Conquer Club

I think there are two options. You described a third:

T1 need to kill one player from T3 to win.

I would not support this, primarily because it makes little sense.

The two viable options, using three team dubs as an example, would be:

T1 > T3 > T2 > T1
Red > Blue > Pink > Green > Yellow > Cyan > Red

I would vote for full teams.

That would be cool yeah. Hunting one team while another team pounds you in the rear.

In terminator I'm sure it would result in truces, alliances and ganging up, but that's always been part of the game anyway.

iAmCaffeine wrote:I think there are two options. You described a third:

T1 need to kill one player from T3 to win.

I would not support this, primarily because it makes little sense.

The two viable options, using three team dubs as an example, would be:

T1 > T3 > T2 > T1
Red > Blue > Pink > Green > Yellow > Cyan > Red

I would vote for full teams.

Why does it make little sense? It seems quite straightforward. You kill one member of the team, you win. I would think team games often end up focusing one the weaker/ weakest team member to reduce the team size. so it's not that great a step. I think it's worth a beta test anyway.
At the moment you have to kill an entire team to win, so I think the one player option provides an interesting choice. It's a bit like taking the king in chess, and would give you more to think about.

It's straightforward, that isn't what I meant. Only having to kill one member of a team to win is incredibly stupid. I shouldn't even have to explain why.

iAmCaffeine wrote:It's straightforward, that isn't what I meant. Only having to kill one member of a team to win is incredibly stupid. I shouldn't even have to explain why.

Not "incredibly stupid", merely a different variation of the game play. So it doesn't appeal to you, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion and your right not to play it.
Yes it can have its downside - deadbeats and multis being the obvious problems - but that's the same for any team game, it's just more pronounced in this variation.

clangfield wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:It's straightforward, that isn't what I meant. Only having to kill one member of a team to win is incredibly stupid. I shouldn't even have to explain why.

Not "incredibly stupid", merely a different variation of the game play. So it doesn't appeal to you, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion and your right not to play it.
Yes it can have its downside - deadbeats and multis being the obvious problems - but that's the same for any team game, it's just more pronounced in this variation.

It just takes already luck-heavy settings and makes the game revolve even more around luck. I don't see why that would be a good idea to put forward when more balanced variations of the same are sound.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

clangfield wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:It's straightforward, that isn't what I meant. Only having to kill one member of a team to win is incredibly stupid. I shouldn't even have to explain why.

Not "incredibly stupid", merely a different variation of the game play. So it doesn't appeal to you, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion and your right not to play it.
Yes it can have its downside - deadbeats and multis being the obvious problems - but that's the same for any team game, it's just more pronounced in this variation.

It just takes already luck-heavy settings and makes the game revolve even more around luck. I don't see why that would be a good idea to put forward when more balanced variations of the same are sound.

I'd say it's no less balanced than a 1 v 1 or poly game.

clangfield wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

clangfield wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:It's straightforward, that isn't what I meant. Only having to kill one member of a team to win is incredibly stupid. I shouldn't even have to explain why.

Not "incredibly stupid", merely a different variation of the game play. So it doesn't appeal to you, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion and your right not to play it.
Yes it can have its downside - deadbeats and multis being the obvious problems - but that's the same for any team game, it's just more pronounced in this variation.

It just takes already luck-heavy settings and makes the game revolve even more around luck. I don't see why that would be a good idea to put forward when more balanced variations of the same are sound.

I'd say it's no less balanced than a 1 v 1 or poly game.

1v1 I'd be inclined to agree, poly definitely not. If a poly game involves the same amount of luck, then so do doubles, triples and quads. Do you actually believe that?

The issues I foresee are 6 x Dubs, 4 x Trips or 3 x Quads where each player has around 3 regions. Bad drop/dice and the assassin game is over when all you need to do is kill one member of a team. Granted, this can happen in games with current settings, but this particular suggestion has potential for balance so why ignore it?

Also, I'm not sure how coding could/would work if one player dying = whole team dead.

I'm not sure either, but I doubt it could be that difficult since a whole game ends when an assassin target gets killed.

The one-player-kill objective isn't essential to have, and I agree that in general the whole-team-kill objective makes more sense.
But, it is a variation that would change a lot and is really only a matter of taste. Some people like games that can be over in a flash.
With the whole-team-kill you would end up with games going on for aaaaaaaaages in a real war of attrition. Again, some people like that and some people hate it. Plus, there are already enough game types & settings that result in unwinnable games from the drop/turn order. So that shouldn't necessarily exclude the one-player-kill option entirely.

Now that reminds me of another suggestion. Fix the damn maps that allow a bonus to be dropped. It's perhaps the single most annoying thing in CC. But I guess that's for another thread...

iAmCaffeine wrote:It's straightforward, that isn't what I meant. Only having to kill one member of a team to win is incredibly stupid. I shouldn't even have to explain why.

No you do have to.

If the weakest member of my team is the target then I am blockading them in so they cannot muck it up. Yes it would be idiotic to do otherwise.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:It's straightforward, that isn't what I meant. Only having to kill one member of a team to win is incredibly stupid. I shouldn't even have to explain why.

No you do have to.

If the weakest member of my team is the target then I am blockading them in so they cannot muck it up. Yes it would be idiotic to do otherwise.

You didn't get it.

Multi team games means minimum 6 players for dub, but for triple minimum 9 and quad mininm 12 players.
In 90% of the map, if there is 9 or 12 players, every player will start with very few regions.
Having to kill only one player to win the game, will make it pure luck based on drop. A bit like playing doodle assassin with 6+ players, it's 99% like 1% skill.

Therefore I also do not support a team assassin setting in which you'd have to kill only one player to win the game.

I agree lets ban all formats that are ruined by certain maps.

Well that will be all formats. May as well just close the website.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:I agree lets ban all formats that are ruined by certain maps.

Well that will be all formats. May as well just close the website.

I am trying to have a constructive discussion here.
There is several way of understanding this suggestion.
1) Team Assassin : Target = 1 team.
1) Team Assassin : Target = 1 player of a team.

Because the 2nd proposition would be much less interesting from a strategical point of view, I am saying, let's take the 1st proposition.
Game that are finished round 1 or 2 are hardly interesting and will probably not be success, and as I said earlier, the 2nd proposition would lead to very fast game, based on drop and luck.

Donelladan wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:It's straightforward, that isn't what I meant. Only having to kill one member of a team to win is incredibly stupid. I shouldn't even have to explain why.

No you do have to.

If the weakest member of my team is the target then I am blockading them in so they cannot muck it up. Yes it would be idiotic to do otherwise.

You didn't get it.

Multi team games means minimum 6 players for dub, but for triple minimum 9 and quad mininm 12 players.
In 90% of the map, if there is 9 or 12 players, every player will start with very few regions.
Having to kill only one player to win the game, will make it pure luck based on drop. A bit like playing doodle assassin with 6+ players, it's 99% like 1% skill.

Therefore I also do not support a team assassin setting in which you'd have to kill only one player to win the game.

Could not the same be said for an ordinary 12 player assassin game? All it takes is the first player to drop next to his target and it's game over.

Could not the same be said for an ordinary 12 player assassin game? All it takes is the first player to drop next to his target and it's game over.

Well, if you have 4 players targeting one guy, the odds of having all territory of that player visible are much higher than in a 12 players game in which 1 guy is targeting another.
But yes some map in a 12 players assassin game are just random luck. Or just like assassin on doodle or luxembourg, which are played a lot for sure, but mainly in speed I believe, and I don't think people playing teams games would like to join a game that can be finished in 2 or 3 turns. People playing teams games are, imo, those that dislike to have huge luck factor, and those that like to plan a complex strategy, that's one teams games mean for me, and that is why I love team game. So if we are to create team assassin game to make happy people like the OP, we ought to make them interesting for them.

But anyway, what's the point of arguing ? Do you feel there is any advantage or does it make more sense that you have to kill only one player of the team rather than the whole team in a "team assassin" game ? Just wondering, because personally I'd go with kill the whole team. It would make the game much more balanced and interesting, and ti would make more sense.

Donelladan wrote:

Could not the same be said for an ordinary 12 player assassin game? All it takes is the first player to drop next to his target and it's game over.

Well, if you have 4 players targeting one guy, the odds of having all territory of that player visible are much higher than in a 12 players game in which 1 guy is targeting another.
But yes some map in a 12 players assassin game are just random luck. Or just like assassin on doodle or luxembourg, which are played a lot for sure, but mainly in speed I believe, and I don't think people playing teams games would like to join a game that can be finished in 2 or 3 turns. People playing teams games are, imo, those that dislike to have huge luck factor, and those that like to plan a complex strategy, that's one teams games mean for me, and that is why I love team game. So if we are to create team assassin game to make happy people like the OP, we ought to make them interesting for them.

But anyway, what's the point of arguing ? Do you feel there is any advantage or does it make more sense that you have to kill only one player of the team rather than the whole team in a "team assassin" game ? Just wondering, because personally I'd go with kill the whole team. It would make the game much more balanced and interesting, and ti would make more sense.

I'm saying try it both ways, and see what works. It's not about "making sense" as such, it's just different variations. By all means start with the "whole team" approach, but it may be worth making the single player approach available as well.
Personally I'd prefer the shorter game so killing all four of a team whilst trying to defend against another team could take time, and doesn't appeal as much to me.

Donelladan wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:I agree lets ban all formats that are ruined by certain maps.

Well that will be all formats. May as well just close the website.

I am trying to have a constructive discussion here.
There is several way of understanding this suggestion.
1) Team Assassin : Target = 1 team.
1) Team Assassin : Target = 1 player of a team.

