2-1 Let the game end

mepbmlist
#1

Joel, I saw a game once that was won by one player. He had four or five opponents and no one else on his team.

As has been noted before on this List, the will to resist collapses before the means of resistance. That happened with all of your opponents except one.

You now have a problem. Can you solve it? Whining to the GM is not a solution. Here are some suggestions:
A. With 12 nations' mage power you can weakness to death the guy or find the One Ring.
B. Half of you quit and turn over the vacant nations to the other halfC. More than half of you quit and you retain the best four to six nations and go get him.
C. Take up rat hunting. More fun and not as easy as it might seem at first.

···

From: Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] 2-1 Let the game end
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:54:37 +0100

At 15:42 17/04/03, you wrote:
>I'm currently in game 41 where on T11 the opposing team's captain
>told our team and ME Games that their team was folding and would
>hand us the victory. T12 rolls around with us fully expecting the
>game to end and low and behold we find a single player (Frank
>Gingrich who I will immediately attack in any future games unless he
>apologizes to our team) on their team has decided to stick it out
>against our team of 12 players.
>
>So we now have a 12 vs 1 game that will take awhile to complete
>because this is a no assassinate/kidnap game and his position is
>hard to get to with armies(west of the S.Kingdom/south of the
>mountains). We have 1 idiot who has decided to try and get the win
>hoping our team will drop. This is exactly why Clint should
>implement the 2 to 1 ratio and game ends rule.
>
>12 players vs 6, game ends. 10 players vs 5, game ends. 8 players
>vs 4, game ends. In any game that I've ever played once you get
>down to 2 to 1 ratio of players, everyone at that point knows the
>game is over and it's just dragging on because a couple players are
>dragging their feet hoping the other team will drop from boredom and
>they get the win. At 2 to 1 odds, I think players on the 2 side
>should be allowed to claim victory. This allows everyone to start a
>new game that is fun instead of continuing with a boring game of
>hunt every last one of them until the are dead.
>
>So what do you say Clint?
>
>-Joel Mason

Hi All,
Clint is away at Gencon till Monday night, along with everyone else (except
me).
At the moment the 2:1 rule is only applicable in games where it is agreed
beforehand.
Some grudge games use this rule but not all.
I know that there was some debate about adopting a rule like this before
and the majority response
was negative, but Clint will be able to comment further when he gets back.

Rob

>
>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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

****************************************************************
                    Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

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 US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Fax: 1-503-296-2325
US Alternate: Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

#2

Turn 11?

This game probably took longer to fill up than play. I would say
there is definitely a problem here, doubt it's the spectre of a
bug hunt, though...

···

--- Ovatha Easterling <ovatha88@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >I'm currently in game 41 where on T11 the opposing team's captain
> >told our team and ME Games that their team was folding and would
> >hand us the victory.

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

#3

I would support the ethic behind this concept, but I could not
support such an arbitrary "rule" perse. As I've ever heard, the
complaints are usually in reference to a "bug hunt" and not an
actual 2-1 split. 8-4 is not necessarily a bug hunt. I would
propose an approach like the following:

"Whenever the ratio of natinos between allegiances becomes 2:1 or
greater, the company reserves the right to terminate the game and
award victory to the allegiance with the greater number of active
nations. This right will be exercised only after consultation with
the players involved for the purposes of determining if it's an
appropriate course of action. We do not actively track the course
of games and will not initiate this process unless requested to by
a client participating in the game in question."

Which mean: If you suspect the "rule" is applicable, you ask the
company to kill the game. They then get in touch with your
opposition, who then have to demonstrate their in-game reasons
the game is worth persuing. I can see 3 possible results:

1-Your opposition meekly surrenders into the fading mist.
2-Your opposition yells, screams, name-calls, and MEGames kills
  the game.
3-Your opposition says "We just located the One Ring" or "Look,
there are 4 of us only because the others got rounded up in a bust,
but we're rocking and they know that they can't win in ME so they're
trying to win using this unfair and arbitrary rule!" and the GM
says "Play On!"

Did I miss anything?

Regards,

Brad B

···

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

#4

I would be very happy with this.-Joel

I would support the ethic behind this concept, but I could not
support such an arbitrary "rule" perse. As I've ever heard, the
complaints are usually in reference to a "bug hunt" and not an
actual 2-1 split. 8-4 is not necessarily a bug hunt. I would
propose an approach like the following:

"Whenever the ratio of natinos between allegiances becomes 2:1 or
greater, the company reserves the right to terminate the game and
award victory to the allegiance with the greater number of active
nations. This right will be exercised only after consultation with
the players involved for the purposes of determining if it's an
appropriate course of action. We do not actively track the course
of games and will not initiate this process unless requested to by
a client participating in the game in question."

Which mean: If you suspect the "rule" is applicable, you ask the
company to kill the game. They then get in touch with your
opposition, who then have to demonstrate their in-game reasons
the game is worth persuing. I can see 3 possible results:

1-Your opposition meekly surrenders into the fading mist.
2-Your opposition yells, screams, name-calls, and MEGames kills
  the game.
3-Your opposition says "We just located the One Ring" or "Look,
there are 4 of us only because the others got rounded up in a bust,
but we're rocking and they know that they can't win in ME so

they're

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, bgb <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:

trying to win using this unfair and arbitrary rule!" and the GM
says "Play On!"

