Proposed:

In tournaments (and possibly even regular games), the option to set aside seats for teammates.

Arguments Against:

1. Only strong players will only team up with strong players.
2. Tournaments might take longer to fill because of the wait for registered teammates (a certain # of whom might fail to show).

Arguments For:

1. Argument a. Against will not occur. In fact, top players should benefit more by partnering with lower ranked players so as to gain more points per win.  Lower ranked players will be mentored up in the ranks and the result will be a fluid and dynamic system.
2. Argument b. Against should be mitigated by the fact that the system will encourage more people to join in the first place.
3. Members are already "reserving" seats for their partners.  When a non-invited member joins their team, they leave the tournament.
4. Some players avoid starting a team in the first place.  They watch as the tournament fills and try to join up with someone who they know or want to play with; In other words, players are able to be selective regarding their partners already. Why not support and streamline that process?
5. Teamplay will become more popular. Players may end up forming informal or ad hoc guilds.

Specifics/Options:

1. If the team doesn't fill after x amount of time (equivalent to the turn time limit), the team is dissolved.
2. If the team doesn't fill after x amount of time, remaining seats become available.
3. The ability of the "captain" of the team to select one of the two above options.

Additional arguments for/against, thoughts, adjustments?  +1s, -1's..

1. If the team doesn't fill after x amount of time, remaining seats become available.
2. The ability of the "captain" of the team to select one of the two above options.

+1 if the captain is the guy that creates the team  

-options could just be a drop down or check box beside the create team button.

ratsy wrote:

1. If the team doesn't fill after x amount of time, remaining seats become available.
2. The ability of the "captain" of the team to select one of the two above options.

+1 if the captain is the guy that creates the team  

I thought that was implied.  I should have been specific.

-options could just be a drop down or check box beside the create team button.

Exactly

Nice summary.  I added it to the wiki.

I'd love this.  There are people I want to play with on the site that I don't know in RL and I don't want to work out some "meet you here at 6:00 thing"

Can anyone think of a reason this shouldn't be extended to ALL games, not just tournament?

+1. This would be great. I love team games and would play a lot more if this were the format. It would be fun to have that for all games, not just tournament games.

+1 for any team games.

When I first wrote this idea I meant it for all team games. I think a lot more team games would be played this way so all upside no downside.

+1 to this idea

Seeing more and more comments like the ones in this tournament: http://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/1660

If we did formalize pre-organized teams, I imagine all serious team games would become dominated by this arrangement. Another thing to consider might be splitting team games into pre-organized and random teams. Not sure how popular or competitive random teams might be, or if there's even a desire to preserve them though..

I like this idea because sometimes I want to play a tournament with a specific player. I joined one team tournament recently and posted a message to leave a seat open for my partner to join. I guess people can't read and the seat was taken before he got on. So I had to leave the tournament and rejoin and create a new team. Just use a fraction of the game turn time limit for seat holds. If it is a one day turn limit just allow 6 hours for a seat hold for example.

As a second option I would like to see an option for balanced teams. Meaning no one picks their team. Once enough players have joined the system can assign teams to balance out the play level based on rankings. What is the incentive to join a team game when the last spot is a with a poorly ranked player or one with lots of boots and the other teams are very highly ranked?

koosh wrote:

What is the incentive to join a team game when the last spot is a with a poorly ranked player or one with lots of boots and the other teams are very highly ranked?

I'm not trying make an argument against being able to choose teammates, but I believe having a lower ranked teammate does increase your GPs when you win and decreases them as you lose.  Optimally, the GP system could be overhauled to leverage this even more with a system like TrueSkill. 

koosh wrote:

As a second option I would like to see an option for balanced teams. Meaning no one picks their team. Once enough players have joined the system can assign teams to balance out the play level based on rankings. What is the incentive to join a team game when the last spot is a with a poorly ranked player or one with lots of boots and the other teams are very highly ranked?

Though not determined by rank, random teams already exists but no one ever uses it.  And, I don't think it'll really ever be used much except in private tournaments where, at least, the field of players could be hand-picked to assure that no one gets randomized with a complete dud of a player who gets booted from every game.

+1

I love team games, especially the A&A ones, but I've had too many bad teammate experiences to want anymore.

As it is I will never start a team game or tourney unless someone I trust is online and ready to join. I will also not join any team game or tourney if teammate spots are open. 

It might make it easier for the few elite "killer" teams,  but it might also provide more competition at the top as people who normally don't play tourneys get pulled into a few more.  

Perhaps a invite for your whole friends list also? I go through the same thing on team games. Love them when they're good, but a team tournament with a guy that doesn't show up is no fun.

Vyro wrote:

+1 to this idea

Seeing more and more comments like the ones in this tournament: http://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/1660

If we did formalize pre-organized teams, I imagine all serious team games would become dominated by this arrangement. Another thing to consider might be splitting team games into pre-organized and random teams. Not sure how popular or competitive random teams might be, or if there's even a desire to preserve them though..

At first glance, the idea of additionally having a Random or Semi-Randomly (so the average rankings fall in a range) picked teammates  tournament sounds interesting, but ultimately, people like to pick their teammates. That said, I think it would be cool to have "flighted" tournaments, where the average ranking for a team had to fall into range..   I think this idea would be hard to implement with public tournaments, but if there were guilds, even of the informal variety...!?