Game Winners Certificates

mepbmlist
#1

I've been looking over the posts on this issue, and think that there
are some considerations that deserve some comment.

First, there is a legacy issue. GSI and DGE made some promises to
players of games that have been completed, and in my opinion Harlequin
should honor those promises. I have four certs (dragon lord-88, cloud
lord-97, dwarves-100, dog lord-101.) I'm less interested in grabbing
the cool spots than in picking positions that are either important for
the team or new and different. Harlequin is free to choose not to
continue offering choice of positions to winners, but I will be *very*
unhappy if company promises are not kept in the transition.

Second, there is nothing magic about first come first served. The
positions that are likely to be grabbed by certificates are ones that
are important for the respective teams. The top three scorers are
sometimes selfish players, but in most of the games I've completed
this is not typical. I have seen only one top three finish on the
teams that I've been part of where the individual in question
contributed nothing to the team. At minimum they understand the game
mechanics and know how to develop economies and characters. Yes,
frequently the best player does not get in the top three; but short of
a game "MVP" vote at the end it is hard to see how to easily fix that.

I'm also sympathetic to the fact that Harly assigns positions
differently, and the GWC concept is really tied to the way that DGE
assigned positions. So, here is a proposal.

Harlequin alternates for each scenario between permitting and not
permitting the use of GWCs to secure positions. In those games where
they are allowed, players give two choices for positions and are
guaranteed no worse than their second choice. If you don't like the
format, wait until the next game of that type opens.

I do *not* think that a further proliferation of game types is
needed, and in fact think that games would fill faster if there were
fewer choices. E.G. merge the solo and team games so that there are
effectively two choices for each scenario (1 week and 2 week); grudge
teams can negotiate on the 1 week/2 week issue and whether neuts are
preassigned.

I know that some folks on this list despise the GWC concept root and
branch, but there are strong feelings on the other side and
compromises are useful in such circumstances.

cheers,

Marc Pinsonneault (who will not join another game until this is
resolved one way or another.)

#2

I've been looking over the posts on this issue, and think that there
are some considerations that deserve some comment.

First, there is a legacy issue. GSI and DGE made some promises to
players of games that have been completed, and in my opinion Harlequin
should honor those promises. I have four certs (dragon lord-88, cloud
lord-97, dwarves-100, dog lord-101.)

So you're not self-interested or anything?

Maybe you should get yourself some friends instead of hoarding bits of
paper. I do two things when I start a game - I either ask for a certain
position and go on the list for the next game where that position is
available, or I sign up with a team from a previous game, and all
positions are decided by discussion and negotiation.

I know that some folks on this list despise the GWC concept root and
branch, but there are strong feelings on the other side and
compromises are useful in such circumstances.

Your problem is that your certificates earned you a privilege which is
now (especially with the doubled number in the player pool) freely
available to all. You have a black market ration book, when rationing
has just ended. You have a ticket to ride on a free train. You have a
luncheon voucher at a help yourself feast.

You'll have no problem with Harlequin, in getting the position you want,
though you may sometimes have to wait a little while. But then again, I
will have no problem either. I've been playing for donkey's years, and
I'm very proud to say that I've never won a game (by your definition
i.e. by points). I play for the team, and ignore the VCs and VPs as
they are the weakest aspect of the game - so incidentally do most of the
players I respect.

Marc Pinsonneault (who will not join another game until this is
resolved one way or another.)

A very mature response.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Marc Pinsonneault <pinsonneault.1@osu.edu> wrote

#3

First, there is a legacy issue. GSI and DGE made some promises to
players of games that have been completed, and in my opinion Harlequin
should honor those promises. I have four certs (dragon lord-88, cloud
lord-97, dwarves-100, dog lord-101.) I'm less interested in grabbing
the cool spots than in picking positions that are either important for
the team or new and different. Harlequin is free to choose not to
continue offering choice of positions to winners, but I will be *very*
unhappy if company promises are not kept in the transition.

We'll honour this but it might take a while to allow for every choice due to
our "limited" games we allow. But with a bigger players base this should be
okay. The reasoning behind this being that if you offer too many choices it
is no real choice at all - ie games never get filled because, for example,
everyone wants to play the WW in 2950. (I could fill that position around
20 times - have even considered doing a spoof WW 2950 game where everyone
gets to play the WW). But some selection does need to be allowed. I'll
work through this when I get some more time only came in here to do some
urgent phonecalls. :slight_smile:

Clint

#4

LOL

The White Wizards, sounds like a page from a "Where's Wally" book.

Next time you post a pic of the Harlequin boys at a convention, I expect
to see you all kitted out in white pointy hats!

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote

The reasoning behind this being that if you offer too many choices it
is no real choice at all - ie games never get filled because, for example,
everyone wants to play the WW in 2950. (I could fill that position around
20 times - have even considered doing a spoof WW 2950 game where everyone
gets to play the WW).

#5

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

Marc Pinsonneault (who will not join another game until this is
resolved one way or another.)

A very mature response.

The tail end of one of Laurence's best posts yet. I'm glad you said it your
way rather than me saying it mine. :slight_smile:

Gavin

#6

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...>
wrote:

Marc Pinsonneault <pinsonneault.1@o...> wrote
>I've been looking over the posts on this issue, and think that

there

>are some considerations that deserve some comment.
>
>First, there is a legacy issue. GSI and DGE made some promises to
>players of games that have been completed, and in my opinion

Harlequin

>should honor those promises. I have four certs (dragon lord-88,

cloud

>lord-97, dwarves-100, dog lord-101.)
So you're not self-interested or anything?

Maybe you should get yourself some friends instead of hoarding bits

of

paper.

May I suggest decaf?
Look, you know nothing about my personal life or style of gameplay.
Relax, and try to focus on issues instead of insults.

We are looking at a merger of two cultures, and whenever this happens
there are going to be some tensions. I don't regard the question of
what Harly intends to do with these as unreasonable, and as I
indicated I'd like to know the answer before I commit to more games.
If they're just a financial break, might as well cash them in; if they
can be used as originally intended I'd pick a few new positions to try
out as the spirit moves me.

I'm very proud to say that I've never won a game (by your definition
i.e. by points). I play for the team, and ignore the VCs and VPs as
they are the weakest aspect of the game - so incidentally do most of

the

players I respect.

Strange thing, that; I also play for the team and ignore individual
VCs completely. I do concentrate on building a big economy,
developing my characters and using them, and raising and deploying
large armies. These things are part of the score. I've never placed
well on gold; if I have it I give it away.

There is something to be said about the virtues of the different
styles of assigning postions from DGE and Harly, as well as some ideas
for making the victory points a better reflection of the contribution
to the team.

I'd like to see ranking relative to the cumulative records for the
individual nations (possible in 1650/2950), which handicaps the
stronger nations. EG a woodmen score of 1000, which is the 25th
highest out of 100 completed games, is better than a noldo score of
1500 which is 35th out of 100 completed games.

Individual VCs should only be for enemy targets and should
mainly include things like capturing or destroying enemy PCs,
defeating enemy armies, capturing capitals, and the like.
Perhaps even throw in some that encourage productive actions, like
sending the most net gold out to allied nations.

Cool ideas are possible here. Be creative, folks.

cheers,

Marc Pinsonneault

#7

Yes we could create a random allocation for set-ups - something like Woodies
need to gain the following items, this location, this many VPs as an aside.
This would not quite reflect the in game moves whereby the Woodies scouting
for example, would not reflect in VPs but is pretty essential to a FP team.

Noldo are not particularly a miiltary nation so for example might not get
VPs for armies etc. I totally agree a relative score for start vs end VPs
is important.

I could see how to do it but that would take a lot of progamming changes.

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...>
wrote:
> Marc Pinsonneault <pinsonneault.1@o...> wrote
> >I've been looking over the posts on this issue, and think that
there
> >are some considerations that deserve some comment.
> >
> >First, there is a legacy issue. GSI and DGE made some promises to
> >players of games that have been completed, and in my opinion
Harlequin
> >should honor those promises. I have four certs (dragon lord-88,
cloud
> >lord-97, dwarves-100, dog lord-101.)
> So you're not self-interested or anything?
>
> Maybe you should get yourself some friends instead of hoarding bits
of
> paper.

May I suggest decaf?
Look, you know nothing about my personal life or style of gameplay.
Relax, and try to focus on issues instead of insults.

We are looking at a merger of two cultures, and whenever this happens
there are going to be some tensions. I don't regard the question of
what Harly intends to do with these as unreasonable, and as I
indicated I'd like to know the answer before I commit to more games.
If they're just a financial break, might as well cash them in; if they
can be used as originally intended I'd pick a few new positions to try
out as the spirit moves me.

> I'm very proud to say that I've never won a game (by your definition
> i.e. by points). I play for the team, and ignore the VCs and VPs as
> they are the weakest aspect of the game - so incidentally do most of
the
> players I respect.

Strange thing, that; I also play for the team and ignore individual
VCs completely. I do concentrate on building a big economy,
developing my characters and using them, and raising and deploying
large armies. These things are part of the score. I've never placed
well on gold; if I have it I give it away.

There is something to be said about the virtues of the different
styles of assigning postions from DGE and Harly, as well as some ideas
for making the victory points a better reflection of the contribution
to the team.

I'd like to see ranking relative to the cumulative records for the
individual nations (possible in 1650/2950), which handicaps the
stronger nations. EG a woodmen score of 1000, which is the 25th
highest out of 100 completed games, is better than a noldo score of
1500 which is 35th out of 100 completed games.

Individual VCs should only be for enemy targets and should
mainly include things like capturing or destroying enemy PCs,
defeating enemy armies, capturing capitals, and the like.
Perhaps even throw in some that encourage productive actions, like
sending the most net gold out to allied nations.

Cool ideas are possible here. Be creative, folks.

cheers,

Marc Pinsonneault

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

#8

We've got some silly hats that we can (and do wear)... :_) You're welcome
to come along and see for real!

Clint

>The reasoning behind this being that if you offer too many choices it
>is no real choice at all - ie games never get filled because, for

example,

>everyone wants to play the WW in 2950. (I could fill that position

around

···

Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
>20 times - have even considered doing a spoof WW 2950 game where everyone
>gets to play the WW).
LOL

The White Wizards, sounds like a page from a "Where's Wally" book.

Next time you post a pic of the Harlequin boys at a convention, I expect
to see you all kitted out in white pointy hats!

#9

Will Harlequin be honoring for GWC's that not only
do they give a free setup but also two extra free
turns, for a total of four free turns to start with?

Jeremy Richman

>
> First, there is a legacy issue. GSI and DGE made some promises to
> players of games that have been completed, and in my opinion

Harlequin

> should honor those promises. I have four certs (dragon lord-88,

cloud

> lord-97, dwarves-100, dog lord-101.) I'm less interested in

grabbing

> the cool spots than in picking positions that are either important

for

> the team or new and different. Harlequin is free to choose not to
> continue offering choice of positions to winners, but I will be

*very*

> unhappy if company promises are not kept in the transition.

We'll honour this but it might take a while to allow for every

choice due to

our "limited" games we allow. But with a bigger players base this

should be

okay. The reasoning behind this being that if you offer too many

choices it

is no real choice at all - ie games never get filled because, for

example,

everyone wants to play the WW in 2950. (I could fill that position

around

20 times - have even considered doing a spoof WW 2950 game where

everyone

gets to play the WW). But some selection does need to be allowed.

I'll

work through this when I get some more time only came in here to do

some

···

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Harlequin Games" <pbm@h...> wrote:

urgent phonecalls. :slight_smile:

Clint

#10

Woops -- apologies for adding to this long thread
with a duplicate, I hadn't caught up on everything
when I sent it.

Jeremy Richman

Will Harlequin be honoring for GWC's that not only
do they give a free setup but also two extra free
turns, for a total of four free turns to start with?

Jeremy Richman

> >
> > First, there is a legacy issue. GSI and DGE made some promises

to

> > players of games that have been completed, and in my opinion
Harlequin
> > should honor those promises. I have four certs (dragon lord-88,
cloud
> > lord-97, dwarves-100, dog lord-101.) I'm less interested in
grabbing
> > the cool spots than in picking positions that are either

important

for
> > the team or new and different. Harlequin is free to choose not

to

> > continue offering choice of positions to winners, but I will be
*very*
> > unhappy if company promises are not kept in the transition.
>
> We'll honour this but it might take a while to allow for every
choice due to
> our "limited" games we allow. But with a bigger players base this
should be
> okay. The reasoning behind this being that if you offer too many
choices it
> is no real choice at all - ie games never get filled because, for
example,
> everyone wants to play the WW in 2950. (I could fill that

position

around
> 20 times - have even considered doing a spoof WW 2950 game where
everyone
> gets to play the WW). But some selection does need to be allowed.
I'll
> work through this when I get some more time only came in here to

do

···

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

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Harlequin Games" <pbm@h...> wrote:
some
> urgent phonecalls. :slight_smile:
>
> Clint

#11

That's what the discussion is about it was a hidden extra funds situation
which we were unaware of when we took the games. If suddenly we got 450
GWCs then we'd be hard put to cover that... :slight_smile: I am not suggesting that
this will happen but when we get some spare time I'll discuss this with Stu
to see what's the situation and come back to y'all to discuss it some more.
At present "yes".

Clint

···

****************************************************************
      Harlequin Games Middle Earth Games
pbm@harlequingames.com me@middleearthgames.com
www.harlequingames.com www.middleearthgames.com

               340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
           Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
                  Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
****************************************************************
        Middle Earth - Legends - Serim Ral
            CTF 2187 - Starquest - Crack of Doom
                   Battle of the Planets - Exile

----- Original Message -----
From: <JeremyRichman@compuserve.com>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 4:31 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Game Winners Certificates

Will Harlequin be honoring for GWC's that not only
do they give a free setup but also two extra free
turns, for a total of four free turns to start with?

Jeremy Richman

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Harlequin Games" <pbm@h...> wrote:
> >
> > First, there is a legacy issue. GSI and DGE made some promises to
> > players of games that have been completed, and in my opinion
Harlequin
> > should honor those promises. I have four certs (dragon lord-88,
cloud
> > lord-97, dwarves-100, dog lord-101.) I'm less interested in
grabbing
> > the cool spots than in picking positions that are either important
for
> > the team or new and different. Harlequin is free to choose not to
> > continue offering choice of positions to winners, but I will be
*very*
> > unhappy if company promises are not kept in the transition.
>
> We'll honour this but it might take a while to allow for every
choice due to
> our "limited" games we allow. But with a bigger players base this
should be
> okay. The reasoning behind this being that if you offer too many
choices it
> is no real choice at all - ie games never get filled because, for
example,
> everyone wants to play the WW in 2950. (I could fill that position
around
> 20 times - have even considered doing a spoof WW 2950 game where
everyone
> gets to play the WW). But some selection does need to be allowed.
I'll
> work through this when I get some more time only came in here to do
some
> urgent phonecalls. :slight_smile:
>
> Clint

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

#12

>The reasoning behind this being that if you offer too many choices it
>is no real choice at all - ie games never get filled because, for

example,

>everyone wants to play the WW in 2950. (I could fill that position

around

>20 times - have even considered doing a spoof WW 2950 game where everyone
>gets to play the WW).
LOL

The White Wizards, sounds like a page from a "Where's Wally" book.

Next time you post a pic of the Harlequin boys at a convention, I expect
to see you all kitted out in white pointy hats!

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

RD: Not a good idea - they might get mistaken for members of the KKK!

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:08 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] The White Wizards

Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote

#13

RD: there's about 150million people in the USA and it seems that every one
of them has at least one of these blasted Winner's certificates and some
have several. I'm sick of seeing this topic recurring.

1) if you've got more than one GWC, why the hell didn't you use it to start
off your next game? D'you think they're gonna become collectors' items?
2) if DGE kept a record of GWCs issued/cashed in and passed it to Harlequin,
there's no problem. No doubt Harlequin will honour (or in your case honor)
such commitments.
3) if DGE did NOT pass such a record to Harlequin, it's up to the players to
snail mail GWCs (not photocopies) to Harlequin when claiming free
startups/extra turns.

What is the problem?

Please can we keep this list to discussing the game instead of who is
entitled to how many freebies.

Regards,

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: <JeremyRichman@compuserve.com>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 4:31 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Game Winners Certificates

Will Harlequin be honoring for GWC's that not only
do they give a free setup but also two extra free
turns, for a total of four free turns to start with?

Jeremy Richman

#14

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@l...>
wrote:

From: <JeremyRichman@c...>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 4:31 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Game Winners Certificates

> Will Harlequin be honoring for GWC's that not only
> do they give a free setup but also two extra free
> turns, for a total of four free turns to start with?
>
> Jeremy Richman

RD: there's about 150million people in the USA and it seems that

every one

of them has at least one of these blasted Winner's certificates and

some

have several. I'm sick of seeing this topic recurring.

It's kind of you to be so understanding towards
other people's concerns.

1) if you've got more than one GWC, why the hell didn't you use it

to start

off your next game?

A) I significantly reduced the number of games I was in,
so couldn't use up the GWC's fast enough.

B) In USA they are particularly useful for getting you
a desired position in 1650/2950. I wouldn't usually bother
using them for FA, because I don't care about capital
insurance much because I can usually come up with three
perfectly good locations. So I do keep them for when
I feel like joining a 1650 game; but I got bored with
1650 and have been playing mostly FA, so my GWC's were
filed away for when I start playing 1650 again. Now
it appears they won't be much use for that.

C) Personally I like the GWC system, it adds spice to
the game at times. I'll be sorry to see it disappear.
And I like getting GWC's, it does feel good to get those
certificates with their fancy graphics. Sure, sometimes
it feels like someone else deserved it more. Sometimes
I don't get them when I feel like I did contribute
a lot to the team victory. But sometimes when I get one
I really feel like I was the linchpin of victory for
me team and it feels great. I can look at the GWC and
remember all the challenges I surmounted during the game,
and it feels great.

Please can we keep this list to discussing the game instead of who

is

entitled to how many freebies.

You mean, now that you've gotten this off your chest
could everyone else please stop getting things off
their chest about it? :slight_smile:

Jeremy

···

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