People and Activity in this subforum

[remake20]

There was some thread asking for this and now I can't find it . Anyway here it is:
R20: 39
LordP: 51
Somm: 42
Azz: 26
Indian: 28
RRR: 5
CB: 15
ch: 8
DMOC: 14
DaveMC: 5
HUSch: 7
Donsig: 11
D***: 4
BLub: 10
Provo: 4
DS: 15
H90: 4
Tb: 12
Krill: 8
GenW: 1
df: 1
Rustern: 1
slaze: 2
Zack: 1
CrimE: 1
AT: 7
McT: 1
Kaleb: 1

 

[azzaman333]

I like posting.

 

[CommandoBob]

I think this is what you were thinking of. In that post I showed a way to use the number of posts by a person to determine initial team allocations. I don't know if we'll use it or not.

 

[Tinkerbell]

Here is the same list sorted, in blocks of 5:

LordP: 51
Somm: 42
R20: 39
Indian: 28
Azz: 26

CB: 15
DS: 15
DMOC: 14
Tb: 12
Donsig: 11

BLub: 10
ch: 8
Krill: 8
HUSch: 7
RRR: 5

DaveMC: 5
D***: 4
Provo: 4
H90: 4
slaze: 2

GenW: 1
df: 1
Rustern: 1
Zack: 1
CrimE: 1

AT: 7
McT: 1
Kaleb: 1

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

Not to be disagreeing with everything... but I think this is a really bad idea for creating teams. If you stick together people randomly, skipping something like their freewill, you will kill participation from the beginning...

 

[Tinkerbell]

Agreed. I won't support making teams based on forum activity.

It is usefull to predict what kind of team you are in. A forum active of a more quiet team. If you want to be a turn player, and like lot's of feedback, pick a team with forum active players.

Husch was turn player for the MS all the time. In the list he has 7 posts... That says enough for me on how to use the list.

 

[CommandoBob]

Not to be disagreeing with everything... but I think this is a really bad idea for creating teams. If you stick together people randomly, skipping something like their freewill, you will kill participation from the beginning...

Agreed. I won't support making teams based on forum activity.

It is usefull to predict what kind of team you are in. A forum active of a more quiet team. If you want to be a turn player, and like lot's of feedback, pick a team with forum active players.

Husch was turn player for the MS all the time. In the list he has 7 posts... That says enough for me on how to use the list.

Part of the plan outlined was to use the number of posts to set up the initial teams, but once that was done allow some time for people to change teams. How long? Up for discussion. But after that time period expired, then and only then would the teams be 'done'.

Granted, Husch has only seven posts, according to the list someone else created. But I fail to see the connection between his posts for this Demo Game and the last one. The list is just a list and nothing more (at least not to me); it is not an indicator of past or future performance.

The idea behind this plan was to find a way to make sure that a team would not die out from lack of participation. One way to try to determine how active a person might be in the game is to use their posting activity in the pre-game.

However, if we use this plan (which is not a given), we could post the list of those who have posted in this forum and give them time to refuse to be included in the initial team set up.

And as always, once the initial set up is done, then the normal methods of joining a team apply, just like in the last game.

 

[DaveShack]

I don't think a method based on number of posts is useful at all. A pure table of userid / #posts has no measure of how effective the posts are. More importantly, what we need to (attempt to) balance is civ skill and reliability. And externally driven balance isn't going to work -- what I'm hoping to see is the set of people who consistently win these things or come in 2nd voluntarily splitting themselves up to give more balanced teams.

 

[Provolution]

And the locked and closed teams are to be like firing squads, executing the less authoritarian teams with the numerous official civ medals etc...

 

[DaveShack]

And the locked and closed teams are to be like firing squads, executing the less authoritarian teams with the numerous official civ medals etc...

I have no idea what this means, which makes me wonder if it's trolling someone...

 

[Lord Parkin]

I'm also baffled by that post...

 

[azzaman333]

I think he's saying that a closed team will be more efficient and as a result will win.

 

[Tinkerbell]

Are there people considering entering as a closed team?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Indiansmoke raised the question of whether closed teams would be allowed... We never officially decided on that...

I think what Provo means is that the closed teams will attract all the most experienced players and choke the interest in the open teams because everyone will be impressed with the "medals" and qualifications of the more experienced players on the closed teams... and therefore want to join the closed teams in favor of the open ones.

I also suspect that Provo was making a second point about experienced players stifling debate by shooting down the ideas of less experienced players (i.e. by "firing squads). That may not have been completely clear from the language of the post, but having been on team Kaz... I am guessing that is what was meant.