Forum

by **Yonak** on Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:54 pm

superkarn wrote:Concise Idea: Make a new game type that allows doubles, triples, and quadruples to be played by two players.

Suggestion Idea: First off, I'm not a fan of 1v1 games, mostly because I feel that the dice play too big of a roll in determining the winner. Secondly I play a lot of team games with my friends (playing on the same team against random opponents). In team games, you and your partner(s) need to be in sync with each other to ensure optimal chance of winning. And who do you agree with most if not yourself
Which leads us to this suggestion. In the new game type, the settings would be pretty much the same as regular team games, except that team 1 is controlled by one player, and team 2 is controlled by another player. For example, in a triples game, the first player would control red, green, and blue, while the second player control yellow, pink, and cyan. Everything else would be the same including turn order (alternating), zone bonus (one color must control the whole zone to get the bonus), fortification (can't fortify across "teammates"), etc.

Specifics: Team games where team 1 is controlled by player 1 and team 2 is controlled by player 2.

Why it is needed: It allows people with no friends to be able to play team games
But seriously because more options is better. And this new game type will offer deeper strategy than playing regular 1v1 game. You are now controlling multiple armies instead of one army with multiple troops. Imagine playing a quadruples 1v1!

show

MOD EDIT: Copied OP from later topic as part of merge.

by **yeti_c** on Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:07 pm

This would be easy on the game setup screen...

If Doubles is selected and 2 players - then a 2 player doubles match.
If Doubels is selected and 3 players - then a 3 player doubles match.
If Triples is selected and 2 players - then a 2 player triples match.

I like it.

C.

by **RobinJ** on Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:45 pm

But how would that be team play then? Sorry, but my opinion is that if you want to play by yourself the play singles. Besides, the top players could easily take advantage of it. So, no.

by **magneticgoop** on Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:22 pm

if you want that ply singles plus if your teammate screws up you are losing points for something you did not do

by **hecter** on Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:28 pm

RobinJ wrote:But how would that be team play then? Sorry, but my opinion is that if you want to play by yourself the play singles. Besides, the top players could easily take advantage of it. So, no.

It would be like in a "6" person doubles:
Player 1 has control over red and green
Player 2 has control over blue and yellow
Player 3 has control over teal and pink

I've played this on the board and it's a lot of fun.

by **superkarn** on Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:02 pm

Concise Idea: Make a new game type that allows doubles, triples, and quadruples to be played by two players.

Suggestion Idea: First off, I'm not a fan of 1v1 games, mostly because I feel that the dice play too big of a roll in determining the winner. Secondly I play a lot of team games with my friends (playing on the same team against random opponents). In team games, you and your partner(s) need to be in sync with each other to ensure optimal chance of winning. And who do you agree with most if not yourself

Which leads us to this suggestion. In the new game type, the settings would be pretty much the same as regular team games, except that team 1 is controlled by one player, and team 2 is controlled by another player. For example, in a triples game, the first player would control red, green, and blue, while the second player control yellow, pink, and cyan. Everything else would be the same including turn order (alternating), zone bonus (one color must control the whole zone to get the bonus), fortification (can't fortify across "teammates"), etc.

Specifics: Team games where team 1 is controlled by player 1 and team 2 is controlled by player 2.

Why it is needed: It allows people with no friends to be able to play team games :lol:

But seriously because more options is better. And this new game type will offer deeper strategy than playing regular 1v1 game. You are now controlling multiple armies instead of one army with multiple troops. Imagine playing a quadruples 1v1!

by **yeti_c** on Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:05 pm

This has been suggested before - I'm not sure whether or not it got rejected or not - but I like the idea...

C.

by **superkarn** on Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:07 pm

oh, sorry, didn't see it in the official suggestion box

Found this . (It's under To-do, Gameplay, More Game Types)
But there are many suggestions there and they are quite general. Where as the one suggested here is specific. I hope it warrants its own thread

by **Risktaker17** on Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:14 pm

I like this idea a lot. But I don't think it will be passed because the XML could be confusing

by **yeti_c** on Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:19 pm

Risktaker17 wrote:I like this idea a lot. But I don't think it will be passed because the XML could be confusing

Wha?! The XML has nowt to do with it!?!

C.

by **insomniacdude** on Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:31 pm

Interesting. It would have to be restricted to only Sequential I think. I'm not sure if playing this in Freestyle would make sense. But I'm not very sure about that, so somebody come convince me and I might jump ship.

Overall the idea is worth discussing. As it is now I would not be opposed to implementing it.

by **Timminz** on Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:15 pm

I like this idea a lot. Of course, it would only make sense for sequential games. I really like 1 on 1, but I avooid most maps because of advantages of going first. (any map with 36, or 45 or anything with more than 45 teritorries).