Thanks for clarifying - I just remember in the first 64-user game, that it was broadcast that one player was “taking over” for another since he got busy in RL - you were in that game Jay and know both of the players, so I (wrongly) assumed that it was implicitly OK.
Edit Add: Just to be clear, I did NOT consider it a big deal. At the time, it was obvious who the alliances were so he was just trying to help out his teammates … and the person who did it (good guy) was totally slammed in RL.
These are good ideas. I think the team maps will rely on the new custom map code so the position of each player is specified explicitly.
I disabled the IP warning in all games a few weeks ago. I decided it created more harm than good!
I was thinking about this some more and I think this is a really important point. Given this is Neptune’s Pride we are talking about, I wonder if we should not put a little pressure on a team making it more difficult to co-ordinate. Perhaps within a team there should be a winner, (Most Valuable Player). A leaderboard within a leaderboard.
Maybe, but you don’t want to create conflict within the team that they no longer are focused on the good of the team. We see enough of that in sports teams.
I think players are gravitating towards a team game (or joining regular games as a team) because it is nice to have someone watching your back. Usually they work out who wins simply by who is doing the best when they kill off the rest of the enemies. I’ve gone into a game with another player, with that kind of agreement.
My point is, if you have someone playing a support role the whole time, they will never be the top player in the game, but very well could have been the MVP of the team. Isn’t that what Renown is for?
I was tossing out an End example of where team research could go. I think it could be very interesting in a strategic and tactical sense to pool all research into pushing a single tech, but I think at the very least, we should be able to see formal teammate’s research data. We get comparisons for stars, ships, carriers, rate of production, EIS and tech. Why not be able to see what a formal ally is working on and how many points they have.
Another thing, in a Turn based game, could the shared vision within the team allow for real time data, while still hiding info from enemies until the next Turn?
I think what is most fascinating about NP is how well it mirrors real life incentives and temptations. In the case of team play individuals must decide how much to sublimate their own desires for personal glory to the good of the the team. Doing things like giving every member of a winning team a first place finish might be making things too easy.
Exactly what I was thinking. The challenge is to overcome your own self interest for the good of the team.
I always wanted a shared team screen. Where each person can contribute their points to any tech they want. So you can have all 6 players pouring points into weapons, or split in any combination. The shared tech means everyone gets the tech when the level is reached.
Of course, it also means everyone’s experimentation kicks in randomly. You could get 300 points in banking on the first day!
Shared Tech Research, further thoughts.
Rather than each team member having their own research levels, the levels could sit at team level.
Each team member would continue to make their own choises what the are going to research now and next, but the research points would go into the teams level.
This would allow team members to collaborate and research the same tech to quickly gain levels or to each research different tech’s.
eDave - Isn’t that what I said? either way, I agree about the team research.
I would like to see a Team MVP be an optional setting, as I think it would be detrimental to the concept of a team in this game. Sports is a great example. The players that DESERVE to be a MVP didn’t get there by being selfish and putting their own glory before their teammates. Though you see a lot of younger players act very selfishly wanting the most time/ball possession etc. even when it hurts their team.
A MVP should be the person that contributed the most to their team in a multitude of factors, not who has the highest star, ship, ESI count.
As an NP players (and long-time Little League baseball coach!), I totally agree with what Brian said about the best teammate is one who works for the team, not personal glory … and personally, my goal is for the team to win and I don’t care where I place.
As Brian knows, in the first team game, one of our teammates (another Brian!) ended up in the middle with a poor path to the middle. While we all want to be aggressive, it made no sense for him to expand … so for quite a while, he was basically just (efficiently) working on resources and sending ships to either Neo or I. We in fact decided as a team NOT to send him Weapons for quite some time - it didn’t make any sense and saved us a ton of money when cash was critical.
But about halfway through, the position/geometry was such that he was ready to break out … and he ended up going after the middle with the rest of us.
