Conquer Club

I searched the suggestion forums but could not find a post on the above. Just in case it has not yet been posted, I would suggest it.

Consider the following quads:
Team1 : RED/GREEN/BLUE/YELLOW
Team2: PINK/CYAN/ORANGE/GREY

Suppose red goes first, then the turn order will be red-pink followed by green-cyan, blue-orange & yellow-grey.

The traditional sequential turn order gives first turn effectively to all members of the team which started first.

Here is a suggested new turn order sequence.

NEW: red-pink-cyan-green-blue-orange-grey-yellow.
End of cycle and loops back.

Compare that with the old order.

OLD: red-pink-green-cyan-blue-orange-yellow-grey.
End of cycle and loops back.

How this is beneficial?

The proposed NEW turn order effectively alternates first turn between the teams as you can see below.

In the first pairing of red-pink, TEAM 1 has first turn.
In the second pairing of cyan-green, TEAM 2 has first turn and so on.

An element of unpredictability may be introduced by randomising the turn order sequence at the beginning of each new cycle.

Hopefully this can be another alternative that can be considered to address the perceived first turn advantage in team games including doubles/triples.

However, it may not be suitable for 1v1 singles play.

The suggestion can also be used together with the recently introduced polymorphic option where a single player operates a “team”.

Cheers, naruto

I'm not sure how I feel about this. But, moving forward can we call it snake order? It reminds me of a snake draft in fantasy football.

Would you want this for all team games? In doubles that means that partners would be taking back to back turns the whole game...

Ok, I said I wasn't sure, but after taking a couple more minutes, I don't think this is a good setup. I feel like the current setup is a lot better for teams because teams get to take turns. This is ostensibly the same as having this order is a 1v1 game: red-green-green-red.

chapcrap wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about this. But, moving forward can we call it snake order? It reminds me of a snake draft in fantasy football.

Would you want this for all team games? In doubles that means that partners would be taking back to back turns the whole game...

Ok, I said I wasn't sure, but after taking a couple more minutes, I don't think this is a good setup. I feel like the current setup is a lot better for teams because teams get to take turns. This is ostensibly the same as having this order is a 1v1 game: red-green-green-red.

That is a good point and it looks very much like a 1v1 game to me too. This leads naturally to the following observation. The first turner, red is one part whereas green (the 2nd turner) is 2 parts in the sequence.

I don't know if it was suggested before that the first turner be given half the usual drop as a way to deal with the 1st turner advantage based on the above logic. We could extend the same logic to triples and quads.

Even if that is the case, I still am of the opinion that the NEW suggested turn sequence could enrich triples and quad game play in a different way, if not doubles.

Firstly, it will reward team discipline even more and strong team players should welcome it.

Secondly, the back to back turns that are normally seen towards the end stages of games (after one or more players are eliminated) are now brought forward. I expect that strategies and tactics would need to be adapted. This may even give rise to a new breed of good team players and encourage more to take up team games

Cheers, naruto

i don't see a problem with the current order so no special gameplay option is required to 'fix' it.

Not a fan, i think the current setup works just fine.