I've just been in yet another terribly disappointing game. "Victory" on
turn 8. I was one of three neutrals that declared FP, a 4th was just about
to. Communication from the DS was virtually nil throughout the game
despite proactive attempts from the neutrals to talk to them. DS had drops
on turn 2, including it seems, their "experienced" players. BlS, ClL and
QAv spoke to me once or twice as a neutral Corsair, but all seemed either
brand new players, and/or newish standby players, with absolutely nobody on
their team giving them any help. DrL seemed to be the only player with a
little experience, able to talk to us at the end of the game.
Here's Don Palmer after summing up that game on the board:
"Now on to more general matters, regarding the state of the "Open" scenario.
I will not be joining any open games in the future. Why? I have now
completed 4 open games of MEPBM - two 1650, two 2950. In 3 of 4, the teams
seemed very unevenly matched as to starting experience, strength, and
cohesion. Also, the split of the neutrals on all cases ended up being
lopsided in favor of one side or the other. In all 3 games, it was over by
turn 11 with concession, me being on the winning side 2 out of 3.
In all cases, the games were hardly "fun". When on the winning side, things
seemed to be going so easy that it was like we were playing a poor computer
AI, and in reality the other side experienced SS turns and drops early on
that hamstrung them further. On the losing side, fighting a battle when you
have an instant drop/SS turn without a heads-up from that player, perhaps a
missed turn or 2, as well as non-communicative allies, was frustrating as well.
As one of our starting players in game 23 said upon stating he was dropping
on T4, the games was about as fun as electro-shock therapy.
I do not know what can be done to improve the chances of getting in a
competitive, enjoyable open scenario- but I do know that my experience with
them has left me unsatisfied. For games that last 5-11 turns, that is not
only a waste of money (avg. $65 in turn fees), but more importantly a waste
of valuable time in reading and posting emails to your group, stating and
debating merits of various plans and orders, only to see the game fall
apart quickly. That is time better spent on a different scenario (grudge),
or entirely different game, IMHO."
Now if I had a penny for every time I've heard "I only play grudge games
now" I'd be a rich man. I fully sympathise with Don's reaction, but I
think it's something we need to attempt to deal with. There's now a
hemorrhage of experienced players from the Open games. I play open games
because most of the friends I have in grudge games are people I've
originally met in open games. I also think that those of us who have been
playing for years should consider it a duty to encourage new players in the
game... but the Noble Spirit of Duty wears bit thin when games end on turn
8, and you feel like you've spent a hell of a lot of money to end up bored,
and see other experienced players abandon the sinking ship.
Can we salvage the situation?
The Player Rating System, as first debated a couple of years ago, was I
hoped, something that might help to balance teams. It didn't work for that
purpose, but rather than say why, I'll just point out that some of those
who were actively opposed to the PRS in all forms, are among those saying
"I'll only play grudge games now". So let's see if we can find another way...
One suggestion which has come up over the years is an Insurance
policy: Turn fees would be increased, but you'd get some money back if the
game ended prematurely. ME Games always seemed to me to be negative about
this, as they didn't want to risk losing money. But I suspect that if the
Open game problem is not addressed somehow, they will be losing money
invisibly - we're going to end up with a core of grudge team players, and
an itinerant population of newbies who come in for one miserable game, then
never darken Middle Earth's doorstep again. My own reservation about an
Insurance policy is that though it would compensate financially, it would
not compensate for the disappointment.
Is there a simple, practical mechanism that could improve open
games? Here's a proposal as a discussion starter:
Open Game Win Tickets: In an Open Game (sign up on your own, list of
preferred nations submitted to GM, neutrals not pre-aligned) those on the
winning team at game end get given an Open Game Win Ticket. When ME games
have issued 25+ such tickets they advertise a "Winners Open Game", you use
your ticket to gain entry, otherwise as per a usual open game. That
would mean that you play one or two Ordinary Open games, then a Winners
Open. If your ordinary game collapses early, you have the compensation of
knowing that in your next game you will at least be playing against those
who've got a battle stripe. Such a scheme might reward experienced players
for coming back into open games.
[]
Laurence G.Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
<http://www.buav.org/campaigns/primates/index.html>
Zero Option - end the use of primates in research
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
