ME One nation choices

mepbmlist
#1

Things are clearer now, pay a premium for the nation you want. Bit by bit, Harley is changing the game. So, this should not be exempt either, I suppose.

By the way, whatever happened to restricted posting on this list? Also, what ever happened to Harley's proposed GWC for brag rights?
Ed Mills

···

From: Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>

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

_________________________________________________________________
Is there a gadget-lover on your gift list? MSN Shopping has lined up some good bets! http://shopping.msn.com

#2

I actually recieved one, although it was at least 2 months behind. I don't
think the Atlantic helps much...

Brad B

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ovatha Easterling" <ovatha88@hotmail.com>

what ever happened to Harley's proposed GWC for brag rights?

#3

We send out a batch of files (to save on costs) for North American players every now and again.

Clint

···

> what ever happened to Harley's proposed GWC for brag rights?

I actually recieved one, although it was at least 2 months behind. I don't
think the Atlantic helps much...

Brad B

#4

Things are clearer now, pay a premium for the nation you want.

Or cheaper for other nations. Like I said I don't think it could be done at our end but it's a thought that I would like input on. Is it a good idea?

Bit by bit,
Harley is changing the game. So, this should not be exempt either, I
suppose.

Dear Ed

Actually we've changed the game a lot and have more players than GSI & Allsorts combined ever had. Must be doing something right uh?! :slight_smile: We do it such changes based on player input though as much as our own experience of running the game. Actually don't you play in all the variant games that we run? 12v12 (with Fort), Wotr Variant and a request for GBoat... and no normal games at present.

By the way, whatever happened to restricted posting on this list?

3 staff ill and a baby meant that I haven't the time at present.

Also, what ever happened to Harley's proposed GWC for brag rights?

Done. (See previous email).

Clint

#5

Actually, they're just asking players about a
suggestion another player made on ways to get games
started more quickly.

Keep heaping abuse on them and they'll soon learn
better than to ask for our thoughts.

Dan N

Things are clearer now, pay a premium for the nation

you want. Bit by bit,
Harley is changing the game. So, this should not be
exempt either, I
suppose.

By the way, whatever happened to restricted posting on
this list? Also,
what ever happened to Harley's proposed GWC for brag
rights?
Ed Mills

···

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

#6

Thanks for all the feedback - much appreciated. Keep it coming - at present there seem to be a few situations that I'd like discussed in more depth:

1) Additional payment or some other scheme for players choosing only one nation. Maybe a decrease in payment for others?

2) Different set-up charges for different nations.

3) History of players so that they get some sort of bonus for playing different nations.

If you can think of anything I have missed?

Clint

#7

1) Additional payment or some other scheme for players choosing only one
nation. Maybe a decrease in payment for others?

** You want platinum "front of the line" service, than you get to pay for
it. The problem here is, the Company benefits from the extra payment, while
it's other players, who can't readily be identified, who suffer...

** Best alternative is simply reply to the game set up request with "the
rules" and "policy" clearly explained. Enforce them such that until the
player adhere's to them, they're not in the game. Fair for all, no?

2) Different set-up charges for different nations.

** This would not be Richard's "subjective" valuation of the nations, but
simply a sliding scale based on the number of requests for the 25 nations
(per scenario) correct? So, ideally, it would be perfectly objective,
reflecting the market 'demand' to this point. Do you have the data to show
the relative number of requests for all the nations such that you can create
25 seperate prices that all add up to 25 X whatever it is now?

3) History of players so that they get some sort of bonus for playing
different nations.

History of players would be useful for your own sakes (and PRS too, no?),
but ixnay on the onusbay. The guys who only play this or that get a bonus
for the one time they branch out, but those excellent customers like Dan who
says he's trying to play all nations won't get a bonus? No, I can't see it
being manageable in a fair and equitable manner.

If you can think of anything I have missed?

Yeah, more Mithril production in the hills and rough in Rhudaur!

Brad Brunet

···

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

#8

Thanks for all the feedback - much appreciated. Keep it coming - at
  present there seem to be a few situations that I'd like discussed in more
  depth:

  1) Additional payment or some other scheme for players choosing only one
  nation. Maybe a decrease in payment for others?
  No - it sounds fair but it isn't. If you're charging player A a premium for choosing only one nation, you must logically give him better service, ie give him preferential treatment, over the unselfish players who abide by your house rules. You will end up with a two-tier customer base and the bottom tier will very quickly get fed up at never getting their first choice and crumble away.

  2) Different set-up charges for different nations.

