ME One nation choices

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

Timely question as I'm just trying to sign up five people to play in
  1650. One has played a couple of times and always the same nation and
  wants more of the same a second hasn't played in a few of years so we
  want a "safe" postion for him. The other three are more experienced
  but want to "round" off the team so as to leave no one of us too
  exposed. Currently negotiating with Clint.

  Lewis
  RD: I don't wish to sound rude, but why are you involving Clint at this stage? If you are putting together a team, you allocate the nations (taking your team-mates' preferences into account) and present Clint with the finished list of who is playing what.

  The good thing about this is that it removes any pretext for Clint to charge anybody on your team more money just because he gets the Noldo or Cloud Lord - you have actually done that part of his job for him.

  Clint, it strikes me as monstrously unfair that under any circumstances you charge more for one nation than another. Quite apart from putting players off, you are virtually saying: these nations are good, the rest are crap. Is that really how you want to present the game? You are making a subjective judgement that some nations are 'better' than others which could give rise to an unwinnable argument. Which is 'better' out of Woodmen or Northmen? Ice King or Fire King?

  I do understand the problem that when you open up a 2950 game you get fourteen people all wanting to play White Wizard and no volunteers for Rhun Easterlings. There are two ways of deciding this without charging more. One, you go through your records and pick somebody who hasn't played WW before ('Buggins' turn'). Two, you simply put all the names in a hat and the first name out gets WW. Either way is fair. If you're left with a dozen people who didn't give you a second or third choice of nation, tell them politely that they were unlucky this time - mention the odds were 14-1 against - and tell them they can either submit a second and third choice for the game you are setting up, or if WW is the only nation they will play, tell them they will have to wait until the next 2950 game for another chance, when the odds against them getting it are likely to be similar.

  When the game gets underway, the poor schmuck who put down Rhun Easterlings as his third choice will at least get a game. He is likely to be a lot happier than the WW-only losers!

  Richard.

  --- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Middle Earth Games" <me@M...>
  wrote:
  > At present I am getting more and more players asking for only
  nation.
  > What's the player take on this?
  >
  > Clint
  > ****************************************************************
  > ME Games Ltd
  > Mailto: me@M...
  > Website: www.MiddleEarthGames.com
  >
  > UK: Office A, 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP, UK
  > US: EpicMail, PO Box 801, Wexford PA 150909-0801, USA
  >
  > Phone times: 10am-6.30pm UK time (BST - British Standard Time); 5am-
  1.30pm
  > (EST)
  > UK: 029 2091 3359/ (029 2062-5665 can be used if the other is
  engaged) [Dial
  > Code: 011 44 2920. for US players]
  > UK Fax: 029 2062 5532
  >
  > US Phone: 412 302 2505 - 10-5 EST
  > US Fax:: 1-503-296-2325 (24hrs) (preferred)
  > US Fax: 775 535 2171 (fax24hrs) (Alternate)
  > ****************************************************************

        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: loodles9
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 8:33 AM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

[Harlequin_Games1]

- Let picky players wait. If someone is willing to
wait a year for the Cloud Lord, so be it.

Unfortunately this has an impact on everyone in the game as games will start more slowly for everyone. My estimate for 2950 with 5 "picky" players (nothing wrong with being picky as such btw) would be a delay of 3 weeks. On average 2950 games take 3 months to fill, so that's closer to 4 months.

- In games where people play two nations, pair popular
nations with less popular ones.

I've specifically done this with GB nations. Chris C designed the lion's share but I changed the 13/14 and 17/18 to 13/17 and 14/18 specifically for "player perceived strengths in nations. For 2950 WW is teamed up with QA both very strong and very weak.

- Give preference to players who haven't played a
given nation before.

Seems fair - hard to organise but fair.

- let people join in groups of 2-4 and have them
choose from the nations given.

Please explain more - I don't quite understand.

- ask for second and third choices for anyone
requesting a hot-ticket nation.

I do that already with the system I have but that doesn't stop players wanting say 10,14,21

Charging more for popular nations doesn't sit well
with me. They may not be more fun anyway (I've played
the Noldo only once, also with a GWC, and found it
less fun than a front-liner).

That's a personal style choice - one that I admire (only played Noldo once as a drop out) and it's not my style of nation either. But players do perceive it to be a strong nation (and rightly so you get to build up an awesome economy and character base which is "Safe" so players get more bang for their buck). Hence the popularity of Neutrals and the lack of popularity of such nations as Fire King (an awesome nation in my opinion) and North Gondor (ditto) (probably because they are very fixed in their "job" they have to do in the game).

I enjoy chatting about the various merits of the game and strengths and weaknesses of nations and would be happy to see and support this more on the list btw. I don't enjoy the bashing that we sometimes get (but it's pretty mild in comparison to most companies) - I don't find it constructive or even fun though. A well informed debate is much more valuable for all concerned I think.

Clint

[Harlequin_Games1]

We do that with must select 3 or more nations. BUT some players don't want to do even that.

Clint

···

At 08:19 26/11/03, you wrote:

My suggestion is a bit more work but why not specify a number of key nations
and if anyone wants to select them they MUST also select 2 others

So Noldo, Cloud Lord must select at least 2 others

Dark Lt, Long Rider must select at least 1 other

or some such

----- Original Message -----
From: "mike bateman" <mike_a_bateman@yahoo.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME One nation choices

> I'd bet the nations are Noldo, Cloud Lord, Long Rider,
> et al...
>
> Alot of us (myself included) dont get to play the high
> demand positions very often. We put down a mix of
> nations on the card, hoping that THIS time we will
> finally get to play the Cloud Lord. Unfortunately,
> when set ups arrive, we are once again playing the
> Fire King while the guy who was the Cloud Lord two
> games back is the Cloud Lord again. After a while it
> wears thin and you are ready to say "damnit, I want to
> play that position at least once!"
>
> Ask Brad Brunett where flexibilty with the neutral
> selections has gotten him...
>
> My thoughts,
>
> Mike
>
> --- Middle Earth Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
> wrote:
> > At present I am getting more and more players asking
> > for only nation.
> > What's the player take on this?
> >
> > Clint
> >
> ****************************************************************
> > ME Games Ltd
> > Mailto: me@MiddleEarthGames.com
> > Website: www.MiddleEarthGames.com
> >
> > UK: Office A, 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP,
> > UK
> > US: EpicMail, PO Box 801, Wexford PA 150909-0801,
> > USA
> >
> > Phone times: 10am-6.30pm UK time (BST - British
> > Standard Time); 5am-1.30pm
> > (EST)
> > UK: 029 2091 3359/ (029 2062-5665 can be used if the
> > other is engaged) [Dial
> > Code: 011 44 2920. for US players]
> > UK Fax: 029 2062 5532
> >
> > US Phone: 412 302 2505 - 10-5 EST
> > US Fax:: 1-503-296-2325 (24hrs) (preferred)
> > US Fax: 775 535 2171 (fax24hrs) (Alternate)
> >
> ****************************************************************
> >
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
>
> 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/
>

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
****************************************************************

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

I'm curious: what does the company do when this happens? Do the people who
  only give one nation Get that one nation, while others who follow "the
  rules" and give that selection amongst their list therefore get bumped? In
  other words, does the company simply "give in"...?

  I was under the impression that it was first come first serve with nation
  selections. The First Choice is slotted, and if it's already taken then
  down through the other's on the list until that player is awarded a nation
  "of his choosing". If None of those nations are available at the time that
  player signed up, does he/she/it recieve an email to this effect?

  There are a few players who claim they never get their top choice, and
  others that say they almost always get their top choice. I've gotten mine
  (when I give one) about 1/2 the time - fair enough, it 'seems'.

  I don't think a discussion surrounding Changing the process is necessarily
  fair when I don't believe we're well informed as to the current process.

  If the question were: Should we give in to the players who say "If I don't
  get XXXX then I'm not playing!"

  Then my answer would be: No.

  Brad Brunet
  RD: I second that, and would very much like to see an answer from Harle.

  Richard.

        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: Brad Brunet
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 3:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME One nation choices

  > At 16:43 25/11/2003, Middle Earth Games wrote:
  > >At present I am getting more and more players asking for only nation.
  > >What's the player take on this?

