Lawrence, guys,
well there it si. Ver 2 doesn't work on XP. Strnage the ver 1.0 Beta does. I
only use ver 2 for the 2950 scenario. Like I said I prefer to do my own now
anyway. Maybe come up with some kinda Excel sheet myself. Any takers once I
get this done?
Alan J.
Hmm, mine works perfectly on XP 
Ulrik
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Jeffrey" <lionatus@f...>
wrote:
Lawrence, guys,
well there it si. Ver 2 doesn't work on XP. Strnage the ver 1.0
Beta does. I
only use ver 2 for the 2950 scenario. Like I said I prefer to do
my own now
anyway. Maybe come up with some kinda Excel sheet myself. Any
takers once I
get this done?
Alan J.
I'm writing to ask members of the recent game
reconsider their decision to leave ME-PBM. It's a loss
of good players in the community.
The decision is based on an ME Games mistake: they
made a setup mistake, despite the additional grudge
match fee, and wouldn't correct it (to re-run the
turn). They should have.
And yet it would sure help if you'd stay in the
playing community.
If you're leaving because you feel this is a typical
pattern of poor service, then I understand (though I
personally find the service to be generally
outstanding). But if dropping is a result of this
particular issue, maybe you could reconsider?
By nature, these games depend on personal interaction
and commitment. Your presence adds something to the
games you play and your absence -- especially sudden
absence -- hurts them, all of them.
Please stay: dropping isn't a good response, and
besides, if we didn't all need someone to pound, aid,
blame, support, threaten, rescue, and surprise, we'd
just play Quake.
Dan N.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Hello everyone,
My name is John Briggs (aka JB) and I am on the Aussie team (even
though I'm a "yank") that has recently had all the issues. I have
not really spoken up during this whole thing, for one main reason.
While this entire thing erupted for my team, my wife was delivering
our first child so I really missed the beginning exchanges between
ME Games and the team captain. But having this distance gave me a
bit of clarity (i hope!). I may repeat a lot, and if so forgive me
and just hit "delete."
I'll make it brief (or try). I was against ME Games initially but
once it was revealed that it is stated in the rules and other places
that players should check relations immediately I became
understanding of both sides. I didn't read those rule pages, so i
considered it my fault that I didn't check the relations - that is
my fault for not reading house rules closely. Those are the rules,
and I didn't follow them, my bad.
But, I do understand why some of my teammates are irate. Mainly it
is because we had to pay a double set-up fee for the grudge game -
whose purpose is because of the special parameters for these games.
Yes mistakes happen, but I can understand why some people are pissed
because they paid an extra fee for extra service that was, in truth,
not fully provided.
I understand ME makes mistakes as we all do, and in the past my team
has been more than understanding, even as turn re-runs hurt us ("a
part of the game, lets play on"). But it appeared that ME Games was
using this as a place "to draw the line" as Clint said and not
attempt to make any corrective action. That, combined with the fact
that many of us were surprised by the extra fee in the first place
(our first grudge game where it was applied and in setting up the
game ME didn't mention it to us, granted apply above "rules"
comment), created some disharmony.
So it was less a tactical game issue - which was minor - but a
customer service issue in a series of events. I understand where ME
Games would stand by their rule and be intransigent, and I
understand why some players feel that they should not pay extra for
a special service, only to have that service not fully provided
followed by the company not attempting to remedy it but pointing at
a line in the rules and saying "sorry, too bad."
I think the customer service, and Clint and Rob et al have
historically been excellent, and very understanding. Why they would
not budge on this issue or rerun the turn or offer other solutions I
do not know, and frankly am surprised at that.
As Dan mentioned, I hope that my teammates eventually reconsider,
but I respect their decision and understand. I will miss learning
from the best team out there, and I send regrets to our American
opposition for what looked to be an excellent game in the making.
The whole thing is silly, but silly on both sides. The whole ME
universe has been very collegial and I hope that this is not a step
in the wrong direction by players ("Fix or quit") or ME Games ("Too
bad, its in the rules.")
JB
PS I'm not dropping my other games, I have other allies that I ahve
pledged a game with and will finish it out.
