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

[khazalid]

disagree cheph - i think it would completely take over in all areas. the effect on clans in particular would be catastrophic. what would be the point of having a partner other than yourself? i don't buy into the 2 heads are better than one thing very much. the best teams are those that play the game the same way. amongst the upper echelons in particular the effect would be extremely pronounced.

this option negates so much of the camaraderie and fun left in CC for me.

it would be interesting, don't get me wrong. i'd like to see how everyone is standing on one pair of feet and all that, but the price to pay is far too heavy for the community of this website. i hope (and suspect) that it will never be implemented.

[reckedracing]

why not just do it the old fashioned way, with multi's like the rest of us already do

[chephren]

disagree cheph - i think it would completely take over in all areas. the effect on clans in particular would be catastrophic. what would be the point of having a partner other than yourself? i don't buy into the 2 heads are better than one thing very much. the best teams are those that play the game the same way. amongst the upper echelons in particular the effect would be extremely pronounced.

this option negates so much of the camaraderie and fun left in CC for me.

it would be interesting, don't get me wrong. i'd like to see how everyone is standing on one pair of feet and all that, but the price to pay is far too heavy for the community of this website. i hope (and suspect) that it will never be implemented.

Unless I'm missing something Khaz, there would just need to be a law implemented stating that the normal Dubs, Trips & Quads games must have 2,3 or 4 unique players. ie. one person cannot take more than 1 spot in a team game.

The only change would be the 1v1's, which most clans don't seem to like in their present format anyway.

The main reason I play on this site is the real team games, believe me. As I said...there's nothing better than a team which clicks.

I maintain that it's a good idea as a 1v1 option.

[khazalid]

law or not i don't think you could mitigate the effects of it.

after a while pretty much the only regular team games being played would be clan games and/or tournaments with the different partner specification. once you get used to being your own team that's it as far as i can see. i think that would hold true for almost all of us, maybe you're just an exception to the rule chuck.

the old school team game would be a regular lumbering dinosaur of a format. and we all know what happens with dinosaurs...

that's pretty much the only counter-view possible to have i reckon, so it would be nice to see admin weigh in on this.

[ahunda]

How about simply not counting these 1v1 team games towards team medals ? Create a new medal for it, for example a 1v1 medal (or, for all that I care about medals, don´t award any at all).

That should guarantee, that the 2 options are not in direct competition with each other.

[khazalid]

i can't see that making any difference at all. maybe i'm way off with the objection but this whole thing just sounds like a death sentence to me.

[danryan]

My initial feeling was that it's a neat idea, but I definitely see where it will negatively affect team games. I would find it an interesting thing to try but I agree with limiting it to doubles and I'd pretty much want to exclude it from any clan wars, being the antithesis of "team" play.

[Lubawski]

I don't like the idea. While I'm sure everyone gets frustrated when a teammate screws something up, having another person (or people) there is what makes a TEAM. It's not dubs if there aren't two of you. It's not trips if there aren't three of you on the team.
If you don't want a teammate to screw something up, play 1v1.

[Namor]

I see no problem with the idea being a new option. Personally I wouldn't use it, because I enjoy the whole idea of reading and leaving hints with teammates, in the chat.

However, if I'd created a quad with 3 partners and then found an individual had filled all of the team2 slots, I'd be disappointed.

So if it's implemented, I believe it should be restricted to game creation only (team1 only), that way players joining team2 would know they were playing an individual. With team2 only being open to another individual if team1 was filled that way.

Also, if the option was selected, then all four slots should be filled simultaneously, to stop the individual from hiding the fact by sitting in slot 1 and sending himself 3 invites.

So to put it more simply; if 4 players have created a quad, they should have the right to expect their opposition to be a TEAM.

[Beckytheblondie]

This would really benefit Clan Becky and, thus, it has our entire clan's support!

[Timminz]

I'm shocked that anyone is against this suggestion. In my opinion, this is the best, most strategic option that CC could implement currently. I can only speak for myself, I guess, but I know that if this were implemented, it would not affect the amount of regular team games I play at all.

CC has been in need of a something new and awesome, for a long time. This suggestion could be that thing. I can name at least two players who would either return to the site, or return to a premium membership, if they had this game type available to play.

I don't buy the "it will kill real team games", in the least, but I would like to hear something from lack about the feasibility of this suggestion from a technical standpoint.

[Fruitcake]

Great idea. It would be an option, so those who didn't want to play the style wouldn't have to.

[chemefreak]

I'm sorry guys, but I am having trouble figuring out how this would be different from a normal 1 v 1 game...i guess there would be more territories filled? The turn order would be the same...I guess it would make elimination more interesting, especially in a cards game. What am I missing here?

