Digest Number 1783

mepbmlist
#1

Although this is not the norm, game 221(2950) is on turn 43.

It is still possible for two teams to contest this game past turn 10 if some people would not give up so easily. Maybe the problem isn't with the game but the people(that should get someone PO'd). It seems a lot of our brethren drop when they think their nation is no longer viable. Given enough time any nation with a commander and allies to help them can come back in a game.

Sometimes life sucks, but it can get better!

Steve

···

<mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com> 11/02/04 07:22AM >>>

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
   Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:56:28 -0000
   From: "Colin Forbes" <colin@timewyrm.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Military Command and Middle Earth

I more or less agree with Ed's analysis, though if it's true thatv
errors were deliberately put in the rulebook I would question the
business sense of doing something like that. By all means leave
something vague, but don't lie in a rulebook.

But anyway...

I too miss the unknown that formed part of the game at the very
beginning. But then to behonest, in the UK we never had as much
unknown as you guys in the US had. By the time the game was released
here, a lot of information had already been spread via the internet
(or the "information superhighway" as it was known back then).

I regret that games are over so quickly these days ... I remember my
2950 game 20 with fondness ... it ended on turn 100. Or the events in
the original game 5 which gave new definition to phrases like "fog of
war" and "shifting sands of alliances". :slight_smile:

However - those days are gone and cannot come back, how ever much we
may long for them to do so.

I cannot resist one little dig at Ed, for which I hope he will forgive
me, ... Ed, surely the balance of the game you describe can only be
achieved by making changes to the original game design? :stuck_out_tongue: (Or by
liberal use of a time machine, obviously).

Colin

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Note: This AAIS e-mail, including attachments, may contain confidential, privileged, or copyrighted information and the sender does not waive any related rights or obligations. Any unauthorized distribution, use, or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains is prohibited.

#2

Agree with Steve completely. Dropping is a problem that starts with players, not the game. Without fail, every open game I've been in, things start to look just SLIGHTLY sour and you have people talking about dropping. I don't believe in turning games into bughunts but I can't stand people that want to drop b/c their side loses a capital or 2. More often, I think people have just lost interest in the game and see an outlet when the game is going slightly bad to get out. They can blame their quiting on "losing" instead of, er, "quitting".

Russ

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Steve Prindeville
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 10:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Digest Number 1783

  Although this is not the norm, game 221(2950) is on turn 43.

  It is still possible for two teams to contest this game past turn 10 if some people would not give up so easily. Maybe the problem isn't with the game but the people(that should get someone PO'd). It seems a lot of our brethren drop when they think their nation is no longer viable. Given enough time any nation with a commander and allies to help them can come back in a game.

  Sometimes life sucks, but it can get better!

  Steve

  >>> <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com> 11/02/04 07:22AM >>>

  ________________________________________________________________________

  Message: 9
     Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:56:28 -0000
     From: "Colin Forbes" <colin@timewyrm.co.uk>
  Subject: Re: Military Command and Middle Earth

  I more or less agree with Ed's analysis, though if it's true thatv
  errors were deliberately put in the rulebook I would question the
  business sense of doing something like that. By all means leave
  something vague, but don't lie in a rulebook.

  But anyway...

  I too miss the unknown that formed part of the game at the very
  beginning. But then to behonest, in the UK we never had as much
  unknown as you guys in the US had. By the time the game was released
  here, a lot of information had already been spread via the internet
  (or the "information superhighway" as it was known back then).

  I regret that games are over so quickly these days ... I remember my
  2950 game 20 with fondness ... it ended on turn 100. Or the events in
  the original game 5 which gave new definition to phrases like "fog of
  war" and "shifting sands of alliances". :slight_smile:

  However - those days are gone and cannot come back, how ever much we
  may long for them to do so.

  I cannot resist one little dig at Ed, for which I hope he will forgive
  me, ... Ed, surely the balance of the game you describe can only be
  achieved by making changes to the original game design? :stuck_out_tongue: (Or by
  liberal use of a time machine, obviously).

  Colin

  ________________________________________________________________________
  ________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                                                                                                       ! ; &nb! sp; & nbsp; ! &nbs! p; &n bsp; &! nbsp; ! ; &nb sp; &n! bsp; ! &nbs p; &nb! sp; &! nbsp; ; &nbs! p; &n! bsp;
  Note: This AAIS e-mail, including attachments, may contain confidential, privileged, or copyrighted information and the sender does not waive any related rights or obligations. Any unauthorized distribution, use, or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains is prohibited.

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

This has been discussed before without too much input from "the
company" except to state that this isn't a problem. I still think it
is. I've seen a number of people drop or suggest dropping even when a
team is winning or even. Sometimes there are "real" reasons for
people dropping a position, but occasionally people drop a position
just because they're starting a new game. While the problem may not
be with the game (and I agree it's not), it's not a problem that
people discussing it here are going to solve. The solution has to
come from whoever is running the game. I'm afraid that as long as
there is someone else to continue paying for the turns (now that
ought to get a response) there isn't a problem with people dropping.

I agree totally that a game should not become one (or more) player(s)
keeping a game going without trying to win (or any reasonable chance
of winning) just trying to make the other team spend money chasing
them in a losing effort (yes once a team I was on was told that an
opposing player was doing this. Some players on our team dropped out
of frustration with this tactic, but we did eventually chase down the
offender). I don't understand the mentality of this action, but I
actually find it less offensive than someone who drops just because
they are moving on to another game.

