This concept is devised around “old time play” with extended games.
When playing in an advanced game you agree to the following rules.
A team may only make two replacements for dropped players, friendly drops or otherwise.
A player who drops an advanced game before turn 25 more then 2 times may no longer play in the elite advanced games. Players are honor bound to not self destruct their nations to not count as drops. At the end of each advanced game a player (I’ll do it if needed) or the company determines who dropped and records it for future use.
A team can denote someone on it as attempting to self destruct. If 7 or more team members vote that this is the case, it counts as a drop for that player.
A new PRS scoreboard "Legend" denotes wins/loses, any player who makes it to turn 40 is considered a winner on this scoreboard. Winning teams on games which go turn 40 or higher get 2 wins to their score board.
I thought about perhaps region rules for whom can talk to whom, etc, but really that is another variant. This one is a simple idea to bring back the old flavor of the game.
Something similar though less restrictive is practiced on the Diplomacy game organizing website, www.redscape.com. There it is fairly common to restrict games to only those who have played at least one full game and have not dropped in more than some certain percentage of their games.
As far as the idea itself, I am certainly interested in seeing how longer games play out. Has it been tried to simply try and recruit “committed” players or do players tend to think they are committed when really they are inclined to bail? Upping the win value of longer games seems like a nice tweak. I content it wouldn’t cripple people who like to win quickly because a 40 turn game for 2 wins is still a much less efficient way to rack up wins than 3 15 turn games or 4 10 turn games.
Alternately, I would ask what the roots of quick finishes are. I would say #1 is neutrals going one way or the other. I don’t think the capacity for that to happen should be changed. Is the intense knowledge of the hidden pops, riddles, etc the #2 thing? I guess what I am getting at is that I would rather see a variant with tweaked play attributes than with restrictions of the nature you suggest.
"Alternately, I would ask what the roots of quick finishes are. I would say #1 is neutrals going one way or the other. I don’t think the capacity for that to happen should be changed. Is the intense knowledge of the hidden pops, riddles, etc the #2 thing? I guess what I am getting at is that I would rather see a variant with tweaked play attributes than with restrictions of the nature you suggest. "
Thanks for your last point of your interests. However, I am not looking for another what is the cause of quick games Thread, instead I’m more interested in just seeing if there is enough interest in this deisgn for a longer game.
And as for just looking for commmitted players, if there is one thing I have learned in game design, it is flavor tends to need to be forced when the circle of people goes beyond close friends. In otherwords, a tangable(sp?) consquence is commonly needed to push people into a course of action.
Ask 50 players if they like long games and 30 will probaly say yes, but of those 30, most likely 20 have dropped or been on the decision process to drop as a team. If you let people know going in the rules, and there are percieved issues with just dropping out, you increase the chance of them staying in.
The main reason for the shorter games is the amount of available information. People used to play on because 1) they had precious little idea what was going on around them or elsewhere and 2) they had precious little idea what, in effect, goes on in this game.
Now we know what’s going on everywhere. Now we know so much about the mechanics, trends, strengths & weaknesses, etc, that it “doesn’t take a rocket scientist” (apologies to pinsonneault) to determine that proceeding is “a waste of time and money”. The bonus for going longer doesn’t address those issues.
There have been many ideas on the table to re-introduce the “fog of war” aspect to the game that (“drags it out”…?) lengthens it. Unfortunately, the artifacts and dragons, etc, are based on Tolkein’s writings, so randomizing these types of things goes against the grain of the intent and so loses support amongst “purists”. You could hardly call it “Middle Earth” if you allow the Northmen to recruit Smaug, for example.
Maybe this new “module” has some answers? I don’t know as I asked to be part of the discussion but was ignored. Time will tell.
Besides Gunboat, which restricts the team aspect, what other methods of play can be devised that introduces the fog of war to this scenario? Keeping in line with the purists, I really don’t see it happening. I can see a new FA based scenario with more like 1650 style nations, but ‘all new’ being developed, with ‘all new’ encounters, artifacts, etc. But something like that hard-coded will simply be spammed by the “accountants” (of MoS fame) and the info’ll be compiled and known by all yet again.
