[GO] Random Team Games

by **TheForgivenOne** on Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:55 pm

Found it. Merged

by **chapcrap** on Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:20 pm

I think this is a great option. I love having my set partners for maps and going against other tough teams, but I understand that it would suck not to be part of a team. I used to be in the same boat. I wouldn't even go near a team game. I wanted to try, but was always fearful of what kind of opponent I would get teamed up with against experienced partners.

I say add it as 3 more game styles called:

You have my support!

by **patrickaa317** on Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:49 am

This would also be fun among friends too.

I have a lot of people I play with on a regular basis and it'd be fun to set up a new Random Quads game and invite 7 of those people and let the site decide who's with me and who's against me.

New tournament ideas are already flowing through my head if this happens.

by **Pirlo** on Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:07 am

drunkmonkey wrote:Yes, I'm bumping a year-old thread. But it's only because I came to suggest something that's already been suggested.

As a player without regular teammates, I don't want to join a trips or quads game against 3 or 4 majors/brigadiers when I have no clue who will be joining my team. However, I wouldn't mind joining a game with 6/8 players who were then randomly divided into teams. It may also be a new way for people to meet & become teammates later on.

I can't understand why someone would give a "loud NO" to this. It would only be an option for team games; they could still be played as normal. Since no moderator ever commented on this, and it was never "rejected", I thought I'd bring it into discussion again.

+1

by **drunkmonkey** on Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:06 am

Pirlo wrote:
drunkmonkey wrote:Yes, I'm bumping a year-old thread. But it's only because I came to suggest something that's already been suggested.

As a player without regular teammates, I don't want to join a trips or quads game against 3 or 4 majors/brigadiers when I have no clue who will be joining my team. However, I wouldn't mind joining a game with 6/8 players who were then randomly divided into teams. It may also be a new way for people to meet & become teammates later on.

I can't understand why someone would give a "loud NO" to this. It would only be an option for team games; they could still be played as normal. Since no moderator ever commented on this, and it was never "rejected", I thought I'd bring it into discussion again.

+1

That "year-old bump" was 2 years ago. I wouldn't hold my breath.

by **Pirlo** on Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:12 am

drunkmonkey wrote:
Pirlo wrote:
drunkmonkey wrote:Yes, I'm bumping a year-old thread. But it's only because I came to suggest something that's already been suggested.

As a player without regular teammates, I don't want to join a trips or quads game against 3 or 4 majors/brigadiers when I have no clue who will be joining my team. However, I wouldn't mind joining a game with 6/8 players who were then randomly divided into teams. It may also be a new way for people to meet & become teammates later on.

I can't understand why someone would give a "loud NO" to this. It would only be an option for team games; they could still be played as normal. Since no moderator ever commented on this, and it was never "rejected", I thought I'd bring it into discussion again.

+1

That "year-old bump" was 2 years ago. I wouldn't hold my breath.

but your post is perfect for me. I couldn't express my opinion better.

by **Dibbun** on Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:11 pm

chapcrap wrote:I think this is a great option. I love having my set partners for maps and going against other tough teams, but I understand that it would suck not to be part of a team. I used to be in the same boat. I wouldn't even go near a team game. I wanted to try, but was always fearful of what kind of opponent I would get teamed up with against experienced partners.

I say add it as 3 more game styles called:
Random Doubles
Random Triples
Random Quads

You have my support!

Absolutely +1 on this idea and especially this specific recommendation^

by **40kguy** on Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:28 am

would be nice for private games with friends

by **chapcrap** on Thu May 31, 2012 9:36 pm

I wish this wasn't rejected.

by **agentcom** on Thu May 31, 2012 11:16 pm

Thanks for bringing this to the front chap. I like it too. I would be much more willing to join team games with randoms (and they would be truly random) if I knew that everyone else was in the same position. It's so risky to do it now because you never know when a cook is going to join your team and F everything up. Now everyone shares that risk.

by **agentcom** on Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:31 pm

I wish mods would announce when they move threads around ...

But glad to see it out of rejected.

by **MrBoom** on Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:58 pm

This would be excellent.

by **cookie0117** on Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:54 am

An extra option to tick where players join a game and teams are assigned randomly once full

As the concise description implys, a game is made either 4, 6 or 8 players and it is either dubs, trips or quads. Although players join an open field and the teams are formed randomly once the game starts. So no one knows who they will play with on their side untill it starts.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
It will allow people to play more interesting team games. Either with people they know or dont. It will spice up games with friends and also aid medal hunting.

Its also a popular tournament format "random team mates". So that shows there is demand for the style of paly.

Although im not a computer wizard im guessing its not going to be the hardest of things to implement, so could be good as a cheekly little offering to keep people feeling loved.

by **chapcrap** on Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:04 am

EDIT: removed all the links to the other threads, because I have merged all the threads together.

by **cookie0117** on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:32 pm

I think a little more research from me in the future but as its been suggested so many times it must be somewhat popular!!!

by **Funkyterrance** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:29 pm

Popular as in it's put up as a suggestion a lot but not necessarily popular once it's hashed out and scrutinized.

by **chapcrap** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:00 pm

MERGED 11 threads and edited the OP. STICKIED in the suggestions forum.

by **Gillipig** on Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:21 pm

I voted yes

.

by **codierose** on Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:41 pm

im going to vote NO
from what i think is being suggested i have played a few tourneys where you have random partners. my issue is ending up with deadbeats, noobs, partners that dont communicate and listen id rather stick with who i know from now on been bitten to many times. just my penny's worth

by **betiko** on Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:55 pm

codierose wrote:im going to vote NO
from what i think is being suggested i have played a few tourneys where you have random partners. my issue is ending up with deadbeats, noobs, partners that dont communicate and listen id rather stick with who i know from now on been bitten to many times. just my penny's worth

+1.
or people who join these should at least have bronze in one of the 3 team modes. I've been joining random teams with caporals and all these days, it's really frustrating to see how the never listen, miss turns and waste armies. hopefully the team faced really suck too. not too interesting to play such low level games though...

by **greenoaks** on Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:11 pm

i support this, just a tiny bit.

i just don't see enough demand for this to use limited resources that could be implementing other things.

i guess it is a NO for now.

by **nicestash** on Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:16 pm

I love this idea.

Also, is it possible to make these games unavailable to people with an attendance of less that 95% or 97%? It seems like that would get rid of all worries about this idea.

Also, to those who worry about deadbeats and cooks-everyone runs the same risk in these games so it's really not a bane. Also, you don't have to join any of these games either.

by **Eddygp** on Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:32 am

Looking at the poll, it is obvious that the general consensus is "yes", with a stunning 83% of votes. This should be implemented as an extra option though, not substituting current team matches.

by **stahrgazer** on Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:04 pm

codierose wrote:im going to vote NO
from what i think is being suggested i have played a few tourneys where you have random partners. my issue is ending up with deadbeats, noobs, partners that dont communicate and listen id rather stick with who i know from now on been bitten to many times. just my penny's worth

If random team were an option, you could simply choose not to play the option, while those who wanted to give it a try, could do so.

Rather than strictly coding in players who couldn't join (by rank, by percentage of turn taken, etc.) some of those qualifiers could be added as options within the option.

Random Team
-Limit to rank of (pulldown menu) and above ("no limit" default)
-Limit to attendance (pulldown menu) and above ("no limit" default)

by **abfahren** on Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:56 am

Could be good, but also might make people quit if they dont like their team

[GO] Random Team Games

Re: Shuffle teams

Re: Shuffle teams

Re: Shuffle teams

Re: Random teammate/"Shuffle" teammate games

Re: Random teammate/"Shuffle" teammate games

Re: Random teammate/"Shuffle" teammate games

Re: Shuffle teams

Re: Random teammate/"Shuffle" teammate games

Re: Random teammate/"Shuffle" teammate games

Re: Random teammate/"Shuffle" teammate games

Re: Random teammate/"Shuffle" teammate games

Re: Random teammate/"Shuffle" teammate games

Random Teams Option

Re: Random Teams Option

Re: Random Teams Option

Re: Random Teams Option

Re: Random Team Games

Re: Random Team Games

Re: Random Team Games

Re: Random Team Games

Re: Random Team Games

Re: Random Team Games

Re: Random Team Games

Re: Random Team Games

Re: Random Team Games

Who is online