Games ending too early

General
#41

Clint - hopefully you know I’m not attacking the company. I’m just trying to get things clarified. Note that the PRS web page says that for Nazgul the “gamStTa” denominator is “games started or taken over”. Call me a lawyer (ouch, that would hurt) if you will, but to my simple way of thinking, that means ALL games started or taken over. No where does it say that a dropped game is taken out of GamStTa (i.e. the definition isn’t “Games Started or Takenover except those dropped”)

You can fix this in 2 ways: one, you can adjust the PRS ratings to be computed accurately using your documented definition; two, you can update the documentation to match current practice. My vote is to adjust the PRS ratings to reflect the documentation which would mean that all games started are the denominator and the numerator is games won (which means that drops are counted as losses for Nazgul).

And, I’d suggest editing the doc (web page) to reflect that you count drops as losses for the other ratings. then it would be 100% crystal clear and would eliminate the only controllable factor that you guys have (IMHO) relative to this thread about drops - i.e. PRS wouldn’t motivate anyone to drop.

Again, I appreciate you guys listening to us players.
cheers!
Dave

#42

[QUOTE=Clint]“when… drop a game, they’d have it counted as a Loss .”

Note I dropped game 52 before the ratings come up so it’s not on the records nor did we ask players for that information. (To get a rough rating we asked for win/loss). Note I actually counted as a loss for game 52 as my Eothraim nation was wiped out and the game ended after the ratings started … :frowning: (Bah!) Ironic uh?! :slight_smile:

Greetings Clint,
so you’ve dropped 52 !!
You’ve promised us so much!

Clint,
you and your company are doing a very good job and that’s the truth.

I’ve tried out many games, but you’re doing the best job I’ve seen before.

Player-Ranking-System,
personally I don’t need it.
I know that I’m able to beat many of these so called “experienced players”.

Have Fun !

Gixxxer

#43

Now I understand why Gixxxer needs three “x”. It’s to help support his ego :stuck_out_tongue:

Go get’m Gixxxer!

Big-Doug

#44

Gixxer is da man dude and his ego is well justified. When members of the team get that ‘were defeated’ feeling and drop its good players like Gixxer
who step in mid game and pick them up and turn things around (as in game 52).
Terry

#45

I guess the “Usual Suspects” are here to Help?

#46

Yep, Gixxxer stepped in midgame in one of my 2950 games a couple years ago when some of my “defeated” allies quit and his enthusiasm and skill almost turned the game around for us! It was fun trying at least. Hail Gixxxer!!!

Russ

#47

Ok. ME Games has fixed their PRS web page to accurately describe that games dropped are treated as a loss for all PRS ratings except Nazgul. Thanks for clarifying things Clint! I personally think Nazgul should also treat games dropped as a loss to completely eliminate PRS as a potential cause for people dropping. But, I’m satisified that at least the documentation now matches actual practice.

cheers,
Dave

#48

Greetings Russ & Terry,
many thanks for the flowers !!!

Douglas, we both have played in a game that ended too early.
I’ve done the max with the Harad not much more.-

I’ve joined these games to help them and maybe the time will come that we both will play on the same side from the begin of the game.

Have Fun !

Gixxx

I kno

#49

Playing in game 86 (now turn 35 and grudge) I can say that teamspirit is what basically keeps the 12 freeps playing (my side). The 9 or less remaining DS are still playing, because they cant deal with losing. QA, LR and BS havnt been relocated yet, but all others have and CL, Rhudaur and Dragon lord are out. So stubbornness and so forth matters too.

#50

As a player I totally agree. Game 39 against Ulrik’s team we had both FK and WK out and stuck at it. Also against me in game 52 the DS pulled it back as well with such team spirit.

As a GM I reckon I totally agree as well… :slight_smile:

Set backs are just that, and it actually gives me a kick in the behind when a set back occurs. When it’s all going smoothly I have a tendency to play much more lazily and not check my orders, nor team-mates etc.

