ME One nation choices or paying more money for the same amount of turn.

mepbmlist
#1

On the one hand, I would be upset if I submitted my 3 preferences in the order I'd like to get them and get beat out for my first choice by someone who listed only one choice, because they only listed one choice. That would mean that my strategy to get the position I'd like should be to submit only one choice.

I agree - that's what I am trying to avoid. Players only putting one choice because they know that that's what they'll get if they do bumping out more-choice nations. The only way I can see to do that is some sort of charging system for players that only put in one choice, or go with the more draconion situation of ruling that at least 3 nations must be picked or that player can't play. (The worry with that is that a player might then not get his 1st choice so then drop as soon as the game has been set-up!)

I prefer changing the set-up pricing structure. Say anyone who does 5+ choices £3 set-up, 3-4 £5, 1-2 £8 (or some variant on that). Turn cost would remain the same. It would dissuade players (not stop them as I don't think that's easily achievable) from putting in minimal choices of nations.

The other option that seems interesting is to have a "you can't play Nation Y until you have played Nation X" type solution. Eg Nation Y would include; 7,9,10 for FP, 13,14,19,20 for DS, 21,22 for Neutrals in 1650 and Nation X would be any of the other. Note the particular types of Nation choices here are open for debate they're just my first feel for nations that are picked a lot and perceived to be power nations by players in general.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd really like to pay more for different positions.

Not even as a fixed one -off set-up cost?

When I was playing individual games, I tried to get positions I hadn't played before. Unfortunately, those positions were usually the poplular ones, so I still didn't get them.

Part of the reason I want players to give me multiple choices so that I can get players to play as wide a range of nations as possible.

Clint

#2

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...>
wrote:

I prefer changing the set-up pricing structure. Say anyone who does
5+choices £3 set-up, 3-4 £5, 1-2 £8 (or some variant on

that). Turn

cost would remain the same. It would dissuade players (not stop them
as I don't think that's easily achievable) from putting in minimal
choices of nations.

This is still allowing someone to buy the popular positions. I will
put 10 and 14 as my choices and pay a one time fee, woe is me.

This discourages nothing in my view and encourages those are willing
to pay more to keep a lock on the "more desired nations". For the
record, the money itself does not bother me or I would not be in 7
games presently. However, I don't think anyone should get
preferential treatment and no matter how much Clintonesque spin you
place on this idea it still boils down to "if you want to pay
extra you can have the nation you want." Hell, I did not even
know you would accept a request under 3 nations. This would be
especially bad for 2950 where the games fill quarterly

Steven

#3

True enough it's not a solution that I like either.

Clint

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...>
wrote:
>
>I prefer changing the set-up pricing structure. Say anyone who does
>5+choices £3 set-up, 3-4 £5, 1-2 £8 (or some variant on
that). Turn
>cost would remain the same. It would dissuade players (not stop them
>as I don't think that's easily achievable) from putting in minimal
>choices of nations.

This is still allowing someone to buy the popular positions. I will
put 10 and 14 as my choices and pay a one time fee, woe is me.

This discourages nothing in my view and encourages those are willing
to pay more to keep a lock on the "more desired nations". For the
record, the money itself does not bother me or I would not be in 7
games presently. However, I don't think anyone should get
preferential treatment and no matter how much Clintonesque spin you
place on this idea it still boils down to "if you want to pay
extra you can have the nation you want." Hell, I did not even
know you would accept a request under 3 nations. This would be
especially bad for 2950 where the games fill quarterly

Steven

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

****************************************************************
                    ME Games Ltd
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: EpicMail, PO Box 801, Wexford PA 15090-0801, USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if in the US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Fax: 1-503-296-2325 (preferred)
US Phone: 412 302 2505 EST 10-5 Weekdays
US alternate Fax: 775 535 2171 Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************

#4

Clint wrote: Players only putting one
choice because they know that that's what they'll get if they do bumping
out more-choice nations. The only way I can see to do that is some sort of
charging system for players that only put in one choice, or go with the
more draconion situation of ruling that at least 3 nations must be picked
or that player can't play. (The worry with that is that a player might
then not get his 1st choice so then drop as soon as the game has been
set-up!)

  RD: NO that's NOT the only way at all. There are two other solutions without imposing a two-tier pricing system or imposing draconian house rules, both of which you have been clearly told will result in players leaving ME.
  1) If you have sufficient info on your database, and you can do so without increasing prices, allocate popular nations as fairly as you can. Say 3 players have put White Wizard as their first choice (forget second/third choices in this case): if your records show that Fred has played White Wizard twice, John has played it once and Harry never, it should go to Harry.

  2) If you don't want to do 1) and again you have 3 players giving WW as first choice (again forget second/third choices) then simply put all the names in a hat and draw one out. This will even out over time.

  Either method is as fair as you can get, and if one or more of the losers in either case didn't give a second or third choice, well tough luck, he was given the opportunity to do so and he will now have to wait for the next game for another chance. Realistically some players are NEVER going to get to play WW but that is the case whatever system you use.

  Whichever nation I get to play, I'm paying for a potential 42 orders. This is the same for everybody and the price should be the same too.

  I prefer changing the set-up pricing structure. Say anyone who does 5+
  choices £3 set-up, 3-4 £5, 1-2 £8 (or some variant on that). Turn cost
  would remain the same. It would dissuade players (not stop them as I don't
  think that's easily achievable) from putting in minimal choices of nations.

  RD: That is far preferable to charging different prices for each nation on the basis of your (with respect) subjective opinion. But I still don't like it. What are you going to charge when clever Dick lists all 25 nations in order of preference - give him a refund? :slight_smile:

  The other option that seems interesting is to have a "you can't play Nation
  Y until you have played Nation X" type solution. Eg Nation Y would
  include; 7,9,10 for FP, 13,14,19,20 for DS, 21,22 for Neutrals in 1650 and
  Nation X would be any of the other. Note the particular types of Nation
  choices here are open for debate they're just my first feel for nations
  that are picked a lot and perceived to be power nations by players in general.

  RD: No, that is awful. It will put players' backs up and I can see some leaving if you do this. Players have all sorts of reasons for not wanting to play a particular nation (eg I've never wanted to play the Cloud Lord), and to tell them they've GOT to play it before they get a shot at one they want to play is unwarranted interference with players' freedom of choice.

  Players KNOW they are expected to submit a choice of 3 nations. If you are getting increasing numbers of players only submitting one choice, it looks to me as though some of those guys are simply trying to jump the queue. Harle has a duty to make sure that their chance of getting that nation is the same as that of the guy who listed that same nation first of three - no more and no less. This can be achieved by either of the methods above.

  Richard.
  >On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd really like to pay more for different
  >positions.

  Not even as a fixed one -off set-up cost?

  >When I was playing individual games, I tried to get positions I hadn't
  >played before. Unfortunately, those positions were usually the poplular
  >ones, so I still didn't get them.

  Part of the reason I want players to give me multiple choices so that I can
  get players to play as wide a range of nations as possible.

  Clint

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#5

  I prefer changing the set-up pricing structure. Say anyone who does 5+
  choices £3 set-up, 3-4 £5, 1-2 £8 (or some variant on that). Turn cost
  would remain the same. It would dissuade players (not stop them as I don't
  think that's easily achievable) from putting in minimal choices of nations.

  RD: That is far preferable to charging different prices for each nation on the basis of your (with respect) subjective opinion. But I still don't like it. What are you going to charge when clever Dick lists all 25 nations in order of preference - give him a refund? :slight_smile:

No that's covered by the 5+ .

  The other option that seems interesting is to have a "you can't play Nation
  Y until you have played Nation X" type solution. Eg Nation Y would
  include; 7,9,10 for FP, 13,14,19,20 for DS, 21,22 for Neutrals in 1650 and
  Nation X would be any of the other. Note the particular types of Nation
  choices here are open for debate they're just my first feel for nations
  that are picked a lot and perceived to be power nations by players in general.

  Players KNOW they are expected to submit a choice of 3 nations. If you are getting increasing numbers of players only submitting one choice, it looks to me as though some of those guys are simply trying to jump the queue. Harle has a duty to make sure that their chance of getting that nation is the same as that of the guy who listed that same nation first of three - no more and no less. This can be achieved by either of the methods above.

Is that what the rest of players think here? If so it means that I have to be more strict in future with such players.

Clint

#6

> Players KNOW they are expected to submit a choice of 3 nations. If you
> are getting increasing numbers of players only submitting one choice, it
> looks to me as though some of those guys are simply trying to jump the
> queue. Harle has a duty to make sure that their chance of getting that
> nation is the same as that of the guy who listed that same nation first
> of three - no more and no less. This can be achieved by either of the
> methods above.

Is that what the rest of players think here?

No, it's the direct opposite of what I think, as I have explained at
length. I loathe queue jumping, but this is not a case of it.

If so it means that I have to
be more strict in future with such players.

I play 5 positions 2x2 are in double nation pre-arranged team games, and I
play a 5th position in order to meet new people, do my bit for the newbies,
learn from old dogs, and to experiment with new strategic ideas for one
particular nation or another. When that game ends, I re-apply, and always
state that I do not mind how long I wait. If you told me I could no longer
play on the basis of that kind of application, I simply would not be
playing a 5th position. I'd be one more "experienced" player who _only_
plays in pre-arranged team games (aka grudge games).

I'd be paying you 36UKP per month instead of 45UKP per month. Maybe I
could spend the difference down the pub, as, as Richard pointed out I
clearly need to renew my knowledge of classic beers :wink:

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 18:07 27/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

#7

> Players KNOW they are expected to submit a choice of 3 nations. If you

  > > are getting increasing numbers of players only submitting one choice, it
  > > looks to me as though some of those guys are simply trying to jump the
  > > queue. Harle has a duty to make sure that their chance of getting that
  > > nation is the same as that of the guy who listed that same nation first
  > > of three - no more and no less. This can be achieved by either of the
  > > methods above.
  >
  >Is that what the rest of players think here?

  No, it's the direct opposite of what I think, as I have explained at
  length. I loathe queue jumping, but this is not a case of it.

  >If so it means that I have to
  >be more strict in future with such players.

  I play 5 positions 2x2 are in double nation pre-arranged team games, and I
  play a 5th position in order to meet new people, do my bit for the newbies,
  learn from old dogs, and to experiment with new strategic ideas for one
  particular nation or another. When that game ends, I re-apply, and always
  state that I do not mind how long I wait. If you told me I could no longer
  play on the basis of that kind of application, I simply would not be
  playing a 5th position. I'd be one more "experienced" player who _only_
  plays in pre-arranged team games (aka grudge games).

  I'd be paying you 36UKP per month instead of 45UKP per month. Maybe I
  could spend the difference down the pub, as, as Richard pointed out I
  clearly need to renew my knowledge of classic beers :wink:

  mefacesmo.gif
       Laurence G.Tilley
  RD: Laurence, I think you may be an exception here. Clint opened this debate by wondering why an increasing number of players were giving only one nation choice when applying for games.

  If you choose only one nation and are prepared to wait, I don't have a problem with that. I've done it myself. But when the number of players asking for one nation only starts to rise - presumably significantly otherwise why would Clint have mentioned it - one has to ask why.

  Are the increasing numbers made up of philanthropic seekers after knowledge like you and I?

  Or are they greedy b***s trying to jump the queue?

  We are entitled to ask the question!

  Richard.

  http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

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

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Laurence G. Tilley
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 12:33 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices or paying more money for the same amount of turn.

  At 18:07 27/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

#8

Well, OK, I accept all of that. Perhaps I'm giving people the "benefit of
the doubt" too much. But it still shouldn't be a problem.

Try gastro-enteritis. When you've called the doctor out in the middle of
the night, because you, and around you are quite convinced that you are
going to die, a smug GP will calmly tell you to drink lots of water, and
not to worry, because it's a "self limiting disease". This charming
doctorial phrase, though not at all reassuring at the time, means basically
that the bug behaves like seven devils in your gut until it's made you
purge every last atom from your system. Whereupon, it has nothing to feed
on, so it dies.

I suspect that "_greedy_ one nationism" if treated correctly will be a
"self limiting disease". If these folk are "greedy" and "queue jumping" in
their motivations, then provided that they are made to wait at the end of
the queue (along with those of us quite willing to be there) they'll surely
soon learn either better manners, or to give more options in order to play
sooner.

Nothing to worry about. (Though try not to think about the last but one
paragraph while you're eating your tea.)

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 20:02 28/11/2003, richard devereux wrote:

  RD: Laurence, I think you may be an exception here. Clint opened this
debate by wondering why an increasing number of players were giving only
one nation choice when applying for games.

  If you choose only one nation and are prepared to wait, I don't have a
problem with that. I've done it myself. But when the number of players
asking for one nation only starts to rise - presumably significantly
otherwise why would Clint have mentioned it - one has to ask why.

  Are the increasing numbers made up of philanthropic seekers after
knowledge like you and I?

  Or are they greedy b***s trying to jump the queue?

  We are entitled to ask the question!

#9

Well, OK, I accept all of that. Perhaps I'm giving people the "benefit of
  the doubt" too much. But it still shouldn't be a problem.

  Try gastro-enteritis. When you've called the doctor out in the middle of
  the night, because you, and around you are quite convinced that you are
  going to die, a smug GP will calmly tell you to drink lots of water, and
  not to worry, because it's a "self limiting disease". This charming
  doctorial phrase, though not at all reassuring at the time, means basically
  that the bug behaves like seven devils in your gut until it's made you
  purge every last atom from your system. Whereupon, it has nothing to feed
  on, so it dies.

  I suspect that "_greedy_ one nationism" if treated correctly will be a
  "self limiting disease". If these folk are "greedy" and "queue jumping" in
  their motivations, then provided that they are made to wait at the end of
  the queue (along with those of us quite willing to be there) they'll surely
  soon learn either better manners, or to give more options in order to play
  sooner.

  Nothing to worry about. (Though try not to think about the last but one
  paragraph while you're eating your tea.)

  mefacesmo.gif
       Laurence G.Tilley
  RD: Not worried about any of the above, only worried that Clint, with the best of intentions, may foul up the entire future of ME if he perseveres with the idea of introducing two-tier pricing system.

  As for gastro-entiritis, it never bothers me. I don't wish to brag about how much I drink - I know it's more than I'm supposed to -
  but the people I know who do get bugs are all tt. Funny that! Well it's damn good reason to drink alcohoho - well the season of goodwill is approaching - hol.
  Cheers!

  Richard.

  http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

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

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
                
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Laurence G. Tilley
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 9:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices or paying more money for the same amount of turn.

  At 20:02 28/11/2003, richard devereux wrote:
  > RD: Laurence, I think you may be an exception here. Clint opened this
  > debate by wondering why an increasing number of players were giving only
  > one nation choice when applying for games.
  >
  > If you choose only one nation and are prepared to wait, I don't have a
  > problem with that. I've done it myself. But when the number of players
  > asking for one nation only starts to rise - presumably significantly
  > otherwise why would Clint have mentioned it - one has to ask why.
  >
  > Are the increasing numbers made up of philanthropic seekers after
  > knowledge like you and I?
  >
  > Or are they greedy b***s trying to jump the queue?
  >
  > We are entitled to ask the question!