You have by now had a good quantity of feedback on the PRS. From what I have seen, the vast majority is generally appreciative of the effort that has gone into this. I would also suggest that the strong majority see it as a bit of fun.
Perhaps controversially, I think that the strong majority have some concern - whether its a minor concern or a major concern - that some players’ behaviour will be adversely affected by the very existence of the PRS. I have previously said that my concern is towards the “major concern” end of this spectrum - as is that of the guys that I generally game with.
Therefore, my question is how will you assess whether disfunctional / more selfish behaviour is happening, and by what criteria will you judge whether to continue with the PRS or not?
I think that this is commercially important to you. I think that you might find that gunboat and team games become increasingly important to you, and that casual signups perhaps drop away over time. I am certainly not minded to join ‘all comers’ games anymore - I would be hate hate hate to come across the sort of play from the bad old days that sees non-front line nations just position building and not mucking in with the team.
This doesnt at all detract from my previous comments / views - I still think that the PRS is broad and imaginative. But I remain concerned regarding probably unexpected and unpleasant side effects…
I’ll be keeping an eye on it and like all our policies they’ll be up for review regularly. If it damages the game then as mentioned numerous times I’ll look into it. Same as anything else that affects the game adversely.
For reference: So far we’ve had overall excellent feedback and comments of a positive nature, including most players commenting, when they have commented, that they would not change their style of play at all.
Unfortunately, we’ve had a small contingent who don’t like the change. In most cases these comments have been raised by these players for any change we have brought about to the game and I basically have to trust that both my opinion and the overwhelming support brought forward by the majority of players is to be trusted.
Like any change things take time to calm down and we can then see the impact of this - that will take a while as I am not sure what impact it will have, hence the test to see what players feel.
I applaud your efforts to bring something fresh and new to the game. I know there are many players who will appreciate and enjoy this new aspect of the game, so ultimately I hope this works out well. Personally, I don’t care about mine or anyone elses PRS, I just want to play.
However, there are many who are taking this WAY to seriously. As I’m sure your aware, there’s a thread started over supposed faulty PRS that’s playing out like an episode of the Jerry Springer Show. I fear that this sort of behavior from now on may be the norm instead of an aberration, and that troubles me as a player greatly. Players now have even more reasons to harbor grudges against one another, and act like bratty children fighting on the playground.
My question then is this: could the PRS, while being well intentioned, be a detriment to the game? Or, as I sincerely hope, can’t we just behave as adults, take the PRS for what it’s meant to be, and just act like children when we’re actually PLAYING the game?
Players who focused too much on their victory conditions have always been seen as bozos by the general gaming community. And with good reason: players focused on achieving their victory conditions usually get whupped by players focused on kicking their butts.
The new rating system is just the same, only a lot more fair and less arbitrary than the old system. But players who are overly focused on earning high scores in the PRS will probably still get their butts kicked by those focused on playing the game.
My recommendation for how to use the PRS as a player? Don’t worry about it. Just play your hardest every game you’re in, work with your teammates because it’s teams that win games, not individual nations, and let the cards fall where they may.
Nobody can control whether or not they get an inept Noldo or cowardly Cloud Lord. But every player can control how forthcoming they are with information, how eager they are returning emails, and how aggressive they are in combatting the enemy.
Victory points have never been a gague of this because the system as GSI designed it was flawed from the beginning. But in the new PRS you can earn meaningful votes for being the staunchest ally or toughest enemy. And if you play the game to your best ability these votes will come naturally.
I agree with that. In fact the category that I think is probably the most important is how you rank in the player voting. I could care less if I ever make it in the top three for VP’s but if the majority of my team felt I was a good team player and took the time to say so, then that is more important.
In the long run, everyone will be concerned where they rate. The ultra competitive will sweat the points, the team players will want the votes, and those who just want to have fun, will continue to do so…
The only victory condition I enjoy seeing is when I’m the Cloud Lord and my VC is to terminate 10 characters. I figure that one at least is in the bag.