  I'm absolutely and fundamentally opposed to this. Each nation has the same number of potential characters and orders which drive the game. To charge more for some nations just because they have better startups is totally wrong. I can't think of anything which will lose you customers more quickly!

  3) History of players so that they get some sort of bonus for playing
  different nations.

  This would be nice if you could do it without charging players any more. If such record-keeping is going to cost players extra money, then I for one would happily dispense with it.

  If you can think of anything I have missed?

  Clint

  Are you just looking for a way to raise extra revenue? If this is the case I would sooner see an increase in prices across the board rather than either of the methods above.

  If all you are concerned about is an increase in the number of players only listing one choice of nation (which is what you said when you started this thread) then the answer is simple: those players may have to wait a long time before their choice comes up. Meanwhile the unselfish players who give 3 choices can at least be sure they will get a game reasonably quickly. This is fair and equitable. Point this out to your customers again and again.

  Finally if you have a problem filling that last slot - Rhudaur or Rhun Easterlings - offer a discount or a couple of free turns to anyone who will take it. That gets the game rolling quicker which keeps the players happy, and you get your revenue rolling in quicker so you don't actually lose any money. You also gain goodwill!

  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 6:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] ME One nation choices

#9

1) Additional payment or some other scheme for players choosing

only one

nation. Maybe a decrease in payment for others?

This is reasonable to a point. However, ultimately what your
attempting to do is change a persons mind about what they are willing
to spend money for. If a guy want to play the WW and only that, and
is willing to wait until he can, why should he have to pay more for
it? What happens when someone is willing to spend extra money to
make sure he gets the position he wants, only to have 15 people in
your 2950 game having just paid 15 pounds to be the WW??? They'd be
mighty angery if they had to wait 3 years...

2) Different set-up charges for different nations.

This is wrong (as I've mentioned before) in many ways. to summarize:
1) Penalizes people who have been waiting for the "good" positions
but have been kind enough to play other positions and are now looking
for a "good" one. Horridly unfair.
2) Denotes openly one position as better than the others. Yes the CL
is fun to play, but so is the FK in some situations. It tells new
players the game is unbalanced.
3) Will cause far more drop outs as those paying more money quit
faster if things don't go their way. i.e. it goes from "well we're
having it tough, but at least I'm the Noldo, lets see what I can do"
to "It's tough, why am I paying three times the price for this again?"
Remember, the tough positions are known to be tough and people who
put them on their list know what they are getting into.

3) History of players so that they get some sort of bonus for

playing

different nations.

Will think on this one. could alienate people who really like the
game but only in a few positions. Should a guy really be penalized
for loving playing elves for example???

Of the three the last one is IMO the best way to go about it.

See ya,
Ken

#10

> 2) Different set-up charges for different nations.
This is wrong (as I've mentioned before) in many ways. to summarize:
1) Penalizes people who have been waiting for the "good" positions
but have been kind enough to play other positions and are now looking
for a "good" one. Horridly unfair.

But they would have had a cheaper set-up price for those "less-good" nations so should even out (roughly).

2) Denotes openly one position as better than the others. Yes the CL
is fun to play, but so is the FK in some situations. It tells new
players the game is unbalanced.

Each nation has a different balance to other nations - that's very clear. As to unbalanced overall I think the two alignments are generally balanced but for example Rhun East vs Corsair in 2950 there's a clear imbalance there IMO. As for new players I generally stear them to newbie positions as described in earlier posts.

#11

Here's my thoughts on the subject, and the points already brought up
(at least the ones I can remember):

The cost of the game is already pretty high. I appreciate that MEG
isn't getting rich, but when I consider my entertaiment budget, MEPBM
is up there when compared with other options. Unfortunately its just
the nature of the beast.

Because of that, I don't like the idea of a higher turn fee for
the "popular" nations. I'd like to have the option, or possibility
of playing any of the nations, and if some of them were more
expensive, I wouldn't do it. I think I also would subconsciously
look less favorably on the cheaper nations. If they cost less, they
must be worse, right? Why would I keep paying money for a cheap
product?

I also agree that players with the popular nations would quit earlier
if there was a higher fee. Whether the game was going well, or
poorly for them, once the balance started tipping, I think they would
be more likely to drop due to higher fees.

I am more open to a modest startup fee for the popular nations, but I
wouldn't be thrilled by it.

