Conquer Club

all players who want to play this can play it, and all others can avoid it. Where is the problem? Farming? do you all really care so much about points? Farmers will always find ways to abuse the system.
I don´t see any problem in adding new options like this one.

it seems to be the less luck based 1v1 game, and it won´t kill regular teams games, but it will reduce 1v1 games. i doubt that will cause any damage.

The main argument being presented by the so called "Elite" is that 1v1 games have a tremendous amount of luck (Drop or Turn order). But no one has seemed to mention that this luck is proportional to the map size. Larger Maps allow for a higher first deployment and with average or above average dice the ability to negate the same deployment for the opponent. There are certain maps that do allow for a "fairer" 1v1 game. In addition, there are various settings that are currently available that help decrease the luck factor and increase the skill factors of a game..Adj vs Unlimited, No Spoils or Esc vs Flat, and or Foggy vs Sunny. Hence, individuals choose not to play 1v1 games, not due to luck but rather because they don't want to. (This being an assumption) You could choose to make 1v1 games on maps with certain settings that would allow for a much more challenging game.

*** If you are so worried about the 1st turn advantage play freestyle..You both go at the same time and hence that argument becomes invalid.***

As for the Drop Luck: Even in team games, there is still the possibility of being gifted a bonus on the drop, or 3/4 territories and so forth..So having 1 individual share those territories doesn't negate the luck factor, especially if its unlimited forts, they can fort themselves and take the bonus on turn 2 anyway. Hence, the luck still decides the game, it just takes 1 or 2 extra turns for them to benefit from it..

Even with current team formats, if you have a team who communicates well, the drop can still dictate the game. So lets all be honest here, its not about eliminating luck, its about ADDING A GAME PLAY OPTION.

I would venture to say that 75-80% of this site is luck based.. You depend on the rolls of electronic die to determine your fate. You still can't control if you roll a 1 or a 6, if you are dropped a bonus or not, or control who goes first.

Although many of us would like to consider ourselves expert players, the bottom line is that you can try and play a perfect game but if your opponent out cards you, out rolls you, or out drops you, You still get screwed. Making an A,A vs. B,B option will not negate such events.

So, this entire thread is simply about the addition of AN OPTION AND AN OPTION ONLY. I can guarantee you that like every other setting implemented on this site, someone will always find a reason to B$tch and Moan about how "LUCKY" their opponent was.

I am amazed that doubles teams are getting so defensive over this.

This is simply a suggestion to provide a more balanced 1v1 experience. The first turn advantage in current 1v1 is a big problem in many games and maps. I would love to give this a test run just to see how it works, if at all.

Consider what you are saying yes to:

You are saying it would be alright for one player to take more than one spot in a game.

Once you allow this, no matter if it is for 1 v 1 or any other format, it becomes a slippery slope.

Also consider the idea that this might be used in CLA or Clan Matchups.

The idea in and of itself is simply.............. wrong. I think opening the door to this is akin to opening the door to a bloodthirsty vampire. Once he gets his toe in, he'll just keep wanting more until he sucks the life out of the site.

Hopscotcher wrote:Consider what you are saying yes to:

You are saying it would be alright for one player to take more than one spot in a game.

No we aren't. This is a very specific suggestion, and the majority of supporters do not want what you are so worried about. I totally agree with you, in that I don't think there should ever be an option to allow one player to take more than one spot in a regular team game. It would wreak havoc on team games as they are (and should remain). If, for example, I could join a quads game (against four separate players), and play as all four of the other team, I would be able to put my score through the roof. Not only would I be more likely to win (due to not having to coordinate with others), but the point reward would be 4 times as high as it would be if I had 3 team mates. THAT would be an absolutely horrible option to have, but that is NOT what we want.

@ Culs De Sac

Nobody here ever said, that this suggestion was about eliminating the luck element of a game, that is based on random drop, dice & cards.

We are only saying, that this suggested new game option would be less dependent on luck & more dependent on skill, when compared to the current 1v1 games, which are certainly among the most luck based games on the entire site.

