Team play forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
kh1066
6/06/2006
16:44:49
[ report this post ] |
 Subject: Captains
Message:
Having only been a team captain for just over six months there may be Captains better qualified to say what could be improved but a though has occured to me so I thought I would put it out there for you to ponder.
I would like to see each team have to make as many challenges as they receive over a period of time. This would obviously have to work within certain parameters (+/- 2 over a month for instance), but surely all team captains should have to work as hard in arranging their games.
A system like this would stimulate more competition as Captains would have to find matches where as they may sit back at present.
Would it represent an improvement?
|
chilliman
6/06/2006
21:23:34
[ report this post ] | a lot would of what you suggest would
Message:
depend on how many team members you have, how many games they have set in their preferences, how long they take to move and the preferred length of team games (3, 5 or 7 days per move) that you habitually enter into. other factors include vacation flags, timeouts, pro rata for new team members joining mid-month or players leaving the team mid-month, the size of the team challenge (would a two player match up count for the same as a 10 player match up?).
other than that it is a great idea.
|
kh1066
6/07/2006
03:25:49
[ report this post ] | Chilliman
Message:
Thanks for the positive note at the end I thought I would receive nothing back but sarcastic replies for daring to put a suggestion out there for discussion.
All of the things you mention are items the team captains already have to take into account when arranging a match, that would not change.
All that would change is that a team captain would have to actively seek other teams to challenge to keep within parameters.
After all it is team captains challenging other teams that keeps the whole system running.
|
eqj2
6/09/2006
13:11:43
[ report this post ] |
Message:
Hi I am not a team captain. Though I hold the title of co-captain my team captain is a student and is very busy with school I also know of some others that have school also. My part of the team is to help with finding team games. I think this might hinder some teams maybe even lose some. Just a though cheers Eddie
|
utvols1
6/29/2006
20:34:14
[ report this post ] | Challenges
Message:
Thay are hard to come by sometimes. I get about one challenge for ever ten I send out. But I really dont mind. I have a smaller team, only 15-20 players. And I keep our dance card pretty full. So I can see where I wouldnt recieve that many challenges. And I dont want to haft to set and wait when I reach my max of sent challenges. Lazy Captains make for lazy teams.
One thing I would like to see is a automatic decline rule of say 24 hours. Some Captains will not message you back. Witch leads to missing some games. Not all Captains do this. And there are some really good ones out there. And thanks to all of you . I think you have hit on something here though, but more out of we all need to comunicate better. We all have our teams, but we are all kind of on the same team as Captains.
Allen-Captain Team PAE
|
maca
6/30/2006
06:26:03
[ report this post ] | Posting Challenges
Message:
I've been a captain for a few monts now, and I do believe that there is a lot of room for improvement with team challenge culture here in GK.
Just as utvols1 said, the odds for a match challange that you propose to really become accepted are pretty low. I'ts propably ok for smaller teams, but what about teams like TFIF with 80+ members? The reason for this is that captains post the challanges in various ways. I believe that this practical issue can be overcome by making sure that captains use similar methods while posting and answering challenges.
I think what we really need here in GK is a sort of a challenge protocol, that all (or as many as possible, at least) captains would use while posting challenges. Currently, there is almost nothing in common with the ways that captains post the challenges, which makes the process a whole lot harder and time-taking.
This protocol (far too fancy word) should include mostly practical stuff about arranging team matches. I've been thinking this for a while now and I've come up with at least the following points (fell free to add and comment):
1) Big teams have far bigger change to have players free than smaller teams. This not that important point now that we have the green dot, but in general, I sort of feel that smaller teams should be those who CHALLENGE, and bigger team should BE CHALLENGED. This is also becouse I think that captains of the smaller teams know their players much better than those of bigger teams.
2) Currently, there are three possible time controls for team challenges. Teams should indicate clearly on the team page (meaning from now on the teams GK info page, not homepage), which time control they prefer.
3) Green dot indicates that the player has room for extra team matches. Team captain should take great care that every players has set their # of team matches in the "preferences" corretly, and really consider, whether any player should use "unlimited" -setting.
4) The minium for # of team games is currently 2. If, for some reason, player should not be included to any team games (player is on long vacation without vacation flag or preparing to leave the team, for example), this should be indicated clearly on team's page.
5) Most teams prefer to set certain rating ranges (+/-) that they do not wish to exceed while pairing the players, to make the process fair. These ranges should be indicated clearly on the team's page. In case of the higher-rated players (1900+ or so), it might be required to extend these limits, since these players are hard to come by.
6) Captain that is about to challenge should take a look at other team's page and avoid making challenges with time controls that other team doesn't like to use (2) or including players that should not be included (4). Also, the rating ranges should be considered (5). Team page layout should be simple, in order that this information can be found quickly.
7) In the rare case that there is a player whose rating is greatly incorrect (as the result of timeouts or mass resignations) involved into a challenge, the captains should note this to the other captain while challenging/answering the challenge, and include an evaliuation of players correct rating, so that a fair pairing within the prefered rating ranges is possible. This is to avoid possible future accusations of cheating.
8) While responding a challenge, the captain should always go for the FAIREST POSSIBLE pairing. Tha captain should consider the whole pairing within the prefered rating range, and not only a single pair of players.
9) In case a fair pairing is only partly possible, it is preferable to COUNTER the challenge. The counterchallenge should include all players that make fair pairs with the players of the opposing team's original challenge, but no additional players should be included. The team captain RECEIVING the the original challenge should counter, rather than just ask the opposing team's captain to counter.
10) After posting a challenge, a captain should, if possible, stay online for a short perioid of time (I personally wait at least 10-15 minutes), to give the opponent time to respond, especially if the opposing captain is online. This is becouse most captains want to handle the challenges as fast as possible, and not to let them "hang". This is yet more important if captain uses "Team captains currently online" -option to arrange challenges. I think that most captain prefer to use this option, and that's why a captain should NEVER hide their online status.
11) "Hanging" challanges should be answered as fast as possible.
Regards,
MaCa,
the captain of Team Finland and. Int. Friends.
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
|  |
