ME One nation choices

[88_Noldo]

Gavin, Like Alexander you cut right through the knot. Ed

···

From: Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com>

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

> I prefer a fair system where we treat everyone equally
> fairly. That needs reciprical treatment by players though.

Why not simply allocate the nations randomly?

Gavin

_________________________________________________________________
Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

Gavin, Like Alexander you cut right through the knot. Ed
  Well such a simplistic response makes me wonder if Gavin actually read any of the thread before jumping in. The issue is player choice. If players give a choice of 3 nations, they know they are going to get one that they are reasonably happy with. If Clint suddenly changes to a random system every player has an 8-1 chance of NOT getting ANY of his first three choices. Silly idea.

  Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Ovatha Easterling
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 3:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

  >From: Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com>

  >
  >Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
  >
  > > I prefer a fair system where we treat everyone equally
  > > fairly. That needs reciprical treatment by players though.
  >
  >Why not simply allocate the nations randomly?
  >
  >Gavin
  >

  _________________________________________________________________
  Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE
  online computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now!
  http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

        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]

[Gavin_Wynford-Jones]

Gavin read all the way through the 150+ responses before jumping in, as you
put it. And he came to the conclusion that there is no system of weighting
and voting that everybody would be happy with so he offered a fair and
simple solution. Often the best solutions are simple, Dickie-boy.

Gavin

richard devereux wrote:

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Ovatha Easterling
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

Gavin, Like Alexander you cut right through the knot. Ed
Well such a simplistic response makes me wonder if Gavin actually read any of
the thread before jumping in. The issue is player choice. If players give a
choice of 3 nations, they know they are going to get one that they are
reasonably happy with. If Clint suddenly changes to a random system every
player has an 8-1 chance of NOT getting ANY of his first three choices. Silly
idea.

Richard.

From: Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com>

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

I prefer a fair system where we treat everyone equally
fairly. That needs reciprical treatment by players though.

Why not simply allocate the nations randomly?

Gavin

_________________________________________________________________
Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE
online computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now!
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

      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]

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/

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

Gavin read all the way through the 150+ responses before jumping in, as you
  put it. And he came to the conclusion that there is no system of weighting
  and voting that everybody would be happy with so he offered a fair and
  simple solution. Often the best solutions are simple, Dickie-boy.

  Gavin
  RD: Not yours though, for reasons already explained.

  Richard.

  richard devereux wrote:

  >
  >
  > From: Ovatha Easterling
  > To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 3:14 PM
  > Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices
  >
  >
  > Gavin, Like Alexander you cut right through the knot. Ed
  > Well such a simplistic response makes me wonder if Gavin actually read any of
  > the thread before jumping in. The issue is player choice. If players give a
  > choice of 3 nations, they know they are going to get one that they are
  > reasonably happy with. If Clint suddenly changes to a random system every
  > player has an 8-1 chance of NOT getting ANY of his first three choices. Silly
  > idea.
  >
  > Richard.
  >
  >
  >
  >> From: Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com>
  >
  >>
  >> Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
  >>
  >>> I prefer a fair system where we treat everyone equally
  >>> fairly. That needs reciprical treatment by players though.
  >>
  >> Why not simply allocate the nations randomly?
  >>
  >> Gavin
  >>
  >
  > _________________________________________________________________
  > Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE
  > online computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now!
  > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
  >
  >
  >
  > 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]
  >
  >
  >
  > 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/
  >

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
       
  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: Gavinwj
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

  > ----- Original Message -----

[Gavin_Wynford-Jones]

richard devereux wrote:

Gavin read all the way through the 150+ responses before jumping in, as you
put it. And he came to the conclusion that there is no system of weighting
and voting that everybody would be happy with so he offered a fair and
simple solution. Often the best solutions are simple, Dickie-boy.

Gavin
RD: Not yours though, for reasons already explained.

Actually, Richard, nobody has explained why a totally random allocation
isn't fair and therefore not the best solution.

Gavin

[1000rpm]

I think Clint said "The players would hate it"
and someone else said "That gives you a 1 in 25 chance of getting the nation
you really want instead of a 1 in 3"
and someone else said "If you give a list of 3 nations then you probably get
one of them that you want"

Seem like reasonable answers to me.
Having said that, a random allocation "variant" might be worth a go......?

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavinwj" <gavinwj@compuserve.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

richard devereux wrote:

> Gavin read all the way through the 150+ responses before jumping in, as

you

> put it. And he came to the conclusion that there is no system of

weighting

> and voting that everybody would be happy with so he offered a fair and
> simple solution. Often the best solutions are simple, Dickie-boy.
>
> Gavin
> RD: Not yours though, for reasons already explained.

