[GO] Random Team Games

[Ogrecrusher]

Having had a lot of dumbass partners lose me games in the past, I now only play doubles with people I know in real life, or have good relationship with on the site. I would never use this option.

[pissedoffsol]

i like the fair sorting by points.

but, that could be detrimental.


1 general and 3 chefs will most likely loose against 4 1st class corprals, even though the scores are probably even.

the high ranking players will get screwed with the most likely players to deadbeat....


so i dunno

not really you just have the general tell the cooks what to do, so they would more than likely win

well, right, but 90% of the time they either deadbeat or don't even read the chat and play as 1 on 1 instead of team

[lozzini]

i love the idea - but those high ranking people that do team up together atm still would be able toi so it wouldnt solve the probelm

[jakejake]

it shud b an option on the 'start a game' menu - so u can pick which u want...

[Mustakrakish]

it shud b an option on the 'start a game' menu - so u can pick which u want...

That is what I'm proposing. I don't think it should be mandatory, but I think if we had the option, many players would take advantage of it.

[insomniacdude]

it shud b an option on the 'start a game' menu - so u can pick which u want...

That is what I'm proposing. I don't think it should be mandatory, but I think if we had the option, many players would take advantage of it.

....How?

[Mustakrakish]

it shud b an option on the 'start a game' menu - so u can pick which u want...

That is what I'm proposing. I don't think it should be mandatory, but I think if we had the option, many players would take advantage of it.

....How?

In game creation, there would either be a check box, or you'd select 'randomized team game' instead of just team game.

[Mustakrakish]

I've got a question for those who voted no. Why? Honestly, if theres some flaw in this plan I'd really like to know about it. Thanks!

[Mustakrakish]

sorry for noobish question: hat does it take to get a suggestion considered for implementation?

[Apothos]

I would like to see an option to Randomize the teams in a team game when the last player joins. I play with a group of regular friends and it'd be nice to be able to randomize teams on those games. Wouldn't want to change it to always random though as sometimes you want to setup teams with specific members.

[Anarkistsdream]

I would like to see an option to Randomize the teams in a team game when the last player joins. I play with a group of regular friends and it'd be nice to be able to randomize teams on those games. Wouldn't want to change it to always random though as sometimes you want to setup teams with specific members.

That's pretty neat.

[lackattack]

Already suggested here: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40162

The balanced option would be more complicated to code. I am interested in the random option but I am trying to avoid adding game options. I'll classify this as "pending".

[oggiss]

Nicely thought!

[dakky21]

Concise description:

• Checkbox for placing players together in teams when the game starts in intelligent random order, not in line order as they joined.

Specifics:

• In pair games - doubles, triples and quadruples, there should be an option to shuffle the players. If selected, in a doubles game, for example, first would be playing with sixth, second with fourth etc. Intelligent random should also take player ranks into consideration, so that two high rank players never end together.
  One n00b + one general Vs one n00b + one general is better than 2 n00bs Vs 2 generals definately

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• If checked, more fun as players do not know with who will they play and against who
• If checked, no more two deadbeats in a doubles team

Thanks in advance

[PLAYER57832]

Concise description:
OPTION: allow games where teammates are not set before game starts.

Specifics:

This would be an option. It would NOT replace current team play structure.

Teams would be "shuffled" after all the slots are filled, so you would not know in advance who your teammates might be.

They could either be straight random shuffled, without regard to rank/experience, etc.

OR a "even" rank order.
EDIT -- this "ranking" idea is rough... anyone with better ideas, speak up!
That is, in the second option one team might get the highest ranked player, the second would get the next highest and the third highest, then the first team would get the fourth and (if applicable) fifth ... the second team would get the 6th (and if 8-player) 7th and so forth.
Example: Major, Captain, Leuitenant, Sergeant, Sergeant, Private, Cook, Cook

Team 1 Major Team 2 Captain and luietenant

Team 1 Sergeant, Sergeant Team 2 Private, Cook

Team 1 Cook

Team 1: Major, Sergeant, Sergeant, Cook
Team 2: Captain, Lueitenant, Private, Cook



This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Not everyone has set teammates with whom to play. This means a lot of us avoid team games because we don't want to face 3 majors who obviously play together all the time. This would not prevent them from playing at all. But it would provide an extra option.

The biggest issue is rank. IF teams were random, then sometimes ranks would "one-sided". However, that would be no different than sometimes getting a really good drop, good dice, etc. Also, just because someone has a higher rank does not necessarily mean they are the expert at any particular map (often, but not always).

To get around this, they could be weighted, either as described above or some other fashion.

[darkabe]

This is exactly what I wanted to suggest.

It is almost impossible to find a enjoyable teams game because all have first teams full of high rank players nobody dares to challenge. And if someone does few cooks jump in and its over before it begun.

Shuffling players randomly or evenly would make team games fun again and everyone could join them.

Devs, save the team games!

[The Neon Peon]

I say a very loud NO to this.

If a team has become very good at the game, they deserve to be very good with the game. I have played my share of team games, and I will say that some teams work, some teams do not.

I do not want to join a team game with a cook that does not know how to reinforce, or has to advance troops to every territory they conquer (I have seen this very case happen). I would much rather play with someone I know, so the only people who would actually use this would be the people who can't find themselves some good partners in the first place.

The people who can find themselves partners (and are the high ranks of which you say make the game uneven) would never use this. Why would they want to go around playing with people who might have 50% turn rates and never read the chat?

Okay, so this only affects the people that can't find themselves a decent team. Now, what difference does this give to you whether you join a game with random people in it or join a game with random people then have the order made random for you?

Also, this is not even an issue. If you had not noticed, many of the high ranks have been recently starting doubles and triples games without partners, so that a lower rank will join and they win less points. This is happening more and more lately, so the suggestion is not necessary.

P.S. Shouldn't the game be uneven toward the better players? I personally think so. Otherwise, we might just as well have our games determined by a random number generator which outputs 0's and 1's. 1: you win the game, 0: you lose

[Thezzaruz]

Okay, so this only affects the people that can't find themselves a decent team.

Not really. It would make people that haven't got set team mates play against others in the same situation. I would see it as a good way to start out playing team games but I'd expect anyone that likes the team format to "progress" into playing with a set team v other set teams once they get the hang of it/find people they play well with.

P.S. Shouldn't the game be uneven toward the better players? I personally think so. Otherwise, we might just as well have our games determined by a random number generator which outputs 0's and 1's. 1: you win the game, 0: you lose

No no no. Better players should have their skill as an advantage. The rules shouldn't be fixed in their favour too.

[PLAYER57832]

I say a very loud NO to this.

If a team has become very good at the game, they deserve to be very good with the game. I have played my share of team games, and I will say that some teams work, some teams do not.

This would be an option. There is nothing to prevent those who like the current structure from playing. But, there are a lot of people in CC just don't have a set team for a lot of reasons.

Also, even some of those who DO have a "set" team may occasionally want to try playing a game with some others.

The people who can find themselves partners (and are the high ranks of which you say make the game uneven) would never use this. Why would they want to go around playing with people who might have 50% turn rates and never read the chat?

Now you are stereotyping. I don't consider myself "conquerer" material, but if I am teamed with someone better, I definitely listen!

Okay, so this only affects the people that can't find themselves a decent team. Now, what difference does this give to you whether you join a game with random people in it or join a game with random people then have the order made random for you?

Because right now, there just is no such thing as a "random" team. Try doing a search on team games waiting for players. You see the same groups with their set teams dominating. Very few games are actually open to those without a per-set team.

Also, this is not even an issue. If you had not noticed, many of the high ranks have been recently starting doubles and triples games without partners, so that a lower rank will join and they win less points. This is happening more and more lately, so the suggestion is not necessary.

I have not seen this. Also, I am "gunshy" of games begun by a high ranker because too often I can join ... only to find myself facing a "set up" team. If this were true, then I should get a mixture when I start a game. Instead, I find myself facing a group that obviously know each other and play together.

Again, that is fine ... if you have a team. But, it is hard to "break in", hard to develop those teams and the team skills right now. If anything, this would open up more chances for people to gain team experience and then end up creating more "set" teams. (a "training ground", if you will)

P.S. Shouldn't the game be uneven toward the better players? I personally think so. Otherwise, we might just as well have our games determined by a random number generator which outputs 0's and 1's. 1: you win the game, 0: you lose

The "randomizing" I put up there could use work. I just made a stab at it. If you have a better way ... speak up!

[The Neon Peon]

This suggestion has gained my support. Wow, first in about a month...

You could add a less farming advantage to the site. If people can play on random teams, they will rather play those team games then the non-random ones against high ranks. (unless they are those people who go around joining games like that on purpose to try to beat the high ranks anyway)

[Natewolfman]

am interesting idea (im always in favor of new game settings)... but i dont see it going through unfortunately... but one thing you could always do is join/create a tournament with that purpose, ive played in at least 3 tournaments that was random teams (players join and are randomly sorted into teams each round)

[tyler197802198]

Team games are broken:

• There are 17 pages of rigged team games waiting for newbs to join them and give away free points when a teammate of theirs skips turns or plays a less-than-perfect game.
• High ranked players play team games, but ONLY WITH OTHER ELITE PLAYERS.

Suggestion:

• Create a game option that would randomize teams on team games.
  
  This will improve the following aspects of the site:
  • People will win games based on how well then can work with ANY team, not just stacked ones.
  • It will reduce the pages of team games that clog up the game finder for people who want to find a fun game.

[blakebowling]

I don't think that teams should be randomized in all games, but I do think it would be a good option. I know it'd be interesting, I'd try it.

[saraith]

I don't think that teams should be randomized in all games, but I do think it would be a good option. I know it'd be interesting, I'd try it.

Agreed, it would certainly be a good option, but just an option. Given that option, though, I would use it almost exclusively in creating team games.

[lgoasklucyl]

Then the higher ranked players end up with the same people skipping turns in your games? I think not.

We play with other similar ranked players because we know them to be decent at playing, not to pray on lower ranked players. I play with them because I know they know the maps and won't miss turns.

If a higher ranked team joins against me even better, because it will be a better game. I say find yourself some players who won't db and know some maps, or learn them with some people.