Kevin

Agree with Steve completely. Dropping is a problem that starts with

players, not the game. Without fail, every open game I've been in,
things start to look just SLIGHTLY sour and you have people talking
about dropping. I don't believe in turning games into bughunts but I
can't stand people that want to drop b/c their side loses a capital
or 2. More often, I think people have just lost interest in the game
and see an outlet when the game is going slightly bad to get out.
They can blame their quiting on "losing" instead of, er, "quitting".

Russ
  From: Steve Prindeville
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 10:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Digest Number 1783

  Although this is not the norm, game 221(2950) is on turn 43.

  It is still possible for two teams to contest this game past turn

10 if some people would not give up so easily. Maybe the problem
isn't with the game but the people(that should get someone PO'd). It
seems a lot of our brethren drop when they think their nation is no
longer viable. Given enough time any nation with a commander and
allies to help them can come back in a game.

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "R.K.Floyd" <rkfloyd@c...> wrote:

  ----- Original Message -----

  Sometimes life sucks, but it can get better!

  Steve

  >>> <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com> 11/02/04 07:22AM >>>

______________________________________________________________________
__

  Message: 9
     Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:56:28 -0000
     From: "Colin Forbes" <colin@t...>
  Subject: Re: Military Command and Middle Earth

  I more or less agree with Ed's analysis, though if it's true thatv
  errors were deliberately put in the rulebook I would question the
  business sense of doing something like that. By all means leave
  something vague, but don't lie in a rulebook.

  But anyway...

  I too miss the unknown that formed part of the game at the very
  beginning. But then to behonest, in the UK we never had as much
  unknown as you guys in the US had. By the time the game was

released

  here, a lot of information had already been spread via the

internet

  (or the "information superhighway" as it was known back then).

  I regret that games are over so quickly these days ... I remember

my

  2950 game 20 with fondness ... it ended on turn 100. Or the

events in

  the original game 5 which gave new definition to phrases

like "fog of

  war" and "shifting sands of alliances". :slight_smile:

  However - those days are gone and cannot come back, how ever much

we

  may long for them to do so.

  I cannot resist one little dig at Ed, for which I hope he will

forgive

  me, ... Ed, surely the balance of the game you describe can only

be

  achieved by making changes to the original game design? :stuck_out_tongue:

(Or by

  liberal use of a time machine, obviously).

  Colin

______________________________________________________________________
__

  

______________________________________________________________________
__

                             ! ;
                                                                      
                                                        &nb!
sp; &
nbsp;
                                                                      
                             !
                                                                      
                                                       &nbs!
p; &n
bsp;
                                                                      
                            &!
nbsp;
                                                                      
                             ! ; &nb
sp;
                                                                      
                           &n!
bsp;
                                                                      
                            ! &nbs
p;
                                                                      
                          &nb!
sp;
                                                                      
                           &!
nbsp; ;
                                                                      
                                          &nbs!
p;
                                                                      
                          &n!
bsp;
                                                                      

  Note: This AAIS e-mail, including attachments, may contain

confidential, privileged, or copyrighted information and the sender
does not waive any related rights or obligations. Any unauthorized
distribution, use, or copying of this e-mail or the information it
contains is prohibited.

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
--------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4

I've commented on this a fair bit (and on the MEForum as well). The
reasons are manifold for dropping a game, but there's little that we can do
about that I'm afraid.

Clint

···

This has been discussed before without too much input from "the
company" except to state that this isn't a problem. I still think it
is. I've seen a number of people drop or suggest dropping even when a
team is winning or even. Sometimes there are "real" reasons for
people dropping a position, but occasionally people drop a position
just because they're starting a new game. While the problem may not
be with the game (and I agree it's not), it's not a problem that
people discussing it here are going to solve. The solution has to
come from whoever is running the game. I'm afraid that as long as
there is someone else to continue paying for the turns (now that
ought to get a response) there isn't a problem with people dropping.
> Agree with Steve completely. Dropping is a problem that starts with
players, not the game. Without fail, every open game I've been in,
things start to look just SLIGHTLY sour and you have people talking
about dropping. I don't believe in turning games into bughunts but I
can't stand people that want to drop b/c their side loses a capital
or 2. More often, I think people have just lost interest in the game
and see an outlet when the game is going slightly bad to get out.
They can blame their quiting on "losing" instead of, er, "quitting".
>
>
> Russ
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Prindeville
> To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Digest Number 1783
>
>
> Although this is not the norm, game 221(2950) is on turn 43.
>
> It is still possible for two teams to contest this game past turn
10 if some people would not give up so easily. Maybe the problem
isn't with the game but the people(that should get someone PO'd). It
seems a lot of our brethren drop when they think their nation is no
longer viable. Given enough time any nation with a commander and
allies to help them can come back in a game.
>
> Sometimes life sucks, but it can get better!
>
> Steve
>
> >>> <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com> 11/02/04 07:22AM >>>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:56:28 -0000
> From: "Colin Forbes" <colin@t...>
> Subject: Re: Military Command and Middle Earth
>
>
> I more or less agree with Ed's analysis, though if it's true thatv
> errors were deliberately put in the rulebook I would question the
> business sense of doing something like that. By all means leave
> something vague, but don't lie in a rulebook.
>
> But anyway...
>
> I too miss the unknown that formed part of the game at the very
> beginning. But then to behonest, in the UK we never had as much
> unknown as you guys in the US had. By the time the game was
released
> here, a lot of information had already been spread via the
internet
> (or the "information superhighway" as it was known back then).
>
> I regret that games are over so quickly these days ... I remember
my
> 2950 game 20 with fondness ... it ended on turn 100. Or the
events in
> the original game 5 which gave new definition to phrases
like "fog of
> war" and "shifting sands of alliances". :slight_smile:
>
> However - those days are gone and cannot come back, how ever much
we
> may long for them to do so.
>
> I cannot resist one little dig at Ed, for which I hope he will
forgive
> me, ... Ed, surely the balance of the game you describe can only
be
> achieved by making changes to the original game design? :stuck_out_tongue:
(Or by
> liberal use of a time machine, obviously).
>
> Colin
>
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
>
>
>

