Problem

Teams in TE are horribly skewed. just about everyone is on black. it is by far the largest team. the only thing teams are used for is to limit who you can trade with and the senator spots. Soon, everyone will be on black just because it has the most people and will be the easiest to find trades there. I see several different ways to prevent this from happening, and I encourage anyone that has any other ideas on this to present them here.

Possible Solutions:

1. Decrease the number of teams- I suggest having no more than 8 teams. that would average about 350 nations per team, high enough to keep it interesting to find trades. However, there are 2 ways I can think of doing so. Either eliminate the most popular 3-4 teams from the previous round, requiring the majority of people on TE to choose another color hopefully ending up in a more random and even spread. Or randomize which teams will be available each round, also hoping this will result in a random and even spread. Currently there is about a tenth of the people in TE that are in SE. Are the same number of teams necessary?
   
2. Eliminate teams- most people argue that teams in TE are useless. And the way it currently is, I fully agree. With a majority of the teams virtually empty, finding trades is impossible and holding a senate seat is absolutely useless. Everyone is already moving to black. Who is to stop them, or even blame them? What would be the difference of having everyone on black and not having teams all together?
   
3. Give more meaning to teams- This isn't a simple quick fix, and would require more adjustment from the SE players to have to know another rule change. However, I think this would seriously improve game play. I propose that Teams reflect geographical locations, such as continents. So instead of teams being named after a color, teams are named based off of the continents plus one for the Ocean, which could be equivalent to no team since it isn't a continent, for a total of 8 teams. Then, teams are chosen indirectly based off of placement of capital. And the color chosen to represent each location could change from round to round to prevent anyone from still being dedicated to the color that represents their continent. Now once we have location based teams, there could be further enhancements to increase strategy and improve gameplay.

For example, have your location (aka team) restrict who you could attack. Say you could only ground attack on your own continent, unless you had such and such improvement/wonder to increase its range first to surrounding continents and then another one for global reach. Say your airforce's attack range could reach to surrounding continents (including your own), unless you had such and such improvement/wonder/navy that increased their range to the entire globe. And say your navy could reach the entire globe. This would add a whole new dimension to the game and make it more interesting, IMO. Yes, it might take a bit of work and shouldn't be implemented immediately. I feel this should come a round or two after teams represent continents to help ease players into thinking about location.

If you are curious as to what would be considered a surrounding continent, just have it predetermined like the lines on a risk board. The only thing is each team should have the same number of teams that it can attack, and if one team can attack another, that other team should be able to attack back. For example, assuming each team can attack on their own continent, they would only need 3 other continents in order for them to be able to attack half of the world. And I picture it looking something like this:

Continents
1= Antarctica
2= Australia
3= Asia
4= N. America
5= S. America
6= Africa
7= Europe
8= Ocean/Atlantic/NONE

Surrounding Continents/Attack Range
1-2,5,8
2-1,3,6
3-2,4,7
4-3,5,8
5-1,4,6
6-2,5,7
7-3,6,8
8-1,4,7

just some food for thought. please chew and digest. Then tell me what you think. thanks

I like #2.

I would also like the second one best

I'm surprise not too many people responded to this
I thought that this was a superb idea
There's only a fraction of the amount of SE players in TE,
making it that much harder to find trades.
Also, with the a good percentage of people rerolling,
it makes finding suitable and lasting trades extremely difficult.

Teams are pointless anyways. Everyone looks towards their alliances. Maybe alliances should be given more authority over their alliance instead of teams?

Hey, that's a great idea! What if we replace teams with alliances? To have power over the alliance, you need votes. Would certainly make things more interesting.

I agree teams are pointless. But removing them would remove another dynamic of the game. my suggestion is to improve the teams. I believe that is what admin would prefer, but my third idea is a bit radical and I think they will decide to just pick the first idea.

@Emperor Stranger: I do not know if you are being sarcastic in your last statement, but you aren't making any sense to me. Alliances are already in control of their alliance. Teams only dictate who you can or cannot trade with.

The changes in the first solution sound good, not so much the next 2. I love being able to attack anyone, anywhere, and anytime. Not be going "well, is he in my attack range...?"

The main problem is, that your solution won't really fix the problem. For example, you say too many people are on black. Why? because RE is on black! It has 480 nations in that alliance alone. So whichever sphere the major 3 (RE, Frostbite, MHA) choose, will have a higher number of nations than the rest of the spheres.

