Looking back at my last 10 or so games, the longest running, best played (both sides), and ones with the fewest missed turns were the 1 week games.
The company will only run 1 at a time, though, and I forget exactly why. I think a primary reason is lack of demand. (?yes?) If that's the case, I'm curious: Why do players prefer the 2 week game over the 1 week game?
Thanks,
Brad Brunet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Looking back at my last 10 or so games, the longest running, best played (both sides), and ones with the fewest missed turns were the 1 week games.
The company will only run 1 at a time, though, and I forget exactly why. I think a primary reason is lack of demand. (?yes?) If that's the case, I'm curious: Why do players prefer the 2 week game over the 1 week game?
Thanks,
Brad Brunet
RD: I would never attempt to play a 1 week game, because I know there would be times I couldn't get adequate planning and correspondence done in time.
Richard.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Brunet
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 6:34 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] 1 week games
Why do players prefer the 2 week game over the 1 week
game?
1-weeks are satisfying (Brad, the one we played
together was a close fight all the way through, and
good fun). And it's a satisfying pace without such a
long delay between turns.
But it's not suited for all teams or players -- if you
respond to messages only every few days, it's easier
to coordinate over two weeks.
Dan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Brunet" <bbrunec296@r...>
wrote:
Why do players prefer the 2 week game over the 1 week game?
For me its mostly financial. I try not to think of how much I spend
for the two week games, but know I couldn't justify the cost of one
week games. I appreciate the effort required to run a game, and
realize that nobody at MEG is getting rich off this, but my
entertainment dollars are limited, and I'm not interested in doubling
my monthly cost.
Another factor is the coordination. With two-week games, most non-
game-related life issues aren't a major factor. Someone can take a
vacation, go on a business trip, etc., and not adversely affect the
game. With a one-week game that wouldn't be the case (at least not
for me).
Someone else mentioned the in-game effect of the seasons. I've
always thought it strange that the game seasons run with real
seasons, but as long as it is, that would be a negative to the one-
week game as well, IMO.
However, in a perfect world, I would love a one-week, or even a three-
day turnaround. Alas, its not a perfect world, and I'll never play
one of these games.
Jeff Wygal
I've not tried a 1 week game. I find the idea attractive, but I would only bite if I knew 9 players who could be relied upon to send their news within the first 48 hours. In one of the two weekers I'm in, we can't rely on all players to get even just a pdf forwarded in the first week! (Yup, this is really true.) I know enough reliable chaps to make a 2 nation each game viable, but they don't happen to like the idea of 1 weekers - not enough time for debate, or some such reason.
Also of course. most people I know are already playing to what they consider their sensible limit of games. (For me it's 5 nations in 3 games, any more and I'd be selling my body to pay for them.) When a 2 weeker ends, team mates and I tend to sign up for another 2 weeker, but a 1 weeker is double the cost (and time) so is only likely to be considered if two 2 weekers should co-incicentally end at the same time.
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
At 06:34 06/10/2003, Brad Brunet wrote:
Looking back at my last 10 or so games, the longest running, best played (both sides), and ones with the fewest missed turns were the 1 week games.
The company will only run 1 at a time, though, and I forget exactly why. I think a primary reason is lack of demand. (?yes?) If that's the case, I'm curious: Why do players prefer the 2 week game over the 1 week game?
I would love a 1-week game. I almost always have my orders done (and
sent) within an hour of receiving them, and two weeks is a LONG wait.
Unfortunately, like Laurence, the people I usually play MePBM with don't
like the idea of a 1-week game, and I don't think I'd want to try one
with unknown players. Oh well.
Mike Mulka
From: Laurence G. Tilley [mailto:laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 4:51 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] 1 week gamesLooking back at my last 10 or so games, the longest running, best
played
(both sides), and ones with the fewest missed turns were the 1 week
games.
The company will only run 1 at a time, though, and I forget exactly
why. I think a primary reason is lack of demand. (?yes?) If that's
the
case, I'm curious: Why do players prefer the 2 week game over the 1
week
game?
I've not tried a 1 week game. I find the idea attractive, but I would
only
bite if I knew 9 players who could be relied upon to send their news
within
the first 48 hours. In one of the two weekers I'm in, we can't rely on
all
players to get even just a pdf forwarded in the first week! (Yup, this
is
really true.) I know enough reliable chaps to make a 2 nation each
game
viable, but they don't happen to like the idea of 1 weekers - not
enough
time for debate, or some such reason.