                             ! ;

                                                        &nb!
sp; &
nbsp;

                             !

                                                       &nbs!
p; &n
bsp;

                            &!
nbsp;

                             ! ; &nb
sp;

                           &n!
bsp;

                            ! &nbs
p;

                          &nb!
sp;

                           &!
nbsp; ;

                                          &nbs!
p;

                          &n!
bsp;

> Note: This AAIS e-mail, including attachments, may contain
confidential, privileged, or copyrighted information and the sender
does not waive any related rights or obligations. Any unauthorized
distribution, use, or copying of this e-mail or the information it
contains is prohibited.
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/04

****************************************************************
                 ME Games Ltd
         me@middleearthgames.com
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
         Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
         Fax 503 296 2325
****************************************************************
         Middle Earth - Legends
         Serim Ral - Exile

  ----------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/04

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#5

Unless there's a penalty to the dropping player, this is not going to stop.
Currently there is no penalty and Clint is afraid of instituting one for
fear of alienating some players. Now, the question that arises from that is,
do you want those players in the first place...?

There are proven solutions, but they will never be implemented here.

So, the question become "how can we encourage players to stay the course?"
instead. None are perfect, but they might be worth considering. Off the top
of my head:

- If a player loses his capital, the turn fee drops for a few turns

- if a player is down to less than five characters or a single MT or city,
then the turn is free if using MEOW/Automagic/latest-gismo for order
submission

- if a player commits to playing through to the end of the game (excluding
bug hunts unless previously agreed) and pays for turns in blocks of ten,
then he gets a discount, but no refunds if he drops

- a player who drops with a viable position is automatically at the end of
the queue for nation assignment in the next game

- players who consistently stay the course and finish games move to the
front of the queue for nation assignment in their next game and are
guaranteed to have at least two characters with bonuses in at the start of
that game

Gavin

Kevin Brown wrote:

···

This has been discussed before without too much input from "the
company" except to state that this isn't a problem. I still think it
is. I've seen a number of people drop or suggest dropping even when a
team is winning or even. Sometimes there are "real" reasons for
people dropping a position, but occasionally people drop a position
just because they're starting a new game. While the problem may not
be with the game (and I agree it's not), it's not a problem that
people discussing it here are going to solve. The solution has to
come from whoever is running the game. I'm afraid that as long as
there is someone else to continue paying for the turns (now that
ought to get a response) there isn't a problem with people dropping.

#6

Well, I for one would be alienated if those who can *afford* 10 turns
consistently get a discount, while those who simply can't afford to ante up
10 turns worth (especially if they're already running close to the bone due
to Volume...) have to pay more. The rich get richer...?

It's a tough call on both sides. The only _overt_ penalty I see below is
the "bottom of the queue" for nation selection. Really, not much of a
penalty as the last time I recall a discussion about this there was a
significant constituency with the perception that they never got their first
selection anyway, so while they might enjoy getting it, they wouldn't notice
if they were "penalized" as such. (the poor paying more is a penalty too, of
course, I didn't think you were an American Gavin... :wink: )

So the benefits of "staying the course" are top of the list for nation
selection and a hand moderated bonus. Now, what if our perception is skewed
to the reality and Most players actually complete their games? Well, then
I'm in a list of those at the top of the list... And Most nations are now
handed a 2nd (hand moderated) bonus... Clint's rarely cheering these ones
one...

Not to simply rain on the parade. Thanks for the efforts, certainly a
worthwhile discussion, the type that often produces results in this
particular consumer-driven community (moreso than most others). I like the
ideas regarding supporting players on the brink, and would be more than
willing to pilot these policies in game 233... :wink:

Hopefully the discussion can centre on the carrots and the sticks: what are
the rewards for NOT dropping and what are the penalties FOR dropping out in
the minds?

To clarify *my* position, yes, drops are annoying at the best of times, some
moreso than others. But when dealing with people... I'm not in the
community of "fed up", so I consider myself an objective observer.

Cheers,

Brad

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavinwj" <gavinwj@compuserve.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:45 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Drop outs

Unless there's a penalty to the dropping player, this is not going to

stop.

Currently there is no penalty and Clint is afraid of instituting one for
fear of alienating some players. Now, the question that arises from that

is,

do you want those players in the first place...?

There are proven solutions, but they will never be implemented here.

