Longer waiting lists for better games

[88_Noldo]

Most games last 15 to 20 turns? That is a truly astonishing bit of information. Could the "fill every vacancy as soon as possible" play a role in that? This would suggest that there are a lot of people out there who are unfamiliar with the subtleness of the late game. An 'old timer' might want to string a game out to the late game and watch his opposition flounder around.

···

From: Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Longer waiting lists for better games
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:36:01 +0000

>Certainly. A good game of MEPBM lasts 2 years, in which time I pay Clint
>UKP 202.80 I would say that before embarking on such an enterprise it's
>well worth waiting a few more weeks in order to get the best possible
>matched teams.

*** Not sure if that would help. Most games nowadays seems to last around
15-20 turns.

>I'm not necessarily suggesting a newbie ghetto league - though if the
>official line is going to be that it's ok to be a "tootling along" player
>who doesn't communicate much, then we should have a league for
>tootlers.

*** Anyone else feel that this should be done?

> More seriously, we need to make sure that we don't have games
>with too many newbies starting at once - these games in my experience are
>always shortlived and disappointing.

** I agree. How many is appropriate amount?

>This is one more reason why I like
>the idea of a PRS - it makes Clint accountable.

*** Already am... To act or not to act that is the query...

>If he says "there are
>about the same number of newbies on both sides" it can be checked against
>actual data.

*** Or you can take me at my word... At present - you can always check
with the teams themselves. Note it won't strictly be able to be used for
this purpose as we have returning players as well as new players. We get
quite a lot of old DGE/GSI players brought back to the fold by present
players mostly. Also I have to guesstimate a player's experience and skill
at the game. So 3 new players might be worth a 4 game player with minimal
skill etc.

> If you find yourself on a team with 8 newbies (unless you
>agreed) you can complain to him or drop with no loss of honour.

** If the other team had 8 newbies that would okay though (allowing for
your earlier comment that a lot of newbies per team is bad which I agree
with.). Balancing a game 100% is impossible, and as soon as the game
starts there are gains and losses that advantages or disadvantage
players. The beauty of the game is that you are able to come back from
these set-backs or flounder. All part of the game.

The best thing is for balancing games if for players to send me a list of
nations that they are happy to play, not just the one, or the top 4 nations
(eg Cors, Harad, Nold, CLord) That helps me to balance the games.

Clint

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

Most games last 15 to 20 turns? That is a truly astonishing bit of
information.

Ha, yes. It's a shocker! But perhaps we will be accused of "elitism" for expecting more. This is where "tootling along" gets us.

Could the "fill every vacancy as soon as possible" play a role
in that?

You bet. You see short waiting lists and fast starts are mutually incompatible with carefully balanced oppositions. The commercial interest and the greater "good of the game" are in direct conflict here. Though it may actually be that Clint is killing, or at least enfeebling, the golden goose.

Game 1: Fast startup, mis-matched teams, 10 chaps walked over by turn 15, don't play again, 10 chaps win by turn 15 with little challenge and enjoyment, don't play again. Game makes less than 1500 quid.

Game 2: Careful selection, matched teams, two year game. 5000 quid in the coffers.

Admittedly an exaggeration and simplification, but illustrates my point.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 19:11 22/11/2002, Ovatha Easterling wrote:

[Harlequin_Games1]

>Most games last 15 to 20 turns? That is a truly astonishing bit of
>information.

Ha, yes. It's a shocker! But perhaps we will be accused of "elitism" for
expecting more. This is where "tootling along" gets us.

** Strongly don't agree. Games end with experienced players. Game 77 as an example despite Andy's best interests the game was over against us on around turn 10-14. As a GM I see that players are more prepared to throw in the towel when a game is over and not try to bore their opponents to death.

>Could the "fill every vacancy as soon as possible" play a role
>in that?

You bet.

*** Um - it's just a different format of the way of filling games. We fill games appropriately. I suspect much more importantly is the advent of email on the game. Much more important decider on games - ie back to your original point of communication. A team knows when it is beat.

  You see short waiting lists and fast starts are mutually
incompatible with carefully balanced oppositions.

*** Okay as a counter example it can take me 6 months to fill a 1000 game, with hundreds of emails going back and fore, helping the game get sorted etc. The latest game of 1000 was over in less than 10 turns. I think it is much more to do with the way games and experience on how to play, the advent of email and the way players interact.

The commercial interest
and the greater "good of the game" are in direct conflict here. Though it
may actually be that Clint is killing, or at least enfeebling, the golden
goose.

** It could well be that I am at fault (or the company). From my understanding of player happiness that's not the case. We get the odd player complain loudly and often but that's par for the course of a bigger player base - we're certainly not going to please all of the players all of the time. I think that the good of the game is DIRECTLY related to the commercial interest here. If we run a good game, eg allow variants, altered set-ups, free Newsletter, help with inputting errors, error correction, running turns on low funds (from the top of my head), interaction with players are all aspects of running a good game, then I think we do. Winning of awards, pubmeets, FTF develop and support of new scenarios, listening to players complaints and acting on them are all part of the service that we do provide. There's clearly no pleasing some people I am afraid. We don't bow to the vocal minority here I am afraid though. I think actually the fact that I do reply quickly to emails can be damaging - maybe I need to reduce my contact?

You should see the list of games with DGE that ended prematurely with mismatched teams etc. Allsorts had no criteria of placement of teams or nations.

Game 1: Fast startup, mis-matched teams, 10 chaps walked over by turn 15,
don't play again, 10 chaps win by turn 15 with little challenge and
enjoyment, don't play again. Game makes less than 1500 quid.

Game 2: Careful selection, matched teams, two year game. 5000 quid in the
coffers.

Admittedly an exaggeration and simplification, but illustrates my point.

** What point - I do take care in filling games - that's what the Waiting list. I think these comments are way off base I am afraid Laurence. For example I have 5 Grudge teams at present I am busy trying to get them sorted so that the teams are even. I have strongly hinted to one team that they not play against certain others for example. At the end of the day it is the player's choice if they want to play. Running a good game earns money, running a poor game makes a quick profit and then damages the player base. We're in this for the long term...

Clint

···

At 19:11 22/11/2002, Ovatha Easterling wrote: