Well I think we already have our host, Caledorn, so recruiting RB seems like going backwards. What I would suggest is Caledorn should offer a game right now, so he can make sure everything is working. That way by the time the Team Game starts any bugs will be worked out. You can host multiple games at once, I do it all the time.
I know. The formalities are there to attract people, I don't realistically expect to have fancy procedures and roles. Quatronia was like this: Provolution set up all sorts of roles advising the turnplayer and such, but it really just turned into a consensus team, then a cav scout team, then a Caledorn team. Thanks guys!
I think this is firstly because of the vast number of members compared to any other civ site, then again even if we are from one site, there are already set rivalries between large groups due to we having separated teams from few games already. Last MTDG there were 5 teams from CFC and 1 from CDZ. Yet, no one treated CDZ like outsiders or something. In fact, 2 CFC teams were eliminated and 1 severely crippled, while no one declared war at CDZ the whole game. This I say if you are worried about CFC having big mass and acting coordinated against teams from outside CFC.
It was the case in the last MTDG IFAIK.
Ugh, I hope not
. As Krill points out that could be problematic if some sites have multiple teams and others have only one. I don't want the game starting off with people feeling cheated.
I really wish we could just stick to the same number of teams per site. Too many teams just ends up with a bunch of headless leaderless Albatrosses in the end.
Exactly This!!!we have to come to consensus somehow
Players that have played multiple games know the best way to make games that will be fun and retain players interest, not drag on too long etc, etc.
... A popular vote where 80% of the people voting are new to MTDG and/or won't stick around to the end... Not so much
(I've already tested that it works and all that, but will remake as I need people to specify what leader they want to play etc)Ugh, I hope not
Yeah, certainly a fair concern. Didn't mean to suggest that would be the best way of doing things. Rather, I just want to push to get the process, whatever it is, sorted out sooner rather than later; until we do, discussions can just keep going.
If balancing things between sites is the concern, we could always make it one vote per site. If a site fields multiple teams, those teams will have to get together and agree on their single vote.
Having too many people in one team is not an ideal situation in my head, as I think only a select few would be left 6 months into the game. And if someone should need a break then - like a turnplayer or a key strategist - getting interest back from the absentees can be a nigh impossible task.. As such I believe it is a bad idea to prohibit more than one team from a site if we agree on more than 2 teams, considering how many people joined the last MTDG just from the CFC community. Just my 2 cents.