So, the question become "how can we encourage players to stay the course?"
instead. None are perfect, but they might be worth considering. Off the

top

of my head:

- If a player loses his capital, the turn fee drops for a few turns

- if a player is down to less than five characters or a single MT or city,
then the turn is free if using MEOW/Automagic/latest-gismo for order
submission

- if a player commits to playing through to the end of the game (excluding
bug hunts unless previously agreed) and pays for turns in blocks of ten,
then he gets a discount, but no refunds if he drops

- a player who drops with a viable position is automatically at the end of
the queue for nation assignment in the next game

- players who consistently stay the course and finish games move to the
front of the queue for nation assignment in their next game and are
guaranteed to have at least two characters with bonuses in at the start of
that game

Gavin

Kevin Brown wrote:

> This has been discussed before without too much input from "the
> company" except to state that this isn't a problem. I still think it
> is. I've seen a number of people drop or suggest dropping even when a
> team is winning or even. Sometimes there are "real" reasons for
> people dropping a position, but occasionally people drop a position
> just because they're starting a new game. While the problem may not
> be with the game (and I agree it's not), it's not a problem that
> people discussing it here are going to solve. The solution has to
> come from whoever is running the game. I'm afraid that as long as
> there is someone else to continue paying for the turns (now that
> ought to get a response) there isn't a problem with people dropping.

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

#7

An MEPBM turn costs approximately the same as two pints of beer in London.
When I first starting playing PBM (very early 80s, gulp!), a turn in StarWeb
cost the equivalent of almost three pints. Yet, somehow, people managed to
cough up for 20 turns at a time: you got a discount and if you dropped, you
lost the balance. (Chris Harvey quite rightly figured there was less admin
for him, plus he had the cash in his account for a couple of months, so it
was worth encouraging people to pay up front.)

As for running close to the bone: if finances are horribly tight, then
paying for PBM of any sort is the least of your worries; if, on the other
hand, the reason is that you elect to play five or six games at once, then
you're going to be paying as much a fortnight as the person who only plays
one game but elects to pay every couple of months.

Do you feel alienated if someone who flies frequently is upgraded and you're
not? Do you feel alienated if someone has a magazine subscription but you
buy the mag each week/month at a newsstand...?

One of the many reasons that I haven't been playing in a while is that I
cannot afford to do so. I will wait until the finances sort themselves out
and then reconsider. Until then, do I feel alienated by those playing one or
more games of MEPBM? Of course not. That would be petty.

Gavin

Brad Brunet wrote:

···

Well, I for one would be alienated if those who can *afford* 10 turns
consistently get a discount, while those who simply can't afford to ante up
10 turns worth (especially if they're already running close to the bone due
to Volume...) have to pay more. The rich get richer...?

#8

I can't come up with a lot of carrots, but a stick that would carry a
lot of weight would be for a player that drops a position when the
rest of his allies are continuing (don't want to encourage bug hunt
fans or create bug hunts) is also removed from control of the rest of
his nations and removed from entry into new games for a period of
time (6 months). A neutral that dropped a viable position would
always be subject to this rule. A little draconian, but it would take
care of the dropouts. However, this would alienate some players and
cut down on revenue so probably won't be instituted.

Kevin

Unless there's a penalty to the dropping player, this is not going

to stop.

Currently there is no penalty and Clint is afraid of instituting

one for

fear of alienating some players. Now, the question that arises from

that is,

do you want those players in the first place...?

There are proven solutions, but they will never be implemented here.

So, the question become "how can we encourage players to stay the

course?"

instead. None are perfect, but they might be worth considering. Off

the top

of my head:

- If a player loses his capital, the turn fee drops for a few turns

- if a player is down to less than five characters or a single MT

or city,

then the turn is free if using MEOW/Automagic/latest-gismo for order
submission

- if a player commits to playing through to the end of the game

(excluding

bug hunts unless previously agreed) and pays for turns in blocks of

ten,

then he gets a discount, but no refunds if he drops

- a player who drops with a viable position is automatically at the

end of

the queue for nation assignment in the next game

- players who consistently stay the course and finish games move to

the

front of the queue for nation assignment in their next game and are
guaranteed to have at least two characters with bonuses in at the

start of

that game

Gavin

Kevin Brown wrote:

> This has been discussed before without too much input from "the
> company" except to state that this isn't a problem. I still think

it

> is. I've seen a number of people drop or suggest dropping even

when a

> team is winning or even. Sometimes there are "real" reasons for
> people dropping a position, but occasionally people drop a

position

> just because they're starting a new game. While the problem may

not

> be with the game (and I agree it's not), it's not a problem that
> people discussing it here are going to solve. The solution has to
> come from whoever is running the game. I'm afraid that as long as
> there is someone else to continue paying for the turns (now that
> ought to get a response) there isn't a problem with people

dropping.

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavinwj <gavinwj@c...> wrote:

#9

And I thought I was strict!

On the one hand, you would indeed alienate the players who tend to drop. On
the other, you would really please those who despise dropouts and hate
seeing their time and money investment go to waste.

So, it might balance out.

Gavin

Kevin Brown wrote:

···

I can't come up with a lot of carrots, but a stick that would carry a
lot of weight would be for a player that drops a position when the
rest of his allies are continuing (don't want to encourage bug hunt
fans or create bug hunts) is also removed from control of the rest of
his nations and removed from entry into new games for a period of
time (6 months). A neutral that dropped a viable position would
always be subject to this rule. A little draconian, but it would take
care of the dropouts. However, this would alienate some players and
cut down on revenue so probably won't be instituted.

