Team / Teamless

[evan]

I've transferred oved the discussion on whether to have a Team or a Teamless game.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Evan 30.10.14

Great!

So you want us to put the discussion here then?
Can you create a new forum for this topic 'LT34' in the 'Games' forums, because the discussion is already split between here under 'LT33' and in the 'New Games' forms.

By tradition/convention LT34 will be a team game, is that still right?
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Wieder 30.10.14

It would be nice to have the discussion on one place, but as long as discussion is going somewhere, it's a good thing I guess.

Yeah, LT34 is probably a team game. I only wonder how popular team games are. Would you like it to be a team game? Would someone prefer a team game or something else?
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Edrim 30.10.14

I can do it, maybe you dont know, but we are not playing couple of games in one time.
I dont know really why but as i remember it brings many confusions like you are enemy for death and ally with one real person in one time. some players are not able to get it right.

Another reason of that we are not going to start new thread is that we are playing here team and teamless games. Next game should be team game, last team game has still open wounds and i dont know if it is good time for start conversation about team game.

Maybe we can talk here about team game. For me teams making from some not knowing players (like in LT32) are out of my interesting. I could ba an admin in this game without playing on it.
So we have some ideas from previous games in history of LT:

-Teams from teams.
-Two team making in order of picking.
-Maho's algorithm of picking teams (my favourite)
-LT32 algortihm of commanders picking players and positions.

So first of all we need to decide if it will be a team game or teamless game.
If we will stay in teamless we will change some settings for sure because we have never played on same settings two games in a row. But this ruleset is quite nice, maybe wonders will be tuned up a little.

If you have any ideas what should be improve in this ruleset please make an idea, if it will be worth discussing i will open new forum for LT34 in this moment and we can discuss specyfic ideas in different topics.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Evan 02.11.14

I would like to play with tech trading disabled if it is a teamless game like LT33.
As for a team game, well i haven't played one so i'm reading through the forum to get a better idea of how they work.
If i had to vote now for either team/teamless i'd say team, to try something new, but i'd like to hear arguments against it.
There's a lot to read...
But i thought it would be good to bring it up now while there's plenty of time, that way people who might just check the forum briefly would see we were discussing LT34.
But in general, I can see you guys have been fine-tuning the ruleset for some time, so i'd like to make informed comments, and also avoid needless repetition. I'll read on...
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Corbeau 02.11.14

evan wrote:

If i had to vote now for either team/teamless i'd say team, to try something new, but i'd like to hear arguments against it.

Arguments presume there is a right and a wrong option. There isn't. It's a matter of personal preference. I, personally, prefer non-team game simply because, for me, Civilization is a simulation of nation building and leading, it presumes a lot of diplomacy which is taken away completely if you have a team game.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Nevermind 25.11.14

Team game - I have no problem with it. Actually, I hate diplomacy, it's so time-consuming and I hate gossips and lies spreading around... In a team game, you don't need to do so much diplomacy. smile And even in a teamless game, when there's an amount of winning players bigger than one, you still should enter some team if you want to have a real chance for winning. However, I'm not against teamless games, I plan to play LT34 whatever of these two styles it be.

Tech trade off - I vote for this.

Running more games at once - good idea, it gives opportunity to play for RIP player and not wait months for a new game. Successful players may just choose not to play more than 1 game at once, to avoid confusing.

Reducing the cost of settlers - I like this Corbeau's idea.

I'd keep 3x movement.

Lower the cost of ancient and middle ages units - The game seems unbalanced in this for me. For a long time you can build only a few ancient units (sometimes you actually discover new tech faster than you're able to build their outcomes), then there's a wave of modern ages units. First, you spend months doing a very little, then your game may end in just few turns after a successful attack of your enemies. Modern units have much more hit points (not to mention other features), they should cost proper price in comparison with ancient and middle ages units. This may also solve the problem with lack of action and warfare during early period mentioned by Wieder.

Minimum distance between cities - I'd set it lower than 5. The map may be smaller, accordingly. The most of cities hardly can grow so much to be able to use all tiles around anyway. So why make the map so big, the travel distances so long and the game so prolonged?

Cancel the endless amount of MPs while using railroads - It's not realistic and it only increases the chance of killing a nation in a single turn.

[Corbeau]

I guess teams or no teams is a matter of preference. I *am* interested in communication and diplomacy. Civilization *is* about politics, it's neither Warcraft nor Sim City, it's both and much more. Cutting yourself away from one of its aspects means playing the lesser game.

[wieder]

There were lots of arguing an issues with lots of teams. I actually know only 1 or 2 teams from LT32 where there were no issues because of the team game.

It looks like LT34 won't be a team game unless someone can tell why it should be one. It should probably be another reason than just saying how it's a tradition to have every second game as a team game.

There is another thread about how big the alliances could be.

[buggy]

I wouldn't mind either option but here's why I'd see team games as something positive.

In a team game, less experienced players will very likely be teamed up with someone quite experienced. And with both having a common objective there would be lots of tips flowing on do this, don't do that, we should be careful about this and here's a strategy on that. This is a much better and faster school than being easily killed off in regular LT. I believe I've seen in this forum some people complaining that they wouldn't be interested in mentoring and I see team games as a way to enforce it if incentives to encourage an alliance with newbie players don't work out in regular games.

I see them as an investment and I think team games should remain regular possibility like once a year.

[kevin551]

I prefer team games. Especially team games where the starting position is non-random because each team chooses its start position on a known map.

[Nimrod]

I vote in favour of a Team game. Here is my main argument:

Many new players have not learnt much from LT33. Those that were fortunate to have a veteran LT player guide them through some of the nuances of this game platform are the exception (like Akfaew did for my alliance by taking on myself and other inexperienced LT players).

I think it would be great to have teams which consist of veteran players mixed in with newbies in order to balance out the game and also afford a chance for the newbies to learn something and maximize their odds of actually being part of a winning team.

As for the other settings, here are my preferences:

1) ZoC removed for Spies/Dips
2) Restrictinfra = ON
3) City distance min = 4
4) Movement 3x
5) Cheaper units = Yes
6) Same Small/Large Wonders as in LT33
7) Bring Back Trade Revenue !

I think these settings would bring about a fairly balanced game, and foster more team cooperation (especially moving Caravans around

[edrim]

I am against team game, this games are horrible, lots of hate, missunderstanding, you cannot kick a player from a team who doesnt want to cooperate or even doing something nasty to your team.
Beating some players in start are much easy when you didnt get nice position, TC moves in a team who are not able or dont want to play are horrible destructive for them.
Commander took a deals with any other team and some part of a team can break this treaty without any communication.

I am not going to play team game anyway (maybe if some cases fixed), so if majority will want to play team I can focus on LW:)
Playing team game with people doesnt know who they are, is like going to rolercoaster after taking some perts of it out. You can get to the end but it is much more risky. Your reputation will go very low once you have some not smart people in your team, because their betrayals are treated like yours.

[wieder]

Lots of players have been saying how they would want to learn to play and how a team game would help with that. I just feel that in a team it's still easy to go with the low and not play that well because you will never fall back on the techs if there is someone who is researching. But if everyone in a team would have his/her own research, this wouldn't be a problem really and the new players would still get some help.

The difference to normal games would be announcing the winning alliances when the game starts. The players could decide what to do and even play lone wolf if they wish to but there could be winners only from one list/pre-announced team/alliance. The problem is that I have no idea how to place the players on a game like that because everyone on a team should be able to have access to each other so that they can have vision as soon as possible.

[mrsynical]

I actually like team-games. Yes, sometimes the team falls apart, and ignore team directions, or just go idle. If all goes well it can be a good way to introduce new players and to learn new tactics and play with people you would normally not play with...

I guess it is best if there are not too many noobs and idlers (but the same goes for normal games too).

Lets do it!

I am against team game, this games are horrible, lots of hate, missunderstanding, you cannot kick a player from a team who doesnt want to cooperate or even doing something nasty to your team.
Beating some players in start are much easy when you didnt get nice position, TC moves in a team who are not able or dont want to play are horrible destructive for them.
Commander took a deals with any other team and some part of a team can break this treaty without any communication.

I am not going to play team game anyway (maybe if some cases fixed), so if majority will want to play team I can focus on LW:)
Playing team game with people doesnt know who they are, is like going to rolercoaster after taking some perts of it out. You can get to the end but it is much more risky. Your reputation will go very low once you have some not smart people in your team, because their betrayals are treated like yours.

[el_perdedor]

No teams, no diplo.
that would be my opinion.