If you'll excuse the self-indulgence, I'll be quoting myself from another thread now:
quote:
As for the small and intense experience, I've been wanting to organize a TG with multiple teams.
I think it would be very interesting to see how, for example, 4 small teams would play out. There could be some interesting diplomatic constellatons and moves, and I personally would pay special attention to how the teams organize themselves (being small (4-6 players)).
Since the code doesn't allow for the teams to be arranged automatically, there would be need for a "gentleman's agreement" as far as initial contact and diplomatic status goes (honouring forum agreements on default status between teams and such).
As such, the gal would require 16-24 players that are known to be dedicated to the game, turning up a couple of times a day or so, and 4 experienced players which would agree on the teams beforehand and lead one team each when it starts.
I guess that's the gist of it. Would something like that interest you guys?
And later, in reply to Huntress:
quote:
Huntress:
quote:
I'm not for the multiple team idea it seems impossible to implement (no way to be close together), difficult to manage (no early LoS), and probably unfair (3v1, 2v2, 3v1).
I agree that multiple teams present unique challenges, but certainly it's not impossible.
You bring up 3 problems:
a) Starting positions
We will probably have to make a compromise here. If Erwin is unable to manually assign home systems, we could perhaps use the TGs format, with two teams on each side of the gal. This would require some tweaking as well, though, since we don't want any teams to be allied with each other from the start.
Failing to arrange one of those two, we would have to do it like normal and leave positions to chance. I agree that if we can't arrange our positions, it'll take away an important aspect from the set-up (well-defined team locations).
b) No initial LoS
As a result of failure under a), this would be a real problem for team play in the beginning. However, if we are able to somehow group the starting positions it would be a minor annoyance, no more.
c) Uneven Teams
Certainly this will be less of a problem than it is with regular TGs. As mentioned, the players should all be known dedicated players, which will all but eliminate inactivity. Even if a team loses a player, they'll still be competitive, and at the very least we'll still have 3 teams battling it out. Should a team lose as much as two players they're probably not gonna win, but they'll still be able to affect the outcome by aligning to one of the other teams.
quote:
That said, I think we could try this, but maybe we should not label it a TG at all, and it would have to be at least premium rank 2 only or even invite based (so essentially a private endeavor)?
Don't give a hoot about the label, but it can't be more private than we have to use the forum to arrange it all.
Would you like to take another shot at team-lead? As such, you could make sure you have players on your team you know you can work with (or at least keep players out that you know you can't work with).
quote:
I think we all found this TG satisifying so we should continue the trend and get more poeple involved!
I have to say that I think the success of the Ida TG was more a matter of circumstances than anything else. That is, reds had more inactives and problems working together, while blue had few inactives and helped each other out.
Now if it happened that blue had more inactives or if the reds were super-cool about coordinating their efforts, it would all have been over in the standard 200 turns.
We still need to find a set-up which will provide a balanced game regularly, rather than being the exception, and I'm certain multiple teams must be part of the set-up.
And finally, in reply to Nick:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by NickVanran
each player starts game with 5 colonyships, one scout and no home world.
All players are scattered around the edges of the galaxy, and have to race to find their planets.
Just a thought
Nick
Excellent thought, I think. I'm not sure whether it makes the process of setting it up any easier on Erwin, perhaps it will.
But it's with that easyness in mind that I suggest the above form for multiple teams. I'm sure, however, that he can't be moved to do much more than ponder it a bit, unless there's at least a dusin players behind it. So speak up.
hm. Maybe I'll go and make a new thread about it. I'll do that.
Done.
Also added the poll, please vote. It's your duty as a citizen.
But you shouldn't really restrict yourself to those options. Please do comment as well.
17.07.2010 17:54
The Asgard
Assigns Gov Schwarzenegger to all Planets
Registration Date: 27.08.2007
Posts: 803
Location: Bornem, Belguim --> Bornem, BE for google earth
4teams of 5 I voted, why
-banking
-mining
-bombers
-fighters
-troops
I know these last 3 can be combined BUT if you play it well you can boost bombing/firepower or troops with you're initial settings.
