1. Welcome to Hungercraft!

    Welcome to the home of the first and best Minecraft Hungergames Community! Please login or register in order to start building your stats! You can view our available servers here to play with us in-game!

    Already a member? Login Now!

Community Poll Should Towering be Allowed? Results. And What about Teams?

Discussion in 'News and Announcements' started by xFoxtrotx, Nov 27, 2012.

?

What size should be the cap for teams?

Poll closed Nov 30, 2012.
  1. No Teams

    2 vote(s)
    2.8%
  2. 2

    3 vote(s)
    4.2%
  3. 3

    15 vote(s)
    20.8%
  4. 4

    28 vote(s)
    38.9%
  5. 5+

    24 vote(s)
    33.3%
  1. xFoxtrotx

    xFoxtrotx Manager Administrator Media Team Official Winner

    Messages:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Team:
    The Bootleggers
    IGN:
    xFoxtrotx
    One of the hardest decisions for admins is deciding whether or not to allow teams in Hungercraft. We also know that you guys feel very strongly one way or the other on the topic of appropriate sizes/the existence of teams. Well, here is your chance to officially express your view and to vote on it.

    Ballet Options:

    "No Teams" - Teams should not be allowed at all.
    "2" - Teams should not be larger than 2 people.
    "3" - Teams should not be larger than 3 people.
    "4" - Teams should not be larger than 4 people.
    "5+" - Teams can be larger than 5 people/there should not be a cap on the size of teams.

    Remember to keep discussion civil, otherwise we will lock this thread. Also, there will be exceptions to the rule of teams in certain situations; such as a team tournament.

    RESULTS:

    From the poll that you guys voted on here, towering will be allowed in Hungercraft. From this point on, moderators and admins will not be interfering for players towering, regardless of the situation. For better or for worse, this is what you guys want and we respect that.
  2. Sam

    Sam Active Combatant

    Messages:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Team:
    HC's Good Boy
    IGN:
    ChocolateJuice
    Hmmm. I am going to go out on a limb that Yamata/other former KWG members will vote for 5+...
  3. Yamata4TW

    Yamata4TW Gold Donor

    Messages:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Team:
    Teto-Chan
    IGN:
    Yamata4TW
    Four would be nice since only four Equinox usually get in events anyways ;p
    zemphon likes this.
  4. Cookies

    Cookies Coal Donor

    Messages:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Team:
    Combüstible Nüggets
    IGN:
    BloodyCooki
    I voted 4 due to my own personal reasons with Equinox being a bit too large for my comforts. As there is also in lobbies/pubs/events a team of 2-4 people is fine for the time being.
  5. DJisbored

    DJisbored Combatant

    Messages:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    8
    IGN:
    DJisbored
    There's really no reason that teams should ever exceed 3 people. A team of four is more than 10% of a full game, and there are few who would actually have a chance of putting a dent in them without and equally sized team. Three is probably the perfect size, and I'd be fine with things going that way, but I would still prefer things being smaller. Saying no teams at all is a little harsh (and would probably be hard to implement). Two would be nicest because you can still have teamwork and get thing done that you couldn't alone, without becoming an unstoppable force to the rest of the game. But that's my personal preference. Based on the community's behavior and what's best, then teams of three would work just fine.

    However why bother trying to make the community argue with each other about what's best? Once everything's up and running again, why not just designate different rules to different servers? In the past we've had some servers with voting and some without, why not do the same with teams?

    1: no teams
    2: limited to teams of two
    3: limited to teams of three
    4: limited to teams of three
    5: no restrictions on teams
    6: team tourney practice
    or something similar

    The fine details could be discussed, but I see no reason why one ideal has to rule over all others.
    Sam and Sebomon like this.
  6. 0Krux0

    0Krux0 Lapis Donor Official Winner

    Messages:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Team:
    KoRT
    IGN:
    Kruxization
    I believe teams of 4 are the best size but groups like Equinox with 10 members should not be broken apart if a lower number wins, 4 of their members will just be limit ingame.
  7. Hatched

    Hatched Active Combatant

    Messages:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    28
    IGN:
    Hatched
    I only team on events otherwise i'm solo or I ally with someone.
    Now a days teams aren't much of a problem like they used to be, I hate to have a restriction on teams but I think 4 would be a good maximum :)
  8. FloppehFeesh

    FloppehFeesh Coal Donor Official Winner

    Messages:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Team:
    Clockwork
    IGN:
    FloppehFeesh
    4 is the perfect amount in my opinions. Coming from experience four seems the most balance and fair compared to the rest of the people in the game (when talking about officials and large games). Games like Pirate were somewhat unfair because a team of about 7 dominated the game and held the corn.
  9. Hatched

    Hatched Active Combatant

    Messages:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    28
    IGN:
    Hatched
    That was a scary match xD . My team of 5 was no match for that team.
  10. Eythx

    Eythx Renown Elite Retired Staff Official Winner

    Messages:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Team:
    Spice Girls
    IGN:
    Eythx
    Is this for teams while ingame? or just overall?
  11. emrysch

    emrysch Redstone Donor

    Messages:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    6
    IGN:
    emrysch
    Well, whats done is done, I'd wish I had put a vote in, to late now, My opinion though is that towering shouldn't be aloud.
  12. SirPrew

    SirPrew Coal Donor

    Messages:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    63
    IGN:
    kajak4u
    Four probably would match ever ones needs best, as a team of four actually can be taking down, and still should be big enough to give every team member on a server a place in the team.
  13. DJisbored

