Loss of diplomacy

[DrakaraGM]

Hey Brad --

Yep, the VPs are one more indication that GSI's vision of the game included
both a team aspect AND a selfish, my-nation-first aspect. Whether that is a
good thing or a bad thing -- the whole concept of individual victory
conditions and so on -- is a separate issue. But it is indeed one area where the
bulk of the current players -- not all, but most -- disagree with the GSI
concept, and are more in line with the way MEGames runs the game. It is certainly
a more comfortable place to be, a game where everyone on your side IS always
on your side and it doesn't matter what you end up with as a nation as long
as your side wins. In the real world, of course, nations ARE extremely
concerned with what they end up with at the end of a war. But as a game, ME works
pretty well in either the full teamwork model OR the "Diplomacy" style model.
The fact of the game is that a well-run team does defeat a collection of
selfish individuals in most circumstances, given approximately equal competence
on the part of the players on both sides. A skilled player understands
that, and is willing to sacrifice some national interests in the furtherance of
overall victory. That was, in fact, one of the nice parts of GSI's concept --
RealPolitik as Ed likes to say. The question of how much do you give up for
the "team", or conversely, what can you achieve for your own nation without
hurting the team in the process. Nobody truly wants their side to lose --
but it can be depressing to sacrifice and sacrifice and then watch others hog
the glory, too.

I know some players who are always willing to make plans to shift supplies
around so that they are put to the best use -- and sometimes it really amuses
me how the "best" use of materials is often to support such player's military
efforts with gold and supplies so they can field ever larger armies, capture
the bulk of the enemy pop centers, and so on, and then claim to "need" those
pop centers to support their huge armies...never giving anything back to the
team. I know other players who are perfectly willing to ship their stuff to
other players and transfer pop centers and so on, without asking for much in
return. The latter are more fun to work with, the former may well be highly
skilled and able to get the job done but not much fun to play with when it
becomes clear that "sharing" means supporting them so they can amaze the world
with their power...

Personally, I try to structure every nation I play so that it is
self-sufficient, perhaps not able to ship out a lot of stuff but also not needing to get
a lot of aid from allies either. And I am certainly willing to aid less
fortunate allies, and accept aid when it is clear I need it, even though I hate
to ask for it. The only time I really get grumpy is when players ask for
gold while being unwilling to use their own resources or taxes to pay for stuff.
They may do things like drop their taxes to 39 "because they need the
loyalties in order to do improvements", then create a bunch of camps and thus
cannot raise taxes because it will cost them camps, and then ask for gold to do
their improvements with or to support other actions... A few turns at 60%
taxes would have allowed them to create plenty of camps and then lowering taxes
to 39% at that point would have increased the camp loyalties -- THAT makes
sense, even though itr means the starting stuff will be a few points lower
loyalty in the end. Or they may "hoard" piles of resources, being unwilling to
sell them because they want to have lots of metal-equipped cavalry with tons
of food and war machines, and then they ask those of us who HAVE been selling
stuff to support our actions to send them gold for improvements or support or
whatever... Grrrr....

Anyway -- you should join a 4th Age game with me, and we could rule the
world together! Seriously, I am not convinced a couple of games are enough to
give the scenario a proper tryout -- I myself played 5 games of 2950, sampling
a variety of nations, before deciding that if I wanted everything "known" I
would prefer the larger armies and economies of 1650 and if I wanted smaller
armies and economies but better characters I preferred the more variable 4th
Age for its unpredictable setups and so on.

As for VPs in general, they are indeed not a good measure of what a nation
DID in all cases. But that is indeed a topic that has been discussed in
plenty of depth, so I won't bother to do rehash the discussion again. And I am
babbling, probably because I need to get some sleep...

BTW, I don't type THAT fast -- faster than many ME-PBM players perhaps, but
I would be blown away by any real typist. I did take a typing course 30
years ago, but these days I only use a couple fingers on each hand. However, I
AM willing to keep typing long after others would have made their point and
shut up -- its a flaw, I admit it...

-- Ernie III

In a message dated 9/30/2005 2:23:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bbrunec296@rogers.com writes:

Ernie,

You got me on FA. The game we played was my second and last, a game where I
was both disappointing and disappointed and resulted in my swearing off FA,
period full stop. Lots of reasons not worthy of any more space here.
Certainly not your allegiance, mind. You earned my, likely, eternal respect,
although after reading the emails tonight, I have to assume you type 97
words/second or something, so I'll respect that too..

So I'll, willingly even, ascribe to the belief that certain cookie-cutter
MEGames policies have not necessarily fit the FA mould as well as they might.

But I have a real hard time with Victory Points. While I'll concede the
point that a winning "nation" from the winning "allegiance" is..."only fair" and
that the rest of the placing in order of "score" regardless of allegiance
(as GSI appearently did it..?) is the best policy, I simply dislike the
hardcoded "scoring system" of VP's. The concept of "scoring" the game has been
trashed back and forth ad nauseum for years now, likely to never be adequately
resolved. There evolved 2 directions in which to go: 1) replace VP's with a
different, less (perceivedly....) selfish system that scores what the nation
actually DID as opposed to what the nation ended up HAVING and 2) rate the
Player based on his Team Game success.

The PRS rates the Player based on his Team Game success, while throwing a
bone to the VP's with a VP based rating. I'm of the mind that the VP's can be
replaced by a wholey different system (one of which I proposed years ago, an
order-based, turn by turn accumulating system) that would "improve" the
current VP system to provide for "individual" victory and lessen the reliance on
"team based" PRS style scoring systems. Alas and alack, we have what we have
and all things considered, as in my "get over it" rant re: neutral whining,
I suspect we both agree that whatever the powers that be might consider
prudent policy, the game we play is still fun enough to continue playing
regardless....!

Cheers,

Brad

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John_Richert]

As a newb to the game, I thought I would throw my two
cents out there.

First, I think it depends on which way MEGames plans
on taking the game. I think it should move more
towards more diplomacy. A move in that direction
would make things MUCH more interesting. How can this
be done?

1) As Ernie has proven, go back to a system where a
losing/neutral country can take second or third place.

2) Give incentives to those players that finish 1,2,
and 3. Maybe it is a few turns credit, but make it
enough so that it is worth something to people to
actually finish at the top of the standings.

This will help eliminate the "Alpha" player who says,
"We're doing X, you do Y, you do Z, and I'll take all
the glory doing A." Under the current system, players
basically say, "OK, we'll do it." If there are
incentives in place, someone might say, "No, you've
taken the last two cities, why do YOU need to be the
one to take it. I need it, and can make better use of
it for the team." This would add more dynamics to the
game.

Now, if MEGames decides that they prefer more team
oriented games, they should do away with the standings
all together. After all, if this is a team game, who
really cares about the standings, right?

I have to say that in my two games, I really prefer my
4th Age game to the 2950 game I am currently in. The
economies are about the same, but in 2950 the game is
basically on rails. These countries immediately need
to do X, Y, and Z, while these countries do A, B, and
C. In the 4th Age game, you had to figure out what
nation is where, what their goals and priorities are,
etc. Then you need to tailor your strategy to meet
this threat. Given equal economies, I really prefer
the 4th Age game.

It is frustrating for me to see this game as something
that could be a whole lot more than it is. As it is,
I can think of several other games that I would prefer
to play that I can play by PBEM that do not take the
money this does.

If you play a grudge game, as a junior member your
ideas tend not to carry a lot of weight, I remember
one conversation in my 4th Age game where I suggested
an early attack on Minas Tirith. It was basically
dismissed out of hand until we were able to show that
we had a pretty good chance of taking it if we
coordinated our moves and made it our goal. It fell 2
or 3 turns later on turn 5. But still, each
suggestion I had basically had to pass a litmus test
to see if it would be considered. Admittedly, several
of these ideas were flawed, but some were not even
given the time of day. If that is the case, why
bother with playing?

Now, in the 2950 game, each nation has a role that is
set aside for it. So your strategy and goals are
basically preset. It all comes down to execution,
which is fine, but the learning curve is VERY steep
for new players. The result is that a new player will
get his tail handed to him, which is fine, but does
not make for a fun experience, and they will likely
not be back.

The logical extension of the team argument is to
basically agree on a strategy and execute it. Once
the players agree on this, they must execute the plan.
That is fine and good, but why not have one player
decide on all the orders (which is the most efficient
way to handle it), send them out to the team who them
plug them into AutoMagic and send them in? If that
makes sense, then why have the middleman? Why not
have one players do all the work for everyone? Then
if that makes sense, why not have two players face off
mano a mano?

That is why in my opinion it is necessary to push the
game MORE towards the alliance mode of play rather
than the current team mode of play. This will force
players out of their comfort zone and open up new
avenues of play. This makes for a more exciting game.
A more exciting game means that more NEW players will
be willing to put up with the steep learning curve.
That means more money for ME Games which is why they
run the games!

Just my humble .02, or maybe it was more like a
nickel.

John

[Harlequin_Games1]

1) As Ernie has proven, go back to a system where a
losing/neutral country can take second or third place.

Why would that help? Not sure how that would increase diplomacy, it would certainly change the game - encourage VCs hunting which most players don't like.

2) Give incentives to those players that finish 1,2,
and 3. Maybe it is a few turns credit, but make it
enough so that it is worth something to people to
actually finish at the top of the standings.

Who's going to pay for that! How much of a turn increase would you be happy to have? Turn increase would detriment the game as there's pretty much a direct correlation for turn cost to players playing.

This will help eliminate the "Alpha" player who says,
"We're doing X, you do Y, you do Z, and I'll take all
the glory doing A." Under the current system, players
basically say, "OK, we'll do it." If there are
incentives in place, someone might say, "No, you've
taken the last two cities, why do YOU need to be the
one to take it. I need it, and can make better use of
it for the team." This would add more dynamics to the
game.

Why not just give that pc to the player?

Now, if MEGames decides that they prefer more team
oriented games, they should do away with the standings
all together. After all, if this is a team game, who
really cares about the standings, right?

The PRS supports lots of different styles of "winning" from individual glory to team orientated play. We don't want to reward financially (or with picks if you get a high VC score for example as that means players cherry pick the nations that have big VC scoring potential).

I have to say that in my two games, I really prefer my
4th Age game to the 2950 game I am currently in. The
economies are about the same, but in 2950 the game is
basically on rails.

Happy that you enjoy one format. Most players enjoy one format over another so probably 1000 is your poison.

It is frustrating for me to see this game as something
that could be a whole lot more than it is. As it is,
I can think of several other games that I would prefer
to play that I can play by PBEM that do not take the
money this does.

Sure thing - we can't please everyone all of the time - we have to feed ourselves though. The usual argument I make here is that we don't make a lot of money from PBEM if we did then I think your comment would be fair.

Now, in the 2950 game, each nation has a role that is set aside for it. So your strategy and goals are basically preset.

For new players yes I'd agree - but the beauty of the game is that each nation can be played in many different ways. Some of them are not so good at achieving other aims (eg playing Fire King as an Agent nation isn't going to be particularly successful in most situations). 1650 is more suited to playing "outside the box" for early play than 2950 and 1000 more so. Each scenario has strengths and weaknesses.

  It all comes down to execution, which is fine, but the learning curve is VERY steep
for new players. The result is that a new player will get his tail handed to him, which is fine, but does
not make for a fun experience, and they will likely not be back.

We generally advise players to play Bofa first so that they can get a grip. Then 1650 (the nations are more robust in general and we specifically give players the nations that are suited to new players). Overall though it is your choice and we realise that the challenge of the game is big - but that's a big part of the fun. There's always more to learn.

The logical extension of the team argument is to
basically agree on a strategy and execute it.

Yes - that's what our team does for example. But there's still lots of individuality in the way the nations are played. For example in most games the Agent artefacts are often seen as a team-resource.

Once the players agree on this, they must execute the plan.

Well "must" is a bit strong but generally yes but there are many ways of implementing that plan and ways of doing it. Eg hitting Minas Ithil - how do that; who in the team is prepared to send what troops and characters to soften it up, who is prepared to finance the armies, send out Emmies to influence the enemy etc. Such things mean that any one situation is so fluid that it's hard to have any specific plan. if you're the sort of player who doesn't like fitting into a regimented format like that then don't play it - there are many other varieties of the game but some players do and we support that as we do your own individual desires as best we can.

That is fine and good, but why not have one player
decide on all the orders (which is the most efficient
way to handle it), send them out to the team who them
plug them into AutoMagic and send them in?

Big reasons. Firstly grudge games (the most extreme version of team games) are very hard to play and you're up against another team of experienced and co-ordinated players - much more so than normal games. If you like that then that's your poison. A fixed strategy is generally a losing strategy. My own experience of grudge games (been in a few now with different teams) is that lots of players play with different levels of "allocations" to the team and to their own positions. (Note I think allocating too much to the team is as bad as too little).

If that makes sense, then why have the middleman? Why not
have one players do all the work for everyone? Then
if that makes sense, why not have two players face off
mano a mano?

We do... Great fun - very hard though. My own experience is that you make more errors running all 12 nations than 12 individual nations (forget to Natsell was one biggy I did - wouldn't normally do i might add!) but have tighter reign on "da plan". Much more personal as well.

That is why in my opinion it is necessary to push the
game MORE towards the alliance mode of play rather
than the current team mode of play. This will force
players out of their comfort zone and open up new
avenues of play. This makes for a more exciting game.

Not sure how still. Firstly financial incentive outside the game won't really help (one or two free turns is hardly worth it compared with the amount of financial input you put into the game). VCs players generally don''t like them - there's been a big discussion about this in the past (check it out if you get time). So rewarding "selfish" and individual play is generally seen as a bad thing by the majority of players. Saying that the PRS system does give many different sorts of bragging rights... I know which sort of player I would like to be teamed up with in a game let's say.

I think you might be talking about what you'd like to see. I'm not sure specifically what that is but feel free to suggest improvements and I and others can discuss it. Other players, and this is something that comes across on the list, want different things. They like different styles of play, different ideas on how to achieve them, different levels of interaction and in different ways. Hence the 3 different formats of game (1000, 1650 and 2950) and different.

Given that I'm hoping that KinStrife will help out. Thanks for the comments though - a new players' viewpoint is essential for my understanding and I've taken it on board.
Clint

[Gavin_Wynford-Jones1]

Clint, you've just proved you're not getting the concept...

···

On 30 Sep 2005, at 18:54, ME Games Ltd wrote:

If there are
incentives in place, someone might say, "No, you've
taken the last two cities, why do YOU need to be the
one to take it. I need it, and can make better use of
it for the team." This would add more dynamics to the
game.

Why not just give that pc to the player?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]