Conquer Club

wow i think i was the only one who never reached round limit in a team game before and just realized this rule.. in my dispite! definitely a retarded rule, troops are all the team's not from a given player!!!!

by the way, question what is the tiebreak condition? total team troops, or total territories of the guy with the most troops in each team??

betiko wrote:wow i think i was the only one who never reached round limit in a team game before and just realized this rule.. in my dispite! definitely a retarded rule, troops are all the team's not from a given player!!!!

by the way, question what is the tiebreak condition? total team troops, or total territories of the guy with the most troops in each team??

Click on instructions at the top. Then Game Options. Scroll down to round limit. It's total troops, then territories, then the order the game was joined.

why should it be total troops?

games are not won because the team holds an objective. it is up to the team to position an individual to take and hold the objective.

greenoaks wrote:why should it be total troops?

games are not won because the team holds an objective. it is up to the team to position an individual to take and hold the objective.

This is a very true statement.

However, I would say that there are very few games that holding an objective gets snuck in there without it being the most dominate team in the game. Regardless of which individual has the most troops.

Any progress on this?

I think that when a certain mechanic gets "quirky" and forces players to adopt a particular inconvenient and possibly counter-intuitive strategy it affects gameplay - makes the game less enjoyable.
Just read through some forum discussion on intentional deadbeating to pass troops to a teammate for the win in a round limit game.
Fix it with this change.
Total team strength is a more natural/logical measure as a winning condition.
Single player troops as a measure of team strength adds a more artificial layer to strategy and hinders gameplay.

jonofperu wrote:Any progress on this?

I think that when a certain mechanic gets "quirky" and forces players to adopt a particular inconvenient and possibly counter-intuitive strategy it affects gameplay - makes the game less enjoyable.
Just read through some forum discussion on intentional deadbeating to pass troops to a teammate for the win in a round limit game.
Fix it with this change.
Total team strength is a more natural/logical measure as a winning condition.
Single player troops as a measure of team strength adds a more artificial layer to strategy and hinders gameplay.

With the change in administration we're transitioning to a new system for how to get suggestions pushed through, and I'll try to get this near the top of the list because it's not an extensive change.

Metsfanmax wrote:

jonofperu wrote:Any progress on this?

I think that when a certain mechanic gets "quirky" and forces players to adopt a particular inconvenient and possibly counter-intuitive strategy it affects gameplay - makes the game less enjoyable.
Just read through some forum discussion on intentional deadbeating to pass troops to a teammate for the win in a round limit game.
Fix it with this change.
Total team strength is a more natural/logical measure as a winning condition.
Single player troops as a measure of team strength adds a more artificial layer to strategy and hinders gameplay.

With the change in administration we're transitioning to a new system for how to get suggestions pushed through, and I'll try to get this near the top of the list because it's not an extensive change.

I have been on a team where we had less troops overall, but one strong player and because of that we won. I think this doesn't really need implemented because if people know what is going on in the game, they can pile troops to win. The problem is that it really depends on the map and situation as to which team would actually win if the game played out.

IMO, don't change gameplay options unless there is an egregious error. This is not an error, it's a personal preference.

Chap, I agree with you generally, but the response to this has been overwhelming that it needs to change. I think that this could have (and has actually) added a unique feature to the gameplay. But I think the majority has spoken. Further, there are limited circumstances where the current system can be abused by deadbeating that the alternative would not suffer. I'm of the opinion that this will be one of the next implemented suggestions. Almost everyone seems to think that the current system is ridiculous.

agentcom wrote:Chap, I agree with you generally, but the response to this has been overwhelming that it needs to change. I think that this could have (and has actually) added a unique feature to the gameplay. But I think the majority has spoken. Further, there are limited circumstances where the current system can be abused by deadbeating that the alternative would not suffer. I'm of the opinion that this will be one of the next implemented suggestions. Almost everyone seems to think that the current system is ridiculous.

Stupid deadbeaters.

Moved to IMPLEMENTED.

See viewtopic.php?f=1&t=183223.