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

[Nephilim]

what the hell is wrong with all you people voting "no"?

all the high-falutin' talk about "team games require teamwork and all these other noble values, and this would ruin it".....well, if team games are so great (and i love them), then people will still play them even with a new option, won't they?

the point of this project is to make real challenges between 2 players an effing possibility after ALL THIS TIME. isn't it completely insane that 2 CC members can't test their skills against each other in a game? this is the best solution.....STOP TRYING TO RUIN IT FOR US, all you haters

whatever little wrinkles there are (scoring questions, etc.), they can be worked out....let's make the changes NOW

[Incandenza]

what the hell is wrong with all you people voting "no"?

all the high-falutin' talk about "team games require teamwork and all these other noble values, and this would ruin it".....well, if team games are so great (and i love them), then people will still play them even with a new option, won't they?

the point of this project is to make real challenges between 2 players an effing possibility after ALL THIS TIME. isn't it completely insane that 2 CC members can't test their skills against each other in a game? this is the best solution.....STOP TRYING TO RUIN IT FOR US, all you haters

whatever little wrinkles there are (scoring questions, etc.), they can be worked out....let's make the changes NOW

Hell yes.

While 1vTeam has issues and should probably be set aside, team 1v1 would be an amazing new gameplay concept, the likes of which CC hasn't seen in a long, long time. I love teams games as much as the next guy, pretty much all I play these days, and I disagree that team 1v1 would kill team games. After all, 1v1 didn't kill team games. You know why? 'Cause 1v1 is really flawed. With team 1v1, CC will finally have a halfway decent system for two player to go head to head without drop and turn order becoming the major element.

[peanutsdad]

i voted, looks like a close race

[pmchugh]

what the hell is wrong with all you people voting "no"?

all the high-falutin' talk about "team games require teamwork and all these other noble values, and this would ruin it".....well, if team games are so great (and i love them), then people will still play them even with a new option, won't they?

the point of this project is to make real challenges between 2 players an effing possibility after ALL THIS TIME. isn't it completely insane that 2 CC members can't test their skills against each other in a game? this is the best solution.....STOP TRYING TO RUIN IT FOR US, all you haters

whatever little wrinkles there are (scoring questions, etc.), they can be worked out....let's make the changes NOW

Hell yes.

While 1vTeam has issues and should probably be set aside, team 1v1 would be an amazing new gameplay concept, the likes of which CC hasn't seen in a long, long time. I love teams games as much as the next guy, pretty much all I play these days, and I disagree that team 1v1 would kill team games. After all, 1v1 didn't kill team games. You know why? 'Cause 1v1 is really flawed. With team 1v1, CC will finally have a halfway decent system for two player to go head to head without drop and turn order becoming the major element.

You guys understand that the poll is only if 1vteam should be included?

1v1 team is definately being submitted i think.

I voted no in this, I think 1v1 team would be great but 1vteam I don't see much point in. It would be much easier for the 1 without the need for communication I see no reason why a team of 4 would ever want to play 1 guy

[hiddendragon]

There would be to many ways to farm with this proposal. Even though it sucks when a partner makes a bad deployment or skips a turn or is simply a complete idiot it is part of the game, deal with it.
Team chat and cooperation or a team that has a good feel for one another is what this proposal seems to be about. My advise is that if someone doesn't like a partner(s) then that player should find new mates.

[ahunda]

There would be to many ways to farm with this proposal. Even though it sucks when a partner makes a bad deployment or skips a turn or is simply a complete idiot it is part of the game, deal with it.
Team chat and cooperation or a team that has a good feel for one another is what this proposal seems to be about. My advise is that if someone doesn't like a partner(s) then that player should find new mates.

No. This suggestion is made & supported by some of the most successful team players at the site, with great win% in team games. Players, who are members in top clans. Players, who have no problem whatsoever to find good & reliable team mates.

This suggestion is not at all about fixing any problem with team games. It is about an alternative to the current 1v1 games.

Please at least read a bit, before you post the same things, that have been brought up & discussed a gazillion times already.

Same goes for the farming issue: If this is indeed your opinion, please explain, why. Why is there a huge farming potential in this game option ? Why would it be greater than in other game options, that exist ?

[pmchugh]

There would be to many ways to farm with this proposal. Even though it sucks when a partner makes a bad deployment or skips a turn or is simply a complete idiot it is part of the game, deal with it.
Team chat and cooperation or a team that has a good feel for one another is what this proposal seems to be about. My advise is that if someone doesn't like a partner(s) then that player should find new mates.

Notice here some of the top team players are 100% in favour of this suggestion. It has nothing to do with poor partners, its about enhancing 1v1, a way for top players to have individual battles without the huge reliance on luck or speed.

Your only argument against it is farming, I fail to see how in any way this would create more farming than freestyle games.

beat me to it ahunda.

[mattattam]

I love 1v1, and to see an expansion on it for 1v1 team games and 1vteam games would be fun and exciting.

All I have to say about arguments against this that talk about this option taking away from team game play is if this game-type is more liked than team game play it only shows how good of an idea it is.

[300spartans]

no they should not. it should be a whole team vs a whole team or a single person as a team vs the same. they shouldnt be mixed

[Mr_Adams]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =4&t=44540

this was suggested 2 years ago...

[edwinissweet]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=44540

this was suggested 2 years ago...

i like his poll (we need a chuckling smiley, that one looks to intense)

anyhow, yea, but this is moving along pretty swiftly. Just today we had over 100 people voting. As soon as everyhing is discussed, it will be submitted.