Kevin

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavinwj <gavinwj@c...> wrote:

Unless there's a penalty to the dropping player, this is not going

to stop.

Currently there is no penalty and Clint is afraid of instituting

one for

fear of alienating some players. Now, the question that arises from

that is,

do you want those players in the first place...?

There are proven solutions, but they will never be implemented here.

So, the question become "how can we encourage players to stay the

course?"

instead. None are perfect, but they might be worth considering. Off

the top

of my head:

- If a player loses his capital, the turn fee drops for a few turns

- if a player is down to less than five characters or a single MT

or city,

then the turn is free if using MEOW/Automagic/latest-gismo for order
submission

- if a player commits to playing through to the end of the game

(excluding

bug hunts unless previously agreed) and pays for turns in blocks of

ten,

then he gets a discount, but no refunds if he drops

- a player who drops with a viable position is automatically at the

end of

the queue for nation assignment in the next game

- players who consistently stay the course and finish games move to

the

front of the queue for nation assignment in their next game and are
guaranteed to have at least two characters with bonuses in at the

start of

that game

Gavin

Kevin Brown wrote:

This has been discussed before without too much input from "the
company" except to state that this isn't a problem. I still think

it

is. I've seen a number of people drop or suggest dropping even

when a

team is winning or even. Sometimes there are "real" reasons for
people dropping a position, but occasionally people drop a

position

just because they're starting a new game. While the problem may

not

be with the game (and I agree it's not), it's not a problem that
people discussing it here are going to solve. The solution has to
come from whoever is running the game. I'm afraid that as long as
there is someone else to continue paying for the turns (now that
ought to get a response) there isn't a problem with people

dropping.

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

#10

Players will need to make the change themselves.

JCC

···

--- ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:

I've commented on this a fair bit (and on the
MEForum as well). The
reasons are manifold for dropping a game, but
there's little that we can do
about that I'm afraid.

Clint

>This has been discussed before without too much
input from "the
>company" except to state that this isn't a problem.
I still think it
>is. I've seen a number of people drop or suggest
dropping even when a
>team is winning or even. Sometimes there are "real"
reasons for
>people dropping a position, but occasionally people
drop a position
>just because they're starting a new game. While the
problem may not
>be with the game (and I agree it's not), it's not a
problem that
>people discussing it here are going to solve. The
solution has to
>come from whoever is running the game. I'm afraid
that as long as
>there is someone else to continue paying for the
turns (now that
>ought to get a response) there isn't a problem with
people dropping.
> > Agree with Steve completely. Dropping is a
problem that starts with
>players, not the game. Without fail, every open
game I've been in,
>things start to look just SLIGHTLY sour and you
have people talking
>about dropping. I don't believe in turning games
into bughunts but I
>can't stand people that want to drop b/c their side
loses a capital
>or 2. More often, I think people have just lost
interest in the game
>and see an outlet when the game is going slightly
bad to get out.
>They can blame their quiting on "losing" instead
of, er, "quitting".
> >
> >
> > Russ
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Steve Prindeville
> > To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 10:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Digest Number 1783
> >
> >
> > Although this is not the norm, game 221(2950)
is on turn 43.
> >
> > It is still possible for two teams to contest
this game past turn
>10 if some people would not give up so easily.
Maybe the problem
>isn't with the game but the people(that should get
someone PO'd). It
>seems a lot of our brethren drop when they think
their nation is no
>longer viable. Given enough time any nation with a
commander and
>allies to help them can come back in a game.
> >
> > Sometimes life sucks, but it can get better!
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > >>> <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com> 11/02/04
07:22AM >>>
> >
> >

______________________________________________________________________
>__
> >
> > Message: 9
> > Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:56:28 -0000
> > From: "Colin Forbes" <colin@t...>
> > Subject: Re: Military Command and Middle Earth
> >
> >
> > I more or less agree with Ed's analysis,
though if it's true thatv
> > errors were deliberately put in the rulebook I
would question the
> > business sense of doing something like that.
By all means leave
> > something vague, but don't lie in a rulebook.
> >
> > But anyway...
> >
> > I too miss the unknown that formed part of the
game at the very
> > beginning. But then to behonest, in the UK we
never had as much
> > unknown as you guys in the US had. By the time
the game was
>released
> > here, a lot of information had already been
spread via the
>internet
> > (or the "information superhighway" as it was
known back then).
> >
> > I regret that games are over so quickly these
days ... I remember
>my
> > 2950 game 20 with fondness ... it ended on
turn 100. Or the
>events in
> > the original game 5 which gave new definition
to phrases
>like "fog of
> > war" and "shifting sands of alliances". :slight_smile:
> >
> > However - those days are gone and cannot come
back, how ever much
>we
> > may long for them to do so.
> >
> > I cannot resist one little dig at Ed, for
which I hope he will
>forgive
> > me, ... Ed, surely the balance of the game you
describe can only
>be
> > achieved by making changes to the original
game design? :stuck_out_tongue:
>(Or by
> > liberal use of a time machine, obviously).
> >
> > Colin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

