Team games: Teams vs Alliances

[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.

[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]

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]

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?

[Gregstrom]

prolific=/=effective

[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.

[Septimius Severus]

Well Sombre, once again, I am not attempting to really get players, just wanted to share an opinion and get some input on various team game questions. If you think my posts are offensive, innappropriate, I've broken any forum rules, or they annoy you it would be more effective and more polite to lodge a complaint with the moderators.

In the meantime, please allow everyone else their right to post and make use of these forums without having to worry about being jumped on, attacked, or criticized for every single thing they say or do. Feedback, commentary, and constructive criticism is always welcome. So is civil debate. But I think we should all try to be as positive as possible and help one another whenever possible. I'd like to think we are all/can all be friends here and not let differences or the past get the better of us. Betake yourself to my busom Sombre, and let me wrap my loving arms around you and call you friend.

And don't always take everything I post so seriously, especially the self promoting, ad-man, advertising variety, I sure don't.

[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.