[johnkelly00]

I think the idea is amazing. I absolutely detest 1v1 games any more - especially on maps with lots of territs. The first mover has a definite advantage and, unless they are completely skill-less, will win a good percentage of the time.

My alternative suggestion is an option (or maybe just a default setting) that the first mover gets half incoming troops on the first round only. This minimizes the first mover advantage a bit - again particularly in games with lots of territs, this works well.

[iamkoolerthanu]

I think alot of the voters have mis-read the poll question.. I did at first, and by some of the responses I am reading, it seems like other people are mis-reading it as well.

[mattattam]

I think alot of the voters have mis-read the poll question.. I did at first, and by some of the responses I am reading, it seems like other people are mis-reading it as well.

I misread it at first as well. It seems like a fourth of the people that have commented don't realize it is 1vteam that we are voting on. I think it should be made more clear by a bold statement in the first post stating at the beginning that this poll is about 1vteam

[Lubawski]

If it's 1v1 (and this is simply adding each player having two or three of themselves in games, I see that as an improvement to the 1v1 format that relies too heavily on 1st turn. Points earned would be the same (not three times as much for trips, let's say).

If it's 1v a team, I think that's a horrible idea. Play with yourself like normal people. Join a porn site. This would certainly be a way for the top farmers on the site to continue to do so. They would farm their points three times as fast.

[nippersean]

I think it's a fine proposal.

Not voting 'cos 1 vs team can come later (maybe) - one step at a time.

1 v 1 dubs, trips, quads style- love it.

Of course it won't ruin genuine trips games, much like the car never ruined the joy of running. Or the vibrator....never mind.

[edwinissweet]

I see that a few people have commented on it becoming a farmer issue. I think that farmers will take advantage of whatever they can, but the rest of the community shouldnt miss out on something because of it. A team doest have to play you.. its just an option, a variation. Im not good at freestyle, but its there for whenever i want to try.

Also, i think that if you are going to get points from 4 people, that you are putting yourself on the line 4 times. If a farmer were to seek low ranks to play, a game like this could cost him 200-300 points.

[Timminz]

I love the 1v1 version of this, but I strongly oppose the 1vteam idea. I just can't see how it would be successful. I personally, would probably never join with a team, against a single person.

[ArgoW]

crap hit the yes vote cause i toght whould be like 200 no and 5 yes just to show som pity.... but yes is in the lead... what have i done!!!! LOL hehe na its always fun to try new stuff so whatever happens just trow the dice and move left or right

[AndyDufresne]

I love the 1v1 version of this, but I strongly oppose the 1vteam idea. I just can't see how it would be successful. I personally, would probably never join with a team, against a single person.

Agreed here. 1vs1 team games is one of the best new ideas I've seen for a long time! And it is something I'd definitely support. But I wouldn't want to see handicap or 3 way games like that.


--Andy

[mattattam]

Also, i think that if you are going to get points from 4 people, that you are putting yourself on the line 4 times. If a farmer were to seek low ranks to play, a game like this could cost him 200-300 points.

That is a really good point. The potential to lose that many points could deter farming. Personally I don't see why people care about farmers.

[stahrgazer]

As for some more specific questions in the last posts:

Point calculation in 1vteam: As was discussed in this thread, the single player would indeed put twice his points on the line in a Dubs, thrice in a Trips, etc. This was seen as a balance to his advantage of not needing to communicate & co-ordinate his strategy. (As I said: I´m not particularly interested in / fond of this option.)

Medals: The suggestion was made, that 1v1 team games should not count for regular team medals. I am not sure, if they could fit into any other medal category (I doubt it), or if there maybe could be a new 1v1 medal.

If a player is taking up several spots, he should indeed lose more than if he's only taking up one spot on a team. Perhaps lack could code it so that a 1-quad player loses his normal points plus 75%, a trips loses normal plus 50% and a dubs loses normal points plus 25% - more losses than normal, but not double, and lose more based on the number of spots he's taking.

As for medals... I strongly believe this type of play should not count for the existing 'Normal team" medals; and if I knew they wouldn't, I'd change my vote to support the option. I mean, think about it... this isn't a team; it's a single player who's using several colors to play against someone else or a group of others using their colors. If the single player wins against a team of 4 different players, that could count as 4 kills on the single player standard medal, but shouldn't count as kills on quads team medals.

[agonzos]

I love the 1v1 idea, but the 1vteam idea is horrible. Too many options that need to me implemented when creating the game and I don't see any real benefit to it for anyone playing it.

I think if it is implemented with just 1v1 being an option, then it should count as a singles medal, since you are still only having 2 players playing.

[MudPuppy]

The 1v1 team option is a no-brainer and should be at the top of the list for future site improvements. I voted 'yes' for the 1vteam option as well but that would just be a small add-on to the more important goal of improving the gaming experience for 1v1'ers on this site. I kinda think it would be an interesting option to take on a multi-player team single-handedly.

As long as it is built so that multi-player teams can create games with the ability to restrict 1-player teams from joining, then I see no problem with the 1vteam option.

[nippersean]

Also, i think that if you are going to get points from 4 people, that you are putting yourself on the line 4 times. If a farmer were to seek low ranks to play, a game like this could cost him 200-300 points.

That is a really good point. The potential to lose that many points could deter farming. Personally I don't see why people care about farmers.

Not really (i.e totally the opposite). If a decent quads team put in for a public game - they could hammered by an expert at quads who would get 60 pts a pop.
It would be the way to go to make conqueror.
It may discourage people from leaving public games open to be picked off (when they thought it'd be team vs team).

I think this proposal should get back on track.

It's a great 1v1 idea.