______________________________________________________________________
>__
> >

______________________________________________________________________
>__
> >
> >
> >
>
> ! ;
>
>
     &nb!
>sp; &
>nbsp;
>
> !
>
>
    &nbs!
>p; &n
>bsp;
>
> &!
>nbsp;
>
> ! ; &nb
>sp;
>
> &n!
>bsp;
>
> ! &nbs
>p;
>
> &nb!
>sp;
>
> &!
>nbsp; ;
>
> &nbs!
>p;
>
> &n!
>bsp;
>
>
> > Note: This AAIS e-mail, including attachments,
may contain
>confidential, privileged, or copyrighted
information and the sender
>does not waive any related rights or obligations.
Any unauthorized
>distribution, use, or copying of this e-mail or the
information it
>contains is prohibited.
> >
> >
> > Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to
everyone
> > To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> > Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

--------------------------------------------------------------------

>----------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
> > mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
the Yahoo! Terms of
>Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release
Date: 27/10/04

****************************************************************

                 ME Games Ltd
         me@middleearthgames.com
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: PO Box 680155, Marietta, GA 30068-0003
         Tel 770 579 6813 EST Weekdays
         Fax 503 296 2325

****************************************************************

         Middle Earth - Legends
         Serim Ral - Exile

  ----------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release
Date: 27/10/04

[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

#11

Sorry I misunderstood the context Kevin. Drop out players are not a
problem. We relatively easily replace them and invariably, well not quite,
but 99% of the time we get a replacement.

1000 Drop outs are the hardest, then Gunboat games but even then we can
usually find someone.

Clint

Unless there's a penalty to the dropping player, this is not going to stop.

···

Currently there is no penalty and Clint is afraid of instituting one for
fear of alienating some players. Now, the question that arises from that is,
do you want those players in the first place...?

  ----------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/04

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#12

Hi,
I think it would be a mistake to assume that the majority of drop-outs
happen because of money. In my experience the most common reason a
player drops a game is simply a lack of time. In fact money is
probably third on the list behind in-game events that cause a player
to simply walk away from the game.

Personally speaking I buck the trend here, with money and in-game
reasons fighting it out for the major reason I drop games. However,
looking back over my notes on past games, a lack of time is far and
away the most common cause for players dropping.

Gavin suggests that a penalty needs to be imposed on a dropping
player. I don't see how this would help the situation. Asking people
to pay up-front would probably lead to slower game start-ups and make
little difference in the drop-out rate. People would think twice
before starting a new game (lumps sum are always harder to justify
than little payments) whilst this would not address the way time and
real life events constrain the time people are able to devote to gaming.

Ultimately the choice to play or not to play is up to the player. In
my view if ME Games penalise players or in any way regulate the system
in an attempt to reduce drop-outs, the result may well make the overal
gaming experience worse.

ME Games offer a huge range of options in terms of game styles and
variants. If you are someone that finds their game enjoyment is
wrecked by drop-outs, then why not play grudge games? The drop-out
rate from team games is much lower - and does not usually affect the
game much.

It's a free market out there, drop-outs are going to happen. I don't
like it, you don't like it .... but excessive regulation or penalties
will not improve the situation. We just need to accept it as part of
the gaming experience.

Colin

#13

Lots of comments here.

I'll reply to the question about why not play grudge games - I guess
this is making the assumption that people would be part of a team.
Personally I like playing the neutral nations - not pre-aligned
neutrals, actually non-aligned nations at the beginning. I don't mind
playing a neutral nation in a grudge match, but a lot of teams don't
want or like the uncertainty of neutral nations/players.

Kevin

Hi,
I think it would be a mistake to assume that the majority of drop-

outs

happen because of money. In my experience the most common reason a
player drops a game is simply a lack of time. In fact money is
probably third on the list behind in-game events that cause a player
to simply walk away from the game.

Personally speaking I buck the trend here, with money and in-game
reasons fighting it out for the major reason I drop games. However,
looking back over my notes on past games, a lack of time is far and
away the most common cause for players dropping.

Gavin suggests that a penalty needs to be imposed on a dropping
player. I don't see how this would help the situation. Asking people
to pay up-front would probably lead to slower game start-ups and

make

little difference in the drop-out rate. People would think twice
before starting a new game (lumps sum are always harder to justify
than little payments) whilst this would not address the way time and
real life events constrain the time people are able to devote to

gaming.

Ultimately the choice to play or not to play is up to the player. In
my view if ME Games penalise players or in any way regulate the

system

in an attempt to reduce drop-outs, the result may well make the

overal

gaming experience worse.

ME Games offer a huge range of options in terms of game styles and
variants. If you are someone that finds their game enjoyment is
wrecked by drop-outs, then why not play grudge games? The drop-out
rate from team games is much lower - and does not usually affect the
game much.

It's a free market out there, drop-outs are going to happen. I don't
like it, you don't like it .... but excessive regulation or

penalties

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Colin Forbes" <colin@t...> wrote:

will not improve the situation. We just need to accept it as part of
the gaming experience.

Colin

#14

Colin Forbes wrote:

People would think twice
before starting a new game (lumps sum are always harder to justify
than little payments)

Having people think a little more before signing up for a game might not be
a bad idea. Questions like "Can I afford the time and money?", "Can I stay
the course?", "Aren't I in enough games already?" :slight_smile:

A lump sum *is* more difficult to justify. (As an aside, that's how credit
card companies make so much money.) So, you give a discount for buying turns
in bulk: it's a win-win situation.

