Total number of teams & minimum members limit

[Keygen]

I believe we should start discussing whether there should be a limit to the total amount of teams and the minimum number of members a team should have in order to be eligible for entrance.

[Hercules]

I agree.

And members (even if they have a off Apolyton forum) should join the team roster here.

If gives us a better idea regarding sus the opposition team composition balance.

[GeoModder]

I thought the concencus was 5-6 teams max?

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by GeoModder
I thought the concencus was 5-6 teams max?

I can live with that and 3 minimum turn players per team.

This forming up a team, and everyone loses interest 3 months later crap is starting to get old.

If you are going to make this kind of commitment, then...

MAKE THIS KIND OF COMMITMENT!

[UnOrthOdOx]

When's the last turn YOU played a turn, con?

Seriously, you can't expect people to know what their lives are going to be 3 months, a year, or whatever down the road. **** happens.

This is a game, not a marriage.

4-5 teams. Number of people? I don't know. I've seen very small teams be quite active, and I've seen teams with 30 + members devolve into a single player in rapid order.

[conmcb25]

Thats why we have three turn players at the start. What da he11 got your panties in a wad this morning?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Same thing that always gets me pissed off in these demogame setups.

Our purpose here should be to encourage new people, not scare them off.

We don't need to make it a huge formal intimidating thing. Make it casual, encourage new members, and focusing on the fun and interaction with others, a great way to learn both the game and how to play multiplayer. Don't go about scaring folks away highlighting the negative aspects.

It's this elitist crap of we need everyone able to spend hours of time every day to this game, don't bother if you can't commit yourself to the game bull**** that's killing these demogames.


Commitment belongs at work
Commitment belongs at school
Commitment belongs in a marriage
It has no place in a GAME.
A game should be a fun time, not a commitment.

And by seperating TURN PLAYERS from regular players, you encourage a class devision that also alienates players.

If I'm not a turn player, I'm therefore less valuable?

BULL****. This kind of devisive attitude and elitist crap needs to STOP or these games WILL die.


I very strongly believe each team should adopt a policy where there IS NO designated turn player. Allow ANYONE to play if they get to it before others and want to. The whole team leader/turn player/president/ whatever thing is just not working IMO. But, that's up to the individual teams to decide.

[Zoid]

I don't think the number of teams are the real problem as long as they have at least 3 turnplayers!! I can't stress this enough. But as we stand now we have 7 or 8 teams for this game. I say that's enough (it implies 24 dedicated players and some hangarounds).

[Keygen]

The most likely is that the amount of participants will more or less define the final number of teams.

The goal is to have teams with more than one member, for the entire length of the game, regardless of the size of the team or the total number of teams, and have some fun.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Same thing that always gets me pissed off in these demogame setups.

Our purpose here should be to encourage new people, not scare them off.

We don't need to make it a huge formal intimidating thing. Make it casual, encourage new members, and focusing on the fun and interaction with others, a great way to learn both the game and how to play multiplayer. Don't go about scaring folks away highlighting the negative aspects.

It's this elitist crap of we need everyone able to spend hours of time every day to this game, don't bother if you can't commit yourself to the game bull**** that's killing these demogames.


Commitment belongs at work
Commitment belongs at school
Commitment belongs in a marriage
It has no place in a GAME.
A game should be a fun time, not a commitment.

And by seperating TURN PLAYERS from regular players, you encourage a class devision that also alienates players.

If I'm not a turn player, I'm therefore less valuable?

BULL****. This kind of devisive attitude and elitist crap needs to STOP or these games WILL die.

I very strongly believe each team should adopt a policy where there IS NO designated turn player. Allow ANYONE to play if they get to it before others and want to. The whole team leader/turn player/president/ whatever thing is just not working IMO. But, that's up to the individual teams to decide.

I don't think it's about separating players in valuable/less valuable. It's about making sure that we all get a good playing experience from this game. Therefore we need to know beforehand how many are willing to commit to this game, to walk that extra mile and keep the game going for those who don't have the time or possibility to stay tuned in 24/7. That's not elitist, it's quite the opposite IMO.

[Krill]

I'm a chemistry student. I might have alot of work to do, long hours in labs, and other important stuff to do, but if this game has something in the order of 48 hour turn timer on pitboss I won't have a problem finding 5 minutes to play the turn, and half an hour to think about posted comments and leave comments of my own. There almost certainly will be a time somewhere down the road that I will have to step down, when soemthing important that requires alot more of ym time arises, but until then, I can cope as the sole "turn player" for GS. If another member of GS wants to learn the ropes I'll teach them the tricks to make it easier and less time consuming.