[Snowgun]

Interesting arguments on both sides...

It would be kinda cool to be able to play a team against a single person, Say my quads team against the Conq.

But I definitely see the annoyance of having a quads game set up and one person takes all/most of team 2's slots when I really want a team. Options can be put into place to allow/disallow this though.

Call it the "Hero" option. Make the team game as normal, then click the option if you want players to be able to take more than one slot. You can have a third "hero only" option if you want each teams to be only one person.

As far as the issue with it "ruining" team games, etc, I think that's silly. It will be present just like the manual option, if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Are people afraid that there will be no more teams to play against cuz everyone is playing Hero style? Ridiculous.

[Hopscotcher]

I'm shocked that anyone is against this suggestion. In my opinion, this is the best, most strategic option that CC could implement currently. I can only speak for myself, I guess, but I know that if this were implemented, it would not affect the amount of regular team games I play at all.

This is the dumbest, most backward idea I have ever heard. The entire point of playing in a team game is having team mates. If your problem is that you can't find decent mates, search harder or try to teach them.

CC has been in need of a something new and awesome, for a long time. This suggestion could be that thing. I can name at least two players who would either return to the site, or return to a premium membership, if they had this game type available to play.

I can name at least one who would leave the site if this were an option. Especially if it became part of clan challenges or CLA. that would be me.

I don't buy the "it will kill real team games", in the least, but I would like to hear something from lack about the feasibility of this suggestion from a technical standpoint.

It will kill real team games because it completely negates the idea of a team game. I'm absolutely abhorred that people have this much trouble finding decent team mates to play with that they have to result to playing solely on their own.

[Big Yuma Ripper]

Got to think this over some more, lots of good points made but right now i am leaning toward "good idea" I never play 1 vs 1 because of the luck factor is to much, but with this it takes it out of play

[Timminz]

I'm shocked that anyone is against this suggestion. In my opinion, this is the best, most strategic option that CC could implement currently. I can only speak for myself, I guess, but I know that if this were implemented, it would not affect the amount of regular team games I play at all.

This is the dumbest, most backward idea I have ever heard. The entire point of playing in a team game is having team mates. If your problem is that you can't find decent mates, search harder or try to teach them.

That's not "the problem" at all. This is not meant to replace team game, or even to allow a single person to play against a real team. This is about a, totally new, 1v1 option. I have no problem finding team mates, and I thoroughly enjoy playing actual team games. Saying, "This is the dumbest, most backward idea I have ever heard." is a completely useless comment, unless you can explain why?

CC has been in need of a something new and awesome, for a long time. This suggestion could be that thing. I can name at least two players who would either return to the site, or return to a premium membership, if they had this game type available to play.

I can name at least one who would leave the site if this were an option. Especially if it became part of clan challenges or CLA. that would be me.

I don't know why anyone would want this option to take the place of anything other than 1v1 games, in clan challenges, or CLA. No one is suggesting that, and I doubt anyone ever will. I know I, as an official representative of Generation One in the CLA usergroup, would fight tooth, and nail to keep this option from ever taking the place of anything other than 1v1 games within inter-clan play.

I don't buy the "it will kill real team games", in the least, but I would like to hear something from lack about the feasibility of this suggestion from a technical standpoint.

It will kill real team games because it completely negates the idea of a team game. I'm absolutely abhorred that people have this much trouble finding decent team mates to play with that they have to result to playing solely on their own.

Again, I think you're looking at this the wrong way. It would NEVER be intended to replace proper team games, and is only meant as a way to play 1v1 games where skill is a bigger factor than luck. It's not about not being able to find team mates. In fact, if you look at those who are most in favour of this suggestion, you will see a lot of highly distinguished team players, who will never, ever, ever have any trouble putting together a good team.

[ahunda]

I'm shocked that anyone is against this suggestion. In my opinion, this is the best, most strategic option that CC could implement currently. I can only speak for myself, I guess, but I know that if this were implemented, it would not affect the amount of regular team games I play at all.

This is the dumbest, most backward idea I have ever heard. The entire point of playing in a team game is having team mates. If your problem is that you can't find decent mates, search harder or try to teach them.

How about calming your horses & trying to understand, what the other side is actually saying ?

Yes. Team games means having team mates. Means communicating & working together. All great & fine. If you like that, go ahead & play team games.

Now how about those of us, who´d like a contest of skill 1v1 ? Care to look at it from that side for a moment ?

