I looking for potential participants for a team game aimed at mentoring noobs (such as myself).

I recall a game in a similar vein organized a while ago. Currently, I see it as a 3x3x3 game, where each team consists of two noobs (no more than a handful of games vs humans, possibly no team game experience) and one experienced player who will lead the team and give useful hints to those under his command.

Ideas for guidelines:
- teams are assembled pre-game; no inter-team alliances - set all 6 others to enemy on 2401
- starting locations possibly modified to keep team members close
- some, but not crazy, team optimization (at least that habs are mostly non-overlapping, and that tech specialties are assigned)
- relaxed PRT/LTR selection - let the noobs play those fun races if they want, as long as they're not defective (team leader's call)
- maybe CA should be banned for team leaders, or maybe entirely (too much of a bonus to a team?)
- no duplicate PRTs within a team
- standard cheats
- a team wins the game by an unanimous vote of leaders of the other two teams

I'm open to other suggestions.

The whole point is to play a fun game and learn some about running an alliance efficiently.

Now waiting for eager noobs and willing mentors.

Report message to a moderator

+1 eager noob

Also I think guys from that thread have already faced the rules definition problem with allowing race optimisations. I think instead of lettings noobs play fun races the rules should just clearly state the optimisation is required. That's because fun races alliance will have no chance against optimised.

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Tue, 27 April 2010 19:46]

Report message to a moderator

slimdrag00n wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 01:45

My experience with 3 member team is a lot of coordination, Its very time consuming, you have to check multiple turns.

That wouldn't be too different with Teams of 2, or of 4, at least if every teammate does their part of the work.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 21:46

slimdrag00n wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 01:45 My experience with 3 member team is a lot of coordination, Its very time consuming, you have to check multiple turns. That wouldn't be too different with Teams of 2, or of 4, at least if every teammate does their part of the work.

Well with two other players you gotta double check with both players. While in email its a slow process of everyone agreeing with what they are doing. Its not so bad but in the later years there can be a lot.

But It was just my opinion because when I was just Paulsik ally we talked on yahoo messenger and it was instant as we worked on are turns doing the tweeks. My turns took like 30 minutes even at year 69 and another 30 or so just talking and tweaking my turn. We didn't have to wait for a 3rd to agree and coordinate. That is all I meant. Just me cause I am Limited on time these days.

Report message to a moderator

slimdrag00n wrote on Thu, 29 April 2010 04:32

Well with two other players you gotta double check with both players. While in email its a slow process of everyone agreeing with what they are doing.

It depends on how much coordination the Team wants/needs. Some Teams don't even bother if a Teammate misses a turn, others coordinate only the main actions, some use all kinds of tools, diagrams, even Powerpoint slides.

Report message to a moderator

What makes a BIG difference is timezone. It helps tons if all 3 are in the same timezone. That would make it easier to use IM/IRC/email/etc. to coordinate turns. if all 3 guys are in the same time zone even email discussions wouldn't take that long.

Something to think about when putting teams together.

EDIT. I'd be a willing helper. Not sure how many players in the mentor database is still active (maybe just send a PM) So give me a shout.

EDIT2. I believe Ashlyn ran a mentor/team game a few years back. See if she might have some pointers or tips

[Updated on: Thu, 29 April 2010 17:10]

Report message to a moderator

Hi!
I could play a mentor, but noobs beware! I'm a meticulous MM-heavy guy. Expect harsh apprenticeship.


If I can I'd vote for:
- 4 teams of 2 players (less coordination MM),
- banning CA,
- members close and
- ~35 planets per player.

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

So guys, are we going to start soon?
If I don't miss anything, 2 pros has proposed their participation: iztok and ForceUser. Thanks guys!

m.a@stars, will you take part?

Anybody else?

slimdrag00n, are you playing as noob or as pro?

Let's simply play team game without any special rules to make noobs life easier

2 noobs + 1 pro in a team is funny, but I think this should be decided by pros, whether they want to take this load of coordination or just go with 1 + 1.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Easiest would be to start a new thread in the new games section. how the teams will be would most likely depend on how many beginners want to play and how many experienced players are available.

As I understand it the idea for the game would be to help beginners get a feel for multiplayer against human players in a supportive environment. The most common rule setup would be something like what iztok mentioned: CA banned with the additional "JOAT may not take NAS" of course. I think it would be good to go from there so that the beginners don't play a race/setup that wont be normally available.

It would help I think if we can match players to timezones as far as possible. Or at least know when the experienced and beginner players can communicate easily.

Some minor optimization would also be a good idea I agree, stuff like habs and tech.

So now we just need to start a new game thread

Report message to a moderator

paul_ik wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 10:02

slimdrag00n, are you playing as noob or as pro?

Definitely as a noob if we are playing with teams of two.

[Updated on: Mon, 03 May 2010 12:13]

Report message to a moderator

paul_ik wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 16:02

m.a@stars, will you take part?