Actually, Richard, nobody has explained why a totally random allocation
isn't fair and therefore not the best solution.

Gavin

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]

They have, but I'll try again. Let's look at the assumption in what you
say before we look at the first part. "Fair" is not automatically the
"best solution" because "fair" does not apply when people have not asked
for, or chosen to buy commercially, equal rights. Fair applies when people
have equal rights, and people do not have equal commercial rights until
they choose to buy in to a deal. They also have the right not to buy into
a deal - the right not to buy rights if you like. Your suggestion attempts
to dictate what everyone must buy - a random choice of nation only. When
some of the buyers will choose not to buy that.

Then to the first part "why a totally random allocation isn't fair". If I
go to the supermarket for a loaf of bread, and there is another customer
asking for the last loaf on the shelf, the manager _could_ say "I'll take
both your monies anyway, we'll flip a coin, and the loser can have a can of
beans." I might accept his offer, if I'm hungry enough, but I might just
as reasonably say "No thanks, I don't like beans, let him have the loaf,
someone else have the beans, and I'll come back with my money, on another
day." So the "random allocation" isn't fair, because it isn't fair that I
should be pressed into spending my money on something I don't want or require.

Your simplistic comment did not "cut through the knot" I'm afraid, because
cutting the knot is seeing a new and clear way through the core issues of
an argument - not simply overlooking them.

-- - - - - - - - - - -

OK, so let me open a new can of worms, by mentioning something which I
think is a little closer to a cutting of the knot. There _is_ another
way. Though Clint may not like it.

The essential "problem" (though I personally have no problem here
whatsoever, nor do many others) is the delay in game startups. And I'll
simply point out that:

      You don't _have_ to have a Rhudaur.

If he wants too, Clint can start a game with only 4 neutrals. If Nor and
Woo are not taken, he _could_ put two DS players back to another game, and
start it as an 8 vs 8.

Of course this would be far, far from the game I'd want to play. But if
the 18 players concerned are all _so_ impatient, and _so_ inflexible, it is
a solution.

I also appreciate that Clint will worry about the money - but it's going to
be better to run an 8 vs 8 game than lose the impatient customers through
slow starting games, or the patient customers by trying to coerce them.

But if there really aren't that many players complaining about startup
times, there's no problem anyway.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 09:45 29/11/2003, Gavinwj wrote:

Actually, Richard, nobody has explained why a totally random allocation
isn't fair and therefore not the best solution.

[Urzahil1]

Well, someone who only puts in for Noldo over and over and over is going
to skew the statistics and throw off the whole 'it all evens out in the
end' argument.

If I only put in for Noldo again and again, why should I have the same
chance of getting it each game (again and again) as someone who plays
some of the less powerful positions more often, and wants to try the
Noldo for the first time?

I personally think that a system weighted towards players who have
played a position the least seems more 'fair' from the perspective of
letting everyone have a chance at the most popular positions.

Mike Mulka

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavinwj [mailto:gavinwj@compuserve.com]

Actually, Richard, nobody has explained why a totally random allocation
isn't fair and therefore not the best solution.

Gavin

[D_N]

nobody has explained why a totally random allocation
isn't fair and therefore not the best solution.

Gavin

I'd play in a game that did that, but it isn't the
best solution. Two drawbacks:

- it still risks unhappy nation allocation. Knowing it
was "luck" that gave you your least favorite nation
three times in a row, rather than Evil Clint, doesn't
help and won't feel "fair."
  No one's obligated to play ME, and no one needs more
drops with lower player satisfaction. Some people like
playing front-line nations, some like character-based
ones, and some, like me, just want to try ones they
haven't done before.

- it ignores perfect matches: if you really want to
play the Woodmen and no one else does, you should get
'em! Random allocation may stick you with a Gondor
while the Gondor-hopeful gets the Woodmen.
  A good system should take advantage of the easy
allocations. The trouble that made Clint start this
post is based on a few hot-ticket nations, and those
are the ones that need addressing.

My suggestion (no responses to it yet, or Richard's, a
variation) posted again below.

Though as a happy FA player, Mike's solution (always
get your first choice -- your own nation!) is pretty
appealing.

Dan

1) Players list nations they want to play. Could be
one, could be five - as many as they want.

2) ME Games assigns them starting with the #1 choices.
Anyone asking for a nation that no one else listed
gets it.
When two or more players choose the same nation,
preference goes to players who haven't played it
before.
When there are still several vying for that nation,
it is randomly assigned to one.

