Discussion: Team setups

Arcaneum

Arcaneum

  • Moon Ball Nest Ball Strange Ball Beast Ball
    • 9,751
    Posts
    10
    Years
    So we've got the general premise mostly sorted and thankfully it's flexible to consider any amount of teams, so let's use this thread to discuss just that!

    Currently things are written up on the basis of two teams - a 'Past' and 'Future' team as per Scarlet/Violet lore and GP's writeup. I personally would like to if we can go to at least three teams, I'll put my reasons for and against 2 and 3+ teams and maybe we go from there?

    2 Teams
    For
    • Almost guaranteed activity from both teams
    • No changes to current theming required
    • Points can be potentially easier (i.e. awarding points only to the winning team)

    Against
    • Depending on setup, potentially easy demotivation if the losing team has a larger gap behind the winning team
    • Potentially less diversity when it comes to theming etc!

    3+ Teams
    For
    • Allows for more diversity!
    • More competition in the form of multiple teams, potentially smaller point gaps and therefore teams will be vying for more places, rather than just being the losing team

    Against
    • Harder to organise
    • More potential for one team to just become inactive (as per last year's GT)
    • Changes needed for current theming

    So I'm not saying these are all big points or anything, just what has come into my head as potential points of discussion or issue we could circumvent maybe.
     
    I feel like having one team just stop trying because of a wide point gap is a risk we're going to have regardless of the number of teams. I think a more major thing to consider is the small number of organisers this year. So, for me the first thing we need to figure out is if we want to divide teams between us (either one each, or a 2/1 split) and still be scoring participants or if we would prefer that the three of us were non-scoring participants and could thus share the workload equally.

    Personally, I think we're better off going the latter route. Otherwise we're going to be looking at a very high workload and we can't guarantee we'll be around do deal with any issue our teams have. By having the three of us overseeing both/all teams as non-scoring participants we have a more even spread of the workload and we also increase the odds of at least one of us being around when we're needed.

    But yeah, let's start there and figure out how many teams we want after that. Because if we end up going with the first option, then it becomes a question of a three-way split vs a 2/1 split. But if we decide to be non-scoring, it's less important how many teams we have specifically.

    I will say now though, we shouldn't have more than three. We no longer have enough active and interested users to run a GT with 4+ teams.
     
    +1 for 2 teams

    More potential for one team to just become inactive (as per last year's GT)
    Click to expand...

    personally i think this is the biggest red flag for things to go wrong for me. assuming we're re-using some sort of quiz to auto-place participants in teams, there's really no telling who's going to participate or who's mostly going to lurk in the background. with three times, there's a higher risk of this happening, whereas with two, not so much. as far as demotivation is concerned... honestly, it's mostly an issue of sportsmanship and as long as everyone tries their hardest and participates in every event they reasonably can, then that's all that matters. it needs to be reiterated that while there's a competitive element of the get-together, the whole point of it is moreso to have fun with your fellow pc users and chat with people who you've probably rarely seen who come around for this purpose.
     
    I am personally in favour of two teams — last year I think showed why three has the potential to not work, and j think general server activity points to two teams being the better option in terms of maximising the chance each team will actively participate (although of course that could change between now and Oct). In either case I'd much rather see two teams than three, I think the benefits outweigh the negatives, and also I'd imagine it would be easier to tinker with the scoring should a gap emerge with two teams than it would with three.
     
    unrelated(?) q: how would the quiz work this time w/o it being automatically coded into pc? or will that still be a thing?

    2 teams make more sense thematically and in terms of organization as well; demotivation is a thing but cant rly be avoided

    one team with tinkering of scores is my one bad hot take lmao
     
    I think 2 teams works best for what we're going for.
     
    Kitty said:
    unrelated(?) q: how would the quiz work this time w/o it being automatically coded into pc? or will that still be a thing?

    2 teams make more sense thematically and in terms of organization as well; demotivation is a thing but cant rly be avoided

    one team with tinkering of scores is my one bad hot take lmao
    Click to expand...

    This was something, along with some other bits, that I've been pondering over but I think with the time we have if we get the details like team setup etc sorted we can spend some real time thinking about how we go about this.

    Regarding teams - honestly I'm happy with both options and just wanted to put points out there as a base for discussion. I'm also happy with two and I think therefore we'll go ahead with that, not like we don't have the time to change things if for any reason it's not working out during planning!
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top