I plead complete ignorance on 2950…my comments only relate to 1650 <my game of choice> so I retract my preference on the woodsman changes if it relates to the 2950 version of which I have no knowledge…although I may end up giving an opinion later despite that complete lack of knowledge <I’ve been known to do that> lol
Originally posted by 88 Noldo
For over a year I have been predicting that Harley wanted the source codes and intended to make changes to same. As if this was not obvious to any thoughtful individual. Never the less, some players have accused me of being paranoid. Harley used terms like libel and issued threats. Some perople have difficulty coping with disagreement, I guess.
As I recall, Ed, you actually accussed Harly of already having the source code, and claiming they did not. Clint’s been saying for some time now that buying GSI was a possibility.
jason
Jason, if you will review the List: A Spanish player was describing a Spanish game which suggested that source code changes had been made. This was discussed by several. I suggested that Harley “perhaps” already have them since I noticed something strange lately. Clint says , they could but don’t have the source codes. The overlooked modifier ‘perhaps’. Are we straight between us? If you want to see for yourself, go to the List for the entry 12-11-03 subject The Fastest Ring. It might be helpful if you backed up and read the entire thread.
I completely agree with what Paul said. BTW. it is complete rubbish to accuse harly of doing anything that might disgruntle the players because they make their living from a satisfied community. The game needs changes. I always found that after there was nothing new to discover in a variant, I rapidly lost interest. after 1650 I tried 2950, after that FA, after that BOFA, after that GB, after that WOTR and now GB FA. Some scenarios I liked more, some less but generally I had fun in trying new tactics and exploring new aspects of the game. I hope that harly follows that path with the sourcecode and I don’t see why they shouldn’t. For those who don’t want changes there can be classic variants as long as there are enough players to fill a game.
There might be minor changes that I don’t like, but I don’t care as long as they don’t affect the general gameplay - hell, I am using Windows after all 
The changes to the layout of the game are not so important IMHO, but I guess we have to adapt to modern times and if MEPBM is to compete with online games in attracting new players we have to add some eye candy. Input and planning aids like AM or palantir defenitely ease the access to the game for newcomers - I think harly should work towards further improvement, aiming at an all-in-one solution.
As for the money I don’t have a spare L 500 but I will make a larger advance payment on my account of about L 150. Hope that helps.
That is exactly one of my concerns. Satisfying a customer base that wants more and different variety, there will be significant changes to the game. That is: People who only deal with the surface and don’t bother peeling back the onion to its next level. They will want a different wrapper. Constantly.
Gavin has made the correct point that everything is interelated in subtle and unobvious ways. Ever seen a bad mechanic inside a car? What you get is worse than before the man touched the machine.
Persons who do not understand the game demand change. One example, recently, was an individual demanding that the Local Militia quit hampering his ally’s agent actions.
what is your point? Harly may be a idealistic company, but they have to earn their money, so it is just obvious that they will follow the demands of the majority.
Without change, there is no progress - if all people thought like you we still would be working with WORD for DOS - which could be quite interesting if you took enough time to peel the layers from it, as you put it. MEPBM is just some old, bugged MAC application but it seems some people have built a temple and worship it, as if it is a divine creation with some higher reason behind it. It is not - it is a program that can evolve now and most people appreciate that.
As I said, there will be classic variants if there is enough demand, so if you badly need to play a game where an agent can cut through five guards and kill his victim, find enough who play with you and Clint will gladly set one up for you.
Ever seen a bad mechanic inside a car? What you get is worse than before the man touched the machine
Who’s this bad mechanic you allude to? Maybe we’re good mechanics? 
The fact that you play in some of the variants we’ve brought forward implies that you do agree with those changes so I take that as a compliment I guess and that you think we’re “good” mechanics.
I’m just trying to work out what specific issue you have here Ed. I appreciate that you are worried that the game will change - but we’re not going to do that in such a way that it damages the game - damaging the game directly relates to damaging our income.
As for change - well that’s possible, but you’d still have the normal games to play in if you want to.
I do agree that before any changes we’d have to have a lot of discussion and I’ve mentioned how I’d want to go about that. That’s a long way away, if possible at all.
Changing individual nations takes a fair bit of play testing to get right. The impact of say a town to a MT for the DS in 1650 is quite a lot. Changing the Woodmen a little has a big impact in the Mirkwood area so has a drastic impact on the game over-all (or can do). So we’re very cautious about such things.
Clint (GM)
"As for change - well that’s possible, but you’d still have the normal games to play in if you want to. "
–This is a key and good point; any tampering/adjusting of the game code need not affect EVERY game. It could be altered from game to game to try new things out. Correct? If people dont like stuff im sure they won`t be slow about coming forward…
d
Originally posted by Clint
I’m just trying to work out what specific issue you have here Ed. I appreciate that you are worried that the game will change - but we’re not going to do that in such a way that it damages the game - damaging the game directly relates to damaging our income.
I’m sure Ed will correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems the problem he has is that ME has evolved into a team game, quite unlike the game was back in 1990. There’s little to no internecine warfare, no stealing pops from “allies,” no dealing with the enemy.
The fact of the matter is, the game will never go back to that, no matter what the state of the code. It’s 2004, and ME is what the players have made of it, and they don’t want a backstabbing sort of game. Having the codebase will allow the game to move forward as it should, instead of being stuck in some sort of time warp.
jason
Jason the gudoledaze of cutthroat chaos was a lot of fun, but I have not done that in a decade. One of my concerns, and the GM knows it, is that Stassun & Feilds artistic vision made for a game of endless subtleness. We must love it, we are fighting about it. This pandering for newness for newness sake will not make for a better game. A business plan will substitute for an artistic vision. Essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator. As the Scorpion has observed dumbing down the game.
Originally posted by 88 Noldo
This pandering for newness for newness sake will not make for a better game.
That’s a pretty broad and subjective stroke of the brush there Ed. There are many very reasonable and thoughtful ideas out there, many reasonable and thoughtful players who care about the game as much as yourself, who are discussing (pandering?) changes (newness?) to improve (for newness sake?) the game. You may simply be flip in your scorn, not meaning to insult, but “I didn’t mean it” is the schoolyard kin to “I was just following orders.” I’ve always taken you as being above both, so I have to assume you did mean it. The reasonable and thoughtful among us are thusly scorned and scoffed at, as you desire, as usual. :rolleyes: Every heard of the expression “If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem.” - ?
roaring applause - good point, brad!
I think Ed has maneuvered himself into a position from where there is no turning back without admitting he is wrong, so he just repeats his arguments, but that does not make them any better. there is absolutely no reason why changes should make the game dumber or less subtle. it is all about bugfixing and balancing. would you say the beta-version of warcraft III was more subtle that the current version with countless patches? players tend to find the knacks of a game and exploit them ruthlessly - this for example resulted in only barbarians and necromancers as the top ladder characters in diablo II. some small turns of the screw et voila, the game is more balanced and, consequently, more subtle, because it offers more options for succesful gameplay. I think Clint is talking about turning some small screws, not taking the game apart.
Gentlemen: I do not object to differing opinions and I have not tried to supress any of them. How do you know only minor screw turning will be done? Months ago I only got evasions from Harley on this subject.
Brad, no scorn here just fear. As I mentioned before, persons who do not understand the game often want it changed. All for the wrong reasons. As they say a camel was designed by a committee and a committee will not have the artistic vision of the creators of the game.
I think we have reached a point where we should just wait IF harly gets the code and continue our discussion then. I also think that the people involved in this discussion will “understand” the game, as far as mechanics go, so you can stop being afraid, Ed. If all goes worse, you go on playing your “1650 classic edition” while we delight ourselves with battles that actually consist of more than two troop types and do require real tactics, for a change. And we will all be happy 
Months ago I only got evasions from Harley on this subject.
Hya Ed - I’ve answered this and the reason why. You ignored my emails from me when I sent them and you’ve not replied to my questions here. That’s your perogative but to set the record straight I’ve not been evasive so please don’t slur us that way.
I still don’t know what your objective here is. If you’re raising objections I’d appreciate a reply to my reply about those.
Much appreciated.
Clint (GM)
Originally posted by 88 Noldo
As I mentioned before, persons who do not understand the game often want it changed. All for the wrong reasons.
So take each individual idea expressed and hash it out. You’ve read the Angmar thread, I got it from the WK to the Corsairs in a single sentence. The game is subtle and interrelated…show where it is and how it will/can be affected the next time you read a specific idea. Heck, keep a log of them with appropriate rebut’s for when the time comes. I understand and respect where you’re coming from, and can even personally support the above statement in that I want many fewer changes now then a few years ago, but your methods don’t seem to help.