame on you!" for taking advantage)

HOWEVER, Now, all they have to do is for someone to start the game, then two people from the "set" team join, one on each team. Some one coming will look and see "hey, these teams seem pretty even". THEN, the high ranked player quits and rejoins with his "favorite" teammates and that team quickly fills up with high ranked players. Or, maybe not such high rankers, but a "set" team that plays together an knows each other's moves. The PROBLEM is that those joining the game without a set team have no way to really know this is happening. In fact, they may try to avoid this situation, but find themselves "trapped" if they are not quick enough to realize that their opposing team is now mostly majors (or just a set team).

AGAIN, I don't think anyone really has a problem with players coming together. The problem is that right now, we have no way of knowing if we are going to face a "set" team or "just a group of players". Randomizing the teams would do this.

On a related note, I have made another suggestion. It is to allow people to have "designated teams". Then, you could join as a team and everyone would know, up front, that you had joined as a team. The points, etc would be calculated just like now. The ONLY difference would be that the team would be listed as a "designated team".

[drunkmonkey]

Yes, I'm bumping a year-old thread. But it's only because I came to suggest something that's already been suggested.

As a player without regular teammates, I don't want to join a trips or quads game against 3 or 4 majors/brigadiers when I have no clue who will be joining my team. However, I wouldn't mind joining a game with 6/8 players who were then randomly divided into teams. It may also be a new way for people to meet & become teammates later on.

I can't understand why someone would give a "loud NO" to this. It would only be an option for team games; they could still be played as normal. Since no moderator ever commented on this, and it was never "rejected", I thought I'd bring it into discussion again.

[max is gr8]

I like this idea. It would provide a good mixture of partners. I used to play frequently with subjekt, yet even during that time it was good to play with other people. It could provide an interesting experience without being "raped" by frequent teams.

[Captain_Scarlet]

I like this idea. It would provide a good mixture of partners. I used to play frequently with subjekt, yet even during that time it was good to play with other people. It could provide an interesting experience without being "raped" by frequent teams.

then join a random partner tournament or go to Callouts

[max is gr8]

A very large number of good players don't go to callouts. Callouts sucks unless you want to play a game with specific rules. Tournaments with random players don't come around as frequently as they used to.

[TheForgivenOne]

I really like this idea. Could help out less experienced players get better tactics. I know when i first joined, all i saw was quads games with high ranks. But since i was new, i just joined. i almost got deterred from coming back after the first couple games. But this option could help out new players get into the game. Also helps out the lower rank players get new teammates.

[Baron Von PWN]

I would also like to see this option.

[shanksdigs]

As a game scenario this would be great. Neon Peon or something like that argued that this would ruin team games, but it wouldnt if players were still given the option to start games without random shuffle.

If the "Start a Game" section had a button where a player could choose either "random teammate shuffle" or "choose teammates" then this would be great and I would choose one or the other option frequently and I would jump into more games that listed random teammate shuffle as the scenario.

This is a good idea, looks like you have a bunch of ideas posted and don let detractors slow you down PLAYER57646783647389298.

[shanksdigs]

Could you re-open the poll?

[Queen_Herpes]

Could you re-open the poll?

I would also play this game option and am also hoping you can re-open the poll (in case the polls make a difference) otherwise, just chalk me up as another player who'd like to see this happen.

[stahrgazer]

I probably wouldn't want to play it, but I wouldn't vote "no" for those who want it as an option, as long as gamefinder makes clear which team games are going to be randomized.

There is a work-around, however.

If you see a higher rank playing a map you enjoy, pm him and request to team with him on a game. Not all will agree, but many will, especially if the lower rank agrees to follow the strategy he determines. It's to their benefit for points... a higher rank and lower rank totalled together lessens the total team points, which means when it comes time to calculate points won, he'll win more or lose less than he would have if he teamed with an equal rank.

Another way to introduce yourself to a stranger is to join a 1v1 he may have set up, try to engage in fun gamechat, and at the end of the game request to team on doubles or be a third in a triples he may wish to set up.

[Queen_Herpes]

Concise description:
OPTION: allow games where teammates are not set before game starts.

Specifics:

This would be an option. It would NOT replace current team play structure.

Teams would be "shuffled" after all the slots are filled, so you would not know in advance who your teammates might be.

They could either be straight random shuffled, without regard to rank/experience, etc.

OR a "even" rank order.
EDIT -- this "ranking" idea is rough... anyone with better ideas, speak up!
That is, in the second option one team might get the highest ranked player, the second would get the next highest and the third highest, then the first team would get the fourth and (if applicable) fifth ... the second team would get the 6th (and if 8-player) 7th and so forth.
Example: Major, Captain, Leuitenant, Sergeant, Sergeant, Private, Cook, Cook

Team 1 Major Team 2 Captain and luietenant

Team 1 Sergeant, Sergeant Team 2 Private, Cook

Team 1 Cook

Team 1: Major, Sergeant, Sergeant, Cook
Team 2: Captain, Lueitenant, Private, Cook



This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Not everyone has set teammates with whom to play. This means a lot of us avoid team games because we don't want to face 3 majors who obviously play together all the time. This would not prevent them from playing at all. But it would provide an extra option.

The biggest issue is rank. IF teams were random, then sometimes ranks would "one-sided". However, that would be no different than sometimes getting a really good drop, good dice, etc. Also, just because someone has a higher rank does not necessarily mean they are the expert at any particular map (often, but not always).

To get around this, they could be weighted, either as described above or some other fashion.

Adding this as a new game option on the "start a game" menu would make playing team games MUCH EASIER for new players. I think it would be something that the SoC would fully endorse and I'd like to see some SoC Teacher and Leader responses here. Certainly, random could mean that if 4 noobs signed in with 4 experienced players that the randomness could result in the noobs being teamed together and the experienced players being on the other team. However, I would think that the predominant form would see some kind of mixture, thereby forcing the experienced players to "teach" their nooby comrades how to play and what to do. Certainly, some noobs might go rogue. Certainly, some noobs could be multis, but due to the random nature of the option the rogue noobs, the noobs that won't listen, the multis could end up on either team. This could be a learning experience for new players, could be a great option for experienced players if they hapen to join a game with 100% experienced players, could offer experienced players opportunities to help out the inexperienced. The list goes on...

SoC? What do you think?

[RatheVyrm]

Oh, man, I've been wanting to have this option for a while, just came to finally suggest it, and found this thread.

I agree that it should be an option, and I really think it would encourage a lot more playing by a significant number of conquer club members, particularly new players. Heck, I'd probably play about five times more than I normally do, since I often don't have a regular, reliable partner to play with, and nearly all the games I search for seem to be the same teams of high-ranked players who are used to playing with each other (which is completely and totally fine, of course, but it'd be nice to have this option).

[ch0rn]

Suggestion:
Would there be a way to set it up so team games are more balanced. Seems every team game is an experienced team with 3-4 reserved slots versus a team with Noobs that has never played together before.

(Non tournament play obviously)

Possible solution ?
How about Needing a certain rank to join, then make random teams ? Or something to that effect. Team games rock but they are so often completely 1 sided.

[Dako]

Moved to suggestions.