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

[pie12345]

awesome then when i play 3 people games i can do that but it might incourge multis

[carlpgoodrich]

Concise description:
One of the best parts of team games is coordinating attacks, something which makes team games very different from single player games. I propose a game setting where teams are formed similar to doubles/triples/quads, but instead of having 2/3/4 different players per team, each controlling a single army (e.g. red), have one player control all armies on a team (e.g. red AND green). This would be identical to playing a team game with multis, but of course that's not allowed .

Specifics/Details:

• Three new game types (doubles/triples/quads) would be added to the Start A Game page
• As an example: two human players (P1 and P2), each controlling two armies (red and green, and blue and yellow). In round 1, P1 takes reds turn, then P2 takes blues turn, then P1 takes greens turn, then P2 takes yellows turn. Then increment to round 2. etc. etc.
• Everything would stay similar to current team games, so cards would not be shared, you can attack your team army (e.g. red can attack green), deployment and reinforcement would be the same, etc.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This would create a new type of game that would interest a broad range of people. Along with this comes a host of new medals, tournaments, etc.
• The new strategy it would create would put a premium on skill and technique. It would be possibly the hardest type of game on CC, and (IMHO) therefore one of the most enjoyable.
• It would open up the "team game" strategy to people who do not have friends on CC or who are not good at coordinating attacks through the game chat (this particularly applies to non-native English speaker).

[Darwins_Bane]

already been suggested.

[jrh_cardinal]

yup, called 1v1 Teams or something. It's been submitted, up to lack now whether he wants to do it

[carlpgoodrich]

Humm, I did a search, but o well. Can anything be done to "help" it along?

[TheForgivenOne]

It's already submitted to be implemented. Merging this into the main thread.

[pie12345]

this would be sweet it could challenge people

[ballenus]

[Playing alone double, trip, quads]


Concise description:
It is simply to allow a player to be several players in team games (doubles, trips and quads). That way, you could have two players palying one against each other in a quad game for example, they would just be players 1, 2, 3 and 4, or one player playing against a team. We may discuss if the option should be limited to sequential games or could be extended to freestyle games too.


Specifics/Details:
Not a lot more to say. For points, I would imagine that the simplest would be to credit/take out twice, three times or four times the number of points when someone is playing for two, three or four players.
[*]xxxxxxx[/list]

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Obviously quads involve much more strategy than a simple one to one game. I think this could be a nice and simple option to create games where strategy would play a greater role. It would also allow for example two teammate to play quads against two other people or against four!
[*]xxxxxxx[/list]

[Darwins_Bane]

the search is your friend, already been suggested.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5&t=109621

[ballenus]

Thxs, then I should be added to those supporting ahunda's 2007 suggestion

[Darwins_Bane]

itll get merged when one of the suggs moderators comes on.

[ballenus]

I just hope it can be implemented soon.

[Timminz]

I just hope it can be implemented soon.

Me too. I've been hoping for a couple years now. I have faith that it will happen before I stop playing here.

[anonymus]

I just hope it can be implemented soon.

Me too. I've been hoping for a couple years now. I have faith that it will happen before I stop playing here.

who knows maybe even people ABOVE major will start playing 1v1 when this comes through (and i can finally stay above major since i do enjoy 1v1 speeds )

7

[TheForgivenOne]

Merge'd

[Zemljanin]

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

[Bruceswar]

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.

[pmchugh]

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.

[Chuuuuck]

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

[AndyDufresne]

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

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


--Andy

[Timminz]

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.

[Qwert]

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?

[Timminz]

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.

[Qwert]

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 .

[LewisJB3]

[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?