Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:35 pm**

Forgive me, but I don't understand the new terminology... If a suggestion is submitted, whether that means it's on ToDo list, or not?
If the answer is NO, why we still didn't hear Luck, after SO much time and SO many posts?
If the answer is YES, I'm the happiest person on CC, at the very moment

Posted: **Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:18 am**

Zemljanin wrote:Forgive me, but I don't understand the new terminology... If a suggestion is submitted, whether that means it's on ToDo list, or not?
If the answer is NO, why we still didn't hear Luck, after SO much time and SO many posts?
If the answer is YES, I'm the happiest person on CC, at the very moment

Basically submitted means it has enough support for Lack to take a serious look at it. At that point he can decide to do it or not. It just helps keep down the work load for lack.

Posted: **Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:18 am**

Bruceswar wrote:
Zemljanin wrote:Forgive me, but I don't understand the new terminology... If a suggestion is submitted, whether that means it's on ToDo list, or not?
If the answer is NO, why we still didn't hear Luck, after SO much time and SO many posts?
If the answer is YES, I'm the happiest person on CC, at the very moment

Basically submitted means it has enough support for Lack to take a serious look at it. At that point he can decide to do it or not. It just helps keep down the work load for lack.

Yeah there is no "to-do " list anymore, since they figured out most of the to-do list never gets do'd.

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:39 am**

I still really hope this happens. I would be very excited.

Posted: **Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:47 pm**

Chuuuuck wrote:I still really hope this happens. I would be very excited.

I push for this every time I get a chance, ahem...

--Andy

Posted: **Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:49 pm**

AndyDufresne wrote:
Chuuuuck wrote:I still really hope this happens. I would be very excited.

I push for this every time I get a chance, ahem...

--Andy

Keep on pushing.

Posted: **Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:50 am**

well i read all in first post,but one thing confused me most,and no clarification in first post.
If you play pl1-pl1-pl1 against pl2-pl3-p4 (these is what i understand its proposed), how will be point distribution for winner?

Posted: **Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:22 pm**

qwert wrote:well i read all in first post,but one thing confused me most,and no clarification in first post.
If you play pl1-pl1-pl1 against pl2-pl3-p4 (these is what i understand its proposed), how will be point distribution for winner?

That is not part of the suggestion (I believe). It was something that was discussed within the thread, but this suggestion is just for the p1-p1-p1 vs. p2-p2-p2, type of games.

Posted: **Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:00 pm**

i see, but "p1-p1-p1 vs. p2-p2-p2" its apsolutly same like 1vs1,except that player get 3 time less territories, and play same like 1vs1 .

Posted: **Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:04 pm**

[Multiple Armies]

Concise description: The option to play as multiple armies when playing 1v1.

Specifics/Details:

When playing 1v1, having the option of making it a "doubles" game. Where you control both players. Currently, 1v1on most maps is mostly luck. However, if you could only control half your army and then your opponent could control half of his army and then you, your half, and then your opponent, his half. The game would be much more even.

This would give 1v1 games an option to make it more fair. It would also take away some of the advantage of going first. I am sure this will be a little difficult to implement. Your thoughts?

Posted: **Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:18 pm**

Merged

Posted: **Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:40 pm**

Wondered why this had been bumped, then saw the "merged" bit.

Still a decent idea, thought it was already approved, though?

Posted: **Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:04 pm**

Ok, I'm not really in the mood to read the whole thing, but would this support things such as 2v2 quads games? Would you be able to split the games up in such a way that in, say, a trips game, one player controls 2 of the three teams?

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:30 am**

The Idea:
I like team games... tournaments even... But sometimes I think it would be fun to do the same multi Player games but have my own self as my team mate...

Those who play as Multi's do this sort of thing Illegally and usually guarantee themselves the win... or the boot... But what I propose is an option that the person who starts the game may choose... and for example:

an 8 player team game with 4 teams ... with the (Self Teams) box marked (Yes) would then become 4 teams of 2 players, each player having two starting spots on the board that they can work however they feel like.

a 6 player game with 2 teams would then be only two players each one controlling 3 starting points.

This would still function like a normal team game but would only be one player controlling ALL of his teams positions.

Thanks y'all... Enjoying the experience in here:-)
Crazy Frog

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:35 am**

Clarification... Each Team would be only one person but 2-4 starting positions.
The game would scroll through team members as it usually does as though each person was several people.

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:39 am**

I think this has been suggested before, and I like it!

Basically in a quads game you would play as red, yellow, blue, and green on team one, and your single opponent would player for pink cyan orange and silver. Except it would just be 1v1.. I have done this on the board game, I like it haha

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:55 am**

Yes exactly... I looked to see if anyone had already suggested it but who can find anything in that garage full of clutter???

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:59 am**

It has been, I'll try to find it and merge this to it. I actually think it's in Submitted, not sure.

Ehh...I won't merge it now. It's in Rejected, so we don't want to just plummet this there

-rd

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:29 pm**

rdsrds2120 wrote:It has been, I'll try to find it and merge this to it. I actually think it's in Submitted, not sure.

Ehh...I won't merge it now. It's in Rejected, so we don't want to just plummet this there

-rd

its in submitted, not rejected

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=535&t=109621&start=0

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:05 pm**

shaneback wrote:
rdsrds2120 wrote:It has been, I'll try to find it and merge this to it. I actually think it's in Submitted, not sure.

Ehh...I won't merge it now. It's in Rejected, so we don't want to just plummet this there

-rd

its in submitted, not rejected

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=535&t=109621&start=0

I found something similar in rejected

. The first one I found was in rejected, so I assumed it wouldn't be in Submitted, lol. Well, olleyoop.

-rd

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:21 pm**

Sequential is a must... Freestyle would not work so good on this... would eliminate the purpose really... Of course you could leave it as an option... in case somebody wants to try it... why not.. its their game...
Someone said "t 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."
I say.. or maybe not...
With several players you could treat the teams of one player like a Hydra.. have to cut off ALL of the heads to get the win on that guy...

I am all for it. Do it.

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:38 pm**

I just want to add that I am already dreaming of "Challenge Matches" as a number a games included in our "Clan Wars"... Ohhh YESS!!!!

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:21 pm**

So, I heard there was a big update coming. Is it finally time for the best suggestion ever, to be implemented?

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:32 pm**

this is often how i play games with my causin. when we're just with the 2 of us, and play a game like monopoly or risk, which is more fun with more players, and we can't find a 3rd or 4th player, we usually control 2 or 3 'players' each, and compete against each other this way.

it is far more fun then just standard 1 vs 1.

Posted: **Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:45 pm**

I'd like the option to play single team games.

It would be pretty simple to set up, the same player playing each of the colors in a 'team' game.

What better way to work out who the best doubles, trips or quads player is on the site by having a large tournament where only 1 person controls each color?

Obviously the game could only be played against other 1 man teams with the same points awarded for victory than in a 1vs1 match.

Please?

Conquer Club

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

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Multiple Armies

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

A team of "Self".... Non-Multi!!!

Re: A team of "Self".... Non-Multi!!!

Re: A team of "Self".... Non-Multi!!!

Re: A team of "Self".... Non-Multi!!!

Re: A team of "Self".... Non-Multi!!!

Re: A team of "Self".... Non-Multi!!!

Re: A team of "Self".... Non-Multi!!!

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 1v1 Team Games [do it-do it...do it jk- submitted]

Re: 2-player "team" games

Re: 2-player "team" games

Want to find the best team player on the site?