Also why chose separate teams you will be asking you'reself, if you make teams they will support each other and they can argue about problems and refine team play, this can't be done in TG like Ida because "before the galaxy starts" (I find 24hours in advance not enough time) give it atleast 72hours because 24hours is not enough time to discuss some things like who does mining, certainly to set you're CIV-traits
If people are up for it, I really want to see a galaxy like this but maybe we need to form teams, I'm open for any team, I guess players on the blue team know my speciality --> mining(just told if for the red team players) I had an awsom miner in Ida, planets pumping out 10K metal and 3K exiotics at a point. This is each 1 planet
.
I throw in 30 CS-credits for the person who creates such a galaxy.
Just to be on the safe side of the road, but the player system ratio should be big if not huge
, because if you take 4 teams of 5 and 2.2 that's 24systems or 3*4*2 that's quite small imo. If you take 5 its 100 system or about 7*2*7(19) OR 6*3*6(21). This is more realistic to imo and would garantee more succes because the players have more space. With the 2.2, 1 team of not 2 will be killed for space in the first 150turns.
I don't know if it is possible, but I like Nick's idea
I would change it a little, instead of having them spread along the edge, I would have 4 teams enter the galaxy from the 4 corners (if galaxies had corners) as a group.
It would really test the resolve of a team, as in who gets the closest system, who gets the next ect. From the last TG I think the Blue would of worked together in this type of setup, and the Red team would of imploded.
Registration Date: 17.01.2006
Posts: 1,847
Location: Chicago
quote:
Originally posted by SygorFrom the last TG I think the Blue would of worked together in this type of setup, and the Red team would of imploded.
I must disagree on your statement about the Red Team, Sygor. While obviously there were issues with our teamwork, I think our problems ultimately came down to the leadership extensively micromanaging the team. Had our territory not been as large, we woulda had none of those issues.
We had some good players, who knew what they were doing, but were just on a different page alot. Ultimately, I think the bickering made little to no difference on the outcome.
What caused the end-fighting, if you could even call it that, was philisophical differences about how to run the team. One player wanted to run over the galaxy himself, as he should have due to his superior position in his part of the galaxy. Another player was extremely defence-minded. Those two outlooks cannot help but clash.
One player in particular sent more in-game messages than the rest of the team combined, times ten! Trying to keep all of that player's ideas straight was hard, if not impossible. Eventually a point came that the team went on autopilot, ultimately disregarding the endless chatter from the chatty player. (You know who you are... come on, I think you wrote a novel titled, 'Ida: A Case for Extreme Teamwork') The problem was, no one wanted to spend the time reading, contemplating, then trying to understand what the point was. By that time, it was the next turn and, OH NO, there's new ships on the radar that are followed by 15 new, paragraph long messages over the next two hours. Perhaps this players simply has the longest, widest, deepest attention span ever. Whatever the case, after a while, it was annoying.
A message to the chatty player: In all of the chatter, you made many good points. The problem is, you continuously stated the obvious with pretty much the same urgency as a real emergency. The whole team has the same radar, ya know.
Anyway, I think I played my part well. I was Vanguard. One Fleet player had issues with my style, but I think in the end he realized Odi & I set the table for him.
I enjoyed the TG more than any I've played, and I've still never lost in a TG. Hopefully I can say that for your upcoming galaxy, Powers!
__________________ If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six hours sharpening my axe
This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by Skinnyloser: 17.07.2010 20:20.
17.07.2010 20:18
The Asgard
Assigns Gov Schwarzenegger to all Planets
Registration Date: 27.08.2007
Posts: 803
Location: Bornem, Belguim --> Bornem, BE for google earth
I don't know, i'm defenatly buyin the replay on this one
, I really wanne know what the Red Team did, and where the differences where made to give them a victory. I really think Red had less real teamplay, they all worked on their own I think as I got scans from a lot of players and we had only 1 scanner if no information was held back.
Then another suggestion, 1 miner but i'd love to see a team-based market for when players go afk. You can depossit 20Kmetal- ... - ... - ... in the market and players that really need it can widraw resources. This would make it easyer as I got loads of treaty's when I was away sleeping or work.
