Page 1 of 1
Two Player Games
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:10 pmby x
I would be able to organize so many more real time games if I we could do 2 players, or me vs. a friend. Think of the vendetta settling we could do in 2 player games. Every thread in the Flame Wars forum could automatically start a game!
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:11 pmby onbekende
And then smurf-guys aren't even noticed?
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:13 pmby nyg5680
yah but than u get more multis because they will play against each other just 2 earn easy points
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:14 pmby x
As long as you trust that they actually find multis automatically, I don't think it's a problem.
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:21 pmby nyg5680
true but if they onl play 2 player games and no 1 ever plays them 2 figure it out then it wont be found out all that quick
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:30 pmby x
Hence my use of the term "automatically." I was under the impression that they scanned for multis occasionally.
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:34 pmby P Gizzle
it would be cool to have them for tournys. mayb you could only use them for tournys.....?
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:42 pmby x
I never play in tourneys, why would I want to have a feature I'll never use?
But tourneys is ANOTHER good use for it.
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:44 pmby AndyDufresne
Again... a
Two Person Play Option is currently 'Pending'.
--Andy
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:49 pmby x
I noticed that just after I posted the thread. So I was hoping to give it a little nudge, especially after I noticed that other site that has 2 player games and it reminded me of a discussion I had with someone about how we could play two player games real time more often if we didn't have to find a third.
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:51 pmby AndyDufresne
To give the idea nudge, please post in the designated topic selected in the Suggestions Box. It keeps clutter down.
--Andy
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:52 pmby x
Like I said, I noticed that AFTER I posted this thread. You can delete this if you think it's just clutter.
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:54 pmby AndyDufresne
That post wasn't aimed exclusively for you.
--Andy
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:58 pmby x
Posted:
Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:02 pmby hendy
I voted for option 3 cuz it was the most stupid
Posted:
Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:27 amby joshybosh
2,432,197 player games <<<<<<<< i like this
We need a the biggest map yet with quite a few territories
in fact someone go and make a very very large map especially for 8 players +
Posted:
Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:39 pmby Sammy gags
u cant have 2 player games cuz then 1 person will prolly get dealt all of australia & win, plus it isnt as much strategy, the person that wins will be the person with the best deals & dice
Posted:
Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:48 pmby Herakilla
... for 2 player games there is a seperate set of rules when you play in real life. one of those rules says you gotta make a 3rd nuetral army, so if we get 2 player games that means maybe somehow the programming can be set that its a three player game with a neutral "player" taking up a spot