[GP/UI] 2-player "team" games

[stahrgazer]

One person as a team is different than 2, 3, or 4 different people as a team. Part of team play is the need to coordinate despite people's different strategies, time commitments, distractions.

Requires answer to a question: would the 1-man-team games be included, or excluded from Team Medals?

Edit: my opinion... if these games are excluded from medals awards, I'd support the option for those who want to play but don't want to have to coordinate or risk a teammate missing crucial turns. If they're included in team medals, it's just a bogus way for one person to grab medals that should be intended to show an ability to coordinate and take the risks.

[lgoasklucyl]

I'm in favor of it being allowed as long as there exists the option for 1v1 or 1vteam at the creation page.

[ahunda]

Reading through the last few posts, I think, it would be helpful, if people were more clear, if they are talking about the actual 1v1 team game idea or about the new 1vteam poll.

Most arguments about the 1v1 team game option itself have been repeated over & over in this thread already and can be found in the Summary in the 1st thread. But in answer to the last few posts:

The original suggestion was for 1v1 team games only. And not so much as an alternative to regular team games, but rather as an alternative to the current 1v1 games, that are extremely luck based.

I have to admit, that I find the fears about a possible negative impact on regular team games somewhat strange. Aren´t you guys somehow contradicting yourselves ? On the one hand you say: If this was implemented, nobody would play team games anymore. On the other you then say: We love team games so much, that we have to reject this suggestion.

I mean, seriously: If you love team games so much, why would you stop playing them, if there was a new game option introduced ? And/or why would you assume, that everybody else will do so ?

For the record: I personally never thought about 1vteam games, when making the suggestion. I am not interested in that option & find it rather meaningless. I would not play it myself.

If 1vteam would be allowed however, I think, that there would need to be different options on game creation: Pure 1v1 team, pure team v team or "anything goes". So that people, who want to play regular team games, can choose that option & exclude a single player joining all spots on the other team against them.

As for some more specific questions in the last posts:

Point calculation in 1vteam: As was discussed in this thread, the single player would indeed put twice his points on the line in a Dubs, thrice in a Trips, etc. This was seen as a balance to his advantage of not needing to communicate & co-ordinate his strategy. (As I said: I´m not particularly interested in / fond of this option.)

Medals: The suggestion was made, that 1v1 team games should not count for regular team medals. I am not sure, if they could fit into any other medal category (I doubt it), or if there maybe could be a new 1v1 medal.

[Genoke]

i agree with chepren and ahunda...

1vs1 is more based on luck of drop and dices in first 2 rounds. with this option in 1vsteam you take away the luck factor, wish i like!.

also in a team games we still need to have 2,3 or 4 unique players in each team.

nothing more to say..

My support is a fact...

[yeti_c]

Really don't get people voting against this - if you don't like it - don't play it.

C.

[Gold Knight]

Really don't get people voting against this - if you don't like it - don't play it.

C.

I think its more to the point that if Lack were to implement something on this site at all, he would want at least a majority to use it. We could implement every suggestion put in here, and the majority of the people on this site dont use half of the options there are. Especially with a game option like this, its one of the main parts of the game selection and should be a thing that pertains to the enjoyment of the majority of the site.

I agree, if this is implemented, i just wont play it as you stated. But what the point of this suggestions forum is for is to see how many people will and wont play it.

[edwinissweet]

do keep in mind that most people in CC are not active in the forums.

[yeti_c]

Ah - I didn't actually read the poll topic - I assumed it was a "yes/no" question.

I've read the poll question now - and voted No now.

C.

[iamkoolerthanu]

Ah - I didn't actually read the poll topic - I assumed it was a "yes/no" question.

I've read the poll question now - and voted No now.

C.

I just did the same thing

[grayknight_2]

GOT TO BE NO FOR ME I THINK TEAM GAMES SHOULD BE JUST THAT ALL DIFFERENT IDEAS FROM DIFFERENT VIEWS OF TEAM MATES

[Nephilim]

what the hell is wrong with all you people voting "no"?

all the high-falutin' talk about "team games require teamwork and all these other noble values, and this would ruin it".....well, if team games are so great (and i love them), then people will still play them even with a new option, won't they?

the point of this project is to make real challenges between 2 players an effing possibility after ALL THIS TIME. isn't it completely insane that 2 CC members can't test their skills against each other in a game? this is the best solution.....STOP TRYING TO RUIN IT FOR US, all you haters

whatever little wrinkles there are (scoring questions, etc.), they can be worked out....let's make the changes NOW

[Incandenza]

what the hell is wrong with all you people voting "no"?

all the high-falutin' talk about "team games require teamwork and all these other noble values, and this would ruin it".....well, if team games are so great (and i love them), then people will still play them even with a new option, won't they?

the point of this project is to make real challenges between 2 players an effing possibility after ALL THIS TIME. isn't it completely insane that 2 CC members can't test their skills against each other in a game? this is the best solution.....STOP TRYING TO RUIN IT FOR US, all you haters

whatever little wrinkles there are (scoring questions, etc.), they can be worked out....let's make the changes NOW

Hell yes.

While 1vTeam has issues and should probably be set aside, team 1v1 would be an amazing new gameplay concept, the likes of which CC hasn't seen in a long, long time. I love teams games as much as the next guy, pretty much all I play these days, and I disagree that team 1v1 would kill team games. After all, 1v1 didn't kill team games. You know why? 'Cause 1v1 is really flawed. With team 1v1, CC will finally have a halfway decent system for two player to go head to head without drop and turn order becoming the major element.

[peanutsdad]

i voted, looks like a close race

[pmchugh]

what the hell is wrong with all you people voting "no"?

all the high-falutin' talk about "team games require teamwork and all these other noble values, and this would ruin it".....well, if team games are so great (and i love them), then people will still play them even with a new option, won't they?

the point of this project is to make real challenges between 2 players an effing possibility after ALL THIS TIME. isn't it completely insane that 2 CC members can't test their skills against each other in a game? this is the best solution.....STOP TRYING TO RUIN IT FOR US, all you haters

whatever little wrinkles there are (scoring questions, etc.), they can be worked out....let's make the changes NOW

Hell yes.

While 1vTeam has issues and should probably be set aside, team 1v1 would be an amazing new gameplay concept, the likes of which CC hasn't seen in a long, long time. I love teams games as much as the next guy, pretty much all I play these days, and I disagree that team 1v1 would kill team games. After all, 1v1 didn't kill team games. You know why? 'Cause 1v1 is really flawed. With team 1v1, CC will finally have a halfway decent system for two player to go head to head without drop and turn order becoming the major element.

You guys understand that the poll is only if 1vteam should be included?

1v1 team is definately being submitted i think.

I voted no in this, I think 1v1 team would be great but 1vteam I don't see much point in. It would be much easier for the 1 without the need for communication I see no reason why a team of 4 would ever want to play 1 guy

[hiddendragon]

There would be to many ways to farm with this proposal. Even though it sucks when a partner makes a bad deployment or skips a turn or is simply a complete idiot it is part of the game, deal with it.
Team chat and cooperation or a team that has a good feel for one another is what this proposal seems to be about. My advise is that if someone doesn't like a partner(s) then that player should find new mates.