Team games: Teams vs Alliances

[Gregstrom]

See one of Trumanator's posts above.

In those rare games with teams of more than 2...

[Sombre]

I think they are rare, but I think teams of 2 are also pretty rare. They're definitely a bit more common though, possibly because the overall game size is smaller so more of them are packed into the same period.

[namad]

to me.... an alliance is a diplomatic agreement you have promised to uphold.... which means you are 50-90% likely to not break it but easily still could for any reason at any time...


a TEAM is a matter of the game rules... you cannot violate your team because your team is literally only one entity.... in basketball you cannot score points for a third team consisting only of yourself and attempt to outscore both your opponents... it simply is not possible


the way i see it is... you either have teams composed of 2players or two teams full of players...


any other configuration is going to be a nightmare for many obvious reasons

[Septimius Severus]

Originally Posted by Sombre

I think they are rare, but I think teams of 2 are also pretty rare. They're definitely a bit more common though, possibly because the overall game size is smaller so more of them are packed into the same period.

Sorry if that previous post wasn't clear. It was as Gregstrom pointed out in response to the suggestion that teams of greater than 2 are rarer. I think the opposite to be the case. And if one looks at the all of the team games currently running with active threads on Shrapnel, the majority have 3 or more players on a team.

But I do think that the more players on the team, the more solidly you get into real team dynamics and the further you get away from at least some of the FFA mentality. Cooperation becomes more important. Team identity is increased. The load on each individual is reduced and task delegation becomes more of an art. Everything that it means to be a "team" increases when there are more than 2 people in the team. IMHO.

[Maerlande]

I prefer alliances. The problem with teams is you might get stuck with a nutball teammate and you can't do anything about it without breaking the game rules.

Alliances are better because you can make other alliances and then gank your old ally and remove him from the game making a better game for everyone else. It's especially effective if he doesn't suspect you are about to backstab him.

If team games had a rule where you could gank an underperforming teammate I'd be all for it.

[Trumanator]

Originally Posted by Septimius Severus

But I do take exception to the idea that most team games here are of the tiny, partnership, duo variety. How many such duo games are currently running with threads on Shrapnel?

RAFT, Heat vs. Cold, and the entire NvV and NaV series are examples of team games with teams of more than just 2 players each. I think 3 or 4 players is probably a good managable team size, but larger teams can work as well if the communication and effort is there. Depending upon the hosting interval, forums are good for larger teams, while chat makes sense for tiny teams with shorter hosting intervals.

You're correct that recently there has been something of an uptick in larger team games. However, a look at Tyrant's admittedly outdated Hall of Fame shows a definite prevalence of team games consisting of several 2 person teams. There are 6 of this type on it, and I believe that there have been at least 3-4 more since its last update. Contrast this with the single "large scale teams" game on it currently (which I actually organized and admined btw), and even if we add your 3 NVV and 1 NAV games completed there is still a definite difference of around 9 or 10 to 5. For simplicity's sake I'm only counting completed games.

[Septimius Severus]

Originally Posted by Maerlande

I prefer alliances. The problem with teams is you might get stuck with a nutball teammate and you can't do anything about it without breaking the game rules.

Alliances are better because you can make other alliances and then gank your old ally and remove him from the game making a better game for everyone else. It's especially effective if he doesn't suspect you are about to backstab him.

If team games had a rule where you could gank an underperforming teammate I'd be all for it.

That is an interesting idea and I recall players suggesting it from time to time. To make the fixed nature of the alliances in team games flexible like regular alliances. I can't speak for other team games but I know captains in my games do have control of rosters and can replace/bench players at will with alternates or anyone else they can get to sub, though they can't change the nations their team has been assigned.

I suppose a team game could have a rule that after a certain number of turns or at the captain's discretion or option, teams could go FFA (every player for himself) but with the option to freely ally still intact, which would of course cease to be a strictly team game (it would sort of be combo team/FFA game), but it would probably satisfy many who are more inclined to FFA type games and it would provide a mechanism by which a team could rid itself of under performing members and yet still ally with their selected old teammates. Team identity would suffer though, but it would provide an incentive for team laggards (likely noobs) to shape up. It may be something worth exploring in future games and perhaps may even be possible in NaV. The option to disband the team at the captains desire. Though that would be something of a last resort I would think.

Originally Posted by Trumanator

You're correct that recently there has been something of an uptick in larger team games. However, a look at Tyrant's admittedly outdated Hall of Fame shows a definite prevalence of team games consisting of several 2 person teams. There are 6 of this type on it, and I believe that there have been at least 3-4 more since its last update. Contrast this with the single "large scale teams" game on it currently (which I actually organized and admined btw), and even if we add your 3 NVV and 1 NAV games completed there is still a definite difference of around 9 or 10 to 5. For simplicity's sake I'm only counting completed games.

I may be wrong about this, but it is probably safe to say that were other completed team games (with more than 2 players per team) that didn't make it into Tyrant's post as well, and if I recall correctly the team section of the opening post was a later addition. I say this because I sort of remember asking Tyrant why there was no team section. And if you count in progress games of course, if could be said that each type was at least equally prevalent. But I agree with others who posted here, there are still far fewer team games overall in comparison with the vast numbers of FFA type games.

[namad]

all you have to do if you have a duo with a ****ty teammate is fire him and play both yourself :-p


i'd say the average dominions player doesn't have the heart/drive/communion/or time to properly play on a team of 4+ players


being on a team of 4 in one game is as much work as being in 2or3 games alone

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by namad

being on a team of 4 in one game is as much work as being in 2or3 games alone

This is most definitely true

[Maerlande]

I suppose a team game could have a rule that after a certain number of turns or at the captain's discretion or option, teams could go FFA (every player for himself) but with the option to freely ally still intact, which would of course cease to be a strictly team game (it would sort of be combo team/FFA game), but it would probably satisfy many who are more inclined to FFA type games and it would provide a mechanism by which a team could rid itself of under performing members and yet still ally with their selected old teammates.

You could also randomize the teams every 4 turns. Or just make one player on each team change sides every 4 turns. That would definitely add to the excitement.

On the other hand, you could assign random NAP's every few turns. The moderator simply forces certain players at random to go peaceful. Retreat sieging troops. Cancel air drops.