I wasn't. Alliances have no real control of their AA. I mean, sure, if they have the right contact, they can probably have the person in their AA sanctioned or put them on a ZI list, but they still can't control who can be in their AA and such.

Just do away with the teams.

Get rid of teams, I agree - but only in TE.

@Emperor Stranger: why in the world would you want to sanction someone on your own AA? if they are rogue, they are rogue. Nothing else needs to be done except fill their warslots. And there is really no need to ghost bust in TE. Every nation whether active or inactive gives you more war slots in a defensive war. I do not see this as a problem, but if you do, then it would be a problem for SE also. However, I'd like to keep this thread about teams. You are welcome to start your own thread to discuss alliance control.

you already have to check to see if someone is in your attack range. and checking their team is just as easy since it is on any search feature you use. Like I already said, it would require adjustment, just like any game mechanic update. But if the amount of adjustment is too much of an inconvenience to fix the problem, then I agree solution 1 might be better.

I somewhat agree on your assessment. the largest alliances do contribute to the reason why certain teams are larger than others. But that alone does not make the teams broken. for the largest team to be twice the size of the second largest team and to hold over a third of the cybervers when there are 12 different teams, make it broken.

I'd like to consider the evolution of the phenomenon. Back when I played in round three, there were way more than a handful of nations on the 6 smallest spheres. And the largest two teams, blue and black were very close, with blue slightly larger at about 600 total nations. eventually a sort of survival of the fittest took place, because the following round the largest blue alliance disbanded IIRC, not a huge TE history buff, and black slowly began its dominance in TE. Major alliances have come and gone here in TE, but do you think black would have become so big without all of the other smaller alliances that flocked toward it as each round restarted because the major alliances continue to exist from round to round and stay on the same color? The smaller alliances have no reason to stay on a smaller sphere. Having a senate seat does not even come close to comparing to the advantage of being on a larger sphere with more nations to trade with. My third suggestion attempts to give more emphasis on team dominance which would encourage smaller alliances to stick it out on the smaller spheres, while providing an interesting addition to the game mechanics. The only other thing I can think of to encourage alliances to be on a smaller sphere is to give collection bonuses(income/hap/pop) that are inversely proportional to the size of the team to the alliances with senators on that sphere. But I don't like that idea because it rewards the larger alliances and creates an uneven playing field.

The only way to truly solve the problem is if there were more small/medium sized alliances and the large alliances weren't such powerhouses. But it is the nature of the game to gravitate toward larger alliances and treaty blocs for safety. Which is nobody's fault and is really irreversible. But if everything truly did reset every round, such as alliances not carrying over from round to round, then there would be no gravitation between rounds to certain color sphere creating a fairly random spread for every round. but let's face it, that'd never happen either.

Well, to sum up my feelings before this thread goes totally inactive like the rest of the threads in this area, I feel this to be a real issue that needs to be dealt with. I feel Solution 1 to be a good temporary solution to the problem, that would be easiest for both the game developers as well as the players to adjust. I feel Solution 2 eliminates a potentially useful game mechanic that the mods would probably not approve of, but by the general opinion of TE it has already truly fallen by the wayside. Solution 3 is obviously my favorite, which could definitely use some fine tuning, but I think it might be too much adapting in order save the game mechanic once known as teams in TE. I really would like to see the concept of teams improve, but I'm not going to hold my breath since I'm probably the only one here who feels this way.

oh, BTW, thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. I enjoy finding out how the rest of TE feels about this issue.

Sanctioning someone in your alliance who is ghosting would be awesome. It would certainly drive them out of it for good until they properly join.



No? When I was MoFA for Orbit Black, we wanted to fight in a war. Problem was, we didn't know how many ghosts were in our AA. We went to war with PRI, what ended up happening? Nearly half the people flying our AA were ghosts who ended up leaving the AA. We ended up losing badly because of our miscalculation in the number of ghosts we had. More defensive slots? No, because you have to remember that most ghosts are too cowardly to fight, which is why they need to ghost.



This was an option I added to replace team colors... It's kinda relevant.

ES, I don't like your ideas one bit, and it reeks of just a way to improve the game for your situation, whatever that has become since I don't pay attention anymore.

