I like Laurence's idea of "winning tickets". I guess it would be easy to
adminster Clint?
I'd also suggest that maybe game set ups should identify who Clint has
"placed" as the more experienced players or otherwise identify "mentors" for
anyone with, say, less than 5 completed games under their belt.
FTF here I come 
Mike
I know this may be naïve, but it might be just as simple as asking. Make
a 'special' game where, in order to even sign up, every player must
commit to;
1) Not drop the game
2) Communicate often (check/answer E-Mails twice a week minimum)
3) Submit PRELIMINARY orders to MeGames AND the team at least 1 week
before the deadline. (I find that players who regularly submit orders at
the last minute tend to make the most errors.)
Perhaps a standard form of some kind that players signing up must fill
out (electronically) and submit with their signups.
I know there isn't anything to enforce this, but I think it could help.
Those players who have a problem with making such a commitment, (ie; the
ones who think dropping a game at the drop of a hat is their 'right'),
hopefully would refuse to sign up. Those players who dont think they
have the time to commit for such a game hopefully wouldn't sign up.
Obviously a few bad apples will slip by, and unforseen circumstances can
forcible alter a player's commitment to a game, but by and large I think
you would tend to get a much higher percentage of committed players in
games where they specifically promised to commit the time and effort.
You could call them "Veteran Games", but that implies experience which
is by no means the whole story. Maybe "Dedicated Games" or something.
Anyway, just a suggestion.
Mike Mulka
okay, but then who would actually volunteer to play in
the games where no one would commit to not dropping,
or to communicating, etc.? Why not just label it the
"disfunctional" game and for good measure make sure
prisoners can play too. I'm sure people would line up
for that one.
Eric
--- Urzahil <urzahil@darkfortress.us> wrote:
I know this may be na�ve, but it might be just as
simple as asking. Make
a 'special' game where, in order to even sign up,
every player must
commit to;1) Not drop the game
2) Communicate often (check/answer E-Mails twice a
week minimum)
3) Submit PRELIMINARY orders to MeGames AND the team
at least 1 week
before the deadline. (I find that players who
regularly submit orders at
the last minute tend to make the most errors.)Perhaps a standard form of some kind that players
signing up must fill
out (electronically) and submit with their signups.I know there isn't anything to enforce this, but I
think it could help.
Those players who have a problem with making such a
commitment, (ie; the
ones who think dropping a game at the drop of a hat
is their 'right'),
hopefully would refuse to sign up. Those players who
don�t think they
have the time to commit for such a game hopefully
wouldn't sign up.Obviously a few bad apples will slip by, and
unforseen circumstances can
forcible alter a player's commitment to a game, but
by and large I think
you would tend to get a much higher percentage of
committed players in
games where they specifically promised to commit the
time and effort.You could call them "Veteran Games", but that
implies experience which
is by no means the whole story. Maybe "Dedicated
Games" or something.Anyway, just a suggestion.
Mike Mulka
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
But I think it would fall down due to that lack of enforcement. People get
angry enough with bad communicators and droppers in normal games. Can you
imagine the vitriol if there were droppers in a game where people had
promised not to drop? The droppers would always claim a good reason, the
others would claim a broken promise. Hence my winners' ticket games idea -
it doesn't rely on a promise, but it is a rough indicator of past
performance. "Past performance is no guarantee of future success," but
it's often a better indicator than nothing.
[]
Laurence G.Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
<http://www.buav.org/campaigns/primates/index.html>
Zero Option - end the use of primates in research
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
At 11:31 27/05/2005, Urzahil wrote:
I know this may be naïve, but it might be just as simple as asking. Make
a 'special' game where, in order to even sign up, every player must
commit to;1) Not drop the game
2) Communicate often (check/answer E-Mails twice a week minimum)
3) Submit PRELIMINARY orders to MeGames AND the team at least 1 week
before the deadline. (I find that players who regularly submit orders at
the last minute tend to make the most errors.)Perhaps a standard form of some kind that players signing up must fill
out (electronically) and submit with their signups.I know there isn't anything to enforce this, but I think it could help.
Gee, neutrals take the weakest nations in the game, build them up and
then affect the outcome of the game. Come on Clint be reasonable. This
is what makes the game fun for me and a challenge. The last time I
played an aligned nation I took over a nation that in my opinion the
player didn't know what they were doing and had almost run into the
ground. I then built that nation into the number one nation and Not
that it is important to my point who won, but our alliance went on to
win the game. It was a lot easier to do this with the characters/pop
centers available to an aligned nation than it is to build up a neutral
nation even if everyone leaves you alone. Too easy in my opinion. I
don't remember what the split of the neutrals was, but I don't think we
had the majority.
And you want to make the neutrals weaker!!!!??? Where do the neutrals
currently start on nation strength based on score at the beginning of
the game now. The bottom 5 or so would be my guess.
I'm one of the neutrals who of late goes into games with pre-determined
ideas of which side I'm going to join. Partly because I usually know
and get along with players on both sides, partly because I don't care
anymore if I win, mostly because I want to try something with that
particular nation that I haven't done before, and in honesty partly
because people are so darn poor at recruiting neutrals anymore. I'd
hate to make my decision on who did the poorer job, instead of who did
the better job.
Here's a suggestion if you want. Make changing allegiance an automatic
misc. order. If a neutral hasn't declared by say turn 7 (maybe 6 or
even 5 to make it dicier), random decision or game balancing decision
by the computer. This ought to make it real interesting for neutrals.
Won't change the fact that someone is going to win and someone is going
to lose, but it would change the game.
Kevin
<snip>
And you want to make the neutrals weaker!!!!??? Where do the neutrals
currently start on nation strength based on score at the beginning of
the game now. The bottom 5 or so would be my guess.
I think it depends which neutrals you're talking about. The 2950
neutrals (particularly Rhun and WW) are weaker than the 1650 ones
(where Harad and the Corsairs are probably the two strongest
nations in the early game except for North Gondor).
Certainly, based on score, Harad and the Corsairs (and sometimes
the 1650 Easterlings) usually end up on the top for quite some time.
Tony Z
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 01:57:30PM -0000, Kevin Brown wrote:
--
Reading bad criticism is, of course, like reading Basque
computer manuals while chewing broken glass, only less useful.
--Kenneth Hite, LHN
Good point, I was talking about 2950. I was also talking about (turn
0) standings at the beginning of the game not after orders had been
run.
Kevin
<snip>
> And you want to make the neutrals weaker!!!!??? Where do the
neutrals
> currently start on nation strength based on score at the
beginning of
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Tony Zbaraschuk <tonyz@e...> wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 01:57:30PM -0000, Kevin Brown wrote:
> the game now. The bottom 5 or so would be my guess.I think it depends which neutrals you're talking about. The 2950
neutrals (particularly Rhun and WW) are weaker than the 1650 ones
(where Harad and the Corsairs are probably the two strongest
nations in the early game except for North Gondor).Certainly, based on score, Harad and the Corsairs (and sometimes
the 1650 Easterlings) usually end up on the top for quite some time.Tony Z
--
Reading bad criticism is, of course, like reading Basque
computer manuals while chewing broken glass, only less useful.
--Kenneth Hite, LHN
As far as neutrals being the problem in open game, I
disagree. Open games are fun and can be long, IF, you
make a commitment to staying with it. My last two
games have gone 51 turns and 33 turns, respectively.
The nation splits were not the most advantageous in
either game for my side but we still won. This
included nation losses and dropped players for my team
in the early game that would normally make people want
to fold.
I think the problem in games lasting longer is not the
neutrals problem but the assessment process people go
through as to staying in and fighting, or not. There
is also the communications problem created by people
in open games that DON'T communicate. Solve these two
issue and the open game is much improved.
JCC
--- Tony Zbaraschuk <tonyz@eskimo.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 01:57:30PM -0000, Kevin > Brown wrote:
<snip>
> And you want to make the neutrals weaker!!!!???
Where do the neutrals
> currently start on nation strength based on score
at the beginning of
> the game now. The bottom 5 or so would be my
guess.I think it depends which neutrals you're talking
about. The 2950
neutrals (particularly Rhun and WW) are weaker than
the 1650 ones
(where Harad and the Corsairs are probably the two
strongest
nations in the early game except for North Gondor).Certainly, based on score, Harad and the Corsairs
(and sometimes
the 1650 Easterlings) usually end up on the top for
quite some time.Tony Z
--
Reading bad criticism is, of course, like reading
Basque
computer manuals while chewing broken glass, only
less useful.