Gavin

#15

Gavin wrote:

Having people think a little more before signing up for a game
might not be a bad idea.

I'm not sure that ME Games would agree that having waiting lists that
were even slower to fill up was a good idea. Similarly players who
already wait a long time for some scenarios to start.

"Can I afford the time and money?"

It's surely not posisble to say, at the start of a game, that you will
definitely have enough time? All my recent games have lasted (on
average) a year. I have no way of predicting demands on my time 8
months hence. Just as I have no way of knowing whether the game will
prove to be full of idiots of send personally insulting emails, thus
cuasing me to drop. (Sadly this has happened more than once, and is
something that anyone playing a Neutral should be prepared for).

A lump sum *is* more difficult to justify. (As an aside, that's
how credit card companies make so much money.) So, you give a
discount for buying turns in bulk: it's a win-win situation.

How many turns qualifies as "bulk"? How much discount should ME Games
offer? It's worth pointing out that, in the past, most PBM companies
who have tried discounts for bulk payments have come to regret the
decision. The discount needed to attract a decent number of players,
cuts into the very narrow profit margins within which even successful
PBM companies operate.

However, none of this addresses the fact that the most common reason
for dropping a game is a lack of time, usually brought on by unforseen
circumstances in "real life". Paying a lump sum in advance is not
going to stop someone from dropping a game because their work now
takes up more time or they get a girlfriend.

Other potential difficulties include ...
* Legal problems. The system would need to be some form of
non-refundable despot. PBM companies who have tried this in the past
have not prospered and more than one has been successfully sued.
* Would this not require a system whereby a each individual game had a
seperate account? Requiring ME Games to spend resources redesigning
their accounting software (again).
* Any non-monetary system of rewards and punishments for drop-outs
would require a high level of additional administration. This would of
course mean we'd have to pay more for the game.

To be perfectly honest, I don't really see where the problem lies with
drop outs. When the game first came out over hear, at least 50% of
games I played were profoundly affected by drop-outs. In the last few
years I can barely think of one such game, thanks in part to ME Games'
efficient filling of vacant positions. To be fair, I don't really
know how 2950 and 4th Age games are affected these days.

Colin

#16

Colin Forbes wrote:

Gavin wrote:

"Can I afford the time and money?"

It's surely not posisble to say, at the start of a game, that you will
definitely have enough time?

It is, however, possible to notice that you're already in three games and a
fourth simultaneously might just be a stretch! We've seen people on this
list say that they're in too many games. That's the sort of person I meant.

A lump sum *is* more difficult to justify. (As an aside, that's
how credit card companies make so much money.) So, you give a
discount for buying turns in bulk: it's a win-win situation.

How many turns qualifies as "bulk"? How much discount should ME Games
offer? It's worth pointing out that, in the past, most PBM companies
who have tried discounts for bulk payments have come to regret the
decision. The discount needed to attract a decent number of players,
cuts into the very narrow profit margins within which even successful
PBM companies operate.

We don't know Clint's margins and that is his business. But he runs the game
well and hasn't gone under nor has he laid staff off. In addition, he has
now bought the rights to the game itself. He got the funding for that
somewhere (again, not my business) and that shows a solid business structure
in place.

Companies that have gone under have tended to do so because they weren't run
as businesses (even if they had a "professional" staff). They were run more
as a hobby for profit. In at least two very noted cases, the company's
demise was directly linkable to their appalling attitude towards their
customers. Clint doesn't suffer from that either.

or they get a girlfriend.

I'll leave the cheap shot to someone else...

* Legal problems. The system would need to be some form of
non-refundable despot. PBM companies who have tried this in the past
have not prospered and more than one has been successfully sued.

Set up properly and with players agreeing in advance: no problem. You are
buying *turns* in bulk, not making a deposit payment into an account. That's
where others went wrong: they weren't clear enough and also kept referring
to the cash as being "in the account balance". And, yes, they must be
non-refundable: but I already said that. I suspect the litigation you're
thinking of is related to one of the companies mentioned previously and
widely reported in Flagship?

To be perfectly honest, I don't really see where the problem lies with
drop outs. When the game first came out over hear, at least 50% of
games I played were profoundly affected by drop-outs. In the last few
years I can barely think of one such game, thanks in part to ME Games'
efficient filling of vacant positions. To be fair, I don't really
know how 2950 and 4th Age games are affected these days.

Judging by comments on this list, there is still enough of a problem to
cause concern among players who want to be able to stay the course. Surely
that warrants reflection? And, even though Clint has got fairly good at
finding replacements, there is still the problem of what happens to the
nation prior to the drop (often a special service turn or two or three) and
while Clint signs someone up. (And, if you want to talk margins, then
offering a turn for free to someone taking over a position is roughly
equivalent to offering a ten percent discount on bulk turn buying...)

Gavin

#17

Gavin,
I think we've aired the issue fairly thoroughly :slight_smile: I think we're
just going to have to agree to differ - probably because of different
game experiences. Couple of points for the sake of clarification.

We don't know Clint's margins and that is his business.

In no way was I questioning ME Game's business structure. They have
shown abusiness accumen which has often been sadly lacking amongst PBM
firms.

I suspect the litigation you're thinking of is related to one
of the companies mentioned previously and widely reported in
Flagship?