[Harlequin_Games1]

  If the question were: Should we give in to the players who say "If I don't
  get XXXX then I'm not playing!"

  Then my answer would be: No.

  Brad Brunet
  RD: I second that, and would very much like to see an answer from Harle.

That's what I am trying to get a policy on... At present I've rarely not been able to get players into a game with a few emails and compromises made. I have some players who will ONLY play certain nations (whether they be powerful ones or not). Ideally I would like to have every player send me a list of at least 3 nations that they are happy to play. It doesn't always work that way. Some players like to play a specific nation time and time again or want to try something very specific out (a prime is example is you in the Gunboat game!). If I can accomodate all such players then that's the ideal situation. How to do that is the question.

Clint

[gavin]

(Brad's Rhudaur nation - well you did say you were happy to play it! - is

an

exception to the rule I think).

Every game I've signed up for and said "Any Neutral" I've recieved Rhudaur.
That's a statement of fact, not a condemnation. 'Any Neutral' is,
essentially, a "list" of 5 nations in no particular order. Extremely
flexible, no? Advise Laurence, however tongue-in-cheek that I'm not
"whining" (or is that "whinging" in the UK..I keep forgetting... )
about it, I'm simply surprised that every time they've actually had someone
put down the Easterlings! Honestly, I'm happier playing Rhudaur then the
Easterlings, and always look forward to eliminating the hated Easterlings
with my beloved Arfanhil! (done it a couple times now!).

In regards to my question in a previous message: "How are nations alloted
now?" Well, I'm not sure how else to say it. When a game is starting to
fill, what is the process by which MEGames recieves emails, assigns nations,
etc. When there are 12 nations left...are they specific 12 nations or is it
a matter of already having 13 players, and 12 more "players" are needed,
nation assignment to happen when 25 "players" are recieved? Is there any
internal procedure such that the first person who asks for the Cloud Lord
gets it, the next guy is stuck with his 2nd choice, and on?

Here's an test case example. I sign up as the 1st player to ask for the new
game, and I ask for 14, 19, 20. Laurence signs up next and asks for 14, 19,
20. Richard chimes in and wants 14, 19, 20. As far as I'm concerned, I get
14, Laurence gets 19, and Richard gets 20. Now, what happens if Ed signs up
and wants 14, 19, 20?

Thanks,

Brad Brunet

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

- Let picky players wait. If someone is willing to

  >wait a year for the Cloud Lord, so be it.

  Unfortunately this has an impact on everyone in the game as games will
  start more slowly for everyone. My estimate for 2950 with 5 "picky"
  players (nothing wrong with being picky as such btw) would be a delay of 3
  weeks. On average 2950 games take 3 months to fill, so that's closer to 4
  months.

  >- In games where people play two nations, pair popular
  >nations with less popular ones.

  I've specifically done this with GB nations. Chris C designed the lion's
  share but I changed the 13/14 and 17/18 to 13/17 and 14/18 specifically for
  "player perceived strengths in nations. For 2950 WW is teamed up with QA
  both very strong and very weak.

  >- Give preference to players who haven't played a
  >given nation before.

  Seems fair - hard to organise but fair.

  >- let people join in groups of 2-4 and have them
  >choose from the nations given.

  Please explain more - I don't quite understand.

  >- ask for second and third choices for anyone
  >requesting a hot-ticket nation.

  I do that already with the system I have but that doesn't stop players
  wanting say 10,14,21

  >Charging more for popular nations doesn't sit well
  >with me. They may not be more fun anyway (I've played
  >the Noldo only once, also with a GWC, and found it
  >less fun than a front-liner).

  That's a personal style choice - one that I admire (only played Noldo once
  as a drop out) and it's not my style of nation either. But players do
  perceive it to be a strong nation (and rightly so you get to build up an
  awesome economy and character base which is "Safe" so players get more bang
  for their buck). Hence the popularity of Neutrals and the lack of
  popularity of such nations as Fire King (an awesome nation in my opinion)
  and North Gondor (ditto) (probably because they are very fixed in their
  "job" they have to do in the game).

  I enjoy chatting about the various merits of the game and strengths and
  weaknesses of nations and would be happy to see and support this more on
  the list btw. I don't enjoy the bashing that we sometimes get (but it's
  pretty mild in comparison to most companies) - I don't find it constructive
  or even fun though. A well informed debate is much more valuable for all
  concerned I think.

  Clint

  Quite right. Regarding nation choice, I generally play with the same 'core' team of 4-5 players and others who come and go (and sometimes even come back!). Some of us like to play 2 nations. We usually play pre-aligned neutrals. With this combination, I usually have no problem allocating nations to players. I try to ensure that solo players get strong nations which can survive on their own. With the paired nations, I try to give at least one first or second-choice nation (which keeps the player happy) plus a weaker 'natural' partner. This worked a treat - except for me!

  The disadvantage was that last time (because nobody else wanted them) I got lumbered with Ice King and Fire King. Having been stuck with them I made the (boring) obvious opening moves to prevent a FP breakthrough in the Ithil Pass. After that, I enjoyed myself more and more as the game went on. I exploited FK's ability to hire army at no cost at 'mushroom' pops behind enemy lines; I had the best combat spell in the game at my disposal; not only did I defeat enemy armies, I had an assassin in train so I nobbled the enemy commander as well; anyway the point of this is that nations which initially appear undesirable can be great fun.
  Especially if your team is winning!

  Richard.

        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: Middle Earth PBM Games
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 6:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME One nation choices

[Harlequin_Games1]

In regards to my question in a previous message: "How are nations alloted
now?" Well, I'm not sure how else to say it. When a game is starting to
fill, what is the process by which MEGames recieves emails, assigns nations,
etc. When there are 12 nations left...are they specific 12 nations or is it
a matter of already having 13 players, and 12 more "players" are needed,
nation assignment to happen when 25 "players" are recieved? Is there any
internal procedure such that the first person who asks for the Cloud Lord
gets it, the next guy is stuck with his 2nd choice, and on?

It's hard to explain by email. Basically I allocate nations that only one player want. Then I split the nations into mostly FP, DS and Neutral. I look to see which seem to be over-subscribed and start to move them into the ones with less players, looking to put player's primary choices in. Muddle around moving player and nations around for a while and that usually gets all the 25 fixed. Sometimes it's obvious what the situation is.

Eg I might get a short list of these as Neutrals.
Player 1 wants 25,24,23,22,21
Player 2 wants 25,23,24,22
Player 3 wants 24,23,22
Player 4 wants 21,19,18,20,22,24,25,23,etc
Player 5 wants 25,23

I would probably end up with (there not being any combination that I can see where someone has to have a worse that 2nd choice):
P1 24 (2nd choice)
P2 25 (1st choice)
P3 22 (3rd choice)
P4 21 (1st choice)
P5 23 (2nd choice)

(Generally I'd spend more time on this but it's quick example which shows the general methodology).

Here's an test case example. I sign up as the 1st player to ask for the new
game, and I ask for 14, 19, 20. Laurence signs up next and asks for 14, 19,
20. Richard chimes in and wants 14, 19, 20. As far as I'm concerned, I get
14, Laurence gets 19, and Richard gets 20. Now, what happens if Ed signs up
and wants 14, 19, 20?

I'll contact you all for more nation choices. I don't do first come first serve so each of you would be as likely to get the CL in this situation (or any of the others once the CL was allocated).

Clint

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

That's what I am trying to get a policy on... At present I've rarely
  not been able to get players into a game with a few emails and compromises
  made. I have some players who will ONLY play certain nations (whether they
  be powerful ones or not). Ideally I would like to have every player send
  me a list of at least 3 nations that they are happy to play. It doesn't
  always work that way. Some players like to play a specific nation time and
  time again or want to try something very specific out (a prime is example
  is you in the Gunboat game!). If I can accomodate all such players then
  that's the ideal situation. How to do that is the question.

  Clint

  RD: Guilty as charged. Mitigating circumstances: that's the ONLY time in more than a decade of play that I've asked for a specific nation AND I would happily have waited for a vacancy had my specified nation been taken. I'm pretty sure I said that at the time.
  If you'd said to me 'No' I would have accepted it. Hell, there are always other games to play in, and I'm sure my team would accommodate me with that particular nation (especially if it was me doing the allocating :-).

  What I would not have accepted is if you had said, ok Richard you can have any nation you want, but it's going to cost you a tenner instead of the usual four. I would have told you - forgive the expression - get stuffed!

  I do not want to see ME become an auction where only the rich guys get the best nations. Please keep nation distribution as fair and equitable as possible and NOT because one guy is willing to pay a tenner when the rest are not.

  Richard.

        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: Middle Earth PBM Games
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 7:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME One nation choices

  > If the question were: Should we give in to the players who say "If I don't
  > get XXXX then I'm not playing!"
  >
  > Then my answer would be: No.
  >
  > Brad Brunet
  > RD: I second that, and would very much like to see an answer from Harle.

[Harlequin_Games1]

made the (boring) obvious opening moves to prevent a FP breakthrough in the Ithil Pass. After that, I enjoyed myself more and more as the game went on. I exploited FK's ability to hire army at no cost at 'mushroom' pops behind enemy lines; I had the best combat spell in the game at my disposal; not only did I defeat enemy armies, I had an assassin in train so I nobbled the enemy commander as well; anyway the point of this is that nations which initially appear undesirable can be great fun.
  Especially if your team is winning!

Part of what I think GSI did right (and don't tell them I said!) is that they got an excellent team game. So around HALF the players win the game - cool or what? Excellent marketing idea that...

Clint

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

Wow Brad, that's managed to twist the issue just as far as it is possible
to twist it! Have you never heard of consumer choice?

There seems to be an issue here of people sheepishly giving 3 choices, then
grumbling that they get their third choice, and then resenting those who
actually sought to exercise consumer choice.

Typically in my experience, a request is not worded "If I don't get XXXX
then I'm not playing!" but "If a XXXX position is available, then I'd like
another game please. I don't mind waiting." There is an enormous
difference in both spirit and intent. Your skew on the situation suggests
a desire to push other players out of the way, when in fact such a request
should be no problem, provided it is accompanied by a willingness to wait
at the back of the queue.

You will have to accept I'm afraid, that whilst you might not be too fussed
about what nation you play, there are others, who only want to play (and
pay money) if they can play a specific nation.

If you want a pint of Marston's Old Peculiar, don't ask the landlord for a
pint of anything. If you're just desperate for a drink, take what he gives
you, but don't moan about it when you end up with a can of Fosters.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 15:52 26/11/2003, Brad Brunet wrote:

If the question were: Should we give in to the players who say "If I don't
get XXXX then I'm not playing!"

Then my answer would be: No.

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

Either will do, and we've lots of other synonyms too. You are a special
case though Brad, so you cannot be applied to the discussion. We have
become used to you being Rhudar in all games. Things just would not be the
same if you weren't there

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 20:06 26/11/2003, Brad Brunet wrote:

Every game I've signed up for and said "Any Neutral" I've recieved Rhudaur.
That's a statement of fact, not a condemnation. 'Any Neutral' is,
essentially, a "list" of 5 nations in no particular order. Extremely
flexible, no? Advise Laurence, however tongue-in-cheek that I'm not
"whining" (or is that "whinging" in the UK..I keep forgetting... )

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

Nope I chat to the players concerned a lot - sometimes I say no and the 1
nation guys get bumped to the next game. Mostly we can come to a happy
middle ground whereby players get a nation they want to play.

No problem then. Not sure that you should even be asking us, unless you
just wanted to wind us all up a bit!

There will always be players who don't mind what position, players who
could give 7 or 3 preferences, and players who only want to play when a
certain position comes available. Provided you deal with them in that order
of priority, then that's fine.

The answer for people who want quicker startups, is give more choices. The
answer for people who want to wait, but still want quicker startups, is to
play an "any nation" game while you patiently move up the 5 year waiting
list for the White Wizard.

The answer for those who resent the fact that others like to exercise
choice, and think that everyone should be beaten into uniformity, is not
suitable to be printed here. Deny people choice, and you will find that
many of them will simply not pay - and that means even slower startups.

(Brad's
Rhudaur nation - well you did say you were happy to play it! - is an
exception to the rule I think).

Yes, but we like it that way! He's da man! Da Rhudar Man!

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 17:47 26/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

[Harlequin_Games1]

Nope - not interested in doing that - too easy.. Seriously I am trying to find a better method of getting the most of the game and in particular setting up the game fairly.

Clint

···

At 17:47 26/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
>Nope I chat to the players concerned a lot - sometimes I say no and the 1
>nation guys get bumped to the next game. Mostly we can come to a happy
>middle ground whereby players get a nation they want to play.

No problem then. Not sure that you should even be asking us, unless you
just wanted to wind us all up a bit!

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

But above you say "Mostly we can come to a happy middle ground whereby
players get a nation they want to play." So there's not much room for
improvement is there.

I suspect tht you've been provoked into over-reaction here by perhaps just
one individual or group who are having to wait for their game to
start. Whilst I've just replied to you a few times about how you need to
keep you customers happy, you obviously need to be careful - above you
suggest that most people are happy with the way you handle it already. A
major change in arrangements then does not seem to be a sensible
gamble. Sometimes it can be a case of _how many_ players you cause to go
off and play "Trolls in their Holes"

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 02:34 27/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

>At 17:47 26/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
> >Nope I chat to the players concerned a lot - sometimes I say no and the 1
> >nation guys get bumped to the next game. Mostly we can come to a happy
> >middle ground whereby players get a nation they want to play.
>
>No problem then. Not sure that you should even be asking us, unless you
>just wanted to wind us all up a bit!

Nope - not interested in doing that - too easy.. Seriously I am trying
to find a better method of getting the most of the game and in particular
setting up the game fairly.

[Harlequin_Games1]

Sometimes it can be a case of _how many_ players you cause to go
off and play "Trolls in their Holes"

Actually it's "Trolls Bottom" - very bad game (but it got me into PBM!) I am pretty happy with the way we treat our players. Those who don't like it - well there's little we can do in most cases other than bow to their pressure which I think would be bad for the game. So working out when input is valid is what I am looking for - I quite like Dan's suggestion..

"1) Players list nations they want to play. Could be one, could be five - as many as they want.
That's all from the Players' side.

Then ME Games assigns them by: starting with the #1 choices. Any one asking for a
nation that no one else has put first gets it. When two or more players list the same nation as
anyone else, preference goes to players who haven't done that nation before.
When there's still several vying for that nation, it is randomly assigned to one."

There's a few problems I can see with it but I was hoping to get some player feedback before I commented.

Clint

[gavin]

I'll contact you all for more nation choices. I don't do first come

first

serve so each of you would be as likely to get the CL in this situation

(or

any of the others once the CL was allocated).

Clint

This is all excellent news. If it were first come first serve, then most
would expect that the "good" nations were taken by the time your advertised
games had reached 10 or more positions filled. Instead, the MEG's
hand-moderated game-filling method allows for even the late joiners to have
equal chance at the Cloud Lord, or whichever other nation they prefer.

Thanks for your detailed response.

Brad Brunet

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>

[gavin]

>If the question were: Should we give in to the players who say "If I

don't

>get XXXX then I'm not playing!"
>
>Then my answer would be: No.

Wow Brad, that's managed to twist the issue just as far as it is possible
to twist it!

For the sake of clarity I simplified an extreme case. You've managed to
twist that farther than you accuse me of.... Apologies if you're writing in
jest, but I can't read it, sorry.

Have you never heard of consumer choice?

Silly this... I live in Canada, not Laos, please don't patronize.

There seems to be an issue here of people sheepishly giving 3 choices,

then

grumbling that they get their third choice, and then resenting those who
actually sought to exercise consumer choice.

You appear to have selectively assembled an erroneous conclusion based on
the discussion to this point..

People aren't "sheepishly" doing anything, they're simply following the
policies as they understand them.

One person mentioned that he's "Never" gotten his first choice at the same
time noticed that others seem to be able to get those nations
repeatedly....how does a "fair and equitable" system explain that? I'll
note that I don't recall seeing a direct response to that accusation. Feel
free to correct me if I'm wrong.

And finally, most all would agree that if there is a queue, it is a queue,
and queue-jumpers are behaving in a anti-social manner. If anyone is
perceived as being sheepish here, it can only potentially be MEGames for
bowing before the assertiveness/arrogance of the queue jumpers. You call it
"consumer choice". The problem is it's manageability, and isn't that what
the thread is all about?

Instead of heaping abuse on a different perspective, why not try to
understand it?

An example: Retail Store A has a couple cashiers at the front where I have
to line up to pay. Retail Store B has manned cash machines dispersed
throughout the various departments such that I'm able to pay for my wares
within 25 feet of virtually any rack of goods in the store. B costs more.
I exercise my consumer choice by choosing which store to shop at.

Clint's issue is as such: We have the line up at the front, but we still
get people standing around in the various departments saying "I'm not going
to the front.". Now, I don't care how polite or impolite Bill or Ted may
be, Clint's dilemna is how does he please that customer, but also not ignore
the normal folks lining up at the front like they're "supposed to".

There have been various thoughts expressed as to how MEGames
can/should/could fill games. In regards to the guy holding his putter in
sporting goods and refusing to line up, we've had the various solutions
expressed:

1) Advise the clientele there is a line up for regular purchases, but for a
premium "first class" customers get "front of the line" service.
2) Advise the hold-out that we'll do our best, but you might not get served
until after closing time and the line up has completely gone.
3) Advise the hold-out that he won't get served and either he gets in line
or goes away.

I believe you're extremely polite customer is in the category of number 2.
Isn't that the status quo? Mind you, upon reflection, I'm not sure what the
status quo is in regards to this issue, nor do I fully understand why 1
person only picking 1 nation delays a game filling by weeks. In fact, I
don't think I understand what this thread is about at all anymore. But
since I put so much effort into this reply, I'll send it off anyway...

If you want a pint of Marston's Old Peculiar, don't ask the landlord for a
pint of anything. If you're just desperate for a drink, take what he

gives

you, but don't moan about it when you end up with a can of Fosters.

Personally, I'm not whining that the world is so unfair in regards to my own
personal Rhudaur situation. It's simply curious. It just is - especially
as Clint says Rhudaur is actually more popular than I've always expected,
then it's a bizarre coincidence that I keep getting it. Here's another
case: in my current Rhudaur game, another neutral told me he actually had
Rhudaur selected, in his list, Ahead of the nation he ended up with! I
asked for "any neutral" and got the nation he wanted, he got a choice
further down the list. An administrative error that's to be expected in
such an intensive hand-moderated system or should my persecution complex be
bumped up to Code Yellow? Who's to say, I don't really care. I'm not
complaining, I'm simply pointing out the "curious" things that happen in
this world. Mind you, it's also some of my motivation behind asking Clint
exactly how nations are alloted - because regardless of the "system" being
followed, that sort of thing, like the guy who says he never get's his
first-choice Cloudy when Bill always does, doesn't make sense to me.

Cheers,

Brad Brunet, off to the Coach and Four for a pint of Fosters where he'll
plan Broggha's latest coup attempt in Cameth Brin

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>

At 15:52 26/11/2003, Brad Brunet wrote:

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

One person mentioned that he's "Never" gotten his first choice at the same
time noticed that others seem to be able to get those nations
repeatedly....how does a "fair and equitable" system explain that? I'll
note that I don't recall seeing a direct response to that accusation. Feel
free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Perhaps "sheepish" was a bit strong then, but I'll still go so far as to
suggest he was being, what shall we say "overly meek"? The point is, that
Clint is reasonable, and tries to accommodate people. If he'd have pointed
out that he strongly preferred one nation, or that he'd had his lower
choice twice in a row already, then I doubt very much that Clint would have
rewarded him with RhE

And finally, most all would agree that if there is a queue, it is a queue,
and queue-jumpers are behaving in a anti-social manner.

Firstly, it isn't a queue. That's the point, and probably why there's been
a misunderstanding. The allocation system is flexible, "hand moderated",
friendly, and designed to try to please most players most of the
time. It's always been like that (at least in the 10 years I've been
playing in the UK under GAD, Allsorts, Harlequin.) If you make a
reasonable request, the GM tries to fit you to that nation, if he
can. Sometimes it means a very long wait, and that's fair enough.

If anyone is
perceived as being sheepish here, it can only potentially be MEGames for
bowing before the assertiveness/arrogance of the queue jumpers.

It's not a queue, therefore cannot be jumped. In pre-arranged team games,
this issue is resolved by the players, and I've seen it done many times,
always friendly. If someone desperately wants to play ClL because he's
never played it before, he says so. If someone else thinks ClL should
definitely only be played by an experienced player, he says so, and it's
resolved by discussions. I've seen some fallings out in my time, but not
over this. Clint is trying to satisfy most requests in the same kind of
manner. But you do need to speak up, and say what you feel, not just be
"overly meek" then resent the nation you're given.

You call it
"consumer choice". The problem is it's manageability, and isn't that what
the thread is all about?

No. It's about a vocal desire by an individual, or small group, to get
open games to start faster. That individual or group, seem to think that
other fee paying individuals who are choosy, but willing to wait, should
conform, so that their games start faster.

The system is already manageable. Attempting to coerce waiting players
into earlier games playing nations they don't want, is simply not going to
work.

Wait patiently for the nations you want, or give a list, or offer to play
any, or take a standby position to get playing within days. Each option
gives you more control, but you have to be more patient. But it's your
choice, please don't try to tell others what nations they can or can't play
for the sake of your convenience.

Instead of heaping abuse on a different perspective, why not try to
understand it?

No abuse used or intended.

An example: Retail Store A has a couple cashiers at the front where I have
to line up to pay. Retail Store B has manned cash machines dispersed
throughout the various departments such that I'm able to pay for my wares
within 25 feet of virtually any rack of goods in the store. B costs more.
I exercise my consumer choice by choosing which store to shop at.

Clint's issue is as such: We have the line up at the front, but we still
get people standing around in the various departments saying "I'm not going
to the front.". Now, I don't care how polite or impolite Bill or Ted may
be, Clint's dilemna is how does he please that customer, but also not ignore
the normal folks lining up at the front like they're "supposed to".

There have been various thoughts expressed as to how MEGames
can/should/could fill games. In regards to the guy holding his putter in
sporting goods and refusing to line up, we've had the various solutions
expressed:

1) Advise the clientele there is a line up for regular purchases, but for a
premium "first class" customers get "front of the line" service.
2) Advise the hold-out that we'll do our best, but you might not get served
until after closing time and the line up has completely gone.
3) Advise the hold-out that he won't get served and either he gets in line
or goes away.

I believe you're extremely polite customer is in the category of number 2.

It's not a queue, that notion is why you're getting roused here. In a
queue everybody wants the same basic thing - service for whatever it is
they're buying, and they know when joining the queue that they'll be
allowed to have exactly what's in their basket, when they reach its
end. The expression of conflicting choice and its resolution is more
complex. But if your model were accurate, I guess, yes, I am 2 (only for
one of the 5 positions I play though). ASFAIK other players who have asked
for one nation are the same, and if they're not, if they're rude about it,
or say they're not willing to accept a possibly long wait, then I would
hope that Clint gives them, short shrift.

Isn't that the status quo? Mind you, upon reflection, I'm not sure what the
status quo is in regards to this issue, nor do I fully understand why 1
person only picking 1 nation delays a game filling by weeks.

That's right. I'm afraid we're all on a bit of a wild goose chase here,
and have followed a false trail initiated by a vocal individual or small
group. The root of the problem, I think, is misunderstanding, and a taking
of the "please list your choice of three nations" as if it's a rule rather
than a request.

Personally, I'm not whining that the world is so unfair in regards to my own
personal Rhudaur situation. It's simply curious. It just is - especially
as Clint says Rhudaur is actually more popular than I've always expected,
then it's a bizarre coincidence that I keep getting it.

You've done such a good PR job for it that everyone wants to play it now

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 09:10 27/11/2003, Brad Brunet wrote:

[Gavin_Wynford-Jones]

The list is relatively quiet for quite a while and then... 120 messages in
24 hours?!?

Geez, thanks, guys...

Gavin