Clint (player)

#51

Hello,

From what I can tell of this thread, there is a feeling (somewhat widely held, it appears) that there are too many drops, too early. Clint has indicated that real life catches up with most of these folks and they do not have time (which can happen to us all), and that is the largest reason for the drops.

I am curious, however, about a few things. First, are there more games running than there used to be? If so, could we be seeing more drops just because there are that many more games? Second, are the drops in particular nations, such as 1650 Woodmen, which can be a suicide mission if the Sinda player is a moron? Third, how many people actually care about the ranking system, enough that penalizing them would somehow discourage these early drops?

No offense meant, but this is a game, for fun and enjoyment. Comparing it to Europe in '41 is not exactly a fair comparison. The Brits fought Germany because they had to do so, while I play dwarves because I like to do so. Before there is a push to add a penalty to the ranking in the hopes that this fixes the “early drops”, maybe we should gather information from each player as to why he/she dropped the nation. My last two drops have been because my team captain was in too many games and was not leading well, making my nation a fools errand (and me the fool for spending money on it), and the other was because some of my team, myself icluded, was unable to find comon ground of understanding with a player who controled two nations very important to our allegiance. Without unified TEAM play, a person can find the game very unenjoyable and a waste of money, even if they were lucky and drew the Noldor. I respect the player for standing by his play style, but I decided that he would enjoy the game more without me, so I dropped my nation. I’m sure this has happened more than once, to more than just myself.

Regarding penalizing someone for that type of situation, the loss of 100 points on a score that does not really represent if I’m a good player or not is of no consequence to me. The scores focus on your ranking at the end of the game, not at points during the game such as at turn 10, 15, 20 etc. And neither are they on how many pops you had or how much you contributed to your team’s victory. There are those that argue that the nation victory conditions are this representation, but we all know that those are not useful or realistic and few people actually focus on them.

I’ve run strong Dwarves, Arthedain, Cardo, and Silvans (all top-three scores at/above 1600+), only to see a team loss. The current ranking system seems better for teams only, and not for independent players, IMHO. If all it costs me is 100 points of player rank that really don’t represent how well I play, then go ahead and charge me for them. I’ll drop a game that is no longer fun (the point of playing) and start up another game, which we all want to do regularly anyway when a new idea for an opening move strikes us. Its my money and my fun (and hopefully the fun of my teammates also). If I find a team captain who is a good leader and does not bite off more than he can chew, I’m more likely to stay on. If, however, the team is leaderless or the leaders are selfish, it is my right as a customer to find a new game.

I, too, would like to find a way to discourage early drops, but we need to find out more as to why they ocurr because one solution will not fix all. And in the case of ranking, I don’t care what my score is - I’ve dropped or lost every game I’ve been in, but I’ve had much fun in all but one of those games. There will be no single “magic bullit” to fix this problem, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to improve our hobby.

I suggest finding out (via polling) why people drop, and see if we can eliminate the top 3 problems with three fixes.

Thank you for the opportunity to express,

James

#52

“I am curious, however, about a few things. First, are there more games running than there used to be? If so, could we be seeing more drops just because there are that many more games? Second, are the drops in particular nations, such as 1650 Woodmen, which can be a suicide mission if the Sinda player is a moron? Third, how many people actually care about the ranking system, enough that penalizing them would somehow discourage these early drops?”

In answer, no particularly more games - around 60 - pretty much the same as when DGE and Harlequin ran them separately. Drops are across the board and don’t reflect weaker nations IMO. I don’t think most players care enough about the PRS to stop them dropping a game that they are not enjoying. Generally the players are now in their mid 30s (on the whole) with young families and promotions (you guys are, on the whole, an intelligent lot after all!) Hence busy.

Clint

#53

Without judgment, but is there a chance that you see a relationship between Victory Points and end result here? The simple fact that VP’s are mentioned is a red flag for most of us…

With the changes in known information and communication technology, the game has changed. Players who harken back to the “good old days” have the “dinosaur” excuse for caring, or even Noting, VP’s. Anyone who’s played in the last 5 or so years has no real excuse to refer to them, IMHO.

