An idea on the game certificates

mepbmlist
#1

How about if the game winner lost the free automatic starting special ability each nation gets and either the Woodmen or Dragon Lord (whichever one is on their team) gets 2. This way the winning player gets more of a challenge, and their allies are compensated in the likely event that he cares about the counterproductive victory conditions.

This is neat because:
1) The player would get a cool sheet of paper that says they did something.

Sure.

2) The paper does something to encourage the player to play again.

What is the replay percent for game winners. Over 90% I suspect.

3) The paper has a meaningful (if even minor) effect on the future game.

So rather than fixing existing ballance problems we can make them worse by giving rewards to players who:
1. Have the highest skill in playing
(unlikely, but vaguely possible, and why do they need a reward if they are best)
2. Prefer playing the strongest nations
(again why do they need MORE rewards)
OR
3. The players who are best at twinking out anti team VCs
(if a reward is involved, I suggest free electroshock therapy. Here like Jeff I would be glad to help contribute to save Harlequin time and effort.)

4) There would be a reason, although a small one, to worry about players who
want to come in first as opposed to team players. This point is a matter of
taste: I kind of like the "Uh, why is the dwarf agent in my camp" factor.

Uhm, I guess.

5) The player would get a cool sheet of paper!

#1?

···

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

#2

Winn Keathley wrote:

This is neat because:
1) The player would get a cool sheet of paper that says they did something.

I tend to worry about people who need a sheet of paper to let them know they
did something as trivial as winning a team PBM game.

And we wonder why those outside the hobby look at us slightly askance...

Actually, having been to three PBM cons in London, I don't wonder. I know.
:slight_smile:

Gavin

#3

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Winn Keathley" <Gnaeus@h...> wrote:

So rather than fixing existing ballance problems we can make them

worse by

giving rewards to players who:
1. Have the highest skill in playing
(unlikely, but vaguely possible, and why do they need a reward if

they are

best)
2. Prefer playing the strongest nations
(again why do they need MORE rewards)
OR
3. The players who are best at twinking out anti team VCs
(if a reward is involved, I suggest free electroshock therapy. Here

like

Jeff I would be glad to help contribute to save Harlequin time and

effort.)

I really shouldn't write this just before I head out of town for
several days, but I can't stand it any more.

I'm getting really sick of this whining nonsense. I find it
personally insulting, and also completely contrary to my post-game gut
feelings about team MVPs relative to those who got the top three
slots. It also cheeses me off that the players have lost the ability
to get free setups because of this silly mentality.

Out of all of the 2950 games I have completed, there has been exactly
ONE top three player who sat on their hands and did nothing for the
team. There have been a couple of arguably "less deserving" late
declaring neutrals. This is easily fixed, a la fourth age, by
requiring a declaration before turn 12 to place in the top.

If you pay some minimal attention to what the base score measures (as
opposed to the silly VCs)...they are a big economy, strong characters,
big armies, and lots of gold. I always place low in gold, since I
ship it out to my team religiously. I also usually do well in the
other three categories, since I like to build up big positions, hire
huge armies and use them, and hire lots of characters and use them.
All of the arguments that these things require sitting around doing
nothing run contrary to what I see on a lot of pdf files: the folks
who are doing the most *at that time* are the ones with the higher
scores in the late game.

Yes, there are exceptions. There are valuable players who get
hammered; there are slackers who sit on their duffs. 2950 is where my
experience is, and 1650 may be different. I think that people in this
discussion are getting hung up on some ideal notion of perfect
fairness: since you can't measure *all* of the things that go into
determining the "best" player, this means that a partial measure is
"useless". Bah.

Rant over. Fire at will - I'm an easy target, being out of town
through Tuesday.

"Selfish" Marc

#4

One other thought here...
I do strongly support making score ranking relative to the historical
norms for the different nations. In my experience, the differences
between the starting nations are easiest to overcome in the face of a
poor opposing team or bad play in the natural top spots. In games
with top-tier teams on both sides, the traditional whipping boys never
come out on top. This doesn't mean the Noldo-types of ME don't
contribute much more than their share; they should, having some very
powerful advantages. I am arguing with the foolish claim that high
scores reflect poor and selfish play. I will not argue with the fact
that the starting nations are not equal.

That's why I'd like to see the individual victory conditions used to
measure those things that are not captured by the big four score
categories, like a witch-king/dragon lord surviving much longer than
the norm up north.

But, of course, we can't ever get there if people are convinced that
individual scores are a measure of selfishness rather than skill.

Marc Pinsonneault

#5

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Winn Keathley" <Gnaeus@h...> wrote:

How about if the game winner lost the free automatic starting

special

ability each nation gets and either the Woodmen or Dragon Lord

(whichever

one is on their team) gets 2. This way the winning player gets more

of a

challenge, and their allies are compensated in the likely event that

he

cares about the counterproductive victory conditions.

(rolling eyes). Let's see. I have a very good player. Where is my
TEAM likely to benefit the most - having them play the Woodmen, or
having them play Southern Gondor? C'mon. The best games are ones
where there is very good play in the key positions on both sides.
Show me a game where the Noldo and Northern Gondor drop while the
Cloud Lord and Dark Lts. are top tier, and I'll predict a turn 15 dark
win. One of the disturbing trends I've noticed is that an increasing
fraction of the games seem to be very lopsided and very short. Email
and pdf exchanges allow teams to coordinate very effectively, and if
one team does this and the other does not the results are quick and
dull. The random allotment of the top spots will only make this
worse. I am playing almost exclusively grudge and standby positions
largely because of this. I have a clue what I'm getting into.

You need some system to encourage capable folks to take challenging
positions, keep vets in the strong positions, and keep new folks out
of the ones where they will get hammered.

If you want to get vets to play the Woodmen, you can rely on noble
sentiment - or you can give them a very tangible and concrete reward,
like cold hard cash or the position of their choice the next go
around. This can be done with victory conditions assessed relative to
the record.

Wanna bet which method will get more folks taking nations like North
Gondor?

Marc

#6

Now wait a second, I think this discussion is getting a little out of
hand. I don't think Winn ever said that, and I know personally that he
doesn't see things that way. Even if the entire team is unselfish, by
definition someone has to win.

Now, having said that, I do think that rewarding people for fulfilling
the current victory conditions will lead to poor game play. They do
likely reflect what political infighting is like, but I don't want to
play that game here. If I wanted to play Diplomacy, I'd play Diplomacy.
I don't think the game should force a team to work in lockstep, but I
don't want the game to reward someone sabotaging the team.

    jason

···

pinsonneault.1@osu.edu wrote:

That's why I'd like to see the individual victory conditions used to
measure those things that are not captured by the big four score
categories, like a witch-king/dragon lord surviving much longer than
the norm up north.

But, of course, we can't ever get there if people are convinced that
individual scores are a measure of selfishness rather than skill.

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord

#7

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Jason Bennett <jasonab@a...> wrote:

pinsonneault.1@o... wrote:

> That's why I'd like to see the individual victory conditions used

to

> measure those things that are not captured by the big four score
> categories, like a witch-king/dragon lord surviving much longer

than

> the norm up north.
>
> But, of course, we can't ever get there if people are convinced

that

> individual scores are a measure of selfishness rather than skill.

Now wait a second, I think this discussion is getting a little out

of

hand. I don't think Winn ever said that, and I know personally that

he

doesn't see things that way. Even if the entire team is unselfish,

by

definition someone has to win.

There have been a string of sarcastic messages directed at people who
want to restore individual certificates. I'm tired of it; it would be
a good start if the folks opposed to the concept of individual wins
could stop assuming that selfishness is all that motivates the people
on the other side. Civility is a two-way street.

Now, having said that, I do think that rewarding people for

fulfilling

the current victory conditions will lead to poor game play.

??? The base score is built on three useful things - population,
characters, armies - and one dubious one, gold. The individual VCs
don't change the final ranking much. I dislike them because they
mislead new players into wasting time on unimportant things, *not*
because they lead to poor game play by people who actually end up in
the top three.

cheers,

Marc

They do
likely reflect what political infighting is like, but I don't want

to

play that game here. If I wanted to play Diplomacy, I'd play

Diplomacy.

I don't think the game should force a team to work in lockstep, but

I

···

don't want the game to reward someone sabotaging the team.

    jason

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@a...
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord