Back to Harley immediately filling of drops. The 'Law of Unanticipated Consequences' is at work here. Never done this myself but I have seen it done. You have a newbie that is immune to 'guidance'? Then you insult him and drive him off. Then either you or your buddy gets the position. In the old GSI days you were forced to nurse the guy along, because the alternative was complete loss of his resources. Don't know how many long term customers Harley has lost because of this, but they have lost some.
GSI lost more from my understanding. I looked at the books when we bought out the game and their drop rates (and lack of returning players) was atrocious. No doubt that was one element of them passing on the game (when GSI passed the game onto DGE we were steadily gaining players from the US run games due to these and other elements). Players dropped from apathy, lack of time and all the usual factors, (the list is really quite long for why players don't play on) and with a no-replace policy that leaves to a bad-game.
We tested it with GB games and they quickly became un-competitive and followed by mass drops so unless you have hard evidence to counter my own experience and investigations here I'm going to remain to be unconvinced that your policy is one that is best for the game. Replacement of players is something that we had a long time convincing new players, as the game had a bad reputation for drops not being replaced btw, that we had changed that policy and players seem, on the whole, to prefer this policy, including new players to the game.
I'm glad that others have also noted the lack of civility in independent games.
Um, that's not my experience either. I've seen that in general things have improved enormously. We're stronger on removing cheats from the games, implementing policy on naming characters that are insulting to others etc. 
Sometimes players to blow-up, that's the nature of competitive games I've found and passionate players will occasionally explode in this manner. I generally, if I'm feeling annoyed, try to avoid writing emails, and find that when my 2nd (or 3rd+) email is written it's calmer. I know that as a player, I'm not perfect either, but I find that in the large majority of cases players are fine and civil to each other.
Clint: You know you can not prove that immediate fills lengthen the games. Accept you were indoctrinated early on by gentlemen with an imperfect understanding of the game.
Each player has his own style of playing the game I've found. I don't try to force others to play my style when playing (although I am passionate), but as a GM I do have to try to give a global understanding of what players want and cater to that desire. Players like competitive games. The best games are where players are enjoying a challenge, and the best challenge is to have maximum players in that game. Noldo or North Gondor dropping on turn 1 due to lack of time or something, with no-pick-ups allowed, would cripple the FP in many ways. How would you suggest that is dealt with? Have 2 nations drop and not replaced and any team is going to suffer so badly that I don't feel they are going to be competitive, have a good game. Have that happen twice.
Note GSI did replace some drops, and even if they didn't it's not pertinent. I've learnt what I can from them and their style of GMing, (don't forget GSI = Stu for most of the time, and he's fed back on what he felt GSI did wrong and right and we've implemented that. One thing he agrees with is that GSI's policy on drops was bad, and that our policy was better). Same for other licencees, I've seen good elements and bad and tried to implement the best policies from each company both within the game and outside the game.
Anyone else feel that we should not replace drops? If so why?
As yourself now: "Which drop system is more true to Tolkien, more 'realstic' and better for the longterm health of the game"?
I don't really mind which is more realistic. Curse squads are not realistic, economy building a camp to a City in under a year in a "medieval environment" where there's little or no mention of such creation in Tolkien's works here about this etc all imply the game is not a clone of Tolkien's world. Therefore my take is that we work with the BEST game that we can create, and keep as many elements of Tolkien in it that we can. But to answer, you don't have nations "drop" in the world of Lotr - they get wiped out but all of them fight on until that moment, hence I think our policy of replacing them is the best system, AND more realistic. I'm on my second re-reading of LoTr this year so got a decent grasp of what happened in the world of Tolkien so can defend that argument.
But back to the discussion, any other thoughts on what we can do guys to make your gaming experience as fruitful as possible?
