Conquer Club

Playing a team game and unable to win the game with the team holding alternate victory conditions. This defies all logic and makes team games impossible to win by alt vic conditions outside of straight up slaughter of opposing teams, which is boring to say the least, and makes team play largely pointless.

Please fix this.

talonz wrote:Playing a team game and unable to win the game with the team holding alternate victory conditions. This defies all logic and makes team games impossible to win by alt vic conditions outside of straight up slaughter of opposing teams, which is boring to say the least, and makes team play largely pointless.

Please fix this.

If this were to be implemented, then people would start howling that teams should be able to hold continent bonuses.

How does it defy logic? Bonuses have to be held by a single player, so do victory conditions. Seems logical to me.

How does it make team games pointless? All maps don't even have victory conditions.

maybe try one set of troups for each team were you all have control of each others troups 2 use

TheForgivenOne wrote:
If this were to be implemented, then people would start howling that teams should be able to hold continent bonuses.

Wow.

How utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand.

natty_dread wrote:How does it defy logic? Bonuses have to be held by a single player, so do victory conditions. Seems logical to me.

Thats not logical, just consistent.

How does it make team games pointless? All maps don't even have victory conditions.

All maps have victory conditions, at a minimum eliminating all enemy players. One can do this as a team, and yet cant win with alternate victory conditions as a team?

*that* is not logical. You might as well remove team options on such maps.

talonz wrote:Playing a team game and unable to win the game with the team holding alternate victory conditions. This defies all logic and makes team games impossible to win by alt vic conditions outside of straight up slaughter of opposing teams, which is boring to say the least, and makes team play largely pointless.

Please fix this.

This does not defy all logic, only yours and your assumptions. It is possible to win as a team with an alternate victory condition. You just have to plan for one player to hold the appropriate territories, while the rest of the team defends. This is precisely the same as working together so that one player can hold a bonus and receive the extra troops, which can be deployed on any team member's territories.

talonz wrote:All maps have victory conditions, at a minimum eliminating all enemy players. One can do this as a team, and yet cant win with alternate victory conditions as a team?

*that* is not logical. You might as well remove team options on such maps.

In the context of Conquer Club, to call the elimination of all enemy players a "victory condition" is fatuous. As I said here,

ender516 wrote:If you read the Instructions for this site, you will see the following statements:

In the Overview, the creators of Conquer Club wrote:Conquer Club is a turn-based strategy game. Opponents engage in combat and the last remaining player wins.

In the Gameplay Notes (emphasis mine), the creators of Conquer Club wrote:Some maps have objectives which you must conquer and hold for one round to win the game.

The special terminology has been created to recognize a special situation, where victory can be achieved in a way that might be otherwise unexpected.

Have you even thought about how your sort of team victory objectives would be recognized? If you take part of the objective, then an opponent plays, then your teammate takes the rest of the objective, then another opponent takes some of what you held, then another teammate takes it back, when have you held the objective for one round? What if you take part of the objective from your teammate? The more one considers this idea, the more the complications grow. Have you considered it?

We're all very happy you were able to figure this out the ninth time around on 3rd Crusade, but unfortunately CC will not be changing the rules for everyone just because you find it too much effort to communicate and coordinate with your team partners.

You should have been asking these kind of questions your first team game, and adapting your strategy to suit the game. It's not illogical, you've just become become comfortable with the wrongful conclusions you drew about team game rules.

talonz wrote:

natty_dread wrote:How does it defy logic? Bonuses have to be held by a single player, so do victory conditions. Seems logical to me.

Thats not logical, just consistent.

You avoided the question. How exactly does it defy logic?

How does it make team games pointless? All maps don't even have victory conditions.

All maps have victory conditions, at a minimum eliminating all enemy players. One can do this as a team, and yet cant win with alternate victory conditions as a team?

*that* is not logical. You might as well remove team options on such maps.

Eliminating all other players is not a victory condition. It's the standard way of winning the game: there are no other players left, thus you win by default.

Also it's in no way comparable to the other victory conditions. They are very different. Of course you can eliminate other players as a team, since anyone can eliminate another player. How can you leap from this to the conclusion that victory conditions should apply to teams? Victory condition is based on holding a certain group of territories at the beginning of your turn, while winning the game the traditional way is dependent on the other players, not any group of territories. You can't really compare the two.

I agree with nearly every post here... but It would be nice to have the option on a map where teams could achieve victory.

It would add all new degrees to map'making.

I think more options could only be better. I think the way the maps code is set up it would be an all or none thing, that is if this was changed then all the maps could achieve a team victory, and I would be against that because it would make many maps obsolete in team play.

talonz wrote:All maps have victory conditions, at a minimum eliminating all enemy players. One can do this as a team, and yet cant win with alternate victory conditions as a team?

*that* is not logical. You might as well remove team options on such maps.

A team does not eliminate a player; a player eliminates a player. The current system is entirely consistent: one player on a team may eliminate opposing players, and in doing so allows the whole team to win. One player on a team may hold an objective, and in doing so allows the whole team to win. The proposed system would be inconsistent, as teams cannot eliminate players directly, but teams would be able to hold objectives.

ender516 wrote:Have you even thought about how your sort of team victory objectives would be recognized? If you take part of the objective, then an opponent plays, then your teammate takes the rest of the objective, then another opponent takes some of what you held, then another teammate takes it back, when have you held the objective for one round? What if you take part of the objective from your teammate? The more one considers this idea, the more the complications grow. Have you considered it?

Doesn't seem too complicated to me.

At the start of any player's turn, if your teammates have held the victory condition regions since the beginning of the same player's turn 1 round ago, it would be a victory.

Option: Only count continuous ownership of a region by a single team member for the last round, or allow teammates to takeover from one another without resetting the 1 round clock.

This would be interesting, but like nobunaga said, it could have implications for existing maps that might make the victory condition much easier to achieve than it was designed for, having negative gameplay ramifications.

Unless this type of behavior could be totally regulated in the xml, so it would not affect older victory condition maps. Then we could implement this with no complications to existing maps.

This type of condition testing would require the server to examine the history of the game, where now it only needs to know the current state. Not impossible, but not trivial either.

Sorry talonz, but this suggestion is too unpopular to be considered.

lackattack wrote:Sorry talonz, but this suggestion is too unpopular to be considered.

Darwins_Bane wrote:Rejected.

By lackattack himself, the ultimate arbiter, no less.