I think the current FFA system is a breeding ground for gangbanging and unfairness. The rankings ladder takes years to climb and the rankings sometimes do not represent the true skill of the player. And now guys like LOD can't climb higher because there are no higher level games ;P

Requiem has thought about this I belive and is working on the 1v1 campaigns. But I am not sure if he is planning to create ranked team games like 2v2s and 3v3s etc.. This is why I decided to create this thread.

To rank team games like 2v2s and 3v3s you need a formula that takes the average ranking of the team and compares it to the rankings of the individual players of the opposite team.

These ideas stem from the idea of having a 'lobby'. Sort of like at the msn gaming zone. When players enter a 'lobby' they can create a game and wait or invite others to join. They can choose map, settings, duration, boot undesired players, launch the game etc..


Much of this has been covered before, but seeing as most of these threads are sucked in by the blackhole it doesn't matter anyway. At least I get some satisfaction by typing this up and pressing the submit button :].

Good ideas, Boe. Now come on over for breakfast, we're having battle dogs today.

Yes, I've been thinking about this idea for some time now.

I think the game would be better if were a team-based system by default.

As you know there will be 1v1 Battles, 1v1 Campaigns (both turn-based), and timed Clan games (2v2 - 10v10).

So instead of FFA being the standard, I think TEAM games would be better. RED vs BLUE...

Whoever starts the game would choose the size (number of players), if sides are random or selected, if the game is password protected (for private games), and any other options.

Then players would join the game, and either select the side or be allocated a side randomly (but evenly based on ranks).


This would totally eliminate gang-banging.

And only the winning side (RED or BLUE) would gain points, and the losers would all lose points.


FFA is fun to a degree, but there are too many problems.
TEAM games would be more enjoyable and more balanced IMO, and also bring the community closer by making players work together, instead of promoting back-stabbing, etc.

Well, I do hope FFA games are kept as an option.

Well Req said "team-based system by default" so I guess FFA would still be an option.
I think I would like the teams but I still enjoy the FFA also.

TR

Yes, FFA would still be an option.
I would see that there will be many options when creating a game (more for members of course).

But I think the main focus will be TEAM games.
Thats where we would direct new players that want multi-player games.

FFA would end up being a specialty option. Play at your own risk of course (given its not balanced, and prone to backstabbing, gangbanging, etc...)

Maybe that would stop some of the whinning.