--Kenneth Hite, LHN
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
I guess my answer would be... who cares what the players who refuse to
commit to a game (ie; communicating and not dropping) wind up doing?
Disfunctional sounds like the right term to me, and if these players
really believe that this is the correct way to play the game, then they
shouldn't mind being in a game were you can't really count on any other
players. Would players line up for that kind of game? I dont think so.
Then gain, I don't really care since I believe most players won't mind a
commitment up front.
Maybe I'm just naïve and think too well of most people. I hope not.
Mike Mulka
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Knapp
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 7:55 AM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] RE: Open Gamesokay, but then who would actually volunteer to play in
the games where no one would commit to not dropping,
or to communicating, etc.? Why not just label it the
"disfunctional" game and for good measure make sure
prisoners can play too. I'm sure people would line up
for that one.
But I can't see how the 'winner's ticket' game would be any indication
of commitment to future games. Many players who drop their positions do
so when the going gets rough. If an allegiance is in a winning position,
then the less committed players would be more inclined to stay around.
That means you'd actually get a better percentage of committed players
if you only gave the 'tickets' to all the players on the losing side who
stayed in until the very end.
As far as vitriol for players who promise not to drop and then do so
anyway... who cares? In fact, I think that would be a big plus.
Hopefully that would tend to keep such non-committed players from
signing up in the first place. And as I stated, it isn't the enforcement
that is important. It is the simple act of committing to the game. I
think most people think of themselves as basically honest, so why would
they commit to something they know they have no intention of following
through on?
As far as droppers claiming a good reason... I'm all for that. I think
there are a few reasons that could be considered valid. As long as the
player discusses it with the team in advance so the team has an
opportinuty to find a replacement, rather than just disappearing.
But hey. I'm not married to the idea. Just tossing out a suggestion. I
know I'd sign up in "Dedicated Games" exclusively if given the
opportunity.
Mike Mulka
From: Laurence G. Tilley
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:26 AM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] RE: Open GamesBut I think it would fall down due to that lack of enforcement. People
get
angry enough with bad communicators and droppers in normal games. Can
you
imagine the vitriol if there were droppers in a game where people had
promised not to drop? The droppers would always claim a good reason,
the
others would claim a broken promise. Hence my winners' ticket games
idea -
it doesn't rely on a promise, but it is a rough indicator of past
performance. "Past performance is no guarantee of future success,"
but
-----Original Message-----
it's often a better indicator than nothing.
I'm not sure I fully agree with the logic of the first part of what you say
above, but you make a good point in the second. OK, so new
proposal: Veteran's tickets.... anyone who's still in a game at the time
that that game is formally concluded gets a ticket. When 25+ tickets have
been issued, ME Games opens the book on a "Veterans game".
[]
Laurence G.Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
<http://www.buav.org/campaigns/primates/index.html>
Zero Option - end the use of primates in research
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
At 23:15 27/05/2005, Urzahil wrote:
But I can't see how the 'winner's ticket' game would be any indication
of commitment to future games. Many players who drop their positions do
so when the going gets rough. If an allegiance is in a winning position,
then the less committed players would be more inclined to stay around.
That means you'd actually get a better percentage of committed players
if you only gave the 'tickets' to all the players on the losing side who
stayed in until the very end.
Why not just track the players who prematurely drop positions and lock them out of certain games? The reasonable players who legitimately transfer positions or drop as a team (concede) will obviously not be locked out. This should be easy enough.
Jason Mele
----- Original Message -----
From: Laurence G. Tilley
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] RE: Open Games
At 23:15 27/05/2005, Urzahil wrote:
>But I can't see how the 'winner's ticket' game would be any indication
>of commitment to future games. Many players who drop their positions do
>so when the going gets rough. If an allegiance is in a winning position,
>then the less committed players would be more inclined to stay around.
>That means you'd actually get a better percentage of committed players
>if you only gave the 'tickets' to all the players on the losing side who
>stayed in until the very end.
