ME One nation choices

mepbmlist
#41

Dude: It's Saruman.

* I have little respect for someone who, in the books, was assassinated by .
. .Grima Wormtongue?? :slight_smile:

Russ

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffery A. Dobberpuhl" <attorney@lakenet.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:45 AM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] WW waiting list? Why?

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/

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/

#42

I have seen a number of people argue against the

whole concept of pricing different positions
differently, but it's worked for all of history in the
real world so I fail to see why it wouldn't work here
in Middle Earth.

It often doesn't work in the "real world," either.

Hollywood tried tailored pricing for movies, in three
states for two years. It makes sense for pricing: if
LotR sells out for weeks, why shouldn't people pay
more to see it than to see anything starring Adam
Sandler? Why shouldn't people pay more to see a movie
on opening night?

Because they hate it. They'll accept only minor
changes in pricing -- matinee shows, or Monday night
discounts -- but not individualized pricing for movies
or many things. Most mobile phone plans include a
"free" 60 or 600 minutes, which I hate (since I use
mine perhaps ten minutes a month), but people like the
convenience, despite the intrinsic inefficiency.

My dad, a computer programmer back in the day, wrote a
script for a Poultry Association to maximize the mix
of feed for chickens. The nutritional needs of
chickens can be met through various combinations of
grains, but since wheat, barley, and corn vary in
price from week to week, farmers wanted a way to
determine the current cheapest mix.

The program worked perfectly -- it automatically found
the optimal combination for any period -- but the
first week they used it, the chickens wouldn't eat the
feed.

Rant and rave all you want about how it isn't right or
fair, but people just don't like tailored pricing for
all their consumables any more than chickens do.

And if players object to tailored pricing for ME
nations -- I do, as do a whole lot of players here --
then it's worth considering other options.

Just have players list the nations they want, then
allocate them by starting with the #1 choices, and
giving preference to new players. Then choose randomly
from the remainder.

If you want to wait to play the Cloud Lord, you can
(and probably will). If you want to play immediately
no matter what, list five choices and you're in. If
you want the Eothraim, list them ahead of the Noldo.

Dan N.

···

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

#43

Here are a few not so random thoughts concerning various nation choice scenarios, which have applied to me or friends of mine recently.

What happens if a group of four or five people want to enter a game together and specify a particular group of nations they would like to play? Are they being unsociable because they are trying to corner the market in a set of nations or sociable because they have each given four or five choices of nations?

Suppose that a couple of people join together and say that they want Arthedain/Cardolan, NG/SG or Eothraim/Northmen (for example). It seems perfectly reasonable that they might want to work together in a way that Arthedain/Northmen are never going to do. They've even selected three nations each but the overall choice is still constrained.

What you want to do with newcomers? A random allocation of nations would possibly be very unfair on them and the rest of their team. On the other hand, they may not know enough to pick good nations for themselves so should other players be able to bump them from good positions by only selecting one nation?

So far as I can see the best way to accomodate these is to leave it up to the Gods (i.e ME Games ). There may be games in which a number of players specify a single position. Then the answer is to tell some of them that they can't have what they want and give them the choice of waiting (with no guarantee that they will get the position in the next game either) or of being flexible.

From a personal point of view, I have now played every DS position except Dk Lts. I personally find the Cloud Lord quite limiting. It's satisfying to rack up the kills but that's about it. On the other hand I enjoy the QA and even the Fire King can be fun after the first 15 or so turns. I guess this means that I'm in line for some good discounts if we get differential pricing.

Richard

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

#44

<<I got the WW in my
one and only 2950 game to date>>

* Speaking of which . . . Brad, when can we expect your company again?

<<It's also quite enjoyable when a lippy Corsairs can't hold a 6

month old agent hostage in his capital... >>

* What can I say . . . babies are slippery, what with all the baby oil!
However, You seem to have forgotten that I finally managed to assassinate
her. :wink: (actually, we just adopted her. She ended up usurping my throne
at the tender age of 1 1/2 and she now leads the remnants of my Corsair
Empire-in-Hiding. Kids these days! I swear. )

-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/

#45

D N wrote:

Why shouldn't people pay more to see a movie
on opening night?

Because they hate it. They'll accept only minor
changes in pricing -- matinee shows, or Monday night
discounts -- but not individualized pricing for movies
or many things.

Tell that to Stelios. He's made a very successful business out of individual
pricing. It's called easyJet. His latest idea? Individual pricing for cinema
seats... And, last I read, it seems to be working out quite nicely.

As long as people know the rules in advance, individual pricing actually
works well.

Gavin

#46

As long as people know the rules in advance, individual pricing actually works well.

