Did you get to my reply: re improved team communication before you
asked?
regards,
bb
On Tue, 10 July 2001, "William Minnig Jr" wrote:
And this is good gor the game how???
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
I am specifically referencing these comments.
"I agree that the Rating should be based on player votes, and NOT victory
points. It
would make the diplomatic effort more involved, since after the diplomatic
efforts to
woo potential neutral allies is over, the diplomatic efforts to "win votes"
for the
end game could begin. It would give a sense of rivalry to an allegiance, and
might
even spark (role played) civil wars once a team was way out in front."
How does a rating system which could cause infighting with a team good for
the game.
I personally do not want to spend the end of a game arguing over who was the
best player on my side, or worse getting backstabbed in the game by some
block of nations after helping them to win because I did not vote with them.
-----Original Message-----
From: BBrunet [mailto:ditletang@canada.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 4:05 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Player Rating System
On Tue, 10 July 2001, "William Minnig Jr" wrote:
And this is good gor the game how???
Did you get to my reply: re improved team communication before you
asked?
regards,
bb
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-From: William Minnig Jr [mailto:electricbill@sprintmail.com]
-Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:18 PM
-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
-Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Player Rating System
-How does a rating system which could cause infighting with a team good for
-the game.
-I personally do not want to spend the end of a game arguing over who was the
-best player on my side, or worse getting backstabbed in the game by some
-block of nations after helping them to win because I did not vote with them.
Considering people would likely not know how the vote turned out until after the game
was over, (and indeed would probably not know who voted for whom), I doubt it could
cause the mayhem you're suggesting unless some sort of turn-by-turn system was used.
So you wouldn't have to spend the game doing anything other than playing your position
if you weren't interested in who voted for whom.
Also, You must not have noticed the "role played" part of "(role played) civil wars".
My comment was directed towards those players who don't mind role playing their
positions, (as opposed to crunching numbers for 40-odd turns just to see who "won").
The campaign to recruit votes COULD, (if the role playing nations wanted), become
another enjoyable aspect of the game beyond the pure victory aspects.
Also, (and this could only work well for 4th Age games where nations of the same
allegiance can still attack each other), for those lame games where one side drops
like flies (or all the neutrals join one side and drive most of the other side out
quickly), rather than simply ending the game, a good old fashioned civil war might be
fun. Assuming of course that one or two nations of another allegiance stick around for
a bit. (I wonder if Harlequin can "turn off" the part of the program that ends the
game when there's only one allegiance left if the remaining players wanted to play out
a civil war, and/or change allegiances of those who wished to be on the "revolting"
side?)
Mike
------Original Message-----
OK, this is much more intelligent than your original vaguely worded
question which annoyed me as much, as I expect it annoyed others who
have been building this idea of a player rating system. It did read as if
you were questioning the whole principle, after some of us have already
written lots on it.
Now you have clarified, I have to say that I agree with you. Brad's
notion of negotiating for votes, is directly contrary to what I would
prefer as a constructive system. I'd like to see voting as a secret ballot,
and canvassing for votes being actively discouraged in a "Player Rating
System charter".
BUT all this has to be negotiated, and really, both Brad and yourself are
jumping the gun rather. Let's get the questionnaire done first, so we can
gauge the interest from the whole player base. Kevin's sample "roster"
is a good start, but we can't go much further with it, until we know what
sort of appeal the idea is going to have.
At that stage, we could draft out a number of possible voting systems,
and then submit them themselves to a vote.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
William Minnig Jr <electricbill@sprintmail.com> wrote
How does a rating system which could cause infighting with a team good for
the game.
I personally do not want to spend the end of a game arguing over who was the
best player on my side, or worse getting backstabbed in the game by some
block of nations after helping them to win because I did not vote with them.
Are there any other population hiding artefacts other than the Mantle of
Doriath?
Not in the known artefact lists. BUT the rule book talks in the plural,
and seems to me to give the impression that there are others out there.
Who bothers to collect odd artefacts and research them? My guess is
that one or two other artefacts have this power but are not on the
copied of copies of Mouth of Sauron lists on which we all depend.
Though whether it's a fixed or moveable secondary power, I couldn't
guess.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Kevin <kevin@bobbins71.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
Are there any other population hiding artefacts other than the Mantle of
Doriath?