ME One nation choices

Blue_Knight · November 26, 2003, 4:19am

Clint this is probably due to some people not getting the hard to get nation
like Noldo or Cloud lord -- seems like a couple nation are hard to get and i
don't know how many times i played the easy one that is is refreshing to play
either the Noldo or Cloud Lord !! The last time i remember getting -- let say
the Cloud lord when i had it as one of my picks -- was well never -- last time
i played Cloud lord got it with a winners cert.

Mike

At present I am getting more and more players asking for only nation.
What's the player take on this?

Clint

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

Harlequin_Games1 · November 26, 2003, 4:46am

Actually I've found this not necessarily to be the case. Players send me one nation choices for many different types of nations.

In 2950 I always get 6-8 players wanting primarily Neutrals. 1000 games I always get more Neutrals than is best for the game (so now am limiting that).

In all scenarios I do get a wide choice - but some players like to play the power nations (eg Corsair for the 5th time in a row that sort of thing), and others are happy with any nations; mostly not one they've played before.

WW in 2950 I get around 14 players for each game that I actually set-up. Noldo or CL around 7 players. For each game it's virtually impossible to fill Eothraim or North Gondor (unless a group of players join together and realise that these are essential FP nations and need to be played strongly etc).

One thought is charging more for players who only choose one nation. What do players think of that? It would dissuade players asking for such specific nations - making it easier to fill games. What about pricing each nation differently? (Not sure if we can do that but it's an interesting thought). (Other PBMs have a charge per order so effectively this would be similar to that but for popular nations).

The WK is actually a popular nation - it's powerful impact on the game and great characters mean that players like the challenge of it. Unlike the Rhun Easterlings (always the least popular Neutral in 2950).

What's the purpose of this? Well just chucking out some thoughts and seeing what I get back.

Clint

···

Clint this is probably due to some people not getting the hard to get nation
like Noldo or Cloud lord -- seems like a couple nation are hard to get and i
don't know how many times i played the easy one that is is refreshing to play
either the Noldo or Cloud Lord !! The last time i remember getting -- let say
the Cloud lord when i had it as one of my picks -- was well never -- last time
i played Cloud lord got it with a winners cert.

Mike

> At present I am getting more and more players asking for only nation.
> What's the player take on this?
>
> Clint
>

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

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

jasonab · November 26, 2003, 5:36am

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

One thought is charging more for players who only choose one nation. What do players think of that? It would dissuade players asking for such specific nations - making it easier to fill games. What about pricing each nation differently? (Not sure if we can do that but it's an interesting

It might be difficult, but maybe you could charge players more to play the popular nations repeatedly?

So, if a player always wants the Rhun or NG, that's fine, but taking the Noldo/CL/WW/Corsairs all the time costs more (maybe look at the last 5 nations played per player per scenario?)

That would also force players to cycle nations, allowing more people to play the "cool" ones.

jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

R.K.Floyd · November 26, 2003, 7:24am

I find this all a bit odd. I always list 3 choices when I sign up for a
2950 neutral and I almost always get my first choice. Let's see, I'm
Corsairs and Khand currently . . . had a Corsairs game last year . . and I
had White Wizard the game before that. I'm not complaining mind you!
I'm about ready for a round of Dunlendings.

I will admit that I have never listed Rhun as one of my 3 neutral choices.
Rhun would improve a lot if simply given a second major town. . . And if it
were moved further south so as to benefit from a better climate and hills
and rough production. While you're at it, change its name to "Khand" and
you'll have a fabulous neutral to play.

-Russ

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME One nation choices

Actually I've found this not necessarily to be the case. Players send me
one nation choices for many different types of nations.

In 2950 I always get 6-8 players wanting primarily Neutrals. 1000 games I
always get more Neutrals than is best for the game (so now am limiting

that).

In all scenarios I do get a wide choice - but some players like to play

the

power nations (eg Corsair for the 5th time in a row that sort of thing),
and others are happy with any nations; mostly not one they've played

before.

WW in 2950 I get around 14 players for each game that I actually
set-up. Noldo or CL around 7 players. For each game it's virtually
impossible to fill Eothraim or North Gondor (unless a group of players

join

together and realise that these are essential FP nations and need to be
played strongly etc).

