How do we restore the Game?

General
#1

Fellow Players,

Hello friends, I see a terrible trend happening as of late. The 1650 games are becoming alarmingly short. Games would usually go out to 14 to 18 turns on the one week games. The removal of the non-mordor nations would spell doom and the evil would submit or the game become 14/11 split and Rhun Rohan colapse causing the free to submit.
But now the indicaters are more subtle. Freeps inside mordor, Witch-King implodes, market skewed too favorable to one side. Any of these cause a side to quit enmasse. I thought the problem was isolated to the “One Week” genre due to the increased coordination and rapid turn results.
However now it is spreading to the two week games. If we cannot figure a way to check this we will lose even more players. As it is it seems our numbers are decreasing. The player pool seems to be dwindling. I know players are not signing up for the “One Week” variant due to the games becoming alarmingly short. But now I am in a game and one side is considering tossing the towel on turn fours results. This is getting absurd. So collectively how do we go about correcting this? We as players need to come up with some ideas to help Clint. If we don’t, we risk losing the entire system. If players keep becoming discouraged and the player pool continues to shrink then the games turn cost will have to go up to keep the whole thing afloat. There are alot of bright people that play this game. You guys need to come up with solutions so guys like me can keep playing.:smiley: As it is now some games take a very long time to fill. Think how frustrating it is to actually wait longer for a game to fill and begin then the game takes to play. If this game busts then three games in a row will have not gone to turn 12. That is really sad since turn 12 use to be the close of the opening phase.
I want to point out that this problem is not due to poor play or a few Mavricks that won’t conform. I think it is more systemic then that. I think that due to the core of players being so experienced the unknown factor is so reduced that the cause and effect results are so predictable that players figure there is no way to recover. That and the level of communication is so high that even random games move with the precision of grudge games. This is again a result of a stagnant player pool.
What can we do to help save our beloved game?

#2

Maybe put some more randomness back into the game? :confused: Hey I’ve got this dragon encounter… Look up name , insert response. That was not the game makers intent I would think. Back in the day it was all snail mail and if you were super keen you would meet an ally (if they were close) or most likely talk to them on the phone if you had those details. The question I think is how do we remove the “instant communication” from the game and put some of the “investigation” back into the game?

Regards Herman (WK 94)

#3

First Off the last 2 one weekers were flukes… A single player myself to be honest made some grevious accounting mistakes… When these nations who happene to be Key early in game… get knocked out becuase of it… I cuases a huge moral loss to that team… hench the quick concedes on those two games are due to my poor play in those games…

Secondly please note what’s happening in recent months… Some players have some real world economic pressures going on to say the least… This is also a factor in the slow filling of games… Nothing is wrong with the system…

Third a new flux of players should be expected after the hobbit comes out in theaters… We as players should encourage these players and every new player in the game… Same goes to our returning players from awhile back… It’s up to us to be moral boosters to our teams… It’s up to each one of to encourage each other… The sweetiest victories are snatched from the jaws of defeat!

Lastly concerning Nuetrals… I have noticed a trend of mistrust concerning them… If a nuetral player sends you his pdf letting his fly down… requests to join the group he is Going to your alliegance! To be paranoid becuase others in past have joined and switched sides does not mean other nuetral will do the same! keep track of the players who join your site and switch sides. Put him on your black list of players to not play with… But never state to nuetral I will not let you join until you flip your Icon to my alliegence your only piss that nuetral oFF!

remember it’s only a game and have fun! have fun even in defeat becuase the top ten players in ratings all have many defeats! It’s how we handle defeat that’s true measure of our character!:wink:

#4

Too many variants slow games filling. In the beginning there was only 1…

Newbies and Vet’s in the same games then. Sure, sometimes it works out, but altogether too many newbies aren’t prepared for the game “as it’s played” - and more of them than not, from my experience, seem to flail, fail, and flee for every one that gets addicted, picks it up and moves ahead.

Play by Mail is dead. Get over it and move on. Give me a JOverseer style web app where I log in, deal with all my nation’s details and submit orders, etc. Turnaround MAXIMUM 1 week. Want to kill all the instant communication bastardization of the “intent” of the Fog of War? Done… Allow a messaging system within the app between nations - nowhere near as “easy and convenient” as email, would keep it more contained.

