37 messages, 2 pages: 1 2 ↖ Go back to topic list
Score: +0
It would be nice to play monopoly in teams. Each person would have their own cash and properties, but of course team mates could trade with each other, and there would be no rent on allied properties. This would be another interesting variant.
Score: +0
o extra suggestion I first think about it But everyone posted first. Nice edition!
Score: +0
Agreed as well. I think it could be verry fun and could be fun to try some new strategies.
Score: +0
Yep if you have 3 players in the same teem you will start with 21000 simbul $4500
Score: +0
I don't think a team version would be good but here is a suggestion a person showed me once. Double money at the start. You put in bots and do a deal where you take their money then kick the bots!
Score: +0
Cute. Next time, you might like to actually give reasons why you think it's not a good idea, rather than mentioning something which is only half-relevant. This is essentially no different to most other games which already have team variants, why shouldn't this game get one?
Score: +0
Yes Ynwa why this suggestion is not good. I think that is good. Isn't it?
Score: +0
Not a good idea, First of all, Monopoly means a solo or a individual game, it is like sole trader game, If partners come in then then we might as well change the name to dualPoly? which will be just sounding funny, well in partners then the game will be easier as peanuts to aquire the needed properties and build your houses and hotels which will be just no fun to play. Come on people MonoPoly check the definitions.
Regards Krrish
Score: +0
Ok, so by your logic all companies in real life having a monopoly on something should mean that they are owned by just a single person. Needless to say, this isn't the case, most big companies have tons of people, even if you count just owners and not employees. So I reject this argument. I don't even understand why you put the emphasis on realism, by your logic 1000 miles in teams should be impossible too, because obviously only one person can have the steering wheel at a time.
Furthermore, it is true that you get houses and hotels faster. But I would argue that this makes the game more interesting instead of less, because right now a lot of games end with one person getting a monopoly, building some houses, and then it can pretty much be over already. Definitely not all cases, but it would also more interesting to actually pit hotels against each other.
Score: +0
Hey, I like that idea on monopoly in teams. We already did something similar with czech mates, that time just manually, like we didn't want our teammates to pay rent, we were trading properties among the group and so on. It would be fun to don't do it just manually. I just don't understand why people have bad comments on thsuch a great idea. :D
Score: +0
Well, you can always try it manually to combine and play, specially with your friends and then see how it works?
Score: +0
OK crish Are you a developer to choose if this feature will be added or not? If you don't play with teems then don't read this topic. Emunal may choose if this feature will be added and I hope she or he will answer somethink.
Score: +0
People that work for a company are enployees not owners. A Monopoly means 1 individual or entity owns everything. So if Aminiel had a Monopoly for games for the blind you would be only able to play games made by Aminiel. If Microsoft purchased the rights to those games then Microsoft would have a Monopoly so you still would only be able to play games owned by Microsoft.
It is a person's right if they want to give their reasoning or not. Maybe I was wrong everything to asume that you would already know the pros and cons to having a team game!
We already have varients to monopoly such as the money on free parking. As you know many don't speak English here and find it hard enough to choose their prefered options so to complicate things further is not always a good idea.
Most of the varients Aminiel has already done but here are 2 suggestions. The first is my personal suggestion and that is have a board with 80 squares so it is easier for more to play. The second and I read this option last night. When selecting Auction the Bank would generate extra auctions on a random property when there are very few left. Say there were 5 properties left get the Bank to select a property say for example Berlin. You would get an announcement saying Berlin is up for Auction and it would be up to you to bid or not on that property. People don't have to land on that property for it to be Auctioned. the Bank would take it back if it was not sold!
Score: +0
Ok monopoly is not a real life. When Ynwa will understand that. I think about each property as the normal think for example a book. 2 or more people may own this book. So sally and john may own the same book Why not be a same for all other?
Score: +0
what ever is your name, AcaaFaaca or what , I have my freedom to give suggestions here also, uff corse i m not a developer but for me creating a partnership in monopoly sounds not so good. thats true the admins has the final decitions at the end of the day, so all the best.
