I like team games but dont play many of them because there not ranked.  Would be a nice stat I think. 

Thanks for your thoughts

I agree, earlier we brought up the idea of having "guilds" which can be created between groups of friends and the guild itself could have a rank table.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/511
http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/52

I think we may be waiting a while on this - most people do like the idea quite a bit, so I imagine it will eventually happen.

Since we're on the topic, my interpretation of "guild" is that many players would belong to it from which potential teammates for a team game could be chosen from.

While a good idea, I think a more direct approach makes sense as far as rankings go. You create a team, invite specific players to join, and give that team a name. If there are two players on the team, the team may only join 2-player team games, if three on a team, only 3-player team games, etc. You would be allowed to join several teams. The team's rank data is recorded similarly to individual rank data.

On the individual game level, each teammate gives the other teammate permission to join x amount of games (setting x = 0 is possible of course). That way, if a team game pops up, either teammate can jump in on the game. I think games could get stuck in the queue if you couldn't volunteer your team for a game. A certain amount of trust between teammates must exist for this to work, but I think this is what most people have in mind - having teammates who are people they've played with before.

Hugh wrote:

While a good idea, I think a more direct approach makes sense as far as rankings go. You create a team, invite specific players to join, and give that team a name. If there are two players on the team, the team may only join 2-player team games, if three on a team, only 3-player team games, etc. You would be allowed to join several teams. The team's rank data is recorded similarly to individual rank data.

I never really thought of it that way but I really like that idea.  The only problem might be that the term "team" then might become too restrictive.  In other words, if any one teammate on the team stops playing (or goes on hiatus) then the whole team is essentially done.  The way I envisioned it, a guild could recruit players and the players would play team games on behalf of their guild.  I have about six friends that I play with regularly (I introduced them to WG or converted them from WF)--it would be cool if anyone of us could create a team game and then everyone in the guild would automatically receive an invite/notification into the game.  If the game was a 3v3 then the first three players in the guild to join would play that match.  This way as I introduce people to WG, they can join the "team".  At the same time, if a player stops playing on WG, the entire team (of every team that player was involved in) doesn't have to retire.

I like both of these ideas... but right now the site size seems to match the Team idea that Hugh has better. I don't think there are enough core players that would join guilds to form more than a couple guilds. Maybe I'm wrong, and this will definitely change with time, but Hugh's idea might make more sense for now.

Either way team competition would be a lot of fun!

It would be quite straightforward to have basic team stats, i.e.:

Overall games played / won / win%
2v2 games played / won / win%
3v3 games played / won / win%

But to have anything more (i.e. rankings) with the way teams are currently set up (i.e. different teams for each game) would be meaningless unless Teams have some form of permanence as suggested by Hugh / EnixNeo. I like both their ideas, I think EnixNeo's idea of having a pool of players available to play in a team is a good one, otherwise each player would have to be in a series of fixed 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 player teams and inevitably people would drop out and back in so team's would die off regularly which would be frustrating.

I agree there probably aren't enough players to do this at present, but it's one to keep in mind for the future. In the interim, do you think there is any value in adding basic teamplay stats as per the above?

tom wrote:  In the interim, do you think there is any value in adding basic teamplay stats as per the above?

I like the idea of Team Stats, even if they are basic for the time being (I'm definitely in favor of some sort of Team Ranking).

Would 2v2 work?  Or would you also have 2v2v2?  Maybe just 2 Member Team, 3 Member Team, etc.?

I would like something basic untill we have a permanent solution.

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote:  In the interim, do you think there is any value in adding basic teamplay stats as per the above?

I like the idea of Team Stats, even if they are basic for the time being (I'm definitely in favor of some sort of Team Ranking).

Would 2v2 work?  Or would you also have 2v2v2?  Maybe just 2 Member Team, 3 Member Team, etc.?

Well I think you'd want separate rankings for 2v2 as opposed to 2v2v2 etc as your chances of winning are different for each combination.

tom wrote:

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote:  In the interim, do you think there is any value in adding basic teamplay stats as per the above?

I like the idea of Team Stats, even if they are basic for the time being (I'm definitely in favor of some sort of Team Ranking).