I think that it can work in some situations but not others. Business models are not always suited to be spread liberally across any business in my experience. Not saying that I don't think it couldn't work - it might well do but at present we're not following this potential avenue.

Clint

#47

What happens if a group of four or five people want to enter a game together and specify a particular group of nations they would like to play? Are they being unsociable because they are trying to corner the market in a set of nations or sociable because they have each given four or five choices of nations?

It's not that it's unsociable it's that it slows down game set-ups and give less choice to those who give more nations. Ie it make the players who have less choice less happy and that leads to drop outs. Of course not being able to choose nations that you specifically want to play (whether it be Rhudaur, CL, WW or Northmen) also causes drop outs (or less happiness). There's now way I can please both groups of people but most players are happy to compromise in most situations I have found. For those that aren't I am still considering the policy we'll take there. (Do I offend a handful of players and potentially lose their income or see where we can compromise in some situations, or what. At present I haven't decided.)

Suppose that a couple of people join together and say that they want Arthedain/Cardolan, NG/SG or Eothraim/Northmen (for example). It seems perfectly reasonable that they might want to work together in a way that Arthedain/Northmen are never going to do. They've even selected three nations each but the overall choice is still constrained.

That would be fine if I had 2 players choose these 3 combinations - in most games. For example, I often get Ar/Ca combos for players joining together. (Low pressure nations with a reasonably simple game plan to follow in most cases means it suitable for players joining with an ally new to the game).

It's when I get Cl/Dk or Dog/Long that it starts getting difficult.... :slight_smile:

What you want to do with newcomers?

See above and my many emails on this subject. In short I try to encourage them to play Bofa first, then 1650 with a list of nations that I have come up with player assistance. (Off the top of my head: FP 1,2,4,5,8 and sometimes 9; DS: 15,17,18,19 maybe 16 as well - although I encourage FPs over DS as their economies are stronger and hence simpler to play). If they're joining with allies then an allied nation to these for the experienced player).

A random allocation of nations would possibly be very unfair on them and the rest of their team. On the other hand, they may not know enough to pick good nations for themselves so should other players be able to bump them from good positions by only selecting one nation?

See above.

From a personal point of view, I have now played every DS position except Dk Lts. I personally find the Cloud Lord quite limiting. It's satisfying to rack up the kills but that's about it. On the other hand I enjoy the QA and even the Fire King can be fun after the first 15 or so turns. I guess this means that I'm in line for some good discounts if we get differential pricing.

Can't see differential pricing occurring at present - seems unpopular.

Clint

#48

Can Clint or another decision maker from the company come on line and advise
us all as the his/their opinions on this matter of "individual pricing" or
whatever other airline business practices are considered as applicable to
mepbm?

Is it something you're considering that will in effect be revenue neutral
(increasing some prices, reducing others to balance)? The only possible
reason for this option is to supposedly increase the speed of game set
ups...(?) I don't believe I've heard that is a problem. It seems to me
that an innocent question has been taken to ridiculous extremes, as I only
hear over and over again that 1650 games set up quite quickly.

Is it something you're considering that will in effect Increase revenue, in
place of an across the board price increase? I would hazard a guess that
the 'majority' would rather the across the board price increase.

Wasn't the original issue something to do with people who only list 1 nation
when asking for games? The status quo is that you'll do your best to
accomodate them, but there are no guarantees - such that if those players
have to wait a long time for their nation, that's their choice? I don't
believe anyone's seen a problem with that. Laurence is willing to wait, and
he's well aware if he were to put in a list, he'd get in a 'game' faster, at
least, if not exactly that nation. I may have missed some messages, but I
don't recall anyone taking that reasonable stance to task (I certainly
*have* read much hoopla regarding selfishness, capitalism, fairness,
etc...but nothing that seemed to truly address his "I can wait if I want
to." point. Note the key words "reasonable", "willing", and of course "do
your best"). I also don't recall anyone complaining about games taking too
long to start. We've had all sorts of hypothetical and "what if" prattle,
but I don't consider much of any of it to have any bearing on the current
situation.

And while you're at it, can you answer this yes or no question: Do you have
the information based on player's account numbers such that it would be
relatively simple to compile a list of Players and their historical Nations
Played?

Best Regards,

Brad Brunet

#49

From: Laurence G. Tilley [mailto:laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk]

  >
  >Oh I do hope we won't get into straw polls. Straw polls here tend to
  >destroy discussion without ever resolving anything. That's because you
  >will get a completely different response if you ask the question you
  give
  >above, to if I were to word it, or if you were to ask about current
  >satisfaction with startup times. We're talking about the action of a
  >minority here, demonstrating that the minority is a minority is not an
  >achievement.

  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?

  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.

  Mike Mulka
  RD: I for one do not participate in straw polls. My pc is old and slow and I will not waste my precious (gaming!) time visiting websites unless it is essential.

  If I have a strong enough point of view I'll put it on the list for all to see.

  If Harle want to test players' opinion, why not include the relevant question on the FS?

  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: Urzahil
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:03 AM
  Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Re: ME One nation choices

  >-----Original Message-----

#50

Can Clint or another decision maker from the company come on line and advise
us all as the his/their opinions on this matter of "individual pricing" or
whatever other airline business practices are considered as applicable to
mepbm?

At present we're not looking at doing this. See earlier email in reply to Richard.

The only possible

reason for this option is to supposedly increase the speed of game set
ups...(?) I don't believe I've heard that is a problem. It seems to me
that an innocent question has been taken to ridiculous extremes, as I only
hear over and over again that 1650 games set up quite quickly.

For 1000 games in particular it is a problem. For 2950 it's a little problem 3 months is the usual wait so that's 6 weeks of us with no income from on average 12 players for each 2950 game. For 1000 it's roughly 12 players x say 4 months. Total loss = 36+48 turns income about £4,500 per year. :frowning:

From a player perspective if we use the average of 3-4mths for a 1000/2950 game then that's not good either. Not much we can do there as it's the nature of the game - less players in a game would be one answer but that would introduce another variant and variants dilute the player base effectively. (On the other hand variants also keep players playing - swings and roundabouts).

Is it something you're considering that will in effect Increase revenue, in
place of an across the board price increase? I would hazard a guess that
the 'majority' would rather the across the board price increase.

We've no plans for a price increase. Actually, we're looking into an overall decrease in pricing if we can - that's for the New Year.

Wasn't the original issue something to do with people who only list 1 nation when asking for games?

Yes - but I am happy to talk about other issues that come up out of the original question.

  The status quo is that you'll do your best to
accomodate them, but there are no guarantees - such that if those players
have to wait a long time for their nation, that's their choice?

Not sure if that's the policy I am going to go with - see the email with Richard just before this one. I haven't decided yet. I'll probably leave it for a while to mull over. Just had a 2nd player ask only for Corsairs in 2950 and I advised him that a delay of 8 months would probably occur - to which he said fine. Effectively lost a player there... :slight_smile:

I don't believe anyone's seen a problem with that. Laurence is willing to wait, and
he's well aware if he were to put in a list, he'd get in a 'game' faster, at
least, if not exactly that nation.

That's not quite my perspective. Laurence is one of the players specifically asking for one nation and only that nation. Not sure I quite understand your sentence though... :slight_smile:

  I also don't recall anyone complaining about games taking too long to start.

I am ... :slight_smile: LOL. Not much I can do about it. :slight_smile:

And while you're at it, can you answer this yes or no question: Do you have
the information based on player's account numbers such that it would be
relatively simple to compile a list of Players and their historical Nations
Played?

Simple answer No. More complex answer: It would take quite a lot of work to do this (although less to do it from now on) and I am not convinced that it would actually help the situation. For example these are the following top nations (1650) in my perspective; 7,8,9,10,13,14,19,20,21,22,23,25 . I define top nation in this meaning nations that are very popular and/or powerful [and safe]. that's a lot of choice for a player to pick top nations from. So they can swap amongst these nations choosing other strong nations (with their list of 3+ nations) and it not actually help me set-up games. Any thoughts?

Back to the initial point - if a player chooses one nation (or a couple of [or more] high profile nations) that does mess up setting up in games and/or reduce choice for other more "liberal" players. Although I respect the player choice to pick one nation I also have to respect the opinion of the majority of my players as well who want a fair system of nation allocation. As mentioned not sure what I'll do here yet.

Part of the reason I was interested in a price break for players giving me many choices but I agree with the arguments put forward that I don't think it will particularly help.

Clint

#51

Hadn't it been discovered that some people dont actually read the FS ?

Thomas

  RD: I for one do not participate in straw polls. My pc is old and slow

and I will not waste my precious (gaming!) time visiting websites unless it
is essential.

  If I have a strong enough point of view I'll put it on the list for all

to see.

  If Harle want to test players' opinion, why not include the relevant

question on the FS?

···

  Richard.

#52

Could someone point me to the rules for this variant. I have looked
for them with no luck so far. I guess those those 12 nation pairs
choices of 10 and 14 that I have submitted through 2007 have
curtailed my ability to find things recently.

Thanks,
       Steven McAbee (CL 05-06), (Noldo 06-07)

#53

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.

WHAT?! It's not a rule because I don't obey it and it hasn't been
enforced effectively often enough? I hope you don't try that one in
court.

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

lose

players.

And if Clint doesn't make it a law, he will lose (and most likely
already has lost) players.

