2-1 Let the game end

mepbmlist
#1

Whoah!
I don't look at my mepbmlist folder for a couple of days and then find it's gone mad! :slight_smile:

Although I rather feel this is somewhat re-hashing discussions that have been had before, the fact that it's come up again may mean that Harlequin need to re-visit the problem to see if anything can be done.

My own position is that if I am part of a team that joined the game together (ie it's a grudge game) then basic democracy applies - if the majority decision is to drop, then that's fine by me. I believe a lot of grudge games (perhaps all?) now have the 2:1 or 3:1 rule.

If on the other hand I have not joined the game as part of a team then I will not drop just because most of my team has been knocked out or dropped. The key in this situation would be whether I was having fun. If I'm having fun then I'll carry on. Obviously money and time also comes into the equation, but I generally try not to put myself in that situation to start with :slight_smile:

I'm sure the answer is for Harlequin to run a variety of games. When a new game waiting list is set up, it either has the 2:1 rule (3:1 is better in my view) or it doesn't. It's then up to players to decide whether they want to join. Once you have joined a game without the 2:1 you have no reason to complain if the game drags on (and vice versa obviously).

Colin

路路路

--
"We must learn to live together as brothers, or perish together as fools." - Martin Luther King.

#2

Colin:

Yes, choice is clearly the answer. The difficulty comes with the
progressive fragmentation of the playing community when too much
choice is offered, but that's a balance Harlequin has to strike.

I do have one question to pose to you, however. Let's say, as you
indicated in your post, you decide, for the fun of it, to continue a
game that your side has clearly lost and from which the rest of your
team has already dropped. Since you're in it for the fun and not for
the win, why not grant the win to the opposing team and offer to
continue on with those of your opponents who are like-minded?

IMO, offering that option solves all the problems we've seen mentioned:

- Any question of being motivated by the rankings has been removed.
- No-one is forced to play a "bug hunt" against their will.

By allowing separation of the win from the continuation of the game,
everyone wins.

Keith

Whoah!
I don't look at my mepbmlist folder for a couple of days and then find
it's gone mad! :slight_smile:

Although I rather feel this is somewhat re-hashing discussions that

have

been had before, the fact that it's come up again may mean that
Harlequin need to re-visit the problem to see if anything can be done.

My own position is that if I am part of a team that joined the game
together (ie it's a grudge game) then basic democracy applies - if the
majority decision is to drop, then that's fine by me. I believe a

lot of

grudge games (perhaps all?) now have the 2:1 or 3:1 rule.

If on the other hand I have not joined the game as part of a team

then I

will not drop just because most of my team has been knocked out or
dropped. The key in this situation would be whether I was having

fun. If

I'm having fun then I'll carry on. Obviously money and time also comes
into the equation, but I generally try not to put myself in that
situation to start with :slight_smile:

I'm sure the answer is for Harlequin to run a variety of games. When a
new game waiting list is set up, it either has the 2:1 rule (3:1 is
better in my view) or it doesn't. It's then up to players to decide
whether they want to join. Once you have joined a game without the 2:1
you have no reason to complain if the game drags on (and vice versa
obviously).

Colin

--
"We must learn to live together as brothers, or perish together as

fools." - Martin Luther King.

路路路

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Colin Forbes <colin@t...> wrote: