Message text written by INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.com
A lot of americans had been picking up Harlequin games; I'm not
surprised that the player pools are comparable.
*** Some 40 players were from DGE before hand I think.
Like it or not, the financial incentive for the game winner certs
probably encourages replay.
*** Yes free play (or the like) does increase player numbers. 
I'd encourage you to consider issuing
them, or maybe even free setups (2 turns) for members of winning
teams; the GWCs could also be used for capital insurance in 4th age.
This may seem like a financial drain, but it is equivalent to the sort
of sales that are routinely used to draw in new business.
*** I think the cost of a turn is pretty cheap really. We have lots of
players with over £50 in their account - implication funds are not a big
issue. We did a quick study sometime ago for our games - Legends it was
time with some money issues, ME was time followed by money, SR was game
availability. We only had 2 real complaints when the prices went up -
considering how many complaints there are about other aspects of the game
this lead us to believe that the price was about right. In the past we
used to offer pay £xx and get 10% bonus - we noted that was no difference
in player base when we removed that option.
Pair new players up with experienced mentors in the same game. Do
this before they select nations so that they can get some advice on
which nations to pick. e.g. if they're doing 1650 and want to be a
free nation, check if there is a free player in the game who has
indicated they'd be willing to be a mentor.
*** Yep try to do that in every game.
If victory points aren't used for individual wins, make them useful in
some other way. Two ideas would be
1) publish the individual ranks in all four categories each turn, eg
you are #15 in pops, #11 in gold, #3 in armies
2) normalize the scores in each category relative to the top nation
and give an idea of relative standing. If the top gold is 100,000 and
you have 10,000 you'd have a gold score of 10/100.
*** This would take a programming change I think. Basically the same
situation with regards to programming changes apply as before hand. GSI
don't like to do them.
These would allow capable teams to reconstruct how well they're doing
relative to the other side (hmmm...no free armies; or hmmm...the dark
have no gold.) They could also be used as a measure of how well
nations are doing compared to the pack, especially handy for newer
players.
If you will use the scores for something, revise the individual VCs so
they reflect actions that actually contribute to defeating the other
side. EG destroy (or capture) more than xxx opposing population
centers, defeat more than xxx enemy armies, steal more than xxx gold,
ship out xxx more gold than you receive to allies, and so on.
I'd also like to see scores relative to the same nation in other
games, as a handicap to the Noldo-types of Middle earth and an asset
to the Woodmen-types.
*** So would I!!!
Clint
Marc Pinsonneault
<