I’m ok with team stuff but also don’t want to have like last dynasty with unbalanced teams

Yeah, maybe some rule along the lines of only joining a team if it does not have more members than all other teams.

There’s also the issue that we have 7 people atm and 7 is prime…...

I’d be for some teams to even things out, though I don’t have the time to propose right now. Teams with fewer players are self-balancing to an extent—you’ll be less likely to win but your win share will be less diluted if you do manage to win. Having two teams of two and one team of three seems just fine (plus some others might idle soon enough anyway)

The game does need to get significantly faster at any rate, having to wait over a week to take an action is not particularly entertaining (though when you do get to do something it’s interesting at least)

I’m not convinced that it’s actually possible to do a traditional board game in an Internet-nomic style in a reasonable amount of time – you need the turn-taking for fairness and timing scam avoidance, but then you’d need everyone to be online unreasonably often to make the turns come around at a reasonable rate. A reasonable delay becomes an unreasonable delay when multiplied by 7, and it’s hard to really avoid that.

Adding teams a) effectively reduces the number of players, which might be good in terms of reducing delays but bad in terms of strategy, and b) makes the game less of a board game and more of a negotation game. That said, it may end up making the game even slower in practice if teams try to discuss their moves rather than just having the first player online make decisions – it’s harder for two players to be online than it is for one player to be online.

[ais] We’ve done several: the Supply Crate, Great Flood and Boss Monster dynasties all got through a decent number of turns in their time.

Player engagement is the main thing, but there’s also how well the player order matches the timezones, the complexity of turn actions, any reasons to delay turns (waiting for an enactment or some other game action running on a separate clock), player elimination (even just informally as “I now can’t win from here so I idle”), and how many turns the game is likely to take. All of those can be worked by proposals.

The trickiest thing is probably the turn complexity. A simple turn structure is good for keeping the game moving, but it also encourages unengaged players to stick around taking minimal possible turns rather than tapping out, taking up game time without adding much to it.

Right now, there’s definitely a struggle for engagement. Notice that the Turn Order is empty, and no one (including myself) has tried to generate a new Turn Order.

Could be the weekend, and also now that we’re entertaining the idea of teams, it might be better to wait and see if the Turn Order will become team names rather than player names. Still, the lack of weighing in on the Teams proposal pending and no alternatives being proposed is a little concerning.

For my part, I’ll keep pushing ideas until they take hold, or someone gets a better idea, or someone gets tired of the process and proposes a shortcut wincon or chop based on current gamestate.

Personally I have not generated the Turn Order yet because I am waiting for any suggestions on teams to come through. Maybe I’ll propose something tonight if there’s nothing

I figured it out without too much hassle! It just took defining a team and then being able replace every instance of “Meeple” with “Team”. Once I get a slot, I’ll propose it.