One of the recent cheating threads got me thinking about a concept for team-play  ..Gangs (although we could use softer names like clubs or tribes, etc.  I'm sure there must be other sites that do something like this, but I'm unaware of them, and I know something similar has been mentioned here before, but this may be a bit different..

Once a player joins a gang they can't join another gang until they quit the one they're in.

When a SANCTIONED Game is initiated by any gang member, it immediately only allows a certain mix of players.

For instance,  a member of Gang A starts a 6 player game.   Another member of A joins the game.  Then a member of Gang B and C join the game.  Now, there's only room for two more members - and they must be one each from Gang B and C respectively.

Example 2: Let's say a member of Gang A starts a 6 player game and then 3 members of Gang B join.  Now only two members of Gang A are allowed to join the game.  Games must be fair.

The game is NOT a team game.  The winner takes all the points so there can be a hierarchy in the gang. (just like regular global scores ..although there could be variations - see below).  But the Gang (a separate score) gets those points too!

I'm not sure what's in it for the losing player on the winning gang.  Perhaps all gang members, even those that did not play in the game get a few points, with the losing members of the winning gang that DID play the game get a few more.

Really, its just a rough concept at this point..

I see these more often referred to as clans in multiplayer games, but it's all the same.  

Perhaps instead of all gang members getting a point, the gang could have a score.  Where games between gangs (either set up a gang games, or where an equal number of members from each gang play) contribute to a new ranking which applies to one's gang.  

This idea is interesting and would add a whole new dynamic to the team-game aspect of WG.  

Ohbie wrote:

I see these more often referred to as clans in multiplayer games, but it's all the same.  

Perhaps instead of all gang members getting a point, the gang could have a score.  Where games between gangs (either set up a gang games, or where an equal number of members from each gang play) contribute to a new ranking which applies to one's gang.  

This idea is interesting and would add a whole new dynamic to the team-game aspect of WG.  

My twist on it is that there are individual rankings within the Clans.  I was thinking that there might be some inter-clan tension because on the one hand, you want your "team" to win, but on the other hand, you want to be the winning team member.  There is some renumeration for being on the winning team, but lots more for winning the board.

I agree with you there, although some clan members may risk it too early to try and win the board instead of finishing off the opposing clans.  I guess that's why you need to pick a good clan with smart clan members.

My point was more referring to your suggestion that all clan members (even those who didn't play in the game) could receive some points for a clan victory.  So they're would be a ranking for the clan as a whole (not a sum of members' scores, but a single score), and than an individual ranking for clan games.

Is M's idea on limiting clan members per game easy or hard from a programming perspective?

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Is M's idea on limiting clan members per game easy or hard from a programming perspective? 

I would think it should be relatively easy because the number of possibilities are so small.

With 4 players = 1 = (2,2)

With 6 players = 2 = (A 2,2,2;  B 3,3)

With 8 players = 2 = (A 2,2,2,2;  B  4,4)

With 9 players = 1 = (3,3,3)

With 10 players = 2 = (A 5,5;  B 2,2,2,2,2)

With 12 players = 4 = (A 2,2,2,2,2,2;  B 3,3,3,3;  C 4,4,4; D 6,6)

With 14 players = 2 = (A 2,2,2,2,2,2,2; B 7,7)

With 15 players = 2 = (A 3,3,3,3,3; B 5,5,5)

With 16 players = 3 = (A 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 B 4,4,4,4; C; 8,8)

in fact the # of possibilities is equal to the number of factors - 2. This makes 12 players the most difficult but it should still be doable.

In the case of 12 players once a 3rd player joins from the same team, option A is no longer viable, and on the flip side, once there are 4 2-player teams signed up, options B,C, and D are not viable.

One issue I see is that a lot of games could get hung up on waiting for the right combination of players to join.  Although I suppose a clan page could show open games for that clan's members to join.

why not just start a league? i know it's been said whats the difference from tournaments, but i think theres a big difference. leagues would or could be alot of fun.

What's the difference between a league and tournaments?  How would leagues be structured?  I'm not saying it's a bad idea.

i think you could do it like most pro sports do. have conferences and divisions.
each team plays there conference teams at least twice and maybe randomly play others in your division a few times, then have a playoff in your division. finally you play for the (war gear cup) against the other conference.

At one point we had been discussing leagues having a certain niche/genre of boards.  For example, a "Simulgear" league with an assortment of simulgear maps.  Not sure what happened with that thread...

It seems to me like this could all be folded into some tournament upgrades.   Like being able to combine tournaments for a 'league' feel.  You could have a couple of small round robin tournaments representing divisions, then the top 2-3 from each RR tournament, get put into a double elimination tournament (i.e. the playoffs).

As for themed leagues, I think this could best be done by allowing tournaments to have multiple boards.  So you could select 5 or 10 simulgear boards.  Start up your super-tournament, and every game a random simulgear board is picked to play on.

Isn't the whole site basically divided already into 2 major tribes?

Team Risky
vs
Team M57

("Please don't let me be the last one picked....please don't let me be the last one picked...please don't let me....")

Ozyman wrote:

It seems to me like this could all be folded into some tournament upgrades.   Like being able to combine tournaments for a 'league' feel.  You could have a couple of small round robin tournaments representing divisions, then the top 2-3 from each RR tournament, get put into a double elimination tournament (i.e. the playoffs).

This makes sense to me.   I was going to comment that "leagues" in the pro sports sense don't engender a sense of comradeship - In fact, just the opposite.  The idea of tribes or clans would be more complicated because on the one hand you want to rise to the top of your clan, but on the other hand, you want your clan to be the best.

RiskyBack wrote:

Isn't the whole site basically divided already into 2 major tribes?

Team Risky
vs
Team M57

..and the entire WG community shudders when confronted with the ultimate dilemma.

Would I be able to be a member of more than 1 tribe?

AttilaTheHun wrote: Would I be able to be a member of more than 1 tribe?

No.. Unless..

For instance if there were multiple types of "tribes"  For instance, one that plays tournaments exclusively, and another that plays in a league, then sure..

But it seems to me there would be way too much conflict of interest and confusion to belong to different factions that have the possibility of playing against each other.

AttilaTheHun wrote: Would I be able to be a member of more than 1 tribe?

would there be a "tribe talk" option to messages as well as "team message?"

Candy Cane wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote: Would I be able to be a member of more than 1 tribe?

would there be a "tribe talk" option to messages as well as "team message?"

you decide..

If there's group consensus and a lot of support for an idea, tom can make it happen.  Right now he's got a pretty big project on his hands and a laundry list of other requests to deal with, but the overall structure and layout of a clan/tribe feature hasn't even been designed much less discussed and agreed upon yet.  If you have ideas, propose them.