[ciscokid]

Are there any plans to make the arranging of team games easier? Perhaps clicking on the names and putting them in the desginated table and direction. Any thoughts on how the arranging of Team Games can be made easier and faster?

-CK

[1eyedjack]

Yes!

It would be an order of magnitude easier if we could just create the team tables without a full complement of players, just as you can create partial tables in the main playing area.

[inquiry]

How team games are arranged and started is an area that clearly could use some improvement. This would be a good thread for ideas, so if you have some, add them here. I don't think I favor random fill seats like you have in the main room (or if you do, have two different team game rooms, one for ad hoc teams, where people start tables, and others can join at will), and competitive one where you have say so over who sits as your teammates at table two.

Ben

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Aug 11 2004, 04:37 PM, said:

How team games are arranged and started is an area that clearly could use some improvement. This would be a good thread for ideas, so if you have some, add them here.

Here's one idea that I find kind of intriquing:

Right now, BBO uses a "top down" interface for creating team games.
One player is responsible for organizing the team game:
That player finds 8 souls who are willing to play in a match.
Adds them all to the team game, and bam... Your team game off and running.

This system works well if the game organizer has perfect information, but it can create some trouble trying to spontaneously organize games...

What if this structure were complemented with what I would term a "bottom's up" approach.

Sets of players can advertize that they are interested in playing in a team match.
A set of players could consist of either

1. A singleton
2. A pair
3. A foursome

In turn, other sets of players could invite players to either

1. Cooperate
2. Compete

For example, a singleton could invite another singleton to form a pair...
A pair could invite another pair to form a team...
A foursome could challenge another foursome to a match.

The system should include some mechanism by which individuals could post different types of information. For example, a singleton might advertize that he is interested in finding a partner who is comfortable playing Acol. Alternatively, a team might want to advertize that they are playing Precision...

From my perspective, both the tops down and bottom's up interfaces have some unique advantages. It would probably be worth trying to preserve both...

[joker_gib]

A long time ago, I posted this :

It is difficult to find 8 players (lot of chat ....) and it is off course easier to find 4.

So, why not create a "team desk" where you can register a team of 4 players. This "team desk" will work just as the "partnership desk" in a pair tournament !

[ciscokid]

Perhaps it can be as simple as this:

The existing invite screen is used with the ability to click on an individual and add them to a given seat (there will also be a remove button), and once they are added (or removed), a confirmation goes to that individual. When all seats are filled, the team game is started (by a start button that the team game organizer clicks).

-CK

[sceptic]

I wonder if it is possible for a team of to advertise for another team of 4 in BBO, then each capitain of the team enters their team name and bingo it does it all for you.

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Aug 11 2004, 08:37 AM, said:

I don't think I favor random fill seats like you have in the main room

The random element can be eliminated, just as it can in the main playing area, by granting the host the option of requiring "permission to join". The random player applies for permission to sit, and the the host accepts or rejects (or, if he is not bothered, he can disable the permission to join requirement, just as he can in the main playing area). And, just as in the main playing area, the host could fill in seat reservations as a further layer of control. If a random applicant sees that all seats are reserved for a player named "XXX" then he can reasonably suppose that random applicants are not solicited, just as is the case when you see such reservations in the main playing area.

Furthermore, whilst I recognise that the resources of the programmers are not limitless, there is I think, apart from that restriction, in principle no reason why one solution need be pursued to the exclusion of others. You may not wish to participate in teams matches that are initiated in such a manner. I would be happy to do so, and the greater the flexibility in the methods of starting teams matches the better.

Why does your objection to random applicants have any more validity in teams games than at a single table in the main playing area?

I am sure that there are other equally (or more) worthwhile methods of starting teams matches, but this suggestion at least (to me, instinctively) sounds like one that might be fairly simple to implement. I suspect that much of the code is already written, for implementation in the main playing area.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on Aug 11 2004, 01:45 PM, said:

Why does your objection to random applicants have any more validity in teams games than at a single table in the main playing area?

The reason is simple. In the main room, the results are compared to 15 other tables. It makes little difference rather your opponents are because the results are controlled by 60 random players at the other tables. So while I play very competititvely in the open room, I don't take it as too serious bridge.

When I play team game, I play very seriously. I mean to win, and I hope the others are playing that way too. Now a random pair (read for fun players, not for blood players) as my teammates in the second room can spoil the game for me. Likewise, a random pair of opponents can do the same.

Do I need gold stars as teammates or opponents for team matches? No. I play with all levels of players in team matches, but what I do want playing is people who take the team match seriously, and who are trying their best to win. Trying your best to win in open room does little good per se (other than for the beauty of the game itself), becasue the results are so random....

Ben

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Aug 11 2004, 01:05 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Aug 11 2004, 01:45 PM, said:

Why does your objection to random applicants have any more validity in teams games than at a single table in the main playing area?

The reason is simple.

OK copy that.
I still think that my suggestion would serve your needs as well as mine, but I accept that an alternative might serve yours better.

[fred]

We know we have to do something to improve the
way team games are set up and we are listening to
this thread, but at this point in time it is impossible
to predict when you might see major changes in this
area. It could be a while...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[ciscokid]

Thanks for the information Fred, and I'm sure you'll continue to get others to post their ideas and suggestions.

In order to set expectations on when improvements might be implemented, are we talking 3-6 months, 6 months - one year, more, less? I would hope this would be high on the priorty list as I enjoy team games as my preferred bridge activity.

Don't worry, we will not come hunt you down and flog you in public if your estimate is off.

-CK

[fred]

All I can tell you for sure is that it won't happen in
our next release (which basically means it won't
happen in August).

I would put the odds of seeing these changes within
3 months at about 25%, within 6 months about 50%
and within 1 year close to 100%.

We have become somewhat sidetracked by some
vugraph-related work that will be required for the
World Championships in October.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Gweny]

How about this...

Set up sign up for team game. Person making it is td and limit is 8 people this way you can sign up at will if you are singleton or pairs via same software we use for main tournament area... you can sign up for team a or team b
partnership desk functions same way and when it gets 4 for each team then match is start.

if person wants to arrange with select people they can use list just like in main so it is not rewriting entire modual it is only maybe minor tweaks like max = 8 players but it can use all other things thereby eliminating this annoy cancel thing if someone is off line, typos, accepting, etc. since people must go sign up.

This also give td far more options like time per board, mp/imp etc

[xx1943]

Gweny, on Aug 12 2004, 07:20 AM, said:

How about this...

Set up sign up for team game. Person making it is td and limit is 8 people this way you can sign up at will if you are singleton or pairs via same software we use for main tournament area... you can sign up for team a or team b
partnership desk functions same way and when it gets 4 for each team then match is start.

Hi Gweny

I tried this type of team-match (it is possible without any change of the existing software) and all players liked it much. The only disadavantage is that you have no barometer-scoring.
What I enjoy in team-matches very much is to look how a specific board is played at the other table.

Al

[hotShot]

I still think the best way would be to create a team match with players sitout1-sitout8.

After that the match is visible to all. Players can list as subs and the TD can use the existing subbing tool to seat the players. Tourney chat can be used to organise seating without flooding the lobby.

Only problem is not to show the cards before all are seated.

Since most of this already exists it should not be to hard to implement.