How civs in team games are chosen? Can this be improved from an spectator perspective?

When playing 3v3 or 4v4, top picks are generally repeated, resulting in mirror or quasi mirror games: mayans, persians, aztecs, huns, mongols, spanish. In some games of the NC, we saw banning of mayans and mongols (iirc) to bring more diversity i guess. Of course, playing other maps such as bf or decentring brought new civs to the table, which is a good thing. With WK, elephant civs seems to be the powerhouses in team games. Also, camel civs (specially berbers and indians) should be top picks. Do you think the addition of forgotten, african and rajas civs will be enough so that team games evolve into a state where top picks are more than 4-6 civs as we've seen in aoc? Also, do you think that grouping civs into predefined packs is a viable option? By this, I mean that tournament admins group civs (eg one pack is huns, malay, koreans and aztec, another is mongol, saracen, portuguese and burmse, and so on) and teams pick the whole set of civs. Happy new year! This is a result of a 16 hour flight, so apologies if it makes no sense.