Conquer Club

You are right, the suggestion of upping the amount of players has been brought up again. However, if you look at the thread I am trying to direct the discussion towards just adding one new player for now, allowing more players in Terminator, Assassin, Standard, and three Triples teams in one game. That in itself is a huge job requiring a lot of work and something which could cause one or two problems for admins and users. Going from eight to nine is a smaller and probably safer step than jumping straight to twelve.

As for the idea of icons, that would mean even more work. Besides, I like all the shiny pretty colours we have, and adding a ninth would not be that much of a deal. If admins added more players then that may pose a problem and then another way, like icons, could be used to identify troops.

Is your suggestion of troop icons an idea thought up because of the proposal for more players, or would you like to see a change anyway, even if the number of players remained at eight?

Cheers, JB

have you taken into account the [add colour codes] button? it alows you to have a letter designated to every player, so on the game you can see who is where aside from the colours.

JoshyBoy wrote:Is your suggestion of troop icons an idea thought up because of the proposal for more players, or would you like to see a change anyway, even if the number of players remained at eight?

Cheers, JB

It's only because of the proposal for more players. If we stay at 8 it's fine as is. Personally, I could care less if they're different colors. I use the color codes, and as far as I'm concerned they could be player A, B, C, etc. and all be the same color. It might be marginally harder to read the map, but not terrible. That's why I was thinking if you had a little flag or something over each number designating its allegiance, the number of players would not be limited by everyone's ability to distinguish subtleties in the color palette.

JoshyBoy wrote:I think going to 9 players to start with would be a good final proposal, and see how that works out. What does everyone think?

I'd like that. As long as there is an increase I'd be happy. As, I stated before any increase will make me happy, I'm very easy to please.

On a side note, I have a question for how hard it would be to code for quintuplet games, in case we ever increase to 10 players?

72o wrote:It's only because of the proposal for more players. If we stay at 8 it's fine as is. Personally, I could care less if they're different colors. I use the color codes, and as far as I'm concerned they could be player A, B, C, etc. and all be the same color. It might be marginally harder to read the map, but not terrible. That's why I was thinking if you had a little flag or something over each number designating its allegiance, the number of players would not be limited by everyone's ability to distinguish subtleties in the color palette.

In that case, should this not of been posted in with that thread? If no-one has anything else relevant to add, I will merge this into this thread.

Cheers, JB

der sniffter wrote:Wouldn't it be great to have a ninth player, so that trips games could be played with 3 teams.



This will improve the following aspects of the site:
- more fun games
- less triples games wating.

Need i say more, this idea is simple and speaks for itself.

Greetings, sniffie

This post has been merged with this thread.

Cheers, JB

Merge if you wish.

I have merged several posts by [player]72o[/player] into this thread. His proposal, based on an increase to 12 players, would be to use some type of icons to identify troops. However, I am still urging you all to give the nod to the proposal to start off by upping the number of players to just 9.

Cheers, JB

JoshyBoy wrote:I have merged several posts by [player]72o[/player] into this thread. His proposal, based on an increase to 12 players, would be to use some type of icons to identify troops. However, I am still urging you all to give the nod to the proposal to start off by upping the number of players to just 9.

Cheers, JB

"upping to 9?" so there would be team games where it is 4 versus 5? Or is this going to be a player increase only for FFA games?

Queen_Herpes wrote:

JoshyBoy wrote:I have merged several posts by [player]72o[/player] into this thread. His proposal, based on an increase to 12 players, would be to use some type of icons to identify troops. However, I am still urging you all to give the nod to the proposal to start off by upping the number of players to just 9.

Cheers, JB

"upping to 9?" so there would be team games where it is 4 versus 5? Or is this going to be a player increase only for FFA games?

Or how about three triples teams.

Evil Semp wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

JoshyBoy wrote:I have merged several posts by [player]72o[/player] into this thread. His proposal, based on an increase to 12 players, would be to use some type of icons to identify troops. However, I am still urging you all to give the nod to the proposal to start off by upping the number of players to just 9.

Cheers, JB

"upping to 9?" so there would be team games where it is 4 versus 5? Or is this going to be a player increase only for FFA games?

Or how about three triples teams.

Right, Evil Genius, but if the number were "upped" to 10, then there would be more applications than a simple 3 v 3 v 3 game.

Queen_Herpes wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

JoshyBoy wrote:I have merged several posts by [player]72o[/player] into this thread. His proposal, based on an increase to 12 players, would be to use some type of icons to identify troops. However, I am still urging you all to give the nod to the proposal to start off by upping the number of players to just 9.

Cheers, JB

"upping to 9?" so there would be team games where it is 4 versus 5? Or is this going to be a player increase only for FFA games?

Or how about three triples teams.

Right, Evil Genius, but if the number were "upped" to 10, then there would be more applications than a simple 3 v 3 v 3 game.