Well, my perception of what MEGames think is that drops are a problem that’s been addressed in the best possible way. Quite different than the “Company does not believe drops are a problem”. In every mail I have read from Clint and Co it is suggested that drops are a problem; and the “Company” deals with it by allowing takeovers.
So my, limited one could say, understanding is that you in particular have a problem with the company which a completely different issue than what discussed here. You could start a site or a forum or a thread or something of your own on this subject. “Why MEgames suck and what we can do about it” or “Help save MEPBM from MEGames” seem like nice tittles. You would probably think of something better though.
Returning on the subject, my answer to longer lasting games is “Grudge” games.
I joined the MEPBM society 5 years ago. I joined a team (“Team Andraste”, formerly Team Nike) and have been playing with them since. The team remains almost the same all this years (a couple of people have left for personal-real life reasons but the basic team of 8-10 people remains the same). We only play 12vs12 and no game has ended before turn 26-27 or so.
I joined another team a year and half ago to meet some new people and try the feel of a “normal game”; immediately after our game ended (Turn 27- our victory) we decided to form a grudge team of ten. I suspect that we will keep playing together until real life or other reasons dictate otherwise.
My point, I can’t understand how someone can play for 10 and more years and not have a team (teams) that they know and trust and have a good time playing with them. If you want balanced, long lasting games “grudge” is the way to go. (doesn’t answer the “fog of war” problem though, I guess only a variant like FA could do that)
If anyone is interested in creating a new module get in touch. I’ve addressed this to a large extent (well at least my/our feeling on the subject) in the games ending quickly thread.
Guaranteeing game play seems interesting. Any more ideas?
“The main reason for the shorter games is the amount of available information. People used to play on because 1) they had precious little idea what was going on around them or elsewhere and 2) they had precious little idea what, in effect, goes on in this game.”
It is really not important WHY games are dropped. They are dropped, its that simple. Yes, I agree that some of the above points are part of the problem, but in the end it is not critical to debate why, only to look for a solution.
People who would sign up for these games would know in advance what is expected of them. Previous ability or drops do not matter, what matters is what they do during the advanced games.
Whole new designed for the game and FA are really neat ideas, but not what this is looking for (though it could be applied), instead I posted it only to see if there would be interest for this type of game and how much interest there would be. 50 people would probably be good enough, but I guess 25 is a start.
So again, the question is, would anyone be interested in this type of game (regardless of why you would be interested and what you’d like to see changed).
See ya,
Ken
P.S. Last quick point, elitism requires exclusion, this format does not exclude anyone until they, by their actions, exclude themselves.
To follow up then PRS or any sort of PRS rating is not the best way of determining who is and is not considered advanced. There’s likely a better way but who knows what it might be.
Maybe it’s just me, but although drops can be a frustration which we’ve all experienced, they are also a reflection of the great strength of MEPBM.
This, I think, is a game about people and its made all the richer with the variety of personalities. Another thread will bemoan those who refuse to drop skipping from one last MT to the next, this thread the opposite.
I love the game because there are people who will make me laugh, accept my foolish whims and frankly I think there are some out there who really think they are Sauron, which is strange but interesting too.
Its not a problem of the company just a reflection of the people who play. Stubborn MT hopper or “flakey” dropper the game IMO would be poorer without either one.
Now if we really wanted to talk about Advanced MEPBM - how about the Company sponsors one game a year (ie it is free), they use the PRS to select the top 25 players and let them play a 25 turn game. Top ranked player chooses their nation first. The top VP after 25 turns is crowned World Champion in time for the next year and is automatically entered into next years tournament. The Company can use the game to publish articles in Bree maybe 5-10 turns behind the actual play.
Now if we are true to form I predict what will follow will be a debate about PRS being the worst thing the game has ever seen and VP’s encouraging the wrong behaviour.
