Discussion on how many teams to have.
I think an even number this time, and would prefer 6 if we can get enough people.
I think an even number this time, and would prefer 6 if we can get enough people.
How many teams?
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
I am open to having either 4 or 6 teams. My preference leans towards 4, but 6 is okay too.
azzaman333
meh
I happy with 6 if we can find the participants, but I think 4 is more realistic.
Hercules90
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,557
I think 4 teams is more realistic also.
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
I think the number of teams should depend upon:
#1) How many people who plan to be highly active sign up.
#2) The kind of game settled on.
For #2 - if it's going to be a small map with a quick game speed... then lots of teams might be more fun. Lower consequences if you get eliminated (ie, you don't have years invested).
If it's going to be a very large map, or if we're playing an always peace variant or something, fewer teams might be better to ensure that each team will retain at least a few players during the slower/disappointing parts.
= my 2cents.
#1) How many people who plan to be highly active sign up.
#2) The kind of game settled on.
For #2 - if it's going to be a small map with a quick game speed... then lots of teams might be more fun. Lower consequences if you get eliminated (ie, you don't have years invested).
If it's going to be a very large map, or if we're playing an always peace variant or something, fewer teams might be better to ensure that each team will retain at least a few players during the slower/disappointing parts.
= my 2cents.
BLubmuz
HoF Quattromaster
I think 4 teams are not much for a competition like this. A small map can be large enough for 6 teams, if you use maps like tectonics or global highlands.
About speed: quick? are you goin' mad? i'm stressed on normal, but i can live with it. I understand that we need "fast" settings to not be involved for years, but quick is too much. You start an axe rush and you'll find riflemen when you arrive at the second city (OK, ok probably nor riflemen, but just to give my opinion on quick)
I've seen some 30 people expressing interest fot this game. This can fit perfectly with 6 teams of 5 members each.
Maybe some more "advertising" and some team can even arrive to 6 people.
The mapmaker can't be in the competition, right?
About speed: quick? are you goin' mad? i'm stressed on normal, but i can live with it. I understand that we need "fast" settings to not be involved for years, but quick is too much. You start an axe rush and you'll find riflemen when you arrive at the second city (OK, ok probably nor riflemen, but just to give my opinion on quick)
I've seen some 30 people expressing interest fot this game. This can fit perfectly with 6 teams of 5 members each.
Maybe some more "advertising" and some team can even arrive to 6 people.
The mapmaker can't be in the competition, right?
Tinkerbell
Prince
4, 5 or 6, all fine with me.
Indiansmoke
Deity
6 teams on small map would be good
I think this point by General_W is the real key. We probably need to make a list. Maybe folks could speak up about this but I will try to get us started:
A.) Who plans on being, or is willing to be a turnplayer?
1. Sommerswerd
2. Lord Parkin (I hope
) I think I remember LP saying so a while back...3. HUsCh - I think I remember HUsCh saying this as well
Anyone else?
B.) Who plans on being highly active? (IMO that is reading 90% of the posts and posting at least several times a week... maybe also being available for sub turnplaying duty, taking screenies, doing diplo etc... not just lurking and making a weekly comment or two)
1. Sommerswerd
BLubmuz
HoF Quattromaster
I, for me can be highly active. If i can avoid to actively play and only draw the strategy, better, otherwise i have no problems to actively play.
As i said, usually, when i'm involved i'm very active.
As i said, usually, when i'm involved i'm very active.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
I'm willing to be a turnplayer, and certainly plan on being highly active.I think this point by General_W is the real key. We probably need to make a list. Maybe folks could speak up about this but I will try to get us started:
A.) Who plans on being, or is willing to be a turnplayer?
1. Sommerswerd
2. Lord Parkin (I hope
3. HUsCh - I think I remember HUsCh saying this as well
Anyone else?
B.) Who plans on being highly active? (IMO that is reading 90% of the posts and posting at least several times a week... maybe also being available for sub turnplaying duty, taking screenies, doing diplo etc... not just lurking and making a weekly comment or two)
1. Sommerswerd
OK soooo... So far that's
1. Sommerswerd
2. Lord Parkin
willing to be turnplayers, and BLubmuz prefers not to be a turnplayer but will do so if absolutely needed... That sounds like 2 Teams, 3 at most... not 4 and nowhere near 6.
EDIT: Crossposted with DMOC... It sounds like DMOC is willing to be a sort of back-up turnplayer... is that right?
Also... as much as I am reluctant to raise another issue while trying to address this one... Shouldn't we make sure that each team has more than one turnplayer? Maybe at least weekday player and a weekend player. 4 turnplayers for each team would be nice TBH... Especially if we are doing simultatneous turns and minimizing pauses... Turnplaying is a HUGE time commitment for one person alone.
Indiansmoke
Deity
I think we should open a registration thread and also have an option available for groups of people that might want to play together and not have other random people in their team.
So for example if me and 4 friends want to play this game and not allow others to join our team can we do it?
So for example if me and 4 friends want to play this game and not allow others to join our team can we do it?
For what its worth... I am OK with that.
I think Indiansmoke's idea is good because: 1. It establishes 1 team right off the bat... we just have to get the others formed.
2. It ensures that the Indiansmoke team will be a happy team, because they have everyone that they want/need to stay active... Afterall, maximum fun is the whole point right?
3. It also saves time b/c instead of having to wait to see where certain players go and then picking a different team Indiansmoke can just set the team with the desired players and leave it at that.
I think I would prefer to be on a open-to-the-public team of volunteers, strangers, random folks etc... but everyone has a preference, and I think Indiansmoke's preference is a legit way to make one (or some) of our teams. We should have at least one or two teams that are open to the public though.
Tinkerbell
Prince
I would like to be on the fun team! 
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
I think you're getting the cart before the horse, though I agree with your concern.
I think most of this can be addressed by each team. Each team will have their own dynamics and will (somehow) decide on Turn Players. That seemed to work okay for most of the last game.
We can strongly suggest that each team have mutiple turnplayers and I think we should.
Similar threads