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, D N <nanooknw@y...> wrote:
I'm writing to ask members of the recent game
reconsider their decision to leave ME-PBM. It's a loss
of good players in the community.The decision is based on an ME Games mistake: they
made a setup mistake, despite the additional grudge
match fee, and wouldn't correct it (to re-run the
turn). They should have.And yet it would sure help if you'd stay in the
playing community.If you're leaving because you feel this is a typical
pattern of poor service, then I understand (though I
personally find the service to be generally
outstanding). But if dropping is a result of this
particular issue, maybe you could reconsider?By nature, these games depend on personal interaction
and commitment. Your presence adds something to the
games you play and your absence -- especially sudden
absence -- hurts them, all of them.Please stay: dropping isn't a good response, and
besides, if we didn't all need someone to pound, aid,
blame, support, threaten, rescue, and surprise, we'd
just play Quake.Dan N.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
The whole thing is silly, but silly on both sides. The whole ME
universe has been very collegial and I hope that this is not a step
in the wrong direction by players ("Fix or quit") or ME Games ("Too
bad, its in the rules.")
If its in the rules, its the rules. You didnt follow them, or even read
them. What do you expect ?
Yes mistakes happen, but I can understand why some people are pissed
because they paid an extra fee for extra service that was, in truth,
not fully provided.
Basically to do all the relation changes, new characters, modifications takes us several hours. To change a single, and I mean single, relation, takes us 3 keyboard operations - swopping between number and letter codes. Awful, majorly outdated and arcane. Now multiply that by several hundred operations, and the fact that we run a LOT of 12v12 games (or similar variants where we have to do this by hand). GB has Harad as FP, yet normal 12v12 Harad is DS - more confusion.
That's what the extra set-up fee is for. We then ask that players check the relations, as per normal the majority of the players don't... I don't know how else to get players to do this. (Same for change allegiance - do please check that you have changed allegiance!)
One option in future is for us to change the rules so that we will do the edit should players miss the Relation change. This will cause us, I would estimate, around 10 hours extra work per game. (Trust me, or not, on those figures).
I understand ME makes mistakes as we all do, and in the past my team
has been more than understanding, even as turn re-runs hurt us ("a
part of the game, lets play on")
Part of the reason that we are trying to get players to use AM or MEOW when it comes out. It majorly reduces such edits. When we brought this in we had a lot of heartache but I think that players trust us (on the most part) to not abuse this or use it to modify situations unfairly. If it's our fault we'll fix it is our basic maxim here.
But it appeared that ME Games was
using this as a place "to draw the line" as Clint said and not
attempt to make any corrective action.
We did attempt to liaise as part of the corrective action - I've written around 30 emails... I cannot comment at present what corrective action has been suggested but I await a reply from both team captains about this.
That, combined with the fact
that many of us were surprised by the extra fee in the first place
(our first grudge game where it was applied and in setting up the
game ME didn't mention it to us, granted apply above "rules"
comment), created some disharmony.
Unfortunately this is clearly stated in the house rules. I don't know how to make players read these... Basically service costs someone. Either us in reduced wages (ie we need more staff to provide such service) or players - increased turn fees/set-up fees. (Note we don't earn a lot from PBM - you've heard this record many times before I know but it's the case - we do need enough to live on - and even though we're big for a PBM firm, we're still very small fry in the big world of business and money making).
I think the customer service, and Clint and Rob et al have
historically been excellent, and very understanding. Why they would
not budge on this issue or rerun the turn or offer other solutions I
do not know, and frankly am surprised at that.
We have to have a set of rules somewhere. Note: Other teams have accepted our decision here as it has come up before at least twice. This includes our own GM team where we failed in a very similar situation to do an attack order - let's say that the swear-words flew and recrimination at our fortnightly meet also were raised but we accepted that they were the rules. Each player and teams responds to these issues in different ways and tempers do flare.
The whole ME
universe has been very collegial and I hope that this is not a step in the wrong direction by players ("Fix or quit") or ME Games ("Too bad, its in the rules.")
How would you suggest that we make improvements? Serious question (not an attack). (I have a suggestion below but do want player feedback). We do need to have a set of rules that players abide by and implement when the situation requires it.
Example 1: We recently had a Gunboat game where a player stole gold from an ally (normal tactics in most games to get agents up in stat, but in GB games specifically disallowed for many reasons). He dropped when we said that was not allowed. What would be the solution there? Should we have a system of penalising players at all that don't follow those rules? What I try to do is create a fair set of rules as best I can and apply them equally. (So if a player misses a turn, we don't do edits for that player. What we do do is attempt to get it so that the turn is not missed in the first place, hence Shadow orders, contacting players etc). Similarly we try to make it clear what the rules are before hand for 12v12 games and hope that players are aware of what the situation is.
On the one hand we do have to provide a service to our players and we attempt to do this - that's our responsibility. But there is also, I feel, a responsibility on the players to play by the rules of the game. What do players think about that? Have I got the wrong end of the stick entirely?
Example 2: Another example of where we had to draw a line (in our opinion): a player once threatened to drop out because his army moved unfed (he had started out with one food in his army but failed to be fed as he hadn't understood the rule about feeding an army - he thought that as long as you started with one food you would be fed).
Although we can do edits if we feel that the "intent" behind an order was that, for example, you wanted to move the army fed, in practice this is a very dangerous area for us to get into - open to all sorts of calls of interference and favouritism if we basically have to make a judgement call.
The distinction here is one of form I think. As we modified the game then we do have some responsibility to get it right and inform the players of what the rules are. I can't make players read the rules especially with variant games. Nor can I guarantee that we'll get it 100% right (we get it 99% right for this).
However, I do feel that the players also have some responsibility to check and we have made it a pre-requisite of the game. In an ideal world the program would be able to handle this, we'd make no errors, and even if we did players would notice immediately and get back to us so that we could fix it. It's not an ideal world unfortunately.
What I am thinking of doing is in future making it so that if an edit such as this does occur then we'll do the fix as if the relations were correct. An additional service to the players. Thoughts on that and other issues raised?
Clint
How would you suggest that we make improvements? Serious question (not an
attack). (I have a suggestion below but do want player feedback). We do
need to have a set of rules that players abide by and implement when the
situation requires it.Example 1: We recently had a Gunboat game where a player stole gold from
an
ally (normal tactics in most games to get agents up in stat, but in GB
games specifically disallowed for many reasons). He dropped when we said
that was not allowed. What would be the solution there?
Gunboat is a very special variant that very specifically details what's
allowed and what's not allowed. 100% player responsibility here.
Example 2: Another example of where we had to draw a line (in our
opinion):
a player once threatened to drop out because his army moved unfed (he had
started out with one food in his army but failed to be fed as he hadn't
understood the rule about feeding an army - he thought that as long as you
started with one food you would be fed).Although we can do edits if we feel that the "intent" behind an order was
that, for example, you wanted to move the army fed, in practice this is a
very dangerous area for us to get into - open to all sorts of calls of
interference and favouritism if we basically have to make a judgement
call.
You'll have to elaborate why this was a "judgement call". Will you
considering raising my 37 agent from the dead after he failed to sabotage
the fortifications at Dol Amroth because I write you and whine: "But..but
... I wanted to Live!"...? I'm being serious. I don't see either of these
example as being "judgement calls" in the same vein as the Australian team's
dilemna at all. These are simply player screwups.
The second example is an order mechanics problem from someone who may take
issue with the clarity of the rules. My copy of that tedious tome is miles
away, but as long as feeding troops is explained, somewhere, as being
"maintenance", and the concept of an army "with food" is mentioned in
regards to movement, between the two of these items (in whatever format) and
the Order Sequence, it's a very simple call. If one of these items is
lacking, then you may very well have a "hard case". I tend to feel those
items are there, somewhere, and thus it's a simple case of *shrug* "Too
bad.".
The first is closer to the "hard case" in question, as it deals with a hand
moderated variant game specification. The difference being, in Gunboat, the
rules very clearly spell out "How you play order by order, turn by turn."
The Australian team situation deals with the rules spelling out the
scenario, while the order by order, turn by turn are from then on simply run
through the computer as per any other game. It is, as they've eloquently
stated, a question of trust and expectation.
I personally feel, in a situation like this, especially considering the
extra charges involved, that yes, the company would be best represented by
making the changes once it's determined that there have been no other
effects of the situation felt within the game in question. For example, if
MEGames screws up the inputting of my clearly TYPED movement order, I would
expect them to make the correction..and they do...if I get it "soon enough".
But I can't come back to them three turns later and say "Hey! I just
realized that I was supposed to be on 4228 this turn, but am not because you
screwed up my orders 3 turns ago...!" and expect them to put me there. So
when is "soon enough" defined here?
Brad Brunet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
Clint wrote:
We then ask that players check
the relations, as per normal the majority of the players don't... I don't
know how else to get players to do this. (Same for change allegiance - do
please check that you have changed allegiance!)
As we modified the game then
we do have some responsibility to get it right and inform the players of
what the rules are. I can't make players read the rules especially with
variant games. Nor can I guarantee that we'll get it 100% right (we get it
99% right for this).
However, I do feel that the players also have some responsibility to check
and we have made it a pre-requisite of the game.
RD: If you are a player in a game where you know Harle has made manual changes (at player request remember!) then it is in your own interest to check everything and make sure they have done it right. Having said that, I too have been guilty of not reading the frontsheet.
But even if you don't read the fs or the house rules, SURELY when your startup arrives and you see that as well as the usual starting 8 characters, you have an extra C100 called Lead - something, you ask Harle and/or your team-mates why, and you will get an explanation (maybe terse, but unequivocal :-)) that this guy is to do the allegiance change and then retire. I do not see how any experienced player could miss this, and if you did, then no offence, but I'm afraid it's your fault, not Harle's.
As far as I can see Harle are in the right.
Richard.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...>
wrote:
we run a LOT of 12v12 games (or
similar variants where we have to do this by hand). GB has Harad
as FP,
yet normal 12v12 Harad is DS - more confusion.
That's what the extra set-up fee is for. We then ask that players
check
the relations, as per normal the majority of the players don't...
This is not the fault of the moderator. If you are asked to check the
correctness of your relations it is then your responsibility to make
sure they are correct before you proceed further in the game. If you
don't then any consequences should be borne by you.
> One option in future is for us to change the rules so that we will
do the
edit should players miss the Relation change.
Absolutely not, most of the players I would say are adults with
normal to above normal intelligence. It should be your responsibility
to do the programming change for the relationship change with your
best effort at making it correct. However if it is not correct it
should be their responsibility to notify you before the next turn is
run to ensure errors are corrected. If they don't shame on them and
they pay the price of failed orders for turn 1 as they didn't take
the initiative to check. Corrections should then be made of course
but the lazy or inattentive players should not get the benefit of a
do over, they should have to own up that the failure to check their
status cost them failed orders. Maybe that would cause them to be
more conscientious next time around. This is no different than them
sending the wrong order number and the order not working because of
that. This does not mean you change their orders to what they
intended to send but did not in order to let their characters do what
they intended rather than what they ordered. It is not the same as
them sending in correct orders and you entering them wrong in which
case you should make good your mistake.
This will cause us, I would
estimate, around 10 hours extra work per game. (Trust me, or not,
on those
figures).
This is not work you should be required to do. You should fix errors
when informed in a timely manner, which I interpret as before the
next turn is run. You should not be double checking the turns, that
is the players responsibility.
Part of the reason that we are trying to get players to use AM or
MEOW when
it comes out. It majorly reduces such edits. When we brought this
in we
had a lot of heartache but I think that players trust us (on the
most part)
to not abuse this or use it to modify situations unfairly. If it's
our
fault we'll fix it is our basic maxim here.
Unfortunately this is clearly stated in the house rules. I don't
know how
to make players read these...
By what you have done. I am certain that this episode will cause more
people to take a few minutes to understand the house rules now.
