Conquer Club

I agree total team troops is a better way to determine the winners in team games.

Metsfanmax wrote:

greenoaks wrote:but you can't always fort ALL of your troops to one player due to map design, neutrals and the other team's terits blocking the path. adjacent forts would make it nigh on impossible.

OK, but those things apply to both teams. If you didn't plan ahead and make your troops movable to one of your partners well in advance, then you weren't planning properly.

If you want to criticize the current system, fine. It's not very logical. But don't say it's unfair unless you can back up that claim.

System is fair, but the logic is rigged. Yes.

Please fix it.

Is there any reason NOT to adjust the method? It can't be that difficult to (re)code....can it?
(Some-days I was I were a programmer so I had any clue what I was asking/talking about)

Seems pretty reasonable to me, maintaining the integrity of the team game style and all, by using the total team troops it simply a more accurate and logical way to determine the winning TEAM.

edit:(just for fun)
I see you lurking in here banana breath, errrr, Andy.... .....what do you think?

I agree with the OP. Team games should be decided by total team troops if the round limit is reached.

Wow, so far both suggestion Mods have not agreed to this and only put up lame excuses..but another Mod has, thanks. Why do we have a suggestion forum ? This suggestion is a very good one and very reasonable and should be implemented. This has come about I presume because it's the first instance of this happening and not many were aware of this as the round cap is new. Singles games well it is obvious but team games surely the total troops wins the game.

86

where in the Instructions or the announcement thread by Lack does it state team games are decided by 1 individual?

Metsfanmax wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:It is a team game so the total team troops should be what is used.

i agree.

any word from our master about why he wants team games to not be decided by the teams total effort

There wasn't particularly serious objection at the time, partially because you can achieve the same result just by forting all your troops to your teammate. There's nothing unfair about that approach because it doesn't benefit one team at the expense of another. Everyone has the same standard applied to them.

Weather it was a serious objection or not I don't really remember. Maybe I misunderstood. By forting all troops to one player changes it from PLAYING the game and just trying to win. The journey to winning the game should be playing the game.

Evil Semp wrote: By forting all troops to one player changes it from PLAYING the game and just trying to win. The journey to winning the game should be playing the game.

Yes agree on the journey to win is playing the game, which in team games means not losing your team mates. So by everyone holding strength and more troops than the opposition if the final round comes you should win.

86

greenoaks wrote:where in the Instructions or the announcement thread by Lack does it state team games are decided by 1 individual?

From the instructions: http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?mode=instructions3
"Round Limit
With round limits, the game will automatically finish at the end of the specified round. The winner will be the surviving player with the most troops. If there is a tie, it will be broken based on the most regions. If there is still a tie, the winner is selected based on join order. When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troup count. This option is great for avoiding stalemates and can add some spice to the game as the deadline approaches!"

The current format is in fact detailed in the instructions. I agree however that a change ought to be made to total team troops.

I would support changing the rule to total team troops, for what its worth.

While the current rules are clear, I would support changing them as suggested.

Evil Semp wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:It is a team game so the total team troops should be what is used.

i agree.

any word from our master about why he wants team games to not be decided by the teams total effort

There wasn't particularly serious objection at the time, partially because you can achieve the same result just by forting all your troops to your teammate. There's nothing unfair about that approach because it doesn't benefit one team at the expense of another. Everyone has the same standard applied to them.

Weather it was a serious objection or not I don't really remember. Maybe I misunderstood. By forting all troops to one player changes it from PLAYING the game and just trying to win. The journey to winning the game should be playing the game.

No, because you would play the game as normal up until the very last round (or the round before it), and then fort all your troops to one teammate. You couldn't win properly if you were just stacking on one player the whole time. If people try that, they will lose, which should deter that strategy.

Agent 86 -- I'm not necessarily opposed to this suggestion, I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it. It's a minor issue at best, but if it is not a difficult fix it should be implemented.

Mets, you can only do an "all-out" reinforcement at the end of the game if you're playing unlimited reinforcements. Otherwise you can only make on reinforcement.

I agree with the change for it to be team-wide count.

But I have no optimism that this suggestion will be implemented in less than 6 years.

Metsfanmax wrote:I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.

Team games are about the team, not the individual player.

Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?

Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left

Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left

I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.

Bones2484 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.

Team games are about the team, not the individual player.

Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?

Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left

Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left

I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.