The PRS debate has been done to death, and it’s here to stay (the debate and PRS). For some it’s changed their style, for others it hasn’t, and a few even went to extremes. Let sleeping dragons lie…
Here is my proposal for Advanced MEPBM: The Company is willing to try any variant except, apparently, the artistic vision of the game’s creators. Here is a variant that throws back before the Company became a licensee/owner. Call it the Stassun/Feilds Module.
It is cut throat chaos in the Old West. The company stays out of it and allows Lex Talonis to rule. No XMLs, no helpful but over-zealous GM, no provided lists of “allies” and the dismantling of other nonfog-of-war instruments. I assure you that game will go a long time. No trick or ruse is to low. You can actually practice and do what Frontinus writes about.
–Did you actually play in some of those games 10+ years ago? Fog of War ruled, but it also made for mind-numbingly dull and frustrating gameplay in many [if admittedly not all] the games. Perhaps you just long for the newness of MEPBM to return? If so, why keep playing? Buy the license is my advice!!
Ed - time marches on. You want to return to the times where 2x4 cards were your communication medium with other players? Where badly-faxed maps from other players were how “fog-of-war” was compensated for? where lots of time was spent on phone calls trying to figure out what was going on?
I agree that the early 1990s technology backdrop resulted in much more fog-of-war than you have today in any game but a GB game. But, back then we were all doing our very best to eliminate fog-of-war by faxing, emailing, phoning, etc. What would keep players in your proposed game from doing the same? If they can talk to each other (and that seems to be allowed in my reading of your proposal), then they can send .pdfs to each other. The team that wants to backstab each other will lose to the team that cooperates… All of the conveniences that we enjoy today (palantir, automarket, .xml, yahoo groups, etc.) are there because they reduce workload for a team that is trying to cooperate and produce the best team strategy. If you take away the convenience, you don’t take away the need. Thus, you just add workload.
If it’s the back-stabbing that you miss, well… I have no constructive comments as to why back-stabbing should be allowed or how it could be a good thing?
Things that can be done to extend games:
Randomize Artifacts:
Artifacts that start possessed maintain their existing Primary properties. Hidden Properties, however, may change from game to game.
All Artifacts (except The One Ring) not in the possession of a teamed character are randomised. If you want to get fancy (and you should, since this is a professionally run game) then artifacts would be weighted by type: Combat Artifacts would tend to remain combat or command artifacts, mage artifacts would tend to remain mage artifacts. However, the weight should allow for some (20%?) variation in type, so that the Ring of Wind could end up being a +Magery Artifact. Hidden properties should be randomly re-allocated among all lost artifacts at the beginning of each game.
Create more methods by which PCs can be defended vs the late game Emissary attack. Alternatively, make InfOthr a Very Hard task with a potentially Fatal outcome on critical failure.
Eliminate Neutral positions as done in gunboat games.
Even the mention of VP’s (SG starts with 5000, Woodmen start with 25, now RACE!!!) is stupid. It’s even dumb to proclaim that you’re attempting to stir the pot for voyeuristic reasons. I find VP’s interesting and informative, various reason and worthy of a different subject line altogether, but to even consider mentioning thinking about them as a “measure” of an individual’s “worth” or “ranking” is absurd in the extreme.
The artifact’s secondary powers are, Just like their Primary powers, based on Tolkein’s writings. For example, my arty list shows #24 Ghostbane as giving a Bonus vs the Undead… Most lists don’t. (you can make this change now, I don’t lie.) It is the “bane” of “ghosts”, always has been and always will be. To randomly give it access to Spirit Mastery is absurd. Refer back to the Northmen recruiting Smaug instead of Scorba…it doesn’t work.
The issue is that the game is what the game is. Bikes were the primary mode of transport when I was a kid, now everyone I know drives cars. Of those who still own and ride bicycles, they do so not because they’re trying to prove they’re as useful and/or cool as cars, but for the intrinsic worth of biking in their own minds, for whatever that’s worth. The game was designed in a different time. The way it’s played today is fundamentally different than how it was played “then”. The clock is one-way, move on.
