How many teams?

[Lord Parkin]

I'm interested in playing turns, but I'm also more interested in getting on a team where there are some good players. No disrespect for any individuals I've been on a team with in the past, but being in 4th or 5th place every game is getting kinda old...

You know, I don't think I've played on a team with you before, DS...

Not that Saturn's record was exactly stunning from the last game, but I'm sure if we'd had a better start and better land that we would have been up there.

 

[DaveShack]

An ideal situation for me would be to balance the teams so that each one as at least one good turnplayer, diplomat, micromanager, and military.

You can forget about asking other forums if they want to play, if some sort of draft is instituted. Drafting players into the teams is identical to having closed teams in that respect.

I didn't think balanced teams would mean a draft, in the sense of each team choosing one or more players at each position like in basketball or football. What I mean is we don't want to start until/unless each team has a proper complement of players. It would help if the ones inclined to take various roles would voluntarily spread out among the teams.

Teams from other forums is an interesting idea. It could help get us up to bigger numbers, which might help a little with lopsidedness.

 

[CommandoBob]

What I mean is we don't want to start until/unless each team has a proper complement of players. It would help if the ones inclined to take various roles would voluntarily spread out among the teams.

Right, we don't want to start the game until each team has a proper complement of players. Makes sense. The trick, how to pull it off.

Here is one idea. I don't say it is the best or anything like that. It is based on initial player set up from the board game Settlers of Catan.

First, we assume that those who have posted in this forum to date are the ones most likely to be active in the upcoming game. Good players, maybe/maybe not, but at least they have given some indication that they are interested. That is more than you get from the previous sign up lists.

Second, we determine how many teams. For this example, we go with six.

Third, some one gets the task of making a list of everyone who has posted in this sub-forum and how many times they have posted in the new threads (we don't count the sticky 'Needed Things'). We couldn't count those who voted in polls, only those who posted in those poll threads.

And for example, let's say the list looked like this:
(name / number of posts)

1. Aa, 40 posts
2. Bb, 38
3. Cc, 34
4. Dd, 31
5. Ee, 31
6. Ff, 30
7. Gg, 29
8. Hh, 29
9. Ii, 29
10. Jj, 25
11. Kk, 20
12. Ll, 20
13. Mm, 20
14. Nn, 18
15. Oo, 16
16. Pp, 15
17. Qq, 11
18. Rr, 10
19. Ss, 5
20. Tt, 5
21. Uu, 5
22. Vv, 1
23. Ww, 1
24. Xx, 1
25. Yy, 1
26. Zz, 1

Twenty-six founding players and six teams.

Fourth, we allocate/assign/designate the founding teams.

Here is where Settlers of Catan initial set up comes into play. In that game, each person has two beginning pieces to put on the board. Everyone rolls two dice and the highest number goes first and then the player to the left of the first player goes second, etc. However, once the last player has placed their first piece, they then place their second piece and the order reverses, with the first player now placing his second piece last. Instead of a looping pattern (1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4; 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4) this is a serpentine pattern (1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4; 4 -> 3 -> 2-> 1).

The teams would be allocated in the same manner: Team A down to Team F, then Team F up to Team A; Team A down to Team F and so on, until all the founding players are placed.

This is how that would look:

• Team A
  • Aa, 40
  • Ll, 20
  • Mm, 20
  • Xx, 1
  • Yy, 1
• Team B
  • Bb, 38
  • Kk, 20
  • Nn, 18
  • Ww, 1
  • Zz, 1
• Team C
  • Cc, 34
  • Jj, 25
  • Oo, 16
  • Vv, 1
• Team D
  • Dd, 31
  • Ii, 29
  • Pp, 15
  • Uu, 5
• Team E
  • Ee, 31
  • Hh, 29
  • Qq, 11
  • Tt, 5
• Team F
  • Ff, 30
  • Gg, 29
  • Rr, 10
  • Ss, 5

Are the teams balanced? Hard to tell if their skills are balanced, but their activiyy-ness is pretty close.

• Team A
  • Five players, 82 posts
• Team B
  • Five players, 78 posts
• Team C
  • Four players, 76 posts
• Team D
  • Four players, 80 posts
• Team E
  • Four players, 80 posts
• Team F
  • Four players, 74 posts

(Four hundred seventy total posts and six teams; the average would be 78.3 posts per team. Here we range from 82 posts to 74 posts per team. So any one team is about active as any other.)

Fifth, this allocation is not set in stone. It gets posted and we give it a time span for these people to decide if they like the set up and allow team changes. But after that time is over, the founding teams are set; no changes. Once the founding teams are set the seperate team forums are created (?).

It is up to the teams to decide who gets to do what. Just because someone posted more often doesn't bestow any special status inside the team.

Sixth, once the founding teams are set, we allow people to join teams like they have before.

I'm not at sure we want to do things with this method. But it is one way to address DaveShack's desire for a proper complement of players.

 

[Lord Parkin]

It sounds a little bit complicated, but it might work.

One thing that might save you some time: If you go to the forum view (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=374) and click the numbers under "replies", it shows you who posted and how many times in that thread. For instance, for the "Another game? Focused discussion" thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=349925.

