B teams

[Overdrijf]

You could just use the current season scoreboard instead of the Folyami rankings. Or even easier, just leave it up to internal team politics. The only questios then are if you are allowed to swap during the season and if swaps are retroactive (drivers brings all the results they already scored over to the new team) or just for the months starting after the swap was made.

[dreadnaut]

Nice to read so many interesting ideas and variations on teams. There are a few directions mixing up at this point, I'll try to tease them apart. Let me know if I've missed anything.


- Some less-active members still want to be part of their team. Because of limited spaces, they appear (and feel?) "unaffiliated". They could be part of a "Team B".

If I understand correctly, this would have no effect on the main team, so we have a second team rarely whose members rarely participate. Eventually, the number of these members might increase, and we'll need a "Team C". While I get the "being part of my team" feeling, I feel this might ossify teams, which are most fun when they are dynamic and impermanent.


- New pipsqueaks would learn more if they were part of a team, but teams have limited spaces. Associated "Team B" would bring them into a team context and help them grow.

A concept of "apprenticeship" doesn't need any rule changes or official approval. All you have to do is invite these folks to your team's Forum area, or your favourite gathering spot. It can happen today.

Collecting apprentices in a Team B would give them a visible label. But should they be a separate team, or a clearly marked "- B" team? I'm leaning towards a separate team, which can make a name for themselves, instead of an appendix of another — here again, I think dynamic over static makes for a more interesting competition.


On the other hand, I'm not convinced about in-season swaps between affiliated teams. This would be equivalent (maybe with a delay) to having larger teams. It would increase complexity, give an advantage to big groups, and reduce the value of consistency. We'd have more people feeling like they don't contribute to the actual score of their [main] team.

Overall, what is more fun? Two big teams with cooperating A/B(/C?) groups that have been around forever, or half a dozen teams growing and changing, all competing with each other and making history for themselves?

[Duplode]

(For the sake of consistency, I'll refer to the two kinds of B-teams we have been mainly concerned with as "squad rotation" and "academy".)

If I understand correctly, this would have no effect on the main team, so we have a second team rarely whose members rarely participate.

No effect, except for providing the team an easy way to refocus its A-team lineup around whoever is racing regularly in the current season, while still visibly acknowledging its less active members should they show up at some point in the year. (And yup, these little things do matter! They have been a real concern for at least some of the teams.)

Eventually, the number of these members might increase, and we'll need a "Team C".

It looks extremely unlikely for squad rotation B-teams to expand to the point they might give rise to C-teams. For that, you'd need 4 active pipsqueaks plus 5 mostly inactive ones, which is already very far removed from what the team rosters are like currently, and further for these 5 mostly inactive pipsqueaks to show up in the same season. (In contrast, B-teams are a relevant possibility to consider right now because the average size of teams, including members that haven't raced in 2024, is 4.5.)

(Note that the "extremely unlikely" bit is mainly about B-teams of the squad rotation kind, with no recruitment of new pipsqueaks directly into the B-team. Considering the implications of the alternative, though, gives us a nice segue into academy B-teams, so we might as well switch to discussing them for a moment.) 

Collecting apprentices in a Team B would give them a visible label. But should they be a separate team, or a clearly marked "- B" team? I'm leaning towards a separate team, which can make a name for themselves, instead of an appendix of another — here again, I think dynamic over static makes for a more interesting competition.

While visibility would be important for academy B-teams as well, what distinguishes a B-team from a regular team is not the branding, but how it works together with its A-team. In my vision, a B-team is really just an extension of the main team, its members having equal access and treatment everywhere except at the team scoreboard, where their results are recorded separately. That being so, a B-team becoming independent means stopping their free exchange of replays with the A-team, and getting their own team subforum so they can strategise independently. (Note that, a long time ago, we tried to have a "halfway" arrangement in which the B-team was only granted partial access. I believe that initiative was doomed from the start just for being too complicated.)

I get your point about teams making a name for themselves. For similar reasons, I personally wouldn't feel at ease with recruiting newbies directly into a B-team that I ran while being unable to offer them a clear path towards either the A-team or independence. One way I see to avoid such concerns, and keep academy teams faithful to the purpose of engaging newbies and encouraging new teams to come up, is a time limit: an academy team has full access to its parent team for one season, but must become independent after that, with its members either staying together or joining other teams if places become available.

(How do you distinguish an academy B-team from a squad rotation one? While we might think of some objective criteria based on years of experience or XP of the members, I think it would be much easier to just do it by consensus, as whether a team is an academy one should be obvious by looking at how it was formed.)

On the other hand, I'm not convinced about in-season swaps between affiliated teams. This would be equivalent (maybe with a delay) to having larger teams. It would increase complexity, give an advantage to big groups, and reduce the value of consistency. We'd have more people feeling like they don't contribute to the actual score of their [main] team.

While I find such systematic in-season swaps between squads an interesting idea to consider, I see how they can be a bridge too far, as a fuller commitment to enlarged teams.

Note, though, that systematic swaps are not a requirement for either squad rotation or academy B-teams. On the one hand, I think it would only make sense to promote someone from a squad rotation B-team if something unforeseen happens during the season that stops one of the A-team pipsqueaks from racing for the rest of the year. On the other hand, one year is a perfectly sensible window of apprenticeship, and it is reasonable to expect academy team drivers to stay there for the length of the season.

While I get the "being part of my team" feeling, I feel this might ossify teams, which are most fun when they are dynamic and impermanent.

[...]

Overall, what is more fun? Two big teams with cooperating A/B(/C?) groups that have been around forever, or half a dozen teams growing and changing, all competing with each other and making history for themselves?

It certainly is lovely to see new teams forming, and new configurations of pipsqueaks taking shape. Such things, however, require people to actually want to become founders, or to leave their teams for a new adventure. These are ultimately individual choices, be it on the personal level or the team one (say, if a team voluntarily decides to split in two). Using the rule book to break up teams, or to set up roadblocks for people who have different priorities and wish to keep racing together, is unlikely to achieve much other than making people unhappy.

[dreadnaut]

Using the rule book to break up teams, or to set up roadblocks for people who have different priorities and wish to keep racing together, is unlikely to achieve much other than making people unhappy.

I'm trying not to add rules

"Academy" is something that doesn't require any rules or support: teams can already share tips and replays with anyone they want to include in their discussions. If a team asks, we can add apprentices to their Forum section whether they are in a team, or are individuals. (I think that would be more inclusive than having a separate subforum)

"Squad rotation" remains unclear to me. It seems to mix up a concept of "alumni" who would like to remain affiliated to a team even when inactive, and an additional pool of pipsqueaks that can be drawn upon in case of need. The latter is "larger teams" with a different name. The former could take the form of a more visible label for what is now limited to the team history page.

[Duplode]

I'm trying not to add rules

Me neither! That's why I have described B-teams in the opening post as something that "can be implemented right now, under the current rules"

"Academy" is something that doesn't require any rules or support: teams can already share tips and replays with anyone they want to include in their discussions. If a team asks, we can add apprentices to their Forum section whether they are in a team, or are individuals. (I think that would be more inclusive than having a separate subforum)

We don't need any new rules either to add those people to a separate "academy" team.

"Squad rotation" remains unclear to me. It seems to mix up a concept of "alumni" who would like to remain affiliated to a team even when inactive, and an additional pool of pipsqueaks that can be drawn upon in case of need.

It's really not a mix of those two things. The only time anyone in this thread has mentioned anything like a substitution "in case of need" was when I, in a side remark within the long reply just above, raised a hypothetical to illustrate why such swaps are not expected to be a regular occurrence in this kind of team. The expected "squad rotation" would happen in between seasons, as people start and end longer breaks, like they often do. There's nothing more to it, other than me trying to find a catchy name to sum up the concept. And apparently failing   

The former could take the form of a more visible label for what is now limited to the team history page.

I'm afraid this wouldn't cover it, as there is a difference between historical former members and current members who happen to be inactive. Using Rolling Stunts as an example: Seeker1982 is a former member, having retired from competition at the end of 2020, with the team restructuring itself shortly afterwards. In contrast, KyLiE and Argammon are not former members, but are merely on a break, and can resume their activity in the team at any time.

[Duplode]

Perhaps it's a good idea to make this discussion more concrete by talking about things we'd actually like to do with B-teams. Please do add your ideas as well! I'll start:

Cork's Crew currently has three drivers active in 2024, hopes to recruit one more in the near future, and has two pipsqueaks that are inactive at the moment. That being so, there is a real possibility that we'll have five or even six pipsqueaks in the same ZakStunts season. Once that happens, I intend to ask for a Cork's Crew II team (not necessarily with that name!) to be registered for our supernumerary entries. That would be a B-team of the "squad rotation" kind (as explained upthread), with no plans to recruit into the B-team.

