Allow players to play team games from one account. If I can create a coin game in which I play a 2v2 or 3v3 against 1-3 other players, I would be more likely to play coin games. I think other players would too. This is probably the best way to increase the number of team coin games. When playing for money, you want a reliable teammate. Most (good) players trust themselves more than others.

99% of coin games are 1v1s, right? Make this change, and there will be more team games (even if it is two players playing a 2v2 or 3v3). Regardless, the total number of coin games will increase.

And you could only allow members to play with this setting in non-coin games, which would increase membership numbers a bit. More money from memberships.

I called this change to settings "multi-armying" in this thread: https://www.warlight.net/Forum/105254-puppeteering-multiarmying-anonymous-chat

If you don't believe me that more people will play more coin games with this change, do something revolutionary...customer feedback! Community polls or surveys would probably be more helpful than seat-of-your-pants assumptions. Real businesses use surveys and customer feedback to determine future services/products...

Edited 2016-02-29 08:20:15

+1. play teamgames from same account would incentivate to play coin games.

"When playing for money, you want a reliable teammate. Most (good) players trust themselves more than others."

This phrace is perfect and i feel exactly as it is

This idea sounds quite interesting. I guess you're not talking about playing from 3 accounts in the same team, because as we know, you can't have more than 1 account with coins.

So the way I see it, is that you can join to 1 team with your account to more than 1 seat, and then change account, you're currently controlling during the game. Something like this(?):



But that would obviously require a lot of changes into game engine. So the question here is, is it really worth the effort if we think money-wise? So as much as I'd really like this idea to happens, I'm afraid that chances are quite slim.

Edited 2016-02-29 10:12:49

Yeah, 1 account = 2+ seats in team games. The one account controls all the armies in the game, but has different colored armies. So, you could play a 2v2 with 2-4 players, or a 3v3 with 3-6 players.

Would it be useful? I think so. Another aspect of it: if a teammate gets booted, the members with this ability could take over the teammates' armies. This could be added to team-game settings: "Take over booted teammate's armies."

This new function would make team games more popular, reduce problems arising from having booted teammates, make team-game ladders more popular, increase the number of coin games played, and add value to memberships.

lol
lame

Alts should be simply forbidden. 'Nuff said.

     - Ceterum censeo Felem delendam esse

I see no reason not to, but i have almost no coins anyway

Just one Fundamental Issue, it would not be a Team-Game if teams consist only of single players! It is called logical error or tautology: why on earth we need to produce that? Secondly I really doubt that all businesses that do not use surveys or customer feedback can be called not "real". And Fizzers form of Customer Feedback is called Uservoice - I doubt you here that first time!

Yes, team games would be popular because now they would not be a team games! Problem solved!

The core idea of team game is that team consists of multiple action-makers that have to come to united decision-settlement how they will perform their strategy and weight their position relative to other teams if that is multiple team-game.

If you really want to play alone with multiple spots against team of multiple players call it something else, other than Team Game! It is already done with Alts in non-coin-games - pretty pathetic if not pointed out in description. To be honest, don´t care what its called, as long its not labelled under team game....

• Fake Team-Game
• One Man Army
• Alt-Fest

Secondly even if it does not get implemented, you can still make games similar fashion, but just agree on payment in external channels: good side is it will probably take less convertion-rate! Plenty of ways to-do that.