Team games: Teams vs Alliances

[Septimius Severus]

I've been thinking lately regarding MP teams and alliances and have some ideas that I wanted to share with fellow players, but am also wondering if anyone else had any ideas or opinions in response to these questions:

1. What constitutes a "team" in terms of team size and working methods?

Technically, I suppose a team game can be launched with tiny teams of as little as two players each and with as little as two teams (2x2).

But are two players really a "team" the way many think about the word? Sounds more like a duo or just a pair of nations or a tiny alliance to me (though technically correct). When I think of a "team", I generally think of a larger group of people who have a diplomatic relationship of some sort and who work towards a common goal and usually have a leader or captain or facilitator of some sort.

2. How are teams different from alliances and other diplomatic relationships between players?

Seems to me there is no real difference. Teams are just fixed alliances with established diplomatic relations between individual players.

3. Should teams have leaders, or can teams be run in a Democratic/voting/consensus fashion? Which method of administration is more efficient/appropriate for a given team size?

The larger the team, the greater the benefit that a leader or captain can bring in terms of efficiency, order, and decision making. Even in a "leaderless" team or very small team, someone (or certain people) must handle certain mundane tasks, or consensus must be reached to prevent chaos from ensuing.

4. Do all team games have diplomacy to some extent (even those that say they don't)?

I believe all team games, regardless of size, have diplomacy in the strict sense of the word, but this diplomacy is fixed at the start between certain players. Also, while there may be no overt/explicit alliances in games with no diplomacy rules, all games (FFA or team) involve some form of covert/implicit/implied alliances or diplomacy between teams and players. This could be best described as an "understanding" which may be based on military strength, player mood, or circumstances.

5. What are the benfits/drawbacks of small teams vs larger teams?

Larger teams = more effort and a greater time commitment (especially if your overall strategy is complex). The ability and willingness to work, communicate and get along with others is paramount. The general wisdom among some experienced players is the larger the team, the more difficult communicating becomes. While generally correct, it depends on how it is handled and the participation of everyone. On the plus side, you have more feedback/input from more people. You can count on more support and help from more people. There's more of a cushion for noobs and the loss of a single teammate or even two is not as devastating. Larger teams may also help foster a greater sense of team identity.

Smaller teams = usually require less effort and communication. You still must be willing to get along with teammates though and work together. On the negative side, the less people you have the less input and feedback you have. Unless a game is all noob, noob players may find themselves under greater pressure. Also, a loss of a team member on a tiny 2 nation team can be the end of the game, whereas with more players, you have more of a safety margin. Thus I think larger teams are more suitable for noobs in games that involve players of varying experience levels.

[Sombre]

Number of words: 590

Number of ideas: 0

[Septimius Severus]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Number of words: 590

Number of ideas: 0

Number of words: 6

Number of sarcastic comments: 2



But seriously, interesting comments. I even agree with Sombre that in large games, communication is essential. Seems many believe teams should have leaders/captains rather than adopting a leaderless or Democratic approach to major decision making.

I must say I tend to agree with Gandalf and 13lackGu4rd in that two people on a team (while technically a team) is more a partnership or alliance than a full fledged team. I'd tend to think that in such tiny teams, the members would simply use consensus (aka mutual Democratic decision making) since there's really no reason for a leader.

Some players resent having a leader. Captains can have a difficult job sometimes, they must be firm, yet allow team members certain flexibility. Leaders are looked up to for their knowledge, abilities, and characteristics, yet they are also human, and as such have flaws just like everyone else.

Also agree with pyg, about team games probably not being random in any way. Generally a good idea to know who you are playing with and what nations you'll have to work with. Though I think most/many will make at least some effort to work together to get things done even if thrown together.

Allowing team members to pick their own members, or captains to assemble their own teams, can be a great way of minimizing friction and can maximize effectiveness. Though I commend anyone who is able/willing to work with those they don't know.

Team games are great, in that they teach and build communication and cooperation skill. And in games with leaders, also leadership skills. These are skills which have uses and benefits that extend outside of the world of Dom3.

[Trumanator]

Originally Posted by Septimius Severus

I've been thinking lately regarding MP teams and alliances and have some ideas that I wanted to share with fellow players, but am also wondering if anyone else had any ideas or opinions in response to these questions:

1. What constitutes a "team" in terms of team size and working methods?

Technically, I suppose a team game can be launched with tiny teams of as little as two players each and with as little as two teams (2x2).

But are two players really a "team" the way many think about the word? Sounds more like a duo or just a pair of nations or a tiny alliance to me (though technically correct). When I think of a "team", I generally think of a larger group of people who have a diplomatic relationship of some sort and who work towards a common goal and usually have a leader or captain or facilitator of some sort

Actually, so far as dominions goes most team games I've seen are just 2 man teams.

2. How are teams different from alliances and other diplomatic relationships between players?

Seems to me there is no real difference. Teams are just fixed alliances with established diplomatic relations between individual players.

Pretty much. To be honest though, "alliances" appear to be an extremely rare phenomenom, or at least lasting ones do. Sure an "alliance" might form to deal with a particularly large threat, but it almost always lasts only as long as the threat exists.

3. Should teams have leaders, or can teams be run in a Democratic/voting/consensus fashion? Which method of administration is more efficient/appropriate for a given team size?

