ME One nation choices

mepbmlist
#21

WHAT?! Polls are the ONLY way to determine what 'the players' want.
Certainly they are better than a small minority of players insisting
that THEY know what 'the players' want, and simply rehashing their
arguments over and over, (and not really convincing each other of
anything). How else do you propose to determine what most players REALLY
want?

You can make a poll prove almost anything you want by the way you word
it. Polls posted here are usually stuck up without discussion, by someone
who wants to bypass the discussion, but can't win his argument. I don't
think I've ever seen a fair and neutrally worded poll in this group. But
that's not the point anyway...

While I agree that the wording of a poll is important, it can most
certainly be worded such that you will get reasonably valid results.
Simply asking someone if they prefer to make everyone submit at least 3
choices or if they would rather allow people to submit only one choice
seems fairly straightforward.

Apart from the fact that MeGames can not be run as a referendum
democracy. They have to include minorities rather than exclude them, by
offering different strokes for different folks. That's how you make money.

You could have a poll asking everyone if they'd like the turn fee to be
reduced to 50p.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 02:03 03/12/2003, Urzahil wrote:

#22

This one needs clearing up. It's not a rule. The fact that there is a
long document called House Rules, does not mean that everything in it is
Holy Writ. The fact that this particular part, is not, nor has ever been
enforced demonstrates that it is not de facto, a rule.

You might argue that it should be a rule (effectively, but more accurate,
synonymous saying "The rule should be enforced.") But at the moment it is
not law.

And round the circle we go again: If Clint makes it a law, he will lose
players.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 02:03 03/12/2003, Urzahil wrote:

If I buy the same bar of
>chocolate every time I go to the sweet shop, others may think me
>unadventurous, but I might be adamant that it's what I like best. And
its
>_me_ that pays for it.

OK, that analogy doesn't mesh with this situation at all. Someone buying
a bar of chocolate doesn't preclude someone else from buying the same
kind of bar at the same time. On the other hand, someone not following
the House RULES

#23

I would certainly be willing to give 1650/2950 a try again if the 'cool'
nations were priced higher, and the 'lame' nations were cheaper. (Don't
know if I'd prefer the different turn fees or different setup fees, as
there are valid arguments for both.)

I would never play in such a game, as I have already said. In this case I
would be almost certain that the high paying player would play for
himself. Give me the chap who has patiently waited 6 months for the ClL,
any time, over the chap who has got it because he's paid double.

One of the biggest reasons I got out of 1650/2950 was because I did not
(under ANY circumsances) want to be stuck with the Rhun Easterling

Quite extraordinary that the two people debating with me most about this
today, are both 4th age only players. You have already removed yourself
from the 1650 community, you don't play at all, but you challenge my choice
to play conditionally!

How does a 3 choice system leave you stuck with RhE? Who puts RhE in their
top 3?

Most of the arguments you have applied to someone who will only play one
nation, essentially can be turned back on you if you say you'll only play
24. You're exercising the same right not to play unless your conditions
are met. Somebody has to come along and get suckered (more often than not)
with RhE for the game to start. It's just a matter of degree.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 02:08 03/12/2003, Urzahil wrote:

#24

No it doesn't, because I have already offered you first choice. I have
said that if my choice of "candy bar" is not available, I'll eat
elswhere. I only get to eat if you are not specifically fussed about which
of 3 candy bars you get given. That's fine with me.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 02:40 03/12/2003, Jason Bennett wrote:

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

>> If MeGames is up to it, (which is basically based on their ability
>> to take on even more workload), I still think that keeping records
>> of how often someone plays a position,
>
> But assumes that everyone agrees with your arbitrary judgement that
> someone playing the same position repeatedly is bad. If I buy the
> same bar of chocolate every time I go to the sweet shop, others may
> think me unadventurous, but I might be adamant that it's what I like
> best. And its _me_ that pays for it.

MikeM is totally right here. You only seem to be concerned with player
choice, as opposed to the effect that choice has on the game as a whole.

You choosing to always eat the same lunch, or the same candy bar, or
whatever has no bearing whatsoever on what I eat myself. Your choice of
nations, however, significantly impacts what nation I play.

#25

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

You choosing to always eat the same lunch, or the same candy bar, or
whatever has no bearing whatsoever on what I eat myself. Your choice of
nations, however, significantly impacts what nation I play.

No it doesn't, because I have already offered you first choice. I have said that if my choice of "candy bar" is not available, I'll eat elswhere. I only get to eat if you are not specifically fussed about which of 3 candy bars you get given. That's fine with me.

The problem is, I need you to eat, because the cafeteria will only open if enough people are going to buy at that moment. By insisting on "your way or the highway" you have implicitly kept everyone else from having dinner.

      jason

···

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

#26

>You seem to have forgotten that the rest of us are
>paying for this game too. Why shouldn't we all get
>equal chances at the premium positions for the same
>money?

You do! But you're buying, you're bidding in an
auction.

Is this the same Laurence Tilley who so adamantly
refused to pay additional money for a premium position
as was previously suggested? Now he advocates an
auction for premium positions? If the currency is hard
coin, you object, yet when the currency is time its
perfectly acceptable. Surely you must see the
contradiction.
  

>Just because you say something loudly and often
>doesn't make it right. Are you a lawyer?

Oh dear. I've tried very hard to be polite to you,
so I think I'll just
try to let the above comment go.

It was only a question, I've always enjoyed trying to
guess who a person is from his writing. Its quite
obvious that you are one of the supposed "intellectual
elite". The way you attempt to bludgeon opponents into
submission made me believe you were a lawyer, but they
seldom actually believe in their own infalibilty.
Right now I'm leaning toward academia, a researcher or
professor, perhaps?

Three parties need to be considered when discussing
this policy:

First, is it good for harley to have single choice as
an open policy?

My answer would be "no". That same policy led to the
situation at Allsorts when Harley took over MEPBM. Two
games of 2950 filling when none has started in six
months isn't good for the company.

Second, is it good for the community as a whole?

Again, I would say no. See the above, having one game
start a year (if you are lucky!) would surely be
disastrous. Throw in frustration at never getting a
specific position and you have a clear loser.

Third, is it good for the players who get their single
choices?

Obviously yes.

This will be my closing message on this topic, I'd
rather not see it descend any further. The arguments
have been presnted and debated, anything further (and
a good deal of what has already passed) is only so
much hot air. For those of you still listening, I hope
I have provided a few reasonable and moral counters to
Laurence's postion.

Respectfully,

Mike Bateman

···

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

#27

> >You seem to have forgotten that the rest of us are
> >paying for this game too. Why shouldn't we all get
> >equal chances at the premium positions for the same
> >money?
>
> You do! But you're buying, you're bidding in an
> auction.

Is this the same Laurence Tilley who so adamantly
refused to pay additional money for a premium position
as was previously suggested? Now he advocates an
auction for premium positions? If the currency is hard
coin,

You've selectively edited me, removing the part where I explained that in
my analogy the currency is the time you're willing to wait.

This will be my closing message on this topic, I'd
rather not see it descend any further. The arguments
have been presnted and debated, anything further (and
a good deal of what has already passed) is only so
much hot air.

lol. You made me laugh as I'd just decided to say exactly the same
thing. Agreement at last, great minds think alike :wink:

I was getting bugged off by having to repeat the same answers to the same
questions and challenges from people who hadn't read the thread, but at the
same time having others, who had read it, ask me not to post so
much. Can't please em all! So like you, I'll post no more on it. If you
or Bob or anyone else wishes to discuss it more with me by direct e-mail,
you'd be most welcome.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

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

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

···

At 04:52 03/12/2003, mike bateman wrote:

#28

More popular nations cost more? What are the proposals along these lines
regarding??

1) Set Up Fees
2) Turn Fees
3) Both
???

Does anyone really think that this would increase revenue? I would hazard a
guess that a significant portion of current players would simply leave, and
a very significant portion of those remaining would simply put in, instead
of their "3 nation choices" a set up as "Any of the cheapest nations
please.", much like I would. Games will start faster this way?
How?....Anyone?

Brad Brunet

#29

More popular nations cost more? What are the proposals along these lines
regarding??

1) Set Up Fees
2) Turn Fees
3) Both
???