A real scoring system and resulting “Player Standings” as opposed to “Ratings”.

Most of which requires an investment in technology/programming to fulfill on a vision. Is there a vision? We hear all the time there’s no money - this is a very real issue that, as Terry points out, is only going to get worse for just long enough to kill the game entirely before it get’s better.

#5

My three cents:

  1. Fix the economic code. Yes, it worked for a long time but it is so well understood how to manipulate it now that it can be a game buster. Prices should not be so easily manipulated down either - so I am not just talking about OBN. Having prices rise when massive quanties are sold is wrong, but so too is it rediculous for a commodity to stay at 1 when it is bought out.

  2. Anonymous games and non-anonymous games - all players should be identified with their e-mail address in non-anonymous games. Instantaneous communication is a fundamental change in the game. Turn 0 communication with neutrals is big, but when they choose to “hide” behind their unknown e-mail for some while not for others it provides an opportunity for them to make an unbalancing deal before any orders are input. Alternatively, allied players need to start viewing neutrals that don’t communicate with their side on turn 0 as enemies and treat them accordingly. In my 3 most recent games on an allegiance team, neutrals have done this and the teams have given them the benefit of the doubt to their peril. This is a very incestuous little community and it seem like most neutrals are likely to be predisposed. People should expect it and know who’s who in the games.

  3. Setups need to be sanity checked or some constraints put in on them so that one team doesn’t start with a rediculous advantage. Maybe some will argue it has always been this way and it has always “been fine” but I wonder if it really has been fine or if we just see the problems more clearly when all turn 0’s are exchanged before any orders are processed.

Game 86 is suffering from all 3 of these factors, plus missed turns plus some really bad mistakes. The player errors could be overcome if not for the other factors, but not on top of them. Maybe when that one ends we can exchange all the setups or put them up for community evaluation. Maybe we are imagining the disparity…though I think the two armies that have been cursed out of existence by turn 4 are anchoring our view pretty well.

#6

Actually, the economic code is less important that “The Code”. For example, the game is yet STILL hand moderated to some extent… Insane. There are orders that are clearly against the rules, but the program doesn’t bounce them out. Imagine being able to Steal Gold 2 times in 1 turn with the same agent…!!! THIS has to get fixed. If it’s a “conversion” issue, then the “conversion” has to be priority #1.

#1 - Conversion
#2 - Reconcile program to accept orders properly
#3 - produce a web-convertible order entry program that lines up to #2 100%

Poof, the game is ready to be fully automated - as it should be. And as a result, prices go down - I will happily spend a little more actual $ a month if I get a lot more gaming out of it. As it is, the state of the game and many of the problems bitched/whined/moaned about has me always on the edge of significant budget cuts. I know many players who are spending/playing less now because it’s “not worth the money anymore”.

Kick the humans out of running an individual game and they can better manage “the Game” perse. Might have more time to work on appropriate ratings/scoring systems that actually help balance games better - 86 and 94 are a couple here that are screaming for reassessment, IMO.

#7

Player numbers are solid. We lose some players we gain some players and income is steady. So panic not.

In terms of the game development funds are limited. With the conversion of the code (being tested at present) then we can move this forward for new devlopments in the game. The best thing that you, as a player, can do is to play more games… :smiley:

Not sure what GM interaction we have - only in the form of setting up games and applying some rulings. Eg In GB no communication etc. Overall I don’t think that particularly impacts on the game. Games sometimes end quickly. The average length of game is around 10-25 turns length so that means you’ll sometimes have quick games and sometimes long games.

I’m not convinced that players with a faster turnaround for less bang per buck would actually pay us more… :slight_smile: I strongly suspect (having done some market research here) that it would bring in less money. There is presently no desire for many 1wk games - 95% of the games run are not 1wk despite the option of that being taken up. Initially you might see a small surge in players running more turns, but the actual level of time that a person has in his free time to play these games if the major limiting factor I’ve found. So you can play 2 2wk games or 1 1wk game but not 2 1wk games.

Wherever a player has to interact with another player that immediately slows the game down. Having played a 1v1 and GB games it can be very quick to run orders and get them processed. However, there is a limit to what, as a player, I think you can effectively run, enjoy the experience and so on without it being a drag. I think, for me personally it’s around 6 nations, but other players may have different limits/levels.

Joverseer and the like are very good and do a very effective job of combining elements of the input/mapping very well. It is, and will never be, a simple game to play, nor one that you can play and forget like many on-line games. The game will always take that extra little bit of effort to play and hence more rewarding for those that want to put that effort in. Making the game on-line will not really speed the game up as there is a human element in how fast players can get turns in regardless of what tools/aids that they can get (and see above for it not actually impacting majorly). This is not a RTS. It’s a turn-based game after all, and that’s the strength of it in that you DO need to sit back and think, you do need to liaise with allies to come up with the best plan, you do need to check that that is implemented etc.

Set-ups balanced: I think this came from a particular game where a sickness killed an important character early in the game. DS have that option very early, it has a long term cost of course to do so (Most of the games I’ve played in as DS had that option with many DS characters coming in with Weak/Sick/Curse). It’s not a game decider, it, like any other factor can be countered, and limited in impact with the correct team and individual play I’ve found. All games see a side have set-backs and communication problems. It’s how, as a player, that we deal with that is what generally makes a winning team.

There is no ability to steal gold twice in a turn. If a player does manage to do that, and we check the orders, then inform us asap please. Whenever new software is brought out it needs to go through a testing period and we’ve updated the software to check this but maybe something has been missed. If so, please bring it to my attention, so that I can check it and fix it.

One other thing, different players want different things. Some want high-level snazzy instant gaming with full-on communication, others want to be left on their own, print out their turns and enjoy the game that way and all variations and mixes in-between. Some players want a quick killer game, some want a slow build-up etc. Luckily I’m often amazed at how the game does deal very well with all these factors.

Clint

#8

As a long-time player, I agree with pretty much everything Clint said.

One week games:

  • I don’t seem to enjoy them as much as two-week games-- there isn’t sufficient time to coordinate with allies if you go out of town for three days, for example. Time pressure is a problem because you’re always racing to get orders in and communicate.

** My finances limit the number of games that I play, as does my time to play them. As Clint said, I can play two two-week games or one one-week game, but not two one-week games.

*** I found the one-week no-drop gunboat game highly enjoyable. Coordination isn’t a problem, because there isn’t communication. I think that the one-week format works well in gunboat.

Neutrals:
If the neutrals have no real interest in game-balance, or if a few neutrals join “pre-decided” as to which way they’re going, then you can rapidly end up with a skewed game. A 3:2 split helps game balance immensely. A 4:1 split only works if the “one” is a really good player in one of the strong economic powers in the south.

Fast-ending games:
The four biggest factors to fast-ending games are:

(1) horribly skewed neutral distribution

(2) people quitting nations early. This relates to the other three. If you’re going to quit-- find a replacement player, or try to, before you drop. Or check with allies and see if anyone has a friend who’ll take over the position.

(3) someone on a side tanks their nation early, whether from oversight or gross stupidity. i.e. bankrupting on turn 2 or 3 or, in the case of the darks, crippling your economy by not throwing your troops into battle. Banrkupting is usually the Woodmen, Eothraim, Dragon Lord, or Witch King. Folks, you have to manage your economy. Plan a turn (or two) ahead. In the last one-week game, I ran the dragon lord with only 10 (yes… sigh) only 10 characters because the market was bad, Corsairs, Rhudaur, and Harad all went Free and the Easterlings were playing a strange mercenary game that gutted the QA economy (oh joy). Knowing that I’d get minimal economic support, I ran a very aggressive campaign in Mirkwood with very few characters… and eventually built up my economy sufficiently that I could have fought on indefinitely when I finally surrendered as a courtesy on turn 15, since everyone but the FK, CL and I had quit.

I’m not saying that nations shouldn’t help each other with gold, but there’s a grudge-team extreme specialization mindset (which I don’t agree with) that seems to have sunk into the individual games.

Under this philosophy, the CL should make ONLY agents-- no camps or emissaries whatsoever. The Witch King and Eothraim should raise as many troops as they can to the exclusion of everything else, and it’s everyone else’s job to send them gold to support those troops, the Blind Sorcerer should make only mages, and so on.

While I agree that every nation should have a focus-- usually one major focus and one minor one-- every nation needs to be able to do at least a little of everything. This gives the nation far more flexibiliy to handle unexpected problems-- whether it’s locating that critical artifact or throwing an army into the breach when there’s a crisis-- without calling upon allies for aid.

(4) In the end, stubbornness does far more for long-term game enjoyment than anything else. If enough players on one side are stubborn enough, even skewed games can be entertaining and last into turn 40s.

Bradford

#9

Ah yes Bradford, but if the games cost 1/2 as much and you had to “extreme specialize” less, thus relying on allies less, you could play twice as many games the same way you ran your Dragon Lord in that 1 weeker. Oh, and isn’t a Gunboat a 2 nation game? So a 1 week Gunboat is like 2 One Weekers - now, which is it then…? :wink:

#10

What would it hurt to publish the name and e-mail address of every player in the game for non-gunboat games? It is the only thing I can think of that could help to mitigate turn 0 communications between neutrals and (only one of the) alliances that did not occur much when the game was designed for play-by-mail.

In 86 it appears to be curses rather than sicknesses and by turn 4 it is two armies poofed, while at the same time the FP started without a single LAT and only one LA. That’s just ridiculous. Variation in the setups “back in the day” were not exploited to the level they can be today with instant communication on turn 0. Every strength and every weakness are greater now than they used to be.

The game hasn’t changed, but everything else has. That’s the point.

#11

I’m not sure that published names would be a help perse. Many would quite vehemently disagree with such a move. Also, this would simply add to the problem you see, IMO.

Game 86 is not unusual. You have an LA, which quite often you would NOT as the FP…!! Consider the mages and their orders that are required to pull off the curses this early. Consider the disparate personalities that are looking at their characters with many skills and an infinite set of order possibilities… Considering the DS start with so many high mages, so many artifacts, and an SM toy in their set-up, one must ask the question: “Why don’t more DS ‘teams’ Curse sooner?”. The answer will direct your ire back at the quality of set-ups (supposedly “balanced” teams as best as possible…) and feeds into Bradfords problem with the “extreme specialization mindset” whereby the Game 86 DS were veteran enough en masse to make the many order sacrifices necessary with their “individual” characters/nations in order to both 1) Agree and 2) Execute these necessary orders, along with the requisite intelligence and multi-turn coordination, etc. No, Game 86 was most certainly a circumstance whereby a better group was ‘stacked’ on one side, or so it seems all around.

Note also, on your turn email you get a list of your allies, their emails, and whether they SS’d or were Processed. Did you know that if you want, you can request that your contact information be removed from this listing? No, we’ll never see all 25 nations ID’d with contact info at game start. And I would oppose it, if for no other reason than this: As I’m known more in the community and play with/against many players, there might very well come a day when I want to play a Neutral and do so in a particular (if peculiar…) way. This might necessitate a certain amount of secrecy regarding who I am.

What might be helpful is better information at game start - clearly outlining some items in regards to communication, links to the forum, etc, with Turn 0 set-ups. There really is no “excuse” to be out of communication in this game/day/age - but there may very well be reasons… And considering the premium cost of such games, if many players/personalities have different expectation for their hard earned $, that’s entirely their right (as Clint opines above).

Consider, the Corsairs waiting for Turn 10 before deciding/moving is most certainly keeping in the spirit of the game, in fact, was much the norm in the earlier days if I read correctly.

Nope, Game 86 is clearly a FP vs DS issue, neutrals are not pre-aligned or moving en masse together. Doug, in 86 who started this thread, was also in the last 2 1 weeker games that had a nation bankrupted on turn 3 in each…same player (Terry, above). These have all occured close together - maybe Clint’s right and there’s nothing wrong with the game, all is well, we’re just uptight over some randomness close together is all…?:confused:

#12

Your point of view is entirely reasonable to me…

…so why isn’t 4th age more popular? I’m signed up (for that and a 2950 game) and figure that neither game will suffer quite as much from the hyperactive starts of 1650, but at the current rate of fill we are looking at next summer, maybe?

One of the previous points made in this thread is that the other scenarios are a detraction from the 1650 game (not sure I agree or disagree), but it seems the others are far less popular.

I imagine that 1650 will eventually be primarily a grudge vehicle and indies will play the other scenarios. I am just waiting to identify a couple more interested and dedicated players to form one (or for one or two of my current games to end so I can just play as many nations as required to fill it).

