[GP/UI] 2-player "team" games (Polymorphic)

insomniacdude · Post by **insomniacdude** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:31 pm

Interesting. It would have to be restricted to only Sequential I think. I'm not sure if playing this in Freestyle would make sense. But I'm not very sure about that, so somebody come convince me and I might jump ship.

Overall the idea is worth discussing. As it is now I would not be opposed to implementing it.

Timminz · Post by **Timminz** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:15 pm

I like this idea a lot. Of course, it would only make sense for sequential games. I really like 1 on 1, but I avooid most maps because of advantages of going first. (any map with 36, or 45 or anything with more than 45 teritorries).

pissedoffsol · Post by **pissedoffsol** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:06 pm

i agree it would be a pain to code.... and i'd probably never use it

kerntheconkerer · Post by **kerntheconkerer** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:20 pm

Great Idea. I agree with you. But I accidently voted on the wrong answer!

doubleQ · Post by **doubleQ** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:43 pm

I like this idea a lot. But I don't think it will be passed because the XML could be confusing

i dont think XML is a problem :roll:

i like it. sounds fun!

michiganfan22 · Post by **michiganfan22** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:23 am

i love this idea. would be really fun and i would definitly use it.

superkarn · Post by **superkarn** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:15 pm

i agree that this probably wouldn't make sense in a freestyle game. But i definitely think it would be a lot of fun for sequential games.

also, it could be fun with assassin games, where you have multiple targets, and if any of your colors dies, then it's game over. so you have to protect all.

Optimus Prime · Post by **Optimus Prime** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:26 pm

I could get behind this idea. I'm in agreement that it would have to be restricted to only sequential however. If you did it freestyle, it would be just like the current 1 vs 1 games we have now, only all your guys would be different colors.

Very nicely done, superkarn. I'd like to see this go somewhere.

Fruitcake · Post by **Fruitcake** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:25 am

Brilliant idea.

As you mention, greater strategic thought. You are your 'own' team, it opens the options further. All in all, gets my vote.

superkarn · Post by **superkarn** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:00 pm

Just wanted to add that with this game type (1 person controlling multiple colors), you can have lots of different/interesting game play such as

* 2 players, 4 colors (2 colors each)
* 2 players, 6 colors (3 colors each)
* 2 players, 8 colors (4 colors each)

* 3 players, 6 colors (2 colors each)
* 4 players, 8 colors (2 colors each)

* mix with assassin, where any one of your colors gets wiped out, you lose
* mix terminator, where you get points for each color you kill. so you can take points and lose points to the same player in the same game.

think of the coolness!

Audax · Post by **Audax** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:12 pm

Clever idea superkarn.

It gives a new dimension to single player strategy.

Definitely have to be sequential only.

I voted yes of course.

lianweizhi · Post by **lianweizhi** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:51 pm

Optimus Prime wrote:I could get behind this idea. I'm in agreement that it would have to be restricted to only sequential however. If you did it freestyle, it would be just like the current 1 vs 1 games we have now, only all your guys would be different colors.

Very nicely done, superkarn. I'd like to see this go somewhere.

I'm not so sure! I think freestyle would add another interesting facet... when you play freestyle doubles or triples, you can have one guy fortify the other guy while he fights. It requires a lot of coordination between the teammates, and who can be more coordinated with you than yourself?

The tricky part would be how can you allow one player to play three colors at the same time?

isodice · Post by **isodice** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:13 pm

I like it, but would want to be a spectator first...sounds a bit complicated to get the hang of.

Hope it gets picked up for testing!

TaCktiX · Post by **TaCktiX** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:32 pm

If it was done sequential, coding it into the system wouldn't be that hard. Freestyle makes no logistical sense and would be much more difficult to implement (how does a player show which color he wants to play as?). So word on the overall idea as long as it's sequential only. I'd definitely play it.

Soloman · Post by **Soloman** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:43 pm

I posted before I read this but I had the same idea with a few more specifics check it out and lets get more game types keep CC growing

Phantom7 · Post by **Phantom7** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:15 am

Great idea. Get it going lack.

Fruitcake · Post by **Fruitcake** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:45 am

2 to 1 average in the voting so far, looks like you have a great idea superkarn

chessplaya · Post by **chessplaya** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:15 am

superkarn wrote:Concise Idea: Make a new game type that allows doubles, triples, and quadruples to be played by two players.