Can we agree on that ? That certain game types & settings put more emphasis on luck than others ?

And there is no reason to take cheap shots at "the so called Elite", as nobody here claimed to be such.

@ Hopscotcher

This is a simple suggestion for a new game option. It is not meant to carry over into regular team games. It is one or the other. Either you play a team game, or you play this new game option 1v1.

Many clan & CLA members have posted in this thread, and not a single one has suggested this for clan challenges. There are a few challenges out there, that include 1v1 matches, and this new game option could be considered to be used in that regard (1v1), but I don´t see them included in clan challenges otherwise.

Ahunda, as I stated..that appeared to be the prominent argument.. I used the worlds "elite" since hopscotcher used it..

I clearly stated that it is merely the addition of an Option and Only an option.

I just feel that the debate on hand is pointless..as I also stated, no matter the settings, people will ALWAYS B$tch and moan

I hate manual..avoid it unless manual deployment is pointless like on aor, feudal and so forth, because i want the medal, but otherwise, this option can be avoided just like any other...

its a business, Supply and Demand, and it appears that the Demand is high..

We pay for premium and hence if premiums ask for it, and its within the realm of possibility..Then it should be granted...

What happened to the "customer is always right"?

Culs De Sac wrote:Ahunda, as I stated..that appeared to be the prominent argument.. I used the worlds "elite" since hopscotcher used it..

I clearly stated that it is merely the addition of an Option and Only an option.

I just feel that the debate on hand is pointless..as I also stated, no matter the settings, people will ALWAYS B$tch and moan

I hate manual..avoid it unless manual deployment is pointless like on aor, feudal and so forth, because i want the medal, but otherwise, this option can be avoided just like any other...

its a business, Supply and Demand, and it appears that the Demand is high..

We pay for premium and hence if premiums ask for it, and its within the realm of possibility..Then it should be granted...

What happened to the "customer is always right"?

For a "pointless" debate you've said quite a bit there matey.

Hopscotch has used a lot of words - most of them over-dramatic and knicker-twisting! "Elite" was one such example.

And it's not a pointless debate when people like the aforementioned are still misinterpreting the effect that this will have on clans and general games on the site...it will be negligible. For those people who never play 1v1's it might just encourage them to do so (like me). For those who do play 1v1's it will give them the choice.

Basically it's just a great additional option for 1v1 games, as Culs De Sac (in a roundabout way) says..... (no pun intended)

Slightly off-topic - but playing Manual on Feudal, AoR etc is also abusing the system to get a medal.

Timminz wrote:

Hopscotcher wrote:Consider what you are saying yes to:

You are saying it would be alright for one player to take more than one spot in a game.

No we aren't. This is a very specific suggestion, and the majority of supporters do not want what you are so worried about. I totally agree with you, in that I don't think there should ever be an option to allow one player to take more than one spot in a regular team game. It would wreak havoc on team games as they are (and should remain). If, for example, I could join a quads game (against four separate players), and play as all four of the other team, I would be able to put my score through the roof. Not only would I be more likely to win (due to not having to coordinate with others), but the point reward would be 4 times as high as it would be if I had 3 team mates. THAT would be an absolutely horrible option to have, but that is NOT what we want.

But, you would LOOSE 4 times the amount as well.

As long as the coding was done so this option could be turned off or picked separately from the "taking all spots on an entire team" option all these complaints are moot.

The ability to take more than one spot could lead to 2v2 quads, which would be cool.

Hopscotcher wrote:Consider what you are saying yes to:

You are saying it would be alright for one player to take more than one spot in a game.

Does the minority that is against implementing this option still not understand the premise?

1) A team game will be either like original doubs, trips, quads (all unique players)
2) A team game will be 1v1 doubs, trips, quads (1 player controls all players)

Doubs 4 on 4 sounds cool, too.

Hopscotcher wrote:Once you allow this, no matter if it is for 1 v 1 or any other format, it becomes a slippery slope.

Also consider the idea that this might be used in CLA or Clan Matchups.

