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

[pimpdave]

Some knob claiming to be from Denmark sent me the following PM:

Hey all.

I know, I am a big stupid idiot with nothing but terrible ideas and lots of time to spend PMing people about them, but I would like to be able to control everything in life and I demand this be implemented. I was inspired to suggest this once more in the Sugs & Bugs forum by the voices in my head (they also tell me to burn things).

Maybe you want to support the idea in the thread (and/or even spread the word to clan-mates & CC friends) ? Maybe enough support will at least provoke a reaction & some official feedback? If you don't, I will shake my fist at you and call you many unsavory names.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=109621

Cheers from Denmark.

[jpcloet]

Adding a 1v1 option, that is not so heavily dependent on luck as the current 1v1 games, where first turn advantage & dice often decide the game within the first 2 rounds.

The problem is really the maps then and not the team concept. This is a secondary solution and I'd only support it fully if it meant no points games and part of a new 1v1 ladder system for the site.

[FarangDemon]

I'd love to be able to play a 1-on-1 game against an opponent and not feel like luck was going to be a huge factor. This discourages score-minded players from playing 1-on-1 against lower ranked. Not just because of losing the points, 1-on-1 just becomes a one-sided game very rapidly. I don't even play it against peers because I like an interesting game, not one decided in the first 1, 2 or 3 rounds. I'd play the hell out of 1-on-1 trips or quads and I'd be happy to play against people half my score because I believe luck is greatly mitigated.

To those who think this will displace the team option because nobody will want to play teams anymore I say this:

1) No it won't. Clans determine how clans play and since most clans like to play regular team games for their challenges and in CLA, regular team games will continue to predominate.
2) Even if there was a popular movement to replace team games with 1-on-1 team games in clan challenges, if that is what everybody really wanted, then that is what everybody really wanted so everybody would in that case be happy.

You guys afraid of seducing yourselves? Afraid you're going to like a new option too much is ridiculous. If you think the social aspect of games is important now then you will think so in the future. And if you change what you like, how is that necessarily bad? You are still living in a closet by yourself playing a game on the internet, it is not as if your social network would be getting destroyed anyway. You can still play team games against whoever you want. Please allow the 72% of people who voted yes to enjoy taking it to a new level of competitiveness where a 1-on-1 variant can actually be fun.

[Mageplunka69]

sounds like a great idea, could be alot of fun.....such different ways to win then lol

[Timminz]

sounds like a great idea, could be alot of fun.....such different ways to win then lol

Killing yourself for a re-cash in an escalating game, for instance.

[Nephilim]

Adding a 1v1 option, that is not so heavily dependent on luck as the current 1v1 games, where first turn advantage & dice often decide the game within the first 2 rounds.

The problem is really the maps then and not the team concept. This is a secondary solution and I'd only support it fully if it meant no points games and part of a new 1v1 ladder system for the site.

how do you go from "first turn and dice" being the problem to "this is a map problem"? i see that first turn in some maps, where players start with 12/15/18 terrs is a problem.....but dude, he said dice, and you jumped to maps.....

[Snowgun]

you would be right that it would ruin team games if one person could play against a team...but the team games would remain...this would just be in addition to them as 1v1 games.

This is also rubbish, as long as it was possible to make settings that allowed/disallowed such games. 4 vs 1 in a quads game would be fun and make for some great tournament ideas.

Plus 2v2 quads would be great as well, and would solve some of these same drop/turn problems that plague 1v1 (though in lesser magnitude).

You guys need to remember that this is a game, and any further options how to play the game would be a good thing (you are not being forced). Your ranks and clan standings are a side show, and on CC represent a minority view.

[barterer2002]

Truthfully I don't understand why anyone thinks it would kill team games. To me that seems silly. Essentially what its saying is that nobody would play team games if they didn't have to because nobody enjoys them and just play because they have to which is feeling that I reject entirely. In general I look at this as an addition to game options not a subtraction but I guess not everyone does. For what its worth though, it has my support.

[oVo]

I also see this as a positive direction for alternative ways to play the game and this idea has my full support as well. I hope Lack and the rest of the CC staff who explore the potential of new options will give this concept some serious consideration.

The option of playing a 1v1 "team game" with armies/bonus/deployment divided and segmented into multiple turns each round offers a wide range of competitive possibilities.

[pimpdave]

By the way, for the record, I was only picking on the guy who sent me that PM because it was easy to do so. I don't actually care about this idea, or whatever. If it goes through, I'll probably try out the game play. I just thought it was funny to lampoon someone for attempting a grassroots PM campaign to drum up support for his Suggs & Buggs thread, especially by sending PMs to players he doesn't know, has never played with, and who have never interacted with him/her on the fora before.

Soooooooooooo BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE.

[Knight2254]

I voted no -- a pretty awful idea after you think through the details. Doesn't Herpes basically already do this anyways?

[Timminz]

Doesn't Herpes basically already do this anyways?

Definitely not. Even if he did what you seem to be accusing, he wouldn't be playing in the way that this suggestion would make possible. To do so, would mean playing against just one (1) opponent.

[the.killing.44]

I voted no -- a pretty awful idea after you think through the details.

I dunno man, what do you mean here? All the details I see are pretty freaking sweet.

[Knight2254]

Doesn't Herpes basically already do this anyways?

Definitely not. Even if he did what you seem to be accusing, he wouldn't be playing in the way that this suggestion would make possible. To do so, would mean playing against just one (1) opponent.

I don't think I'm accusing him of anything -- just leaving directions for the n00bs he plays with and thus is essentially playing a team game by himself.

It seems like the same thing can be accomplished by removing a territory bonus in 1v1 games.

