Conquer Club

This is a new team option I have been thinking about over the past few weeks. When you look at several wars, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan for example, several different factions joined together to fight the Soviet army, but when the Soviet army was defeated they turned on each other for contol of the post-war government. So, this new option I'm proposing, is based on what I have just described.

Specifics:

• For Doubles, Triples, and Quadruple games
• Once all other teams are defeated and points are dispursed among the members of the winning team, the winning team will be divided into rival factions.
• In Doubles, the game will become a 1vs1
• Triples, 1vs1vs1
• Quadruples 1vs1vs1vs1

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Adds a new game option for the community to play
• Possible new medals
• Creates a new strategy for team games

This is a very interesting idea, you want to win the team game and the 1 vs 1 so while you are working as a team you are also working as an individual. I see both good and bad aspects, im going to think things over before giving a more detailed opinion.

A very, very interesting idea. Would make for some extremely interesting games! However, like ljex, I'm going to think this over a bit more before I get too carried away. I've already got one or two scenarios in mind which could cause some heated exchanges.

Cheers, JB

Just want to add on to the idea. If a team mate gets eliminated, he's out for good, no resurrection for the Civil War part of the game. So, in a quadruple game if one man is elimanated it will be a 2 vs 1, instead of a 2 vs 2.

Also along those lines the 2 vs 2 set up should be like in a doubles game, i.e. player 1 and player 2 together, 3 & 4, and so on.

I really don't like that idea of 2v1

TheForgivenOne wrote:I really don't like that idea of 2v1

I see your point, but I don't see how we could bring the dead player back into the game. This of course will add to the strategy in a quadruples game where you don't want your future team mate to die off too soon, leaving you at a disadvantage.

However, if anyone can come up with a good way to bring a player back from the dead, I'll be willing to listen.

But this would partially encourage Teammate Killing. Say in the Quads game, the opponent team has very little left, so you decide, hey, lets start hitting one of our teammates so they are weak. Also, say 1 out of the 4 Team mates is dominating the whole board. So the other 3 decide to team up on him, since he's basically won this game, no matter what happens

TheForgivenOne wrote:But this would partially encourage Teammate Killing. Say in the Quads game, the opponent team has very little left, so you decide, hey, lets start hitting one of our teammates so they are weak

Yes, that would be part of the strategy, which makes me like this suggestion so much. This makes the site more life like, IMO (you cannot always trust your 'allies' because they have their own agendas). The way I've set the option up is that even if the weakest link(s) on a team get eliminated before the first phase is done, they will still recieve points from the losing team(s).

I'm a fan of the game Diplomacy, where you can always stab your allies in the back when the time comes. If this becomes a major hurtle I will rethink the 2vs2 phase in quadruple games.

After thinking about this i am against it being implemented as a feature on CC. This is because the game play basically makes it not a team game but an individual game where you have assigned teammates. In the long run it would be best to play it like a singles game and thus not be a new type of game.

I don't see why the Quads can't just turn into a Free for All. It saves a lot of hassle.

And, if this is implemented, I'm really going to have to think twice before teaming up with a random stranger. I could just imagine them making a stupid move trying to weaken me while the other team is still alive.

Decided to change quads to a standard game, rather than 2 team games, if there is support for the 2vs2 phase I'll bring it back, but for the moment I'm will change it to a free for all, unless there is strong support for the 2vs2 phase.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how I could improve this suggestion?

I have an extension suggestion for quad games. When the winning team dissolves, the players from that team gets to pick one player from the losing team to be their new teammate. Then when that game ends, the winning players in the doubles team will play one on one aginst each other.

An additional possibility:
This will only apply to non 1on 1 games. The game itself reduces one player after the end of each game phase and a change in map occurs. Its best explained if I use an example:
If a game started with 8 players, it would have 7 phases
1.8 players (Quadruples) on Classic, when one team defeats another team point loss and gains are calculated as normal, but only the first player to be eliminated in the game phase is eliminated from the game. The rest of the players carry into the next phase.
2.7 players (Terminator) on World 2.1 (map changes). Phase ends when one player is the last one standing. Only the first player eliminated in this pahse is eliminated from the game as a whole and point gains and losses are calculated normally.
3.6 players (Triples) on Supermax: Prison Riot!. Same situation as the above, except with players.
4.5 players (Assassin) on San Francisco: Same concept.
5.4 players (Doubles) on Age of Realms 2: Same concept.
6.3 players (Standard) on WWII: Europe: Same concept.
7.2 players (Standard) on Doodle Earth:Same concept.

Basically, a single game is prolonged by having multiple phases. Once a phase ends, a player is eliminated and a new map and game type is selected for game play.