hi everyone,
i am a newer player so this may sound crazy but…
I think that the one week 1650 game should be considered veterans only, no rusty or new players. I also think that the setup should note communication is expected and encouraged. A screening system can be in place to catch newbies and people coming off a five year break.
I, like a lot of you, have learn and are moving toward a grudge game. This is because I am sick of getting hosed by some deuce on my team. I understand mistakes are made but they should be learned in the beginner module.
When you mention the beginner module, do you mean Battle of the Five Armies? Does BOFA’s reduced commands and simplified game mechanics adequately retrain a player who is five years + removed? Does BOFA handle alignment up-and-downgrades which can directly effect 1650 Neutrals?
Should the BOFA be forced to be played just once by the type of player you expressed (new and rusty) or would forcing play of BOFA two or three times be better suited? Or perhaps there be a dileanated path to play … BOFA, then Kinstrife, then 2950, then a two-week 1650, followed by a two-week grudge game of 1650, and only after all of that, a 1-week 1650 is available?
Long story short: At what stage does a new player become considered veteran?
Bofa is our screening process, after that players get to know the game and then if they like it play another game.
All games have different levels of skill in them, between newish players, veterans etc. I make sure that teams are balanced as much as I can - then it’s down to team-work, diplomacy, skill etc within the game. Ie both teams have new players, both have medium strength players, both have strong players as best I can manage it. Veterans/experienced doesn’t necessarily mean good btw - the one game is very balanced in terms of experience, skill, teams (ie players joining together) etc.
There’s almost always someone who’s going to be better than you, knows more about a certain element of the game, even at the top end of play I’ve found.
Grudge games are where the most skill is expressed in the game I’ve found.
I am aggrement with you That new players just coming off a BoFA are not ready for the one week 1650 game… You also when we first met in that game… Yet you have progressed very nicely by learning from both your team and opposition…
I’m still rather upset with myself over my personal brain fart in the current one week game… Needless to say I was an Impact Player but on the negative side for the teams success… So even a veteran player can really hurt the team through just one bad order.
I also aggree with Clint I seen quite a few very expierenced players that are simply not ready to handle the elite of the comunity… Yes the 1 WEEK 1650 does attract those players capable of leading a grudge team…
So My friend take even playing with lesser skilled players as a lesson in learning how to teach them how to compete with the best I’m sure you have played with and against… I’m still trying to master that skill myself!
There are “deuces” in all the games. Clint can “advise” but he can’t say “No”. ALL the Indie games have the potential for, how shall I say it, differences of opinion. People play for different reasons and get different kinds of enjoyment out of the game. People get so fed up having to try to get along with others they go screaming off to grudge games, and learn, especially when things aren’t going so well, that they have to get along with others… Just in the Indie games (1 and 2 week…), you don’t get to pick them…unless you’re a neutral…
Nothing at all wrong with the opinion you’re expressing or how you said it, IMO. It’s commonly shared, I assure you. But the wider reality is such that you’re looking for the same Platonic ideal of a game that simply exists no more so than world peace and brotherhood amongst man does in ME or the RW.
I have been playing for a very long time. However it is not consistant. Real life has caused me to have lapses in games. I have had as many as seven games going and as few as none. I didn’t like bofa. 2950 is ok and the fourth age is still coming to me. I have played about four times. The one week is appealing to me because with email, two weeks is way to long and I cool off. I find the one week is the best way to help new and rusty players. The pace of the game almost forces players to interact and help. For me it seems like a grudge with strangers. And as we all of us have learned some us are really strange:D
I just really enjoy the game and do like the new faces from time to time. There was a period for a while where the same people kept being the ones playing and you knew the foe almost too much.
My two cents…
[QUOTE=American-Iron;56837]I find the one week is the best way to help new and rusty players. The pace of the game almost forces players to interact and help. For me it seems like a grudge with strangers. [QUOTE]
Does the two week game have much less interaction?
Well let’s just say in two week games are leisure game becuase in one week games are so intense you must be ready every week for a 100 + emails and strategy ideas and the discussions that must take place in order for your team to have a chance of winning… The team with the most players actively discussing the strategy without being offended by the tone of that discussion wins… In two week games there is more time to be Diplomatic and teach and learn… So two week games players can be more friendly… One week game’s players need to be resilent to the passion of the discussions… Is probably why Whit made his post to begin with…
A player can learn alot by playing a 1 week game… Just be ready for the intensity of the play there… becuase there are players there that are that good and can teach all of us alot more about the game!
Earl,
if you find the “human element” to be difficult or tiresome, try GunBoat. That said, 1650 GunBoat is definitely for more experienced players (who know what to expect in at least their theater of battle, if not the entire game board). So if that’s not quite where you are, you can try GunBoat Fourth Age. It’s a total hoot. And the value of experience (i.e. who does what, when, and why in 1650) is of no value. All that matters is a clear understanding of the rules, creativity & skill, keeping good records, and, as in all games - some skilled teammates… LOL
The 2 week games isn’t necessarily more leisurly. I find the total quantity of mail to be less between turns, even with the extra time. People tune out for MINIMUM 10 days inbetween turns, but they all tune out for different sets of days, so the ability to have e-discussions leading to effective planning are very low. The lowest quality, quietest and most loner-prone game is the 2 week game for sure. Pick up the odd one, at least for the different scenarios as the 1 week is only 1 at a time 1650, but it’s really tough to leave the 1 week parade unless you’re overwhelmingly grudge.