Suggestion Idea: First off, I'm not a fan of 1v1 games, mostly because I feel that the dice play too big of a roll in determining the winner. Secondly I play a lot of team games with my friends (playing on the same team against random opponents). In team games, you and your partner(s) need to be in sync with each other to ensure optimal chance of winning. And who do you agree with most if not yourself
Which leads us to this suggestion. In the new game type, the settings would be pretty much the same as regular team games, except that team 1 is controlled by one player, and team 2 is controlled by another player. For example, in a triples game, the first player would control red, green, and blue, while the second player control yellow, pink, and cyan. Everything else would be the same including turn order (alternating), zone bonus (one color must control the whole zone to get the bonus), fortification (can't fortify across "teammates"), etc.

Specifics: Team games where team 1 is controlled by player 1 and team 2 is controlled by player 2.

Why it is needed: It allows people with no friends to be able to play team games
But seriously because more options is better. And this new game type will offer deeper strategy than playing regular 1v1 game. You are now controlling multiple armies instead of one army with multiple troops. Imagine playing a quadruples 1v1!

ummm i will be ur friend .. and i will play with u team games... but ur idea makes no sense to me ! sorry bro!

superkarn · Post by **superkarn** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:44 am

chessplaya wrote:ummm i will be ur friend .. and i will play with u team games... but ur idea makes no sense to me ! sorry bro!

Haha, thanks! But i play a lot of team games with my friends. And we win most of them. Sometimes I wonder how we would do against each other with our different strategies.

If you want clarification on any part of this idea, let me know and I'll be more than happy to explain it a bit more

Soloman · Post by **Soloman** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:20 pm

is there still life in this idea?

TaCktiX · Post by **TaCktiX** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:24 pm

I think we need an mod/admin response on it. The people have spoken, the demigods must pronounce their judgment.

Fruitcake · Post by **Fruitcake** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:45 pm

TaCktiX wrote:I think we need an mod/admin response on it. The people have spoken, the demigods must pronounce their judgment.

I think the people may wait somewhat longer, I have had 2500+ viewings, 144 responses and 173 votes with the no dice games poll. No response.

However, someone comes up with an idea lack likes, it bypasses all the channels I was told by twill these ideas should go through (by pm when I asked what I should do...you know, 'set up a forum vote under sugs and bugs, then we will see if it generates any interest, then we will discuss and see if it can be done and if there is enough interest') ...an instance of this not being the case being:

missed turn becoming not missed turn... [Pending]

This had no more than 7 entries in the forum log, less than 100 viewings and lack steps in, says he likes the idea and sets it as pending. It still only has 42 odd postings (when I last looked, with less than 600 viewings.)

So in summary, it matters not whether many want something, it only matters if lack wants it.

risk master2000 · Post by **risk master2000** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:46 am

great idea

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:29 pm

think about this, the only difference is that the one player has his forces split between two, lets say, field marshels and as thus you may own a bonus but if they dont all belong under one field marshal you dont get it and bonuses are applied seperately just like for each player in a two player team

i like this idea since you can test doubles strategies without the need for a trusting/willing friend

the only question is do we do variants like 2v1 (the one controls two players) if we do this

gryffin13 · Post by **gryffin13** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:49 pm

superkarn wrote:Just wanted to add that with this game type (1 person controlling multiple colors), you can have lots of different/interesting game play such as

* 2 players, 4 colors (2 colors each)
* 2 players, 6 colors (3 colors each)
* 2 players, 8 colors (4 colors each)

* 3 players, 6 colors (2 colors each)
* 4 players, 8 colors (2 colors each)

* mix with assassin, where any one of your colors gets wiped out, you lose
* mix terminator, where you get points for each color you kill. so you can take points and lose points to the same player in the same game.

think of the coolness!

At first I was skeptical, but you have convinced me oherwise. I think assassin would be my favorite because you could risk an all out attempt to eliminate a color while leaving one of yours open. Although Doodle earth would have to be banned for assassin games. Also they would need to add team assassin for this to happen but I would love for this to work.

[GP/UI] 2-player "team" games (Polymorphic)

Re: 2-player "team" games

Re: 2-player "team" games