If a player only lists one nation, I don't think they should be given
preference over those that list 3, or more. However, I don't think
they should be forced into a position they don't want, either. That
just makes them more likely to drop. A form letter/email would
probably work. When you get a request for only one nation, send the
letter indicating that they have only a 1/14 chance (or whatever) of
getting the nation they selected, that they would probably have a
similar chance if they waited for the next game, and that a possible
scenario is that they would have to wait 10 years, based on
projections. Based on this, wouldn't they really prefer to list a
few more nations? If someone REALLY wanted to wait, they could, but
most people would probably be more willing to accept something else.

I like the idea of tracking what a player plays (and requests?) and
lowering his chances of picking up the same position in a later
game. This is assuming it can be done with minimal effort on MEG's
part.

I also like the idea of giving a benefit to those that pick up the
less-desirable nations. Perhaps cheaper turns, or a free turn or two
to get started. Or perhaps a higher priority in picking a popular
nation in another game.

This issue probably doesn't really apply to me so much because:
1) I only ever play one game at a time, due to budget concerns.
2) I have only been playing FA1000 games lately.
3) I usually am very flexible in what I play.
But, I figured I had to throw something out on a topic this hot!

Jeff Wygal

#12

  Are you just looking for a way to raise extra revenue? If this is the case I would sooner see an increase in prices across the board rather than either of the methods above.

Not particularly - we'll look at pricing again in the New Year but for now no. At present we have some big debts to pay off but forecasts are okay not great but okay.

  If all you are concerned about is an increase in the number of players only listing one choice of nation (which is what you said when you started this thread) then the answer is simple: those players may have to wait a long time before their choice comes up.

Yes more that. The problem with waiting is that it then has a knock on effect on other players waiting to set-up in a game. My (rough) estimate for a 2950 game is with 5 players wanting only one nation that it would take an additional 3 weeks to set-up that particular game. If then that develops into players say only picking WW or Corsair for 2950 then basically say goodbye to 1/4 of our player base for that game - that's bad for us and you guys.

  Finally if you have a problem filling that last slot - Rhudaur or Rhun Easterlings - offer a discount or a couple of free turns to anyone who will take it.

Yes but then WE lose money. I've done it occasionally though. Note Rhudaur is quite a popular nation despite's Brad's complaints that he always ends up with it. (He does a lot and has done some exceptional play with it btw!)

That gets the game rolling quicker which keeps the players happy, and you get your revenue rolling in quicker so you don't actually lose any money.

Yes there's the break even point to consider here. At which point do we add incentives to stop LOSING more money?

You also gain goodwill!

A valuable item I agree.

Clint

#13

  Based on this, wouldn't they really prefer to list a
few more nations? If someone REALLY wanted to wait, they could, but
most people would probably be more willing to accept something else.

Yes they would really want to wait. I do contact players when they send in one nation. (Or there are clashes of nations). It roughly takes me about 1 day per game to organise the players etc. The actually game creation for normal games takes around one afternoon's work (with all the extra bits that come with it).

I like the idea of tracking what a player plays (and requests?) and
lowering his chances of picking up the same position in a later
game. This is assuming it can be done with minimal effort on MEG's
part.

Nope not minimal. Several hours work per game. And (to put the other side of the argument) why shouldn't a player be allowed to play the same nation multiple times?

I also like the idea of giving a benefit to those that pick up the
less-desirable nations. Perhaps cheaper turns, or a free turn or two
to get started. Or perhaps a higher priority in picking a popular
nation in another game.

Who's going to pay for these free turns? :slight_smile:

Clint

#14

NO! You don't lose money. You invest a measly 9 quid for 2 more free
turns. If however just one of the other 24 players gets fed up waiting,
and goes off to play "Trolls in their Holes" with Acme Games, you lose what
he pays you every fortnight for however many games he plays, for as many
more years as you can bend a bit every now and then in order to maintain
his goodwill and custom

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 00:47 27/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

> Finally if you have a problem filling that last slot - Rhudaur or Rhun
> Easterlings - offer a discount or a couple of free turns to anyone who
> will take it.

Yes but then WE lose money.

#15

Your satisfied customers are paying for them, by staying with you. You are
only losing money, if by failing to offer small incentives to get games
started, some of them go off to play "Trolls in their Holes". In which
case you lose real sums of money, and you lose it long term.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 00:55 27/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

>I also like the idea of giving a benefit to those that pick up the
>less-desirable nations. Perhaps cheaper turns, or a free turn or two
>to get started. Or perhaps a higher priority in picking a popular
>nation in another game.

Who's going to pay for these free turns? :slight_smile:

#16

But after a while we get players waiting to get that extra bonus. Part of the reason we reduced the 2 free turns for a take-up to one was to avoid players "testing" a few ideas and then dropping the nation. We found that players were more committed to the game with just the one turn... (strange as that might seem).

Clint

···

At 02:33 27/11/03, you wrote:

At 00:47 27/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
> > Finally if you have a problem filling that last slot - Rhudaur or Rhun
> > Easterlings - offer a discount or a couple of free turns to anyone who
> > will take it.
>
>Yes but then WE lose money.

NO! You don't lose money. You invest a measly 9 quid for 2 more free
turns. If however just one of the other 24 players gets fed up waiting,
and goes off to play "Trolls in their Holes" with Acme Games, you lose what
he pays you every fortnight for however many games he plays, for as many
more years as you can bend a bit every now and then in order to maintain
his goodwill and custom

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

[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
****************************************************************

#17

Okay so your answer is we do... :slight_smile: Had a feeling it might be that. :slight_smile: I don't mind giving out free turns if I think they are valued and help the game but throwing the out is somewhat dangerous.

The incentive at present is a cheap set-up - which I think is a pretty incentive. For some it won't be enough (some players wouldn't play ME if we paid them to do it!)

Clint

···

> >I also like the idea of giving a benefit to those that pick up the
> >less-desirable nations. Perhaps cheaper turns, or a free turn or two
> >to get started. Or perhaps a higher priority in picking a popular
> >nation in another game.
>
>Who's going to pay for these free turns? :slight_smile:

Your satisfied customers are paying for them, by staying with you. You are
only losing money, if by failing to offer small incentives to get games
started, some of them go off to play "Trolls in their Holes". In which
case you lose real sums of money, and you lose it long term.

#18

I'm not sure that the suggestion was that you offer it regularly. You
should offer it occasionally, if a game start is stuck for a long time for
the sake of just one or two nations.

Why are you sitting up at 3am answering my e-mails? I hope you have a good
excuse, like feeding the baby at the same time.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 02:57 27/11/2003, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

But after a while we get players waiting to get that extra bonus. Part of
the reason we reduced the 2 free turns for a take-up to one was to avoid
players "testing" a few ideas and then dropping the nation.

#19

Doing GWCs and soon to do Christmas cards... :slight_smile:

Clint

Why are you sitting up at 3am answering my e-mails? I hope you have a good

···

excuse, like feeding the baby at the same time.

#20

  If all you are concerned about is an increase in the number of players
only listing one choice of nation (which is what you said when you
started this thread) then the answer is simple: those players may have to
wait a long time before their choice comes up.

Yes more that. The problem with waiting is that it then has a knock on
effect on other players waiting to set-up in a game. My (rough) estimate
for a 2950 game is with 5 players wanting only one nation that it would
take an additional 3 weeks to set-up that particular game. If then that
develops into players say only picking WW or Corsair for 2950 then
basically say goodbye to 1/4 of our player base for that game - that's bad
for us and you guys.

RD: The only way around this is for players to realise that they need to be a bit flexible. Some players are NEVER going to get to play WW whatever system you use. By all means keep putting WW as your first choice and hope you get lucky but if you want to be sure of getting a game, give some other choices too. Isn't playing the game more important than WHAT you play?

  Finally if you have a problem filling that last slot - Rhudaur or Rhun
Easterlings - offer a discount or a couple of free turns to anyone who
will take it.

Yes but then WE lose money. I've done it occasionally though. Note
Rhudaur is quite a popular nation despite's Brad's complaints that he
always ends up with it. (He does a lot and has done some exceptional play
with it btw!)

That gets the game rolling quicker which keeps the players happy, and you
get your revenue rolling in quicker so you don't actually lose any money.

Yes there's the break even point to consider here. At which point do we
add incentives to stop LOSING more money?

You also gain goodwill!

A valuable item I agree.

Clint

RD: Here's an example of what I meant. Say you have a 2950 game ready to start, except nobody has picked up Rhun Easterlings. You put it on the FS, you put it on the list, weeks roll by and still nobody wants it. Every fortnight that goes by, you are losing potential turnfees. So my suggestion is that after, say, four weeks, you offer an incentive of, say, 2 free turns to anyone who snaps it up. If this has the desired result - and I do understand it's an if not a certainty - the game starts and the turnfees start rolling in. Yes, for the first month you're only collecting 24 turnsfees instead of 25, but surely that is better than collecting zero turnfees from that game whilst waiting for Rhun to be picked up in the usual course of events?

I don't see how you lose money if this works. You've dropped a couple of turnfees but that is more than made up for by the other 24 coming in earlier. Nothing ventured and all that,

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]