Its easier for the admin to code. They want to take it one step at a time. First it will go up to 9, then 10, and finally 12.

jsholty4690 wrote:Its easier for the admin to code. They want to take it one step at a time. First it will go up to 9, then 10, and finally 12.

Exactly. Taking things one step at a time. Gotta walk before you can run.

Cheers, JB

Queen_Herpes wrote:Right, Evil Genius, but if the number were "upped" to 10, then there would be more applications than a simple 3 v 3 v 3 game.

The only additional "application" would be the 2 v 2 v 2 v 2 v 2. If you up the limit to 9 players that means an extra player in Standard, Assassin and Terminator games, not just the 3 v 3 v 3.

Cheers, JB

JoshyBoy wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:Right, Evil Genius, but if the number were "upped" to 10, then there would be more applications than a simple 3 v 3 v 3 game.

The only additional "application" would be the 2 v 2 v 2 v 2 v 2. If you up the limit to 9 players that means an extra player in Standard, Assassin and Terminator games, not just the 3 v 3 v 3.

Cheers, JB

Exactly what FFA means.

9 is a terribly insufficient change. 10 leaves room to add 5v5 team games, another team in doubles, and another team in triples.

Queen_Herpes wrote:

JoshyBoy wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:Right, Evil Genius, but if the number were "upped" to 10, then there would be more applications than a simple 3 v 3 v 3 game.

The only additional "application" would be the 2 v 2 v 2 v 2 v 2. If you up the limit to 9 players that means an extra player in Standard, Assassin and Terminator games, not just the 3 v 3 v 3.

Cheers, JB

Exactly what FFA means.

9 is a terribly insufficient change. 10 leaves room to add 5v5 team games, another team in doubles, and another team in triples.

And as JSholty said, this would take a LOT of coding by the admins. It would be much easier to go up to 9, see how it goes, than if everyone is happy, then up it to 10.

Getting 9 player games would be nice. 10 players would be even nicer. 5 team dubs would be awesome.

As for the maps... Sure, some old maps like feudal can accommodate 6, and some conquest maps only cater for 8 (epic, poland, etc.) and then there are the small maps like doodle & lux.

But yeah, the majority of the maps on CC are medium-sized standard gameplay maps which can easily accommodate an additional player or two. Even some new maps are already being made with anticipation of possible player increases, so that they will be compatible with 9 and 10 player games... I know at least one conquest-type map currently in development which features 10 starting positions.

So ok, maybe some maps wouldn't work. But we'd still have plenty of maps that could be played with 9 players. Plenty could even be played with 10 or 12. And once the change would get announced, mapmakers would jump at the possibility of taking advantage of the new feature - we mapmakers are like that, always drooling at shiny new things. It wouldn't take long to have lots of shiny new 9,10 or 12 player maps

And for the record, I'm not downplaying the amount of effort that would no doubt go into making the player increase possible, or other technical obstacles that need to be overcome. I'm merely saying as a mapmaker, that the fears of not having compatible maps for those games are largely unfounded, IMO.

i agree with natty.

i have contacted the OP and asked him to update the first post. As soon as he does, i will try to get this stickied. After that its beyond our hands. I encourage the community to keep showing support for the things they want to see most.

edwinissweet wrote:i agree with natty.

i have contacted the OP and asked him to update the first post. As soon as he does, i will try to get this stickied. After that its beyond our hands. I encourage the community to keep showing support for the things they want to see most.

Now now now edwin, I'm the one currently looking after this thread. A sticky and a poll are on my "to-do" list for this thread, once we have heard back from the original poster.

Stop hi-jacking my thread!

I think we should do a 30v30 team battle royale

Army of GOD wrote:I think we should do a 30v30 team battle royale

Not really relevant to this thread. But still, an awesome idea AoG.

page 5 shows why I said 12. It is usable for all the types. Singles, doubles, triples and quads.

I would like to see 9 but it's only good for singles or triples. 10 is only good for doubles and singles or 5 vs. 5. which would be cool.

12 on the other hand is good for all the current and later could be used for 6 vs.6 which would be cool too.

Yes yes, i see what you mean 2dimes. But the thing is, it would be far easier to code and put in 9 players. Upping it instantly to 12 would take a ton more coding. Take things slowly. Pretty sure that we will one day have 12 players, so don't worry

TFO~

Don't get me wrong, I like having 8 players. I would just like it to grow. 5 on 5 would be good 6 on 6 even better. Even if it was just on the largest maps you'd get to work as a team and I enjoy that.

I have thought about moving to Wetaskawin. You have to love that Renolds Museum.

2dimes wrote:page 5 shows why I said 12. It is usable for all the types. Singles, doubles, triples and quads.

I would like to see 9 but it's only good for singles or triples. 10 is only good for doubles and singles or 5 vs. 5. which would be cool.

12 on the other hand is good for all the current and later could be used for 6 vs.6 which would be cool too.

Going from 8 to 12 players is just too big a jump. This will not be implemented when there is the slightly easier option of 9 or 10.

Cheers, JB