[AAFitz]

you would be right that it would ruin team games if one person could play against a team...but the team games would remain...this would just be in addition to them as 1v1 games.

This is also rubbish, as long as it was possible to make settings that allowed/disallowed such games. 4 vs 1 in a quads game would be fun and make for some great tournament ideas.

Plus 2v2 quads would be great as well, and would solve some of these same drop/turn problems that plague 1v1 (though in lesser magnitude).

You guys need to remember that this is a game, and any further options how to play the game would be a good thing (you are not being forced). Your ranks and clan standings are a side show, and on CC represent a minority view.

its not rubbish at all, if all team games could be joined by one player as an opponent...it really would become so difficult to play actual team games, simply because one person would join so many of the other team games...so it would kill them, if it wasnt a controlled option, which gets confusing

[AAFitz]

sounds like a great idea, could be alot of fun.....such different ways to win then lol

Killing yourself for a re-cash in an escalating game, for instance.

or even better in flat rate games... that crap is hard to do with 3 other partners, and even sometimes the best of them...but knowing the plan from the beginning will be damn fun... I seriously want to play it right now...

hmm... how could i go play a team game, and control all the players....

[Timminz]

I seriously want to play it right now...

I feel the same way.

[ppgangster]

A 1v1 option for high ranked & competitive players, who don´t currently play 1v1, because those games are simply down to luck.

AGREED!!

[maasman]

I think this would be really fun

[ahunda]

Doesn't Herpes basically already do this anyways?

If you are hinting at the farming issue, this is actually a greater problem in regular team games.

There a high ranked player can run a team of cooks, who push the average score of his team down. Whilst in this 1v1 scenario the high ranked player would always put his own score on the line.

I don´t think, this option has more farming potential than 1v1 Freestyle on certain maps or Freestyle team games. Rather less so.

[Seulessliathan]

all players who want to play this can play it, and all others can avoid it. Where is the problem? Farming? do you all really care so much about points? Farmers will always find ways to abuse the system.
I don´t see any problem in adding new options like this one.

it seems to be the less luck based 1v1 game, and it won´t kill regular teams games, but it will reduce 1v1 games. i doubt that will cause any damage.

[Culs De Sac]

The main argument being presented by the so called "Elite" is that 1v1 games have a tremendous amount of luck (Drop or Turn order). But no one has seemed to mention that this luck is proportional to the map size. Larger Maps allow for a higher first deployment and with average or above average dice the ability to negate the same deployment for the opponent. There are certain maps that do allow for a "fairer" 1v1 game. In addition, there are various settings that are currently available that help decrease the luck factor and increase the skill factors of a game..Adj vs Unlimited, No Spoils or Esc vs Flat, and or Foggy vs Sunny. Hence, individuals choose not to play 1v1 games, not due to luck but rather because they don't want to. (This being an assumption) You could choose to make 1v1 games on maps with certain settings that would allow for a much more challenging game.

*** If you are so worried about the 1st turn advantage play freestyle..You both go at the same time and hence that argument becomes invalid.***

As for the Drop Luck: Even in team games, there is still the possibility of being gifted a bonus on the drop, or 3/4 territories and so forth..So having 1 individual share those territories doesn't negate the luck factor, especially if its unlimited forts, they can fort themselves and take the bonus on turn 2 anyway. Hence, the luck still decides the game, it just takes 1 or 2 extra turns for them to benefit from it..

Even with current team formats, if you have a team who communicates well, the drop can still dictate the game. So lets all be honest here, its not about eliminating luck, its about ADDING A GAME PLAY OPTION.

I would venture to say that 75-80% of this site is luck based.. You depend on the rolls of electronic die to determine your fate. You still can't control if you roll a 1 or a 6, if you are dropped a bonus or not, or control who goes first.

Although many of us would like to consider ourselves expert players, the bottom line is that you can try and play a perfect game but if your opponent out cards you, out rolls you, or out drops you, You still get screwed. Making an A,A vs. B,B option will not negate such events.

So, this entire thread is simply about the addition of AN OPTION AND AN OPTION ONLY. I can guarantee you that like every other setting implemented on this site, someone will always find a reason to B$tch and Moan about how "LUCKY" their opponent was.

[Coleman]

I am amazed that doubles teams are getting so defensive over this.

This is simply a suggestion to provide a more balanced 1v1 experience. The first turn advantage in current 1v1 is a big problem in many games and maps. I would love to give this a test run just to see how it works, if at all.

[Hopscotcher]

Consider what you are saying yes to:

You are saying it would be alright for one player to take more than one spot in a game.

Once you allow this, no matter if it is for 1 v 1 or any other format, it becomes a slippery slope.

Also consider the idea that this might be used in CLA or Clan Matchups.

The idea in and of itself is simply.............. wrong. I think opening the door to this is akin to opening the door to a bloodthirsty vampire. Once he gets his toe in, he'll just keep wanting more until he sucks the life out of the site.

[Timminz]

Consider what you are saying yes to:

You are saying it would be alright for one player to take more than one spot in a game.

No we aren't. This is a very specific suggestion, and the majority of supporters do not want what you are so worried about. I totally agree with you, in that I don't think there should ever be an option to allow one player to take more than one spot in a regular team game. It would wreak havoc on team games as they are (and should remain). If, for example, I could join a quads game (against four separate players), and play as all four of the other team, I would be able to put my score through the roof. Not only would I be more likely to win (due to not having to coordinate with others), but the point reward would be 4 times as high as it would be if I had 3 team mates. THAT would be an absolutely horrible option to have, but that is NOT what we want.