Conquer Club

how do you even get a mod to acknoledge a suggestion in this forum???

There's a lot of reading, sometimes not a lot of posting. We're working on making this forum a little more stream lined.


--Andy

there are already people who do this. we call them multi's and they are the scum of CC. but the honest people, such as myself, would love to see another option up.

AndyDufresne wrote:There's a lot of reading, sometimes not a lot of posting. We're working on making this forum a little more stream lined.


--Andy

So what is the status on this then?

how would this work with cards? would you be able to eliminate one of your armies for cards, or would both armies share cards?

Mr_Adams wrote:how would this work with cards? would you be able to eliminate one of your armies for cards, or would both armies share cards?

you will have to go back aways but I made suggestions that would give a thorough breakdown of how cards would/could be used if this were implemented.

i think i like regular team games more, but it's still not a bad idea.

2 players per team with 2 armies each would be fun too.

zimmah wrote:i think i like regular team games more, but it's still not a bad idea.

Think of it like world war 2 multiple armies under different 1 banner teaming up against an opposing team of armies generally they all how centralized leadership with the axis forces it was Hitler with the Allied forces it bounced between Churchill and whomever was in charge at the time in the US...

Decided to bump this, since I think it is a great idea and would make for a fantastic (and probably very popular) addition to the game types @ CC.

I imagine, it would be rather easy to implement as well. At least compared with other new game types. After all, the code for team games is already there. Only slight modifications would be needed to implement this new suggestion.

What about freestyle between each players first color, then (like the start of a new round) their second, and then their third

Concise description:

• Allow 2 players (without teammates) to play double/triples/quads games

Specifics:

• You will join a game against 1 other player, however you will control both/3/4 players worth of pieces rather then just a 1v1 style

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• No more need to worry about getting bad team partners
• The need to play your partners turn will be obsolete, as you ARE your partner.
• This will eliminate the standard "1v1 is all luck" factor by giving you many more
• It could be a ton of fun, planning from 2-4 different groups as if a team game in which you are in 100% control

NOTE: The biggest problem i see with this is freestyle, which i think should not be an option, only sequential gameplay, but If this was to go through, I think it would be eventually up to par with the ammount of team games if not surpassed

Merged in thread by Natewolfman.

thanks lance, didnt know this thread existed

I think this is the best idea yet great job.I also think this might stop multi accounts.

Woo! More support

i like it but i cant imagen this happing in my premuim lifetime

Not soon, but I've been on the site for three years and you never know what to expect

Of all the suggestions floating around this forum, this is my favourite. It's pretty apparent that it would only really work in Sequential game-play, but other than that I feel it would add a great new style of play to this wonderful site.

I like it too, and I'll add to this :

Natewolfman wrote:

• No more need to worry about getting bad team partners

• No more need to worry, your partner calls you bad

this would be awesome for freestyle speed

This is a interesting idea. It could never replace 1v1s. Maybe the foundry could turn out some maps especially for this?

A 1v1 game played in the team setting.
Specifics: Two players compete against each other but control the turns of several colors.
It could be done as "doubles, triples or quads" with a single player in control of each "team".

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
It will increase the challenge (and fun) of 1v1 games by improving the odds of the player who goes "second" to defend their position and allow the game a chance to develop better tactically if either player gets a poor drop at the start. Particularly in the sequencial format where each player has several "colors of armies" to strategize and deploy.

It would also provide another entertaining variation of gameplay for all maps.

I was thinking about suggesting this myself too.
Team games require a lot of skill, it is a different kind of strategy than 1v1, or free for all games.
However, you need to have team members to play this strategy. Don't get me wrong, I like discussing tactics with friends, but my friends are not always online, and I don't want to play with incapable players.
Controlling multiple colors would of course take the 'team' out of teamgames, but, like oVo already says:

oVo wrote:It would provide another entertaining variation of gameplay for all maps.

Great suggestion!

This has been suggested numerous times before. I really hope it becomes a playable option very, very soon. I love the concept, and I would likely never play another 1v1 game without it. 1v1 is widely regarded as the most luck-based game, and this would put a much bigger emphasis on strategy/tactics, making a 1v1 contest much more skill-based. I'm almost drooling at the prospect of playing a 1v1 quads game on 2.1, or WWII Europe.