Two Person Play Option[Done]

by **nyg5680** on Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:30 pm

i think this would be a GREAT idea but than with games that have only 2 people you will get multis trying to just boost there score by playing against there other account.

by **haha** on Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:39 pm

that was said already

by **jay_a2j** on Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:56 pm

jay_a2j wrote:Next they will want single player games with computer opponents.

by **max is gr8** on Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:48 am

By himself

Oh may I also saymassive tournaments would be interesting imagine a 512 person tournament.

by **HighBorn** on Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:55 am

max would u play aginst your invisable friend there

by **vtmarik** on Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:45 pm

You know, if I wasn't certain that it would add far too much code to the site, I'd suggest an AI opponent for the 2-player games for the lonely (like max).

Want to fill that last spot in your games, but don't want to wait for a jerk who deadbeats? Replace him with the new RiskBot 5000, who will pwn you mightily until your sobbing and sleeping in your own sock drawer out of fear that he will eat you.

by **fighter1405** on Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:37 pm

I think a two player option would be great and I don't care about the multis. Just wait until Lack finds them.

However I think that an AI risk bot would ruin the point of the game. If you want to do that why play online? just buy Risk 2 (the official computer game)

by **yeti_c** on Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:48 am

Risk Bot could be pretty cool...

Especially if he started off at a low rating (i.e. New Recruit) and gained/lost points as per normal user!!

That way Lack would be able to see how good his coding was!!!

As long as the RiskBot didn't cheat the dice (a lot of games give the AI advantages/disadvantages instead of coding proper AI - see Civilization 4)

C.

by **DublinDoogey** on Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:03 pm

Pilate wrote:
KoolBak wrote:OK, we beat this to death in the wrong column previously, and hope to do it again here.

Yeah, I've heard the potential abuse issue with multis but that exissts in 3, 4, etc person games as well.....I simply think it would be great to improve real time action to have the 2 person option like on the board game. There are many times I KNOW one other person is on line and avail, but finding a third or fourth proves to be impossible...and I do not think I have ever seen one of my real time games come to a conclusion REAL TIME.....

Twill / Lack asked for a poll to determine interest....here we go!

How about 2 player games no not count for ratings?

I agree with this. We should have two player games that won't count in the point system, then it wouldn't matter if mulities did it or not. It would allow people to help others hone their strategies, it would provide for quick games, and it would be a nice addition to the site.

Take, for example, a situation I'm in right now. I have two friends I frequently play with, but one of their computers blew up or something, now I can't play with the other one unless other people are brought in (which is fine, but yeah) If we had two player-no point games, we could still play.

by **Nightmare123** on Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:52 am

Is it possible so that you can have it so we can have two player games rather than 3 / 4 etc..
I think this would be a good idea cause they you can play just ONE of your friends head to head rather than a group of people.
This way games would be more quicker than playing with people that you don't really know where games take days and days to complete!

by **Wisse** on Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:54 am

Nightmare123 wrote:Is it possible so that you can have it so we can have two player games rather than 3 / 4 etc..
I think this would be a good idea cause they you can play just ONE of your friends head to head rather than a group of people.
This way games would be more quicker than playing with people that you don't really know where games take days and days to complete!

it would be much easyer to cheat with multiple accounts

by **Anarkistsdream** on Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:54 am

Nightmare123 wrote:Is it possible so that you can have it so we can have two player games rather than 3 / 4 etc..
I think this would be a good idea cause they you can play just ONE of your friends head to head rather than a group of people.
This way games would be more quicker than playing with people that you don't really know where games take days and days to complete!

Did you just say "MORE QUICKER"

[/grammar nazi]

by **Nightmare123** on Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:57 am

*sigh*

If people do that then you ban their accounts don't you, or is this fucking game to damn lazy to do that?
I've got an idea, f*ck YOU ALL

*creates 100's of accounts*

by **moz976** on Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:00 am

If you had take a look at the To-Do list at the top of the forum you would see that Two player option is on the pending To-Do list.

Merging now.

by **sully800** on Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:48 pm

Nightmare123 wrote:*creates 100's of accounts*

*watches*

*draws bow*

by **AK_iceman** on Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:19 pm

Nightmare123 wrote:*sigh*

If people do that then you ban their accounts don't you, or is this fucking game to damn lazy to do that?
I've got an idea, f*ck YOU ALL

*creates 100's of accounts*

You are an inspiration to us all. :^o

by **LewisJB3** on Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:58 pm

I really like the two player idea, I think it'd be fun for people who just want to play a quick rt. Those who say the srategy would be simple, I disagree. There are many options, you can either go after a continent, or be a complete pest and go after what continent your enimy is going after.... It should be worth points, it isn't like you'd get very many anyway. You'll have multi's either way, and if you all of a sudden notice that a player is playing the same guy over and over again and winning every time.... wouldn't that be suspicious to anybody? lol

by **Vonnegut** on Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:51 pm

multis suck.

by **max is gr8** on Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:20 am

I played a 2 player game with my cousin on the original board whoever goes first nearly always wins

by **LewisJB3** on Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:07 pm

I disagree, if you go second you just have to addapt your strategy.

by **max is gr8** on Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:27 am

I went secdond my cousin held africa asia and aussie and we held half of each continent each so I had 3 units when he got 7 on his frst turn not exactly the fairest of games as he won in the 3rd round

by **Molacole** on Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:58 am

what would be the point of 2 player games? Whoever goes first is going to get more troops then the guy who goes second and it's going to create a very unbalanced game...

by **Coleman** on Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:17 am

The way 2 player games are usually (and should be) handled is that the game creates 3 players, but one of the 3 is neutral and doesn't do anything.

If such a game existed I'd like to play Molacole and go second all the time. I don't really see your argument. Dice rolls aren't guaranteed in the first person's favor and attacking first usually (debatable) doesn't make sense.

I'd like to see this in. Duels are great. It would be nice to legally have them.

by **larry holland** on Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:40 am

i think one on one is a good idea i have been in game and it seem to me they are a team playing single and i like to see how they play by their self what do all think about the idea