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

[ahunda]

farmers paradise. This sounds like a suggestion from a general who just cant quite make it to field marshal or conqueror and is looking for a way to sneak their way in 6-10 points at a time.

Actually it is a suggestion from someone, who never engaged in any farming whatsoever in his time @ CC, doesn´t give a rats ass about reaching high scores or rank, and who simply thinks, this game option would offer great fun & challenging games. Maybe talk with your buddy Fenrir, before you run your mouth, taking cheap shots at people you know f'ck all about and making an ass of yourself in public.

As for farming: It exists. It always has existed. And this game option could probably be exploited too. I don´t hear anyone calling for the removal of Freestyle games though, and that is, where actual farming is taking place today. Do you remove/reject a game option, that many players enjoy for the fun of it, only because some asses (might) exploit it ?

As was pointed out some pages ago already: In this 1v1 scenario the evil farmer General would at least always put his own points on the line. Compare that to the evil farmer General of today, who assembles a team of low-ranks who make every move according to his directions.

You guys are really getting your panties in a bunch, whilst completely missing the point.

[Blitzaholic]

I think it is a good suggestion ahunda, almost 80% agree.

[iamkoolerthanu]

I completely agree with ahunda, as well as this idea in general.

This is a good idea, and it could be very fun to play with! But if you are saying that its a bad idea, simply because people can take advantage of the system...

Why allow people to create games? They will only make the games they are good at, and there is that possibility that they will invite new players to that game.

While we are at it, lets take away the invite function. It has the possibility that players can abuse it for farming purposes.
In fact, why even allow people to make CC accounts at all? Surely people will abuse this system and make multis, wont they?

Obviously, I am saying those things just to make a point, which is that almost everything can(and is) abused in some way shape or form. But you have to wonder, does the positives outweigh those abuses?

In this situation, the answer is yes. All this would do would be to add another option that people can click, and farm with. Since people already farm without this option, there is little harm, yet since many people would love to play with this option, the positives are great.

[Hopscotcher]

In this situation, the answer is yes. All this would do would be to add another option that people can click, and farm with. Since people already farm without this option, there is little harm, yet since many people would love to play with this option, the positives are great.

So............ Since Hiroshima was bombed way back when, we might as well bomb it again

[edwinissweet]

Im going to have to ask you guys to please stay on track, and to not insult eachother. This seems like a good idea that alot of people are interested in, so dont get baited into an argument.

To the OP, if you could please keep the discusion's progress in the first post i would really appriciate it. Like from the last few posts i see that people are even talking about a single individual taking on a quads team. If you could throw that in the first post, along with any other changes and or variations, it would allow new commers to know whats going on without having to go through all the pages. In order for this to have a shot at being looked at further, the community needs to agree on it.

[ahunda]

To the OP, if you could please keep the discusion's progress in the first post i would really appriciate it.

I can add a "Discussion" category to the 1st post. Will do that at the weekend, since I´ll need to go through this thread once more myself first.

[Luvr]

I like this idea for 1v1 games. I like the current way doubles/triples/quads are and I would still play real team games as well as 1v1 team games.

[ahunda]

Ok. Edited the 1st post & tried to summarise the major points of discussion in the thread.

I won´t pretend to be impartial, but I tried my best to include the concerns & objections against the suggestion.

[Dako]

Will post here again, very short.

1vTeam is silly and should be not allowed.
1v1 team games will never be able to replace normal team games. At least all the leagues, clan wars and tournaments will use normal team games only. 1v1 team games are an enhancement of 1v1 games only (it means clans and leagues can use 1v1 team instead of casual 1v1).
1v1 team farming is the same as 1v1 farming. No real difference = no new, even slightly potential hole here.

So yeah, 1v1 team sounds awesome :-D. As awesome as team terminator and team assassin :-P.

[pmchugh]

Will post here again, very short.

1vTeam is silly and should be not allowed.
1v1 team games will never be able to replace normal team games. At least all the leagues, clan wars and tournaments will use normal team games only. 1v1 team games are an enhancement of 1v1 games only (it means clans and leagues can use 1v1 team instead of casual 1v1).
1v1 team farming is the same as 1v1 farming. No real difference = no new, even slightly potential hole here.

So yeah, 1v1 team sounds awesome . As awesome as team terminator and team assassin .

QFT

[ahunda]

I guess the only thing left to decide is whether 1 person should be allowed to go against a team. If you can run a poll and "advertise" it to your friends so we can get quite a bit of votes, then i can hopefully put this on last call by the begining of next week.

Following this suggestion of a Suggestion Mod, I have now put up a new poll. For safe-keeping, here are the results of the old poll (included in 1st post as well):

137 votes in total
108 (79%) in favour
29 (21%) against

[bigimg]http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/296/1v1poll.jpg[/bigimg]

[Pedronicus]

sorry henner.

big NO from me. this will kill regular team games dead.

agree

[White Moose]

I say no to this.