Clint
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.comFrom: me@MiddleEarthGames.comDate: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:53:25 +0100Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Balanced Games
It will be interesting to comment on the game 75 when that game has finished as I'm using that as a test case. Personally I think the advent of the internet has sped up the games enormously, I chatted with other PBM firms about their experience here and on the whole that's an agreed "standard". Why is that? The sharing of information and so on has added to the manner in which a consensus opinion often is reached more quickly (won the game, game being lost without a real chance of a win etc) and added to that the scenario where the game has moved on and the attitude to gaming also moved on in the 20 or so years since PBeM has been around. Drop outs being replaced actually increases the length of a game, not decrease it I've found. GSI had lots of games with only a a few active players in them, and a constant problem was the "bug-hunt," the bug-bear of many games, often causing a lack of enjoyment and lack of re-playablility. Drop outs being replaced also, for most, adds to the
enjoyment of the game as you're not left in the lurch.Does faster games make worse games? The game was always intended to be created with minimum interaction between players. The internet, mapping programs etc have all sped that process of interaction and also made the exchange of information more accurate. Does that make a worse game?Solutions. Well games are sometimes going to be short. Sometimes despite my best efforts there is no way to get a competitive game for players. Ideally I'd like to reduce the size of teams allowed down to 4 as if they are good they have a strong impact on the game, if they are weak then the team quickly caves. Possibly I'd like to reduce the impact of Neutrals somewhat in the game. (See my study on in Bree where I looked at Neutrals and the eventual winners of a game, they appear to be the defining factor in some games). Note some Grudge games are also very short... :-)How to make players commit to the game? I can't do anything about that. We
have no-drop formats and I've found that after Grudge games they are the most hotly contested and competitive games as players value a win in those formats more. So that's one solution for the more hard-core players. With a limited player pool, the GB format works well with 2 nations a player for some non-drop games. That's a potential way forward for the game. But note, not everyone wants that format of game so you have to be wary of making others conform here. PRS impacts on this for those that care, once again the more competitive players, but for those that don't then you're not going to change their opinions or style of play I suspect.Smaller games? That's an option. Check out UW - it's a great little scenario and has a lot of favourable impact, and when we get KS out that should be an interesting development. It will no doubt add to the fog-of-war so that tactics are slower to impact, not impossible but will slow the game down somewhat. Having played 5 turns of it now,
I can see that it has great scope for strategy and development in different manners so that's cool. So I think I have another solution there, just needs to be finished off.Clint (GM)As a player in many games I've seen the opposition not put up any real fight sometimes and the game quickly come to an end. The latest 2950 with excellent diplomacy on our part brought all 5 neutrals onto our side. Game was over by turn 5 , and the rest of the turns were just mop-up. As a player I see that ANY neutral on your side is one less enemy to fight and they sometimes even assist the team in a winning situation. So for around 20 minutes effort, some gold, the odd pc and so on you get to kill a potential enemy player... I never get why players are prepared to spend many hours looking over their turns, diploming with allies about moves and the like, yet are not prepared to interact with 5 new potential players to their teams.In answer to my question above, I personally prefer a challenging
game. One where I beat, or get beat, by the opposition and move on to another challenge. I find the greatest challenge in a Grudge format. I play some boardgames and find the challenging, yet quick, games to be more interesting than the slower, usually due to competency of the opposition, but non-challenging games. So that's my personal style that I enjoy. ME is great in that it allows for many different styles, tactics and attitudes though. I'm always wary of trying to make others conform to my own form of gaming.Clint (player)At 15:53 28/06/08, you wrote:>>To balance or not to balance? It comes down to psychological factors that >Clint would, usually, be unaware of. Which brings up the REAL issue---drops.>>Drops, yes many people hate them and some folks feel resentment towards >people who drop. But they have and continue to play an important role in >this game. Let me explain.>>In most forms of conflict there are three choices. Let us use Tolkien's >good versus evil as an