Mike Mulka

#54

From: Laurence G. Tilley [mailto:laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk]

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.

Now you're just being silly. Are you actually saying that a business
can't be run by finding out what most of its customers want and
accomodating them? Seems like a very good way to run a business to me.
And your 'example' of a poll is just ludicrous. Of course you can have
silly polls. Of course you can word polls to get the results you want.
I've already agreed with that. What I don't agree with is that ALL polls
are bad and must never be used. A properly administered poll is a much
better way to determine what most players want than who rants and raves
the loudest and the longest.

Mike Mulka

···

----Original Message-----

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

#55

From: Laurence G. Tilley [mailto:laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk]

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.

Now who's being judgmental with no evidence to support his wild claims.
What about the person who picks up a second nation because of a teammate
dropping. They're paying twice as much, but in my experience, they've
been every bit a team player (if not more so) than someone running their
normal one nation.

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!

True. You just seem to bring out the debater in me, and apparently
others as well. :wink:

As for 'removing myself from the 1650 community', part of the reason for
that is the lack of enforcement of the 'Choose 3 nations' RULE, which
often removes the best nations from consideration for those who do
follow the RULES.

Mike Mulka

···

-----Original Message-----
At 02:08 03/12/2003, Urzahil wrote:

#56

From: Laurence G. Tilley [mailto:laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk]

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.

So you're saying that someone who essentially gives Clint a list of 24
nations to play is the same as someone who gives a list of ONE nation?
Hmmm... Those numbers just don't add up.

···

-----Original Message-----

#57

Actually, I don't know that there is a list of scenario/variant rules. I
was going to put up a web page that listed them all for easy
reference... except I don't know them all.

Anyone out there got a decent list of all the 1650/2950/1000/BOFA game
variants? If so send it along to me and I'll get something posted.

Mike Mulka

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Torvanus [mailto:torvanus@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 6:22 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] WotR variant

Could someone point me to the rules for this variant. I have looked
for them with no luck so far. I guess those those 12 nation pairs
choices of 10 and 14 that I have submitted through 2007 have
curtailed my ability to find things recently.

Thanks,
      Steven McAbee (CL 05-06), (Noldo 06-07)

#58

Gavin wrote:

Tell that to Stelios. He's made a very successful

business out of individual
pricing. It's called easyJet.

in response to my statement:

Why shouldn't people pay more to see a movie

on opening night?
Because they hate it. They'll accept only minor
changes in pricing -- matinee shows, or Monday night
discounts -- but not individualized pricing for movies
or many things.

Gavin, did you interpret my message as saying
"individualized pricing never works for anything,
ever?"

It doesn't say that.

It does say that tailored pricing doesn't work in some
arenas, and I gave examples of two where it had been
tried -- and rejected because of customer
dissatifaction.

I personally believe that would happen here if ME
Games charged more for the Cloud Lord. If you don't,
fine. Sometimes individual pricing works well.

And sometimes it doesn't.

Dan
No Individual Nation Fees, Please

···

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

#59

I really don't see the point of different costs for different nations.
It would probably complicate the accounting system, and any reasonable
differences wouldn't be enough to really affect peoples judgements
about what nations they pick.

More to the point - the "stronger" nations carry extra responsibility
for the rest of the team, since they usually have unique abilities.
The Cloud Lord is a classic example - when played properly, you
actually have relatively little freedom in your orders. Your agents
go where the team needs them, and for you to be useful you need a lot
of help from mages, scouts, etc.

If too many folks are looking for the primo nations, this is one area
where the scoring system could actually help.
If your score is relative to other players running the same nation,
there is actually an incentive to pick the woodmen over the noldo
(since any fool can get a high score with the noldo!)

If there are true loser nations (2950 Northern Gondor, Rhun; 1650
Rhuduar) then the message might be to beef them up and make them
interesting...

cheers,

Marc

#60

<shrug>. I've essentially removed myself from non-grudge matches
because good games are too infrequent. With the advent of online
resources and universal email, a team that can't quickly gell will
simply get stomped by one that does.

Personally, I think that random draw games need to ensure that the
critical nations are played by folks who can serve as leaders for the
team and who are willing to use their nation abilities for the team.
  Ensuring that the experience mix is pretty even on both sides is
also key. "First come" or "draw lots" are nice principles. But there
are 24 other folks, and an incompetent 1650 NGondor or Cloud Lord can
ensure a boring game for everyone else.

An incompetent or un co-operative player running a key nation is just
as deadly to a fun game if they're paying double for the priviledge of
messing things up for everyone else. Higher turn fees won't help.
And - if you must run a cool-o nation - form a grudge team and
persuade your teammates that you should do it.

cheers,

Marc