What if VC’s were more entertaining? Why on earth should you seek the termination of a character in your alliegance? I can understand the role-playing reasons, but they just seem silly for this strategy-based game.
What if…
What if you had a VC of “Destroy 10 or more enemy pop centers”? Or for the true glory seekers, “At game end, to have the highest number of troops lost in battle” ? Or, check this out, “Most gold sent to other nations”?
Maybe then “hoarding” VC points wouldn’t be seen as a bad thing.
Are you sure we misunderstand, Ed? VP players are selfish and shortsighted, agreed. What’s to misunderstand? You seem to be almost religious in your worship of the supposed original game design and it’s higher purpose as a psy this or social that. :rolleyes: It’s a game with magic swords and flying dragons. Cripes, get over it.
Originally posted by 88 Noldo
This game was NOT designed to be a standard wargame. That is why so many people misunderstand it.
The game was designed in a pre-internet, pre-email world. It was designed to by 25 players, each trying to achieve personal victory through managing thier nation well, while kind of working together to acheive an allegiance win.
From the 1650 rule book under “Allegiance”.
“Each allegiance represents a gathering of forces with similar goals, but with differing personal interests. Furthermore, the methods used to acheives those goals are openly debated. Even though members of each allegiance <i>should</i> cooperate and work together for a common goal, there is NO requirement that they do so except as indicated by relations. Although direct militaty actions are not permitted between members of an allegiance, diplomatic, magic, and espionage are not so restricted. Additionally, less then friendly relations can be used to inhibit the progress of nations of all allegiances. This becomes an important tool in acheiving your Victory Conditions and winning the game.”
The game was not intended to be a team game. It was meant to be a group of individuals “kind of” working together to acheive a goal. It was specifically designed to encourage role playing type self interest and inter-allegiance backstabbing. The victory point/conditions were NOT designed to show how well you did within the group, but how well you did as an individual.
In the post-internet, Yahoo Group pdf sharing, instant communication by email world, the allegiance that is a group of individuals gets it’s butt kicked very quickly by a real team.
The victory points are the appendix of MEPBM. They are an unnecessary, useless appendage that is a throw back to an earlier time. In fact, as someone that nearly died from a burst appendix 11 months ago, I find both the human appendix and the MEPBM Victory Point system to be quite dangerous.
It’s true that in the origional concept of the game the individual victory conditions made perfect sense and it’s also true that over time players learned that individuals playing against a team lost consistantly…the question at hand is…does the fact that the old victory conditions caused or contributed to flawed games make all attempts to judge play equally invalid and to this I would say there must be a valid way to measure playing ability…do I think it’s vital or even important that we have one…no I see no reason why one is needed…do I think it’s something fun to look at…sure I do…I have friends that play this game and I’ll be rooting for them to do well just as I have people <although I think most have left gaming now> that I would certainly root against should I see their name…kind of like watching football team wins/losses in the paper…now with so many different ratings systems being tried at the same time it seems almost a surity that at least one is a valid measure from which rankings can be derived…why not let the fight go for a year or two and lets just see what happens…btw…I was one of the people that cared so much about rankings I didn’t bother filling out my sheet when it was sent and I shared many of the views that have been expressed against having rankings but having looked at the variety of ways it is being done I must say I was impressed with the attempt to find valid ways of measurement and I really don’t believe the rankings as listed will adversely affect the game…time will tell…steve caskey
Chris - I’ll be keeping an eye on the PRS and changes in play. I don’t expect much if anything to change because of it. Only one player who will change his play style (and has done) and I think the team will detriment because of it. But I don’t think that is to do with the PRS as such as a general thing. I prefer not to go into that publically.
In answer - could it be a detriment to the game? Yes it could, do I think it will - no. I’d like to give it a run and see what comes of it though as I think it will add some fun to the game overall. Wanting to play against a player is fine (our GM team gets around 3 teams wanting to play us for the laurels of beating us for example and I think that’s fun, scary as well… :-), but mostly fun ).