Because the 2nd proposition would be much less interesting from a strategical point of view, I am saying, let's take the 1st proposition.
Game that are finished round 1 or 2 are hardly interesting and will probably not be success, and as I said earlier, the 2nd proposition would lead to very fast game, based on drop and luck.

Precisely! Some people are so used to disagreeing they become happily ignorant.

clangfield wrote:Could not the same be said for an ordinary 12 player assassin game? All it takes is the first player to drop next to his target and it's game over.

Yes, but that is the assassin game mode and not really alterable now. The difference here is this suggestion can be refined. Implementing 1 player rather than 1 team as the target just makes it 99% luck on nearly any map, not just small ones (when playing large games).

What benefit is there to deliberately choosing the version with less strategy? It's dumb af.

Caff and Don. Have you ever played a team game where whomever killed the first team DIDNT go on to win. What you two are suggesting is standard format.

As for luck, I once got killed in assassin by my target because he felt that i was victimising him.... Assassin IS a PISSTAKE when it comes to luck. I agree lets delete the entire format.

Caff and Don. Have you ever played a team game where whomever killed the first team DIDNT go on to win.

Yes a lot of time. Maybe I misunderstood you ? Were you speaking of multi team game or only 2 team ?

As for luck, I once got killed in assassin by my target because he felt that i was victimising him.... Assassin IS a PISSTAKE when it comes to luck. I agree lets delete the entire format.

While in a way I generally agree with you that assassin involve more luck that the other settings, there is also possibility to play assassin with strategy. And again it is not because currrent assassin game is mainly luck that the new one we would create has to be. And I didn't say we should delete every setting involving luck.
I am just saying, if team game assassin are to be implemented, let's do it in a way that reduce the luck, especially if you do it for the people that play team now, those people do not like luck.

Donelladan wrote:But yes some map in a 12 players assassin game are just random luck. Or just like assassin on doodle or luxembourg, which are played a lot for sure, but mainly in speed I believe, and I don't think people playing teams games would like to join a game that can be finished in 2 or 3 turns. People playing teams games are, imo, those that dislike to have huge luck factor, and those that like to plan a complex strategy, that's one teams games mean for me, and that is why I love team game. So if we are to create team assassin game to make happy people like the OP, we ought to make them interesting for them.

Just to be clear, the original idea was for team assassin/terminator games that involve killing a whole team. I enjoy and almost exclusively play team games because of the very same reasons Dondelladan mentioned. So the main point is to make the terminator & assassin options available to team players and perhaps even, if it works, bring them into the clan world.

I only said that the 1 kill option should not necessarily be discounted completely. I personally probably wouldn't play it, I really hate games that are decided by luck but some players like it. I don't play speed games or freestyle games, but I've no problem with the option existing. As already stands, if you don't like a setting, don't use it. I know which one I would play but not everyone has the same tastes. There are already games that go on for years and games that finish in Round 1. Variety is supposed to be the spice of life.

Conchobar wrote:

Donelladan wrote:But yes some map in a 12 players assassin game are just random luck. Or just like assassin on doodle or luxembourg, which are played a lot for sure, but mainly in speed I believe, and I don't think people playing teams games would like to join a game that can be finished in 2 or 3 turns. People playing teams games are, imo, those that dislike to have huge luck factor, and those that like to plan a complex strategy, that's one teams games mean for me, and that is why I love team game. So if we are to create team assassin game to make happy people like the OP, we ought to make them interesting for them.

Just to be clear, the original idea was for team assassin/terminator games that involve killing a whole team. I enjoy and almost exclusively play team games because of the very same reasons Dondelladan mentioned. So the main point is to make the terminator & assassin options available to team players and perhaps even, if it works, bring them into the clan world.

I assumed that is what you meant, but other players are arguing for the sake of it with no meaning.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:Caff and Don. Have you ever played a team game where whomever killed the first team DIDNT go on to win. What you two are suggesting is standard format.

Yes. Stupid question.

Well I'm just happy there's at least a debate about it enough enough posts to make a second page.

So, who's attention do we need to get in order to make it reality?

Who's in charge of this sort of thing and who knows about the coding required?

Explain team terminator to me.
Im playing quads terminator and i get an elimination of someone who is the same rank as me,therefore i should get 20 points by normal terminator rules.
Do i get 20 points or do each of the 4 players on my team get 5 points?
Is my teams average score still relevant or only my personal score?
What happens if i eliminate my own teammate?
If i do get points for eliminating my own teammates it seems a bit unfair to the winning team as i could suicide and elim my own teammates if we were definetly losing to insulate either my own or my teams point loss.

It should work the same way as "team assassin". Meaning you get points if you eliminate the whole team. So all your team get points if they take last regions of last player of a defined team.
That's the way I imagine it should/would work. Therefore killing your teammate don't give your points ofc.
So when you eliminate last player of a team , your team get the points of the whole team so 20 points each if they had average ranking similar to your team.