How about a whole team sequential?

by **samicko** on Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:56 pm

Currently, we have a team sequential match whereby if its a 2v2 match, 1 member of each team gets to move at a time. What about having a team match whereby team 1 has 24hrs to make a move and team 2 cannot start unless both of them in team 1 end their turns and vice versa.

Well, that's just my thought :idea:

by **lancehoch** on Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:02 pm

What happens to those quads games on small maps? This would not work. It would give the first team a huge advantage.

by **4 U 2 NV** on Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:07 pm

from my understanding, this is very similar to what the original teams games had before we changed over. the way it went, because a team joins in order, the turn would go right after one another. this caused unfair starts and lopsided victories, which is why we opted to change it.

by **gloryordeath** on Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:58 pm

4 U 2 NV wrote:from my understanding, this is very similar to what the original teams games had before we changed over. the way it went, because a team joins in order, the turn would go right after one another. this caused unfair starts and lopsided victories, which is why we opted to change it.

That sounds about right the new system is much better.

by **FabledIntegral** on Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:00 pm

lancehoch wrote:What happens to those quads games on small maps? This would not work. It would give the first team a huge advantage.

it's what happens already with the high ranks when they join games.

by **samicko** on Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:54 pm

Okay, i get it now :lol:

by **cicero** on Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:25 am

You seem to be proposing this:

Team A - p1 & p2
Team B - p3 & p4

Round 1
p1
p2
p3
p4

So team A get two turns in a row ?!
This would completely turn the game in favour of whichever team went first. Imagine a triples or quads game - the second team might not even get to take a turn at all ...
So, unless I've misunderstood, this sounds like a non starter ...

by **samicko** on Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:41 am

Haha, now i know y this was changed. The way u said it really makes things unfair. But team games still rock the current way

by **ctgottapee** on Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:31 am

how about allowing 2 types of team games: 'Team Sequential' or 'Player Sequential'

Team Sequential play actually works on most maps, as long as the team playing first doesn't get more than a standard 3 armies a piece each. It allows a really nice dynamic of playing together and mastering team moves together. Sometimes going first is a burden if your playing for cards and have to roll the 6 v 3, whereas the 2nd team playing will probably have some easier targets; you also have to give up your strategy, or can be forced into a tough decision to go for something knowing that you may leave yourself too weak to defend it if the dice roll badly.

Team Sequential play can be unforgiving though in Unlimited fortification games, or games on certain small maps; generally players won't create or join those games so that problem is solved.

can't hurt if it is an option