Manual Teams

[Industrial Helix]

Concise description: Manual Teams

Players have the ingame ability to forge alliances which give all the benefits of teams in team games.

Specifics/Details:

I imagine this would be a new stage in the system of play, so perhaps all treaty action would go before you receive troops to deploy each turn.

One can offer a treaty to any other player which will give the benefits seen in team games. Offers must be accepted or denied by the opposite player.

Treaties are on a 1 by 1 basis, if partner A makes a treaty with partner B and then partner A makes a treaty with partner C, then partner c is NOT the partner of Partner B by default. In order to form a triples team, partner C must make a treaty with partner B.

Alliances can be created or broken by any player.

Games can be started with an option for manual alliances, so people who don't wish to play this style don't have to.

Teams may swell up to 8 players, but then the game is ended with no winner and no points allocated. Why anyone would do this other than for novelty, I dunno.

Points awarded will decrease with the size of the team.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

This would be a lot of fun and add a new dimension of calculation to games. It would also make games significantly more unique and CC would be a getting a lot more mileage out of maps.

[Victor Sullivan]

Would you have the team chat? It seems like that would be a form of Secret Diplomacy, no? Would you be able to sever an alliance? What would be the consequences of that? If you forge an alliance, I assume you'd be able to fortify the person that's in an alliance with you?

[TheForgivenOne]

Been suggested before. Think it was rejected.

Edit** I was correct
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=471&t=126138

[rdsrds2120]

This suggestion carries a love/hate ambivalent relationship with me. It would be really cool to be able to, but at the same time I'm not sure how the secret diplomacy would conflict. Would each proposition be posted in game chat by default, similar to how Dako's share spoils script works?

[stahrgazer]

Concise description: Manual Teams

Players have the ingame ability to forge alliances which give all the benefits of teams in team games.

Specifics/Details:

I imagine this would be a new stage in the system of play, so perhaps all treaty action would go before you receive troops to deploy each turn.

One can offer a treaty to any other player which will give the benefits seen in team games. Offers must be accepted or denied by the opposite player.

Treaties are on a 1 by 1 basis, if partner A makes a treaty with partner B and then partner A makes a treaty with partner C, then partner c is NOT the partner of Partner B by default. In order to form a triples team, partner C must make a treaty with partner B.

Alliances can be created or broken by any player.

Games can be started with an option for manual alliances, so people who don't wish to play this style don't have to.

Teams may swell up to 8 players, but then the game is ended with no winner and no points allocated. Why anyone would do this other than for novelty, I dunno.

Points awarded will decrease with the size of the team.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

This would be a lot of fun and add a new dimension of calculation to games. It would also make games significantly more unique and CC would be a getting a lot more mileage out of maps.

People can play team games, and people can, and frequently do, forge alliances. I don't see the difference between forming a treaty before gameplay and deciding to make a team game, other than having a legal way to gang up on someone without having to discuss it in chat.

[Industrial Helix]

The big problem that I want to solve is that I hate crafting an alliance knowing that at some point it must end. So in fact, it never becomes an alliance because I am always suspicious of my ally's intentions. In reality, we're just ignoring each other until a better opportunity to strike at each other occurs. What I want is to agree to an alliance that can end in victory for me and my new found partner. What I want to recreate would be the epic alliances of WWII or the Seven years war or what have you. I want alliances made my the actual game, not by preset teams randomly dispersed.

Well, I'm thinking that team player chat would be enacted once the alliance has been confirmed. But then again, this opens a possibility for players to discuss in private, dissolve the alliance and then disguise their alliance while they play as supposed opposites, only to re-allign at the very end to secure team victory. BUT, perhaps this might be acceptable. Players would be naturally suspicious of alliances suddenly broken and could play accordingly.

OR there could be no team chat. All negotiations would be in the open.

The ultimate objective I want to push is the human element of a CC game. I don't like that I can start an 8 player game and have to be the only victor. I want victorious coalitions!

And once again, people who don't want to play with such in game intrigue don't have to. It's game option. People who select "Manual teams" know what they're getting into and have various resources at their hands to play it well. Much like a player of fog games has the log to analyze. I mean, who says players have the right to see the map? Secret Diplomacy is a facet of manual teams, the question is how will you play your games knowing this?