Did I miss anything?

Regards,

Brad B

_____________________________________________________________________
_

Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

#5

--- Ovatha Easterling <ovatha88@h...> wrote:
> > >I'm currently in game 41 where on T11 the opposing team's

captain

> > >told our team and ME Games that their team was folding and

would

> > >hand us the victory.

Turn 11?

This game probably took longer to fill up than play. I would say
there is definitely a problem here, doubt it's the spectre of a
bug hunt, though...

The game filled up quickly as it was a NKA game and ended quickly.
Last NKA game I was told lasted much longer. Why would you doubt
it's the "spectre of a bug hunt"?

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, bgb <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:

#6

Joel, I saw a game once that was won by one player. He had four

or five

opponents and no one else on his team.

The best player out there can't take on 4 or 5 opponents. Even if
the opponents suck really bad, the great player will still lose. Of
course if those 4-5 players were from France... :wink:

As has been noted before on this List, the will to resist

collapses before

the means of resistance. That happened with all of your opponents

except

one.

Not so much the will to resist as the want for our team to drop. If
I was in his position I would do the honorable thing and drop
knowing that I can't win a 12-1 game.

You now have a problem. Can you solve it? Whining to the GM is

not a

solution.

Why not? If I see something that can improve the game, why should I
not "whine" to the GM? I think this would dramatically improve the
average gaming experience.

Here are some suggestions:

A. With 12 nations' mage power you can weakness to death the guy

or find

the One Ring.

NKA game. We have a couple of mages at best and none of them have
weakness.

B. Half of you quit and turn over the vacant nations to the other

halfC.

More than half of you quit and you retain the best four to six

nations and

go get him.

Yes, but this still isn't fun as it will probably take around 10
turns. That will cost us 6 x 10 x 6.80 = $408.00 just so we can end
a game we already know we've won. Instead we could playing a new
game and enjoying it. With enjoying the game, some players might
decide to play even more games in the future...

C. Take up rat hunting. More fun and not as easy as it might

seem at

first.

What?!!! This isn't my first time rat hunting. It isn't my second,
third, or forth or fifth...

NOT FUN and most of the time not easy.

#7

IMO, any auto-termination test has to be based on the victory criteria
of the game itself. So, consider the following list of criteria, all
of which would need to be met:

- 2:1 advantage in active nations
- 2:1 advantage in total character skill points
- 2:1 advantage in troops in the field
- 2:1 advantage in gold in treasury
- 2:1 advantage in mithril in stores
- 2:1 advantage in strategic pop center ownership
- allegiance being considered for auto-termination does not possess
the one ring

I can't think of any way an allegiance could lose the test of every
single one of those criteria and still manage to win the game. Unless,
of course, the other team dropped due to boredom and that certainly
isn't a measure of anyone's prowess.

Keith

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, bgb <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:

I would support the ethic behind this concept, but I could not
support such an arbitrary "rule" perse. As I've ever heard, the
complaints are usually in reference to a "bug hunt" and not an
actual 2-1 split. 8-4 is not necessarily a bug hunt. I would
propose an approach like the following:

"Whenever the ratio of natinos between allegiances becomes 2:1 or
greater, the company reserves the right to terminate the game and
award victory to the allegiance with the greater number of active
nations. This right will be exercised only after consultation with
the players involved for the purposes of determining if it's an
appropriate course of action. We do not actively track the course
of games and will not initiate this process unless requested to by
a client participating in the game in question."

Which mean: If you suspect the "rule" is applicable, you ask the
company to kill the game. They then get in touch with your
opposition, who then have to demonstrate their in-game reasons
the game is worth persuing. I can see 3 possible results:

1-Your opposition meekly surrenders into the fading mist.
2-Your opposition yells, screams, name-calls, and MEGames kills
  the game.
3-Your opposition says "We just located the One Ring" or "Look,
there are 4 of us only because the others got rounded up in a bust,
but we're rocking and they know that they can't win in ME so they're
trying to win using this unfair and arbitrary rule!" and the GM
says "Play On!"

Did I miss anything?

Regards,

Brad B

________________________________________________

______________________

Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

#8

> >12 players vs 6, game ends. 10 players vs 5, game ends. 8 players
> >vs 4, game ends. In any game that I've ever played once you get
> >down to 2 to 1 ratio of players, everyone at that point knows the
> >game is over and it's just dragging on because a couple players are
> >dragging their feet hoping the other team will drop from boredom and
> >they get the win. At 2 to 1 odds, I think players on the 2 side
> >should be allowed to claim victory. This allows everyone to start a
> >new game that is fun instead of continuing with a boring game of
> >hunt every last one of them until the are dead.
> >
> >So what do you say Clint?

*** It's my personal preference but as noted by Rob when I have attempted to get this "passed" with player support in the past it was either ignored or disliked by enough players. It's one of the biggest gripes we have.

Clint