Also of course. most people I know are already playing to what they
consider their sensible limit of games. (For me it's 5 nations in 3
games,
any more and I'd be selling my body to pay for them.) When a 2 weeker
ends, team mates and I tend to sign up for another 2 weeker, but a 1
weeker
is double the cost (and time) so is only likely to be considered if two
2
-----Original Message-----
At 06:34 06/10/2003, Brad Brunet wrote:
weekers should co-incicentally end at the same time.Laurence G. Tilley
To Laurence G. Tilley & Mike Mulka,
I almost exculsively play one week games, and I have to say that
most of the various one week teams are excellent. The team
usually works off a private yahoo group, uploads PDFs and
maps within 6 hours of recieving their turn, and communication
fanstastic, if a little nuts (I have arrived home to over 40
messages on turn process day). Lots of fun.
Cheers
Wade
P.S. Hey Brad, are you going to join 139 or not! I need someone
to drink beer with in Toronto 
Wade, I thought you had moved to somewhere in
Scandinavia?
Laurence T. and Mike M.
You guys sound like a couple of old women! Joining
games where you dont know all your teammates is too
scary, eh?
I personally find "challenging" teammates somewhat
enjoyable, the ensuing psych experiment can be quite
entertaining. Of course some folks would classify me
as "challenging", so it might be that I'm the guy
nobody want to play with....
Keep in mind that, by failing to play with those
outside your immediate circle, you are leaving the
education (traumatization?) of new players to hacks
like myself.
Mike Bateman
--- wadefrost1ca <wadefrost@hotmail.com> wrote:
To Laurence G. Tilley & Mike Mulka,
I almost exculsively play one week games, and I have
to say that
most of the various one week teams are excellent.
The team
usually works off a private yahoo group, uploads
PDFs and
maps within 6 hours of recieving their turn, and
communication
fanstastic, if a little nuts (I have arrived home to
over 40
messages on turn process day). Lots of fun.Cheers
WadeP.S. Hey Brad, are you going to join 139 or not! I
need someone
to drink beer with in Toronto
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
I never said that I would only play with previously known players. I
said that I would rather not try a 1-WEEK GAME with unknown players,
(new or not). 1-week games would take a lot closer coordination (and
timing) than I've seen in most throw-together teams.
Would such an experience be new? Yes. Would it be enjoyable? Well,
that's the question. There are 'challenging' players, and then there are
'infuriating' players, (as Dan stated). I can deal with the
'challenging' ones, as long as they're willing to communicate and share
data on a REGULAR basis. However, the 'infuriating' ones, (ie; Always
refuse to send orders till the last minute and make many mistakes as a
result, don't communicate but once a turn (if that), go for their own
VC's at the expense of the team, etc.)... Those players I can do
without, and those players would make a 1-week game too frustrating to
bear.
Mike Mulka
-----Original Message-----
From: mike bateman [mailto:mike_a_bateman@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:40 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: 1 week gamesWade, I thought you had moved to somewhere in
Scandinavia?Laurence T. and Mike M.
You guys sound like a couple of old women! Joining
games where you dont know all your teammates is too
scary, eh?I personally find "challenging" teammates somewhat
enjoyable, the ensuing psych experiment can be quite
entertaining. Of course some folks would classify me
as "challenging", so it might be that I'm the guy
nobody want to play with....Keep in mind that, by failing to play with those
outside your immediate circle, you are leaving the
education (traumatization?) of new players to hacks
like myself.Mike Bateman
Such reasoning eliminates one-week games altoghether.
To my knowledge, a one week grudge match has yet to
run (we waited several months before despairing and
returning to individual games, despite our best
attempts to harass known teams into accepting the
challenge). It seems the only way into a one week is
the random draw. I've always trusted to the fact that
both teams are having difficulties getting together.
Guess I'll just have to settle for slaughtering your
hapless minions more slowly in some other game format
Geez, youd have thought the master of Automajic would
like his games run in a speedy and efficient manner...
The quest for quality teammates (opposition?)
continues.
Mike Bateman
--- Urzahil <urzahil@darkfortress.us> wrote:
I never said that I would only play with previously
known players. I
said that I would rather not try a 1-WEEK GAME with
unknown players,
(new or not). 1-week games would take a lot closer
coordination (and
timing) than I've seen in most throw-together teams.Would such an experience be new? Yes. Would it be
enjoyable? Well,
that's the question. There are 'challenging'
players, and then there are
'infuriating' players, (as Dan stated). I can deal
with the
'challenging' ones, as long as they're willing to
communicate and share
data on a REGULAR basis. However, the 'infuriating'
ones, (ie; Always
refuse to send orders till the last minute and make
many mistakes as a
result, don't communicate but once a turn (if that),
go for their own
VC's at the expense of the team, etc.)... Those
players I can do
without, and those players would make a 1-week game
too frustrating to
bear.Mike Mulka
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mike bateman
[mailto:mike_a_bateman@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:40 PM
>To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: 1 week games
>
>Wade, I thought you had moved to somewhere in
>Scandinavia?
>
>Laurence T. and Mike M.
>
>You guys sound like a couple of old women! Joining
>games where you dont know all your teammates is too
>scary, eh?
>
>I personally find "challenging" teammates somewhat
>enjoyable, the ensuing psych experiment can be
quite
>entertaining. Of course some folks would classify
me
>as "challenging", so it might be that I'm the guy
>nobody want to play with....
>
>Keep in mind that, by failing to play with those
>outside your immediate circle, you are leaving the
>education (traumatization?) of new players to hacks
>like myself.
>
>Mike Bateman
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Would it be enjoyable? Well,
that's the question. There are 'challenging' players,
and then there are
'infuriating' players, (as Dan stated).
Mike correctly notes that it's different to deal with
lack of communication in a 1-week versus a 2-week
game.
But even with an "infuriatingly" uncooperative
teammate, I've still been really happy with my 1-week
experience. Will do another. Recommend it to any
communicative, experienced PBM'er.
Cheers,
Dan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
In my experience of 5 or 6 1 week games and a multitude of forced 2 week
independent games, the worst allies have always been in the 2 week games.
The *assumption* that 2 weeks gives everyone time to deal with their lives
AND play the game is an urban legend, and between Wade, Mike and myself,
we're not being presumptuous and saying how we *think* it is, but how it
*is*. People get lost and bored and forgetful with such a long time
inbetween turns (fact based on a lot of experience). In a 1 week game,
those same people seem to be interested, insightful, and more than capable
of sending in turns. Again, based on _experience_ and not just me being
loud. Not everything is perfect, of course not, but I've seen more
unexplainable SS's, missing reports, files, mistakes, and 54 hours worth of
"reminder requests" before turns are run in 2 week games than even the worst
1 week game.
My intention isn't to chastize anyone. I really was interested in "why",
because based on my experience and eagerness to see my games develop, I
don't understand why there is such a hard time running 1 week games.
The argument that "I'm in 4 games and can't afford to double my cost by
making them 1 week games." is easily refuted by "Play 2 1 week games, run 2
nations per week (same as 4x2week) at the same cost and have 2 exciting and
fast games end in 1/2'ish the time, play the same number of games a year but
have more fun doing it."
The observation that running more 1 week games would result in fewer games
being run by the company is "Of course. People like myself and above would
cut down the absolute number of *nations* but not necessarily the number of
turns processed each week. Might even increase slightly across the board."
American Brad simply needs the time to guarantee he'll be able to process
the various requests, emails, etc with his lifestyle and ensure he keeps his
high gameing standards up. Well, if you don't check your email every day,
then certainly, 1 weeks games might become burdensome to you. Again, I'm
not trying to browbeat anyone. I simply raised the thread to *poke* the
players a bit and hopefully inspire some to give the 1 weeks a chance.
They'll really enjoy it and within 6 months, we'll have marches in the
street demanding more of them!
Thanks for all the thoughtful responses.
Brad Brunet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Urzahil" <urzahil@darkfortress.us>
However, the 'infuriating' ones, (ie; Always
refuse to send orders till the last minute and make many mistakes as a
result, don't communicate but once a turn (if that), go for their own
VC's at the expense of the team, etc.)...
Brad B.,
You've had an answer so far for every argument against 1-week games save
one. What's your response to the slow season situation in a 1-week game as
opposed to a 2-week? This does seem like it would change the flow of the
game quite a bit and it's something I thought of even before seeing it
mentioned here. Even now, I try to avoid starting DS games in Fall or early
Winter. How much more of a struggle would it be if Fall/Winter was
effectively doubled?