While I agree with changing it to total troop count, I will say that I have been in situations where the team who had the most dominant player was in the better position to win in the end. For instance, in a doubles 13 Colonies game, I was down to 1 troop for the last 7 or 8 rounds and my partner had slightly more troops than either of the two opponents and a bonus. With my tert being sheilded, he was able to withstand the opponents and we won even though they were the stronger team by troop count.

While my example is a hole in the argument, I think that typically the team with more troops is stronger and should be the team to receive the win. I would have even been ok with that happening in the example that I gave if it would have ended at the point where my partner had not weakened them and us losing because it is a team game and the whole team matters, not just the strongest person.

Agent 86 wrote:Wow, so far both suggestion Mods have not agreed to this and only put up lame excuses..but another Mod has, thanks. Why do we have a suggestion forum ? This suggestion is a very good one and very reasonable and should be implemented. This has come about I presume because it's the first instance of this happening and not many were aware of this as the round cap is new. Singles games well it is obvious but team games surely the total troops wins the game.

86

Did I ever say I didn't agree with this? No. I just answered a question. Please don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

I actually put up a question behind the scenes, and i'm waiting on a reply from lack.

Metsfanmax wrote:Agent 86 -- I'm not necessarily opposed to this suggestion, I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it. It's a minor issue at best, but if it is not a difficult fix it should be implemented.

The reason is because current implementation is not intuitive at all.

Bones2484 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.

Team games are about the team, not the individual player.

Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?

Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left

Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left

I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.

Team 1 deserve to win, as Team 2 must all be Idiots for not forting to one player in the last round.

nebsmith wrote:Team 1 deserve to win, as Team 2 must all be Idiots for not forting to one player in the last round.

wouldn't call anybody idiot just because he/she missed the fort race!

i agree with this sugg , you play as a team you should win as one. team troops over individual player troops

chapcrap wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.

Team games are about the team, not the individual player.

Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?

Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left

Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left

I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.

While I agree with changing it to total troop count, I will say that I have been in situations where the team who had the most dominant player was in the better position to win in the end. For instance, in a doubles 13 Colonies game, I was down to 1 troop for the last 7 or 8 rounds and my partner had slightly more troops than either of the two opponents and a bonus. With my tert being sheilded, he was able to withstand the opponents and we won even though they were the stronger team by troop count.

While my example is a hole in the argument, I think that typically the team with more troops is stronger and should be the team to receive the win. I would have even been ok with that happening in the example that I gave if it would have ended at the point where my partner had not weakened them and us losing because it is a team game and the whole team matters, not just the strongest person.

How long did this team game last? If you set a reasonable round limit, a game like that probably would have ended before round limit was reached.

safariguy5 wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.

Team games are about the team, not the individual player.

Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?

Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left

Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left

I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.

While I agree with changing it to total troop count, I will say that I have been in situations where the team who had the most dominant player was in the better position to win in the end. For instance, in a doubles 13 Colonies game, I was down to 1 troop for the last 7 or 8 rounds and my partner had slightly more troops than either of the two opponents and a bonus. With my tert being sheilded, he was able to withstand the opponents and we won even though they were the stronger team by troop count.

While my example is a hole in the argument, I think that typically the team with more troops is stronger and should be the team to receive the win. I would have even been ok with that happening in the example that I gave if it would have ended at the point where my partner had not weakened them and us losing because it is a team game and the whole team matters, not just the strongest person.

How long did this team game last? If you set a reasonable round limit, a game like that probably would have ended before round limit was reached.

Well, I didn't want to go back through all of my games and look at them all to see which specific one it was, but the longest one was 12 rounds I think.

So, you're right in a sense, but it was meant to be a general example, because it could be something that happens that would effect this.

Must say that it seems pretty obvious to me. If you're playing team games then team troop count should count, and not the individual player.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with this suggestion, but I can understand why is made like this:

In maps where you win by objective. Only one player must hold all the objectives, not the team. (There were also many sugg. to change it)

And they did that, like that, based that only one player can have a bonus zone, to get the armies.

So here they also mantain like that in order to keep the spirit.

darth emperor wrote:Don't get me wrong. I agree with this suggestion, but I can understand why is made like this:

In maps where you win by objective. Only one player must hold all the objectives, not the team. (There were also many sugg. to change it)

And they did that, like that, based that only one player can have a bonus zone, to get the armies.

So here they also mantain like that in order to keep the spirit.

Yeah. Sometimes playing as part of a team means sacrificing your own objective strength to benefit the whole team. That being said, if there's enough support for the idea of changing it to team troop count it will probably happen, assuming it's not a bear to code.