Does anyone really think that this would increase revenue? I would hazard a
guess that a significant portion of current players would simply leave, and
a very significant portion of those remaining would simply put in, instead
of their "3 nation choices" a set up as "Any of the cheapest nations
please.", much like I would. Games will start faster this way?
How?....Anyone?

Brad Brunet

#30

Check out the polls section on the group site and look at the number of
participants....my conclusion is that they are fun for the creator and a
few others, but as a meaningful source of information guaging "player"
opinion? Nada.

Brad Brunet

#31

Check out the polls section on the group site and look at the number of
participants....my conclusion is that they are fun for the creator and a
few others, but as a meaningful source of information guaging "player"
opinion? Nada.

Brad Brunet

#32

Check out the polls section on the group site and look at the number of
participants....my conclusion is that they are fun for the creator and a
few others, but as a meaningful source of information guaging "player"
opinion? Nada.

Brad Brunet

#33

The WW keeps coming up in this one-nation-choice conversation. I'm trying
to figure out what's so great about this nation. Yes, it's potentially great
fun if one has the guts to go DS (as I've done a couple times). But 90% of
the players I see "finally" get this "long-awaited" position sit around and
post camps, go FP, then try to march armies halfway across the world to join
in some little battles before it's too late and the game ends. And, oh,
let's not forget, the player gets to add one more curse mage (Saruman) to
Galadriel/ Elrond's company. Oooooo, what fun. Tell 'em, Brad B. :slight_smile:

Russ

#34

The WW keeps coming up in this one-nation-choice conversation. I'm trying
to figure out what's so great about this nation. Yes, it's potentially

great

fun if one has the guts to go DS (as I've done a couple times). But 90%

of

the players I see "finally" get this "long-awaited" position sit around

and

post camps, go FP, then try to march armies halfway across the world to

join

in some little battles before it's too late and the game ends. And, oh,
let's not forget, the player gets to add one more curse mage (Saruman) to
Galadriel/ Elrond's company. Oooooo, what fun. Tell 'em, Brad B. :slight_smile:

Russ

Actually, you knocked Galadriel out of the game until I enticed her back
into "My" curse squad. And while it *was* a pain trying to march those
armies halfway across the world, it *was* fun knocking out the Khand with
Bill Ferny challenging _and_ assassinting Captains in his capital same
turn... It's also quite enjoyable when a lippy Corsairs can't hold a 6
month old agent hostage in his capital... Watch out, she's almost 2 now,
complete with the reputed willfulness and attitude...next time you won't
stand a chance against Emily, Canadian lawn mower or no...

And as an aside (or is this the only relevant feature?), I got the WW in my
one and only 2950 game to date - although I can't remember if it was 1st or
2nd nation choice. Maybe it was a Nation # 24 thing?

Brad B

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "R.K.Floyd" <rkfloyd@charter.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:21 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] WW waiting list? Why?

#35

Dude: It's Saruman.

Ok, ok. That said, it's a real spoiler position. I think in 2950 the top
three neutrals are WW, Duns, and Corsairs. If the WW can get the Duns to
join them in an iron alliance, you basically create a mini-mordor in the
middle of the Free Peoples. Its just, psychologically, a cool position.

That said, I agree with you: Saruman does seem to go Free instead of DS.

Later,
Jeffery A.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: R.K.Floyd [mailto:rkfloyd@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:21 AM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] WW waiting list? Why?

The WW keeps coming up in this one-nation-choice conversation. I'm
trying
to figure out what's so great about this nation. Yes, it's potentially
great
fun if one has the guts to go DS (as I've done a couple times). But 90%
of
the players I see "finally" get this "long-awaited" position sit around
and
post camps, go FP, then try to march armies halfway across the world to
join
in some little battles before it's too late and the game ends. And, oh,
let's not forget, the player gets to add one more curse mage (Saruman)
to
Galadriel/ Elrond's company. Oooooo, what fun. Tell 'em, Brad B. :slight_smile:

Russ

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/

#36

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

This one needs clearing up. It's not a rule. The fact that there is a
long document called House Rules, does not mean that everything in it is
Holy Writ. The fact that this particular part, is not, nor has ever been
enforced demonstrates that it is not de facto, a rule.

