DGE meets Harlequin

mepbmlist
#1

I think this has a lot to do with experienced players recognizing which side has the most versatility and options. We can make hypotheses all day about why the DS win 2 out of 3, but it doesn't change the fact that they're winning 2 out of 3. I would begin with minor changes over time until the end statistics begin coming out more even. I'd personally like to see the dragon encounters randomized to add an element of risk in recruiting them, however it doesn't really matter what you change as long as it works toward a more evenly matched game. If you feel experienced players being attracted to the DS is what throws the statistics, then you should seek ways to attract experienced players to the FP side, there must be something lacking there that experienced players crave, probably because they have the most interesting characters(thats why I would prefer DS, however it would not be very difficult to poll the experienced players that you see choosing DS over FP).

···

From: Clint Oldridge <allsorts@compuserve.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
To: "INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.com" <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] DGE meets Harlequin
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:04:01 -0500

I have reguarly seen experienced players play the DS over the FP - this
might count for some of those issues. Also the way that Agents have
altered should affect things. Not sure what else would be appropriate?

Clint

Message text written by INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.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).
<

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

#2

Speaking as an experienced 1650 player who almost always
chooses the DS, the reason is simple. The DS have
much more interesting nations to play, IMO. They
have much more exciting characters and more interesting
and exciting military challenges. Militarily/economically
they always feel like the underdog, which makes them
more exciting.

The exceptions to this (also IMO) are the Sinda,
who's nation setup is closest in military challenge
and character excitment to the typical DS. Although
I've played the Woodmen, Northmen, Eothraim,
and Arthedain, and Noldo, I wouldn't play any of
them again. But I'd play the Sinda.

The other reason of course for not playing the FP
is that it is no fun getting hammered by assassins
and kidnappers.

How about an LAS 1650? That would mean no double-scouting,
no +20 for the CloudLord, and no stealth-rank bonus.
For each nation that had one or two of those abilities,
find some replacement ability for them. Instead of
double scouting, give +20 to scout. Instead of stealth
rank bonus give challenge rank, and instead of +20 k/a,
give something powerful. Either a hidden popcenter (cost
is similar in FA) or whatever. That still doesn't
make up for the other things that make the DS more
exciting, but it would be a start.

Jeremy Richman

I think this has a lot to do with experienced players recognizing

which side

has the most versatility and options. We can make hypotheses all day

about

why the DS win 2 out of 3, but it doesn't change the fact that

they're

winning 2 out of 3. I would begin with minor changes over time until

the end

statistics begin coming out more even. I'd personally like to see

the dragon

encounters randomized to add an element of risk in recruiting them,

however

it doesn't really matter what you change as long as it works toward

a more

evenly matched game. If you feel experienced players being attracted

to the

DS is what throws the statistics, then you should seek ways to

attract

experienced players to the FP side, there must be something lacking

there

that experienced players crave, probably because they have the most
interesting characters(thats why I would prefer DS, however it would

not be

very difficult to poll the experienced players that you see choosing

DS over

FP).

>From: Clint Oldridge <allsorts@c...>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
>To: "INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.com" <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] DGE meets Harlequin
>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:04:01 -0500
>
>I have reguarly seen experienced players play the DS over the FP -

this

>might count for some of those issues. Also the way that Agents

have

>altered should affect things. Not sure what else would be

appropriate?

>
>Clint
>
>Message text written by INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.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

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Alan Hamilton" <jhamil00@h...> wrote:

>the most popular scenario).
><
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

#3

Losing a character to a random encounter is really
a pain. I wouldn't mind putting in some randomizing
into dragon encounters but I'd like the results of
a wrong answer to not be so lethal.

Jeremy

I think this has a lot to do with experienced players recognizing

which side

has the most versatility and options. We can make hypotheses all day

about

why the DS win 2 out of 3, but it doesn't change the fact that

they're

winning 2 out of 3. I would begin with minor changes over time until

the end

statistics begin coming out more even. I'd personally like to see

the dragon

encounters randomized to add an element of risk in recruiting them,

however

it doesn't really matter what you change as long as it works toward

a more

evenly matched game. If you feel experienced players being attracted

to the

DS is what throws the statistics, then you should seek ways to

attract

experienced players to the FP side, there must be something lacking

there

that experienced players crave, probably because they have the most
interesting characters(thats why I would prefer DS, however it would

not be

very difficult to poll the experienced players that you see choosing

DS over

FP).

>From: Clint Oldridge <allsorts@c...>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
>To: "INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.com" <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] DGE meets Harlequin
>Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:04:01 -0500
>
>I have reguarly seen experienced players play the DS over the FP -

this

>might count for some of those issues. Also the way that Agents

have

>altered should affect things. Not sure what else would be

appropriate?

>
>Clint
>
>Message text written by INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.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

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Alan Hamilton" <jhamil00@h...> wrote:

>the most popular scenario).
><
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

#4

I find the DS more attractive to play. The Nazgul are pretty cool.
But I choose the Free now. Why? Because I feel any game I am in as a
DS is basically an automatic win. Even if I'm in a game with a bunch
of new players as long as they are willing to listen and talk I feel
confident that we will be able to provide enough of a coordinated
defense to survive long enough for our agents to take over the game.
Unless the Free play spectacular I don't believe they have any chance
in a game where the DS play as a team. Winning as the DS isn't a
challenge for an experienced player.

facade

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, JeremyRichman@c... wrote:

Speaking as an experienced 1650 player who almost always
chooses the DS, the reason is simple.

#5

LAS limits agent activity on both sides, and this changes the aspect

of the game that many people enjoy. While I think having LAS games

available would be nice(I’d play a couple), I wouldn’t want it to be the

standard for all games I play. If game balance was achieved in some

fashion or another, I think experienced players that prefer a military

game would gravitate more toward the FP who can field multiple

massive armies, while those that enjoy the character building aspects

of the game would be more attracted to the DS. While there are military

DS nations, and character FP nations, the DS are weighted more

character wise, while the FP are weighted more heavily in recruiting

power and economy.

···

----- Original Message -----

From:
JeremyRichman@compuserve.com

To: mepbmlist@egroups.com

Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 7:19 PM

Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: DGE meets Harlequin

` Speaking as an experienced 1650 player who almost always
chooses the DS, the reason is simple. The DS have
much more interesting nations to play, IMO. They
have much more exciting characters and more interesting
and exciting military challenges. Militarily/economically
they always feel like the underdog, which makes them
more exciting.

The exceptions to this (also IMO) are the Sinda,
who’s nation setup is closest in military challenge
and character excitment to the typical DS. Although
I’ve played the Woodmen, Northmen, Eothraim,
and Arthedain, and Noldo, I wouldn’t play any of
them again. But I’d play the Sinda.

The other reason of course for not playing the FP
is that it is no fun getting hammered by assassins
and kidnappers.

How about an LAS 1650? That would mean no double-scouting,
no +20 for the CloudLord, and no stealth-rank bonus.
For each nation that had one or two of those abilities,
find some replacement ability for them. Instead of
double scouting, give +20 to scout. Instead of stealth
rank bonus give challenge rank, and instead of +20 k/a,
give something powerful. Either a hidden popcenter (cost
is similar in FA) or whatever. That still doesn’t
make up for the other things that make the DS more
exciting, but it would be a start.

Jeremy Richman

— In mepbmlist@egroups.com, “Alan Hamilton” <jhamil00@h…> wrote:

I think this has a lot to do with experienced players recognizing
which side
has the most versatility and options. We can make hypotheses all day
about
why the DS win 2 out of 3, but it doesn’t change the fact that
they’re
winning 2 out of 3. I would begin with minor changes over time until
the end
statistics begin coming out more even. I’d personally like to see
the dragon
encounters randomized to add an element of risk in recruiting them,
however
it doesn’t really matter what you change as long as it works toward
a more
evenly matched game. If you feel experienced players being attracted
to the
DS is what throws the statistics, then you should seek ways to
attract
experienced players to the FP side, there must be something lacking
there
that experienced players crave, probably because they have the most
interesting characters(thats why I would prefer DS, however it would
not be
very difficult to poll the experienced players that you see choosing
DS over
FP).

From: Clint Oldridge <allsorts@c…>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
To: “INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.com” mepbmlist@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] DGE meets Harlequin
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:04:01 -0500

I have reguarly seen experienced players play the DS over the FP -
this

might count for some of those issues. Also the way that Agents
have

altered should affect things. Not sure what else would be
appropriate?

Clint

Message text written by INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.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).
<

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

`

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm](http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm)

#6

I still find the DS a challenge, but the challenge
is not so much about winning but rather finding
new and bolder ways to play the position.

Some time ago I tried to play just FP nations,
to "take up the challenge" of the FP. But most
of the times I tried I got screwed. I was
the Noldo in a grudge game (of all things) when
the NG and three other players didn't play.
I was the Northmen in a game where four of
the FP nations including Eothraim, which were
being played by moderator's in one of Harlequin's
predecessors, all dropped right away. And so on.
As you pointed out, when that happens the DS
victory is just about guaranteed.

And in addition, their nations are (IMHO) simply
dull compared with the DS. It isn't about having
a Nazgul, it is the whole setup. For the most
part, the DS have more room to take initiative,
they have more room for invention and audacity.
And they can plans without having to worry about
some key army in their plan going bye-bye due
to agents.

So given the choice between dull FP and repetetive
easy DS wins, I chose Fourth-Age, which had come
along just in time. I haven't been in a 1650 game
for a while now, though I'm thinking of going back
for one more blast.