[Metsfanmax]

Way too easily abused. A group of seven could come in, form an alliance with each other, and take points quickly from the poor player who isn't one of their friends.

[Industrial Helix]

Way too easily abused. A group of seven could come in, form an alliance with each other, and take points quickly from the poor player who isn't one of their friends.

Yeah, I thought about that. The best way would be to counter it would be to stick to how points are awarded already. A team of seven isn't going to yield many points, even if the 8th player is really highly ranked. I figure if you have seven cooks at 500 points each, an extreme rarity, they add up to 3500 total points on their team. They'd have to eliminate a general or higher to even gain some points, in which case, its a mild 20 points to be shared 7 ways, so each player would gain 3 points! Hardly a way to farm!

It's near impossible, based on how the points system already works, to successfully abuse the system.

[drunkmonkey]

I'd be more worried about this being abused in 3 or 4 player games than 8 player games.

[Metsfanmax]

Way too easily abused. A group of seven could come in, form an alliance with each other, and take points quickly from the poor player who isn't one of their friends.

Yeah, I thought about that. The best way would be to counter it would be to stick to how points are awarded already. A team of seven isn't going to yield many points, even if the 8th player is really highly ranked. I figure if you have seven cooks at 500 points each, an extreme rarity, they add up to 3500 total points on their team. They'd have to eliminate a general or higher to even gain some points, in which case, its a mild 20 points to be shared 7 ways, so each player would gain 3 points! Hardly a way to farm!

It's near impossible, based on how the points system already works, to successfully abuse the system.

drunkmonkey said what my response to this would be already. It's true that in 8 player games, you wouldn't get many points - but in a 4 player game, you get a slightly better number of points if you team up 3v1. It wouldn't be a lot, and it would probably not be too enjoyable to do - but CC has proven that if there's a way to abuse the system and get easy points, people will do it

[Smh]

What if you limit the number of alliances you can create, to just one?

[Industrial Helix]

3 cooks at 500 points each versus a colonel at 2500 points...

(1500/2500) * 20 = 33 points lost by the colonel.

33 divided by the 3 team players is... 11. 11 points awarded to the dodgy cooks who devised the ingenious method of farming by manual teams abuse. If these wily cooks find about 30 more hapless colonels they'll make Cadet in no time!

I believe my argument stands that the system would be very difficult to abuse to a profit.


As for limiting the number of alliances, I think I'm leaning against. The only purpose it could serve would be to prevent point farming, but as I've illustrated, the existing formula for points distribution is sufficient enough.

[Metsfanmax]

3 cooks at 500 points each versus a colonel at 2500 points...

(1500/2500) * 20 = 33 points lost by the colonel.

33 divided by the 3 team players is... 11. 11 points awarded to the dodgy cooks who devised the ingenious method of farming by manual teams abuse. If these wily cooks find about 30 more hapless colonels they'll make Cadet in no time!

I believe my argument stands that the system would be very difficult to abuse to a profit.

And your argument is still irrelevant, because this isn't about how profitable such an action is. The point is that people will see that they can make a quick profit and do it, even if you don't think it's worth their time (it's not fair to assume they'll be rational - I mean, look at the current system). In doing so, they'll make life miserable for their victims.

Also, there's something strange with your math. You're assuming that the points of the winners are added up to a collective total before comparing it to the loser, but this is not at all how the point system works - the colonel loses (2500/500)*20 = 100 points to each of the cooks. Even if it's done so that the won points are split up among the winning team, your use of 1500 is still wrong, because it's the average score of the team that's used, not the total score.

[The Bison King]

I had a very similar idea to this. Actually it was the exact same idea. I think this would be an AWESOME innovation.

Games can be started with an option for manual alliances, so people who don't wish to play this style don't have to.

And this is what makes it totally work for me.

[ljex]

3 cooks at 500 points each versus a colonel at 2500 points...

(1500/2500) * 20 = 33 points lost by the colonel.