So they're suggestions then? Including the bit about keeping your account in
credit?

No wonder Clint can't get people to read them if people like you think
they're only for show...

Gavin

#37

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

Quite extraordinary that the two people debating with me most about this
today, are both 4th age only players. You have already removed yourself
from the 1650 community, you don't play at all, but you challenge my choice
to play conditionally!

As far as I read their responses, they removed themselves precisely because
the current system is totally flawed. If the allocation of nations were
improved, then they'd return.

Seems fair to me.

Gavin

#38

Raising the price of different nations doesn't have to lead to an increase in revenues. As noted before, popular nations could have increased rates with unpopular nations having reduced rates, leaving income per game the same. And it wouldn't matter to me how it was done, whether through higher start-ups or higher per turn fees. The point here is that cost could be used to entice players to play certain crappy positions and get a premium from those players who want to have the most fun nations.

It works for airlines
It works for concerts
It works for hotels

Why would it not work for Middle earth?

···

Brad Brunet <bbrunec296@rogers.com> wrote:
More popular nations cost more? What are the proposals along these lines
regarding??

1) Set Up Fees
2) Turn Fees
3) Both
???

Does anyone really think that this would increase revenue? I would hazard a
guess that a significant portion of current players would simply leave, and
a very significant portion of those remaining would simply put in, instead
of their "3 nation choices" a set up as "Any of the cheapest nations
please.", much like I would. Games will start faster this way?
How?....Anyone?

Brad Brunet

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

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

#39

Here, here! Average cost could be kept the same, maybe a pound more
per turn for 3 great nations and a pound less per turn for 3 nations
which are slow to fill. (A pound is what, a buck and a half, making
it $5 or $8 per turn?)

Faster game starts would increase player satisfaction and increase
revenue for megames. Labor costs probably wouldn't change much.

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, joe hayre <testcase4321@y...>
wrote:

Raising the price of different nations doesn't have to lead to an

increase in revenues. As noted before, popular nations could have
increased rates with unpopular nations having reduced rates, leaving
income per game the same. And it wouldn't matter to me how it was
done, whether through higher start-ups or higher per turn fees. The
point here is that cost could be used to entice players to play
certain crappy positions and get a premium from those players who
want to have the most fun nations.

···

It works for airlines
It works for concerts
It works for hotels

Why would it not work for Middle earth?

#40

And as an aside (or is this the only relevant feature?), I got the WW in my
one and only 2950 game to date - although I can't remember if it was 1st or
2nd nation choice. Maybe it was a Nation # 24 thing?

* No, I think Clint was trying to make up having to play all those Rhudars
by giving you, *ahem*, the "Best" nation in 2950. :wink:

Russ

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Brunet" <bbrunec296@rogers.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] WW waiting list? Why?

----- Original Message -----
From: "R.K.Floyd" <rkfloyd@charter.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:21 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] WW waiting list? Why?

> The WW keeps coming up in this one-nation-choice conversation. I'm

trying

> to figure out what's so great about this nation. Yes, it's potentially
great
> fun if one has the guts to go DS (as I've done a couple times). But 90%
of
> the players I see "finally" get this "long-awaited" position sit around
and
> post camps, go FP, then try to march armies halfway across the world to
join
> in some little battles before it's too late and the game ends. And, oh,
> let's not forget, the player gets to add one more curse mage (Saruman)

to

> Galadriel/ Elrond's company. Oooooo, what fun. Tell 'em, Brad B. :slight_smile:
>
> Russ

Actually, you knocked Galadriel out of the game until I enticed her back
into "My" curse squad. And while it *was* a pain trying to march those
armies halfway across the world, it *was* fun knocking out the Khand with
Bill Ferny challenging _and_ assassinting Captains in his capital same
turn... It's also quite enjoyable when a lippy Corsairs can't hold a 6
month old agent hostage in his capital... Watch out, she's almost 2 now,
complete with the reputed willfulness and attitude...next time you won't
stand a chance against Emily, Canadian lawn mower or no...

And as an aside (or is this the only relevant feature?), I got the WW in

my

one and only 2950 game to date - although I can't remember if it was 1st

or

2nd nation choice. Maybe it was a Nation # 24 thing?

Brad B

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/