example. In the struggle against evil you can >fight it (Gandalf's choice), join it (Saruman) or withdraw from it >(Gladriel). A drop is Gladriel's choice. GSI rarely replaced >drops. This was in keeping with Tolkien's fantasy universe. Gladriel's >choice is as legitimate as Gandalf's or Saruman's. It also can be seen in >the Real World. An example might be Spain's fairly recent withdrawal from >the Global War on Terror. Or, Thailand's opting out of the "Greater East >Asia Coprosperity Sphere"---when it becam obvious who was going to win the >Pacific War.>>Now the will to resist collapses before the means of resisitance. Even >the Confederates and Imperial Japan surrendered when they still retained >the means of resisitance. Since GSI seldom filled drops, my one-time >regular strategy was to identify enemy newbies and 'weak sisters'. These >would get pounded, usually discouraged and then drop. Then move on to the >next. You do not fight Bain or Ji Indur, you fight the man b
ehind >them. You encourage them to takes Gladriel's road west. Pound out 2-4 in >this manner and a cascade builds up. I might note that the SHORTEST game >I ever played with GSI was 24 turns, when my EO was eliminated.>>Clint once said the average length of a 1650 game was 15 - 20 >turns. Clearly something has changed. Harley immediately fills >drops. You would exchange a discouraged player for a fresh and energetic >one. I'm sure this was posited to Harley as lengthening the game. But it >has not. I suspect the reason for the 'not'. But before getting into the >reason why Harley games are shorter than GSI games, I will await comments >on the above.>>Ed>>>>>>>>__________________________________________________________>Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger.>http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_062008>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]>>>-----------------------------------
->>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com>Yahoo! Groups Links>>>Middle Earth Games LtdWebsite: <http://www.middleearthgames.com>www.middleearthgames.comEmail: <mailto:me@middleearthgames.com>me@middleearthgames.comPost: UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UKUS: ME Games Ltd, 73 Edgewood Terrace, South Bound Brook NJ 08880Telephone: Phone Times: 10am-6:30pm UK Time (BST); 5am-1.30 (EST)UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main engaged)(Dial 011 44 29 2091 3359 if in the US)US Phone: (732) 642-8777 ESTFax: 029 2062 5532 (24 hours)----------Middle Earth Games LtdWebsite: <http://www.middleearthgames.com>www.middleearthgames.comEmail: <mailto:me@middleearthgames.com>me@middleearthgames.comPost: UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UKUS: ME Games Ltd, 73 Edgewood Terrace, South Bound Brook NJ 08880Telephone: Phone Times: 10am-6:30pm UK Time (BST); 5am-1.30 (EST)UK: 029 2091 3
359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main engaged)(Dial 011 44 29 2091 3359 if in the US)US Phone: (732) 642-8777 ESTFax: 029 2062 5532 (24 hours)
_________________________________________________________________
Introducing Live Search cashback . It's search that pays you back!
http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=introsrchcashback
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
Middle Earth Games Ltd
Website: <http://www.middleearthgames.com>www.middleearthgames.com
Email: <mailto:me@middleearthgames.com>me@middleearthgames.com
Post: UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: ME Games Ltd, 73 Edgewood Terrace, South Bound Brook NJ 08880
Telephone: Phone Times: 10am-6:30pm UK Time (BST); 5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main engaged)
(Dial 011 44 29 2091 3359 if in the US)
US Phone: (732) 642-8777 EST
Fax: 029 2062 5532 (24 hours)
···
----------
Middle Earth Games Ltd
Website: <http://www.middleearthgames.com>www.middleearthgames.com
Email: <mailto:me@middleearthgames.com>me@middleearthgames.com
Post: UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: ME Games Ltd, 73 Edgewood Terrace, South Bound Brook NJ 08880
Telephone: Phone Times: 10am-6:30pm UK Time (BST); 5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main engaged)
(Dial 011 44 29 2091 3359 if in the US)
US Phone: (732) 642-8777 EST
Fax: 029 2062 5532 (24 hours)