That's it. Minimal bookkeeping, no extra fees. No
"waiting list": you play when it's possible to include
you. If it isn't, you don't -- so if you really want
to play, it helps to be flexible.

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
Noldo.

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

···

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

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

richard devereux wrote:

  > Gavin read all the way through the 150+ responses before jumping in, as you
  > put it. And he came to the conclusion that there is no system of weighting
  > and voting that everybody would be happy with so he offered a fair and
  > simple solution. Often the best solutions are simple, Dickie-boy.
  >
  > Gavin
  > RD: Not yours though, for reasons already explained.

  Actually, Richard, nobody has explained why a totally random allocation
  isn't fair and therefore not the best solution.

  Gavin
  RD: Both Clint and I have answered this. Go back and check our messages on the thread.

  Oh what the hell, one more time, but I'm not going to repeat it again:

  Players won't like a purely random allocation. Why? Because it deprives them of -any- element of choice.

  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: Gavinwj
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 9:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

[Harlequin_Games1]

If he wants too, Clint can start a game with only 4 neutrals. If Nor and
Woo are not taken, he _could_ put two DS players back to another game, and
start it as an 8 vs 8.

It's something we've thought about in the past. Don't forget we created Bofa a 3v2 game with "small is good" mentality. Personally I think that there are slightly too many nations in the game and that with tweaking the game could be improved. But that's my personal opinion not my GM opinion. As to what we could this open a big can of worms...

Clint

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

richard devereux wrote:

  >
  > > Gavin read all the way through the 150+ responses before jumping in, as
  you
  > > put it. And he came to the conclusion that there is no system of
  weighting
  > > and voting that everybody would be happy with so he offered a fair and
  > > simple solution. Often the best solutions are simple, Dickie-boy.
  > >
  > > Gavin
  > > RD: Not yours though, for reasons already explained.
  >
  > Actually, Richard, nobody has explained why a totally random allocation
  > isn't fair and therefore not the best solution.
  >
  > Gavin
  >
  >
  >
  > 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/
  >
  >

        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: Tony & Janette
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 12:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

  I think Clint said "The players would hate it"
  and someone else said "That gives you a 1 in 25 chance of getting the nation
  you really want instead of a 1 in 3"
  and someone else said "If you give a list of 3 nations then you probably get
  one of them that you want"

  Seem like reasonable answers to me.
  Having said that, a random allocation "variant" might be worth a go......?

  RD: I am more than happy to see a random allocation variant given a try. I want to see whether anyone except Gavin will play it!
  Richard.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Gavinwj" <gavinwj@compuserve.com>
  To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 9:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

I'd play in a game that did that, but it isn't the
  best solution. Two drawbacks:

  - it still risks unhappy nation allocation. Knowing it
  was "luck" that gave you your least favorite nation
  three times in a row, rather than Evil Clint, doesn't
  help and won't feel "fair."
    No one's obligated to play ME, and no one needs more
  drops with lower player satisfaction. Some people like
  playing front-line nations, some like character-based
  ones, and some, like me, just want to try ones they
  haven't done before.

  - it ignores perfect matches: if you really want to
  play the Woodmen and no one else does, you should get
  'em! Random allocation may stick you with a Gondor
  while the Gondor-hopeful gets the Woodmen.
    A good system should take advantage of the easy
  allocations. The trouble that made Clint start this
  post is based on a few hot-ticket nations, and those
  are the ones that need addressing.

  My suggestion (no responses to it yet, or Richard's, a
  variation) posted again below.

  Though as a happy FA player, Mike's solution (always
  get your first choice -- your own nation!) is pretty
  appealing.

  Dan
  RD: Hey Dan, just want you to know that your solution is fine with me. You don't need to keep repeating it!

  Richard.

  1) Players list nations they want to play. Could be
  one, could be five - as many as they want.

  2) ME Games assigns them starting with the #1 choices.
  Anyone asking for a nation that no one else listed
  gets it.
  When two or more players choose the same nation,
  preference goes to players who haven't played it
  before.
  When there are still several vying for that nation,
  it is randomly assigned to one.

  That's it. Minimal bookkeeping, no extra fees. No
  "waiting list": you play when it's possible to include
  you. If it isn't, you don't -- so if you really want
  to play, it helps to be flexible.

  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
  Noldo.

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

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: D N
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 5:57 PM
  Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

  >nobody has explained why a totally random allocation
  >isn't fair and therefore not the best solution.
  >
  >Gavin

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

        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]

I assume that any game where manual corrections need to be made would
be considered a variant and therefore incur a double setup fee.

As for the can of worms it would open, that much is true. However my
understanding is that GSI will allow no change to the code so manual
corrections (as in 12 vs 12) are the only way to change things. I am
sure a thread dedicated to this sort of experiment would get many
responses to what should/could be changed. Perhaps Harly could run a
beta test or some such to get some idea of playability. I would
certainly play in game with fewer nations just because it is
different and the strategy would be somewhat different. I know more
than a few players that went 1650/2950 to FA to good-bye. Eventually
most things get boring if they fail to change especially over a 10+
year period.

If you tried one game, I don't really see the downside. Maybe the
game will suck; maybe the differences will make people more
enthusiastic. Variants are the future, IMO

My 2 coppers,
             Steven

>If he wants too, Clint can start a game with only 4 neutrals. If

Nor and

>Woo are not taken, he _could_ put two DS players back to another

game, and

>start it as an 8 vs 8.

It's something we've thought about in the past. Don't forget we

created

Bofa a 3v2 game with "small is good" mentality. Personally I think

that

there are slightly too many nations in the game and that with

tweaking the

···

game could be improved. But that's my personal opinion not my GM
opinion. As to what we could this open a big can of worms...

Clint

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

It's something we've thought about in the past. Don't forget we created
  Bofa a 3v2 game with "small is good" mentality. Personally I think that
  there are slightly too many nations in the game and that with tweaking the
  game could be improved. But that's my personal opinion not my GM
  opinion. As to what we could this open a big can of worms...

  Clint

  RD: I think Laurence's suggestion has merit. It's not applicable to every case, but certainly if you are struggling to fill the Rhudaur position (and you don't like my idea of offering a couple of free turns, or if that fails) simply drop Rhudaur and start the game without 'em.
  As to dropping 2 DS positions because your FP players have been stuck at 8 for a month or more, I think you have to judge each case on its merits. I would have thought that more often than not, you could fill 9 out of 10 of FP positions without any problem. Most likely you would get 9 FP v 10 DS and 4 neuts. Consider dropping the unwanted FP and one (unfortunate) DS. Be flexible!
   
  I was going to add, consider all the possible permutations, but maybe you already have.

  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: Saturday, November 29, 2003 8:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

  >If he wants too, Clint can start a game with only 4 neutrals. If Nor and
  >Woo are not taken, he _could_ put two DS players back to another game, and
  >start it as an 8 vs 8.

[Richard_DEVEREUX1]

I assume that any game where manual corrections need to be made would
  be considered a variant and therefore incur a double setup fee.

  As for the can of worms it would open, that much is true. However my
  understanding is that GSI will allow no change to the code so manual
  corrections (as in 12 vs 12) are the only way to change things. I am
  sure a thread dedicated to this sort of experiment would get many
  responses to what should/could be changed. Perhaps Harly could run a
  beta test or some such to get some idea of playability. I would
  certainly play in game with fewer nations just because it is
  different and the strategy would be somewhat different. I know more
  than a few players that went 1650/2950 to FA to good-bye. Eventually
  most things get boring if they fail to change especially over a 10+
  year period.

  If you tried one game, I don't really see the downside. Maybe the
  game will suck; maybe the differences will make people more
  enthusiastic. Variants are the future, IMO

  My 2 coppers,
               Steven

  RD: Agree. I designed a 2950 WotR variant which has been pretty successful - 6 games completed now I think? I also designed a Last Alliance game (4thAge variant) which some players liked but I personally didn't. Most recently I've played a 10 v 10 game dropping 3 neuts, and replacing the most unpopular FP and DS with one of the other two neuts. Good game (my team won again!

  Commercial break: I'm currently in the process of updating the WotR 2950 scenario with the object of (amongst other things) making Rhun Easterlings worth playing. If you fancy playing WotR (you should find the old, original setup on the ME website) either on my team or against me, get in touch with me and/or Harle.
  The options are there, both for players and Harle.
  Richard.

  >
  > >If he wants too, Clint can start a game with only 4 neutrals. If
  Nor and
  > >Woo are not taken, he _could_ put two DS players back to another
  game, and
  > >start it as an 8 vs 8.
  >
  >
  > It's something we've thought about in the past. Don't forget we
  created
  > Bofa a 3v2 game with "small is good" mentality. Personally I think
  that
  > there are slightly too many nations in the game and that with
  tweaking the
  > game could be improved. But that's my personal opinion not my GM
  > opinion. As to what we could this open a big can of worms...
  >
  >
  > Clint

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

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

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

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Torvanus
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 10:06 PM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

[R.K.Floyd]

Actually, Richard, nobody has explained why a totally random allocation
  isn't fair and therefore not the best solution.

