Lawrence's replies are almost always amusing to me. I mean that sincerely. One of his points got me to thinking, about a new rating system? So I'll be starting that thread in another e-mail. Oh the fun we can have with that one! 
In regards to the problems with 2950 and 1650. Is it possible the games have run their course and need to be changed or dropped? It appears to me that NOT enough people playing these games are willing to adjust their ways and that a large number of players are finding other alternatives in the gaming world. Some of those players are with MEPBM and some of those are in other venues. SO, what can be done to make 2950 and 1650 work for the MEPBM Gamer?
My opinion is that it lies with the gamer as much, if not more, than the game itself.. Yes, both scenarios have issues but the majority of those issues don't really hurt the playability of the game.
Here's my list of things to do to improve an open game in the order of priority:
1) Interaction of the gamer(s):
Everyone in the game needs to be willing to communicate and work together.
2) Clear and concise communications between gamers:
Hugely long e-mails containing lingo that the inexperienced gamer is not familiar with puts a person to sleep and may even intimidate the new gamer. Be concise and too the point in your
e-mails. Use full names early on in games, especially with new players. Use references that include pop center names and hex numbers. Do keep to the subject of the specific e-mail and don't get too many separate threads going in a single threaded e-mail.
3) A single leader / commander:
Try getting a single individual on the team to give direction to the whole of the team. That person should not try to run everyone's nation but give direction and make directive decision when a dispute comes along.
4) Assigned areas of responsibility:
Everyone on the team can do coordination activities and even work together in making team decision. Just like in grudge games one person can coordinate mage activities, agent activities etc....
5) Make it fun for all:
Try your very best not to get pissy with the other players in the game. ALWAYS remember IT'S just a GAME!
In conclusion, I think the games are still viable but do need some tweaking and updating to improve the playability and improve player enjoyment. I and so many others have discussed this many times. It will happen but there are limited resources and bring on new games has been a higher priority. Plus, programming changes could be getting made and we as gamers are just not aware of them yet because of Clint's favorite term, DITCOP. 'Discovered In The Course of Play'. A despicable term that is no different than a cuss word to me! 
We as players are the greatest variable in the game and the hardest thing for anyone to control. How we interact with each other and how we help or hinder each other in the game is and always will be the most important factor.
JCC
···
________________________________
From: Laurence G. Tilley <lgtilley@morespeed.net>
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 5:12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Death of the List
On 15/12/2008 Brad wrote:
And I've noticed a reduced use of the forum. There was a healthy
thread on the forum a few months ago, discussing ways to improve the
game. Most ideas were stopped with the following "facts":
1) there's nothing wrong with the game
2) MEPBM hasn't lost any customers (net..)
My experiences don't seem to fit those "facts", am I alone? Has
everyone outgrown discussion (I grow slowly... ) or is everyone
playing Grudge games and Gunboats only? I'm an anxious addict who
fears the end of his fix..!
It was indeed an interesting thread, but it was hijacked by a few
individuals who misread the original open question as "what personal axe
do you have to grind today Fred?" And it was undermined rather by the
whine in that original question about losing players, which Clint then
demonstrated to be _factually_ incorrect.
So the question had an unsound foundation and was too open for its own
good.. A simple "how can we improve the game?" might have done better,
but of course that would not have stopped the soap-boxers who feel they
have a lot to say on some other issue, but a curious inability to start
a new thread.
While the overall player base has not declined, I expect that you are
correct in that Grudge and Gunboat play has increased, due to the
problems* with the open game. I also suspect that with an equal number
of players leaving and joining, that the age profile of the players is
coming down, at a rate which is a degree faster than that of human
mortality. To me, the "Grudge" game is the finest form, and Gunboat is
the Antichrist. I suspect that the low demands which Gunboat makes upon
a player makes it more attractive to the youngest of new players. And I
strongly suspect that a player coming from Gunboat into an open game is
liable to be another nail in the coffin of the traditional form.
* Open Game 22 2950 is just ending, and it's been another fiasco. All
of the neutrals joined, or were about to join, us, the DS, and all of
them said that the FP did not talk to them _at_all_. They also reported
that the FP were not talking to each other. Some of the FP dropped in
the early turns, and were replaced, apparently by other players who
didn't talk to the neutrals. The DS and the neutrals all communicated
normally - in most cases at levels which were not unworthy of "grudge"
play. We had a good time, but in terms of challenge, it was 11 turns of
paying cash for an easy walkover.
The question you are raising is now in fact a perennial one. But it
usually seems to encourage a very misguided answer: A whole gaggle of
LAZY blighters strike up their chorus of how the game needs to be
HOBBLED. They say communication needs to be restricted, by various
methods and house rules in order to return it to "the good old days"
before t'internet when you could go to the pictures, drink four pints,
buy fish & chips, paint the town red and still have change of a
sixpence. All the really want is an excuse for the fact that their
standard of play has stood still, due to the fact that the time and
effort they invest does not match that of the players who now win.
Hobble the game they say, so that the athletes who train hardest don't
have an advantage over those that go to Macdonalds' between races.
The real answer is a PROPER Player Rating System. Not the one (or the
five) that we got, but one which gives the GMs (and would-be grudge team
creators) clear data which would inform the setting up of balanced
games. Game 22 was just one more example, of a game where the GMs
thought they had sufficient experienced and reliable players on each
side, but turned out to be as far from the mark in that judgement as it
is possible to be. I don't question the integrity of the GMs for one
minute (now would I?) but their data, used for assigning players in open
games seems woefully inadequate. Worst of all, every time we have
another one of these damp squibs, more players are lost - not from the
overall player base, but to Gunboat where they play alone, in darkened
rooms wearing dirty macs...
--
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley .co.uk/
http://www.buav. org
<http://www.buav. org/>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