 

[donsig]

What I mean is we don't want to start until/unless each team has a proper complement of players.

I guess it depends on what you mean by start. We can certainly make some decisions now even if they are tentative decisions to be revisited by teams once they are actually formed. I also think we've talked about this long enough to figure out how many people are interested which is the biggest determinant of how many teams we should have. From what I've seen I suggest four teams is our best bet. Do we have eight turn players willing to pair up to form the nucleus for four teams? If so I suggest they do so with each pair opening a thread to recruit players. These threads could be used to publicize a team philosophy and to track the potential size of each team. If we have an overwhelming response we can always add more teams before we get the game settings and map set in stone.

I still think forming teams before we decide what kind of game we'll play isn't the best route to take. Knowing whether it will be all peace or all war or neither and the level of tech trading to be allowed may not only influence how active a player will be it may make a difference in which team he or she chooses to join.

 

[Sommerswerd]

A team captain can publicize a team philosophy and still allow open membership. If we give players a sense of what the teams will be like they will likely end up joining a team structured to their liking. We could have a thread for each potential team where anyone could join in the discussion about how the team might be organized. This would allow players to shop around for a philosophy they like and also engage in some conversation with potential team mates allowing for everyone to gauge how much they'd get along with those on a given team before committing.

Excellent, excellent, excellent idea. I agree 100%.

Umm, since the team rosters are public it is quite easy to avoid a team a certain someone has joined. Closed teams are not necessary for this.

Yes of course... UNLESS You have ALREADY joined a team and been given access to its private fourum and THEN a player you are not fond of joins the team after you, then there is no avoiding. That was the issue I was addressing and I think Smoke agreed. A closed team addresses this because the captain can control whether or not a player joins... Oh and Is that "Umm" supposed to be sarcastic? You forgot the you-know-what

It doesn't seem too far fetched for the non-exclusive teams to decide amongst themselves that the closed team ought to be the first team eliminated.

I think that is a risk that the members of a closed team are willing to accept... That they will be skilled enough to balance out any ire from the less skilled teams. And they should be allowed to choose to do so if they want.

I rather stay in a fun, losing team than being subject to such behavior... Micromanagement would then be balanced out with a diplomatic handicap, which sounds fair... I also support polling rules and a sort of big election per historical era, in order to give variety of turnplayers

with all these sentiments and the thrust of your remarks in general. I would just add that another way to go would just be to take turns being turnplayer according to a simple schedule. Anyway, Good to see you back around Provo and please consider teaming up with me. I for one, would enjoy being your team-mate again.

Do we have eight turn players willing to pair up to form the nucleus for four teams?

Difficult to say... This is our current turnplayer situation as best as I can tell.

Spoiler :

Willing to be Primary Turnplayers / Captains(?)
1. Indiansmoke
2. Sommerswerd
3. Lord Parkin

Willing to be Secondary / Back-up Turnplayers
1. DMOC
2. BLubmuz
3. remake20 (would rather be an admin)
4. Hercules90
5. DaveShack

If so I suggest they do so with each pair opening a thread to recruit players. These threads could be used to publicize a team philosophy and to track the potential size of each team. If we have an overwhelming response we can always add more teams before we get the game settings and map set in stone.

I think these are all excellent ideas. First we need the pairs though...

 

[donsig]

I'm not ready to be a turn player but my hope is that during this second game I would learn to be a turnplayer. So I guess I'm in the secondary turn player group.

As for someone you don't like joining the team you've joined, I think having open team discussion threads would help sort some of that out. There are other things that can be done, too. If you know there is someone you want to avoid you can wait to join a team until after they've joined. You could also try sending a pm to the other person to see where they are planning to go. I think that if there is someone you want to avoid the chances are good that they want to avoid you too, so I don't see this as a good reason for having closed teams. That said, I guess I wouldn't mind a system where a formed team votes on accepting a new member. I think if we did use such a system that a team would have to allow open enrollment until a certain size was reached, say ten or twelve members. What I don't like is the idea of one or two people handpicking a team.

 

[Tinkerbell]

Since it seems we go for double Civ set-up, and that sound to me as extra work for a team, we propebly want to reduce the number of teams and make sure every team has enough active players. Although this will depend on the map size too. A small map will keep the Civ's small.

 

[azzaman333]

I think 4 teams will work out best.

 

[HUSch]

I like to read your lists and statistics, but I see the situation in DG-teams differently.

I play now since 6 yars in DGs here but also in my home (german web ring), in the beginning there is a lot of discussion about the best way and city location etc; after some time the interest will be lower and only few members are playing, the other read (I hope so) or forget that there is a team. And this (the reading) is in most cases the only solution for them, because it costs labor to play in a team game. I played MS and have all infos every time, any other member had to
1. ask
2. get an good whole answer
3. make an own plan
4. get other members or me to follow his plans.
That is a lot of labor and few would be willing to make this (for what?). The sense of the participation is fun, so many would read only.

The best we can hope is, that every team has at least 2-3 player, but we 've all a rl and a DG is a long time (in pbems years, in pb a year is a good measure); it's a heavy commitment for everybody.