Team games are supposed to be several players working together for victory.

Simple as that.

But... it would be rather intresting to play. But it takes away what team-games are and will probably give regular team-games a real kick in the nuts.

[Gold Knight]

I really dont agree with the concept at all, but 1 vs team is absolutely absurd. That means that if the single player were to win he would gain points from all four players, and how would it work if he were to lose? How would the other team be awarded points? They would either have to take the normal amount and leaving the single losing player out about 100 points, or Lack would have to change the scoring system around...

[Prankcall]

No thanks,I would not like to change this.I like the fact Team games is what it is,requires multiple players working as one.How could you even think 1 player playing against a team would be fun or better.Yes in some cases High ranks join team games with low ranks to gain/lose the most points(abusing the point system) and effectively control all the moves but so what,this is not in anyway the same as 1 player playing 4 accounts.IMO it would be much more effective than 4 or 3 or 2 players trying to work as one.

[stahrgazer]

One person as a team is different than 2, 3, or 4 different people as a team. Part of team play is the need to coordinate despite people's different strategies, time commitments, distractions.

Requires answer to a question: would the 1-man-team games be included, or excluded from Team Medals?

Edit: my opinion... if these games are excluded from medals awards, I'd support the option for those who want to play but don't want to have to coordinate or risk a teammate missing crucial turns. If they're included in team medals, it's just a bogus way for one person to grab medals that should be intended to show an ability to coordinate and take the risks.

[lgoasklucyl]

I'm in favor of it being allowed as long as there exists the option for 1v1 or 1vteam at the creation page.

[ahunda]

Reading through the last few posts, I think, it would be helpful, if people were more clear, if they are talking about the actual 1v1 team game idea or about the new 1vteam poll.

Most arguments about the 1v1 team game option itself have been repeated over & over in this thread already and can be found in the Summary in the 1st thread. But in answer to the last few posts:

The original suggestion was for 1v1 team games only. And not so much as an alternative to regular team games, but rather as an alternative to the current 1v1 games, that are extremely luck based.

I have to admit, that I find the fears about a possible negative impact on regular team games somewhat strange. Aren´t you guys somehow contradicting yourselves ? On the one hand you say: If this was implemented, nobody would play team games anymore. On the other you then say: We love team games so much, that we have to reject this suggestion.

I mean, seriously: If you love team games so much, why would you stop playing them, if there was a new game option introduced ? And/or why would you assume, that everybody else will do so ?

For the record: I personally never thought about 1vteam games, when making the suggestion. I am not interested in that option & find it rather meaningless. I would not play it myself.

If 1vteam would be allowed however, I think, that there would need to be different options on game creation: Pure 1v1 team, pure team v team or "anything goes". So that people, who want to play regular team games, can choose that option & exclude a single player joining all spots on the other team against them.

As for some more specific questions in the last posts:

Point calculation in 1vteam: As was discussed in this thread, the single player would indeed put twice his points on the line in a Dubs, thrice in a Trips, etc. This was seen as a balance to his advantage of not needing to communicate & co-ordinate his strategy. (As I said: I´m not particularly interested in / fond of this option.)

Medals: The suggestion was made, that 1v1 team games should not count for regular team medals. I am not sure, if they could fit into any other medal category (I doubt it), or if there maybe could be a new 1v1 medal.

[Genoke]

i agree with chepren and ahunda...

1vs1 is more based on luck of drop and dices in first 2 rounds. with this option in 1vsteam you take away the luck factor, wish i like!.

also in a team games we still need to have 2,3 or 4 unique players in each team.

nothing more to say..

My support is a fact...

[yeti_c]

Really don't get people voting against this - if you don't like it - don't play it.

C.

[Gold Knight]

Really don't get people voting against this - if you don't like it - don't play it.

C.

I think its more to the point that if Lack were to implement something on this site at all, he would want at least a majority to use it. We could implement every suggestion put in here, and the majority of the people on this site dont use half of the options there are. Especially with a game option like this, its one of the main parts of the game selection and should be a thing that pertains to the enjoyment of the majority of the site.

I agree, if this is implemented, i just wont play it as you stated. But what the point of this suggestions forum is for is to see how many people will and wont play it.

[edwinissweet]

do keep in mind that most people in CC are not active in the forums.

[yeti_c]

Ah - I didn't actually read the poll topic - I assumed it was a "yes/no" question.

I've read the poll question now - and voted No now.

C.

[iamkoolerthanu]

Ah - I didn't actually read the poll topic - I assumed it was a "yes/no" question.

I've read the poll question now - and voted No now.

C.

I just did the same thing

[grayknight_2]

GOT TO BE NO FOR ME I THINK TEAM GAMES SHOULD BE JUST THAT ALL DIFFERENT IDEAS FROM DIFFERENT VIEWS OF TEAM MATES