Anybody with the slightest understanding of the game knows, that our current 1v1 games are the most luck dependent games you can play at the site. Hence unsuitable for really meaningful, skill based, strategic competition.

How often have we seen somebody blundering into the Callouts section of the forums to challenge a high ranked (and in his opinion over-rated) player to a duel of 1v1 games ? And how often is anyone accepting such a challenge ?

I can name at least one who would leave the site if this were an option. Especially if it became part of clan challenges or CLA. that would be me.

I don´t recall anyone suggesting this for clan games. I certainly did not.

I don't buy the "it will kill real team games", in the least, but I would like to hear something from lack about the feasibility of this suggestion from a technical standpoint.

It will kill real team games because it completely negates the idea of a team game. I'm absolutely abhorred that people have this much trouble finding decent team mates to play with that they have to result to playing solely on their own.

And again besides the point. The suggested game type is no team game, and nobody ever suggested, that it is. It is not meant to replace team games, but to offer a new game option.

All negative responses here are only focusing on this option as a replacement for team games. Probably because I mentioned "frustration with team-mates" in my original suggestion. But really, try to look at it as a new option for 1v1 games instead.

As for the fear, that nobody would play regular team games anymore, if this suggestion was implemented, I really don´t believe it. There are many here, who like the social inter-action, that real team games mean. This new option would never replace that social aspect, and I´m sure, people would continue to play with their friends, team & clan-mates.

[the.killing.44]

I'm not gonna repeat what Tim and ahunda have already said, because they essentially sum up my counter-argument to your "disagreement," Hopscotcher. I'll just say that you're really off the mark as to why this should be implemented. You seem to think people can't find good partners to play with. Obviously this isn't the problem—nay, there isn't a problem. That is the whole point. It's a NEW option. I can see the concern for it taking over traditional team games, but there are still abundant pros to traditional team games, not to mention the way that multi-player games have been integrated into clans, tourneys, etc.

I do think there is some merit to agonzos's suggestion for only implementing 1v1 teams into dubs, or at least at the start. The main complaint with dubs is that it's too luck-driven and -dependent (i.e. it's hard to come back from a dose of bad luck). I think only putting 1v1 dubs up would get rid of that while keeping trips and quads where they are, as they also do benefit more from the team approach.

In any case, you have my full support.

[Queen_Herpes]

Support. Detractors can simply opt to not play this way. Doesn't hurt them if it is added as an option.

[Qwert]

this sugestion probably can solve these problem with deadbeats of teammates,but have to much holes.
Big problem its a points-if you play triple,then who need to get points? If you win, old formula its to get from every player points,but what will hepend if you loose a game?
Also these suggestion give chance that 2 player,can play quads games?
ahunda,ahunda,ahunda,ahunda-vs-qwert,qwert,qwert,qwert

[ahunda]

What problem is there with the points ?

Option a (as I had intended it): If you choose this option, you play 1v1, NOT 1 against a team. Always only 1v1. Then same point calculation as in normal 1v1.

Option b (if you allow 1 v team): Same point calculation as in team games today. Calculate average points of the team.

And yes: ahunda,ahunda,ahunda,ahunda-vs-qwert,qwert,qwert,qwert is the idea.

[Snowgun]

Big problem its a points-if you play triple,then who need to get points? If you win, old formula its to get from every player points,but what will hepend if you loose a game?

No problem. Risk reward. If it's "only hero" option, like ahunda,ahunda,ahunda,ahunda-vs-qwert,qwert,qwert,qwert, then points go just like 1v1.

But, if it's mixed hero, like ahunda,ahunda,ahunda,ahunda-vs-qwert,Snowgun,Killing,jpoet, then ahunda would get points from each player (like multiplayer game) but if our team won we would get the average amount of points, but ahunda would loose 4 times that. (essentually just like it works now for quads, only ahunda gets counted multiple times in the algorithm) I think this risk would be offset by the point that one player would have a little advantage over a team...

Also these suggestion give chance that 2 player,can play quads games?
ahunda,ahunda,ahunda,ahunda-vs-qwert,qwert,qwert,qwert

Hell yea, that would rock! I think the ability to play trips or quads in this config would be interesting and cool. No need to confine it to dubs. it would make a more strategic interesting game between 2 players.

[Timminz]

One player vs. a full team is not part of this suggestion, nor do I think it should be.

[Snowgun]

One player vs. a full team is not part of this suggestion, nor do I think it should be.

Why not? it would be easy to implement if you run this code, and it would be awesome. How about quad games with each team having 2 players? Also awesome.

If you are gonna make a change like this you might as well complete the options.