The larger the team, the greater the benefit that a leader or captain can bring in terms of efficiency, order, and decision making. Even in a "leaderless" team or very small team, someone (or certain people) must handle certain mundane tasks, or consensus must be reached to prevent chaos from ensuing.

In those rare games with teams of more than 2, a leader of some sort is almost always a good thing to have. Such a person will be able to lessen friction, and should also be the most experienced person on the team. Thus they can act as a general adviser to their teammates.

4. Do all team games have diplomacy to some extent (even those that say they don't)?

I believe all team games, regardless of size, have diplomacy in the strict sense of the word, but this diplomacy is fixed at the start between certain players. Also, while there may be no overt/explicit alliances in games with no diplomacy rules, all games (FFA or team) involve some form of covert/implicit/implied alliances or diplomacy between teams and players. This could be best described as an "understanding" which may be based on military strength, player mood, or circumstances.

Of course there is diplomacy! The only way I could see there not being diplomacy is if there are only 2 teams, since there really isn't anything to discuss.

5. What are the benfits/drawbacks of small teams vs larger teams?

Larger teams = more effort and a greater time commitment (especially if your overall strategy is complex). The ability and willingness to work, communicate and get along with others is paramount. The general wisdom among some experienced players is the larger the team, the more difficult communicating becomes. While generally correct, it depends on how it is handled and the participation of everyone. On the plus side, you have more feedback/input from more people. You can count on more support and help from more people. There's more of a cushion for noobs and the loss of a single teammate or even two is not as devastating. Larger teams may also help foster a greater sense of team identity.

Smaller teams = usually require less effort and communication. You still must be willing to get along with teammates though and work together. On the negative side, the less people you have the less input and feedback you have. Unless a game is all noob, noob players may find themselves under greater pressure. Also, a loss of a team member on a tiny 2 nation team can be the end of the game, whereas with more players, you have more of a safety margin. Thus I think larger teams are more suitable for noobs in games that involve players of varying experience levels.

Large teams can easily be extremely awkward, and there is an excellent chance that players will be forced to work with someone that they dislike or have no respect for, and can leave them frustrated with the incompetence of a member. This hurts team dynamics obviously. Whereas with a simple two man team you pick someone you like and want to work with, which makes it much more fun. As for newbs, I don't necessarily think that larger teams are the way to go, since there is a decent chance that they will be the object of frustration from others on their team, simply because the don't know how to play very well. If they are in a small team though, they are presumably with someone of a similar skill level, who won't put so much pressure on. Even if their teammate is more experienced, its more likely that they will take some responsibility for helping in a small team than a large one.

[pyg]

Originally Posted by Trumanator

Large teams can easily be extremely awkward, and there is an excellent chance that players will be forced to work with someone that they dislike or have no respect for, and can leave them frustrated with the incompetence of a member. This hurts team dynamics obviously. Whereas with a simple two man team you pick someone you like and want to work with, which makes it much more fun. As for newbs, I don't necessarily think that larger teams are the way to go, since there is a decent chance that they will be the object of frustration from others on their team, simply because the don't know how to play very well. If they are in a small team though, they are presumably with someone of a similar skill level, who won't put so much pressure on. Even if their teammate is more experienced, its more likely that they will take some responsibility for helping in a small team than a large one.

I find myself very much in agreement with this and also feel that because of the investment/commitment of a team game that teams shouldn't be random. Too much work, too much at stake to be grouped with an a**hole. Incompetence doesn't bother me nearly as much as lack of effort/communication. In the team games I've been in so far I've been lucky to play with great people but in these same games I've observed other teams breaking down on an interpersonal level. I would like to add that team games can be a lot more fun that playing with yourself

[Sombre]

Seriously though, on question 3 (the only question that doesn't have a completely obvious answer), democracy ruins games of dom3, as I'm sure veterans will attest. So many games are scuppered by votes and attempts to gain consensus that's it's not even funny. I see games that can barely even start because voting on settings is going on.

You need a tyrannical but detached admin and in large team games you need to communicate frequently but never, ever call votes.

[Trumanator]

Pretty much what sombre said, the only time voting should come up is when a victory concession is happening.

[Quitti]

Haha, democracy. Fun thing.

Only good leader is a strong leader that can make decisions. And like Sombre+Trumanator said, too much voting = bad. Only time voting should take place is when the continuity of the game is at stake (ie. if everyone think nation x is winning).

[Gandalf Parker]

In sports are two players without one being the leader referred to as a "team"?

In Dom3 Id consider that an alliance. As compared to the games that assigned a few noobs to a vet captain which Id consider a team. Im not sure where the divider would be. I guess a dodgeball team has no leader (and might actually be a fair comparison to Dom games). But in general Id associate a group with a leader as a team.

And tho this moved into game admin, Id have to say the same. Tyranny is easier and more efficient. Of course the drawback of tyranny is rebellion. Too much of it and you drastically cut down the number of people who want to play in your games. Too much democracy has the same effect. No fanatical extreme is ever right.

There are things you can say in favor of democracy but I dont think efficiency is one of them. Particularly in war. A tyrant leader who is definitely veteran over teh rest would make more sense. Im not saying Id desire, join, or enjoy it though.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

In sports are two players without one being the leader referred to as a "team"?

If they're on the same side, yes. See Tag Team.