I’ve put my suggestions forward Ken… 
I’m waiting to see what others say at present. I prefer to be more thorough so that we can avoid this in future if need be.
Like I said my biggest worry is the 3 nations for a player. If we can find a solution to that then I’m content.
Clint
More thoughts needed guys.
Clint
Thinking about it more, the three nation issue is bigger in Gunboat 1000. For example, you set up two strong military nations to fight off a set of nations your next too. You kill one off or almost and the guy quits. Now two other pairs pick up the two your beating down on and one is an emmy pair (behind the front lines) and the other an agent pair (say also behind lines). Because you beat down this one guys pair you are now subjected to the power of 4 other strong nations who can project their power to you and you know NOTHING about them cause they are on the other side of the map.
Talk about a way to piss someone off.
I can’t remeber the rules for the gunboat 1000 games as they stand, but IMO, 3 nation pairs should be strictly banded in those games.
Come to think of it, why not just ban 3 nation pairings in gunboat and be done with it? If a pair quits let the team know it and see if anyone picks it up until it dies off or a team member who has a pair which has been split/one nation killed off can take on one of the nation decides to do so.
See ya,
Ken
Come to think of it, why not just ban 3 nation pairings in gunboat and be done with it? If a pair quits let the team know it and see if anyone picks it up until it dies off or a team member who has a pair which has been split/one nation killed off can take on one of the nation decides to do so.
For the above reasons. I think it’s worst to have 2 nations not being played than for a duo to be made into a triplet (x2) given the other factors that apply, missed turns, reasons for duo being dropped (under attack, doing badly etc). Lots of resources from the other 2 nations are then put onto the 3rd nation to bring it back to viability meaning the opposing side actually gain a short term benefit.
Clint
Well, once again, in a NO DROP game, we have had someone drop, to help their team. THIS IS UNNACCEPTABLE. Of course, what has happened is that the nation(s) who were under assault were allowed by ME Games to combine.
Clint, this is just WRONG. you guys are supposed to be neutral. combining weak nation(s) who are under assault, who are losing, with a strong supporting set of nation(s) is NOT BEING A NEUTRAL MODERATOR.
This really upsets me. I am a VERY UNHAPPY CUSTOMER.
you should let losing teams lose. Not prop them up.
totally unnacceptable. totally! grrrrrrrrrrrr
Dave
Hya Dave, as I asked Guy earlier, please do not comment about a current game. It is clearly giving information away and therefore not appropriate. Send your query to Rob and he’ll sort it out for you.
Clint (GM)
Well I tried to be as circumspect as I could Clint, but this is majorly broken.
You guys need to be neutral. What happened is REALLY not neutral moderation.
Dave
I think you have to still allow three nation pairing or the game will go by the wayside.
Game 71 which was easily won by the free side had the fire king/cloud lord drop on turn three. Nothing had happened (Dave correct me on if the Fire King got blasted early as you played Northern Gondor) to either nation and noone wanted to pick up the dropped nations.
Do you just let the nations die and the dark servants play 10 vs 12 without the Cloud lord from turn three on. Although the game only lasted another 10 to 12 turns before we voted to concede as the dark servants, I would have ended the game on turn five if I had known the fire king and clould lord were out.
I find no easy solution to dropped nations. Clint has pointed out time and time again that just letting the nations drop is far more counter productive to a balanced game than allowing three nation combinations. Having played three nations combinations I agree it is an advantage over a two nation pairing.
I would prefer to play a game without drops from beginning to end, but that is probably never going to happen.
Clint is still looking for a viable solution per his earlier post.
I like the proposed changes of trying to minimize which nations are allowed with any given pairs.
A solution is to make the Cloud lord and Noldo positions no drop positions. If you can not commit to this then don’t play the pairs. Set up a dropped position waiting list to have the Cloud Lord and Noldo pairs picked up if they are dropped. Ban the dropping player from playing gunboat games for a year or whatever time frame it is.
Lastly, is it possible to have a GM step in and inherit a critical dropped naiton pair if no one else is going to step in and take the dropped nations.
tim
Here’s my response to Clint’s rule suggestions & my own suggestions:
Dave
Just out of interest the focus on the non-3 nation groups from the Free seems to focus on the Noldo. Why not the Sinda/Woodmen too? Just curious.
JK
Well I tried to be as circumspect as I could Clint, but this is majorly broken.
Sure - but respect the rules that you personally (I strongly infer) put forward here please. Let Rob do his job here.
Clint
Point seven is the hardest point to make fair. It stinks to be part of a game where you do significant damage to a nation only to have the player drop (and ruin the game for everyone else I might add) and be propped up by a stronger duo.
However, this is where having standby position could be a problem. Do you really want to pick up a single nation or a pair of nations that are in bad shape and pay money for those nations when you could simply start a new game from scratch?
I don’t have a solution to this problem.
tim
Maybe we should just have a rule that drops can not be picked up by players already in the game. period. If the nation or nation pair is viable, then likely an external player will be happy to pick it up. If not, then it dies as it should.
I think this takes us back to where Guy Roppa was coming from early in the thread.
Dave
Agreed. I accept your critique. Take whatever action you deem appropriate. For my part I apologize and must just say that I let my anger get the better of me. I have no other good defense.
Please consider my critique as well. You guys need to be neutral moderators. I have expressed, in email, all of the details regarding non-neutral moderation in the situation in question.
Dave
Define viable?!
The problem with this is that it’s very esoteric. Who knows what a playable nation is? Different players will play different formats and different strengths of nations.
