I think more people could probably be invited. I have not even tried this game. With 5 players in a team it could all go wrong if 1-2 players go awol or new players simply don't turn up. If there is only 5 teams would it make sense to only have 2 laurels??
News:SGOTM 20 Sign up Thread - Spreading The Faiths
- Thread starter AlanH
- Start date
da_Vinci
Gypsy Prince
My recollection is that Alan likes to see teams of at least six, and usually not more than eight.
As for laurels, Gold and Silver only if less than six teams makes sense to me. Bronze (copper) was removed by the mapmaker ...
dV
It's not a question of what I like - I don't have to play the game.
I'm just interested to give as many players as possible a chance to get involved. Bigger teams are likely to make for less involvement by the quieter members, but each team has its own characteristics. If there are some non-playing signups, I missed that, but that clearly would reduce the real playing population.
I don't see any need to reduce the number of laurels ...
I'm just interested to give as many players as possible a chance to get involved. Bigger teams are likely to make for less involvement by the quieter members, but each team has its own characteristics. If there are some non-playing signups, I missed that, but that clearly would reduce the real playing population.
I don't see any need to reduce the number of laurels ...
I personally like smaller teams because each member gets to play more turns.** Four or five seems like a minimum size. Each team should have at least four active participants. Last game US had five members, one completely inactive and generally three of the four active at a time. It was nice to have enough players that one or two could disappear for a while. Three active seems like a minimum to have good discussion, preplanning and rotation of turns.
Spoiler :
adrianj
Deity
Hmmm... what if we performed an experiment? Keep 3 or 4 large teams, typical for how SGOTM is historically run, eg, 6-8 players in each. Then have half a dozen tiny "teams" of only 1 or 2 players each.
My hypothesis for the experiment is: "Larger teams with more ideas and discussion will perform better."
Negative to small teams: Less discussion (obviously), therefore fewer posts in the thread, leading to less lurker interest.
Positives: Faster play, setting an earlier benchmark. Likely more cohesive posts in the thread, easier for lurkers to read.
Edit to add: Sorry for clogging up the sign-up thread. Perhaps this discussion could/should be moved elsewhere?
My hypothesis for the experiment is: "Larger teams with more ideas and discussion will perform better."
Negative to small teams: Less discussion (obviously), therefore fewer posts in the thread, leading to less lurker interest.
Positives: Faster play, setting an earlier benchmark. Likely more cohesive posts in the thread, easier for lurkers to read.
Edit to add: Sorry for clogging up the sign-up thread. Perhaps this discussion could/should be moved elsewhere?
Htadus
A and L's dad
EDIT: Never mind, I was having a weak moment.
BLubmuz
HoF Quattromaster
It's sad to see such a low participation this time.
I hope it's the Summer.
Can i suggest to limit the number of team members to 5 so we can have more teams?
I hope it's the Summer.
Can i suggest to limit the number of team members to 5 so we can have more teams?
You may suggest it, but I don't think we should force someone to leave his team. Everyone has to decide for himself, thats my opinion.
Unless we get a sudden surge of new signings, we can either play with five teams, allocating the unallocated players to those teams, or we can extend to six teams of five/six/seven if one or more members of the two larger teams is prepared to jump ship and join the Unallocated gang.
I'd rate the second option as a good opportunity for an award, frankly. But what do I know? Of course, the Unallocated team would also get the privilege of choosing a new team name
Sign me up... unallocated.
LowtherCastle
Deity
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,631
T S R
adrianj
Deity
Absolutely!
Admins - this would put our team to 8 players, at least 2 of which are 'dedicated lurkers'. I hope this is ok?
Counting active players, and not including lurkers, we have one team of seven, three teams of six, one team of five, and five unallocated players.
Since the unallocated players include several who have played SGOTMs before, I propose that we set them up as a sixth team, rather than merge them across the other five teams. Does anyone have a point of view about this approach?
Since the unallocated players include several who have played SGOTMs before, I propose that we set them up as a sixth team, rather than merge them across the other five teams. Does anyone have a point of view about this approach?
Sounds like a solid plan to me. 
BLubmuz
HoF Quattromaster
I prefer more teams, so a 6th team is what we need.