My experience with grudge games is rather limited… I think even a close friend hit it right on the nose I’m a loose cannon… I still love the intensity and the competition of the 1 week players… Most grudge teams seem to be setup on gunboat format with players playing two nations… It seems to me at least something is lost when playing two… When it comes to playing two nations I tend to back away… Who knows I certainly reconsidering my position on that… So maybe i’ll begin to join some grudge teams even if it means playing two nations… If nothing more to become more of a complete player than I am currently… I’m also going to start playing 1000 again… There are alot of exceptional players there also… The 1 week 1650 game will always be a game I desire to play as long as I am active.
I personaly expect a higher level of a game in a 1week or for the new players to be taken underwing and follow the lead of the vets… Though this dose not always happen. I think if your not worried about winning as much as learning a 1-week game might be a good spot for a new player to learn the ropes quickly, meet some good friends they could ME with in other games, and play out some nations fast. I do see enough vets in some 1weeks where the teams dont work well at all; as people think their way is best and so the team just dose nothing well or far below the grade of where it should. If they went up vs a newer yet better working team I think they’d lose.
I would agree with John that the 1 week game is actually a better place to learn, get good experience, and get infected with an addiction to the game. I would hazard that you’re doing your business a disservice pushing people to the lethargic 2 week games that harken to postal days long past. Please reconsider this from a different perspective. Might even consider a small price reduction for 1 week games to get more of them going…
I’m with you on this one Whit. Communique is definitely the biggest challenge. What’s more, the ability to influence others when dialing in on a team course. If you’re fortunate enough to be in a game where you don’t have many player drops, then communication rises to the top when trying to influence others on a common goal.
Someone has mentioned gunboat as an option and I agree. I absolutely loved my first gunboat and at the time it was full of “experienced players”. At the time it gave me a break from a bad gaming experience and I got to play w/some solid players. But it is random and there is no telling who will be in the game, whether new guys or veterans. But it will be fun!
Back to communication, if one can transfer their people skills into writing by influencing others, with or w/o experience, then the game becomes more enjoyable. There are some experienced players that have not mastered the ability to influence and there are newer players that have the gift of gab that can bring others together regardless of experience.
By all means, don’t stop speaking your mind, yet keep in mind a sound strategy is one way to influence others, while a weak strategy is a way to isolate teammates, regardless of people skills. All the more reason for each team member to speak their mind instead of dropping a game. I would rather say my piece in our team forum than quit. Rest assured, winning teams also have their share of commincation issues, just less of them than the losing side. I look forward to seeing you in future games.
Clint does a pretty fair job of trying to balance the teams as well as placing players in their appropriate game. I know when my brother came back from a four year layoff we jumped immediately into the gunboat game which Clint tried to discourage us (my brother and I played it together) from joining due to the layoff. We naturally told him don’t worry we know what we are doing. Where does that put Clint? Is he suppose to tell us we are not allowed to play the game and risk losing a potential player? Again, Clint requested we play a normal game but we wanted the gunboat aspect so he allowed us to play.
A good year later we met enough players to switch to the grudge games as well as we continue to play the gunboat games. All games have ups and downs, and unfortunately more games are decided by drops then the overall play of the players. This is probably why I prefer the grudge games the most. No drop gunboat is a very nice change as you eliminate a majority of the drops (even in no drop you can not eliminate the drop outs). New players that don’t communicate put your team at a disadvantage, as do veterans that don’t communicate. Anyone want to venture in on why even in an “experienced gunboat game” we have players that either or unwilling or just forget to communicate. It puts your team at a disadvantage to not use the every fifth turn 30 word diplo to communicate and this is in a game with everyone being considered a veteran player.
I guess my point is you can not force people to do what they don’t want to do. It comes from the newbies as much as it does the experienced players.
Clint is hand’s on and that’s mostly appreciated (although sometimes it can lead to, ahem, trying circumstances…). But if your perceived defense of Clint is to address my concern, then “what he’s supposed to do” is see that the 2 week game is archaeic and more of a habit than a preference… So the 12 year vets “prefer” the 2 week game - what does that have to do with introducing new players to the game? We’re in the point-click and please-me-now world on instant gratification…1 weeks is an eternity, frankly, 2 weeks rediculous…!
For automated games cut the price for the 1 weeker and you’ll have more players happier, newer players won’t lose respect for the game and it’s slow moving “veterans”, and you’ll make more money selling more/cheaper turns.
So, the historical reaction to a call for more 1 week games is to post the game as filling…it doesn’t fill in 3 weeks, so we’re back at “It’s not popular enough I’m afraid…”. Meanwhile, we’re “pushing” new players to the 2 week game…??? Absurd, I say, totally absurd. Put a 1 week game on sale, what does it cost me now a turn, 7.80? Sell me a 1 week $5.00/turn game if I’m automated, make it your standard (the extra 2.80 for a 2 week game is extra administrative fees for having the game never end… ;)) and I bet within a year you’ll have a number of them running at the same time, more players into total, and more revenue.