One thought is charging more for players who only choose one nation. What
do players think of that? It would dissuade players asking for such
specific nations - making it easier to fill games. What about pricing

each

nation differently? (Not sure if we can do that but it's an interesting
thought). (Other PBMs have a charge per order so effectively this would

be

similar to that but for popular nations).

The WK is actually a popular nation - it's powerful impact on the game and
great characters mean that players like the challenge of it. Unlike the
Rhun Easterlings (always the least popular Neutral in 2950).

What's the purpose of this? Well just chucking out some thoughts and
seeing what I get back.

Clint

>Clint this is probably due to some people not getting the hard to get

nation

>like Noldo or Cloud lord -- seems like a couple nation are hard to get

and i

>don't know how many times i played the easy one that is is refreshing to

play

>either the Noldo or Cloud Lord !! The last time i remember getting -- let

say

>the Cloud lord when i had it as one of my picks -- was well never -- last
>time
>i played Cloud lord got it with a winners cert.
>
> Mike
>
> > At present I am getting more and more players asking for only nation.
> > What's the player take on this?
> >
> > Clint
> >
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>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
****************************************************************

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/

Laurence_G_Tilley · November 26, 2003, 8:08am

TERRIBLE idea. You'd have to waive it for pre-arranged team games, or have
whole teams share the cost. It's already very expensive to play IMO. Few
people are too happy about the surcharging for little extras like special
setups. Games which charge per order, are fundamentally unfair, therefore
anyone who plays them IMO is a fool - you might as well just play the game
of Real Life if you want to gain advantage by having more money. And
finally, if people pay more for certain nations, they'll think they have a
greater right to play for themselves instead of for the allegiance - it
would be a huge step backwards for those of us who try to encourage team play.

In summary, if you want to lose customers, I can hardly think of a better way.

mefacesmo.gif
Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 04:46 26/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

One thought is charging more for players who only choose one nation. What
do players think of that? It would dissuade players asking for such
specific nations - making it easier to fill games. What about pricing each
nation differently? (Not sure if we can do that but it's an interesting
thought). (Other PBMs have a charge per order so effectively this would be
similar to that but for popular nations).

Urzahil1 · November 26, 2003, 8:30am

I think this would be great, but the problem is that it requires someone
to do the bookkeeping. MeGames would have to keep these records (which
they probably do), and then sort through them all each time they set up
a new game. I'm not certain how much more difficult this would be, but
it would undoubtedly make more work.

IF it were easily done, I would suggest keeping 1650 & 2950 records in
every player's file that just listed the number of times they played
each nation. So, a player's file might say:

1650:
1-4
11-3
15-1
18-1
25-3

Using this data, any nation that is desired by more than one person
during game setup would be given to the player with the LOWEST number of
previous plays for that nation.

But reading back, I see that this wasn't really the question Clint
asked. As to allowing someone to put in for ONLY one nation, I think
that should only be allowed IF that player has not EVER played that
particular nation before. Otherwise, they should be told they need 3
choices, like most people do. (Of course, this brings us back to the
question of who will keep and sort through these records.)

Mike Mulka

From: Jason Bennett [mailto:jasonab@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:36 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME One nation choices

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

One thought is charging more for players who only choose one nation.

What

do players think of that? It would dissuade players asking for such
specific nations - making it easier to fill games. What about

pricing

each

nation differently? (Not sure if we can do that but it's an

interesting

It might be difficult, but maybe you could charge players more to play
the popular nations repeatedly?

So, if a player always wants the Rhun or NG, that's fine, but taking

the

···

-----Original Message-----
Noldo/CL/WW/Corsairs all the time costs more (maybe look at the last 5
nations played per player per scenario?)

That would also force players to cycle nations, allowing more people to
play the "cool" ones.

jason

Richard_DEVEREUX1 · November 26, 2003, 10:18am

Actually I've found this not necessarily to be the case. Players send me
one nation choices for many different types of nations.

In 2950 I always get 6-8 players wanting primarily Neutrals. 1000 games I
always get more Neutrals than is best for the game (so now am limiting that).

  In all scenarios I do get a wide choice - but some players like to play the
  power nations (eg Corsair for the 5th time in a row that sort of thing),
  and others are happy with any nations; mostly not one they've played before.

  WW in 2950 I get around 14 players for each game that I actually
  set-up. Noldo or CL around 7 players. For each game it's virtually
  impossible to fill Eothraim or North Gondor (unless a group of players join
  together and realise that these are essential FP nations and need to be
  played strongly etc).

  One thought is charging more for players who only choose one nation. What
  do players think of that? It would dissuade players asking for such
  specific nations - making it easier to fill games. What about pricing each
  nation differently? (Not sure if we can do that but it's an interesting
  thought). (Other PBMs have a charge per order so effectively this would be
  similar to that but for popular nations).

  The WK is actually a popular nation - it's powerful impact on the game and
  great characters mean that players like the challenge of it. Unlike the
  Rhun Easterlings (always the least popular Neutral in 2950).

What's the purpose of this? Well just chucking out some thoughts and
seeing what I get back.

Clint
It is a BAD idea to charge more for popular positions. You will simply put people off. You will lose players because by definition most players want to play the popular positions.

You could approach it the other way, and say 'game 123 only needs Eothraim and Rhudaur (or Rhun Easterlings) to start - discount / free turns to anyone taking them up.' You won't LOSE any players that way, you will get the game started quicker and ultimately turn games around quicker giving you more revenue.

Also if you charge more for popular nations, and I approach you with a complete team with all nations amicably allocated, how can you justify charging the guy playing Noldo or Cloud Lord more? There's no more work for you, in fact there's less, because I've done the allocation of nations for you. Hey, I claim a discount!

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Middle Earth PBM Games
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 4:46 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME One nation choices

  >Clint this is probably due to some people not getting the hard to get nation
  >like Noldo or Cloud lord -- seems like a couple nation are hard to get and i
  >don't know how many times i played the easy one that is is refreshing to play
  >either the Noldo or Cloud Lord !! The last time i remember getting -- let say
  >the Cloud lord when i had it as one of my picks -- was well never -- last
  >time
  >i played Cloud lord got it with a winners cert.
  >
  > Mike
  >
  > > At present I am getting more and more players asking for only nation.
  > > What's the player take on this?
  > >
  > > Clint
  > >
  >
  >
  >
  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  >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
  ****************************************************************

        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]

Steve · November 26, 2003, 12:23pm

I don't think allowing a player to choose one nation is very
good for the game when the majority of us send in 2-3 choices even
though some of us have played hundreds of turns of a particular
scenario. I guess I may start doing this also since there is no
apparent downside. My understanding is your account is not billed
until the game is actual initialized (at least from what I have seen).

How about running variant 2 nation games sort of like GB with full
diplo. Keep the neutrals to 1 per person.

2950 example:

Noldo/Woodmen
Sinda/Northmen
Silvan/Rohan
Rangers/North Gondor
Dwarves/South Gondor

Witch King/Quite Avenger
Cloud Lord/Dragon Lord
Dark Lieutenants/Fire King
Dog Lord/Ice King
Long Rider/Blind Sorcerer

These could be tweaked of course.

Being able to "buy" the Noldo etc. via bid or higher prices would not
sit well with me.

Harlequin_Games1 · November 26, 2003, 6:09pm

It is a BAD idea to charge more for popular positions. You will simply put people off. You will lose players because by definition most players want to play the popular positions.

We'd do a sliding scale. So Eothraim would cost £3.00 Woodmen £3, Noldo £8 for example. For those worried about us trying to get stealth prices we could even spend a few hours working out the price so that they'd effectively stay the same across the board.

Also if you charge more for popular nations, and I approach you with a complete team with all nations amicably allocated, how can you justify charging the guy playing Noldo or Cloud Lord more? There's no more work for you, in fact there's less, because I've done the allocation of nations for you. Hey, I claim a discount!

Grudge games are different and outside the scope of this discussion in that I guess they'd be the normal cost across the board.