Tempting, but alas I'm already too entangled.

Report message to a moderator

ForceUser wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 17:18

Easiest would be to start a new thread in the new games section. how the teams will be would most likely depend on how many beginners want to play and how many experienced players are available.

I believe the problem is in finding pros for this game. I hope at least one more pro will join so we have at least 3 teams. Common guys, noobs need you

ForceUser wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 17:18

Some minor optimization would also be a good idea I agree, stuff like habs and tech.

Why only minor optimisation?
I can't see any means to prevent full optimisation performed by teams. So why don't we simply agree that this game is a true team game, so every team is allowed design what they want in order to win (with per-race restrictions: banned CA and JOAT+NAS).

Once the rules are good for every pro (nobody asks noobs, huh) we can create new game thread.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Ok, so it seems everybody favors 2-players team.
Any comments about optimisation? Am I alone in understanding this as a full-blown team game?
Still no more pros.
iztok, ForceUser can you describe your game experience so that we can have a feeling of what "pro" status means Maybe this will help other potential leaders to join the game.

Report message to a moderator

Any room left for another n00b?

Report message to a moderator

JonB wrote on Thu, 06 May 2010 23:25

Any room left for another n00b?

This entirely depends on whether more pros will join us.

Report message to a moderator

I'll keep popping back here on the off chance then

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

What about people who have played a few games but are definitely very far away from being pros?

I'd give myself "advanced beginner" at best.

Report message to a moderator

My

Teams of 2 is probably better than teams of 3 for a mentoring game. Going over 2 will add drastically to the time spent on coordination. The Team Leader will already have a heavy drain on their time, if they're watching their Beginner(s) actions carefully. Best not to make that worse.

Optimisation of the races should be considered mandatory, not optional. Pre-game planning is one of the most important parts of Stars. I'd suggest that the Expert should take the lead in the race design - while discussing with the Beginner the pros and cons of the style of game they'd *prefer* to play.

Small universe for 2v2v2 or 2v2v2v2. It's a beginner game, so don't overwhelm the Beginners with size. A larger universe, where you expect to fight with nubians and fleet ID limits, is probably beyond the scope of a beginner game.

Ban CA, unless perhaps you were willing to let two Beginners play *without* the help of an Expert.

No such thing as a Stars Pro (I wish!) But what makes an Expert? Hrm. Wins with multiple PRTs and play/race styles. Detailed knowledge of the guts of Stars. Knowing roughly how a big battle will play out without needing to actually test it. Ultimately, it's someone who can join games *expecting* to win, and is more often right than wrong to make that assumption.

Time zone is definitely important. I'm currently in the latter stages of a game where I'm allied with a player who often plays at same time of day I do, and the coordination has proved far more fruitful than any I'd experienced before. I'm used to an ally just being a vague source of tech and a safe border, but this has been very different indeed.

The game should probably go to 48 hour gens fairly early on (something like 2425 or 2430,) because of the requirement for teams to coordinate. If the time zones are well matched then the game could run daily.

Report message to a moderator

Deuce wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 00:13

What about people who have played a few games but are definitely very far away from being pros? I'd give myself "advanced beginner" at best.

We can allow teams consisting of two players who are neither complete beginners, nor Experts. They will have to spend some time to read forum and learn how to optimize races, and it's a good experience anyway.

Dogthinkers wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 15:49

My

I like all of the suggestions, especially the one about mandatory optimisation.

Dogthinkers wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 15:49

No such thing as a Stars Pro (I wish!) But what makes an Expert? Hrm. Wins with multiple PRTs and play/race styles. Detailed knowledge of the guts of Stars. Knowing roughly how a big battle will play out without needing to actually test it. Ultimately, it's someone who can join games *expecting* to win, and is more often right than wrong to make that assumption.

Thanks for making this clear (maybe some of the Experts are too shy to take the role of Pros? )
So please, anybody who has decent experience to be Expert, come and help hopeless noobs!

Dogthinkers wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 15:49

I'm currently in the latter stages of a game...

Are you hinting at finishing that game soon and being able to play as mentor?

Report message to a moderator

paul_ik wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 00:18

Are you hinting at finishing that game soon and being able to play as mentor?

But I'm not an expert

'Lucky Upper Intermediate', no more, demonstrated amply by a elementary blunder I've managed to duplicate in both my current games... Caught out by a very well known bug. It would've proven cataclysmic in the older game, if I hadn't taken smaller hits from it in the newer game first.

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Sat, 22 May 2010 13:58

But I'm not an expert 'Lucky Upper Intermediate', no more, demonstrated amply by a elementary blunder I've managed to duplicate in both my current games... Caught out by a very well known bug. It would've proven cataclysmic in the older game, if I hadn't taken smaller hits from it in the newer game first.

Ha!

Mentor someone...pass on those digusting diplomatic skillz

Report message to a moderator