Team games: Teams vs Alliances

[13lackGu4rd]

Originally Posted by Septimius Severus

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

any size, it depends on the situation(both in dominions and in real life). a team must however be larger than 2 members, that would be a duo, couple, etc. also the smaller the team the easier it is to manage, while the larger it is the more benefits it can achieve due to sheer size.

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

the first distinction between teams and alliances is that teams are predefined while alliances happen during something. for example, in dominions your NaV game was all about a team vs team action, those are well, teams... in standard games however, when 2 or more people unite against a common enemy than they can form an alliance, note that it happened during the game not before the game started.

the second distinction is that teams are permanent(or well, until the game ends as far as dominions go) while alliances are temporary, usually uniting against a common enemy than dissolving once the common enemy is no more. a good example of this from real life would be world war 2. at first Germany declared war on France which had previously allied itself with Britain due to previous German aggression, while Russia was allied with Germany and even supported it with Iron and Steel for the German factories. however Germany eventually betrayed Russia at Operation Barbarossa, than Russia allied itself with the US, Britain and France to complete the "Allies".

from the second distinction comes the major difference as far as diplomacy between the members. in a team, due to its permanent nature, the cooperation level is very high, and some members even do things that won't be the best for them individually but would be best for the team. such as a member(say Ulm for example) becomes the forge ***** of the team, not because he will personally benefit from it, but because the entire team will be much stronger. in an alliance however, due to its temporary nature, cooperation levels are relatively low, and every agreement between members needs to benefit both of them, or else it wouldn't happen.

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?

yes, teams should have leaders, even a democracy has a leader(president/prime minister)... a team without a leader is a team that doesn't function properly and doesn't gain as much as it could from being a team. however there are different types and styles of leaders, and different styles of management. so there's no 1 way to lead/manage a team.

for example, your NaV is built more towards a single leader who is supposed to be a mentor/educator(game wise not real life wise obviously), while a team filled with expert players for example, say Baalz, Micah and Jurri, could be run more loosely and perhaps democratically, unless they decide to let 1 of them become a dominant leader and agree to follow his lead.

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

I assume you mean diplomacy not within the teams themselves. that would depend on the game rules first and foremost. if there isn't a rule that bans it than it is bound to happen. same deal as diplomacy between individual players... 1 team becomes larger and stronger than the rest, the other teams form an alliance between themselves to eliminate the stronger team, than go back to fighting each other.

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

small teams are easier to manage, and usually the cooperation levels between the different individuals are larger. larg teams are a lot harder to manage, and the cooperation levels inside the team are somewhat lower, but the sheer size of the group lets it do things a small team just can't do. in dominions for example, a large team can easily wipe out a single opponent in 1(or well, 2) turns, by participation of most or all the team members. in real life a large team(say a large corporation) can gain larger discounts, be it for raw material, supplies, vehicles, etc.

[GrudgeBringer]

I must be missing a lot because the original question is easy as far as I am concerned.

I agree with Sombre (no disrespect meant), 590 words and no ideas.

A TEAM..is any number of players that fulfill a purpose with no redundancy. Each 'member' of the team has a role to fulfill that will make the team a whole. Whether it is a sports team or a Dom team, each member has its role and the 'team' need not be bigger than the smallest number of members needed.

To quote a corny cliche (Corny but true), "There is no I in team but there IS an I in win" So it takes the team to win to allow you to say ..I won.

THAT, is my definition of a team game.

[Trumanator]

Seriously, does it even matter what the definition of "team" is? You don't make a game thread titled "Small game of duos", you call it "Small team game."

[Septimius Severus]

Originally Posted by Trumanator

Seriously, does it even matter what the definition of "team" is? You don't make a game thread titled "Small game of duos", you call it "Small team game."

It is interesting to learn what the various opinions of a "team" are. That is all.

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.

[Sombre]

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.

Who are you responding to? I don't see that idea being presented here.

[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.

[Sombre]

Aand, here's the advertising.

[chrispedersen]

Aaaaaand do you object because it was a clever way to solicit players and get comments, or because because sept is being effective at proselytizing?

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Aaaaaand do you object because it was a clever way to solicit players and get comments, or because because sept is being effective at proselytizing?

I wish his games success, just as I wished that Azsomething guy luck with his mods. I hope everyone in them enjoys them fully.

But I don't enjoy transparent touting of a game/mod/map/whatever everywhere, particularly when it's disguised (however ineffective the disguise) as a discussion thread.

If you really think this is a clever way to get players, wow. Hahah, ok dude.