Registration Date: 04.10.2009
Posts: 1,602
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
On ida:
In my opinion the most important thing in a team galaxy is a big number of inactives who are inactive from the start. This gives more space for the active players. Before the cloaked wars I (witchfinder general) had mere 22 planets, while Bob Marley had 39. So If I had more space to expand I'd be able to compete in research. When I saw the tech scan (around autofactories) and Marley had 4 tech more I knew we lost.
Because there is no COMMON team research there is an incentive to have few players with more planets.
And that is the main problem with team galaxies. I understand that only one research path would kill the differentiation in the team - This could be circumvented by setting a very low tech modifier so the research would be trivial, or by a possibility to share research points like credits or minerals. That would also give a new role: researcher.
About multiple teams, I would probably be willing to give it a try...
I actually like the sound of 4 teams of 3 players each:
- Teamwork is easy to manage with 3 players;
- We can easily find 12 reliable active players;
- 12 random initial positions on any galaxy are very likely to create a sufficiently even distribution.
This might allow us to set it directly, where with bigger Teams we might bump into inactivity and uneven initial positions as undesirable factors...
__________________ A Jedi's strength flows from the Force.
I'm willing to give this galaxy a try as well, however, I think that there are three two preconditions essential it's sucess:
1) I'm not a captain like non-golf suggested
2) Teams simply can't ally with one another, they really should be independant alliances that are chosen beforehand.
3) Please no inactives
I'm not sure whether issue 2) has been addressed. Having 2v1, 3v1, 1v2, 1v3 situations might make things unfair -- whereas having 4 indepandant teams struggling for cosmic supremacy could make things very interesting.
__________________ Cheers,
The Huntress
Current Mood: Less Annoyed
This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by Huntress: 18.07.2010 04:02.
If there where 3 teams 2 of them might team up against the other, creating what would basicly be a TG with one team having double the players as the other.
__________________ If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
-Niccolo Machiavelli
Looks like we have at least 14 people who would be interested in some form of multiple teams.
I guess I could go make a gal and start looking for Captains in earnest, but I'd really like to know where you stand on this Erwin. I know your time is limited, but you do seem to find a little bit here and there every once in a while.
I also know you're careful not to promise things you can't keep, but are you at all prepared to help us set something like this up?
Registration Date: 26.12.2004
Posts: 8,276
Location: Vienna, Austria
Extending the code to support multiple teams is going to take a considerable amount of time, that I do not have available at the moment. All I know is that I will continue to be very busy for at least another 2-3 months - maybe after that I will have time to look at this and other requested features.
Originally posted by Erwin [CS]
Extending the code to support multiple teams is going to take a considerable amount of time, that I do not have available at the moment. All I know is that I will continue to be very busy for at least another 2-3 months - maybe after that I will have time to look at this and other requested features.
Ok then, thanks. So we know not to start dreaming just yet. Hope you get to take a vacation while the weather is for it.
So, the main problem as I see it, is the player positions - how they'll be spread out all over. That means trouble with communications between team mates and we end up with a very confused picture of the battlefield. Both strategies and tactics are under heavy influence from such asymmetrical positions.
I think part of the solution is to enforce a truce between any and all players for the first 50-100 turns. This way, we're able to find each other, settle into our roles and formulate plans before it all blows up (hopefully!
).
- 2 hour turns.
- First 100 turns @ 60 mins.
- Same number of planets per system, but with a great range of size and commodities.
- 2 Juicy planets at home, all identical.
Everything's open to debate, though.
The size is currently 5x3x5, but that's actually only because it wouldn't let me make it smaller. I'd like to have a 4x3x4 galaxy. It makes for a nice cube for the teams to manoeuvre in, and with a player/system ratio of 1:3 we end up at 16 players - perfect for 4x4 and there's enough planets if we can get 20 players, which opens up for all sorts of combinations of teams.
I hope you can help here, Erwin. I think you did it before easily, or am I dreaming again?
Alrighty then, on to the nasty bit, how to set the teams. It's nasty business because, what happens to the 17th guy in a 16 player galaxy? We can't just put him on a team and figure it'll even out as with the big teams. No, if it's to be fair for the other players, he'll simply have to sit it out this time.
But who is going to sit it out? Well, I think the only fair thing to do is to point at the 17th guy - whoever got there just a little too late. I, for one, would hate to have to make a choice about it, in any case.
So, I guess that's my take on it. We set up the galaxy for 16 or 20 players and plan for 4 teams of 4-5 players. We agree on galaxy settings here on the forum and once the sign-up is open, it's first come, first served. Though, I think it's perhaps fair to reserve places for the sponsors.
We should probably ensure we have time enough to set up the teams between filling up the gal and starting it, so we can figure out the teams.
Apropos starting time, I've set it for August 1st, which is more or less by chance. I figure it'll be around there, no earlier at least, on a weekend.
Anyays. Please do comment on the settings, and if you happen to have a handful mates you wanna team up with, it could probably be arranged.
18.07.2010 18:23
The Asgard
Assigns Gov Schwarzenegger to all Planets
Registration Date: 27.08.2007
Posts: 803
Location: Bornem, Belguim --> Bornem, BE for google earth
I'm still puzzeled about what we are going to do??
I know Erwin can place players where he want's if i'm correct so we could make regular galaxy and place the people alongside each other so they are together in the galaxy.
I'd love to sponser the extra 32credits
I think it was, but maybe start a list with people who want to try this. I'm up for making the list. Then we can pick teams out of the players, not auto devide the people but let people chose each other. This will allow for better team play imo.
Originally posted by The Asgard
I'm still puzzeled about what we are going to do??
I know Erwin can place players where he want's if i'm correct so we could make regular galaxy and place the people alongside each other so they are together in the galaxy.
Well, that would be perfect, but Erwin seems both unable and not very forthcoming in setting this up. Whatever his reasons and obligations, it appears we'll have to arrange everything ourselves.
quote:
I think it was, but maybe start a list with people who want to try this. I'm up for making the list. Then we can pick teams out of the players, not auto devide the people but let people chose each other. This will allow for better team play imo.
Well, I did touch on this subject earlier. I think 'making' a list is a bad idea, because people won't take kindly to being passed over as part of the teams (provided they want to play in the first place, of course). My preferred approach would be to wait until the galaxy is full (16 or 20 players), then take a look at the people who joined and make the teams based on those people. Of course, this again requires Erwin's assistance, so we can get the names before the gal starts.
That said, however, I'd certainly be open to trying to accomodate players who wants to play together. So if you and three friends join, I think whoever sets up the teams should be able to take this into account. Finally, we could post the teams on the forum, so any fine-tuning can be done as a collective effort.
You guys seem very focused on features rather than solutions. there is an existing layout that accomodates mutiple teams, and that's a standard galxay.
So starting from that point (which is the only place to start), we need to deal with the following:
1) Players will be placed randomly -- period.
2) Players on the same team will not be allied at the start and have to find each other, futermore, it's up to them to arrange forum or chat room based communication outside of the normal game structure
3) How many teams?
4) You need to pick teams beforehand by some method
So since 1) is immutable abd 2) is going to be impossible for anyone but active players who use the forum, and 3-4) depends on how we solve 2), the first question we have to answer is, how can we fashion a singup process that will meet our objective.
Probablyy the only suggestion that meets our objective is Nongolf's idea of making a private galaxy, then requiring everyone who is interested in playing to post to forum saying they want to play, then you invite them.
Assuming we decide upon a way to creat a player pool, then we can worry about divying up teams, and unfortunately there are no socially acceptable methods for doing this. Perhaps a draft a day beforehand by 3-4 people who volunteer as captains?
And may I put in a good word for 3 teams, for as we all know, the tripod *is* the most stable of power structures!
All that said, I want a normal team galaxy *whhhhhaaaaa*
__________________ Cheers,
The Huntress
Current Mood: Less Annoyed
This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by Huntress: 19.07.2010 17:25.
.
, because if you take 4 teams of 5 and 2.2 that's 24systems or 3*4*2 that's quite small imo. If you take 5 its 100 system or about 7*2*7(19) OR 6*3*6(21). This is more realistic to imo and would garantee more succes because the players have more space. With the 2.2, 1 team of not 2 will be killed for space in the first 150turns.
