Conquer Club

edbeard wrote:instead of making a new thread, I'm bumping this one since it's linked from the official to-do list

I know people have suggested this before but I've never seen an official response to it (and I've actually looked for one somewhat extensively).


Single player games in doubles format.

Call it split-singles or something, but basically it'd be like a doubles game except one player controls a whole team.

Why? It'd allow players to enjoy the style of doubles games without needing a teammate. It'd add a new type of 1v1 game which players would probably find more enjoyable. 1/3 of the map wouldn't start as neutral. going first wouldn't be as big of an advantage.

Limitations? Probably should only be available in sequential

I love it!!! as a 1on1 addict I fully support this great idea!

nikola_milicki wrote:

edbeard wrote:instead of making a new thread, I'm bumping this one since it's linked from the official to-do list

I know people have suggested this before but I've never seen an official response to it (and I've actually looked for one somewhat extensively).


Single player games in doubles format.

Call it split-singles or something, but basically it'd be like a doubles game except one player controls a whole team.

Why? It'd allow players to enjoy the style of doubles games without needing a teammate. It'd add a new type of 1v1 game which players would probably find more enjoyable. 1/3 of the map wouldn't start as neutral. going first wouldn't be as big of an advantage.

Limitations? Probably should only be available in sequential

I love it!!! as a 1on1 addict I fully support this great idea!

yes yes! wonderful, should be easy to implement too no?

I dig it.

Agreed - Like already mentioned I'm sure this has been suggested before...

BUT - it doesn't stop it being a fucking awesome idea.

Of course - take it to the next level...
4 player "Doubles" games (i.e. 4 teams with 4 players)
2 player "triples".
2 player "Quads".

C.

nikola_milicki wrote:

edbeard wrote:instead of making a new thread, I'm bumping this one since it's linked from the official to-do list

I know people have suggested this before but I've never seen an official response to it (and I've actually looked for one somewhat extensively).


Single player games in doubles format.

Call it split-singles or something, but basically it'd be like a doubles game except one player controls a whole team.

Why? It'd allow players to enjoy the style of doubles games without needing a teammate. It'd add a new type of 1v1 game which players would probably find more enjoyable. 1/3 of the map wouldn't start as neutral. going first wouldn't be as big of an advantage.

Limitations? Probably should only be available in sequential

I love it!!! as a 1on1 addict I fully support this great idea!

great idea! hopefully we will see it implemented soon!

edbeard wrote:Single player games in doubles format.

Call it split-singles or something, but basically it'd be like a doubles game except one player controls a whole team.

Truly an excellent idea!!!

yeti_c wrote:Agreed - Like already mentioned I'm sure this has been suggested before...

BUT - it doesn't stop it being a fucking awesome idea.

Of course - take it to the next level...
4 player "Doubles" games (i.e. 4 teams with 4 players)
2 player "triples".
2 player "Quads".

C.

You forgot 3 player doubles as well.

lancehoch wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Agreed - Like already mentioned I'm sure this has been suggested before...

BUT - it doesn't stop it being a fucking awesome idea.

Of course - take it to the next level...
4 player "Doubles" games (i.e. 4 teams with 4 players)
2 player "triples".
2 player "Quads".

C.

You forgot 3 player doubles as well.

That was implicit with the 4 player doubles.

C.

sounds great,would like to see it happen

ok team here's the plan: every single one of us forego all other Christmas presents we planned to ask for, and then we send all our combined requests to lack....

ALL WE WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS TEAM GAME/1V1s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



simply put, it would be the greatest thing to hit CC since BOB

Nephilim wrote:ALL WE WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS TEAM GAME/1V1s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And a pony. I've been asking Santa for a pony for years now, with sweet f*ck all to show for it.

But yeah, I've been a proponent of team-style 1v1s for some time now. T'would be badass.

Nephilim wrote:ok team here's the plan: every single one of us forego all other Christmas presents we planned to ask for, and then we send all our combined requests to lack....

ALL WE WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS TEAM GAME/1V1s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



simply put, it would be the greatest thing to hit CC since BOB

so we bury him with pms
.
.
.
every day!

Any word on this idea being implemented.. it seems to of got alot of support?

David_Wain wrote:Any word on this idea being implemented.. it seems to of got alot of support?

It's in the works somewhere (I know that as it's on the To-Do list). I have no idea how close (or how far away) it is.

ihuihiu

How about a game called Subservients.

Instead of killing your opponents armies - you making them subservient to you and your cause. Instead of attacking 4 on 3 and ending up winning the battle but left with 1s on two lands, you would have your 4 left, as well as taking over the opponent's 3. Game play would not allow you to use either of these territs again in this turn - so you can still attack, just not with the 3 or the 4. Would allow for massive army accumulations. Could also go for neutrals as well.

