For what its worth, as a relative newcomer, I would be
against most of the suggested restrictions on neutrals
as too confining. This is despite being in the early
stages of my 2nd game and again looking at a
distinctly unbalancing split against my team.
[Rhudaur and Duns going dark early and the Corsairs
having conquered half of Harad declaring he had
decided to go DS at the start of the game]. If you
try and impose a 3-2 split then you restrict the game
too much. It gives little incentive to teams to try
and recruit the neutrals and also means that they will
tend to take them for granted.
Similarly in my 1st game we had a 4-1 split against
us because the 3 southern neutrals decided to go dark
to balance the game. We struggled for quite a while
to get back into the game but sheer persistence seemed
to have triumphed in the end. In hindsight, the team
had burnt a reasonable amount of Mordor and might have
knocked a couple of DS nations out, although we didn't
know it then. As such it might have been a valid
decision for the neutrals although it didn�t seem that
way to us at the time, especially since S Gondor was
almost immediately knocked out by a series of well
planned [ or lucky?] attacks which bankrupted him If
any sort of 3-2 split had been imposed it might have
meant a much quicker game � not sure without knowing
the DS position at the time. I would have denied the
3 neutrals of the ability to do what they, rightly or
wrongly, thought was the best move for a good game.
While not the best diplomat I don�t think I�m MEPBM�s
equivalent of Hitler so it is disappointing seeing
such splits, especially in my current game which makes
things far more difficult as we have made virtually no
impression on Mordor. [Although if a wyrm hadn�t
turned up at 3224 last turn we might have got a force
past their defences]. However I recognise the right
of neutrals to go the way they think best, for
whatever reason and if they either miscalculate or
choose a short game that is their responsibility.
There is a problem when neutrals decide right at the
start not to be neutral, i.e. to go a particular way
regardless. I can understand players wanting to try
out new ideas, but if it means decisively unbalancing
the game it can spoil it for the other 24 players.
However how you identify such positions with the
limited information available, let alone what you do
about it I don�t know.
This discussion initially started on the problems of
poor games because of imbalanced teams and poor
players. Neutrals can balance that out to a degree by
their decisions but they will not necessarily know the
details nor should it be their full responsibility.
It can be a hassle playing in a closely co-operating
team and ploughing through masses of emails. However
I prefer it to non-communicating players going off on
their own paths regardless of the rest of their team.
As started elsewhere, that is the primarily problem.
Given modern communications the demands on a team are
much higher and there is less room for slack if you
want to be able to compete. Gunboat provides an
option for players who want to go their own path or
experiment but the standard game is too big a
commitment for players to be able to experiment much I
fear.
Steve
···
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
The solution is that there are grudge and variant games already. The open games are fine the way they are. People who do not like them will play something different. If I want to play a high-stakes aggressive game with oponents and allies I know and trust, I certainly will not join a public game. If I want to play a neutral, mercenary nation, or a non-communicative economy machine, or enjoy a varied lot of allies and enemies as well as more random strategy, I will join an open game.
Very simple.
Jason Mele
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Pickering
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Digest Number 1939
For what its worth, as a relative newcomer, I would be
against most of the suggested restrictions on neutrals
as too confining. This is despite being in the early
stages of my 2nd game and again looking at a
distinctly unbalancing split against my team.
[Rhudaur and Duns going dark early and the Corsairs
having conquered half of Harad declaring he had
decided to go DS at the start of the game]. If you
try and impose a 3-2 split then you restrict the game
too much. It gives little incentive to teams to try
and recruit the neutrals and also means that they will
tend to take them for granted.
Similarly in my 1st game we had a 4-1 split against
us because the 3 southern neutrals decided to go dark
to balance the game. We struggled for quite a while
to get back into the game but sheer persistence seemed
to have triumphed in the end. In hindsight, the team
had burnt a reasonable amount of Mordor and might have
knocked a couple of DS nations out, although we didn't
know it then. As such it might have been a valid
decision for the neutrals although it didn't seem that
way to us at the time, especially since S Gondor was
almost immediately knocked out by a series of well
planned [ or lucky?] attacks which bankrupted him If
any sort of 3-2 split had been imposed it might have
meant a much quicker game - not sure without knowing
the DS position at the time. I would have denied the
3 neutrals of the ability to do what they, rightly or
wrongly, thought was the best move for a good game.
While not the best diplomat I don't think I'm MEPBM's
equivalent of Hitler so it is disappointing seeing
such splits, especially in my current game which makes
things far more difficult as we have made virtually no
impression on Mordor. [Although if a wyrm hadn't
turned up at 3224 last turn we might have got a force
past their defences]. However I recognise the right
of neutrals to go the way they think best, for
whatever reason and if they either miscalculate or
choose a short game that is their responsibility.
There is a problem when neutrals decide right at the
start not to be neutral, i.e. to go a particular way
regardless. I can understand players wanting to try
out new ideas, but if it means decisively unbalancing
the game it can spoil it for the other 24 players.
However how you identify such positions with the
limited information available, let alone what you do
about it I don't know.
This discussion initially started on the problems of
poor games because of imbalanced teams and poor
players. Neutrals can balance that out to a degree by
their decisions but they will not necessarily know the
details nor should it be their full responsibility.
It can be a hassle playing in a closely co-operating
team and ploughing through masses of emails. However
I prefer it to non-communicating players going off on
their own paths regardless of the rest of their team.
As started elsewhere, that is the primarily problem.
Given modern communications the demands on a team are
much higher and there is less room for slack if you
want to be able to compete. Gunboat provides an
option for players who want to go their own path or
experiment but the standard game is too big a
commitment for players to be able to experiment much I
fear.
Steve
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