I'm not sure I fully agree with the logic of the first part of what you say
above, but you make a good point in the second. OK, so new
proposal: Veteran's tickets.... anyone who's still in a game at the time
that that game is formally concluded gets a ticket. When 25+ tickets have
been issued, ME Games opens the book on a "Veterans game".
[]
Laurence G.Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
<http://www.buav.org/campaigns/primates/index.html>
Zero Option - end the use of primates in research
[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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Because a system which appears obviously punitive does not make good
commercial sense. One which more positively rewards good (or at least
persistent) play, is more likely to be attractive.
[]
Laurence G.Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
<http://www.buav.org/campaigns/primates/index.html>
Zero Option - end the use of primates in research
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
At 23:43 27/05/2005, Mele wrote:
Why not just track the players who prematurely drop positions and lock
them out of certain games? The reasonable players who legitimately
transfer positions or drop as a team (concede) will obviously not be
locked out. This should be easy enough.
Hey I have to say that last line was uncalled for. I have personally played with people who are incarcerated and to be honest they were some of the better players I have played with. They treated me with respect to a very active role in the game and all in all quite involved with the game.
Serra
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Knapp
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] RE: Open Games
okay, but then who would actually volunteer to play in
the games where no one would commit to not dropping,
or to communicating, etc.? Why not just label it the
"disfunctional" game and for good measure make sure
prisoners can play too. I'm sure people would line up
for that one.
Eric
--- Urzahil <urzahil@darkfortress.us> wrote:
> I know this may be naïve, but it might be just as
> simple as asking. Make
> a 'special' game where, in order to even sign up,
> every player must
> commit to;
>
> 1) Not drop the game
> 2) Communicate often (check/answer E-Mails twice a
> week minimum)
> 3) Submit PRELIMINARY orders to MeGames AND the team
> at least 1 week
> before the deadline. (I find that players who
> regularly submit orders at
> the last minute tend to make the most errors.)
>
> Perhaps a standard form of some kind that players
> signing up must fill
> out (electronically) and submit with their signups.
>
> I know there isn't anything to enforce this, but I
> think it could help.
> Those players who have a problem with making such a
> commitment, (ie; the
> ones who think dropping a game at the drop of a hat
> is their 'right'),
> hopefully would refuse to sign up. Those players who
> don't think they
> have the time to commit for such a game hopefully
> wouldn't sign up.
>
> Obviously a few bad apples will slip by, and
> unforseen circumstances can
> forcible alter a player's commitment to a game, but
> by and large I think
> you would tend to get a much higher percentage of
> committed players in
> games where they specifically promised to commit the
> time and effort.
>
> You could call them "Veteran Games", but that
> implies experience which
> is by no means the whole story. Maybe "Dedicated
> Games" or something.
>
> Anyway, just a suggestion.
>
> Mike Mulka
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Last time I checked .....more of the neutrals were not the weakest positions in the game...at least last time I checked the Corsairs and Harad were two of the strongest positions in the game.....if you find building them up a challenge.....well I won't go there....
Serra
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Brown
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 9:57 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Open Games
Gee, neutrals take the weakest nations in the game, build them up and
then affect the outcome of the game. Come on Clint be reasonable. This
is what makes the game fun for me and a challenge. The last time I
played an aligned nation I took over a nation that in my opinion the
player didn't know what they were doing and had almost run into the
ground. I then built that nation into the number one nation and Not
that it is important to my point who won, but our alliance went on to
win the game. It was a lot easier to do this with the characters/pop
centers available to an aligned nation than it is to build up a neutral
nation even if everyone leaves you alone. Too easy in my opinion. I
don't remember what the split of the neutrals was, but I don't think we
had the majority.
And you want to make the neutrals weaker!!!!??? Where do the neutrals
currently start on nation strength based on score at the beginning of
the game now. The bottom 5 or so would be my guess.
I'm one of the neutrals who of late goes into games with pre-determined
ideas of which side I'm going to join. Partly because I usually know
and get along with players on both sides, partly because I don't care
anymore if I win, mostly because I want to try something with that
particular nation that I haven't done before, and in honesty partly
because people are so darn poor at recruiting neutrals anymore. I'd
hate to make my decision on who did the poorer job, instead of who did
the better job.
Here's a suggestion if you want. Make changing allegiance an automatic
misc. order. If a neutral hasn't declared by say turn 7 (maybe 6 or
even 5 to make it dicier), random decision or game balancing decision
by the computer. This ought to make it real interesting for neutrals.
Won't change the fact that someone is going to win and someone is going
to lose, but it would change the game.
Kevin
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I still don't think neutrals are that weak in 2950 (except perhaps the Rhun). All the nations are not that great in 2950 they weakened everyone pretty evenly.
Serra
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Brown
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:55 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Open Games
Good point, I was talking about 2950. I was also talking about (turn
0) standings at the beginning of the game not after orders had been
run.
Kevin
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Tony Zbaraschuk <tonyz@e...> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 01:57:30PM -0000, Kevin Brown wrote:
> <snip>
> > And you want to make the neutrals weaker!!!!??? Where do the
neutrals
> > currently start on nation strength based on score at the
beginning of
> > the game now. The bottom 5 or so would be my guess.
>
> I think it depends which neutrals you're talking about. The 2950
> neutrals (particularly Rhun and WW) are weaker than the 1650 ones
> (where Harad and the Corsairs are probably the two strongest
> nations in the early game except for North Gondor).
>
> Certainly, based on score, Harad and the Corsairs (and sometimes
> the 1650 Easterlings) usually end up on the top for quite some time.
>
>
> Tony Z
>
> --
> Reading bad criticism is, of course, like reading Basque
> computer manuals while chewing broken glass, only less useful.
> --Kenneth Hite, LHN
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I honestly do not understand the problem with a short game. I am sorry but I do not see the problem. At least in 1650, the Free should try for the shortest, fastest game possible. This is the game I personally prefer to play because I prefer a fast pased military game. If I wanted the character war I would play 2950 which when I want a slower game I play.
I guess my major question is what exactly is the problem?
Serra
----- Original Message -----
From: John Choules
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Open Games
As far as neutrals being the problem in open game, I
disagree. Open games are fun and can be long, IF, you
make a commitment to staying with it. My last two
games have gone 51 turns and 33 turns, respectively.
The nation splits were not the most advantageous in
either game for my side but we still won. This
included nation losses and dropped players for my team
in the early game that would normally make people want
to fold.
I think the problem in games lasting longer is not the
neutrals problem but the assessment process people go
through as to staying in and fighting, or not. There
is also the communications problem created by people
in open games that DON'T communicate. Solve these two
issue and the open game is much improved.
JCC
--- Tony Zbaraschuk <tonyz@eskimo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 01:57:30PM -0000, Kevin > Brown wrote:
> <snip>
> > And you want to make the neutrals weaker!!!!???
> Where do the neutrals
> > currently start on nation strength based on score
> at the beginning of
> > the game now. The bottom 5 or so would be my
> guess.
>
> I think it depends which neutrals you're talking
> about. The 2950
> neutrals (particularly Rhun and WW) are weaker than
> the 1650 ones
> (where Harad and the Corsairs are probably the two
> strongest
> nations in the early game except for North Gondor).
>
> Certainly, based on score, Harad and the Corsairs
> (and sometimes
> the 1650 Easterlings) usually end up on the top for
> quite some time.
>
>
> Tony Z
>
> --
> Reading bad criticism is, of course, like reading
> Basque
> computer manuals while chewing broken glass, only
> less useful.
> --Kenneth Hite, LHN
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I have to agree with Mike here,
Players who drops will burn out and leave the game in the long term anyway, for they won't find the satisfaction they're looking for, except for the odd thrill.
What, would, otoh be more interesting is not to sour the experience for first time players. It's easy to make them understand all is not sweet and rose at times, but if one get ganked in one's first game, one isn't likely to sumit for a second. So instead of looking up for the "elders" around, why not offer something for those who stick to?. Battle of the five amries is all well and good, but nothing like a regular game.
my two trolls,
Didier
From: "Urzahil" <urzahil@darkfortress.us>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] RE: Open Games
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 17:15:48 -0500
I guess my answer would be... who cares what the players who refuse to
commit to a game (ie; communicating and not dropping) wind up doing?
Disfunctional sounds like the right term to me, and if these players
really believe that this is the correct way to play the game, then they
shouldn't mind being in a game were you can't really count on any other
players. Would players line up for that kind of game? I don�t think so.