[alecu]

Hello, I am Alecu from ZakStunts, a Stunts player since 2008, that heard about ZakStunts in 2011, registered in ZakStunts since 2012, that still plays Stunts to this day, and also created his own tracks. Also, can I be in the Doubleplusspeed team? I mention that I got a invitation from Erik Barros to be in that team.

[alanrotoi]

I would be glad if you join us! Can we open a B team?

[alecu]

Yes. But I was a simple player, not a moderator or administrator. I am glad that I will be sometime in a team. Also how can I join a team? I ask because I want to join a team. Especially I want to be in the B team with you Alan Rotoi. Asked because Erik Barros given me a invitation for joining a team.

[dreadnaut]

I'm still a bit uncertain about B teams, let me make an example:

- Doubleplusspeed signs a fifth 'apprentice' member, Bernie
- Bernie appears on the scoreboard as part of the Evenmorespeed team
- Bernie has visibility of team replays, strategies, PG surprises, and comes ahead of Duplode
- Evenmorespeed gains points from Bernie's result, taken away from Duplode's own team, Cork's Crew
- The result is that Doubleplusspeed has a proxy team to help them in the team competition

Similar situation can arise with "squad rotation" teams: if any members were to visit for a race, they could affect the team competition.

I think is important to foster competition between teams, and avoid 'collusion' (even involuntary). What are possible alternatives then? Ideas on my mind:

🙊 "non-scoring teams", whose members won't gain points for the team competition
  ➕ similar to B teams
  ➖ still limited to four members
  ➖ might be unclear, as it mixes 'squad rotation' and 'apprentices'

🐱 "team associates", individuals that belong to a team but won't bring points for the current season
  ➕ full flexibility on numbers
  ➕ can be labelled differently as 'alumni', 'apprentices', etc.
  ❓ how do we show them on the website? is the profile page enough, or should they be highlighted on the scoreboards?

Other options? What do you folks think?

[alanrotoi]

A solution about team points would be "only 2 best results counts" then no matter the size of the team or its proxy team.

[Duplode]

- Bernie has visibility of team replays, strategies, PG surprises, and comes ahead of Duplode
- Evenmorespeed gains points from Bernie's result, taken away from Duplode's own team, Cork's Crew
- The result is that Doubleplusspeed has a proxy team to help them in the team competition

Note, though, that as long as we accept that additional people beyond the 4-member limit can be on a team subforum and share replays, many of these things will already happen even without B-teams. In your scenario, if Bernie were an unregistered member of Doubleplusspeed instead of being in a B-team, they would mutually benefit from their relationship all the same. As I see it, creating Evenmorespeed would only do two extra things:

• Assigning a team name to Bernie and co., making their relationship easier to spot (without having to rely on e.g. scattered messages about individual pipsqueaks); and
• Inserting Evenmorespeed into the team scoreboard (something I find unproblematic, but opinions may vary).

I'm not sure I'd frame the underlying issue in terms of collusion. In my vision, it should be transparent and taken for granted that B-teams are an extension of their parent team -- and again, the relationship of its individual members with the parent team is no different than it would be if they were unregistered members instead.

What are possible alternatives then? Ideas on my mind:

If B-teams showing up on the team scoreboard is deemed a problem, either of those ideas would be an acceptable compromise IMO.

🐱 "team associates", individuals that belong to a team but won't bring points for the current season
[...]
  ❓ how do we show them on the website? is the profile page enough, or should they be highlighted on the scoreboards?

I would really like to also see it on the race scoreboards, though I guess we'd need to find a concise way of conveying the difference between (scoring) regular members and (non-scoring) associates. If we can't find a good enough single word, maybe an asterisk with a tooltip or a link would be enough?

[Duplode]

Still on displaying "team associates" on the race scoreboard, perhaps a straightforward "NS" marker (short for "non-scoring") would look better than an asterisk:



Alternatively, we might just use "alumni" and "academy". There's a case for those two categories being enough to cover all associates -- "alumni" for those who once were in the main squad, and "academy" for those who haven't been in it yet:

[dreadnaut]

Cars in the UK sometimes have "Learner" stickers. Italy has "P" for principiante (beginner). Is there anything similar around the world?

You cannot view this attachment.

If there's something similar in other places, it could be a decent icon.

[alanrotoi]

Same here. "Principiante" means "beginner". You have to use it about 6 months.
You cannot view this attachment.