I think the best you can do to help replayability and keeping new players is to address the 66% win percentage of the DS teams in 1650, (it seems to be the most popular scenario).
···
From: Clint Oldridge <allsorts@compuserve.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
To: mepbmlist <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Subject: [mepbmlist] DGE meets Harlequin
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:47:10 -0500
Well we have finalised the player lists and almost exactly doubled our
player list. I am still a bit surprised that the DGE list was effectively
so small (we compare with Midnight who have twice a player base of ours for
Legends and the same for AGE's games as well) but with some hard work I
expect we can get some more players to join the game.
Any thoughts?
Long term plans include:
1) Getting the Front Sheet organised properly
2) Input program automated
3) Amalgamation of FS and Resultsheet into one item for ease of reference
4) World domination, then extra-terrestrial, followed by extra-solar...
There are some other plans but they are a little too far fetched at present
.... 
All I have to do now is check out the new games and get the (latest version
and hopefully last) House Rules out to everyone. (Thinks - must have got
addicted to work over the last month or so!)
Clint
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
I think the best you can do to help replayability and keeping new
players is
to address the 66% win percentage of the DS teams in 1650, (it seems
to be
the most popular scenario).
...and instead of tinkering with the rules, experiment with the setup
and/or encounter tables.
If agents seem too powerful, give the free a few better starting
agents and/or some more agent artifacts. Give the northmen a starting
40 emissary (as per 2950.) Make dragons recruitable only with
high-rank characters, so that the dark can get them but have to use
their better characters instead of 30 rank emmys to do it.
2950 has a more balanced reputation, but in adding up the win/lossses
that I know about I'm afraid it may be 2-1 dark as well. In
2950 dragons are less important and the agent battle is much more
even, which leads to the theory that the imbalance has a lot to do
with which sorts of players pick which positions.
I'll note that on the Deft boards we have had some interesting points
made on 1650 balance - namely, that with top-rank players on both
teams the 1650 dark have a very uphill battle. I'd be interested in
what people think on that issue; it colors what if anything Harlequin
should do.
cheers,
Marc
···
--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Alan Hamilton" <jhamil00@h...> wrote:
--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Marc Pinsonneault"
<pinsonneault.1@o...> wrote:
> I think the best you can do to help replayability and keeping new
players is
> to address the 66% win percentage of the DS teams in 1650, (it
seems
to be
> the most popular scenario).
...and instead of tinkering with the rules, experiment with the
setup
and/or encounter tables.
It's been my experience that the more seasoned players play DS. I'm
inclined to think that has a major impact on results. I'd rather see
a table showing winner/losers in grudge games, it would at least help
get the player experience out of the equation.
another point would require collating the data after each of the rule
tweaks that GSI/DGI did engage in...
···
--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Alan Hamilton" <jhamil00@h...> wrote:
