Moderator: Community Team
Evil Semp wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:greenoaks wrote:Evil Semp wrote:It is a team game so the total team troops should be what is used.
i agree.
any word from our master about why he wants team games to not be decided by the teams total effort
There wasn't particularly serious objection at the time, partially because you can achieve the same result just by forting all your troops to your teammate. There's nothing unfair about that approach because it doesn't benefit one team at the expense of another. Everyone has the same standard applied to them.
Weather it was a serious objection or not I don't really remember. Maybe I misunderstood. By forting all troops to one player changes it from PLAYING the game and just trying to win. The journey to winning the game should be playing the game.
Metsfanmax wrote:I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.
Bones2484 wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.
Team games are about the team, not the individual player.
Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?
Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left
Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left
I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.
Agent 86 wrote:Wow, so far both suggestion Mods have not agreed to this and only put up lame excuses..but another Mod has, thanks. Why do we have a suggestion forum ? This suggestion is a very good one and very reasonable and should be implemented. This has come about I presume because it's the first instance of this happening and not many were aware of this as the round cap is new. Singles games well it is obvious but team games surely the total troops wins the game.
86
Metsfanmax wrote:Agent 86 -- I'm not necessarily opposed to this suggestion, I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it. It's a minor issue at best, but if it is not a difficult fix it should be implemented.
Bones2484 wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.
Team games are about the team, not the individual player.
Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?
Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left
Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left
I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.
nebsmith wrote:Team 1 deserve to win, as Team 2 must all be Idiots for not forting to one player in the last round.
chapcrap wrote:Bones2484 wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.
Team games are about the team, not the individual player.
Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?
Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left
Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left
I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.
While I agree with changing it to total troop count, I will say that I have been in situations where the team who had the most dominant player was in the better position to win in the end. For instance, in a doubles 13 Colonies game, I was down to 1 troop for the last 7 or 8 rounds and my partner had slightly more troops than either of the two opponents and a bonus. With my tert being sheilded, he was able to withstand the opponents and we won even though they were the stronger team by troop count.
While my example is a hole in the argument, I think that typically the team with more troops is stronger and should be the team to receive the win. I would have even been ok with that happening in the example that I gave if it would have ended at the point where my partner had not weakened them and us losing because it is a team game and the whole team matters, not just the strongest person.
safariguy5 wrote:chapcrap wrote:Bones2484 wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.
Team games are about the team, not the individual player.
Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?
Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left
Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left
I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.
While I agree with changing it to total troop count, I will say that I have been in situations where the team who had the most dominant player was in the better position to win in the end. For instance, in a doubles 13 Colonies game, I was down to 1 troop for the last 7 or 8 rounds and my partner had slightly more troops than either of the two opponents and a bonus. With my tert being sheilded, he was able to withstand the opponents and we won even though they were the stronger team by troop count.
While my example is a hole in the argument, I think that typically the team with more troops is stronger and should be the team to receive the win. I would have even been ok with that happening in the example that I gave if it would have ended at the point where my partner had not weakened them and us losing because it is a team game and the whole team matters, not just the strongest person.
How long did this team game last? If you set a reasonable round limit, a game like that probably would have ended before round limit was reached.
darth emperor wrote:Don't get me wrong. I agree with this suggestion, but I can understand why is made like this:
In maps where you win by objective. Only one player must hold all the objectives, not the team. (There were also many sugg. to change it)
And they did that, like that, based that only one player can have a bonus zone, to get the armies.
So here they also mantain like that in order to keep the spirit.
BGtheBrain wrote:Id like to see this brought back to an Active topic instead of rejected.
Any luck of that?
22-4 at the time of post
tbayjosh wrote:Total team all the way
I don't know why this is even a discussion wow
Lots of arguments could be made in different ways but at the end of the day IT'S A TEAM GAME
dont know what the problem would be in such a small change
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users