of course people want changes…they always do…the problems only come when everyone doesn’t want the same changes lol…as far as the varients go though I think it’s a great idea to add voluntary variety to the game…I think anything that isn’t voluntary should be subject to extensive debate and I’m sure it will be <for example I’d like to see the strength of the troop types remain the same but a movement advantage be given to light troops in rough terrain…I’m sure many would say this isn’t enough and others would say it’s too much but I would say it makes sense…thus the arguing would begin lol>
Well, Colin, if it is all so obvious (now) why did people poo-poo the prediction? Why was Harley so evasive? Why would anyone want to supress speculation on the subject?
As for debate, there will not be much I think. Ready for another prediction? The changes will be “logrolled” I bring your attention to the Gunboat change that players can not double allied players’ characters.
lol…well I for one happen to have a whole pocket full of pennies and want the chance to throw them out two cents at a time at possible changes
88 Noldo,
I’ve always assumed Harlequin wanted the code - any business would. If there was any evasion I would imagine it was for commercial reasons, not wishing to prejudice negotiations etc.
Logrolling changes … er … not sure I follow this. Being unable to double allied characters in Gunboat was part of the original scenario design as written by Chris Courtiour.
How does this impinge on this discussion? Personally I reserve judgement on any changes that may or may not be made to the game. I’m on record as not liking the sort of wholescale changes that can be found on Laurence Tilley’s 2nd Edition web page (though I applaud the thought that has gone into his suggestions).
Exactly what ME Games will do with the code in terms of producing new scenarios does not seem (to me at least) to be the point. The fact that they would have the code, be able to transfer the game to running on PCs etc is surely more important?
I would expect that the game could be made cheaper (after all I believe a hefty chunk of the turnfee goes to GSI in royalties). It would also be nice to have properly scanned character icons and the ability to have new ones. New encounter text would be nice too - stuff that doesn’t change the actual structure of the game in any way. Oh and what about having account info on the front of the turns instead of buried in an accompanying email?
Are these bad things?
Colin
Probably not, Colin, probably not.
As for the 'logrolling", when I get a chance to hunt down the thread I will bring it forward and explain what happened. You can then be on the look out.
I was always under the impression that randomizing artifacts was in regards to the Numbers. I see this as more beneficial to the game than the “secondary” powers, although either one is against the “spirit” of the game.
The artifact numbers simply represent their names. If a mage “can” Locate Artifact, then wouldn’t they already know the “names” of the artifacts they want to locate? Randomized numbers mean you have to simply research numbers blindly until you find one you want, then head for it. This supposedly evens the score on the artifact race, as while the DS have more and better mages to learn/cast LAT, the FP certainly have enough, anc can easily acquire enough, to learn RA while their core guys are ready to LAT the one or two items they chance upon.
Randomized secondary powers is similar in that it will be a considerable time before cursers show up. But it has no effect on the main artifact race whereby the DS should scoop up the majority of the good toys (agent, stealth, mage). OF course, the secondary powers, like the bloody name of the thing, are mostly based on various ME writings. That which gives a bonus vs dragons, or allows the bearer to teleport, etc, have these powers for Tolkeinesque reasons.
Mind you, if your argument is in favour of keeping “true to Tolkein”, I’m quite confident there ARE numerous changes one can make for that reason.
The main argument is whether change will benefit the game. Many are simply against change of anything for any reason. Others are against change because they feel it will level the playing field - they’ve learned so much it gives them an edge. Are these people simply being reactionary or selfish (or both?)?
Other calls for change revolve around “cleaning up” some things they see are silly, problematic, or at worst, broken. For example, why have both the 520 and the 525? Why not just “influence FOR MY NATION” such that it increases loyalty in you own pop or decreases it in someone elses. Sounds good, but smacks of the laziness and irresponsibility. Why change the game because you can’t get your orders straight? “But - when I’ve got 5 emissaries on an enemy pop and the first 3 take it, the next two 525’s are wasted!”. Good point - their there to “influence”, right? Well, you could have scouted the loyalty and realized you didn’t need 5 in the first place. Or, now, you’ve learned something about the enemy’s loyalty and can react to the new information, etc.
There are reasons for the game being the way it is. So much is entwined, it’s very difficult to simply “fix” this or that without having an impact on the rest of the game, and how it’s played.
Mind you, another concern is that the GM’s now play on trust that they’re not going to sneak into the accounts of their opposition. I have no real problem with that, but when the GM’s have the actual code…all that “discovered in the course of play” stuff…well, I see that being a problem.
actually my arguement against randomizing numbers isn’t that it is against tolkien…it’s actually because it’s against reason…how could any artifact exist without there being some lore or legend regarding what it does <and if it isn’t known to even exist how could one know to look for it>? even a lowly +500 sword would have some villager talking about how a man armed with that glowing sword was able to take on 50 other men in mortal combat…I think the fact that all artifacts have a +/- 5 value tacked on is sufficient…and if randomization beyond that is felt required I would go for making the effects more varied <this could represent how tales often don’t match up to reality> as opposed to having no idea what artifact is being looked for actually does…the chances of a secondary power not being known does seem more reasonable to me though
Laurence Tilley’s 2nd Edition web page has grappled with this question. His conclusion, if memory serves, was to randomize at least the numbers, but then provide for new Research Spells that returned more than one artifact’s worth of information. So, you make it a mysterious black hole, then make super flash lights.
Remember though, “In the Beginning”, there was simply a list of artifacts in the rule book. What they each did, both primary and secondary, was a mystery. Sure, there was a Ring of Wind listed…but what IS a Ring of Wind anyway? It was only the compilation and communication of this information, that allows us to say these things today. Randomizing the numbers brings us right back to, supposedly, the truer “intent” of the artifacts.
So be wary…you’ve just said the game design was “against reason”…
lol…and when I got the rule book for my very first game I thought it was against reason then too…as an additional comment I’d like to add that most players would agree that the mage class gives the least “bang for the buck” as far as character classes go…do we really want to make them even less advantagious because I think that randomizing artifacts would do so considering the amount of time that would be wasted researching fairly worthless artifacts…actually even changing the secondary powers does that to a considerable extent and lets face it…without curse squads mages are better off retired…one could make a reasonable arguement that a nation is better off retiring them early in the game even under the current system
Harley used terms like libel and issued threats
Where did we do this? This is a very dangerous game you are playing here Ed Mills. You claimed we HAD the source code and were changing things - we don’t and haven’t. Please don’t try to twist what we’ve said.
You’ve also claimed that you don’t like changes, yet the majority of the games you play in are Wotr Variant, Grudge game variant etc. You’ve not once answered that question. So what’s the answer? Why do you complain about changes to the game yet play in the majority of the games with such changes in them?
You claimed a price rise - when would that be the claim for - of course there’s going to be a price rise given a sufficient period of time. What about the price decrease for 40% of our players? With more efficiency we can hope to bring the price down and I have already commented on my wishes to do that.
I never said we don’t want the source code (to my recollection). With it we can improve the game, the look and many other aspects of the future of the game. As for variant games - those are possible but we’re nowhere near that. As mentioned on the other list I’d get a list together of players and like we’ve down with all the other projects, get player feedback and test it out.
Then we’d offer nay such games as a variant if they are interesting. (Such as the Wotr Variant game that you play - I don’t understand what the difference between that is and coding a Wotr Variant other than efficiency and reduced set-up fee.). So those that want to participate in such changes are welcome to give feedback. No “log rolling” at all.
As for us being evasive - I emailed you on no less than 10 occasions and it’s my policy not to answer emails without a signature. To start off with you plain ignored my emails saying that it was a good thing that I did not reply to any unsigned emails. Unfortunately your constant attacks are damaging to the game and players especially where they come across as hypocritical. Where ever you have signed your name I have replied to your queries. What more do you want me to do?
So for my part I will try to make game payments of £100 (to help your capital a little) and don’t care about free turns.
Thanks John - yes this might well be the way to go forward - if you guys can pay anything extra that would be a big help.
Mind you, another concern is that the GM’s now play on trust that they’re not going to sneak into the accounts of their opposition. I have no real problem with that, but when the GM’s have the actual code…all that “discovered in the course of play” stuff…well, I see that being a problem.
There’s nothing to stop us running a bunch of turns to check out the result - or pre-processing a game to see the result of a battle, or even more to check out an opponents turnsheet. The fact that we haven’t and won’t should have built up enough trust - and if you don’t trust us don’t play us. Simple. (We get lots of players desiring to take us on though despite such worries). Whenever such a thing has come we’ve chatted to the teams concerned and they are happy that no cheating occurred. (We’ve even shared pdfs in some situations).
I hopefully won’t be checking the source code for information. I don’t know if I will have to do so to check things such as bugs, but hopefully I can get a programmer to do that and then I won’t. That way I can avoid learning anything that I shouldn’t be aware of in any other way (ie learnt from playing the game or chatting to players). If I need to then I’ll have to consider my position as a player/GM. But that’s for the future to decide - we haven’t got the licence by a long chalk yet if we ever can.
Hope that answers some of your questions, sorry that I am annoyed at Ed Mills constant attacks and had to reply in public. I like a good wind up as much as many of you but there’s levels of this and I’m anxious about what Ed is up to here.
Personally I love this game and want to see it improved. I know some of you guys have worries - feel free to express them (preferably with your name signed) and I’ll attempt to respond to each.
Clint (GM)
I personally have no concern over playing against game masters…I don’t think they’d cheat and even if they did the enjoyment level would be about equal to a win at solitaire after cheating lol
Hope you guys get the source code; otherwise the game will die off.
Want to fix the Woodmen? Drop challenge bonus, give them Name 40A. Never have trouble filling them again. I could go on but you get the idea.
For my part, I can’t see putting in $900 US but I will try to do $200-$300 instead of $100.
If you do get the source code how would one sign-up to be a game tester?
Good Luck,
Steven McAbee
If you do get the source code how would one sign-up to be a game tester?
Check out my list of what I would hope to do here as I’ve covered that in some details - first off I’d want to get a discussion about what players see as wrong with the game. Also what’s okay and what’s wrong with the game. What would make the game an improvement and what would damage the game. Basically cover the angles and see what’s what. That would take a few months work I reckon. Basically get a Wish-list.
Before that I want to streamline the game - we’ve had a few programmers step forward offering their services so that’s cool. We’ve got plans for a part-time programmer (25hrs a week) that we’re likely to take-up as well - (cheap rate again) - and some other bits like that. (Another streamline is 1000 games - they take a lot of work to set-up our end and invariably take around 3-5 times more effort than a normal game).
After that we’d consider getting the variants set-up. Then at that point I’d consider getting some test games out and working.
Clint
So the set-up has increased to 7 quid from 5 pounds ?
How much does special variant set-ups costs now ? Specifically for myself, I seek clarification on the costs of a Gunboat set-up now as you need to take 2 nations.
I’m unsure if this cost remains unchanged or whether it has increased as well.
Cheers
Brendan McGoldrick
That will be £2.00 extra. I want to see what that does to the game in terms of drop outs and early game ends as much as anything else.
Clint (GM)
I thought I would throw in my 2-cents worth here. I like the suggestion by Steve McAbee to improve the Woodmen and restore some balance to a now less desireable nation.
But most of the reservations I’ve had about the game are solved with the GB variety. The ‘fog of war’ aspect brings the game closer to the designer’s intention.
I also like the suggestion of randomizing artifact numbers, but making each cast of Research Artifact generate several more numbers, like 1-10 depending upon the rank of the mage? Something along those lines.
I don’t know if my next suggestion has been mentioned before, but an aide toward the role-playing aspect would be to add more character-portraits. For many players, such an improvement would be slight, but I would like to see many more, and better drawn!, character portraits for new characters. The ones on there now are so bland.
Maybe there could be a portfolio of about 50 new characters, of each race, and the player could choose the visual appearance of her character by entering a code that corresponds to that portrait? It would be a small improvement.
Anyway, keep up the good work Clint. I don’t mind a slight pay increase, and I appreciate the game variants (especially GB), and the top-notch service Harly provides. My results are always on time and any problems (errors) I’ve had, though few, have always been handled justly.
Nick Cody
Originally posted by Clint
[b]That will be £2.00 extra. I want to see what that does to the game in terms of drop outs and early game ends as much as anything else.Clint (GM) [/b]
£2.00 pound extra for Gunboat positions then ? Is that what you meant ? So Gunboat set-up’s now cost £9.00 per set-up (i.e. £2.00 extra on £7.00) or Gunboat now costs £12.00 per nation ? (i.e. gunboat set-up currently costs £10.00 per nation so £2.00 extra is obviously £12.00).
Sorry but I’m a bit confused by your response.
Cheers
Brendan
I believe the GSI source would be in good hands with MEGames, if I did not know the company and their customer focused ethics, I may be concerned, but judging by the major improvements over the last few years, I am confident any changes that are made will be for the best. And if they aren’t then Clint and co have the good sense to listen to reasonable argument and reconsider (moderated forum is a good example).
Minor issues such as not being able to double same allegiance characters or name characters after dead enemy ones in GB do not count in my opinion as being serious examples of MEGames negative meddling. I will certainly top up my account as much as I can to help the process and look forward to further innovation and improvement in the game that I L*** (damn hard to put that word down on paper!)
:o
I have reservations about making the woodsman stronger without weakening the free people somewhere else…also I’d be more inclined twoards giving them another pop center to improve their economy then to change agent recruiting…I see a trend towards things that are negative for the dark servants…is there a general feeling that the ds has an advantage in the game because I always assumed the only advantage they really had was the experianced players gravitating towards their side…I’d be interested to see what the game results of free vs dark for experianced team games are…has anyone ever compiled that?
I can’t speak on 1650 so my comments are about 2950.
I believe the first thing you should do is fix the least desirable nations (assuming there is reason for this) before you go changing orders and stuff. I think this would be an easier undertaking to manipulate some SNA’s and initial pop centers/fortifications. This could show some immediate results. Would game balance be altered, sure it would. The end result of the changes would be determined by the play testing and adjusted accordingly.
The 2950 FP characters suck for the most part other than maybe 3 nations. Since 2950 is less army intensive due to smaller economies, characters play a bigger role. I don’t know who wins more but I think it takes greater play among the FP to beat a DS team of equal skill.
My 2 coppers
Steve