It was fun, I liked getting to know some folks on ACC who admitted that they have been a bit "shy". Any event that gets people using ACC and making new friendships is a success. Red Team for Life!
Like many others said, though, it would've been better if the teams were more evenly distributed among those who wanted to play, instead of distributed evenly across everyone on ACC, whether they're active or not.
Even if the teams were balanced, though, I feel like after the first few days, it becomes a case of "David & Goliath". For instance, in the Blueberries event, the Red Team got a lead of about 50 points within a few days. This means if four people on Blue Team are online, why would they try to go pick blueberries? The odds of them hitting Red Team's score is slim-to-none. Meanwhile, on Red Team, we'd see Blue start to get into the positives, and we'd immediately start gobbling up blueberries, because we knew we were winning and wanted to close the buffer.
This attitude applied for all of the games. Someone on blue team gets close in the span of 5 hours in Post the Most, so we all agree to work hard to bring the gap back to at least double. We were close to tying in Connect Four, so we were talking about not playing with one person and picking the game back up once they went offline in an attempt to keep our lead. We were close to getting six times the points in Blueberries, so we all agreed to gobble them like mad to hit the milestone, because why not? I feel like the best solution is to "reboot" the games each day.
For instance, instead of "Pick the Blueberries - R:210, B:35" (Red Wins!), we'll have:
"Pick the Blueberries: Monday Pickings! - R:35, B:5" (Red Wins!) "Pick the Blueberries: Tuesday Pickings! - R:15, B:20" (Blue Wins!)
This way, every day is a fresh start for the teams to compete, without it seeming like a waste of time for the team that's behind. It would encourage someone on Blue who's interested in joining on Thursday to actually try their hardest, since there's a decent chance at racking up wins for Blue.
All in all, I had fun. Congrats to my fellow Reds on such an incredible win.
"We were close to tying in Connect Four, so we were talking about not playing with one person and picking the game back up once they went offline in an attempt to keep our lead."
Well, you were talking about that.
I had a lot of fun! This was the most active that I've been on ACC in a long time, and it brought some newness to the site that was really nice. I especially enjoyed the Scattergories and Connect Four games.
I don't think that I agree with Gavin's argument that things would still end up lopsided if the teams were balanced. Why would the winning team have any more incentive to run up the score than the blue team would to try to catch up? I don't think that the gap in participation levels was really any bigger on the last day than it was on the first day. lol blue team vs winning team That said, the teams were definitely unbalanced, but sometimes that's just how it turns out when you assign teams randomly. I don't think that there's a problem with making it random again next time. If the teams are even, cool. If they're not, then that's the way the cookie crumbles. Of course, the teams should definitely be assigned in a different way next time. Perhaps instead of odd vs. even User IDs it could be 4n and 4n+1 against 4n+2 and 4n+3?
Let me know if you'd like to join the Current Events Discussion PT!
Depending on amount of participating, balanced teams could cause the games to be more chaotic, due to an increase in frequency of posting. I feel this would occur in all types of games. However, some games can do just fine with that influx like the games that were geared towards individual members ie the adventure of Luck game and the Snail Game.
Games like Connect Four and Blueberries, I feel something to consider with influx in balanced teams or huge amount of active members participating, would be that posts would be quick and in high frequency that those games may be subject to no control or editing posts due to high amount of posts after an opposite team member has posted or a team member has posted (depending on game). This issue is something to consider if in future there are more ACCer's interested in participating and the teams are more balanced.
Also, I think to battle the issue stated above in this post, or an interesting concept in general, would be to add more teams like a Green team and/or a Yellow team. This would also create more competitiveness than one team getting owned by another due to imbalanced team members participating.
Finally, I'd like to say kudos to the Blue Team for staying till the end!!! And, to all on the Red Team who didn't participate... it's our flag not yours! We earned it! Jk! REPRESENT YOUR AWESOME RED TEAM!!!
I really enjoyed it! I do feel bad that the blue team never won a single point. So maybe something like that can be fixed in the future? I would love to participate in another color war! I especially loved Adventure Of Luck. Congratulations for the Red Team and good game for both!
Negativity is a part of you. It'll always be by your side.
I was on the blue team, and so that shaped how I see things. I noticed that during the color wars I had brought up a few times that the teams were uneven, but every single time I was shut down because "there's an equal number of people on each teams." While this is in correct in a sense, it only matters what team active players were on, since if someone permabanned or someone who has been inactive for years is on the blue team, it doesn't really help. I counted on a couple of threads, and pretty consistently there were more than twice the amount of red team members playing on any given day. I'm glad that in this thread people seem to agree on that.
I agree that it would've turned out better if people that decided to play were opted into a team rather than everyone being randomized. When you have a small sample size, sometimes these problems happen. I think the idea of having it reset each day would help a fair amount, but if it's still so lopsided I’m not sure that that would help enough. For most of the games, you needed to either be quick, have a lot of chances, or both. When you don’t have many players, you don’t even have a shot at that. And at that point, what’s even the meaning of having a competition?
While I did have fun, I definitely would have played more if I knew that my team had a chance at ever catching up. I noticed too a lot of people coming in to check their team, seeing that they were on blue team, and then never participating. I have a feeling that in most cases the people realized that their team was too far behind to even bother trying, and so weren’t able to enjoy the game. I feel bad that they came on wanting to play, but then saw how things were actually panning out and then left for good. I think the purpose of an event like this should be to try to be as fun as possible for the most number of people. In the case of this event, it was randomly decided for you at the beginning if you would be able to be on the team that was having the most fun.
I did enjoy the event, I thought that the games were well thought out and I spent a lot of time on it, but I would have had a lot more fun if the teams had been more even. A good portion of the time I was the only person on my team participating in a game while the other team had several people working together, and that takes away incentives to play. I would have had a better experience and spent more time playing if it felt more balanced.
Starry, starry night
Paint your palette blue and grey