2-1 Let the game end

mepbmlist
#1

In most games I've been in, this is not a problem. The other team, as a group, decides they are beaten, they drop in mass, and we get the next turn saying "game over, you win".

Game 41 is the first game I've been in where we've gotten the "we quit" email, but the game didn't end on the next turn.

Could this be yet another problem caused by the creation of BS player rating system? A team drops, but a couple die hards hang on hoping to "get the win" by the other team not wanting to pay hundreds of dollars to track down 1 or 2 individuals? Which VPs are used for the ratings? The VPs at the time the enemy gave up, or the VPs after we've wasted 4-6 turns chasing down a hold out?

Darrell Shimel (SK FA41-NKA)

···

From: "Keith" <gnashrak@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: 2-1 Let the game end
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:12:17 -0000

No. One person's fun has no greater weight than any other one person's
(unless that person is me, of course) :).

However, fun is not the only issue involved. There is time, money, a
business model (if Harlequin goes bust then no-one gets to play), and
the fact that Harlequin is starting to score/rank players. The cold
hard fact is that unless Harlequin keeps a lid on the acts of
_individuals_ that ruin the fun _groups of players_ then all they'll
be left with is a small pack of die-hard libertarians playing their
game. Of course, how they go about applying that lid is incredibly
important. But do it they must or go bankrupt they will (sorry for
mixing universes).

Keith

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@c...>
wrote:
> >
> > I don't really understand your strident opposition to the idea of
> > forcing an end to a game.
>
> Because it's a decision which is external to the mechanics of
> the game. Who are you, or indeed anybody else, to decide if
> a player's position is untenable or not?
>
> It's quite possible for that one player to slowly but
> surely eliminate other nations, one by one. Surely he should
> be given the right to try.
>
> Or are you saying that your fun has greater weight than his?
>
> Gavin

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

#2

Well, to answer the reasonable question (however sarcastically asked)
the VP's at the end of the game, of course.

To address the concern re: holding out for the win due to Player
Ratings --> Has it ever happened in the past? Yes. Therefore,
it Obviously has nothing to do with player ratings. Neither does
speeding, telemarketters, or poor tippers.

Does it happen often? No.

Is the situation worthy of GM interference? Well, we can argue the
rights of the individual till the cow's come home, but a significant
majority would likely counter with the rules vs anarchy concept of
orderly and agreeable society... If the position is untenable, the
company loses more money and good will amongst the unsatisfied
majority than they'd ever make up pleasing the solo wingnut. Go back
a bit - it doesn't happen often. But when it does, when do the
"idealistic" supporters of the individual's rights ever come out
and say "I was in a bug hunt and had a really fun and worthwhile time
tracking the little rat down! I can't wait for my next one!"

Brad Brunet

···

--- corsairs game 101 <corsairs101@hotmail.com> wrote:

Could this be yet another problem caused by the creation of BS player
rating
system? A team drops, but a couple die hards hang on hoping to "get
the
win" by the other team not wanting to pay hundreds of dollars to
track down
1 or 2 individuals? Which VPs are used for the ratings? The VPs at
the
time the enemy gave up, or the VPs after we've wasted 4-6 turns
chasing down
a hold out?

Darrell Shimel (SK FA41-NKA)

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