I have thought of trying 1-week games. Anyone who plays with me knows I
usually answer any email within 8 hours (often much less). Yeah, I'd like to
. . . but I'm in a similar situation as everyone else. I've got my 2
2-weekers alternating weeks with my third "laid-back" neutral game thrown in
. . . no way to squeeze in a 1-weeker unless 2 games end at the same time.
I think I might even improve as a player without the "lull" that occurs
where I often don't study the game for 4 or 5 days. Instead of dividing
attention between a different game each week I could keep the 1 game fresh
in my head always. And maybe still squeeze in a laid-back 2-week neutral . .
. maybe sometime.
Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Brunet" <bbrunec296@rogers.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:51 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: 1 week games
----- Original Message -----
From: "Urzahil" <urzahil@darkfortress.us>
> However, the 'infuriating' ones, (ie; Always
> refuse to send orders till the last minute and make many mistakes as a
> result, don't communicate but once a turn (if that), go for their own
> VC's at the expense of the team, etc.)...In my experience of 5 or 6 1 week games and a multitude of forced 2 week
independent games, the worst allies have always been in the 2 week games.
The *assumption* that 2 weeks gives everyone time to deal with their lives
AND play the game is an urban legend, and between Wade, Mike and myself,
we're not being presumptuous and saying how we *think* it is, but how it
*is*. People get lost and bored and forgetful with such a long time
inbetween turns (fact based on a lot of experience). In a 1 week game,
those same people seem to be interested, insightful, and more than capable
of sending in turns. Again, based on _experience_ and not just me being
loud. Not everything is perfect, of course not, but I've seen more
unexplainable SS's, missing reports, files, mistakes, and 54 hours worth
of
"reminder requests" before turns are run in 2 week games than even the
worst
1 week game.
My intention isn't to chastize anyone. I really was interested in "why",
because based on my experience and eagerness to see my games develop, I
don't understand why there is such a hard time running 1 week games.The argument that "I'm in 4 games and can't afford to double my cost by
making them 1 week games." is easily refuted by "Play 2 1 week games, run
2
nations per week (same as 4x2week) at the same cost and have 2 exciting
and
fast games end in 1/2'ish the time, play the same number of games a year
but
have more fun doing it."
The observation that running more 1 week games would result in fewer games
being run by the company is "Of course. People like myself and above
would
cut down the absolute number of *nations* but not necessarily the number
of
turns processed each week. Might even increase slightly across the
board."
American Brad simply needs the time to guarantee he'll be able to process
the various requests, emails, etc with his lifestyle and ensure he keeps
his
high gameing standards up. Well, if you don't check your email every day,
then certainly, 1 weeks games might become burdensome to you. Again, I'm
not trying to browbeat anyone. I simply raised the thread to *poke* the
players a bit and hopefully inspire some to give the 1 weeks a chance.
They'll really enjoy it and within 6 months, we'll have marches in the
street demanding more of them!Thanks for all the thoughtful responses.
Brad Brunet
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Wade, I thought you had moved to somewhere in
Scandinavia?
He can run, but he can't hide.
Laurence T. and Mike M.
You guys sound like a couple of old women!
Thanks a lot.
Joining
games where you dont know all your teammates is too
scary, eh?
Er, Mike said he'd "prefer not" to join 1 week games where he didn't know the players, and it's not what I said at all.
I personally find "challenging" teammates somewhat
enjoyable, the ensuing psych experiment can be quite
entertaining.
Yes, but it is possible to have one's fill of "challenging" teammates, and what about the ones who are complete Merchant Bankers? (It's Cockney rhyming slang to give my American readers a little hint.)
I play 2 games, 4 nations, in games where most of the team are old friends. I play another game where I signed up alone, and most of the players are newbies or newishbies. I've maintained this balance for some years now. The two with old comrades in arms are usually more satisfying than the arena of chaos, where the surprises of the game are added to, by never knowing when certain players will report in, if ever, or if players will remember to do what's been agreed, like do the ScoChar as you march through Kal Nagil with a barrow load of artefacts, or send the gold to the right hex for the chap who's about to go bankrupt.