Then gain, I don't really care since I believe most players won't mind a
commitment up front.
Maybe I'm just na�ve and think too well of most people. I hope not.
Mike Mulka
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Knapp
>Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 7:55 AM
>To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] RE: Open Games
>
>okay, but then who would actually volunteer to play in
>the games where no one would commit to not dropping,
>or to communicating, etc.? Why not just label it the
>"disfunctional" game and for good measure make sure
>prisoners can play too. I'm sure people would line up
>for that one.
OK, nobody would mind short games if they were short because of dazzling FP
military genius. Nobody that I've heard saying "I only (or from now on
I'll only) play grudge games" have been reacting that resolution due to
that kind of situation. We're talking about the increasingly common
experience of the deadly dull game, where a conclusion has come about due
to one team playing very poorly. The game I used as an example has just
ended on turn 8.
[]
Laurence G.Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
<http://www.buav.org/campaigns/primates/index.html>
Zero Option - end the use of primates in research
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
At 03:55 28/05/2005, Tara I. Silva wrote:
I honestly do not understand the problem with a short game. I am sorry but
I do not see the problem. At least in 1650, the Free should try for the
shortest, fastest game possible. This is the game I personally prefer to
play because I prefer a fast pased military game. If I wanted the
character war I would play 2950 which when I want a slower game I play.I guess my major question is what exactly is the problem?
my point, however poorly phrased, is that if you have
a game that is for "dedicated" or "elder" or whatever
players, you are creating a category for "everyone
else". Now, I've been playing on and off for many
years, but if my first game was only with people who
had been shut out of the "dedicated" game, I am not
sure I would have hung around.
As for the last line, for better or worse, the
prisoner issue has also been one where the MEPBM
community is split. If you are looking to place a
stigma on a game, this is just one more category that
will cause people to believe, justly or not, that they
are in the "lesser" game, and have to sit at the
children's table until they prove themselves.
I apologize if the earlier comments offended. I have
nothing against prisoners playing, beyond the obvious
coordination issues. I just know that there is a
stigma associated with games in which they play. It
may be wrong, it may be prejudicial, but it would be
stupid not to acknowledge that it exists.
Eric
--- "Tara I. Silva" <vanya1@comcast.net> wrote:
Hey I have to say that last line was uncalled for. I
have personally played with people who are
incarcerated and to be honest they were some of the
better players I have played with. They treated me
with respect to a very active role in the game and
all in all quite involved with the game.Serra
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Knapp
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] RE: Open Gamesokay, but then who would actually volunteer to
play in
the games where no one would commit to not
dropping,
or to communicating, etc.? Why not just label it
the
"disfunctional" game and for good measure make
sure
prisoners can play too. I'm sure people would
line up
for that one.Eric
--- Urzahil <urzahil@darkfortress.us> wrote:
> I know this may be na�ve, but it might be just
as
> simple as asking. Make
> a 'special' game where, in order to even sign
up,
> every player must
> commit to;
>
> 1) Not drop the game
> 2) Communicate often (check/answer E-Mails twice
a
> week minimum)
> 3) Submit PRELIMINARY orders to MeGames AND the
team
> at least 1 week
> before the deadline. (I find that players who
> regularly submit orders at
> the last minute tend to make the most errors.)
>
> Perhaps a standard form of some kind that
players
> signing up must fill
> out (electronically) and submit with their
signups.
>
> I know there isn't anything to enforce this, but
I
> think it could help.
> Those players who have a problem with making
such a
> commitment, (ie; the
> ones who think dropping a game at the drop of a
hat
> is their 'right'),
> hopefully would refuse to sign up. Those players
who
> don't think they
> have the time to commit for such a game
hopefully
> wouldn't sign up.
>
> Obviously a few bad apples will slip by, and
> unforseen circumstances can
> forcible alter a player's commitment to a game,
but
> by and large I think
> you would tend to get a much higher percentage
of
> committed players in
> games where they specifically promised to commit
the
> time and effort.
>
> You could call them "Veteran Games", but that
> implies experience which
> is by no means the whole story. Maybe "Dedicated
> Games" or something.
>
> Anyway, just a suggestion.
>
> Mike Mulka
>
>__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.comMiddle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
mepbmlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of Service.[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com