As assistant editor of Flagship, I really couldn't comment on
individual cases :wink: Not all the cases I was thinking of have made it
to the pages of Flagship. But yes, I agree it's possible - it just
requires proper legal phrasing etc.

offering a turn for free to someone taking over a position
is roughly equivalent to offering a ten percent discount on
bulk turn buying...)

I would question whether 10% would be sufficient inducement. At least
one large PBM company has found the take-up of such an offer to be
surprisingly low.
Do ME Games still offer 1 free turn for taking over a position? If
this is the case, I need to chase them for a missing free turn :wink:

Colin

#18

Set up properly and with players agreeing in advance: no problem. You are
buying *turns* in bulk, not making a deposit payment into an account. That's
where others went wrong: they weren't clear enough and also kept referring
to the cash as being "in the account balance".

Why is this wrong? They already have my money, so they haven't "assigned" it yet. Non-refundable??? So what happens when the Whole other side resigns as a concession defeat? Maybe THEY haven't paid for this "volume discount" and aren't losing their deposit... Unworkable and inconsequential. Just because you had an idea doesn't mean you have to defend it to the death.

To be perfectly honest, I don't really see where the problem lies with
drop outs. When the game first came out over hear, at least 50% of
games I played were profoundly affected by drop-outs. In the last few
years I can barely think of one such game, thanks in part to ME Games'
efficient filling of vacant positions. To be fair, I don't really
know how 2950 and 4th Age games are affected these days.

Judging by comments on this list, there is still enough of a problem to
cause concern among players who want to be able to stay the course.

Well, Clint has said that they do not lose revenue due to drop outs necessarily as the players are replaced, therefore it isn't a problem If your ally disappears for more than one turn, look in the mirror, don't complain to the company.

Brad

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com> wrote:

#19

Sorry to burst your bubble, Brad, but it wasn't my idea and it did work. For
many, many years. Very well. (It was actually the norm for quite a few
games.)

Please note that, once again, you have deliberately twisted my position. You
only lose the turns if *you* drop. By agreeing not to drop, you gain the
benefit of cheaper turn fees, in effect.

The second sentence in your reply shows that you haven't understood the
concept. Let me try another analogy. If you buy a single can of Coke, it
will cost you X. However, if you buy a 24-can platter of cans, it will
usually cost you a lot less at a discount warehouse, for example. However,
by buying the cans in bulk and getting the lower price, you implicitly agree
that you won't try to return the unused cans for a refund later. It's a
business model that works all over the place. In the PBM model, the money
*is* assigned, it is no longer a general pot from which you can draw.

The question I have to ask you is, why are you so against players getting a
benefit for being "good PBM citizens"?

Gavin

Brad Brunet wrote:

···

Set up properly and with players agreeing in advance: no problem. You are
buying *turns* in bulk, not making a deposit payment into an account. That's
where others went wrong: they weren't clear enough and also kept referring
to the cash as being "in the account balance".

Why is this wrong? They already have my money, so they haven't "assigned" it
yet. Non-refundable??? So what happens when the Whole other side resigns as
a concession defeat? Maybe THEY haven't paid for this "volume discount" and
aren't losing their deposit... Unworkable and inconsequential. Just because
you had an idea doesn't mean you have to defend it to the death.

#20

Sorry to burst your bubble Gavin,

But I have not deliberately twisted anything. You said "non-refundable", I apologize if I missed all the legal fine print, but I was dealing with "non-refundable". If the game ends before my bulk turns are over, do I get a refund from the "assigned" game back to my "account"? At which point then, what does "non" mean?

I most certainly understand volume discounts. What a silly accusation.

I have nothing against "benefits" for being good PBM Citizens. I, at least, have an understanding that what I think good citizenship is might actually not be the whole and complete universal truth as ordained by all the gods in complete unanimity at the begining of all time.

Pettiness, Perspective, or Pride --> Choose your response option.

Brad

Sorry to burst your bubble, Brad, but it wasn't my idea and it did work. For
many, many years. Very well. (It was actually the norm for quite a few
games.)

Please note that, once again, you have deliberately twisted my position. You
only lose the turns if *you* drop. By agreeing not to drop, you gain the
benefit of cheaper turn fees, in effect.

The second sentence in your reply shows that you haven't understood the
concept. Let me try another analogy. If you buy a single can of Coke, it
will cost you X. However, if you buy a 24-can platter of cans, it will
usually cost you a lot less at a discount warehouse, for example. However,
by buying the cans in bulk and getting the lower price, you implicitly agree
that you won't try to return the unused cans for a refund later. It's a
business model that works all over the place. In the PBM model, the money
*is* assigned, it is no longer a general pot from which you can draw.

The question I have to ask you is, why are you so against players getting a
benefit for being "good PBM citizens"?

Gavin

Brad Brunet wrote:

Set up properly and with players agreeing in advance: no problem. You are
buying *turns* in bulk, not making a deposit payment into an account. That's
where others went wrong: they weren't clear enough and also kept referring
to the cash as being "in the account balance".

Why is this wrong? They already have my money, so they haven't "assigned" it
yet. Non-refundable??? So what happens when the Whole other side resigns as
a concession defeat? Maybe THEY haven't paid for this "volume discount" and
aren't losing their deposit... Unworkable and inconsequential. Just because
you had an idea doesn't mean you have to defend it to the death.

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com> wrote: