Games ending too early

General
#1

Friends,

We as the players need to figure a way to save our game. I see most 1650 games dieing before 15 some before ten. Why is that? Why are people so anxious to quit? What the hell is wrong with people. Why do we have in fighting on a given team. If those of you want to be an independent then play a neutral. Please guys we need to develop some way of bringing back the glory of the game. Am I the only one seeing this? Look we as the players need to figure out the best way to help Clint help us. Please drop off some ideas and reclaim OUR game from the selfish panty waste players that are trying to steal it from us! Even if you just agree drop a note and sound off. I would like to see who is the real honest MEPBM gamers are.

Douglas Scholz

#2

I agree that it seems that too many games seem to end with a mass drop as soon as things turn south. It is because of this that when we set up our grudge game, Game 39 that both sides agreed that there could be no game end before turn 10. I would suggest that in grudge games at least that be extended. We are in turn 7 now. The DS have us on the run and scratching to survive in Mirkwood. My Eothraim have taken a beating but the fight is still strong. We are dominant in the west and so far have had pretty good success in the south but neither side is likely to give up easily in this game and it looks to be one of those old fashioned games that will go for some time before the end comes. This is because most of the guys in the game are familiar with each other and don’t want to give the other guys the satisfaction of a cheap and early surrender.

I don’t know what policy that Clint can establish however to keep guys from dropping at the first sign of adversity. Maybe publish a list of guys who start and quit games within the first 15 turns. That way at least you can be working to line up friends to replace these stalwart fellows when the inevitable surprise pops up. Perhaps postings on this forum to ridicule those who quit when things don’t go their way. I don’t have an answer other than to shame those who run away from a game instead of trying to turn it around.

As to the infighting on non grudge sides. I have experienced it as well as a playing on a side which while it did not always have agreement worked it out. When you join at large game and pay your fees you should have the right to play your nation as you see fit. After all allies are not the best of friends generally they are matters of convenience. I at times miss the old days when you played for your national interests and that was it. Unless I am on a grudge team that is the way I choose to play. That doesn’t mean I should have to play a neutral.

If you want everyone’s interests subordinated to the “team” then you should stick to grudge games. Other than that I agree something needs to be done to stop these early drops.

Brad Jenison

#3

People want instant satisfaction. Point-Click and Please Me NOW! is the mantra. Why bother paying good money when “it’s obvious the other team is going to win”. It’s absolutely amazing how well MEPBM’ers can predict the future. We’re all stock market billionaires, right?

As an individual, you can swear off signing up for “games filling” and only play grudge games. But will you have enough reliable and consistent games running to satisfy the addiction?

I seem to recall that this has come up, but don’t recall the outcome (I might be wrong), but there’s the League or Division option that would be administered by the company: separating “experienced vets” from “newbies”. I can’t see the “newbie” division being worthwhile for anyone (newbies, companies, etc). And it’s mostly the “experienced vets” who call for the team-drop because, you see, THEY know what they’re talking about. Nope, don’t see that doing anything but really bothering lots of people on both sides of the discussion.

We have in-fighting because human beings are human beings. It’s a dynamic and potentially stressful social environment. Borg we are not.

Are short games in the company’s interest?

Brad Brunet

#4

A lot of people have a nation gutted and pull the plug, “Why pay my X dollars for a game that I’m not doing much in.” They forget how this affects those around them, I mainly play grudge so you do everything to keep all nations alive as those nations count towards the victory total at the end of the game, even if you loose.
Imagine if the Allies had given up in 1941 when it looked like they were going to get nailed to the wall. Unfortunately we don’t seem to have that attitude anymore. I love playing against the odds and will always live by the motto “never surrender” well not untill the writing on the wall has been painted over a few times at least.
Maybe a fine system for games dropped for no other reason than in a bad position(Not really practical I know), or a minimum waiting time for players who regularly drop.

Regards Herman

#5

You should try FA LAS, those games will never end, too many emmys.
I am playing an extra nation now due to a drop. My advice, for what is worth, is to find 5 person teams of like-minded individuals to play as a team in open games. Perhaps if you have 4 of those groups that played regularly that would eliminate some problems. Does not make much sense for a company to limit players playing (for whatever reason) since they are a business for profit. From a business standpoint it also does not make much sense to alienate a player who drops for his own reasons whatever they may be. I do agree that the instant gratification syndrome is big part of the problem. I remember thinking that Everquest etc. would put MEPBM out of business in late 90’s. Also one of the reasons you can’t find a good turn based PC strategy games any longer, is that people would rather mindlessly click than think hard on a subject IMO.

Part of the drop problems is due to the big army/econ portion of 1650. If one side plays well and one side does not, a lot of damage can transpire. At least that is what I have garnered with limited knowledge of the scenario. The yahoo group where everyone uploads their turn within an hour after it comes out has some effect also. If one team is dedicated to doing this more than another, the participating teams will most likely gut the other team. This is one of the reasons I am in favor of the team GB that was purposed last week? 2-4 people playing 3-4 nations would allow for more “fog of war” which I am in favor of. At least for me, it would be hard to drop a game that I joined with friend(s) knowing that we entered the game together. If you play solo in an open game I don’t think players feel that sort commitment to the others in the game and are more like to bail if bad things happen in game or within the dynamics of the team

Being a 2950/FA player I do not see this problem much so my opinions are based on a lot of speculation

My 2 coppers

Steve

#6

Let me propose these as contributing items for short games: Thiese are not all inclusive:

The PRS. The desire to climb an artificial ladder for braging rights can bring out the darkside of many people. Drops are not punished with point losses, so it is better to drop than to lose. Only Sam Roads, apparently, has the moral courage to allow his drops to be made public. Since the GMs are both human and participants in the PRS this (plus other issues) applies to them also. Ambition for personal attainment can be a very destructive force.

The company’s replacement policy. This has been discussed elsewhere at some length. Drops require replacement, right? It is a thing called a 'negative feedback cycle" The company can’t admit a mistake, they have created one.

#7

It would be easy to remove the PRS side from the equation by adding a 100 point loss to all ratings for every drop. That would soon stop people from dropping for that reason.
As a side note I have never met anyone in my 3 standard games since the PRS rating has come in, that has done anything to try and improve their rating during the course of the game. I personaly don’t think it is a factor.

Regards Herman

#8

I don’t feel that the PRS has anything to do with this, people have been complaining about the early dropping before the PRS was implemented.

As for drops being replaced, that is not a new thing. They were being replaced ever since I first started playing the game back in GSI days (like 12 years ago) Back then there wasn’t this problem of dropping like there is now.

I think the main factor that leads to dropping is the abillity to see all the information, back in the day there wasn’t any websites, you didn’t get everyone’s pdf file, only information you got outside what you could see on your own turn was what your teammates put in their turn report.

Now with having all the information on everything at your finger tips, having everyone’s pdf files it is so much easier to see the whole picture, so much easier to feel discouraged if things aren’t going well.

Also the mentality in the world is different today than it was 12 years ago. People are much more intrested in what they can have right now, rather than having to wait and be patient. We live in a digital world where we get things instantly, so people want instant good results. It is a lot easier to drop a game and start another one, than to put for the effort to try and turn around a game that there is a good chance you wont be able to win.

#9

As for drops being replaced, that is not a new thing. They were being replaced ever since I first started playing the game back in GSI days (like 12 years ago) Back then there wasn’t this problem of dropping like there is now.

****You are correct. And, one of the things that has changed in 12 years is company and game management. There is a connection.

Also the mentality in the world is different today than it was 12 years ago. People are much more intrested in what they can have right now, rather than having to wait and be patient. We live in a digital world where we get things instantly, so people want instant good results. It is a lot easier to drop a game and start another one, than to put for the effort to try and turn around a game that there is a good chance you wont be able to win.

****Again, you are correct. Human nature is as it is. It will not be changed. But management can and should factor that into the decision making process.

#10

Here is an idea. Maybe more for grudge games and this plan would need to be worked out by Clint & Co. as to the financial considerations if even feasible.

Set a fixed fee per game. Say y turns * $x.xx = total amount to be paid period. Or cap the cost to continue playing a game after a certain turn.

OR

Create a scenario where the discovery is new again.

Twelve years ago we continued to play games through defeat because we were mapping new territory. Discovering Dragon encounters, artifact abilities and encounters. We all wanted to know what worked and what didn’t, and winning wasn’t the sole reason to continue playing the game. Now all of the data is out and there is nothing really new to discover.

It is all about bang for the buck. If someone gets more pleasure spending their hard earned cash starting a new game because the forecast of the current game looks grim; odds are they will spend their money on a new game and retire the current one. There are exceptions to this rule, those of you who are rich enough it doesn’t matter, or those of you who are idealists, but in general I think the majority of us spend our money to achieve the best result. In the case of ME-PBM, we will spend our money to achieve the greatest amount of pleasure. For some people, winning is everything, but I know I had a great deal of pleasure recruiting a dragon for the first time, when I WASN’T sure of the result of the encounter.

My final 2 cents is I like the grude games without neutrals vs. with them. I like the neutral interaction, but recently I’ve seen more games where they have created more imbalance than balance.

Just my opinion…

Dave

#11

I will never understand why people sign up to play a game then drop on turn one. That to me is the most frustrating type of player ever allowed. Expecially in 1650, nothing that bad can happen to any one player in the first two turns to warrant dropping.

I personally think the best way to address this is to make people pay for the first ten turns of a game upfront. I think this is not feasible for all players, but possibly run a game where everyone ponies up the cost for the first ten turns. If you get eliminated, you lose the money. If you make it past turn ten, you get the next two turns free. If you want to quit, work with MEGAMES and your own contacts to find a replacement for your positions.

Ed, blaming the problems of this game on the new management is a copout IMO. I have only been back in the game since the beginning of this year, and Harly has treated me better than GSI did. I guess my rationale for saying that is they are working on ways to improve the game, especially the fourth age scenario. I dont feel GSI ever really did that. And yes, I have had my issues with Harly, enough that I almost quit a game before the first turn was run. Glad I did not, as it is turning out to be a really enjoyable game with great opponents and better teammates. So no, they are not perfect (clint and company, you getting that) but the dropouts are not to be blamed on current managment.

To change the game, people need to come up with tangible solutions, not just complaints. Will paying upfront keep everyone from dropping. No, but if you have ten turns already paid for, you might as well play through them no matter how bad your turns are going.

Some people drop for personal reasons. I did back in the 90’s, but when I dropped my games I found replacements. Probably more so because I was with a bunch of friends in all my games, but I still felt it was the right thing to do.

I think that was actually three cents worth.

tim huiatt

#12

Tim, I have offered suggested solutions, umpteen times, but should have repeated myself once more. These are return to the GSI system of replacement and penalize drops. Reward and punishment is how you correct behavior. The Company only rewards.

#13

I don’t think early drops are Harly’s fault. They happen (I think?) when newbies join and then don’t stick with it, or when anyone has a serious life change that causes them to lose email connectivity suddenly. I’ve picked up nations from folks that are the latter case, and they can’t be blamed. Early drops aren’t the problem that we’re talking about though.

Regarding mid-game (after turn 5) drops:
We don’t know if PRS has any effect on these drops or not, but Occam’s Razor would say that it does indeed have an effect for the set of people that do care about their PRS scores. Why? Because, those that care about their PRS scores will do better to drop than to lose, so they will drop. They are following the rules established and optimizing for something they care about. Thus, I don’t think you can fault them. But I do think the rules are setup wrong, and I agree with the idea that there should be a PRS penalty for a drop. That would fix that possible problem.

Also, sometimes people get fed up with Harly (or GSI in the old days) for whatever reason, and quit because of that. I know of one such person who is very experienced and was playing in lots of games, and just quite almost all of them. Very sad IMHO.

Finally, the cost for participating in MEPBM is actually not cheap. Especially if you play multiple positions/games. People will pay for something they enjoy. Some people enjoy the challenge of an underdog position and will stick with it. Some people don’t enjoy it once they’ve decided they’re “losing” and they quit given the real costs of continuing.

The hardest thing to do in an open game (non-grudge) is to find any loyalty to your team. The open game is filled with a random assortment of people. Sometimes you find real team loyalty and willingness to do what it takes to help the team win. But most of the time in an open game there is at least one (if not more than one) player on the team who just listens to his own drummer and ignores requests, teamwork, etc. That’s just part of the territory in an open game. If you don’t like that, then you need to play grudge games. Thankfully, the open-team game I’m currently in is filled with real team players and it’s a whole lot of fun! We be kicking some real booty.

So in conclusion, I don’t see this as a new problem. I think Harly should tweak the PRS to penalize drops. I don’t see much beyond that idea that will work. The idea of getting folks to pay for 10 turns in advance is essentially a “grudge game” format, and can be done at any time. But I doubt that the general player-base would want all games converted to that format. Harly won’t go that way (in my opinion) because they’ll lose players.

ciao,
Dave

#14

I don’t think there is much ‘we as players’ can do, other than choosing to join grudge games to avoid the players that drop and ruin games – that’s precisely why the grudge game concept sprang into being 'way back when. My experience has been that the vast majority of early drops are by newbies who have ruined their positions. You are preaching to the choir in this forum, Douglas, as anyone who posts in response to the issue you raise here is most likely someone who hasn’t dropped leaving teammates in a bind (or they have an axe to grind with the PRS). Regarding the PRS, I personally just ignore it. But if it is true that drops don’t hurt you, which I find surprising, then I am all in favor of changing the PRS to severely penalize droppers who don’t supply their own replacement. Might stop a few drops by players concerned with their PRS score, but nevertheless, most drops will still occur by new players. I don’t see anything that can be done about that.

#15

Definately Harly should not go to pay for ten turns in advance. I advocate them either offering a game that requires either ten turns in advance payment (maybe their is a player base for it, maybe there is not) or allowing players to pay ten turns in advance with a two turn bonus or something similar. People will only pay in advance if they get something for it like free turns.

Maybe I missed some of your earlier comments ed, I try to read most posts in this forum. Not penalizing players in the PRS for dropping a game is a huge mistake IMO. That should be the biggest penalty, and if it keeps players from dropping, a huge boost to the game. Even if it doesn’t keep players from dropping, the should be penalized in the PRS, regardless of why they drop. Furthermore, the PRS system is amusing to me, nothing more and nothing less. I think the PRS works for grudge teams, and who cares after that. I do like to follow it simply to see if I am in a game with anyone that is on a list.

I hope that clarifies any of my earlier comments.

tim

#16

Gentle folk,

I have to say I’m blow away by the response to this message. If Clint and Harley are veiwing you need to set a penalty for the drop. I also agree that the instant level of communication in a major contribution to the demise of the game. All to often the old vets like myself see the hand writing on the wall and say" We boys we fought the good fight and now it’s time to go home." I wouldn’t mind this if it were true. I’m not talking about a person quiting for there own personnal reasons. I’m not understanding games where it’s 4/1 Neutral splits. and the team who blew the aquiring of the neutrals then quits. Niether side has really been hurt they just figure it’s easier to begin again. I guess the owner’s wouldn’t mind as the more games flip the better the beast is fed. I am not in anyway trying to put this on GSI or MEPBM. Being a small business owner myself I don’t envy their job. Let’s face it as gamers we are all odd people anyway. Most of us were the geeks playing Dungeons and Dragons at lunch and after school during high school :slight_smile: I just am getting frustrated at good games and good people being let down by a few. That’s all it takes to wipe out a game now adays. If you are the Freeps and North Gondor feels he isn’t getting help and quits the whole game will colapse. I guess the answer is the grudge. I want to thank all of you who are responding it let’s me know that their is a silent majority of us still plugging and trying. See you all soon across the " Field of Honor "
Cheers,
Big-Doug :wink:

#17

I for my part find all to often one player can cause all one sides problems and if he wont work with you or continues to gut his position with poor play it not soemthing that encourages you to play on

Vandal

#18

First of all, If the entire side quits, then I dont considering it quitting, I consider it a loss. If the other side has lost the desire to fight, or the writing is on the wall be it turn 2 or turn 22, then by all means end the game and start a new one. If you dont like your current teammates, then find a replacement even if it takes a few turns. I also agree that the easiest solution is to join gruge games, but a good old fashioned team game can be fun as well. However, if you quit because of one or two players that you consider incompetent, then it still hurts the other players that want to play on.

Is there a right or wrong answer? Absolutely not. I still think if you drop, then you should be penalized in the PRS.

tim

#19

By far and away the biggest reason players drop out of a game is lack of time. So be careful of taking on more than you can chew.

Second biggest reason is player interaction - they don’t like their team-mates. One way to improve games, IMO, is to be polite to your team-mates and realise that you are affecting someone elses happiness. So chat to your team-mates, be tolerant of their style of play, be pleasant (it’s a game after all) and your team will do better and stick at the game longer. Most player unhappiness seems to come from team-mates annoying them, lack of interaction, too much interaction and the like.

These two cover 80/90% of reasons for drop outs.

Lack of enjoyment (say a player has tried Gunboat for example and decides they don’t like it, or similar), lack of money, energy, jaded, unhappiness with GMs/policies, unhappiness with lack of variety, burnout etc are the other 10-20%.

IMO - the web and email based interaction means that players are now aware when a game is difficult to win or “impossible” and stop playing. (Impossible, clearly there are exceptions, the entire team developing malaria etc, I don’t count that as they are exceptions and we’re dealing with generalities). Replacing players makes a game last longer IMO. Based on 12 years of running games, I see games where replacements are made, and ones where they are not and the games with replacements last longer (generally). Picking a Grudge team with allies you trust I’d strongly recommend for enjoyment and longevity. Gunboat also lasts longer - why?

Paying up front for turns - it’s a possibility but players aren’t too happy with that. The suggestion of 10 turns get 2 free turns - that’s 20% off our income!!! PRS - don’t agree that has any substantial impact. The rate of games setting up, drop outs and turns run per game has stayed pretty stable for a long time (pre-PRS times).

One thing we’re looking at is creation of new modules and re-development of the 1000 Set-up concept. That, to me seems to be the way forward to appeal to the jaded out there, develop the “wow” factor for those that want it, and develop the game with new additions. Clearly they won’t please everyone but it’s upto you guys to play in the games you like.

Clint

#20

Clint,
You guys have been generally good at listening to your player base. This thread (which is admittedly a small sample set) seems to believe that there should be a PRS penalty for drops. noone has spoken out against it, and lots of folks have spoken out in favor. What reasons do you have for not wanting to implement such a penalty?

thanks,
Dave