New type of game

[WalkingShadow]

I was just thinking of a new type of game.

It first starts out as a doubles game, map, cards, and forts are up to you. The team that then wins the doubles game plays a different 1 on 1 game immediately after the doubles game. New draw and everything so it doesn't matter the armies you and your partner had in the doubles game. Winner gets 100 points.

[Nephilim]

hmmmmm.............................what?

[Syzygy]

Erm... No.

[zack101]

that sounds sweet

[soccer913]

that does sound sweet

[cena-rules]

hmmmmmm

suggestions.

Ill get twill onto it

[Twill]

<twill obeys>

Thread moved from callouts to suggestions as requested

[cena-rules]

cheers twill

remember I always watch

[muy_thaiguy]

cheers twill

remember I always watch

Hurrah for sucking up!

[firth4eva]

yeah it sucks

[a.sub]

if ur into that type of stuff check out my new tourney,
basically it works in a similar way but with 32 ppl, then divided its self down to 16, then 8 then 4 then 2 then one winner. the only difference is that since i can host a 32 person game i hav a challenge system instead, here is the link
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 90&t=64801
its should be what ur looking for

[blakebowling]

if ur into that type of stuff check out my new tourney,
basically it works in a similar way but with 32 ppl, then divided its self down to 16, then 8 then 4 then 2 then one winner. the only difference is that since i can host a 32 person game i hav a challenge system instead, here is the link
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 90&t=64801
its should be what ur looking for

Thanks for the Nuke bump, this thread has been inactive for over a year, LOCK.

[Jeff Hardy]

Winner gets 100 points.

i generally dont like the idea but why should the winner get 100 points?
surely they should just get all the points from the players like normal

[cena-rules]

if ur into that type of stuff check out my new tourney,
basically it works in a similar way but with 32 ppl, then divided its self down to 16, then 8 then 4 then 2 then one winner. the only difference is that since i can host a 32 person game i hav a challenge system instead, here is the link
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 90&t=64801
its should be what ur looking for

Thanks for the Nuke bump, this thread has been inactive for over a year, LOCK.

11 MONTHS ACTUALLY

kids these days

[cicero]

blake and cena there is no policy which states that on topic posting in any thread no matter what it's age is to be avoided.

However off topic posting in any thread no matter what it's age is to be avoided. Please check the Forum Guidelines for reference.

Let's keep this thread on topic please.

[max is gr8]

I think the title should be changed.

Also yes this idea is so cool, but I believe it has been suggested many a time, cicero, can you confirm?

[ManBungalow]

It doesn't sound too bad...
However, I think we need a more practical game idea

[sully800]

How about this gametype (similar to the original suggestion).

Starts as a team game (any kind- doubles/triples/quads) and you play until only one team is left.

From that point you play the game out amongst the remaining players. No resetting armies or positions. The point is that you have to be willing to work for your team, but you can't be entirely selfless. Selfish teammates won't be on the winning team, but selfless teammates won't be able to win the game. It would be all about balance.

This would actually function similarly to a standard game, but you have a built in alliance from the start. Like all alliances, you want to help your partner but keep yourself in the running to win the game. The thing that would make this gametype different from a standard game is you could deploy and fortify to your teammates like a regular team game, and the alliances are predetermined.

If you wanted to differentiate the game type more, you could adjust the scoring:

Team A
Player 1
Player 2
Player 3

Team B
Player 4
Player 5
Player 6

If Team B wins, each member gets points according to normal team scoring.

Then Player 4, 5, and 6 play until one man is left. The winner gets points from his/her teammate as if they just played a standard 3-player game. It would be a game of sabotage and balance. A game where you have to dupe your opponents into helping you more than they should so you can maximize your own points. Call it "Saboteur" or "Traitor" or something along those lines.

I will make a new suggestion if this is deemed too different from the original topic.

[Jeff Hardy]

How about this gametype (similar to the original suggestion).

Starts as a team game (any kind- doubles/triples/quads) and you play until only one team is left.

From that point you play the game out amongst the remaining players. No resetting armies or positions. The point is that you have to be willing to work for your team, but you can't be entirely selfless. Selfish teammates won't be on the winning team, but selfless teammates won't be able to win the game. It would be all about balance.

This would actually function similarly to a standard game, but you have a built in alliance from the start. Like all alliances, you want to help your partner but keep yourself in the running to win the game. The thing that would make this gametype different from a standard game is you could deploy and fortify to your teammates like a regular team game, and the alliances are predetermined.