Clint

Urzahil1 · November 26, 2003, 6:24pm

Some people may be willing to pay the premium for a game they really
want to play. I don't personally play any other game than MEPBM, but
calling people fools just because they are willing to pay for something
you're not is a bit harsh.

Mike Mulka

···

-----Original Message-----
Games which charge per order, are fundamentally unfair, therefore
anyone who plays them IMO is a fool -
Laurence G.Tilley

Harlequin_Games1 · November 26, 2003, 6:43pm

>Games which charge per order, are fundamentally unfair, therefore
>anyone who plays them IMO is a fool -

I've played lots of different PBMs and the different charging mechanisms have different strengths and weaknesses. The beauty of the Per order format is that for players who want to play it at a low level of commitment and real-life funds (in Legends for example you can play a Hero (2 characters no locations) for cheap or an Overlord - 6 Characters (and very likely a lot more upto 40) and lots of locations). They do different jobs in the game [and have different victory conditions] but there's a difference in costings - I wouldn't say it's unfair rather that it's achieving different potentials or aims within the game). Most such games nowadays have a fixed bottom cost and a fixed top level cost.

Generally a Fixed cost game will have to have allowed for the expected workload - so 8 characters = 16 orders = 29p per order. 21 Char = 42 orders = 11p per order (roughly one third the cost per order). But most games will run on the 12-15 characters per nation (roughly) so costs are calculated on that basis. Ie you pay "more" for the early game and "less" for the late game. Some players fine Middle Earth expensive to play others hardly notice the money. So if there was a different pricing structure then you could have more players playing the game - so that's one advantage of the per order (or other variable costing structure) format. Of course the disadvantage is that you don't know exactly how much you'll spend on a turn if it is a per order cost. (A different system might be the Legends start system of Nation Type costings eg North and South Gondor as one nation, a power block of 2 Neutrals etc).

Personally it's not that pertinent in most games if it's a per order cost or so-called "fixed" cost per turn. Players will pay for something they enjoy so with the per order cost if they are enjoying the game will pay more upto the top end of the price per turn = effectively a fixed cost.

GSI could have designed the game with extra characters at game start if they wanted to but they choose not to. Partially I'd guess that this is a game balancing choice, but also an inputting choice (less work with less characters). Or added extra orders (there's been some requests for an Admin character or extra orders to look after your nation for example).

Just some musings.

Clint

Harlequin_Games1 · November 26, 2003, 7:02pm

>One thought is charging more for players who only choose one nation. What
>do players think of that? It would dissuade players asking for such
>specific nations - making it easier to fill games. What about pricing each
>nation differently? (Not sure if we can do that but it's an interesting
>thought). (Other PBMs have a charge per order so effectively this would be
>similar to that but for popular nations).

TERRIBLE idea. You'd have to waive it for pre-arranged team games, or have
whole teams share the cost.

As mentioned in other posts - this is for individual set-up games. Grudge games would be exempt.

Few people are too happy about the surcharging for little extras like special
setups.

But the argument is - if you want us to do more work you as the customer have to pay for it in some manner. Either that be with increased turn fees as a generic across the board rise (we have to be able to pay our staff after all) or rather I prefer to get the players who want the extra work done to pay for it. Otherwise you're just asking for lower turn fees - which is a fine enough request in it's own right but given that we can't reduce costs or turn fees at present without it having a dramatic impact (eg less staff less variants etc) which I don't think you guys want then what's the solution?

In summary, if you want to lose customers, I can hardly think of a better way.

See above.

Clint

···

At 04:46 26/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

blaznak · November 26, 2003, 7:25pm

I like the idea of a "Scramble" start. You and 24 of your friends send
in for one game. You each get a random start. No preferences or
'pre-teaming' allowed. The big deal is you may get to play opposite a
regular team mate.
JAD

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:10 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME One nation choices

It is a BAD idea to charge more for popular positions. You will

simply

put people off. You will lose players because by definition most

players

want to play the popular positions.

We'd do a sliding scale. So Eothraim would cost £3.00 Woodmen £3, Noldo
£8
for example. For those worried about us trying to get stealth prices we

could even spend a few hours working out the price so that they'd
effectively stay the same across the board.

Also if you charge more for popular nations, and I approach you with

a

complete team with all nations amicably allocated, how can you justify

charging the guy playing Noldo or Cloud Lord more? There's no more

work

for you, in fact there's less, because I've done the allocation of
nations for you. Hey, I claim a discount!

Grudge games are different and outside the scope of this discussion in
that
I guess they'd be the normal cost across the board.

Clint

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/

Kitirat · November 26, 2003, 9:08pm

We'd do a sliding scale. So Eothraim would cost £3.00 Woodmen £3,

Noldo £8

for example. For those worried about us trying to get stealth

prices we

could even spend a few hours working out the price so that they'd
effectively stay the same across the board.

How do you price things like south gondor??? If Harad and the
corsairs go free does its price increase each turn now that it is
almost better than most of the free nations? What happen when your
paying 8 pounds a turn for South Gondor and HArad and the Corsairs
hit you? I'll tell ya what, more people quit.

Ulitmately by changing the price per nation, you will find there are
a lot MORE drops as once those higher costing nations look like they
can not win they quit so they can go try again with a medium priced
nation.

It would also cause new "most popular" nations as the best of the
cheap would become the most favored.

You should focus on improving the reasons to play the less
interesting positions. Or just negotiate with players as you have
been and not change anything.

Just a personal note. charging more for positions which have the
same number of orders each turn (as listed above) would make me quit
playing the the game permanently. Again for those who have played
the "lesser" positions and are now looking to the better ones to be
penalized because a few people can turn in three choices is simply
unfair. Each nation has the same amount it can do each turn, it
should cost the same. I am very sure many, many other players feel
the same way.

See ya,
Ken

Harlequin_Games1 · November 26, 2003, 10:48pm

How do you price things like south gondor??? If Harad and the
corsairs go free does its price increase each turn now that it is
almost better than most of the free nations? What happen when your
paying 8 pounds a turn for South Gondor and HArad and the Corsairs
hit you? I'll tell ya what, more people quit.

It's a set-up fee that would be fixed - all other turn fees would be as normal. Sorry if I did not make that clear.

It would also cause new "most popular" nations as the best of the
cheap would become the most favored.

But eventually wouldn't I get a more varied pick from player and hence more fair?

You should focus on improving the reasons to play the less
interesting positions.

Like what?

Or just negotiate with players as you have
been and not change anything.

That's also my thoughts.

Just a personal note. charging more for positions which have the
same number of orders each turn (as listed above) would make me quit
playing the the game permanently.

For clarity. I'm not proposing this.

Clint

D_N · November 27, 2003, 12:47am

How's this?

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.

That's it. Minimal bookkeeping, no extra fees.

That means:

- if you list the White Wizard as your only choice,
you may not get to play in the next game. Or the one
after. Or after that. Your choice.

- if you list Rhun, you'll get to play in the next
game.

- if you list five nations, you'll play in the next
game -- but you're more likely to get the Eothraim if
you list them first than if you if list them after the
Cloud Lord.

Simple: no extra fees or extra work.

Flexible players get to play. Adventurous players get
to try new nations. Intractable players get to wait
until luck goes their way.

Dan N.

···

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

Laurence_G_Tilley · November 27, 2003, 1:27am

I wondered if you's pick that out from my words on the One Nation
thread. My point really, is an observational one, it's that you very
frequently now respond with "we'd have to charge more" whenever someone
makes a suggestion, it even, as here, seems to be your first instinctive
rhetorical response to your own suggestion.

I realise that sometimes you've said this jokingly, but I'm finding it
repeated just a little too often for comfort. It makes you come across as
penny pinching. And (though the chorus of cheerleaders will arise now to
start raa raa raaing about what good value for money the game is) I don't
think I'm the only one who's beginning to get that kind of perception.

Not so long ago, you were asking about "customer service". For me, good
customer service is about what a company does for me cheerfully, it's
about "little extras," which make my experience as a customer more pleasant
not about finding innumerable little extras tagged onto the end of my
bill. If in my dealings with a company I start to get the impression that
they're always trying to squeeze a little bit more out of me (as admittedly
so many do) I rank them as ordinary rather than good.

mefacesmo.gif
Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 19:02 26/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

>Few people are too happy about the surcharging for little extras like
special
>setups.

But the argument is - if you want us to do more work you as the customer
have to pay for it in some manner.

Laurence_G_Tilley · November 27, 2003, 1:57am

I would never agree to play in a game like that. Think how much a FP team
typically needs the support and assistance of the Noldo. If he's a
newishbie AND he's paid more than twice as much as others to be a
powergamer, just imagine trying to get him to support the more vulnerable
nations

mefacesmo.gif
Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 18:09 26/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

We'd do a sliding scale. So Eothraim would cost £3.00 Woodmen £3, Noldo £8
for example.

Harlequin_Games1 · November 27, 2003, 2:31am

> >Few people are too happy about the surcharging for little extras like
> special
> >setups.
>
>But the argument is - if you want us to do more work you as the customer
>have to pay for it in some manner.

I wondered if you's pick that out from my words on the One Nation
thread. My point really, is an observational one, it's that you very
frequently now respond with "we'd have to charge more" whenever someone
makes a suggestion, it even, as here, seems to be your first instinctive
rhetorical response to your own suggestion.

I don't agree. For example we send out turns to team-mates for free etc. I get a lot of pressure to reduce turn costs but I want players to be aware 1) we earn sod all from PBM, 2) work costs money - somewhere, someone has to pay for it. No such thing as a free lunch.

I realise that sometimes you've said this jokingly, but I'm finding it
repeated just a little too often for comfort. It makes you come across as
penny pinching. And (though the chorus of cheerleaders will arise now to
start raa raa raaing about what good value for money the game is) I don't
think I'm the only one who's beginning to get that kind of perception.

But you also think that the game is too expensive... I think I've got no chance here....

Not so long ago, you were asking about "customer service". For me, good
customer service is about what a company does for me cheerfully, it's
about "little extras," which make my experience as a customer more pleasant
not about finding innumerable little extras tagged onto the end of my
bill. If in my dealings with a company I start to get the impression that
they're always trying to squeeze a little bit more out of me (as admittedly
so many do) I rank them as ordinary rather than good.

Which are we?

Clint

···

At 19:02 26/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

Urzahil1 · November 27, 2003, 10:44pm

YOW. Just how many little extra features would you require to have free
before you'd accept a price increase as fair, rather than 'penny
pinching'?

Hey, I think it would be great to be able to play the game for a
buck-a-turn, but MeGames has added a TON of features to this game so far
with very little price increase. At some point, any business would be
required to stop adding 'free' features and say "Can't add anymore
without raising the price".

"Penny pinching"? I think it's just reality. (At least as far as it
applies to a fantasy game.)

Mike Mulka

From: Laurence G. Tilley [mailto:laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 7:28 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] Customer Service

>Few people are too happy about the surcharging for little extras

like

special
>setups.

But the argument is - if you want us to do more work you as the

customer

have to pay for it in some manner.

I wondered if you's pick that out from my words on the One Nation
thread. My point really, is an observational one, it's that you very
frequently now respond with "we'd have to charge more" whenever someone
makes a suggestion, it even, as here, seems to be your first

instinctive

rhetorical response to your own suggestion.

I realise that sometimes you've said this jokingly, but I'm finding it
repeated just a little too often for comfort. It makes you come across

as

penny pinching. And (though the chorus of cheerleaders will arise now

to

start raa raa raaing about what good value for money the game is) I

don't

think I'm the only one who's beginning to get that kind of perception.

Not so long ago, you were asking about "customer service". For me,

good

customer service is about what a company does for me cheerfully, it's
about "little extras," which make my experience as a customer more

pleasant

not about finding innumerable little extras tagged onto the end of my
bill. If in my dealings with a company I start to get the impression

that

they're always trying to squeeze a little bit more out of me (as

admittedly

···

-----Original Message-----
At 19:02 26/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
so many do) I rank them as ordinary rather than good.

mefacesmo.gif
Laurence G.Tilley