Basically service costs >
>I think the customer service, and Clint and Rob et al have
>historically been excellent, and very understanding. Why they
would
It is much like the NFL coaches replay challenge. You have until the
ball is snapped for the next play to initiate a challenge of the last
play. If you don't exercise your option within that time you forfiet
the opportunity. In game terms my opinion is that if you don't catch
the error in your present turn, and bring it to Harley's attention
the point is moot, play on. Before the next turn is run you can have
Harley correct an error that is likely to continue to affect the game
such as relations but if Harley screwed up a movement order that you
sent correctly and you don't tell them and the next turn is run and
your character now cannot get to where you planned to send him and so
does not move that is your own fault for failing to reconcile the
turn results with the orders you sent the previous order. There
should be no responsibility for Harley to go back then and correct
the mistake. You had two weeks to review and get it fixed the time is
up.
We have to have a set of rules somewhere. Note: Other teams have
accepted
our decision here as it has come up before at least twice. This
includes
our own GM team where we failed in a very similar situation to do
an attack
order - let's say that the swear-words flew and recrimination at
our
fortnightly meet also were raised but we accepted that they were
the
rules.
As they should.
How would you suggest that we make improvements? Serious question
(not an
attack). (I have a suggestion below but do want player feedback).
We do
need to have a set of rules that players abide by and implement
when the
situation requires it.
What I
try to do is create a fair set of rules as best I can and apply
them
equally. (So if a player misses a turn, we don't do edits for that
player. What we do do is attempt to get it so that the turn is not
missed
in the first place, hence Shadow orders, contacting players
etc). Similarly we try to make it clear what the rules are before
hand for
12v12 games and hope that players are aware of what the situation
is.
On the one hand we do have to provide a service to our players and
we
attempt to do this - that's our responsibility. But there is also,
I feel,
a responsibility on the players to play by the rules of the game.
What do
players think about that? Have I got the wrong end of the stick
entirely?
No I think you are correct, there has to be some uniform way of
running the game. It should be applied the same to anyone who is
playing the game. If someone fails to follow the rules the
consequences are theirs not yours.
Example 2: Another example of where we had to draw a line (in our
opinion):
a player once threatened to drop out because his army moved unfed
(he had
started out with one food in his army but failed to be fed as he
hadn't
understood the rule about feeding an army - he thought that as long
as you
started with one food you would be fed).
That is not the same, if he doesn't understand something in the rule
book he can always call or email you guys and get clarification. If
you don't bother to comply with the rules or read the rules then it
is your fault not Harley's if things don't go your way.
Although we can do edits if we feel that the "intent" behind an
order was
that, for example, you wanted to move the army fed, in practice
this is a
very dangerous area for us to get into - open to all sorts of calls
of
interference and favouritism if we basically have to make a
judgement call.
And everytime your crystal ball is hazy you will get castigated for
it. I had an army supply issue in one of my games recently and was
quite upset that my orders had not been processed as sent. Your guy
there explained the sequence and why the orders did not work and I
had to accept that I had misunderstood. At another time I sent the
wrong order number but correct order title and additional
information. The order failed
This is what the house rules are all about. Yes you could have tried
to read my mind and changed the order number, but the house rules are
that when there is a discrepancy between the order number and order
title, the order number will take precedence. I screwed up it cost
me, but I have no right to expect you to fix my error in attention to
detail, nor does the Aussie team have a right to expect you to fix
their situation because they did not bother to check their set up as
required in the house rules. Fix it for them now and play on Aussies
one turn could not have possibly cost you the entire game.
The distinction here is one of form I think. As we modified the
game then
we do have some responsibility to get it right and inform the
players of
what the rules are. I can't make players read the rules especially
with
variant games. Nor can I guarantee that we'll get it 100% right
(we get it
99% right for this).
However, I do feel that the players also have some responsibility
to check
and we have made it a pre-requisite of the game. In an ideal world
the
program would be able to handle this, we'd make no errors, and even
if we
did players would notice immediately and get back to us so that we
could
fix it. It's not an ideal world unfortunately.
What I am thinking of doing is in future making it so that if an
edit such
as this does occur then we'll do the fix as if the relations were
correct. An additional service to the players. Thoughts on that
and other
issues raised?
Clint
I'm not always happy with the way things work out, but the
explanations given me generally satisfy me as to why they have turned
out the way they did. I have never found Harley to be unreasonable.