#13

Because everyone starts with at least 1 60pt Emissary the the camp limit is hit on turn 3 or something…

Note also, the vast majority of players are 1650’ers. The others take months to start and attract a different crowd, a less agitated, less chattering type of player. You’ll get much less mail and likely run a more truly independent nation in either of 2950 or FA in my experience - but that’s somewhat limited. Mind you, the Chess vs Checkers argument opines that it’s more difficult to run, grow and succeed with either of those other scenarios.

Add in the numbers of players who’ve given up entirely on the Indie games and prefer Grudges only, factor in Gunboat’s of varying stripes and you have games taking way too long to fill.

Player numbers are solid. We lose some players we gain some players and income is steady. So panic not.

Since everything is okay and all thoughts/ideas/suggestions get told “Nope, thought about that, our players don’t want it, won’t work, etc…” than nothing will change, eh? C’est la vie.

#14

One big issue, that can be hard to overcome, is the modern communications…

Back when I first played the game (some 14 years ago), communication was either snail-mail or phone.

Neutrals could first be contacted after first turn, and it was very hard to make really coordinated plans.

Now it’s very different, one game I’m in we are now nearing 200 messages on the board before turn 2 is proccesed! These messages are for all to read/comment on, so basically we can plan everything down to what each char is doing.

So if one side has a couple of dedicated people, who are willing to spend the time communicating, then the others really don’t have to do much other than take orders :smiley:
And if the other side consists of either:
a) People who hate taking orders
b) No one who has a ton of time to make big plans

… then you’re certain to loose.
It might not happen on turn 4 or 8, but the game will surely not go on for 30+ turns.

I would love to play a game which started as a Gun-Boat, with no communication on the board on turn 1.
So you wouldn’t be able to contact neutrals till turn 2, or even later.

Not sure how to fix the amount of communication amongst the team, or if you even would want to fix it.

I love gunboat for this reason, it is immensely fun praying that your team-mates read your plans, or atleast do stuff that you can help them with.

#15

So communication technology has blasted away both the Fog of War and the traditional independent flavour of running a nation. And, if you consider it, this game is decidedly low tech…

So, back to my internet app… Give players Aliases instead of using their real names. I log into a web site and all the games I’m in are listed. I click on a game and it “launches” my fancy Java app that loads all game information that is available to me. Within which is a messaging page where messages between nations in the game are managed.

What if on Turn 0, I do NOT SEE who is playing every other nation? As a result, I’m not able to Message them…? Take SG for example - why does he know how to get in touch with Arthedain necessarily? How about only allow messaging to NG and Sinda? Then, his messaging capabilites can only increase upon 1) his characters/armies coming into contact with the pops/characters/armies of other nations? Or, upon another nation coming into contact with AND messaging him? Ie, once I land on a Harad pop, I can now message Harad. Or if the Woodmen put a character on my pop He can Message Me, but I can’t message him until he DOES message me - and now I can reply - that channel of communication has been opened.

Provide the option to share all nation information. This requires Friendly relations (yes, an in-game Order…) and a special selection within the App to share information - or, actually, upon using the 180 to make relations Friendly, all info is shared at that time (consider it an automatic file-forwared every turn when you’re Friendly).

Notice, you have to log in for the messaging… So, while I can do this from any Starbucks, I can’t necessarily reply to yahoogroup messages from my blackberry while I’m taking the subway to a business meeting…

So here’s a way to use technology to force the game back into a low tech FoW environment.

And of course, once that technology is in place, running the game costs little (fully automated within the app) and can run at any pace (provided enough players sign up for such a game).

For the record, this isn’t a good idea I came up with on my own, I’m playing another TURN BASED game on the web that costs less than $1 a turn that includes all this stuff, 3 day turnaround. This isn’t rocket science, simply time and money, which really is just a polite way to say Will.

Brad

#16

from my expierence… 4th age isn’t more popular becuase veteran 1650 and 2950 players get trashed quickly in thier first second and sometimes 3rd 1000 game before they can adjust to the fact any nation can be taken out by turn 3 by a single nations coordinated attack using all aspects of the game. It’s dsiheartening knowing everything you learned in 1650 is rather useless… The same tactics availble only mid game in 1650 are availble immediately in 1000.
Next many veteran miltary minds and agent minded nations get trashed in 1000 becuase the truly most powerful characters are emmy’s… they simply double your agents and become these 80-100 emmy gods that injure the agent unlucky enough to even get 1 shot at them…
The top rated players are often still found playing 1000 becuase of Military and Emmy power that can be wielded… It’s just a very ruthless game… Play it but be prepared to be eliminated before you can even have a shot to get really started… This has kept that community very small an number of games down…

#17

For the record I’m playing another TURN BASED game on the web that costs less than $1 a turn that includes all this stuff, 3 day turnaround. This isn’t rocket science, simply time and money, which really is just a polite way to say Will.

Well first off it’s Tolkien licence so that costs more… :D:o

Secondly if we implemented such a game and you’re playing say twice as fast that’s 2/3rd of our income gone. :mad::rolleyes: I’m not convinced it would actually make the game any better (very slightly more convenient, I have played and do play similar games), just cheaper.

Communication seems to be the big problem for some. I’ve played a few individual games recently and some players just don’t post at all or very, very rarely. Some players just don’t want to do that so forcing them or supporting mechanism for creating such isn’t going to be very helpful to those players. Like forcing someone to play “Chess” when they want to play “Draughts” :smiley: As a GM I try to balance communication, strength of play, willingness to play, team co-ordination at game set-up then let you guys play your own game. That’s to say different players want different things from the same game.

For anyone in any form of “relationship” then you’ll probably know that this means some give and take on both sides… :cool::smiley: … that and the odd argument, raised voice and stamping of feet.

As to Will - that needs the conversion program - we have the Will to do that. If you guys fancy creating such a web-based element for us then we’d be interested in following that up. We’ve looked at that in the past and it’s an option but cost is prohibitive at present. Right now we don’t have the resources to follow that up until the conversion program has been finished.

Clint

#18

You got it backwards… An in-game mechanism is not “forcing” someone to communicate. As I clearly described it, it will greatly reduce the amount of communication and simply standardizes how it’s to be done. Those who do not 1) email 2) post on forum or 3) diplo will now be people who only do not 1) message. 1 thing to avoid instead of many. See? I’m HELPING those people.!!! And for those who do - we still will… :wink:

#19

This thread reminds me of the question “So have you stopped beating your wife?”

The premise is that things are broken and that there is a dwindling player base.
Clint refutes the 2nd part of the premise and he’s in the position to know the facts.

The first part of the premise has multiple components that people have argued.

I completely disagree that initial mage spell mix can be game determining. There are lots of random aspects to the startup. And for a game that would be in or around turn4 right now, the DS are entering winter. That’s a huge disadvantage for the DS. So they nail a character early with curses? They gave up a TON of opportunity cost to make that happen. Think about it…

Much worse is the loss of a team nation due to bankruptcy. I’m reading between the lines here, but it sounds like it was FP nation(s) that went bankrupt, and important ones? Well, yes. That will definitely cause serious pain on the part of a side. That is why having team-mates check & double check orders is a really useful team idea…

Does the economy code need fixing? BIG TIME. This is the one “broken” component argument that I strongly agree with. A properly played DS can leverage the economy to be very strong (even in Winter) with the old code and within the rules. It takes a lot longer than was possible using the OBN mechanism, but by turn 10 or so, you can have a very robust economy. There are ways for the FP to counter, but it helps the DS a lot. It’s my understanding that Clint is working on this fix.

Does the game need to be morphed into a web-based game? That’s open to debate. I think it’s fair to say it’d be a completely different game and that people wouldn’t put nearly as much thought & effort into their turns. So, my vote is that the current 2-week turnaround type game is better for my playing enjoyment. I’m just one vote.

Dave

#20

Well ,

To be truthful – am getting tired of the so called Indie game and the Grudge games are good when can find a team to join , but I have to admit – I am enjoying those Gunboat games to no end running two nations with no or little comminication or working closely together has brought back the fog or war and the excitment back to the game for me – even if have gunboats with only running one nation – something like game 75 – have enjoyed this game more then anything right now (even though our side will most likely eventually lose) – each and every turn has brought up a fight with some nation and it has been balls to the wall , the current gunboats I am in are getting like that and you can do different things or even different openings – the Indie and grudge games seem to be almost a certain set or orders you need to follow to counter the other players – Gunboats aren’t like this !!

Definately like to see more gunboats and even indie gunboat like games like 75 – if in one of them you know what I am talking about !!

Mike