Would 2v2 work?  Or would you also have 2v2v2?  Maybe just 2 Member Team, 3 Member Team, etc.?

Well I think you'd want separate rankings for 2v2 as opposed to 2v2v2 etc as your chances of winning are different for each combination.

Isn't that a big table then?

2v2

2v2v2

2v2v2v2

2v2v2v2v2

2v2v2v2v2v2

2v2v2v2v2v2v2

2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2

3v3

3v3v3

3v3v3v3

3v3v3v3v3

4v4

4v4v4

4v4v4v4

5v5

5v5v5

6v6

7v7

8v8

Maybe not too big, and I guess you can't currently create uneven teams (ie 2vs3, AnA style), but eventually I imagine those would have to be included too.

*edit* and I guess if the table grows instead of just created, then it would look quite similar to the single player table (for example if you haven't played in an 11 player game, then there isn't an 11 player stat, likewise if you haven't played in a 5v5v5 game there shouldn't be a 5v5v5 stat).

2v2 and 2v2v2 is the same thing. It's how you do on a 2 player team. Think of it in the same way you do individual stats. Winning a 1v1 game impacts your stats less then winning a 3 player, 1v1v1 game.

AntiScourge wrote:

2v2 and 2v2v2 is the same thing. It's how you do on a 2 player team. Think of it in the same way you do individual stats. Winning a 1v1 game impacts your stats less then winning a 3 player, 1v1v1 game.

2v2 your expected win rate is 50%, 2v2v2 it's 33%.

Yertle - yep it would build up just like your regular stats.

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of a Team 'Score' and G-Rating. I think you all are just referring to the table that shows win%'s based off how many players?

Well the problem is how do you calculate a ranking based on a team performance?

Actually I suppose it could be calculated the same way as the current rankings. It wouldn't be 100% fair but it would be a start at least.

tom wrote: Well the problem is how do you calculate a ranking based on a team performance?

Actually I suppose it could be calculated the same way as the current rankings. It wouldn't be 100% fair but it would be a start at least.

I'm a little confused on this part.  The way I see it, a guild acts as a single entity exactly the same way individual players act as a single entity in non-team games.  So the guild itself would have a ranking, win percentages, G-ratings, etc.  In that way, the team ranking system would be the same as it is for individual rankings.

yeah i've played something with guilds in it before, maybe ikarium? can't remember, but might take a look there.

the more i hear of guild play the more i think it would be cool. now would you need special Guild only games or is it that if you win a game you and your guild get points.

there it was worth guild points/rankings i think

EnixNeo wrote:

tom wrote: Well the problem is how do you calculate a ranking based on a team performance?

Actually I suppose it could be calculated the same way as the current rankings. It wouldn't be 100% fair but it would be a start at least.

I'm a little confused on this part.  The way I see it, a guild acts as a single entity exactly the same way individual players act as a single entity in non-team games.  So the guild itself would have a ranking, win percentages, G-ratings, etc.  In that way, the team ranking system would be the same as it is for individual rankings.

I was just talking about getting team rankings working with the way teams are currently set up - i.e. dynamically for each game.

I do like the idea of guilds / whatever they end up being called but that will have to wait till after the tournaments are implemented.

KrocK wrote: the more i hear of guild play the more i think it would be cool. now would you need special Guild only games or is it that if you win a game you and your guild get points.

"Guild games" would be just another way of saying "team game".  It's just a way of allowing arranged teams (since there is currently no way to invite friends into team games).  It's a system that would simply automatically send out invites to everyone in the guild when a guild member joins/creates a team game and reserves those seats until they are filled by that guild (or a certain amount of time passes giving another guild the opportunity to join).

The way I envisioned it, guilds would have a max player cap (maybe around 12-14).  The point of guilds is to allow player to easily and quickly join/create team games with people they know.  Guilds should mean something to the player in it and remain relatively personal (similar to the idea Hugh mentioned but without being too restrictive).  I don't want guilds to turn into something seen in MMORPGs where a guild is made up of hundreds of players and players are trying to join specific guilds simply because that guild is large or its name has been advertised.  The point of guilds is solely to allow people that in some way know each other to play together in the form of team games.