Hello All,
Recently new to the game I would just like to add my thoughts.
1) AS one of the sideline elves mentioned in the article below, I think it would be better to structure the payment methods in a different format.
i) The price should reduce for subsequent games. (just finished reading article below so this is also anothers idea)(Plagarism not intended)
i.e. 1 game �3.90 a turn
2 games �3.70 a turn
3 games �3.50 a turn
The above is an example only. In addition the longer you are in the game the more the price comes down.
i.e.
1-10 turns �3.90 game
11-15 �3.70 game
etc etc
The above measures would surely encourage players to take up more games and would encourage those players to stay in those games.
You could also link the past drop history of the player with further price advantages or disadvantages.
This would again encourage players to stay in the game. Those that drop often will suffer in the pocket. (New accounts to get around this would also hit them in the pocket.
The above measures would increase the revenue to the company MEPBM whilst rewarding long term players with good records.
Now finally you are asking what this has to do with Automagic.
I am unable to use it at present due to not having excell, however I have seen it and it looks good and I would use it.
I do think it is unfair to increase the price for those not using it and suggest the following.
Whether you use it or not a flat increase to the turn fee or adoption of the above methods to encourage more multi gamers and longer games.
I hope I have contributed enough to have at least earnt a 'Your talking rubbish' reply.
Mark S sideline elf
···
From: "corsairs game 101" <corsairs101@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] LGT speaks... on Autotragic and EEOWCH!
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 08:39:53 -0600LGT,
Very long, but many good points.I would not mind that we were being charged the same, or more, if the burden
of the automation was placed upon thier shoulders.However, they are asking us to do more work(requiring us to use a
complicated system that requires orders to be input in a very specific way).
We get no price break for having to do their job. Instead of a discount
for doing thier job, they inflict a higher fee on those that expect to
receive the same service they've been getting.THEY SHOULD have implimented a system that put the burden on them, or, if
they couldn't do that, been willing to give a discount to customers willing
to do the job we've been paying them to do.Less work, same pay; Same work, more pay. And they are surprised there is
discontent?>From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [mepbmlist] LGT speaks... on Autotragic and EEOWCH!
>Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 07:43:56 +0100
>
>At 07:48 PM 08-04-02, you wrote:
> >Did I read that right?
> >Iniquity!!! INIQUITY!
> >
> >Colin, your secret is out. You're Laurence in disguise?
> >While you're at it, you forgot to mention the 'iniquitous' 5% credit card
> >surcharge.
>
>No, he's not quite that good Kev
>
>Well Gentlemen, I have been reading the debate with great
>interest. Highlights for me have been:
>
>- The chap who dubbed it "Autotragic". (He was referring I think to the
>situation rather than to the programming)
>
>- The chap who pointed out the fact that the original announcement in "News
>from Brie" (Brie stinks dunnit? Oh well doing my best here. Just kidding
>Brie lovers.) was a very bad case of spin. Spin unfortunately is a
>virulent British disease at the moment, the government are terminally
>infected by it, and it penetrates all levels of society. However, it has
>to be said that sales spin has probably been around since Eve first got
>Adam to mow the lawns. The spin was followed in true Blair style, by what
>came across by more spin - the unfortunate remark about only three people
>being unhappy and lots being happy including comments off list. (Remember
>when I was getting black balled for daring to have a go at Brie? There
>were lots of folk "of list" who loved that too. Who are these shy little
>elves who send praise so secretly?) I'm not suggesting that Clint
>consciously intended spin in either instance, but it did come across very
>badly.
>
>There are three aspects which stand out for me. The first two are
>relatively minor, and have I feel, rather concealed the main issue.
>
>- 1 (relatively minor) The LINUTS, the (dirty) Mac brigade and last but
>not least the poor chap who is so virophobic that he will not download a
>macro even from his best friend, feel excluded and consigned to the ranks
>of an overtaxed underclass. I like these guys! Their popping up on the
>list to complain about their (largely self-inflicted) problems is a
>perennial event, which I welcome like the spring. I love it when they take
>their bitter and twisted snipes at Microsoft and "Uncle Bill". I should be
>very sorry to see them go off in a huff. Actually though chaps, I'm
>guessing that in a year of so it'll go to 4.50 for all of us. The bad news
>will be that it'll be a price rise, but it'll be good news really, because
>you chaps will not be charged any extra AND doubly good news, you'll not
>feel excluded any more
>
>- 2 (relatively minor) Dithery dithery. First we get told there's going to
>be a price rise, but not for Autotragic and EEOWCH! users. Then we get
>told that the price rise will be 29th April, causing panic among those
>having problems with Autotragic, and those like myself not lucky enough to
>own a copy of Uncle Bill's Excel, and still waiting wide eyed for the
>release of EEOWCH! Then we get told that the price rise will not happen
>until the release of EEOWCH!... probably... Each time some annoying Irving
>calls in, who can't be bothered to read the whole discussion, and so asks
>the question again, Clint answers him patiently, but I'm never quite sure
>if the price will be held, or the price will be held probably. Seems to me
>that the boyos need to sit down and have a meeting (fair trade coffee only
>please) and make some firm decision on it. Seems to me that they should
>have done this before the original announcement in Brie. And finally, call
>me a cynic if you will (no?), it seems to me that if EEOWCH! and its
>anonymous programmer has no firm release schedule, then there is a fair
>chance that playtesting and bug fixing could take a fair while, and
>possibly a very long while.