Brad Brunet

#54

Brad,

I am a dinosaur, and don’t fit into Clint’s demographic. I do watch the VP not so much to try and post a high score but to judge how my team and myself are doing in the game versus the opposition. As Gary Aswegan pointed out in his News from Bree article there is intelligence information to be gleaned from those VP numbers. However I agree with you that your individual score means nothing if you are the best loser you are still a loser, so it is better to play for the team victory even if it means giving up VPs of your own. I have scored high as the Woodmen which was a personnal challenge, team won in both and while the Woodmen score was pretty good it did not crack the top three. I am getting hammered as the Eothraim in my current game but am contributing to what will (we hope) end in a victory.

I do however feel that there are guys who quit because they don’t see a speedy victory or do not want to fight it out and see if they can recover a situation in which it may take a long fight to possibly win or still lose. It is these players that I feel ME Games needs to identify and in someway chastise. Players who quit a game when the situation for the overall outcome is still in doubt hurt all the other players who remain in the game on their team. I do believe that real world issues do catch up sometimes and force a drop. However that should be considered both by the player and by ME Games. For example if a “busy” player is habitually dropping games after a few turns Clint should query him and make clear it makes problems for his mates when he drops and ensure that that will not be happening in the game he wants to start. If it does I feel he should be placed on a probationary status of some kind or perhaps as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread be required to pay for the first 10 or 15 turns in advance non refundable if an early drop results. If eliminated early the funds stay in the account if dropped by the player the funds are forfeit.

Finally I see the PRS as a part of the problem. Many will say they don’t but really do follow the PRS. Many believe it does not reflect the ability of players at all and that it is meaningless, others as has been discussed to great lengths on this forum feel it can be manipulated.

#55

"For example if a “busy” player is habitually dropping games after a few turns Clint should query him and make clear it makes problems for his mates when he drops and ensure that that will not be happening in the game he wants to start. "

We do already. :slight_smile:

Clint

#56

Yep I can confirm that they do that already…:slight_smile:

Cheers
Brendan McGoldrick

#57

G’day all,

Interesting topic this one, main reason I think grudge games are so popular these days and you see so many of them! One bad experience with friend or foe is all some people need to get unhappy with a game and drop. Neutrals are another aspect but I realise there is a love/hate relationship with them, I personally am very glad there are now 12 vs 12 games, not everyone’s cup of tea though.

Here’s a light fix (though I’m sure not everyone will be happy!) - you can only play one game (non grudge) at a time! Then we might see some dedication and effort come back in which is afterall what we all want from our opposition and allies :slight_smile: I do know back in the old days down under with the SFGA provider, they ran so few games that you pretty much could only play one game a time, so you were forced to make the best of a bad position - and we had some great games because of it.

#58

lol…well maybe that would increase the dedication to each game but I doubt that makes very good business sense for the company…maybe if we paid 6 times as much per turn…well nevermind…I don’t care much for that idea…maybe what people need is just a little bit more faith that they can pull out a bad situation…there is difficult then there is hopeless and I think people often get the two confused

#59

Hey there Clint,
it’s a team-game and in the most cases you need someone to do this damned “captain-job”.
Someone who will give suggestions, someone who will check orders, someone who will take a look on the results in detail, someone who will write a private-mail if necessary.-

Without coordination you won’t be successful in playing this game.

Many games esp. with newbies they we’re dropped because they haven’t played together as a team.-

Meanwhile I’m only playing grudge-games, they’re lasting a bit longer sometimes.

Have Fun !

Gixxxer

#60

I still like the idea of a fixed cost for the whole game. I’m sure ME can determine the avg. PV($) for a game, or at least what return they expect to make from a normal game, and from that data determine a one time fee for a game. How many players might stick it out if there they have paid for the entire game up front? It would need to be economical for the players as well as ME, but doable.

I’m not suggesting this for a replacement of the pay / turn that exists now, but an option to it, mainly for grudge games or for single players that all feel like a long game is in their best interests, and willing to take a chance.

Just an idea…