Clint here, we're (Sam & I) over in Miami at DGE at present finishing
off the packaging of the games here. Yes, we are taking over DGE's
games - making some 60+ games that we are now running of ME - with
over 700 players. Whew!
It's been a hectic few days - and the preparations had to be kept
quiet before that - I trust that things went well as we have been out
of touch recently. Sorry we were unable to give more warning we were
only given the go-ahead by GSI on the 18/12/00.
If anyone needs to chat to us concerning this we'll be in the office -
around 27-29th Dec dealing with all the goodies that Santa has given
us. (It's going to be hectic over the next few days.)
Thanks to Harold, Stu, Mike and Michelle for their wonderful
hospitality whilst we have been visiting. (And various members
of family). You'll be hearing some more of Stu in the UK over the
coming months as he is helping to transfer things. We've seen some
nice improvements that we can make - they'll take some time to
implement but I'll discuss that with you all when we get back.
I think you should consider using the American way of setups:
Each player wishes 3-4 nations and picks one that he definitely does
not want to play, and then DGE assign the nations. This is a great
way of getting games started faster, and assuring two friends does
not sign up as Rhudaur and Dunlendings !!
The only way to make sure you get the nation you really want is to
use a winners certificate (which should be introduced in Harlequin as
well).
Happy New Year to all
Ulrik Bisgaard
P.S. How about those (i.e. me) who have winner certificates from the
US and free setups ?
Hi everyone
Clint here, we're (Sam & I) over in Miami at DGE at present
off the packaging of the games here. Yes, we are taking over DGE's
games - making some 60+ games that we are now running of ME - with
over 700 players. Whew!
Also, while I generally prefer Harlequin's "first-come, first-served" basis
for allocating positions, it _does_ lend itself to "neutral stacking" (not
only by friends playing neighboring neutrals, but by friends of players
playing an aligned nation taking neutral positions and essentially being
"with that allegiance" before the game ever starts ...). I might suggest
some combination of preference-listing and first-to-sign-up gets priorirty,
along with GWC preferences ... more or less like DGE (and formerly GSI) has
done it.
$.02 (American!)
b
ubi@pfa.dk wrote:
···
I think you should consider using the American way of setups:
Each player wishes 3-4 nations and picks one that he definitely does
not want to play, and then DGE assign the nations. This is a great
way of getting games started faster, and assuring two friends does
not sign up as Rhudaur and Dunlendings !!
The only way to make sure you get the nation you really want is to
use a winners certificate (which should be introduced in Harlequin as
well).
Happy New Year to all
Ulrik Bisgaard
P.S. How about those (i.e. me) who have winner certificates from the
US and free setups ?
--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, pbm@h... wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> Clint here, we're (Sam & I) over in Miami at DGE at present
finishing
> off the packaging of the games here. Yes, we are taking over DGE's
> games - making some 60+ games that we are now running of ME - with
> over 700 players. Whew!
>
I'll look into that - the problem that I see with the Individual winners is
that it encourages individual play in a team game. Something that i have
got the impression most players do not like. You get the free set-up as it
is and We are very likely to get the certificate up and running again. What
do others think? From what I can see when this came up before players like
to play specific nations and I generally ask players what they do want to
play and tell them what is available - by only allowing one game to take
start-ups at a time games actually get filled more quickly as well.
Clint
···
I think you should consider using the American way of setups:
Each player wishes 3-4 nations and picks one that he definitely does
not want to play, and then DGE assign the nations. This is a great
way of getting games started faster, and assuring two friends does
not sign up as Rhudaur and Dunlendings !!
The only way to make sure you get the nation you really want is to
use a winners certificate (which should be introduced in Harlequin as
well).
Happy New Year to all
Ulrik Bisgaard
P.S. How about those (i.e. me) who have winner certificates from the
US and free setups ?
--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, pbm@h... wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> Clint here, we're (Sam & I) over in Miami at DGE at present
finishing
> off the packaging of the games here. Yes, we are taking over DGE's
> games - making some 60+ games that we are now running of ME - with
> over 700 players. Whew!
>
We try to discourage this - we check that players are allied and as with all
such things players who are "aligned" to start with should be aware that
this is not allowed and should even be considered cheating. Looking at the
DGE style games take LONGER to set-up than over here. I'll discuss this
with Stu when he comes over.
Clint
Good question, Ulrik.
What about GWCs?
Also, while I generally prefer Harlequin's "first-come, first-served"
basis
for allocating positions, it _does_ lend itself to "neutral stacking" (not
only by friends playing neighboring neutrals, but by friends of players
playing an aligned nation taking neutral positions and essentially being
"with that allegiance" before the game ever starts ...). I might suggest
some combination of preference-listing and first-to-sign-up gets
priorirty,
along with GWC preferences ... more or less like DGE (and formerly GSI)
The only way to make sure you get the nation you really want is to
use a winners certificate (which should be introduced in Harlequin as
well).
No thanks. Let's not have the worst of American play inflicted upon us
in Britain. "Winners certificates" would be completely unfair to those
of us who play for the team, and who are interested in team victory and
not individual placings - which are of course utterly stupid in a game
where starting conditions are completely different for each player.
I'll look into that - the problem that I see with the Individual winners is
that it encourages individual play in a team game. Something that i have
got the impression most players do not like. You get the free set-up as it
is and We are very likely to get the certificate up and running again. What
do others think? From what I can see when this came up before players like
The more Harlequin can do to eliminate individual victory conditions, or
at least make them consistent with team play, the better. When I get
personally rewarded for attacking my allies (as several of my victory
conditions say), that's never good.
Yep -- that's what we think as well!!! When we have gone through the
1-3 months pain period we can look into details like this properly. I did
try to get a game winner as voted by team up and running but thatdropped by
the wayside. I'll try again soon.
Clint
Harlequin Games wrote:
>
> I'll look into that - the problem that I see with the Individual winners
is
> that it encourages individual play in a team game. Something that i
have
> got the impression most players do not like. You get the free set-up as
it
> is and We are very likely to get the certificate up and running again.
What
> do others think? From what I can see when this came up before players
like
···
The more Harlequin can do to eliminate individual victory conditions, or
at least make them consistent with team play, the better. When I get
personally rewarded for attacking my allies (as several of my victory
conditions say), that's never good.
Agreed, there is merit to both systems. I will say that Harly games tend to
fill up quicker ... If the neutral-related issues I brought up can be
addressed (as Clint suggests), I would happily see "the Harly Way" adopted
across the board ...
$.02 (additional ..)
b
ubi@pfa.dk wrote:
···
Good point. But I still would like to see the US way of signing up
applied.
Ulrik Bisgaard
--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...>
wrote:
> ubi@p... wrote
> >The only way to make sure you get the nation you really want is to
> >use a winners certificate (which should be introduced in Harlequin
as
> >well).
> No thanks. Let's not have the worst of American play inflicted
upon us
> in Britain. "Winners certificates" would be completely unfair to
those
> of us who play for the team, and who are interested in team victory
and
> not individual placings - which are of course utterly stupid in a
game
> where starting conditions are completely different for each player.
>
> Regards,
>
> Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Thoughts on this as before - basically we trust Neutrals not to abuse the
situation- the game is abusable in many different ways if players want to to
do that (rather not go into that really). But with more games able to fill
up maybe we can start doing two 1650 games at a time? (As per usual we go
for team games as separate to this). Having Neutrals randomly allocated to
games (not positions) does help stop the cheating but it slows game creation
down - so the knock on effect is that more players drop due to the delay in
start-up and enthusiasm lags. (Especially 2950 & 1000 games!)
Which to go with?!
We invariably have the odd Neutral as one of the last positions to fill as
it is (Rhudaur normally, Easterlings regularly, in 2950 Khand and Rhun). My
preference is trust the players and go for the speedier option, rather than
the delayed but safer method. (I would estimate it some 6 weeks delay in
getting a game up based on what I have seen before with the slower option
with one game and 2 x5 neutrals allocated, or two games setting up some 2-3
months delay).
Clint
Agreed, there is merit to both systems. I will say that Harly games tend
to
···
fill up quicker ... If the neutral-related issues I brought up can be
addressed (as Clint suggests), I would happily see "the Harly Way" adopted
across the board ...
When we have gone through the