Not always agreeable maybe but not unreasonable. We as players must
accept some responsibility for ensuring things are correct if we
don't it is our fault that they may not be.
Brad
Clint,
(If you want me to talk to you off list we can do that
too, so everyone doesn't haveto go through it if they
dont want to). All very justified points, which is
why I had said that once you pointed out those were
all in the rules I was not "against" you in your
ruling anymore. Personally I read the rules a long
time ago, I am sure there was a note on this message
board at some point saying "new rules" but I either
missed it (unlikely) or ignored it (likely). And
start-ups of course I'm so eager to read the setup ...
again why I said "my bad" after you said it was in the
rules.
I think this process has, at the very least, made
anyone reading this list more aware that new rule
updates should be read clearly, at least for me.
I'm not sure where to draw the line, I think you've
had good judgement in the past and am sure that will
continue. I would like to comment that the below
example of people threatening to quit are when they
didn't understand GAME rules or GAME mechanics, where
as a stuffed set-up to me seems more a HOUSE rule or
an initial SETUP that was broken (i.e. we should have
checked and didn't). Should there be a difference and
should you bend on one more than the other? not sure,
but at the least it seems to me that if someone
doesn't understand the 690 order correctly or food
rules that's a game mechanic and people need to learn
from their mistakes. Again come back to the extra fee
and this may sound krass but I don't intend it to be -
from a selfish customer view ME has chosen that to be
the fee for the extra work to be done for set-up. If
it is 10x the work, and ME charges 2x the fee, that's
the company decision. But that is still the fee to
begin a properly set game and that's what a selfish
customer expects, fine print or not (maybe this is an
American view or something). Now most customers in a
gaming world are more understanding, and again I point
out the rule issue where since you said "its in the
rules to check" and I didn't then I conceeded.
On the specific issue, your solution seems fine. Turn
4 we realize what went wrong, I'm not sure you have to
spend all the time re-running the whole turn (also may
not be fir to opposition if 615's that previouly
failed succeed, etc) but if you can just change 2-3
data points (pop center and troops levels as if they
attacked) that may be best. Not sure if hte
programming works that way, I'm in awe of the fact you
have to do hundreds of operations to make Harad a DS
and Corsairs a Free to start a game.
Side note: can you program a "mutliple downgrade"
command? Not for players, but for you so that when you
give us a Comm A to change allegiance and then retire,
the player can change allegiance and do a multiple
downgrade and then retire. Maybe save keystrokes, but
who knows.
I'll stop yammering on. Lastly: Thanks to the
American opposition for their accomodation and
understanding. And thanks to ME Games for the same and
the players for returning.
JB
--- Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
wrote:
>Yes mistakes happen, but I can understand why some
people are pissed
>because they paid an extra fee for extra service
that was, in truth,
>not fully provided.Basically to do all the relation changes, new
characters, modifications
takes us several hours. To change a single, and I
mean single, relation,
takes us 3 keyboard operations - swopping between
number and letter
codes. Awful, majorly outdated and arcane. Now
multiply that by several
hundred operations, and the fact that we run a LOT
of 12v12 games (or
similar variants where we have to do this by hand).
GB has Harad as FP,
yet normal 12v12 Harad is DS - more confusion.That's what the extra set-up fee is for. We then
ask that players check
the relations, as per normal the majority of the
players don't... I don't
know how else to get players to do this. (Same for
change allegiance - do
please check that you have changed allegiance!)One option in future is for us to change the rules
so that we will do the
edit should players miss the Relation change. This
will cause us, I would
estimate, around 10 hours extra work per game.