Also, in that game, we decided early on to make a BIG commitment for me to expand South … so I got most of Brian’s ship while Neo stayed defensive. And if you have ever played with Neo, you know he hates playing turtle … but long-term, it was the right thing to do.
From about the mid-point on, I was just shoveling cash and tech to my teammates … especially when it was clear we were going to win, but were 1-3-4 on the leaderboard … because I wanted to help knock down #2 (who was next to them) so we would have a 1-2-3 finish.
So sure, I ended winning the game (Hulk is now only long-winded, he’s also a hypocrite, 'eh?!? ;-), but I assure you if I had been in any of their roles, I would have been happy to do whatever to help the team.
I agree with Hulk. I’d much rather be a MVP than a winner. Probably why I’ve only won one game.
I tried to win in the game I am currently in and it just gave me a big headache. My views of my current game reflect Rosslessness statement that being an MVP is better than being a winner. Only a team player can be an MVP. I just created my own topic regarding team play and solo play because of my current game battling against a player that doesn’t use teamwork. I didn’t think this topic was about team play and solo play as much as it is about team games.
From now on I will try to be more of a team player instead of trying to win because of my experience in my current game. It will save me from having a big headache next time. Team work should definitely be rewarded. I learned a lot about teamwork in my current game and realized it is hard to win just going against everyone else on the map. Eventually it becomes a big game of tug-a-war. Feeding another player tech or money and working together to take out other players out would mean they can win the game faster than everyone just battling for first place.
New thought about Team game settings.
In a team game, if there are hard wired teams, can we have a different AFK function? If a player leaves early, it totally ruins that teams position in the game. Can we instead have the game change ownership of that player’s remaining stars to the remaining teammates? I don’t think random assignment would be best, unless the teammates are all grouped together as they are in the current team game. It would make more sense to hand them over to the closest teammate, but split between the remaining teammates.
Probably a significant amount of additional coding, but it would prevent one member from tanking a whole team by leaving the game.
Good Idea Brian,
I wonder if this should be a function of all Formal Alliances?
Ditto what Brian said - this would be a wonderful idea to implement.
Optionally, some way for the player to specify “give this other player control” because in a multi-month game, RL is going to intrude … and otherwise, you need to pause the game for that one person.
I was thinking about it more after posting, and realized you have code for gifting stars from last year. So all you really need is a trigger and a system for dividing them up.
I doubt that there is a perfect solution for dividing stars, but we can toss around ideas.
Probably should auto trade tech at the same time, but maybe it needs balanced by not forwarding cash? Just brainstorming.
If this was implemented for a formal alliance in a non team game it would be a way for a team member to hand an an ally his stars, which could give them enough stars to win the game.
If there was a player ranking system this sacrifice would have to be taken into consideration as the transfer would most likely take them from a reasonable ranking to having no stars.
I agree that it could be really abused outside of team games. Heck, a player with alternate accounts could use this to hand themselves a huge advantage.
Yea, would have to be team games only.
Plus re-thinking this, I’m not even sure a good idea to be able to “give” stars to your teammate. Part of the strategy of team games is positioning carriers/etc. to swap stars as need be … and anticipating that since it takes time to get there. Allowing a “give” defeats that aspect of the team game.
I still think there should be some solution to address the issue of a person having to bail due to RL issues, but allowing their teammates to play their stars as that player.
Well, my original suggestion was to divide stars between any teammates, so Fixed Formal Allies. It had nothing to do with actually giving stars to others during normal play. I simply realized later that Jay already had a piece of code that would accomplish the actual task.
This would cover the issue of someone having to leave the game early for whatever reason. While I like the ideas of joint controlled carriers (they could cost a little more and have a different icon) and various ideas for team research, I don’t like the idea of just giving control of your entire empire to another player and keeping it separate. You should only be playing your own account, not playing 2. This solution transitions the leaving player so that the remaining teammates don’t take a huge hit.
As for my previous suggestion of not transferring money, I take that back. I think the fact that the Team is losing a research slot as well as Banking and Experimentation bonuses is a sufficient penalty to the team for losing a player.