Conquer Club

JamesKer1 wrote:Over the years, we have had several ways of dealing with team turn order. At the beginning, players would go through in order, taking back to back turns- red, green, blue, etc. In order to fix this problem, an option was implemented that allowed players to select play order- the original way, or each team would have a "freestyle" turn where team had sequential 24 hour periods to play, and members on the team would play it as a freestyle turn. Issues came up with this when it was abused as Double Turns. Now we have our current system, a sequential resolution that alternates teams. All threads pertaining to these ideas have been merged here, as arguments in favor and against each option have been included and merged into this thread. If you find an appropriate thread to merge here, please contact a Suggestions Moderator.

How about you make Team Games Sequential by TEAM but FREESTYLE by players.

EXAMPLE: Team A can all move in Freestyle but they end their turn as a team and Team B can move in Freestyle and then they end their turn.

This would end people who just keep their turn open to wait for the other players to go because there would be no benefit to it. I hope this makes sense because I think it is a good solution for both sides of this argument.

This would also eliminate the need for a time limit (other than the 24 hour one) on a teams turn because they would move, fortify, and have to end because they wouldn't be able to wait and see the other teams move.

What do you think?

sounds like a great idea!

I fully second that notion!!

...or is it third?!

sounds good, but it seems like more work for lack than it is good for us

Lack, what do you say? Would it be worth the extra work?

I think he might add it to his list (very long list at that) of things to do

wouldn't a sequential teams game (using the options we have now) be a similar solution?

When randomly choosing who starts in a TEAM sequential game it should never be the second (or third) member of that team. It puts the starting team at a huge disadvantage.

For example, my partner and I are in a doubles sequential game. I am red and he is green. He is starting round 1. That means our opponents have an extra round of fortifying and deploying in unison.

The program should randomly choose player 1, 3, or 5 (in a doubles game) and player 1 or 4 (in a triples game).

For that matter, sequential team games should have a different sequence than in standard sequential games.

Like 1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6. Or in a triples game, 1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6.

Those both work. Or even to allow team members to go one after the other: 3,4,5,6,1,2, or 5,6,3,4,1,2 or 3,4,1,2,5,6, or 5,6,1,2,3,4.

So long as the spacing between team members is the same for each team.

I need to bump this. It happened to me again.

Is there any support on the matter?

i agree, ive been lucky and its only happened to me once or twice, but it definitly put me and my team at a disadvantage

Forgive me if this has been brought up before; I checked recent topics and didn't see anything on the subject.

In teams games, especially triples games, an enormous amount of firepower can be brought to bear when one team is up. At the start of a game, if one team gets 3 full moves up front, they can decimate the opposite team. After watching several triples games where one player is completely eliminated before even 2 turns are complete, I've thought a substantial improvement would be to alternate teams during sequential-move team games. It would even things up substantially. In other words, the team order in a 6-person triples game would be (assuming player1 goes first): player1, player4, player2, player5, player6, player3, repeat.

It has been suggested before....right down the page a few posts...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ntial#7746

But it is a valid suggestion.

--Andy

While an option for such a thing would be good, the current gameplay should be still allowed - it adds an additional level of strategy, because such firepower can be achieved only through being very organised.

Fangz wrote:While an option for such a thing would be good, the current gameplay should be still allowed - it adds an additional level of strategy, because such firepower can be achieved only through being very organised.

Grr, so speaks one of the members of the EVIL team which spurred me to make this post.

I agree with the whole order thing, if its left as is one team just far too much of a power boost. And BTW Fangz it definetly doesn't take very much organistaion to communicate with your teammates about what you're doing....

zorba_ca wrote:Those both work. Or even to allow team members to go one after the other: 3,4,5,6,1,2, or 5,6,3,4,1,2 or 3,4,1,2,5,6, or 5,6,1,2,3,4.

So long as the spacing between team members is the same for each team.

I think I have a better sequence: 7,4,8,4,5,9,5 or 2,8,5,8,5,38,2,0.

I just started playin here a week ago, after it being recommended by a freind of mine. Together we have brought in about 9 other freinds into the gamesite And we are getting even more. Also when I get paid this month I will be sighning up for your premium membership!
I have one suggestion or request.....
When my freinds and myself are playing a game we are usually on our Team Speak server talkin and jokin around and we play the game move after move right then, until someone wins, no pause, no waiting 23 hours for a guy to finally kill ya. and that is great! So what I am suggestion or requesting is the ability to choose a "move time limit" so we can have our mornign coffe games with eachother and our all out war games with say a 10 min "move time limit". Having that option would be great.

thanks for the great site and game play and thanks for reading/thinkin on this.

-Gordon

Only for register, i dont support time limits of less than 30 minutes, 20 at maximum... If you have a slow connection, its impossible take those turns in escalating games where you take a head, cash, take another one, cash twice... And 20 minutes after spend some time planning your moves, so...

Even a 30 min time limit works.....

there have been plans for quite some time to implement other time limits, Lack has them on his epic list of "things to do"

Personally I'd like to see an infinately variable time limit between turns but keep the 1 hour limit to TAKE your turn...so you could have as little as 1 minute to click "begin turn" but then have 1 hour to make your moves etc.

then, if you dont like the idea of a 1 minute time limit, just dont join. simple, best of both worlds

Twill

that would be great!!!!
keep things movin........I await impatiantly

The obvious problem (as Lack tends to point out correctly) is the math and the fact that people do other things than play Risk.

Even if you have a game with as little as a 10 minute time limit, in a game with 6 people, it could take up to an hour to go through a round, and thus a game that went 25 rounds could easily go 8 hours. So frequently games would be won based on who can stay up the latest or who has the least to do with his or her life. Victory would go to the unemployed more than the best player.

Shortened any further, let's say to a 5 minute game, and then you'd be forced to sit by your computer hitting the refresh button the whole time. The winner would be the last person to need to use the bathroom.

Granted it might work, but for the most part, Risk is a turn based game, and the nature of this site is to play a turn based game where people have a day to make a turn... If you want a 10 minute turn game, the best thing to do is to coordinate it on the "call out" forum and set up a private game. That way it can start that way, but if someone has to go to bed they can. And if you want to play more often, then pay the $20 and start 80 different games so you'll constantly have something to do.

The bottom line is, the more options the better! If you dont want to play in a game that has a 10 or 20 minute time limit - Then Dont!