33 divided by the 3 team players is... 11. 11 points awarded to the dodgy cooks who devised the ingenious method of farming by manual teams abuse. If these wily cooks find about 30 more hapless colonels they'll make Cadet in no time!

I believe my argument stands that the system would be very difficult to abuse to a profit.

And your argument is still irrelevant, because this isn't about how profitable such an action is. The point is that people will see that they can make a quick profit and do it, even if you don't think it's worth their time (it's not fair to assume they'll be rational - I mean, look at the current system). In doing so, they'll make life miserable for their victims.

Also, there's something strange with your math. You're assuming that the points of the winners are added up to a collective total before comparing it to the loser, but this is not at all how the point system works - the colonel loses (2500/500)*20 = 100 points to each of the cooks. Even if it's done so that the won points are split up among the winning team, your use of 1500 is still wrong, because it's the average score of the team that's used, not the total score.

nope...his assumptions are correct. Because its a team of cooks vs other players so if those cooks teamed up that would be how it should calculate points given. Also why must every suggestion be shot down because a select few will use it to farm while others will have a lot of fun with the game-style. Furthermore there is a rule about going into a game knowing you are going to be in a truce so is is really hard to assume that continuous trucing with the same person couldn't be against the rules if this were implemented.

[blakebowling]

I like the suggestion, however from a technical standpoint, this would be very hard to code into the current model of CC. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would require a lot of changes to the CC engine that I'm guessing lack does not wish, nor have time to make.

[Industrial Helix]

3 cooks at 500 points each versus a colonel at 2500 points...

(1500/2500) * 20 = 33 points lost by the colonel.

33 divided by the 3 team players is... 11. 11 points awarded to the dodgy cooks who devised the ingenious method of farming by manual teams abuse. If these wily cooks find about 30 more hapless colonels they'll make Cadet in no time!

I believe my argument stands that the system would be very difficult to abuse to a profit.

And your argument is still irrelevant, because this isn't about how profitable such an action is. The point is that people will see that they can make a quick profit and do it, even if you don't think it's worth their time (it's not fair to assume they'll be rational - I mean, look at the current system). In doing so, they'll make life miserable for their victims.

Also, there's something strange with your math. You're assuming that the points of the winners are added up to a collective total before comparing it to the loser, but this is not at all how the point system works - the colonel loses (2500/500)*20 = 100 points to each of the cooks. Even if it's done so that the won points are split up among the winning team, your use of 1500 is still wrong, because it's the average score of the team that's used, not the total score.

OK, the big point that you're assuming is that it will be a quick profit and it won't. It will be more tedious than the current systems of farming I think. Another problem is that it requires a group of seven to pull it off, which ought to look suspicious enough after enough repeated offenses.

[Metsfanmax]

OK, the big point that you're assuming is that it will be a quick profit and it won't. It will be more tedious than the current systems of farming I think. Another problem is that it requires a group of seven to pull it off, which ought to look suspicious enough after enough repeated offenses.

But currently, farming is illegal. I don't see that joining in groups of seven would be illegal under the proposed system, which means people could do this as often as they wanted (even if one game doesn't net them a lot of points, they can play a bunch to earn points, and it's really easy to win a game of 3-7 vs. 1)

[Industrial Helix]

But honestly, what group of 3 cooks do you know of that farm? Isn't the whole point of farming to maintain point status? I was always under the impression that farmers had high ranks, rather than low.

Let's look at the math of a group of 3 colonels farming a sergeant... (1500/7500)*20 = 3 points awarded to our trio of infamous farmers, one going to each.

If we go for something more realistic such as three sergeants first class farming another hapless sergeant... (1400/4200)*20 = 6 points for the team, 2 points for each cruel conspirator.

But like you say, those games are easy and can be multiplied... so lets say our three sergeants have little to no life and spend it playing 50 games of manual teams abuse... 2 * 50 = 100. So for every 150 games they WIN by this method, they shall achieve a rank increase at 300 points. If they play 500 games and win all by this method they shall become the terrible trio of colonels previously described.

Seriously... 500 games.

These scary schemers might be better of creating 10 games of circus maximus on standard.