"Challenging team mates"? If I'm an "Old Woman" you can blame my practice of taking them on. Emasculated and brain-addled by the experience, I'm still doing my bit. From time to time one of the old timers drifts off, and the ranks have to be filled from the newbies - I figure that anyone who's played a game with me, and avoided me stabbing them to death with my knitting needles, has been baptised by fire. And if they're still talking to me...
Which brings me to the Player Rating System... If we had one, guess how many votes the "Challenging" players would get? IMO, if an individual is still "challenging" the sanity of his team mates by not communicating regularly after his first full game, he doesn't deserve to be taken on again by anybody, and should be deported to Gunboat Island for the rest of his natural life.
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
At 02:40 07/10/2003, mike bateman wrote:
I figure that anyone
who's played a game with me, and avoided me stabbing
them to death with my
knitting needles, has been baptised by fire.
A shocking but rather enjoyable mental image
Which brings me to the Player Rating System...
Laurence, I see you have concluded that Brad cant be
reasoned with but can be diverted? Geez, this guy
catches on quick...
Mike Bateman
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Yes, but now you've blown my cover. Were you that kid at school who always went to tell teacher?
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
At 13:41 07/10/2003, mike bateman wrote:
> Which brings me to the Player Rating System...
Laurence, I see you have concluded that Brad cant be
reasoned with but can be diverted? Geez, this guy
catches on quick...
--- "Laurence G. Tilley"
<laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
At 13:41 07/10/2003, mike bateman wrote:
> > Which brings me to the Player Rating System...
>
>Laurence, I see you have concluded that Brad cant
be
>reasoned with but can be diverted? Geez, this guy
>catches on quick...Yes, but now you've blown my cover. Were you that
kid at school who always
went to tell teacher?
Clint! Clint! Laurence is picking on me!
Mike Bateman
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Laurence G. Tilley wrote:
Which brings me to the Player Rating System... If we had one, guess how many votes the "Challenging" players would get? IMO, if an individual is still "challenging" the sanity of his team mates by not communicating regularly after his first full game, he doesn't deserve to be taken on again by anybody, and should be deported to Gunboat Island for the rest of his natural life.
Speaking of Gunboat, exactly because I enjoy close teamwork and agree with your frame of mind (i.e. being disgruntled with having to reason endlessly with "challenging" players for every minor cooperation), I have found that "useful ghetto" (:P) to be a refreshing change of pace. I'm on turn 20 of a GB game and find it quite enjoyable, exactly for being free of the worries you mentioned (not having cold sweats before receiving the turn wondering if Mr. Troublesome did that crucial order and such). I may be biased by recent experience though, as my last 2 grudge matches ended with the team falling apart, while so far the GB has been a cruise. 
I wouldn't advocate GB over team games (of which I have been a fan since my first game), but I think that every once in a while it might be nice to join one, if only for variety's sake. I think there might be a slogan in there somewhere, "Tired of infurriating teammates? Sick of having your assassins targetless because that guy didn't do the ScoChar you were counting on? Try a vacation on Gunboat Island today!"
Meanwhile, Laurence, have you ventured into the ghetto yet?
Rodrigo Manh�es
--
"Mortis In Anima
Curam Gero Cutis"
Carl Orff - "Carmina Burana"
By the natural extension of your logic, you could give up MEPBM altogether!
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
At 19:25 07/10/2003, Rodrigo Manhaes wrote:
Speaking of Gunboat, exactly because I enjoy close teamwork and agree
with your frame of mind (i.e. being disgruntled with having to reason
endlessly with "challenging" players for every minor cooperation), I
have found that "useful ghetto" (:P) to be a refreshing change of pace.
I'm on turn 20 of a GB game and find it quite enjoyable, exactly for
being free of the worries you mentioned
Laurence please leave him alone - you don't know where he's been...
Clint
> > Which brings me to the Player Rating System...
> >
> >Laurence, I see you have concluded that Brad cant
> be
> >reasoned with but can be diverted? Geez, this guy
> >catches on quick...
>
> Yes, but now you've blown my cover. Were you that
> kid at school who always
> went to tell teacher?Clint! Clint! Laurence is picking on me!
Mike Bateman
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.comMiddle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
****************************************************************
ME Games Ltd
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com
UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: EpicMail, 12330 Perry Highway, 2nd Floor, Wexford, PA15090
Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if in the US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Fax: 1-503-296-2325 (preferred)
US Phone: 724 933 3132 EST Weekdays
US alternate Fax: 801 650 8073 Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************