Define “drop under duress” do you mean nations that have been hit in the game. Some players drop due to lack of time (major reason for dropping a game I’ve found as a GM), others due to apathy or many other “external” forces.
I don’t see that penalising your team in GB is the right solution - so a drop for whatever reason if we don’t implement a pick-up system of some sort basically detriments your side to the point that effectively your team is no longer going to win - not much fun for anyone (opposition who I assume want a competitive game and clearly your own side). When Game 94 ends I’m more than happy to discuss my take on that as I think it’s a fascinating game and very pertinent to this discussion. But until then I feel that I can’t easily comment further without giving specific examples of what I feel defends my arguments (and other games that I’m presently playing in).
One other thought: One other solution is split the dropped nation amongst your team. Thoughts on that welcome?
At present I feel that if we can get a pool of players, with some financial incentive to play as offered, pick up dropped nations that would be the best route. But, I feel that players are not very likely to go for this in any depth. No -drop format doesn’t guarantee that no-drops occur (and some drop due to desiring to help others in the game - that’s occurred at least twice). Maybe that can be addressed in discussion?
There is no quick fix, hopefully discussion will help, especially where it’s unbiased commentary (not on your own specific situation within a game but generically that which is best for the game).
Clint (GM)
I have the answer for Gunboat after thinking long on the subject.
***Each game the players must decide on all the rules:
What special fortification/pop center add on’s (already in place)
What are the combo’s of the teams (already in place)
Is this a “no drop” game? If yes, than there has to be a ME
policy on what happens if a player drops. Maybe just as simple as
he/she can no longer be in “no drop” games but can in other Gunboat games. So over time, “no drop” players will have games where everyone plays out both kingdoms until they die.
What happens when a kingdom(s) is(are) dropped, which will happen?
a. There can be no 3 kingdom teams ever. The point of Gunboat is the different style you have to play to make sure you live. Maybe you need more focus on economy early on ect… (see agreed upon rules below for adding 3 kingdom teams - I like the pairing restrictions)
b. If a double or single group drops, than:
Discussion pt #1:----Ask outside game players if they want the duos. If yes, than they do get all prior turns.
Discussion pt #2:----If no one outside of game wants dropped nations, than ask any “teams” (i.e. I play GB with a friend as lets say NG/Duns). So I could split off of the team NG/Duns and play the dropped nation(s), lets say SG. I would only get the last 2 turns and of course all discussion with my friend must stop ASAP as we are now playing different nations in GB. No characters of SG or NG/Duns can move onto the others for 2 turns (this will be on the honor system as ME can not be asked to do this). No financial aid of gold or goods can be shipped between the nations (NG/Duns to SG or SG to NG/Duns) for 2 turns.
----If no one from the above 2 discussion points want the kingdoms, then depending on what was agreed to at beginning of game will come into effect. My thoughts on this would be:
***If agreed to make 3 nation teams, than no prior turns would be passed on and all sides are notified of nation changes “before” any further turns are run.
***If agreed to drop nations if no pickup per the above 2 discussion points, than the side that has the dropped nation(s) should be notified and can react accordingly (trying to take pops and recruit their characters) but you would not tell the other side for 2 turns. (this also can be changed as long as it is agreed to at beginning of game). The point here is I think everyone wants to have a good battle and a loss of 2 nations on a side makes for a very uphill battle.
John
Heh. Well, Clint, you know that I already in this thread expressed my dislike of people “dropping to help their side”. So that’s my belief completely independent of specific game situations.
All that said, I understand your point and Tim’s point that it’s very hard to ascertain in an objective fashion, whether this is occurring or not.
That’s why I put forward the simple proposal that nation drops can’t be picked up by players already in the game. It’s simple. I’d volunteer to be in a “pickup pool” if it would help get rid of this problem of people gaming the system in GB. GB is such a cool format, that it totally sucks when people abuse the system (and their names will be published for the “no-drop” games).
Also, I think the “end-game” clarification proposal that I made some time ago can help as well. Maybe people are quitting because they think their side has lost but can’t get the vote required? My suggestion was to include dead nations as “votes to quit” in the voting scheme already in place.
thanks,
Dave
I think names should be published for all dropped positions in Gunboat, not just the no drop game. If I am going to get into a no drop gunboat game (I doubt I would do it) I do not want to play with someone that just dropped his previous gunboat game on turn five because he did not like his turn results.
You can always publish my position at the end of a game. I will take whatever criticism any of my teammates wants to send my way.
tim
GB is like life; we are constantly discussing how to improve the model till
we get to the utopia model. This guys will never happen, the best ME
can achieve is that near perfect model. In this round of rule ‘refinements’
we agree on
Let’s keep the rule changes to these three rules at this stage of GB and
playtest the changes.
Many have complained about the 3 nation team problem, we as players
can do something about it by joining the pickup pool. The power is in
our own hands to improve GB. Ok, sometimes we will pickup no
hope individual nations but remember; next GB you’re in you will be
thankfull that another pickup pool player has just picked up that
enemy nation. What goes around; comes around… KARMA
Pickup pools are good but need more players? There are currently 2 GB games that need players…takers anyone? :-). If games last for 10 more turns, that is 5 mths. I think you see the point of more active players in pools but adding your name to the pool must mean you are willing to pickup at least 1 game that is dropped and not be picky about which nations they are.
Both sides have to know of nation combo changes at the same time. This rule can be added easily also and I think everyone agrees.