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

[TheForgivenOne]

Merged

[PLAYER57832]

Wondered why this had been bumped, then saw the "merged" bit.

Still a decent idea, thought it was already approved, though?

[Mr_Adams]

Ok, I'm not really in the mood to read the whole thing, but would this support things such as 2v2 quads games? Would you be able to split the games up in such a way that in, say, a trips game, one player controls 2 of the three teams?

[Crazy Frog]

The Idea:
I like team games... tournaments even... But sometimes I think it would be fun to do the same multi Player games but have my own self as my team mate...

Those who play as Multi's do this sort of thing Illegally and usually guarantee themselves the win... or the boot... But what I propose is an option that the person who starts the game may choose... and for example:

an 8 player team game with 4 teams ... with the (Self Teams) box marked (Yes) would then become 4 teams of 2 players, each player having two starting spots on the board that they can work however they feel like.

a 6 player game with 2 teams would then be only two players each one controlling 3 starting points.

This would still function like a normal team game but would only be one player controlling ALL of his teams positions.

Thanks y'all... Enjoying the experience in here:-)
Crazy Frog

[Crazy Frog]

Clarification... Each Team would be only one person but 2-4 starting positions.
The game would scroll through team members as it usually does as though each person was several people.

[iamkoolerthanu]

I think this has been suggested before, and I like it!

Basically in a quads game you would play as red, yellow, blue, and green on team one, and your single opponent would player for pink cyan orange and silver. Except it would just be 1v1.. I have done this on the board game, I like it haha

[Crazy Frog]

Yes exactly... I looked to see if anyone had already suggested it but who can find anything in that garage full of clutter???

[rdsrds2120]

It has been, I'll try to find it and merge this to it. I actually think it's in Submitted, not sure.

Ehh...I won't merge it now. It's in Rejected, so we don't want to just plummet this there

-rd

[Electricksabers]

It has been, I'll try to find it and merge this to it. I actually think it's in Submitted, not sure.

Ehh...I won't merge it now. It's in Rejected, so we don't want to just plummet this there

-rd

its in submitted, not rejected

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=535&t=109621&start=0

[rdsrds2120]

It has been, I'll try to find it and merge this to it. I actually think it's in Submitted, not sure.

Ehh...I won't merge it now. It's in Rejected, so we don't want to just plummet this there

-rd

its in submitted, not rejected

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=535&t=109621&start=0

I found something similar in rejected . The first one I found was in rejected, so I assumed it wouldn't be in Submitted, lol. Well, olleyoop.

-rd

[Crazy Frog]

Sequential is a must... Freestyle would not work so good on this... would eliminate the purpose really... Of course you could leave it as an option... in case somebody wants to try it... why not.. its their game...
Someone said "t could be fun with assassin games, where you have multiple targets, and if any of your colors dies, then it's game over. so you have to protect all."
I say.. or maybe not...
With several players you could treat the teams of one player like a Hydra.. have to cut off ALL of the heads to get the win on that guy...

I am all for it. Do it.

[Crazy Frog]

I just want to add that I am already dreaming of "Challenge Matches" as a number a games included in our "Clan Wars"... Ohhh YESS!!!!

[Timminz]

So, I heard there was a big update coming. Is it finally time for the best suggestion ever, to be implemented?

[zimmah]

this is often how i play games with my causin. when we're just with the 2 of us, and play a game like monopoly or risk, which is more fun with more players, and we can't find a 3rd or 4th player, we usually control 2 or 3 'players' each, and compete against each other this way.

it is far more fun then just standard 1 vs 1.

[Trevor33]

I'd like the option to play single team games.

It would be pretty simple to set up, the same player playing each of the colors in a 'team' game.

What better way to work out who the best doubles, trips or quads player is on the site by having a large tournament where only 1 person controls each color?

Obviously the game could only be played against other 1 man teams with the same points awarded for victory than in a 1vs1 match.

Please?

[Metsfanmax]

Merged with existing Submitted Suggestion.

[greenoaks]

this is a pointless suggestion

teams involve more than 1 player

[Timminz]

this is a pointless suggestion

teams involve more than 1 player

Not pointless. There are many excellent options for team play. This is a suggestion for more advanced versions of 1v1 games. Don't let the word "team" fool you. It's merely being used to help convey the meaning of the suggestion.



Anyway, does anyone know what needs to be done, or determined, in order to get this suggestion moving? Is there anything I, or anyone else, could do to help?

[greenoaks]

this is a pointless suggestion

teams involve more than 1 player

Not pointless. There are many excellent options for team play. This is a suggestion for more advanced versions of 1v1 games. Don't let the word "team" fool you. It's merely being used to help convey the meaning of the suggestion.



Anyway, does anyone know what needs to be done, or determined, in order to get this suggestion moving? Is there anything I, or anyone else, could do to help?

i was not fooled, i was responding to the earlier post that this could be used to determine the best quads player

[Trevor33]

How couldn't it discover who the best quads player is? Seems like the only way to find out who the best quads player is...


This was suggested a while ago... any chance of it being implemented?

There's too much luck involved in 1vs1 games with the drop and dice... i've played this on a real board, it works and is much better than the normal 1vs1 games.

[agentcom]

This would be cool. And I agree that this is perhaps the only way of truly figuring out who the best "team player" is. This is not to be confused with figuring out who the best "team" is.

I'm split on the idea of whether you should be allowed to play multiple opponents with this setting. On the one hand, multiple players often add new insight to a team's position. As such, it would be challenging to play 4 very good players by yourself. On the other hand, the quintessential feature of a good team is coordination. And who can "coordinate" better than a single player managing an entire team? I find that the latter consideration makes this setting too advantageous for the single player. If 1 player was allowed to play 4, there would instantly be all kinds of new "ranchers" out there. I would probably be one of them, as I think I could easily gain points in such a setting. And think about freestyle! The single player would absolutely dominate that setting!

So I would support this setting with the addition that it only be available for 1 v 1 match-ups.

[Crazy Frog]

If this thing which I have affectionately called ~A Team of One~ in conversations past... ever gets approved it will probably cause me to play allot more team games.... but of this type. I like some maps that are great team maps... I love working our team strategies on those maps... But it is sometimes a hassle to get games started etc... This would make it far easier to get the games going and also allow me to be completely in charge of the strategy... win or lose... it would have been my fault. Pearl 4X4 with only 2 players for example... Love it... great idea... Somebody pick up the phone and call Lack already...

[Crazy Frog]

Can we change the name of this suggestion to "Team of Self". As an option this name sounds more descriptive of the intent... I think so anyway...

[PUPPYFTW]

Concise description:

• A team game where a single user controls 2-4 armies

Specifics/Details:

• 2-4 player game type, # of teams per player determined during game creation. Same rules as team game.

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

• For players who like the strategy options of team games but don't like having teammates who don't do what they are told/question their every move. Also moves faster in theory than a regular team game, and allows freemium players to get more game time in their 4 games. I play this sort of game in real life with one of my good friends (Frox333) and we both love it. Don't know if this was already suggested but I couldn't find anything that seemed to be the same.
  Side note: 3-4 player games of this type would only be allowed 2 teams per player due to the 8 players per game limit.

[maxfaraday]

Inb4 General Risk says it's the greatest suggestion ever.