That is a long commentary, I hope I haven't made too much mistakes, so that you can follow.

I for me will be playing in the DG and participate, but I play in the moment 2 DGs as TP (1 at GWT and the ISDG).

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

Since it seems we go for double Civ set-up

According to the poll, people have mixed opinion about this
I think more civs lessen a bit the unbalance factor when a civ quits or is destroyed... with 4 teams, once one is gone it's game over for sure.

 

[DMOC]

Are we basically set on having 3 teams, because I see 3 teams already "set up."

 

[Lord Parkin]

I guess we could have 3 teams, but 4 would be fine too. You (or anyone else) would be welcome to post up another team thread with your ideas for how it would run - even if you don't plan on running it yourself.

 

[Sommerswerd]

According to the poll, people have mixed opinion about this

I think r20 means that the 2 civ option has the most votes... I agree with Ras that if one of the allies in a 4 civ setup is eliminnated, its ALLOURBASEAREBELONGTOYOU...game over.

What about going with just 2 Teams with multiple civs (2,3 or 4) on each? Each civ could be run by a sub-Team... or not, depending on how many active players were available. That way if one civ became inactive, the team at large could still run the civ.

Are we basically set on having 3 teams, because I see 3 teams already "set up."

Maybe 3 teams would make a very competitive, permanent, balance-of-power situation where no real alliance ever formed.

Or maybe there will be a very unstable situation with alot of temporary alliances and temporary kingmaking... where the 3 civs would be constantly bribing each other to betray the other team.

Or...It could just end up with two teams forming an early unbreakable alliance that would doom the third team and eliminate them early. Then it would just be the two civs facing off until the end (or the quit )

 

[azzaman333]

I think r20 means that the 2 civ option has the most votes... I agree with Ras that if one of the allies in a 4 civ setup is eliminnated, its ALLOURBASEAREBELONGTOYOU...game over.

What about going with just 2 Teams with multiple civs (2,3 or 4) on each? Each civ could be run by a sub-Team... or not, depending on how many active players were available. That way if one civ became inactive, the team at large could still run the civ.

It doesn't matter how many civs a team controls, if you start losing a war you're screwed anyway.

Maybe 3 teams would make a very competitive, permanent, balance-of-power situation where no real alliance ever formed.

Or maybe there will be a very unstable situation with alot of temporary alliances and temporary kingmaking... where the 3 civs would be constantly bribing each other to betray the other team.

Or...It could just end up with two teams forming an early unbreakable alliance that would doom the third team and eliminate them early. Then it would just be the two civs facing off until the end (or the quit )

3 teams is too few, IMO.

 

[classical_hero]

Not that Saturn's record was exactly stunning from the last game, but I'm sure if we'd had a better start and better land that we would have been up there.

If you bribe one of the two potential map makers, you might get a much more favourable start.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So if 5 teams (last game) means:
Two alliances will form (3 teams vs. 2 teams) and once one of the partners on the smaller team is elimminated it will be game over because the patner left alone will quit...

And 4 teams means:
Two alliances will form (2 teams each) and once one of the partners is elimminated it will be game over because the patner left alone will quit...

What does 3 Teams mean?
It seems to me... that if the left-out team is elimminated, there will be less incentive to quit because the two teams left we be on equal footing. Is that not right? Or do we think that as soon as Team Sirius finds out they are left out they will give up and quit? lol: a joke obviously).

 

[CommandoBob]

So if 5 teams (last game) means:
Two alliances will form (3 teams vs. 2 teams) and once one of the partners on the smaller team is elimminated it will be game over because the patner left alone will quit...

And 4 teams means:
Two alliances will form (2 teams each) and once one of the partners is elimminated it will be game over because the patner left alone will quit...

But consider...

In MTDG I, a 4 team start, one team was eliminated, but no team quit. That game was decided by a combo VC, Domination and Conquest on the same turn.

In MTDG II, a 5 team start, one team was eliminated/resigned but no team quit (though one team has considered it, which has been shared by them in the common forum). This game is still on-going.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Yeah. Defining the number of players definitely doesn't guaranteed the outcome, but it makes certain outcome more likely.

Three teams would be very short and predictable, I think: Two teams eventually ally against a third and take them out. Then the strongest team (economically and militarily) out of the two remaining will likely take the victory. Whereas with four teams, there's an extra step in there before it comes down to the winner. I don't know... I guess three teams wouldn't be bad, it'd just feel a bit empty to me.

 

[CommandoBob]

In a three team game there are no diplomatic surprises. In a four team game, a 2x2 can become a 3x1. More teams, more combinations, but we all can see that. If we could field/man/populate six teams, that would be great.

Useful Factoid?
In the last game, which started on Dec 3, 2008, the sign up thread was at Post #190 on that day, I haven't gone through the thread to count how many had signed up by then, but Robi D was the 20th player to join Sancta. While the actual numbers will be different, it looks like we can safely state that about 100 people were already on teams by Turn 0. And that about 50 more joined the game as it progressed.

On the face of it, that looks like enough people to consider starting with 6 teams.