Originally posted by blind one 118 the question at hand is…does the fact that the old victory conditions caused or contributed to flawed games make all attempts to judge play equally invalid and to this I would say there must be a valid way to measure playing ability
Blind One. I’m doing my best to devlop just such a system. I have an email ready to go to the Yahoo list. Had to edit a couple things from my first attempt to send it.
I’m looking at Win %, Game Activity (how many positions played recently), and Opponent Strength.
The part I’m having trouble with is the opponent strength. I think having 10% fewer nations should be a WAY more influential factor than having 10% more expereince. So, neutrals working with a team before they flip… Can’t be accounted for.
Also, if I make the nation ration account for x%, and exeprience significantly less, then expereince quickly falls to insignificant.
For example, let’s say 10% fewer nations results in a 10% increase in your rating score over a year, and then make expereince 10% as important as nation ratio. Well, then having half as much expereince would only get you a 5% increase in rating over a full year of playing.
Anyway, I’ll have the details on the Yahoo group today. I hope you’ll take the time to respond. I really want to make this a system where most people will activly try to improve their ranking by playing fun and challenging games and winning.
You are right, Brad, the game contains magic swords and flying dragons. That is the top and overt level. It took me playing six or seven years to see some of the other levels of play. This game is incredibly subtle. Play 13 years and I still find something new every game.
That is my fear. Those who only see, or understand, the first and overt level will insist that is the only level of play to be allowed. I fear for this game I love.
Fair enough. But, did the designers put all those subtle nuances in there to be discovered over years of scrutinous play? Any chance you’re reading too much into all this? Much like religion attributes the unknown to some higher power, are you not doing the same to the designers of this game?
Having read the odd book here or there and seen the odd movie, it seems to me that the races in Middle Earth didn’t have much time for each other, heck, none of the different nations of “men” had much time for each other. I don’t see the game allowing for this to be a work of sheer genius, heck, it barely even earns a “good job” half the time. Why do the Dwarves want Baranor dead? Hmmm…I bet the Dwarves have random percentages for different possible VC’s, and the “eliminated character” one then spins another random roll once it’s selected. No subtle genius in these things, mostly stupid randomized “filler” material as far as I can see.
Perhaps so, Brad, perhaps so. But if you see something that only a few others see (and being selfish and shortsighted) you are reluctant to let it go. Be it random filler or divine plan.
Originally posted by Player Having read the odd book here or there and seen the odd movie, it seems to me that the races in Middle Earth didn’t have much time for each other, heck, none of the different nations of “men” had much time for each other. I don’t see the game allowing for this to be a work of sheer genius, heck, it barely even earns a “good job” half the time. Why do the Dwarves want Baranor dead? Hmmm…I bet the Dwarves have random percentages for different possible VC’s, and the “eliminated character” one then spins another random roll once it’s selected. No subtle genius in these things, mostly stupid randomized “filler” material as far as I can see.
There are places in the rule book and some of the early GSI Q&As where they say the game was designed with the intention of causing the type of self-centerd behavior seen in the books.
It was intended to be 25 nations, first fighting for personal victory, and secondly, to achieve personal victory you had to help your team win.
It would have been easy enough to have the random character that needed killed limited to enemy characters. Since you can’t attack a non-enemy army, they could have made it where you couldn’t assassinate, double, steal, InfOther, etc against non enemy. They intentionally allowed inter-alliance backstabbing. They wanted it in fact.
While this is good role playing, I think it harms the game in general. This is why I’ve stood SO firmly against a PRS that uses the VPs that were intentionally designed to reward poor team play.
I’m not familiar with the yahoo group <I don’t yahoo lol> but I think if I was designing a rating system the first thing I would look at is how practical it is from the game masters position…if it requires too much additional data collection it has already failed.
