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

[mattattam]

Also, i think that if you are going to get points from 4 people, that you are putting yourself on the line 4 times. If a farmer were to seek low ranks to play, a game like this could cost him 200-300 points.

That is a really good point. The potential to lose that many points could deter farming. Personally I don't see why people care about farmers.

[stahrgazer]

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.

If a player is taking up several spots, he should indeed lose more than if he's only taking up one spot on a team. Perhaps lack could code it so that a 1-quad player loses his normal points plus 75%, a trips loses normal plus 50% and a dubs loses normal points plus 25% - more losses than normal, but not double, and lose more based on the number of spots he's taking.

As for medals... I strongly believe this type of play should not count for the existing 'Normal team" medals; and if I knew they wouldn't, I'd change my vote to support the option. I mean, think about it... this isn't a team; it's a single player who's using several colors to play against someone else or a group of others using their colors. If the single player wins against a team of 4 different players, that could count as 4 kills on the single player standard medal, but shouldn't count as kills on quads team medals.

[agonzos]

I love the 1v1 idea, but the 1vteam idea is horrible. Too many options that need to me implemented when creating the game and I don't see any real benefit to it for anyone playing it.

I think if it is implemented with just 1v1 being an option, then it should count as a singles medal, since you are still only having 2 players playing.

[MudPuppy]

The 1v1 team option is a no-brainer and should be at the top of the list for future site improvements. I voted 'yes' for the 1vteam option as well but that would just be a small add-on to the more important goal of improving the gaming experience for 1v1'ers on this site. I kinda think it would be an interesting option to take on a multi-player team single-handedly.

As long as it is built so that multi-player teams can create games with the ability to restrict 1-player teams from joining, then I see no problem with the 1vteam option.

[nippersean]

Also, i think that if you are going to get points from 4 people, that you are putting yourself on the line 4 times. If a farmer were to seek low ranks to play, a game like this could cost him 200-300 points.

That is a really good point. The potential to lose that many points could deter farming. Personally I don't see why people care about farmers.

Not really (i.e totally the opposite). If a decent quads team put in for a public game - they could hammered by an expert at quads who would get 60 pts a pop.
It would be the way to go to make conqueror.
It may discourage people from leaving public games open to be picked off (when they thought it'd be team vs team).

I think this proposal should get back on track.

It's a great 1v1 idea.

[edwinissweet]

Also, i think that if you are going to get points from 4 people, that you are putting yourself on the line 4 times. If a farmer were to seek low ranks to play, a game like this could cost him 200-300 points.

That is a really good point. The potential to lose that many points could deter farming. Personally I don't see why people care about farmers.

Not really (i.e totally the opposite). If a decent quads team put in for a public game - they could hammered by an expert at quads who would get 60 pts a pop.
It would be the way to go to make conqueror.
It may discourage people from leaving public games open to be picked off (when they thought it'd be team vs team).

I think this proposal should get back on track.

It's a great 1v1 idea.

before the game opened you would be able to choose if your game is a normal quads, or if its a 1 vs team

[mattattam]

You didn't say anything in your reply edwin lol

[edwinissweet]

i typed inside his quote by accident lol. i fixed it

[natty dread]

1vteam sounds like a horrible idea to me. 1v1, meh, I don't much care for 1v1 anyway ...but if people want that I guess it could be a fun novelty.

[Queen_Herpes]

1vteam seems like a great way for multis to earn points. But it would also be a really easy way for mods to discover the multis. If people like it...make it happen!

[josko.ri]

1vteam seems like a great way for multis to earn points. But it would also be a really easy way for mods to discover the multis. If people like it...make it happen!

not agree. for multis easier way for taking points is normal 1 vs 1, the game is over sooner.

[Bruceswar]

Also, i think that if you are going to get points from 4 people, that you are putting yourself on the line 4 times. If a farmer were to seek low ranks to play, a game like this could cost him 200-300 points.

That is a really good point. The potential to lose that many points could deter farming. Personally I don't see why people care about farmers.

Huh? Really? You do know this will work just like a team game in scoring. It will be team total vs team total.. So if 1 vs team was put in. Then it would come into play... if not then 1 vs 1 team would be as normal.

[ljex]

I agree with 1 vs 1 team but not 1 vs team

[iamkoolerthanu]

I agree with 1 vs 1 team but not 1 vs team

[caymanmew]

how would you play it freestyle?