Conquer Club

i thought that it would make things more interesting if we could add handicap games. like 2 on 1, 3 on 1, 3 on 2. anyone else?

THIS WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO WORK OUT A NEW POINT SCORING SYSTEM OR THE 1 IS AT AN ADVATAGE

cena-rules wrote:THIS WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO WORK OUT A NEW POINT SCORING SYSTEM OR THE 1 IS AT AN ADVATAGE

you forgot to unlock your caps button
i certenly don't want to play those, and also i think it would be abused a lot

probably wont be implemented...cool idea though

Wisse wrote:

cena-rules wrote:THIS WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO WORK OUT A NEW POINT SCORING SYSTEM OR THE 1 IS AT AN ADVATAGE

you forgot to unlock your caps button
i certenly don't want to play those, and also i think it would be abused a lot

yeah I know

will be abused probably but hey it seems fun

It seems like there are a lot of ideas ruined by the potential for points abuse... do you think there is enough interest in any of these ideas, (like this one) to make it worth having games without points, or counting in your win-loss total?

you havent discussed the game mechanics. would the person who is outnumbered get a turn for every turn of the handicapped guys? e.g. player 1 and 2 are against player 3. if you had the player who is outnumbered get a turn for every turn of the other guys it would be like this

player one starts
player 3
player 2
player 3
player 1
player 3
player 2
etc

or would it be sequential

player 1
player 2
player 3
player 1
etc

if player three gets the first option the game isnt exactly a disadvantage, its basically 2v2 but the lonely guy gets to control an entire team

also how would territories be distributed? evenly like the way it is? or would it be so the total of the 2 guys on a team is equal to the total of the single person? second option is huge advantage for lonely guy

and points, if the team wins they really dont get many points because logically it would be split right? even if all three players are same score each person on the team gets 10 points whereas the player alone gets 40, huge potential for abuse if the advantages spoken earlier are used

any more thoughts along this line are welcome, i just thought this up right now no time to actually sleep on it

Just my two cents, but I think the turns would go the same as now. In free style, each player would get one turn per turn, in sequential, it would just go 1-2-3-1-2-3.

As to territory distribution, it would also be normal; that is the point of the concept of handicap I think, pitting your superior skill against their advantages.

2 on 1 would be a serious challenge, but I think 3 on 2, or 4 on 3 could be interesting as well.

As to point, I think in a 2 on 1, each of the two would cough of half-points; you are basically saying they aare 'half the player' you are if you challenge them. If the 2 win, they would each get half, unless only one of them survives long enough to defeat the single player, then he should get it all.

Again, I'm not a points-focused player, but that doesn't seem like something that would be abused.

i was thinking that the person that wanted the handicap would lose just as many pts as he would normally and the team would split them, also if he won then he would also get the normal amount of pts. this would be because he established his role of superiority. i dont see wy he should get penalized for going it alone. i guess the idea of a no pts game would add a lot to the challenge as well. an idea

as far as the turns go. i was thinking that it would go normally. 1-2-3-1-2-3. why not. it would be like a team game with 1 person eliminated.

this would be a way for triples or doubles teams that always play with each other to challenge a trips or doubs team to see which team is better.

the terr set would be like a team game but the handicaped players partner would be neutral.

i thought that it would make for an interesting twist to the game. i know that when i do this with my family when we play the board game it is fun and quite challenging for the loner. but bragging rites and more come from victory.

thanks for the imput

why not make it 2V1 but the 1 gets 2 goes per round like

1
2
1
3
round 2
1
2
1
3
etc

because that would give a huge advantage to the handicaped person making it less of a handicap. since he would get twice the turns he would get twice the cards and twice the armies. this eliminates the handicap

killer_ace3 wrote:because that would give a huge advantage to the handicaped person making it less of a handicap. since he would get twice the turns he would get twice the cards and twice the armies. this eliminates the handicap

it doesnt eliminate the handicapp. it just..... ummm.... turns it into a 2v1(2) or a 3v2(1.5)

cena-rules wrote:why not make it 2V1 but the 1 gets 2 goes per round like...

Because then the lone player is advantaged. Imagine if you played a team game, except you controlled all your armies and took all your turns.

BaldAdonis wrote:Because then the lone player is advantaged. Imagine if you played a team game, except you controlled all your armies and took all your turns.

exactly my point

This has been suggested before... and great detail was entered into...

Can someone see if they can dig out the old thread?

C.

didnt know that

could it be brought back up and possibly implemented