As UnO says, it is a devisive role; when this game has started I'll play the turns; I'm not going to make the decisions, that is up to the team.

[Locutus]

IMO the number of teams should indeed depend on the number of people signing up, and especially on the number of turn players on each team. On the one hand I agree with UnO that having a dedicated turn player category is a bit elitist and uninviting -- and frankly it takes more than 2 or 3 people willing to load up the game every other day and give some orders to make a team a success -- but OTOH it's simply reality that some people have been known to carry teams and those people are necessary to keep the game going.

People that can't commit to that role in advance may grow into it, or they may drop off by the time the game starts, you just don't know. And inevitably some people signing up for such a role in advance will drop off as well. The best way to ensure the long-term health of a team is to ensure it has multiple people who are willing to sign up as turn player in advance but also a good number of casuals, who may or may not grow into turn players as the game progresses or else at least contribute to the forum discussions (which is also a MAJOR element of successful team). IMO teams should definitely try to encourage their casuals to play turns, but we don't want to spread ourselves so thin that we become dependent on that to prevent one-man teams.

We currently have 66 'firm' sign-ups (i.e. folks that have joined a team or signed up in one of our 3 sign-up threads), of which 13 were willing to commit to the role of team leader or turn player. That's enough for 5 teams IMO (not quite 3 turn players per team but close), provided especially the turn players are distributed fairly evenly over those teams.

[Beta]

I would be happy with 7 or 8 teams, provided each team has sufficient numbers. The more teams, the greater the number of permutations in alliance possibilities.

And keep in mind that game dynamics in a team pitboss game will be different than that of a team pbem game. There will not be a week between turns (hopefully ) to do lengthy reviews of moves and polling etc. A large 20 person team is going to need to find an efficient way of keeping people involved and informed.

In that respect, the Warlods Pitboss Demo game is a good training ground. Both to see what make-up of teams works, and how to best run them in a pitboss setup. And it is still an active game.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Same thing that always gets me pissed off in these demogame setups.

Our purpose here should be to encourage new people, not scare them off.

We don't need to make it a huge formal intimidating thing. Make it casual, encourage new members, and focusing on the fun and interaction with others, a great way to learn both the game and how to play multiplayer. Don't go about scaring folks away highlighting the negative aspects.

It's this elitist crap of we need everyone able to spend hours of time every day to this game, don't bother if you can't commit yourself to the game bull**** that's killing these demogames.


Commitment belongs at work
Commitment belongs at school
Commitment belongs in a marriage
It has no place in a GAME.
A game should be a fun time, not a commitment.

And by seperating TURN PLAYERS from regular players, you encourage a class devision that also alienates players.

If I'm not a turn player, I'm therefore less valuable?

BULL****. This kind of devisive attitude and elitist crap needs to STOP or these games WILL die.


I very strongly believe each team should adopt a policy where there IS NO designated turn player. Allow ANYONE to play if they get to it before others and want to. The whole team leader/turn player/president/ whatever thing is just not working IMO. But, that's up to the individual teams to decide.

Well you and I have to disagree then. A Demogame composed of "lurkers" with no one willing to be turn players is a demogame thats going no where.

Thats my whole point. Thats why I want each team to have multiple turn players at the begining, because a lot of us are going to play, and most of those that do want to finish, and it becomes very frustrating for those of us who do put a lot of time and effort into these games whether as lurkers OR turnplayers, when the dam things don't finish up because a team dropped out. Or the whole complexion of the game changes because some team is converted to an AI because they dont have turn players. If I wanted to play AI's Ill have a SP game thank you very much. And the AI is a he11 of a lot more reliable than most of you

So call it elitist, call it con being an arse, call it whatever the heck you want.

But once I start this game I want to finish it, and all Im asking is have 3 turn players. If that is SO MUCH TO ASK UP FRONT, then please let me know so I don't waste my time. Why each team having three turn players is such a huge stretch, and is such a detriment to new players is beyond me.

I dont care if we have a whole new team composed of new players, as long as they say they got three turn players up front.

You are reading way to much into my requirements UnO, IMHO.

[Krill]

The problem con, is that a team only needs 1 turn player from when the game starts. A team could have 3 turn players, who find after 6 months that they are al going to have to invest their time somewhere else. And oh yay, we have a team of lurkers and no turn players, even though there was a mandate to avoid this situation!

There is no point in making each team have 3 turn players