Forum

by **Blitzaholic** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:29 am

sounds interesting, but would need more specifics

by **Androidz** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:35 am

Blitzaholic wrote:sounds interesting, but would need more specifics

Updateded the Tags. Altough its pretty well specficed now? Could you tell me where the flaws is?

by **firstholliday** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:10 am

pretty sure blitz ment the 2/2=1/1idea.

by **jiminski** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:18 am

yeah nice idea!
- when will we be able to play it?
- do we have a time-frame yet?

by **Androidz** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:19 am

firstholliday wrote:pretty sure blitz ment the 2/2=1/1idea.

ah kk:D my bad:(

by **nikola_milicki** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:42 am

edbeard wrote:instead of making a new thread, I'm bumping this one since it's linked from the official to-do list

I know people have suggested this before but I've never seen an official response to it (and I've actually looked for one somewhat extensively).

Single player games in doubles format.

Call it split-singles or something, but basically it'd be like a doubles game except one player controls a whole team.

Why? It'd allow players to enjoy the style of doubles games without needing a teammate. It'd add a new type of 1v1 game which players would probably find more enjoyable. 1/3 of the map wouldn't start as neutral. going first wouldn't be as big of an advantage.

Limitations? Probably should only be available in sequential

I love it!!! as a 1on1 addict I fully support this great idea!

by **hwhrhett** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:52 am

nikola_milicki wrote:
edbeard wrote:instead of making a new thread, I'm bumping this one since it's linked from the official to-do list

I know people have suggested this before but I've never seen an official response to it (and I've actually looked for one somewhat extensively).

Single player games in doubles format.

Call it split-singles or something, but basically it'd be like a doubles game except one player controls a whole team.

Why? It'd allow players to enjoy the style of doubles games without needing a teammate. It'd add a new type of 1v1 game which players would probably find more enjoyable. 1/3 of the map wouldn't start as neutral. going first wouldn't be as big of an advantage.

Limitations? Probably should only be available in sequential

I love it!!! as a 1on1 addict I fully support this great idea!

yes yes! wonderful, should be easy to implement too no?

by **luckywar** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:54 am

I dig it.

by **yeti_c** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:53 pm

Agreed - Like already mentioned I'm sure this has been suggested before...

BUT - it doesn't stop it being a fucking awesome idea.

Of course - take it to the next level...
4 player "Doubles" games (i.e. 4 teams with 4 players)
2 player "triples".
2 player "Quads".

C.

by **AndrewB** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:53 pm

nikola_milicki wrote:
edbeard wrote:instead of making a new thread, I'm bumping this one since it's linked from the official to-do list

I know people have suggested this before but I've never seen an official response to it (and I've actually looked for one somewhat extensively).

Single player games in doubles format.

Call it split-singles or something, but basically it'd be like a doubles game except one player controls a whole team.

Why? It'd allow players to enjoy the style of doubles games without needing a teammate. It'd add a new type of 1v1 game which players would probably find more enjoyable. 1/3 of the map wouldn't start as neutral. going first wouldn't be as big of an advantage.

Limitations? Probably should only be available in sequential

I love it!!! as a 1on1 addict I fully support this great idea!

great idea! hopefully we will see it implemented soon!

Website · by **casper** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:55 pm

edbeard wrote:Single player games in doubles format.

Call it split-singles or something, but basically it'd be like a doubles game except one player controls a whole team.

Truly an excellent idea!!! =D>

by **lancehoch** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:39 pm

yeti_c wrote:Agreed - Like already mentioned I'm sure this has been suggested before...

BUT - it doesn't stop it being a fucking awesome idea.

Of course - take it to the next level...
4 player "Doubles" games (i.e. 4 teams with 4 players)
2 player "triples".
2 player "Quads".

C.

You forgot 3 player doubles as well.

by **yeti_c** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:47 pm

lancehoch wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Agreed - Like already mentioned I'm sure this has been suggested before...

BUT - it doesn't stop it being a fucking awesome idea.

Of course - take it to the next level...
4 player "Doubles" games (i.e. 4 teams with 4 players)
2 player "triples".
2 player "Quads".

C.

You forgot 3 player doubles as well.

That was implicit with the 4 player doubles.

C.

by **Big Whiskey** on Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:12 pm

sounds great,would like to see it happen

by **Nephilim** on Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:16 am

ok team here's the plan: every single one of us forego all other Christmas presents we planned to ask for, and then we send all our combined requests to lack....

ALL WE WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS TEAM GAME/1V1s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

simply put, it would be the greatest thing to hit CC since BOB