Conquer Club

Perhaps a good way to make a short time limit and allow for enough time to move would be to have two separate timers. One ten minute timer for you to begin your next turn, and then maybe a timer for the player to take their turn, either a 30 minute maximum, or perhaps some sort of timer that if the player is idle for more than 5 or 10 minutes then they forfeit the rest of their turn. With the latter suggestion, that could allow for as much time as you need when you're in a six person game and taking out each player, cashing in the sets you get, deploying hundreds of troops, those can get pretty lengthy and we don't need a timer making us rush and miss that one little country off to the side...

Again, no matter how you dice it, the math just doesn't work. You need to be able to take 15+ minutes for long turns and you need to be able to sleep and work and have a game last less than 8 hours. Sure you can say "don't play games you can't finish" but with 24 hours to take a turn there's still plenty of people who play games they don't finish. Too many people would get good into games and then have to bail and scores would be even less meaningful then they currently are.

Has anyone thrown out the idea that in team sequential games the players do not go in order. When this happens team 1 goes first, puts team 2 at a major disadvantage. Would it be possible in team games to stagger the order so no team goes twice?

Just a thought.

Yes this has been talked about before here are a couple of the threads I found.


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=909
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1092

Sorry, but I disagree, I really like the double turns. Its not that unfair... Frequently you get 2 bad rolls and destroy no armies in your first turn... Who starts is not important... and the double turn is perfect to good team strategies...

i think it should be whos ever on

we've had it happen alot since i play alot of doubles what we do is pretend we go last with 3 xtra men we do ok with that reasoning

Or, if it was easier to code, rather than messing with the sequence, simply make 1, 3 and 5 Team A, and 2 4 and 6 team B

Just giving this thread a bit of a bump to keep it fresh (it's a great idea).

I saw elsewhere that Lack is planning to implement something along these lines once he gets the chance.

Does anyone else think it might be a little more fair if it alternated bettween teams?

I dont. Unless its an option. I really like playing with my partners. I can fortify them, they can use my armies, then fortify me.

I think it should only alternate for the first round so the start is more even. After that it should go in the sequential order so you can play as a team. With the way it is set up now it is usually a huge advantage to get the start in team games so the first round staggered would even things up.


So:
First round - staggered turns
After the first round - no staggered turns

As an alliance you are playing as a team whether you play your turns back to back or alternate. However, I do agree that there is a HUGE and DISTINCT advantage for the team that goes first, they basically get to run the board. So at a very minimum alternating turns at the beginning between teams would seem equitable.

nope dont agree one bit, i think what marv said was correct and it should be only an option...if that

Ronaldinho.

yeah well if you consistently get to 2nd and your consistently are at a huge disadvantage you might switch your vote.

But as it is now it's such a huge advantage to people who use instant messenger, and wait until both people are on to play, to coordinate moves. So people who just log in whenever they have a spare moment, and play are at such a huge disadvantage to people such as marv, and the dirty birds, who use instant messenger, and play at the same time.

Isn't that against lack's vision? A casual gaming site? This is one of the reasons I don't play team games, because I don't want to mess around with instant messenger.

so play sequential, instant messenger has no advantage there.

TuckerCase wrote:But as it is now it's such a huge advantage to people who use instant messenger, and wait until both people are on to play, to coordinate moves. So people who just log in whenever they have a spare moment, and play are at such a huge disadvantage to people such as marv, and the dirty birds, who use instant messenger, and play at the same time.

Isn't that against lack's vision? A casual gaming site? This is one of the reasons I don't play team games, because I don't want to mess around with instant messenger.

i think that using messanger is using common sense......and is why i like teams games, it gives me the chance to kno people on cc and makes my time on here more enjoyable because i can just chat to cc players and then organize games ect................................

Ronaldinho.

I do. It would be more fair if it alternated between teams. Especially in sequential. There would still be enough room for tactical co-operation within teams, with fortifications to team mate etc. (as the opposing team can't play turn in sequence neither, and you know whos turn will be next).

"No double turns" (in freestyle) should prevent a team from taking turns one after another, within a round or between rounds.

Im with ronaldinho, in the opinion and in the team games

And like the frozen guy said, you can play sequentials, as I do. My last non-sequential game was # 9966, my 27th game here (I checked my record ) In sequential games, instant messenger is only a bit, maybe, more useful than a normal PM, because sometimes your plan fail and you can discuss a new one.

Well this came up because we played a sequential game. One team took two turns before the other team had a chance to take one. The team that had to wait was unhappy.

Does anyone else think it might be a little more fair if it alternated bettween teams?

I agree, that would be much more fair, being one of those casual players that doesn't want to make the effort to take advantage of the unbalance.

Unbalance? Bah! The last team to play also has advantages, for example, having easy picks for cards. The first guy will have 6 armies in 1 country, and with 2 bad rolls, no card for him... The important thing is not who starts, but who has best strategies. I won already tons of games with my team playing for the last.

Oh and my partner and I did walk all over them as we got to go first.

The other team felt we were able to get set up real well before they got the oportunity to move.

It was a sequential Game my partner took the first turn I took the second.

We both were able to attack them and fortify against them before they could do anything.

I don't know but it does seem to me it might be more fair if at least for the first turn it was alternating so both teams get a crack at setting up.

can it be mad so that in team games when it is sequencal that the teams can play at the same time rather than one after the other??