Re: DIS: Proto: Teams
Yally wrote: 1. What if a team has only two players? One player could just remove the other player who could do nothing about it as there would be nobody else to provide a second objection. It requires em to move the other player to another team, which can also block it with 2 objections. This might still be too easy, though, if there's a team with at most one member paying attention; we might want to just block this method of moving a player out of a two-member team.
Re: DIS: Proto: Teams
Any comments? Any obvious flaws? Shall I write this up as a proper proposal? Would people be interested in this / fear this? - -- ais523 I like the idea. I do see a few small issues that would need to be resolved. 1. What if a team has only two players? One player could just remove the other player who could do nothing about it as there would be nobody else to provide a second objection. 2. When you say teams are allocated/split, etc. are the teams split evenly or in a truly random fashion. Could one of these new teams have no players? Could a winning team of 7 players, for example, divide into one team of 6 players and one team of 1 player who would then win the game for no good reason? 3. If a team of 2 players wins and the resultant division is to place them into two separate teams, do they both win?
Re: DIS: Proto: Teams
Any comments? Any obvious flaws? Shall I write this up as a proper proposal? Would people be interested in this / fear this? - -- ais523 I would definitely be interested. We've been lacking points for a long time now. --- -Tiger
DIS: Proto: Teams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Agora's in a bit of a lull at the moment. I've been wondering why this is, and conclude that there are two real reasons: a lack of a reason to do anything very much (there's little persistent state that can be built up week-to-week), and a lack of gameplay elements (I consider things like messing about with rules loopholes gameplay in Agora, but we're rather low on rules to abuse atm; I've been reduced to throwing around interesting-looking CFJs, even without anything but amusement and interest hanging on their answers). The problem with complicated contest-like gameplay is that normally not everyone is interested in it; that's generally best left to other nomics IMO. (Contests worked mostly because you could avoid them if you wanted to; if you try to force everyone to participate, it often happens that many people don't and the contest collapses as a result. Email is also a rather unsuitable medium for many of the things that might make good contests.) Some sort of gameplay is a good idea, though, both because it creates gameplay elements (more to CFJ about, maybe more opportunities for ingenious scams, more to do generally) and because it creates persistent state (more reason to participate, which is a good thing so long as it's enjoyable rather than tedious). So here's my plan: our current method of measuring positive contributions is in ergs. We can keep the current uses of those (they haven't been used much yet, after all), but also, whenever a player gains ergs, they also gain their team equal number of points. (Points are an obvious name for a tracked scoring statistic; and rather helpfully, they're currently undefined.) Why score as a team rather than individuals? Because scoring as individuals is reasonably commonplace in Agora's history, whereas teams haven't been done for years. Teams also offer more of an interesting political dynamic than individual play, and mean that new players don't end up massively disadvantaged upon joining, but rather reap the accumulated score of the team they were in. The idea is that initially there should be two teams; players are allocated to teams at random, and likewise new players are put on a random team. Once a team's accumulated 300 points (provisional value; how fast can ergs be scored, I wonder?), the team is replaced with two new teams, and its members assigned to those teams at random. Therefore, the reward for doing well is to end up in a smaller team, and if a player ends up on a team by emself, that player wins (and the entire team dynamic is reset back to two random teams again). A player can be moved from one team to another without two objections from the team they're leaving and without two objections from the team they're entering; this lets teams expel underperforming members (as there'd only be one objection, if that), players move themselves to a different team (assuming not too many objections from elsewhere), and even let teams kidnap desirable players if they could prevent the other team from mustering the objections needed. Two objections is chosen as it has an interesting relationship with the team size. I'd be willing to do the officering to track something like this, so there shouldn't be a need to worry about officer workload. Any comments? Any obvious flaws? Shall I write this up as a proper proposal? Would people be interested in this / fear this? - -- ais523 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFMIKWZVcRge/k80NMRAqwIAJ91XpOsDBq59pkDif97eH/GMYNisgCgiivQ xWRLURYQdL8GZgc1ZkJgJI8= =XO5V -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: DIS: Proto: Teams
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Alexander Smith wrote: The idea is that initially there should be two teams; players are allocated to teams at random, and likewise new players are put on a random team. Once a team's accumulated 300 points (provisional value; how fast can ergs be scored, I wonder?), the team is replaced with two new teams, and its members assigned to those teams at random. Therefore, the reward for doing well is to end up in a smaller team, and if a player ends up on a team by emself, that player wins (and the entire team dynamic is reset back to two random teams again). A player can be moved from one team to another without two objections from the team they're leaving and without two objections from the team they're entering; this lets teams expel underperforming members (as there'd only be one objection, if that), players move themselves to a different team (assuming not too many objections from elsewhere), and even let teams kidnap desirable players if they could prevent the other team from mustering the objections needed. Two objections is chosen as it has an interesting relationship with the team size. This is rather clever. The problem with teams last times (with 4 teams, randomly assigned) is that in each team there tended to be 1-2 people who cared enough to try to earn points, so it really was a contest between team leaders rather than teams. So I've been leery of teams since then. Making team makeup a part of the game itself is a nice new twist to avoid that. Maybe the metaphor can be the Federation of International Federated Associations with leagues, trades, captains, etc.
Re: DIS: Proto: Teams
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: twist to avoid that. Maybe the metaphor can be the Federation of International Federated Associations with leagues, trades, captains, etc. The Association of Federated Organizations?
Re: DIS: Proto: Teams
comex wrote: On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: twist to avoid that. Maybe the metaphor can be the Federation of International Federated Associations with leagues, trades, captains, etc. The Association of Federated Organizations? I was just about to say!