>
>- 3 (in case any of you are still with me). Here is the point: You are
>being charged the same, 3.90 per turn, when Mepbm Games, are introducing a
>system which will save them a significant amount of time and therefore
>money. Now a number of chaps have spoken to say how irrelevant this is, I
>suggest that such individuals are over paid. It is very easy to be
>complacent about the cost of things when you do not have to watch the
>pennies. Some chaps were overcome with charitable feeling for the Mepbm
>wage slaves. Certainly 5-10K does, or rather would, constitute sweat shop
>pay. But you're missing the point - nobody forces them to work
>there. Indeed, many of them have received a university education. I have
>the deepest respect for any graduate who goes to work in a cake shop or on
>the milk round, for the benefit of his soul. I once moved to a much lower
>paid job for which I was considered grossly over-qualified, and it was one
>of the best things I ever did. BUT such people have CHOSEN not to pursue
>jobs which require graduate skills, jobs which they know do not receive
>graduate remuneration.
>
>Some have spoken to say how cheap MEPMB is, so what does it matter if the
>LINUTS have to pay 60p more and the rest of us pay the same while less work
>is done on our behalf? It matters because with an automated system coming
>in, we might have expected a substantial price CUT. Does MEPBM offer good
>value for money? Beware, beware the simplistic question my friend. It's
>the one asked in the silly polls, and you can prove anything in a poll. If
>you look at the entertainment value you can get out of a turn, it can be
>immense. But does it come from the clumsily produced turn sheet, the
>flawed game system and the fine quality reproduced graphics? It comes from
>the interaction with the other players on your team. If value for money is
>assessed only in terms of entertainment value, then I should be paying a
>tenner a turn for game 80, and getting subsidised to play one other (number
>concealed to protect the guilty).
>
>Let's assess value for money then in terms of work paid for. I find it
>hard to believe that it can take an inputter much more than 10 or 15
>minutes to input my orders. After that it's a couple of clicks, and Uncle
>Bill's babies take care of the rest. Sure, there's overheads, the license,
>and the very occasional error notification or manual edit, but I still find
>it very hard to accept that 3.90 is a good price for the pdf which is
>actually generated. Perhaps if you only play one game, you don't notice
>it. If you play 5 or more games, and do not have an executive income, then
>it mounts up very quickly. It's by this criteria that I personally do not
>believe that an Mepbm turn is good value for money. Why then do I play? I
>suppose I gamble, that the high price will yield a higher entertainment
>value. But I'm often left feeling that I've allowed myself to be slightly
>ripped off - you think I harp on about the credit card surcharge for UK
>players? That's really just a little extra salt in the wounds. When Mepbm
>Games were expanding, and taking over the world last year, one intelligent
>commentator on this list warned us of the effects of a lack of
>competition. He was completely right. Most of us will pay what Mepbm
>asks, because we love the game, and there is no alternative supplier.
>
>Then, in some contrast to the above two paragraphs, I have to say that I
>remain a capitalist (though I too have to confess to Fair Trade Coffee). I
>occasionally sell bits and bobs on the Internet auctions. If someone bids
>100 quid for my bent bicycle wheel, then I'd accept his money. As a
>result, I have to say that I cannot blame Clint for making every penny he
>can, from what he's got to sell. Though I do wonder if this is the best
>way to do it long term. Perhaps some of the LINUTS et al. will reduce the
>number of games they play. I certainly shall unless I can get EEOWCH!
>running. But that won't make much difference with the savings they will be
>making. Ask yourself: As the price (effectively) goes up, has the game
>improved? At 3.90 per turn for a now wholly computer moderated game, will
>new players be attracted in?
>
>I would have felt much happier if the savings generated by the new
>inputting systems could have been passed on, at least partly, to the
>players. Discounts for multiple games would have been smart. With the
>primary labouring task removed from the running of Mebpm, at a stroke, the
>savings on wages must be substantial. I can understand that in a small and
>friendly company, reductions in staffing levels might be considered
>unethical (and very praiseworthy that would be). But, if that is the case,
>all those freed up graduate level skills should go into marketing, so that
>more profit can come from expanding, rather than milking, the player base.
>
>So in summary. More than three people are unhappy. I thought the decision
>to hold the price was a wrong one, and the announcement was badly
>handled. But I acknowledge Mebpm games right to charge what they like, and
>doubt I shall stop playing just yet.
>
>Laurence G. Tilley
>
>http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
>_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com