Score: +0
you all should relax
Score: +0
what's the point of this arguing anyway? If aminiel wants , he'll reply. If you agree with this suggestion reply , and if you don't just don't reply. This suggestion , if implemented will not destroy your gaming experience in whichever way , you can use it or not so... and about argument that it would make things complicated for those who do not speak english , i have to disagree because: 1. This is english server and 2. Someone has probably showed playroom to them so that person will also help them with new features.
Score: +0
Ynwa, I explicitly mentioned in my post that I was not referring to employees. There's actually a lot of companies that do not have one clearly defined owner, so again, I don't think there is a problem. But even if there was, why is it necessary to play the realism card in this case? Remember that it's just a game.
I totally fail to see your point when you say that implementing this would complicate it too much for people who don't speak English. Unless you say it's best if we don't have team games at all, in which case you're clearly wrong because a lot of other games have team play already, and most of these games are actually more complex (french tarot comes to mind). Yet there's plenty of people who play those games in teams. Scopa has 4 different variants, but it still does have team play. 1000 miles has additional non-standard cards, reshuffling of the discard pile, but it has teams too. How would monopoly be any different?
As to manually playing... Same thing. Why don't people just play 1000 miles manually in teams? or scopa? or cribbage? If you can somehow justify that these games require teams to be programmed, but monopoly doesn't, I am eager to hear it. But I don't see why we should limit ourselves to the dictionary definition of monopoly. Again, it's just a game.
Score: +0
Ynwa and crish think that monopoly may not be played in teems because Only one person may own company. But As I said Monopoly is not a real life. And as 1000 miles in real life may be not played in teems Why someone will start s drama here?
Score: +0
Everyone I would love to play you at a game of French team Tarot providing Aminiel introduces that game!
You have compared your suggestion of a Monopoly team game with others but I would like to ask you witch team game are you able to exchange your cards with your partner or give them one of your cards! If we take Cribbage there are examples where Cribbage has been a team game for many years. Can you provide proof such as a website where you can play "Team Monopoly" as Aminiel traditionally sticks to the official rules such as French Tarot! See the latest updates as evidence!
Score: +0
Last edited by YNWA, May 4 2016 20:40:14
Ok but trick taking games in teems don't allow to trade with cards.
Score: +0
God damn guys, calm down. This was suggested for a possibility of having more fun, not more argues.
Score: +0
Why does it have to exist officially in order to implement it? It's called innovation. Just like fishing aces, and that was actually just an april fool except it was probably better received than anyone expected. Also, the additional rules where reaching/crossing 33 and 66 in 99 are not official rules either. But they make the game more interesting so I am glad they are here nonetheless.
Score: +0
Yes And 99 is played with a special deck wich has cards from 1 to 10 a pass, rewerse and skip and hiest score or 99.
Score: +0
i think that when someone makes a suggestion here, it is for developer and not for players. And all of us have the right to suggest something, if we want. But it's so nasty and shameful when the other people are not able to respect this and try to prove how wrong or senseless it was that suggestion.
Everyone has suggested this for Aminiel and just he is able to give him an answer, if it's possible or no and so on...
Then why all this circus?
Score: +0
I fully aree with Cristina, but the problem Aminiel doesn't reply much!
Score: +0
Ok aminiel may reply after 1000 days, But crish may not choose that!
Score: +0
Oh, oh guys, even if Aminiel doesn't answer immediately, none of us has the right to create such a circus. smile
It's absolutely shameful and unwanted.
Score: +0
Everyone (not refering to the user) is entitled to their opinion on a topic. This is a discussion and you can't tell the others not to post. They're presenting their own arguements even if they disagree. Even if the suggestion is directed to the developer that doesn't mean the others can't voice their views on the topic in hand. So please don't reply unnecessarily.
Score: +0
Yaa, agree with that nice option, i hope, it will be added here... :)
Score: +0
37 messages, 2 pages: 1 2 ↖ Go back to topic list
You must be connected in order to be allowed to post