[quote="2261981"]
i like the idea of a quit, or resign button as well.
perhaps too many players would use this, so to prevent it maybe the player who wants to quit would have to own a certain percentage of the board or less to do so. i.e. 10%.. 5%...
in any event, the 'quit' button, i think, should only be used when there is NO hope for revival. i myself would love to quit the odd game when i know i'm down and out and want to start up another game instead of waiting for another player to take me out.
if it were set up as if i could quit, but other players could still take me out and get my cards [but without me playing any of the rest of the game obviously] then it wouldn't mess up anyone's game plan. the only difference would be is thay my turn would be skipped and i wouldn't be able to play. but my armies remain on the board, remain my colour, and my cards remain up for grabs.[/b]
quote]
This is exactly what I've been saying, just a dif topic. I also thought that all of the armies of who ever quit would go neutral, and the spoils would dissapear. I especially like the idea of have the percent of the board or less to quit, it would help people alot if they are almost dead but no one would kill them to finish it

other ideas :

move terminator and assassin as an option, and not as a type game :

we choose the type : solo, double, triple, quadruple
and after we chosse the option : standard, terminator and assassin.

so we could have terminator team game and assassin team game.

In an assassin team, each team must kill another team for win the game. useless if there is only 2 team, but funny with more.

In a terminator team, each teammate earn x point for each opponent teamamte kill.
ex :
team 1: A (1500pt) and B (2000pt)
team 2 : C (1000pt) and D (1800pt)
team 3 ....
A kill C
A and B earn 1000 / (1500 + 2000) * 20 pt

Qyu wrote:other ideas :

move terminator and assassin as an option, and not as a type game :

we choose the type : solo, double, triple, quadruple
and after we chosse the option : standard, terminator and assassin.

so we could have terminator team game and assassin team game.

In an assassin team, each team must kill another team for win the game. useless if there is only 2 team, but funny with more.

In a terminator team, each teammate earn x point for each opponent teamamte kill.
ex :
team 1: A (1500pt) and B (2000pt)
team 2 : C (1000pt) and D (1800pt)
team 3 ....
A kill C
A and B earn 1000 / (1500 + 2000) * 20 pt

I fully support this.
Opened this thread just to write the exact same thing, with one exception.
I also want a team assassin game where killing ONE player in the target team ends the game.
That way, every player in every team is important and no one can be left alone.

BUT I also like the idea of In an assassin team, each team must kill another team for win the game.

Please make teamsettings and gamesettings two different things so we can mix them

I suggest a "territories" objective game type
depending on the number of territories, a player has to hold the stated territories (which will have some kind of special icon on it or something;given at the beginning of the game) for one round
after any player gets eliminated, the objective remains the same
but here's the twist:
when the game is down to two players, they cannot eliminate each other, otherwise, the eliminated player wins
this is because there could be situations where there is only one player in the game but he/she has not taken all of the "objective territories" yet (which means he/she can purposely stall the game or just deadbeat;in the case of deadbeating, it would lead to confusion because no one would gain points)
this is jut an idea, so it may sound quite ridiculous

I would like to make the suggestion of a GOTCHA Style game. It would work like the current Assassin game only instead of you winning when you take out just your target you have to take targets out in order.

This could be accomplished by making it so that on your turn you can either Fortify and end or you MUST attack your target if they are attackable from your territories, and say you can't push down another players target below 2 territories.

I think this could make for a better use of those maps that are one direction attack like circus maximus. I don't know if there are others of the same style but I think that this could make maps like that more interesting to play on.

yeti_c wrote:Agreed - Like already mentioned I'm sure this has been suggested before...

BUT - it doesn't stop it being a fucking awesome idea.

Of course - take it to the next level...
4 player "Doubles" games (i.e. 4 teams with 4 players)
2 player "triples".
2 player "Quads".

C.

QFT
The "2-player quads" are a real must, I hope they make work of that.

Could we make a Turbo round type of game? Instead of 5 min speed have like 2 min Turbo!

Hey guys, some good ideas in here. If anyone is interested, I am trying to start a tournament with a lot of these ideas, viewtopic.php?f=90&t=96367
such as winning the game by holding a percentage of overall territories, or the "capital" style that some of the board games use, and some other variations on the mission cards.

Right now, the only way to run some of these is with specific maps and the admin scoring the game, but it might be a good way to play test a few and get some more real data out there.

Also, now that we have manual deploy option, there could be games where everyone agrees to start from one territory, and see how they can spread, or at least everyone can pick a capital city before the game, and if they lose that territory they lose the game.

Some problems I have run into is that it can be hard, even when using the game log, to keep track of these. Some are impossible without "gentleman's rules". I think a few more option types would be a nice addition to the site.

-Snowman

Not sure if I am doing this right, but I would like to sugguest a new way for cashing in on spoils. I love the new nuclear, but it takes a long time! How about a nuclear escalating? you nuke the players on the cards, but also get armies, 4,6,8,10, just like escalating but instead of getting extra for the spoils you have you nuke them. Just a thought