Conquer Club

Why do you guys think this is for seasoned doubles teams? The whole point is that they would not use this game type. It's for people who don't have a regular partner.

When I did not have a regualt double or triples partner I did not just randomly pick someone. I talked to players from singles matches and asked them (or they asked me) if I wanted to partner. I can see lots of negative feedback from this option.

Honestly with this option I might play doubles. At the moment I stay away from them for fear of being pitted up against a team of seasoned doubles players and me getting stuck with a deadbeat or just someone who doesn’t want to do anything to help each other and plays it as if he were solo (happened in every doubles game I played so far).

i currently mostly avoid team games. i would start playing them if there was a random seed option!

some of these teams look like one person with multiple accounts...

I think this is a really good idea. As a new player it seems like all the team games I join are against two really good players and I am always teamed up with another newbie.

It's hard to beat two seasoned vets with a teammate that doesn't play or does stupid stuff like suicide. At least randomizing it would level the playing field somewhat.

TBH this is the thing that has turned me off the most about this site/game. I really like everything else about it though.

I would also much prefer this version of doubles.

Yes vote from me

ive found the teams tend to be unfair when people try to match up, say, 2 captains on one team and a cook and a cadet on another. there should be an option (or requirement) on team games to either make the teams completely random or fixed so that the sum of the team's rank is similar to that of the other team(s)

You realize you have control over with whom you join games. If you're joining the games with captains, then simply join a different game. If they are joining games with you, then either check your games frequently to see who has or hasn't joined, or buy a premium (or befriend a premium) and play passworded games.

I'm with you Moxiousman, but apparently everybody here is not. Everybody seems to complain about newbies joining and not sticking around and I think it has a lot to do with the disadvantage of having to join team games against a triad of captains who only play together. That, or joining and then getting stuck with a deadbeat.

Random games, where, say, you could join and did not know the actual identity of your partner (say it was XXXX on the screen) was until the end of the game would make things much more interesting and fun. It would also make for an interesting event because it would force good players to adapt.

Knight2254 wrote:I'm with you Moxiousman, but apparently everybody here is not.
Random games, where, say, you could join and did not know the actual identity of your partner (say it was XXXX on the screen) was until the end of the game would make things much more interesting and fun. It would also make for an interesting event because it would force good players to adapt.

In Random (as above) games you would still get stuck with deadbeat, because you do not know who your partner is going to be.
I do not play team games any more, as I do not have a reliable partner, and I am fed up losing games because my partner does not show up.

If you wish to play Team games you need a good partner. Not only that your partner needs to show up, but he needs to be reliable and fortify you when needed, good tactics are must, etc...

I would not play Team games, if I did not know who my partner is going to be.

If it would be optional than there wouldn't be anything wrong with this idea (though don't know how many people would use it in the end) but you can't make people team up with people who they don't want to play with (aka a lot of people here play with their partners and people who they wish to play with and that option has to stay. I'm sure that a lot of people agree with me).

moxiousman wrote:ive found the teams tend to be unfair when people try to match up, say, 2 captains on one team and a cook and a cadet on another. there should be an option (or requirement) on team games to either make the teams completely random or fixed so that the sum of the team's rank is similar to that of the other team(s)

Guaranteed rejection, and if it's not rejected, then no one will play it.

john1099 wrote:

moxiousman wrote:ive found the teams tend to be unfair when people try to match up, say, 2 captains on one team and a cook and a cadet on another. there should be an option (or requirement) on team games to either make the teams completely random or fixed so that the sum of the team's rank is similar to that of the other team(s)

Guaranteed rejection, and if it's not rejected, then no one will play it.

Well said.

moxiousman wrote:ive found the teams tend to be unfair when people try to match up, say, 2 captains on one team and a cook and a cadet on another. there should be an option (or requirement) on team games to either make the teams completely random or fixed so that the sum of the team's rank is similar to that of the other team(s)

Interesting option, though I don't think I'd play it. I was in a tourney once where you got a different partner each game...it was good for learning how different people viewed strategy, but i wasn't too fond of it...i'd rather find a really dependable partner and stick with them.

Also, when making future suggestions, please remember to use the form.

Thanks and have a wonderful day!

well if you think about it it mostly means how long they have played your cook could be better than the captain it is just the captain has been playing longer. Try looking at the number of games they have won instead.

Tired of seeing 8 identical maps of identical high ranking team 1 players just waiting for random players to prey on? Want to play with your friends but not trying to stack the odds in your favor? Game option, random teams.

When you see a few identical games of quadruples with 4 high ranked players sitting in team 1, you pretty quickly come to some conclusions. First, they know each other, they know their teammates are good players, and they have a much better than average knowledge that their teammates won't be deadbeats. In other words, they don't have to worry about their team the same way a player who randomly joins such a game does, and since we've all been on the wrong end of a route due to deadbeats, we know that that is a pretty huge advantage. The more cynical might assume it was arranged as such, but lets not jump to any conclusions quite yet. Those four players may very well just enjoy playing with one another, and since the first four to join the game are on the same team, it just works out that they have that advantage through no purposeful manipulation of their own. To avoid these issues, I suggest a game option in team games that randomizes the teams. Instead of the first four players being a team in a quadruples game with randomized teams selected, the game randomly picks 4 players and makes them team 1, the remaining 4 are team 2. Now cynical players can't say the game is being played with one team at an advantage, and players who just want to play with their friends can do so without swaying the odds.

On a related note, if the option becomes available for random teams, an option for 'balanced' teams might also be considered, where the game arranges teams such that the total number of points per team (the sum of the points of each team's players) is as close as possible.

Both would just be optional parts of team games, so if you don't want to play with either of these settings, simply avoid such games or don't select that option when making your game.

Thoughts? Refinements? Musta is an idiot?

great idea, there needs to be a way round this growing problem

It's a good idea but would not be very popular - team games usually involve friends or co-inhabiters playing on the same team.

Hotdoggie wrote:It's a good idea but would not be very popular - team games usually involve friends or co-inhabiters playing on the same team.

They still could, and unless they wanted to play against a team that was likely to be less organized or lower ranking than them (assuming they are high ranking) then they don't have a problem. If they DID want to play against a team likely to be less organized or less skilled... I don't feel to bad for them.

I like this idea actually...

C.

I like it as well. I filter out team games presently because of this problem, and I don't know enough folks to start my own.

i like the fair sorting by points.

but, that could be detrimental.


1 general and 3 chefs will most likely loose against 4 1st class corprals, even though the scores are probably even.

the high ranking players will get screwed with the most likely players to deadbeat....


so i dunno

pissedoffsol wrote:i like the fair sorting by points.

but, that could be detrimental.


1 general and 3 chefs will most likely loose against 4 1st class corprals, even though the scores are probably even.

the high ranking players will get screwed with the most likely players to deadbeat....


so i dunno

not really you just have the general tell the cooks what to do, so they would more than likely win

points do not fight!

i dont really know b/c i like playing w/ my friends, but i also hate it when, like you said, there are tons of identical, high ranked, team games