It is a slippery slope but it is sloping uphill because nobody wants to implement this to replace team games for CLA or Clan Matchups. So you shouldn't be worried about sliding uphill. You might be able to hopscotch up the hill, though...

Hopscotcher wrote:The idea in and of itself is simply.............. wrong. I think opening the door to this is akin to opening the door to a bloodthirsty vampire. Once he gets his toe in, he'll just keep wanting more until he sucks the life out of the site.

The cross you are clutching and the garlic on your breath won't save you, human. I'm gonna stick my toe in there, wiggle it around, and suck you silly.

I think this is a great idea that opens up a number of possibilities. If someone doesn't like it they can simply not play this game type. There you go

I voted Yes, I would like to see this implemented.

I voted yes also, sounds like a fun option that can be used or not used just as every other game option on this excellent site.

I would like to be able to play teamgames, where a team consists of just 1 player. So a doubles game would for example consist of:
Team-1:
Blitzaholic (Red)
Blitzaholic (Green)

Team-2:
RL_Orange (Blue)
RL_Orange (Yellow)

Ofcouse you can extend that to triples games and quad games.

Its a great way of learning the strategy of the doubles, triples and quad games. Besides this way a 1vs1 game will have a lot more tactical and strategical impact then just luck on the dices as in 1vs1.

Dont know if it is difficult to implement, but i think the most parts are already in place.

can't resist.... just like playin' with yourself, RL?

I wish i did get the change and time to play with myself

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=109621

this is the first i've had a chance to look at it and i think it would be great but only if it were restricted to 1v1. Team games are just that....TEAM GAMES.....you have to rely on your team to do well and learn to communicate with them.
On the other hand, if you were trying to learn strategy on a new map and didnt want to lose points in the process, then a game against yourself would be beneficial.

so my vote is YES for 1v1 ......
and NO for everything else.....

mattattam wrote:I think this is a great idea that opens up a number of possibilities. If someone doesn't like it they can simply not play this game type. There you go

that wont be an option though if you create a game with 4 different players and then one person joins the other team and invites him/herself for the whole team.....then team 1 just got screwed (essentially)

i voted yes, since it would be a nice addition to other 1v1 options..
i browsed through the thread and saw some peoples objections as to it would kill teamgames, but as i understood it it would just be possible to play 1v1 quads or trips rather than 1v1 single standard.. so in that sense it would not kill teamgames..
someone also said something about points winning/loosing 4 times the points and i just ask why? if its 1v1 you would still win/loose as much as you would in a normal 1v1..
im guessing this is not a feature to be able to play 1 v 4 for example.. but simply 1v1 with 4 fractions like someone put it..
so.. as long as it is a part of 1v1 im all for it and it sounds great!

/

I am in favor of it, implement it pls

jackal31 wrote:this is the first i've had a chance to look at it and i think it would be great but only if it were restricted to 1v1. Team games are just that....TEAM GAMES.....you have to rely on your team to do well and learn to communicate with them.
On the other hand, if you were trying to learn strategy on a new map and didnt want to lose points in the process, then a game against yourself would be beneficial.

so my vote is YES for 1v1 ......
and NO for everything else.....

after reading through a little more...it is my understanding that 2 player games with fractions of play would be a great idea. However, having a fractional team versus a 4 player team would not be something I vote for.

In my quote, I was talking about playing a 1v1, 2 fraction game, against ones-self. Just playing by ones-self and trying to learn new strategies.

Hope that makes more sense

mattattam wrote:that wont be an option though if you create a game with 4 different players and then one person joins the other team and invites him/herself for the whole team.....then team 1 just got screwed (essentially)

FarangDemon wrote:1) A team game will be either like original doubs, trips, quads (all unique players)
2) A team game will be 1v1 doubs, trips, quads (1 player controls all players)

It would be a separate option, not a combined one.

I also voted for "yes", why dont add extra option to the site which eliminates big factor of luck in 1 vs 1 games? I agree with jackal, to make it ONLY for 1 vs 1 playing, not in any other circumstances.