[Metsfanmax]

But honestly, what group of 3 cooks do you know of that farm? Isn't the whole point of farming to maintain point status? I was always under the impression that farmers had high ranks, rather than low.

Let's look at the math of a group of 3 colonels farming a sergeant... (1500/7500)*20 = 3 points awarded to our trio of infamous farmers, one going to each.

If we go for something more realistic such as three sergeants first class farming another hapless sergeant... (1400/4200)*20 = 6 points for the team, 2 points for each cruel conspirator.

But like you say, those games are easy and can be multiplied... so lets say our three sergeants have little to no life and spend it playing 50 games of manual teams abuse... 2 * 50 = 100. So for every 150 games they WIN by this method, they shall achieve a rank increase at 300 points. If they play 500 games and win all by this method they shall become the terrible trio of colonels previously described.

Seriously... 500 games.

These scary schemers might be better of creating 10 games of circus maximus on standard.

Even if your math is correct, it ignores the fact that points are not the only reason to play games. You could get medals really easily through this method.

[ljex]

But honestly, what group of 3 cooks do you know of that farm? Isn't the whole point of farming to maintain point status? I was always under the impression that farmers had high ranks, rather than low.

Let's look at the math of a group of 3 colonels farming a sergeant... (1500/7500)*20 = 3 points awarded to our trio of infamous farmers, one going to each.

If we go for something more realistic such as three sergeants first class farming another hapless sergeant... (1400/4200)*20 = 6 points for the team, 2 points for each cruel conspirator.

But like you say, those games are easy and can be multiplied... so lets say our three sergeants have little to no life and spend it playing 50 games of manual teams abuse... 2 * 50 = 100. So for every 150 games they WIN by this method, they shall achieve a rank increase at 300 points. If they play 500 games and win all by this method they shall become the terrible trio of colonels previously described.

Seriously... 500 games.

These scary schemers might be better of creating 10 games of circus maximus on standard.

Even if your math is correct, it ignores the fact that points are not the only reason to play games. You could get medals really easily through this method.

At one unique defeat at a time? doesn't exactly seem easier to do it that way.

[Metsfanmax]

But honestly, what group of 3 cooks do you know of that farm? Isn't the whole point of farming to maintain point status? I was always under the impression that farmers had high ranks, rather than low.

Let's look at the math of a group of 3 colonels farming a sergeant... (1500/7500)*20 = 3 points awarded to our trio of infamous farmers, one going to each.

If we go for something more realistic such as three sergeants first class farming another hapless sergeant... (1400/4200)*20 = 6 points for the team, 2 points for each cruel conspirator.

But like you say, those games are easy and can be multiplied... so lets say our three sergeants have little to no life and spend it playing 50 games of manual teams abuse... 2 * 50 = 100. So for every 150 games they WIN by this method, they shall achieve a rank increase at 300 points. If they play 500 games and win all by this method they shall become the terrible trio of colonels previously described.

Seriously... 500 games.

These scary schemers might be better of creating 10 games of circus maximus on standard.

Even if your math is correct, it ignores the fact that points are not the only reason to play games. You could get medals really easily through this method.

At one unique defeat at a time? doesn't exactly seem easier to do it that way.

Not necessarily. You could get 4 against 2 in a six player game and it would still be really easy to win.

At any rate, you guys aren't stupid; if you really believe that it actually won't be abused, who am I to criticize? It's just my opinion that it will be. If I'm in the minority, I'll drop the argument.

[ljex]

Well im sure it will be abused if we dont put rules in place to stop it, but how hard is it to say that truces before the game start are illegal...and that if multiple start having truces in many games they will be blocked.

Also just because it will be abuse doesn't mean that other people cant enjoy a different setting for the fun of what it is.

[lalaland]

The other problem with this is all players in a game forming an alliance so no points are lost... and this has been repeatedly shot down in the form of "no score" games or "draw button" type suggestions.

[Industrial Helix]

The other problem with this is all players in a game forming an alliance so no points are lost... and this has been repeatedly shot down in the form of "no score" games or "draw button" type suggestions.

Hmm... this is a good point. Perhaps something could be put into play where all 8 players can't all form an alliance and quit the game? If at least 1 player loses then some points will be lost/gained.