Conquer Club

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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!

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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

Posted: **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

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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).

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:06 pm**

i agree it would be a pain to code.... and i'd probably never use it

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:20 pm**

Great Idea. I agree with you. But I accidently voted on the wrong answer!

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:43 pm**

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

i dont think XML is a problem :roll:

i like it. sounds fun!

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:23 am**

i love this idea. would be really fun and i would definitly use it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:15 pm**

i agree that this probably wouldn't make sense in a freestyle game. But i definitely think it would be a lot of fun for sequential games.

also, it could be fun with assassin games, where you have multiple targets, and if any of your colors dies, then it's game over. so you have to protect all.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:26 pm**

I could get behind this idea. I'm in agreement that it would have to be restricted to only sequential however. If you did it freestyle, it would be just like the current 1 vs 1 games we have now, only all your guys would be different colors.

Very nicely done, superkarn. I'd like to see this go somewhere.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:25 am**

Brilliant idea.

As you mention, greater strategic thought. You are your 'own' team, it opens the options further. All in all, gets my vote.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:00 pm**

Just wanted to add that with this game type (1 person controlling multiple colors), you can have lots of different/interesting game play such as

* 2 players, 4 colors (2 colors each)
* 2 players, 6 colors (3 colors each)
* 2 players, 8 colors (4 colors each)

* 3 players, 6 colors (2 colors each)
* 4 players, 8 colors (2 colors each)

* mix with assassin, where any one of your colors gets wiped out, you lose
* mix terminator, where you get points for each color you kill. so you can take points and lose points to the same player in the same game.

think of the coolness!

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:12 pm**

Clever idea superkarn.

It gives a new dimension to single player strategy.

Definitely have to be sequential only.

I voted yes of course.

Posted: **Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:51 pm**

Optimus Prime wrote:I could get behind this idea. I'm in agreement that it would have to be restricted to only sequential however. If you did it freestyle, it would be just like the current 1 vs 1 games we have now, only all your guys would be different colors.

Very nicely done, superkarn. I'd like to see this go somewhere.

I'm not so sure! I think freestyle would add another interesting facet... when you play freestyle doubles or triples, you can have one guy fortify the other guy while he fights. It requires a lot of coordination between the teammates, and who can be more coordinated with you than yourself?

The tricky part would be how can you allow one player to play three colors at the same time?

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:13 pm**

I like it, but would want to be a spectator first...sounds a bit complicated to get the hang of.

Hope it gets picked up for testing!

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:32 pm**

If it was done sequential, coding it into the system wouldn't be that hard. Freestyle makes no logistical sense and would be much more difficult to implement (how does a player show which color he wants to play as?). So word on the overall idea as long as it's sequential only. I'd definitely play it.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:43 pm**

I posted before I read this but I had the same idea with a few more specifics check it out and lets get more game types keep CC growing

Conquer Club

[GP/UI] 2-player "team" games (Polymorphic)

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

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