** To be "Fair", though, you have yet to explain why random allocation,
albeit "a" fair solution, is indeed "THE BEST" solution. Several solutions
have been listed already. More than one of them is fair. I"m sure there are
more fair solutions that have not been listed yet. What makes random
allocation the BEST ? Especially considering it would alienate many players,
myself included, by taking away any freedom of choice. I find it hard to
believe that is what is "best" for the game or for us.

-Russ, who btw has never been Noldo OR Cloud Lord!

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "richard devereux" <rd@pagan-47.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gavinwj
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 9:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

  richard devereux wrote:

  > Gavin read all the way through the 150+ responses before jumping in,

as you

  > put it. And he came to the conclusion that there is no system of

weighting

  > and voting that everybody would be happy with so he offered a fair and
  > simple solution. Often the best solutions are simple, Dickie-boy.
  >
  > Gavin
  > RD: Not yours though, for reasons already explained.

  Actually, Richard, nobody has explained why a totally random allocation
  isn't fair and therefore not the best solution.

  Gavin
  RD: Both Clint and I have answered this. Go back and check our messages

on the thread.

  Oh what the hell, one more time, but I'm not going to repeat it again:

  Players won't like a purely random allocation. Why? Because it

deprives them of -any- element of choice.

  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]

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/

[gavin]

  RD: I am more than happy to see a random allocation variant given a try.

I want to see whether anyone except Gavin will play it!

  Richard.

Aha! If that's a Random Allocation but using Laurence's "No Rhudaur" game,
I might have a chance!

Brad

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "richard devereux" <rd@pagan-47.fsnet.co.uk>

[Gavin_Wynford-Jones]

You're making a lot of assumptions. And a ridiculous comparison which
doesn't bear discussion.

The random allocation is totally fair given that not all nations are equal
and therefore there will always be a pecking order, which implies that some
nations will not be chosen except under a certain level of duress. Other
nations are almost always on a player's list.

Gavin

···

At 09:45 29/11/2003, Gavinwj wrote:

Actually, Richard, nobody has explained why a totally random allocation
isn't fair and therefore not the best solution.

They have, but I'll try again. Let's look at the assumption in what you
say before we look at the first part. "Fair" is not automatically the
"best solution" because "fair" does not apply when people have not asked
for, or chosen to buy commercially, equal rights. Fair applies when people
have equal rights, and people do not have equal commercial rights until
they choose to buy in to a deal. They also have the right not to buy into
a deal - the right not to buy rights if you like. Your suggestion attempts
to dictate what everyone must buy - a random choice of nation only. When
some of the buyers will choose not to buy that.

Then to the first part "why a totally random allocation isn't fair". If I
go to the supermarket for a loaf of bread, and there is another customer
asking for the last loaf on the shelf, the manager _could_ say "I'll take
both your monies anyway, we'll flip a coin, and the loser can have a can of
beans." I might accept his offer, if I'm hungry enough, but I might just
as reasonably say "No thanks, I don't like beans, let him have the loaf,
someone else have the beans, and I'll come back with my money, on another
day." So the "random allocation" isn't fair, because it isn't fair that I
should be pressed into spending my money on something I don't want or require.

Your simplistic comment did not "cut through the knot" I'm afraid, because
cutting the knot is seeing a new and clear way through the core issues of
an argument - not simply overlooking them.

-- - - - - - - - - - -

OK, so let me open a new can of worms, by mentioning something which I
think is a little closer to a cutting of the knot. There _is_ another
way. Though Clint may not like it.

The essential "problem" (though I personally have no problem here
whatsoever, nor do many others) is the delay in game startups. And I'll
simply point out that:

    You don't _have_ to have a Rhudaur.

If he wants too, Clint can start a game with only 4 neutrals. If Nor and
Woo are not taken, he _could_ put two DS players back to another game, and
start it as an 8 vs 8.

Of course this would be far, far from the game I'd want to play. But if
the 18 players concerned are all _so_ impatient, and _so_ inflexible, it is
a solution.

I also appreciate that Clint will worry about the money - but it's going to
be better to run an 8 vs 8 game than lose the impatient customers through
slow starting games, or the patient customers by trying to coerce them.

But if there really aren't that many players complaining about startup
times, there's no problem anyway.

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/

[Gavin_Wynford-Jones]

richard devereux wrote:

Players won't like a purely random allocation. Why? Because it deprives them
of -any- element of choice.

Who says that choice is an integral part of the set up...?

It seems to me that those advocating a system of choices are actually
advocating a system whereby they can be more than a little selfish: the
"either we play with my ball or I'll take it away" philosophy.

Gavin