As for the original suggestion, I'd rather we just upgraded senators and removed the happiness bonus for trades all together then. Trade with any team color for the same price, makes circles easy and makes colors useful.

Give Senators the ability to play with war slots. Let them cancel/close one war slot for 5 people on their sphere defensively. Let them cancel/close one war slot for 5 people on their sphere offensively. We can protect nations we need to, and we can limit the damage to the real heavy hitters on our spheres from the other teams too.

Next I'd like to see Nuclear Sanctions placed on nations, because Nukes have SO MUCH MORE strength in TE than SE. In SE, I can safely continue to wreck someone after being nuked. In TE being nuked takes a much larger impact on nations under the top 50.

It improves my situation, but you don't know what that situation is..? You tell me that I am making this suggestion to better myself, yet you admit to ignorance of it? You are part right, I am making these suggestions to better my situation. I am also making these suggestions to better everyone else's (besides ghosts) situations..

Eh, all I know is you've made a mess of things. And knowing the way you play, you are looking to improve your ability to control your situation.

So I'm going to oppose this for that reason and the ones I already stated to improve this "problem" we're facing.

I am just here to have fun. If I am the only one having fun, then what's the point? Just because my IC character is nuts, self-conscious, and strange doesn't mean that my OOC personality is the same. (Something which much of you don't understand or realize.)

Edit: Yea, I know I just ruined the magic for some of you..

I like the idea of giving more power to senators because that would give incentive to be on a certain team. I'm not to keen on removing the happiness bonus, but a nook sanction would definitely be a good idea, though there should be a limit of like 2 per senator per week.

no word from the admins? no other suggestions from the community?

Team colors are just a pointless nuisance in TE. Anybody not on Black is at a distinct disadvantage, especially when a trade partner re-rolls midway through a round.

exactly why this is a problem that needs to be fixed.

I don't see how this is even a problem. If someone wants to be on a smaller team for whatever reason then they can. Apparently there are such reasons because every team, even the smallest teams, in TE have members. If you want to be on a larger team then there are big teams available too.

The members have spoken, admin. It's a useless feature in TE as far as many of us are concerned.

yes, there are still nations on all of the spheres, but following the trends, there will be empty teams in the near future. I feel the only reason it hasn't happened yet are due to tradition, either the nation is on that sphere in SE or they originally created their AA on that team in an earlier round. So I would like to see an end to this trend and even reverse it. However, the problem is their is no incentive to create new alliances on the smaller spheres because owning the senate is pretty pointless in its current state and there are next to no trade opportunities. I think expanding the team dynamic would add more strategy and give a reason to pick a smaller sphere other than being stubborn. Also, it would likely cause a more even spread of nations over the different teams, which would be ideal. If you insist this is still a non-issue, I assume you'll just delete the teams once they become empty?

And the Admin has spoken. Pretty sure he wins.

Only if I let him!

It's not a problem as of now in the sense that there are nations in places. There always will be some people that take the hit on a poor sphere. But I think the OP's and everyone else's opinions here have led that we'd like to see reason to split off the bigger spheres and create a little sphere politics in TE. Give some incentive to have senators which right now have one function. It can also help expand TE some more if nations have stable trades they will be less inclined to reroll to quit it altogether.

I think the biggest problem with small spheres in TE compared to SE is the ratio of members. In SE the ratio is higher, so small spheres aren't completely barren, whereas in TE you get spheres like pink with 12 people, yellow with 21, maroon with 27. The idea is to help populate the other spheres more, and I think it'd be nice to see the nations a little more spread and certain alliances controlling certain spheres.

The teams should only be eliminated if Senators are eliminated also. My group was on Black and several of us found ourselves sanctioned merely because we fought back rather than accept peace when tech-raided. So we moved off of Black.

If we are going to have it so everyone is on the same "team" and there are Senators like this who can abuse their authority, this will only serve to entrench dominant factions and diminish the ability of smaller groups to even survive, much less have a chance to compete.

I don't think having one team is even an option. either the team function gets fixed, decrease the number of teams, or eliminate them all together. unfortunately admin doesn't see the issue. But I will sure keep my eye on how the teams continue to evolve, or rather devolve.

I think I like teams now. I just joined pink and although I don't have many trades, I am still enjoying being in a smaller color. (One vote and I am senator, lol.)

and serves you well it does.

The feeling of security is overwhelming.