No that is not quite it. It was nothing about victory conditions, it was about a side saying we give up a position to keep the game interesting because if all those neutrals come to that side it was believed it would be too lopsided of a game. Ed was the main person who spoke up against it. There were a couple of email players he included in his argument later, but we never heard from them directly that they were against it. It was not my idea to do this, but I did like the idea of a game that wasn't over with right away. I do not like when the neutrals mainly join one side and then the other side drops.
And of course no one has brought up that Ed started out the game attacking a neutral against what the majority of the players on that side wanted, but of course that is Ed leaving out that portion of the story that doesn't favor his argument. We don't bring it up because you typically leave a game when the game is over and we had...Ed didn't.
Randy Brady
----Original Message Follows----
ยทยทยท
From: "kingoftherill" <kingoftherill@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: An overview on the art of the Backstab
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 17:14:58 -0000
...
Randy; Maybe not all the players have decided that what you are
saying is the the way they want to play. Ed obviously doesn't want to
play that way. I have have played in this game at various time s since
1993 and have seen various changes introduced which by an large I feel
have improved the game. I think Ed's position reflects the fact that
he too has played the game a long time. The end of winners
certificates has made a change in the way of looking at the game. When
there were certificates entitling you to a free set up with the nation
of your choice there was a real encentive for you to play your nation
in a way that not only sought victory for your side but also ensured
that you met your victory conditions and you played for the points.
Today's environment makes playing for your victory conditions less
relevent, but obviously it is important to many or there wouldn't be
anyone trying to accomplish victory conditions and there would be no
need for a nation to have any condition other than their side being
victorious. That would make for a true team game.
If I am reading Ed correctly his complaint is that in the current
method of running the game, a method that includes victory conditions,
a single player can take over another nation or even start with more
than one nation, and use one nation simply as a straw man to
aggrandise the nation he wants to concentrate with for placement. In
my view this is inherrently unfair to the other players on his team.
As he has if he wishes twice the orders to benifit his chosen nation
than any of his "allies". With those extra orders he can increase the
coffers of his nation, coordinate buys and sells between his two
nations to try and do market captures, name characters such as new
emissaries then send them to challenge powerful characters, resulting
in ritual kill scores, increased challenge ranks etc. The permutations
of this advantage go on and on. To me it is unfair to his team mates
and unless all on his team agree to this I don't believe MiddleEarth
Games should allow it to happen. This is a level playing field
question. Of course if the players are simply playing for a team
victory and who cares about individual victory conditions then it is a
moot point.
Personnally I would prefer that positions dropped be replaced by
outside players, but I understand that could result in delays in
nations being reinvigorated, often at a critical time when their
presence is needed most, but the current system of players simply
handing off their nations to another player and then the rest of the
team finding out to me is wrong. I realize it benefits the team, but
it does make it very hard to finally crush a nation. Most nations lose
wars and surrender in real life not because they have lost the means
to resist, but because they have lost the national will to continue.
The current method of replacing player after player in a game means
the only way to eliminate that nation is to bankrupt it or take every
major town, sometimes both are needed. This drags out games, which is
good for the company but not necessarily for the players. You have
some, and Ed is one of them I know from personnal experience who will
hang on to the bitter end, dragging the game on when the war is
clearly lost.
So I believe here the question is not so much Ed's "whining" over
backstabbing; in fact his views indicate he thinks that it is a vital
part of the game, but rather his views over the fairness of the way
national players are replaced. I have found him a worthy ally and
opponent in various games. I don't see him as a whiner.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com