2 on 1 and other uneven teams

dominationnation · Post by **dominationnation** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:51 pm

<Subject>: UNEVEN TEAMS

<Body>:

Suggestion Idea: I would like to have games that start off as uneven teams

Specifics: I would like to have games that are like 2 on 1 or 3 on 2 or what ever. they would work like regular games. The teams would each get 1/2 of the territorys and then those territorys would be split among the players on that team. Scoring wouldnt need to be changed because if the singles play has a score of 1000 and the two other players each have a score of 1000 and the single wins than he gets 40 points and if he losses then he only looses he only losses 10.

Why it is needed: For those pussys that wont play without a team an those who want to challenge them but dont have a team of thier own.

Priority** (1-5): 3. not needed but would help to get those to stop complaining about JR and others who only play team games.

**Note**
1 = Bottom of 'To Do' list
5 = Urgent, implement with next update

wcaclimbing · Post by **wcaclimbing** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:01 pm

i dont know how much i would play this, but it sounds very fun.

pancakemix · Post by **pancakemix** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:10 pm

Double or nothing, eh? Sounds intriguing.

kwanton · Post by **kwanton** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:18 am

Hey I got a suggestion:

PCM and WCA are not allowed to post one after the other til they are no longer property of DDS. Same avatars=way too confusing.

Anyway. I like this idea but it seems like something I'd play once to try out then never again (a la crossword)

alex_white101 · Post by **alex_white101** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:24 am

how would turns operate? if the other team has more players it means they would be getting extra armies per go simply because each person recieves a minimum of 3 armies, this would have to be sorted.

frood · Post by **frood** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:01 am

alex_white101 wrote:how would turns operate? if the other team has more players it means they would be getting extra armies per go simply because each person recieves a minimum of 3 armies, this would have to be sorted.

I don't think that would have to change for 1 on 2 as the one would have the advantage of not having to attack a team mate to take a bonus or when they are in the way.

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:47 am

I thought about this a while back - never actually forwarded it. As for turns, it would have to be alternate between the teams for the other player to have any chance. It might be good to give the single player half the board and the other two a quarter each - make it fairer. 3v2 might be more interesting

dominationnation · Post by **dominationnation** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:54 pm

RobinJ wrote:I thought about this a while back - never actually forwarded it. As for turns, it would have to be alternate between the teams for the other player to have any chance. It might be good to give the single player half the board and the other two a quarter each - make it fairer. 3v2 might be more interesting

If you looks more closely at my susgestion I already said that. I said that the territorys would be split even among the teams (not the players) and then the teams territtorys among the players. As for the turns It would have to work so that it would go

Player A/player B=team1
player C=team 2

PLayer A
Player C
Player B
Player C
Player A
Player C
player B
player C

wcaclimbing · Post by **wcaclimbing** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:58 pm

kwanton wrote:Hey I got a suggestion:

PCM and WCA are not allowed to post one after the other til they are no longer property of DDS. Same avatars=way too confusing.

1. Use the correct form.
2. This needs its own thread.
3. It doesnt belong in this thread.
4. LOL

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:39 pm

wcaclimbing wrote:
kwanton wrote:Hey I got a suggestion:

PCM and WCA are not allowed to post one after the other til they are no longer property of DDS. Same avatars=way too confusing.
1. Use the correct form.
2. This needs its own thread.
3. It doesnt belong in this thread.
4. LOL

1. GFY
2. GFY
3. GFY
4. LOL Right back at you

Anyways, I find this idea to be cool, but could be hard as balls to put on the 'make-a-game' screen. How would you manage it without drop-down bars?

pancakemix · Post by **pancakemix** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:10 pm

dominationnation wrote:
RobinJ wrote:I thought about this a while back - never actually forwarded it. As for turns, it would have to be alternate between the teams for the other player to have any chance. It might be good to give the single player half the board and the other two a quarter each - make it fairer. 3v2 might be more interesting
If you looks more closely at my susgestion I already said that. I said that the territorys would be split even among the teams (not the players) and then the teams territtorys among the players. As for the turns It would have to work so that it would go

Player A/player B=team1
player C=team 2

PLayer A
Player C
Player B
Player C
Player A
Player C
player B
player C

Freestyle gets in the way of that though. The team can coordinate and the loner will be crushed by their overwhelming power.

This'll boost my score a ton! Let's do it.

dominationnation · Post by **dominationnation** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:59 pm

unriggable wrote:
wcaclimbing wrote:
kwanton wrote:Hey I got a suggestion:

PCM and WCA are not allowed to post one after the other til they are no longer property of DDS. Same avatars=way too confusing.
1. Use the correct form.
2. This needs its own thread.
3. It doesnt belong in this thread.
4. LOL
1. GFY
2. GFY
3. GFY
4. LOL Right back at you

Anyways, I find this idea to be cool, but could be hard as balls to put on the 'make-a-game' screen. How would you manage it without drop-down bars?

how about up top instead of # of player we put team 1 and team 2 and you put how many players you want on wach team.

AS for freestyle only 1 of the playersfrom the larger team would go each round.