    DJisbored Combatant

    Messages:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    8
    IGN:
    DJisbored
    Can some one explain to me why everyone thinks a team of four is so fair? Anyone think so that isn't in one? How often does someone solo four people? Sure they can be taken down, but for that matter so can a team of seventeen. The games aren't based around teams and weren't intended for large permanent ones. Remember the whole only one can win thing? If someone wants to win on their own, getting through multiple four man teams isn't going to be a simple obstacle. I could see someone taking down a two man team fine. Even with three people there's still a chance of whittling them down, but with four you'll get over powered every time. I might be wrong, but it seems to me like most people want it just because they're already part of one.
  14. SirPrew

    SirPrew Coal Donor

    Messages:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    63
    IGN:
    kajak4u
    There we have it once again: ''It wasn't intended'', ''Remember''. Yeah, it WAS. But now HC has many, many large teams, and they don't wanna split into teams of three, I'm pretty sure. While four really is pretty ideal, as usually there aren't more people of one team on at the same time. But if we would set it to three, or even two, the new rule probably would just get ignored.
  15. DJisbored

    DJisbored Combatant

    Messages:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    8
    IGN:
    DJisbored
    For the first time actually.
    And I wasn't actually calling on you to remember anything. It was a rhetorical question. It is still the last man standing.
    Except that in the early streams people were surprised by teams, and the fact that the entire game is a free for all.
    My point exactly. They wouldn't even have to split up the people that they usually play with. They'd just have to play with one less person at a time. No one says you can only play with the same two people every game. If there are more than that in one game then have a truce and avoid each other. It'll actually increase your chances of survival.
    Rules will always be ignored; that's why we have punishments.

    Most of what you're saying isn't wrong, but you haven't really answered my questions about the fairness of it. You went straight for the comfortability of people who are already in those groups and the prediction of people being reluctant to go forward with something that removes an edge they had. Those were the things that I was pointing out in the first place.
  16. SirPrew

    SirPrew Coal Donor

    Messages:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    63
    IGN:
    kajak4u
    Well, ok your question:
    It is fair, because basically EVERYONE has a team, permanent or just temporarily. I say that as a guy, who often has to play alone, because I'm in a completely different timezone than most of my teammates. It is like that, and I quite like it the way it is right now, as long as there aren't HUGE teams with like 5-8 people.
  17. VIACOM

    VIACOM Manager Administrator

    Messages:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Team:
    <3
    IGN:
    VIACOM
    In my opinion, setting team limits of 2-4 won't help with anything; there were still be the one guy who goes against the team of two, the team of three, or the team of four and gets messed up. Sure, it might be more possible to take out a team of two, but it's still not a "fair fight". For this reason, perhaps only a vote of "No Teams" or "5+" would make sense logically. But teaming is fun, so I'm not going to vote "No Teams". And an unlimited team size isn't ideal (or easily enforceable), either. Since there's no real way to make this fair for everyone in every case - other than possibly to eliminate teams altogether and where we exist in a perfect world where all rules are followed absolutely (not the case) - and since this is a survival game where the objective is to spawn in a somewhat random location, get stuff, kill people, and die last.. I'm going to have to say that a rule might not help as much as we'd like, and a case-by-case determination might be best (to limit extraordinarily large teams). Of course, this isn't easy to do (as I mentioned earlier), so basically my suggestion is not helpful at all.

    Now I'm just talking about automation games, by the way. Official streamed games have enough support that any scenario is possible - and which of course could be determined on a game-to-game basis, and which doesn't have to be permanently fixed.

    Sorry that I'm so theoretical ><. I'm not going to vote because it's a dammed hard question.
    Only side thought is similar to something mentioned above by DJ - perhaps a server with no teams and a server with whatever sized teams (but I still don't think set limits would work, it's too squishy).


    Not everyone's always going to be happy. Everybody's never going to be always happy. Never is somebody not going to be unhappy. I keep saying it, because it's the truth! :) We just have to get it as close as we can; someone's just always going to have an issue with something.

    meow
    Clayjarema likes this.
  18. Lukeejay

    Lukeejay Hungercraft Newbie

    Messages:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Team:
    HungerCraft Solstice
    IGN:
    lukeejay
    Basically Hungercraft is do anything to survive that might mean hiding in a tree for a whole entire game or it might mean roaming the lands with a team of 5+ the thing is to start with there was no rules it was just survive and in my opinion this is how it should stay.
    Lawtox and Adath like this.
  19. Yamata4TW

    Yamata4TW Gold Donor

    Messages:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Team:
    Teto-Chan
    IGN:
    Yamata4TW
    Don't even make a rule on this crap. Just do your admin intervention and no rules on team size in the begining and we would be fine.

    The only reason why the Pirate match was so horrible was because there was absolutely no admin intervention to stop the large teams from forming. If admin intervention was taken to stop the immensely large team from forming, the outcome would be different. But do we need a rule before-hand saying 'You can't do this, only this' or do we let it go until we find it annoying later in the game? That's the decision here. To have a team size, or have none and let the admins control the size when they feel it's a prolonged game.
  20. SirPrew

    SirPrew Coal Donor

    Messages:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    63
    IGN:
    kajak4u
    Yeah, there was a intervention, a huge fire, which brought me down to 1 FPS, so I got killed by a zombie, cause I couldn't run...

Share This Page