If you wanted to differentiate the game type more, you could adjust the scoring:

Team A
Player 1
Player 2
Player 3

Team B
Player 4
Player 5
Player 6

If Team B wins, each member gets points according to normal team scoring.

Then Player 4, 5, and 6 play until one man is left. The winner gets points from his/her teammate as if they just played a standard 3-player game. It would be a game of sabotage and balance. A game where you have to dupe your opponents into helping you more than they should so you can maximize your own points. Call it "Saboteur" or "Traitor" or something along those lines.

I will make a new suggestion if this is deemed too different from the original topic.

i like this idea a lot more

[a.sub]

How about this gametype (similar to the original suggestion).

Starts as a team game (any kind- doubles/triples/quads) and you play until only one team is left.

From that point you play the game out amongst the remaining players. No resetting armies or positions. The point is that you have to be willing to work for your team, but you can't be entirely selfless. Selfish teammates won't be on the winning team, but selfless teammates won't be able to win the game. It would be all about balance.

This would actually function similarly to a standard game, but you have a built in alliance from the start. Like all alliances, you want to help your partner but keep yourself in the running to win the game. The thing that would make this gametype different from a standard game is you could deploy and fortify to your teammates like a regular team game, and the alliances are predetermined.

If you wanted to differentiate the game type more, you could adjust the scoring:

Team A
Player 1
Player 2
Player 3

Team B
Player 4
Player 5
Player 6

If Team B wins, each member gets points according to normal team scoring.

Then Player 4, 5, and 6 play until one man is left. The winner gets points from his/her teammate as if they just played a standard 3-player game. It would be a game of sabotage and balance. A game where you have to dupe your opponents into helping you more than they should so you can maximize your own points. Call it "Saboteur" or "Traitor" or something along those lines.

I will make a new suggestion if this is deemed too different from the original topic.

i like this idea a lot more

i agree!

[max is gr8]

Another Idea is:

If you are on the winning team but aren't the winning player you don't lose or win points.

Once all teams but 1 are remaining the team fights it out, the winner gets the points of the losing team.

EG:

Team 1: WINS
P1 - Point Gain
P2 - No Point Loss/Gain
P3 - No Point Loss/Gain
Team 2
P4 - Point Loss
P5 - Point Loss
P6 - Point Loss

ANOTHER POSSIBLE IDEA IS

[a.sub]

Another Idea is:

If you are on the winning team but aren't the winning player you don't lose or win points.

Once all teams but 1 are remaining the team fights it out, the winner gets the points of the losing team.

EG:

Team 1: WINS
P1 - Point Gain
P2 - No Point Loss/Gain
P3 - No Point Loss/Gain
Team 2
P4 - Point Loss
P5 - Point Loss
P6 - Point Loss

ANOTHER POSSIBLE IDEA IS

OR we could hav it so the ppl on the winning team who lose win less points but still win some

so like after team one wins the points are divied up like this, the final winner gets 50% of the points and the other two get 25% each

[sully800]

Another Idea is:

If you are on the winning team but aren't the winning player you don't lose or win points.

Once all teams but 1 are remaining the team fights it out, the winner gets the points of the losing team.

EG:

Team 1: WINS
P1 - Point Gain
P2 - No Point Loss/Gain
P3 - No Point Loss/Gain
Team 2
P4 - Point Loss
P5 - Point Loss
P6 - Point Loss

ANOTHER POSSIBLE IDEA IS

OR we could hav it so the ppl on the winning team who lose win less points but still win some

so like after team one wins the points are divied up like this, the final winner gets 50% of the points and the other two get 25% each

I like the thought here, but dividing up the points by different amounts is probably too complicated. People have enough trouble understanding the score formula as it is, so dividing up the points by different percentages would be a headache when you first join the site.

max: I do like your idea. It would be nice to not lose anything if you were on the winning team. However, it would greatly change the dynamic that I talked about earlier, because everyone would be more dedicated to helping their team win. There would still be some infighting to try and gain an upperhand, but not nearly as much because there is no chance of losing points. If its a matter of losing or gaining points then the entire team dynamic changes. You are forced to work with a group of people, but in the end you want only yourself to win. The more I think about it, the more I like this idea. Heck, I would even start playing team games because something INTERESTING would actually take place for once