(Trust me, or not, on those
figures).>I understand ME makes mistakes as we all do, and in
the past my team
>has been more than understanding, even as turn
re-runs hurt us ("a
>part of the game, lets play on")Part of the reason that we are trying to get players
to use AM or MEOW when
it comes out. It majorly reduces such edits. When
we brought this in we
had a lot of heartache but I think that players
trust us (on the most part)
to not abuse this or use it to modify situations
unfairly. If it's our
fault we'll fix it is our basic maxim here.>But it appeared that ME Games was
>using this as a place "to draw the line" as Clint
said and not
>attempt to make any corrective action.We did attempt to liaise as part of the corrective
action - I've written
around 30 emails...
what corrective action
has been suggested but I await a reply from both
team captains about this.> That, combined with the fact
>that many of us were surprised by the extra fee in
the first place
>(our first grudge game where it was applied and in
setting up the
>game ME didn't mention it to us, granted apply
above "rules"
>comment), created some disharmony.Unfortunately this is clearly stated in the house
rules. I don't know how
to make players read these...
costs someone. Either
us in reduced wages (ie we need more staff to
provide such service) or
players - increased turn fees/set-up fees. (Note we
don't earn a lot from
PBM - you've heard this record many times before I
know but it's the case
- we do need enough to live on - and even though
we're big for a PBM firm,
we're still very small fry in the big world of
business and money making).>I think the customer service, and Clint and Rob et
al have
>historically been excellent, and very
understanding. Why they would
>not budge on this issue or rerun the turn or offer
other solutions I
>do not know, and frankly am surprised at that.We have to have a set of rules somewhere. Note:
Other teams have accepted
our decision here as it has come up before at least
twice. This includes
our own GM team where we failed in a very similar
situation to do an attack
order - let's say that the swear-words flew and
recrimination at our
fortnightly meet also were raised but we accepted
that they were the
rules. Each player and teams responds to these
issues in different ways
and tempers do flare.The whole ME
>universe has been very collegial and I hope that
this is not a step in the
>wrong direction by players ("Fix or quit") or ME
Games ("Too bad, its in
>the rules.")How would you suggest that we make improvements?
Serious question (not an
attack). (I have a suggestion below but do want
player feedback). We do
need to have a set of rules that players abide by
and implement when the
situation requires it.Example 1: We recently had a Gunboat game where a
player stole gold from an
ally (normal tactics in most games to get agents up
in stat, but in GB
games specifically disallowed for many reasons). He
dropped when we said
that was not allowed. What would be the solution
there? Should we have a
system of penalising players at all that don't
follow those rules? What I
try to do is create a fair set of rules as best I
can and apply them
equally. (So if a player misses a turn, we don't do
edits for that
player. What we do do is attempt to get it so that
the turn is not missed
in the first place, hence Shadow orders, contacting
players
etc). Similarly we try to make it clear what the
rules are before hand for
12v12 games and hope that players are aware of what
the situation is.On the one hand we do have to provide a service to
our players and we
attempt to do this - that's our responsibility. But
there is also, I feel,
a responsibility on the players to play by the rules
of the game. What do
players think about that? Have I got the wrong end
of the stick entirely?Example 2: Another example of where we had to draw a
line (in our opinion):
a player once threatened to drop out because his
army moved unfed (he had
started out with one food in his army but failed to
be fed as he hadn't
understood the rule about feeding an army - he
thought that as long as you
started with one food you would be fed).Although we can do edits if we feel that the
"intent" behind an order was
that, for example, you wanted to move the army fed,
in practice this is a
very dangerous area for us to get into - open to all
sorts of calls of
interference and favouritism if we basically have to
make a judgement call.The distinction here is one of form I think. As we
modified the game then
we do have some responsibility to get it right and
inform the players of
what the rules are. I can't make players read the
rules especially with
variant games. Nor can I guarantee that we'll get
it 100% right (we get it
99% right for this).However, I do feel that the players also have some
responsibility to check
and we have made it a pre-requisite of the game. In
an ideal world the
program would be able to handle this, we'd make no
errors, and even if we
did players would notice immediately and get back to
us so that we could
fix it. It's not an ideal world unfortunately.What I am thinking of doing is in future making it
so that if an edit such
as this does occur then we'll do the fix as if the
relations were
=== message truncated ===
=====
john_h_briggs@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Side note: can you program a "mutliple downgrade"
command? Not for players, but for you so that when you
give us a Comm A to change allegiance and then retire,
the player can change allegiance and do a multiple
downgrade and then retire. Maybe save keystrokes, but
who knows.
Sorry GSI won't let us do program changes.
Clint