Jeremy

> Speaking as an experienced 1650 player who almost always
> chooses the DS, the reason is simple.

I find the DS more attractive to play. The Nazgul are pretty cool.
But I choose the Free now. Why? Because I feel any game I am in as a
DS is basically an automatic win. Even if I'm in a game with a bunch
of new players as long as they are willing to listen and talk I feel
confident that we will be able to provide enough of a coordinated
defense to survive long enough for our agents to take over the game.
Unless the Free play spectacular I don't believe they have any

chance

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "facade " <kzfoul@y...> wrote:

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, JeremyRichman@c... wrote:
in a game where the DS play as a team. Winning as the DS isn't a
challenge for an experienced player.

facade

#7

If you are making a connection, I am not grasping it.
I agree that LAS would change the game somewhat, but
it doesn't eliminate kidnapping and assassinations,
just makes them harder to accomplish by making scouting
less easy and removing the CloudLord bonus.

I'm not someone who wants an exclusively military game.
I like building up characters, I like the use of mages,
emissaries and even agents for stealing scouting and
sabotaging. I would probably prefer the DS no matter
what changes were made because I like their setups
better, but I'd still prefer an LAS. I might just
settle for getting rid of double-scouting and for
making agents easier to scout and more likely to
show up in popcenters -- as it is top agents are
pretty much invisible, which may be justifiable but
makes counter-intelligence nearly impossible.

I'd happily go for reducing or removing the
effectiveness of dragons as well.

Jeremy

LAS limits agent activity on both sides, and this changes the aspect
of the game that many people enjoy. While I think having LAS games
available would be nice(I'd play a couple), I wouldn't want it to be

the

standard for all games I play. If game balance was achieved in some
fashion or another, I think experienced players that prefer a

military

game would gravitate more toward the FP who can field multiple
massive armies, while those that enjoy the character building

aspects

of the game would be more attracted to the DS. While there are

military

DS nations, and character FP nations, the DS are weighted more
character wise, while the FP are weighted more heavily in recruiting
power and economy.

  From: JeremyRichman@c...
  To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
  Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 7:19 PM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: DGE meets Harlequin

  Speaking as an experienced 1650 player who almost always
  chooses the DS, the reason is simple. The DS have
  much more interesting nations to play, IMO. They
  have much more exciting characters and more interesting
  and exciting military challenges. Militarily/economically
  they always feel like the underdog, which makes them
  more exciting.

  The exceptions to this (also IMO) are the Sinda,
  who's nation setup is closest in military challenge
  and character excitment to the typical DS. Although
  I've played the Woodmen, Northmen, Eothraim,
  and Arthedain, and Noldo, I wouldn't play any of
  them again. But I'd play the Sinda.

  The other reason of course for not playing the FP
  is that it is no fun getting hammered by assassins
  and kidnappers.

  How about an LAS 1650? That would mean no double-scouting,
  no +20 for the CloudLord, and no stealth-rank bonus.
  For each nation that had one or two of those abilities,
  find some replacement ability for them. Instead of
  double scouting, give +20 to scout. Instead of stealth
  rank bonus give challenge rank, and instead of +20 k/a,
  give something powerful. Either a hidden popcenter (cost
  is similar in FA) or whatever. That still doesn't
  make up for the other things that make the DS more
  exciting, but it would be a start.

  Jeremy Richman

  --- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Alan Hamilton" <jhamil00@h...>

wrote:

  > I think this has a lot to do with experienced players

recognizing

  which side
  > has the most versatility and options. We can make hypotheses all

day

  about
  > why the DS win 2 out of 3, but it doesn't change the fact that
  they're
  > winning 2 out of 3. I would begin with minor changes over time

until

  the end
  > statistics begin coming out more even. I'd personally like to

see

  the dragon
  > encounters randomized to add an element of risk in recruiting

them,

  however
  > it doesn't really matter what you change as long as it works

toward

  a more
  > evenly matched game. If you feel experienced players being

attracted

  to the
  > DS is what throws the statistics, then you should seek ways to
  attract
  > experienced players to the FP side, there must be something

lacking

  there
  > that experienced players crave, probably because they have the

most

  > interesting characters(thats why I would prefer DS, however it

would

  not be
  > very difficult to poll the experienced players that you see

choosing

  DS over
  > FP).
  >
  >
  > >From: Clint Oldridge <allsorts@c...>
  > >Reply-To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
  > >To: "INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.com" <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
  > >Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] DGE meets Harlequin
  > >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:04:01 -0500
  > >
  > >I have reguarly seen experienced players play the DS over the

FP -

  this
  > >might count for some of those issues. Also the way that Agents
  have
  > >altered should affect things. Not sure what else would be
  appropriate?
  > >
  > >Clint
  > >
  > >Message text written by INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.com
  > > >
  > >I think the best you can do to help replayability and keeping

new

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Alan Hamilton" <jhamil00@h...> wrote:

  ----- Original Message -----
  players
  > >is
  > >to address the 66% win percentage of the DS teams in 1650, (it
  seems to be
  > >the most popular scenario).
  > ><
  > >
  >
  >

_________________________________________________________________

  > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com

        eGroups Sponsor
       
  Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
  To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
  http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#8

DGE did one or two LAS FA games with no kidnapping and no assassinations.
Atleast that was what the message base indicated

JeremyRichman@compuserve.com wrote:

···

If you are making a connection, I am not grasping it.
I agree that LAS would change the game somewhat, but
it doesn't eliminate kidnapping and assassinations,
just makes them harder to accomplish by making scouting
less easy and removing the CloudLord bonus.

I'm not someone who wants an exclusively military game.
I like building up characters, I like the use of mages,
emissaries and even agents for stealing scouting and
sabotaging. I would probably prefer the DS no matter
what changes were made because I like their setups
better, but I'd still prefer an LAS. I might just
settle for getting rid of double-scouting and for
making agents easier to scout and more likely to
show up in popcenters -- as it is top agents are
pretty much invisible, which may be justifiable but
makes counter-intelligence nearly impossible.

I'd happily go for reducing or removing the
effectiveness of dragons as well.

Jeremy

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Alan Hamilton" <jhamil00@h...> wrote:
> LAS limits agent activity on both sides, and this changes the aspect
> of the game that many people enjoy. While I think having LAS games
> available would be nice(I'd play a couple), I wouldn't want it to be
the
> standard for all games I play. If game balance was achieved in some
> fashion or another, I think experienced players that prefer a
military
> game would gravitate more toward the FP who can field multiple
> massive armies, while those that enjoy the character building
aspects
> of the game would be more attracted to the DS. While there are
military
> DS nations, and character FP nations, the DS are weighted more
> character wise, while the FP are weighted more heavily in recruiting
> power and economy.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: JeremyRichman@c...
> To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 7:19 PM
> Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: DGE meets Harlequin
>
>
> Speaking as an experienced 1650 player who almost always
> chooses the DS, the reason is simple. The DS have
> much more interesting nations to play, IMO. They
> have much more exciting characters and more interesting
> and exciting military challenges. Militarily/economically
> they always feel like the underdog, which makes them
> more exciting.
>
> The exceptions to this (also IMO) are the Sinda,
> who's nation setup is closest in military challenge
> and character excitment to the typical DS. Although
> I've played the Woodmen, Northmen, Eothraim,
> and Arthedain, and Noldo, I wouldn't play any of
> them again. But I'd play the Sinda.
>
> The other reason of course for not playing the FP
> is that it is no fun getting hammered by assassins
> and kidnappers.
>
> How about an LAS 1650? That would mean no double-scouting,
> no +20 for the CloudLord, and no stealth-rank bonus.
> For each nation that had one or two of those abilities,
> find some replacement ability for them. Instead of
> double scouting, give +20 to scout. Instead of stealth
> rank bonus give challenge rank, and instead of +20 k/a,
> give something powerful. Either a hidden popcenter (cost
> is similar in FA) or whatever. That still doesn't
> make up for the other things that make the DS more
> exciting, but it would be a start.
>
> Jeremy Richman
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Alan Hamilton" <jhamil00@h...>
wrote:
> > I think this has a lot to do with experienced players
recognizing
> which side
> > has the most versatility and options. We can make hypotheses all
day
> about
> > why the DS win 2 out of 3, but it doesn't change the fact that
> they're
> > winning 2 out of 3. I would begin with minor changes over time
until
> the end
> > statistics begin coming out more even. I'd personally like to
see
> the dragon
> > encounters randomized to add an element of risk in recruiting
them,
> however
> > it doesn't really matter what you change as long as it works
toward
> a more
> > evenly matched game. If you feel experienced players being
attracted
> to the
> > DS is what throws the statistics, then you should seek ways to
> attract
> > experienced players to the FP side, there must be something
lacking
> there
> > that experienced players crave, probably because they have the
most
> > interesting characters(thats why I would prefer DS, however it
would
> not be
> > very difficult to poll the experienced players that you see
choosing
> DS over
> > FP).
> >
> >
> > >From: Clint Oldridge <allsorts@c...>
> > >Reply-To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
> > >To: "INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.com" <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
> > >Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] DGE meets Harlequin
> > >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:04:01 -0500
> > >
> > >I have reguarly seen experienced players play the DS over the
FP -
> this
> > >might count for some of those issues. Also the way that Agents
> have
> > >altered should affect things. Not sure what else would be
> appropriate?
> > >
> > >Clint
> > >
> > >Message text written by INTERNET:mepbmlist@egroups.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).
> > ><
> > >
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm