Actually, just about every independent game I find neutrals asking about Artifacts they have VC’s for. The distinct trend is that those neutrals end up making less of an impact than others who actually care about the War. I guess if a bigger number on a losing team is how you define “fun”, then all the power to you - “make it fun for others” and all that…
The only purpose the VCs could have HAD is some strange paradox psychology stuff (I know that Ed is a big fan of that :D). I.E. if somebody could be tempted to backstab, or at least disregard team interests to acquire VCs, that would be a direct advantage for the enemy team. So one could see the VCs as personality test…
I can proudly say that I never have played with people who gave a f*** about VCs, so what?
The thing that pisses me off the most about VCs is their random aspect. If you have a VC that, by chance, demands to kill a char, take a pop or pick up an arty that is on your agenda anyway, you are just lucky and may beat your teammates that have objectives which would damage their own side (that is, if you play one of the handful of nations who can score). This random factor would take the rest of sense out of VCs, if there was any.
As I said David, even though some people do not understand them.
What we do not see, we do not appreciate. What we do not appreciate we destroy. This game can be played on many levels. Some of those levels are invisible to some players. Yes, I will continue to oppose continuing attempts to constrain this game to fit some individual’s (or group’s) limited horizon.
Ed,
you hide behind mirky generalized ominous sounding statements.
Make specific recommendations with cogent supporting arguments and maybe you’ll sway someone to your point of view.
Dave
Dave, stop talking. You don’t see, you don’t understand. You are a wreckingball of ignorance. Now please be silent and stop all that logic BS. The internet, communication, cooperation, exponential learning curves et al have added to your constraints and supported the limited horizons of the ignorant.
Brad
Brad,
ROFL
Dave
:):):):):)
OK here’s my suggestion, taking a page out of the Gunboat philosophy. Call this the “Fog of War Deluxe Variant.” I love the current version of the game, but I loved the old game too.
Offer a 1650 game where each of the 25 nations are controlled by separate players, with the 5 neuts truly neutral. BUT everyone must remain anonymous, and has to communicate with limited-word diplos, one per recipient per fortnight. No yahoogroups or the like, and all talking is one to one between nations. MEGames pledges to not release the player list before or after; players are honor bound to abide by the anonymity rules until the game ends.
Your nation can’t win unless your side truly wins, but all of a sudden, those anomalous VCs regarding allied characters and popcenters do come into play. That’s what they’re there for, after all. This isn’t the anarchistic all-neutral mindset but rather, much closer to the original game (Ed, please correct me if I’m wrong…what am I saying, of COURSE Ed will correct me if I’m wrong <g>).
Taking an ally’s pop by em action or assassinating that allied leader would not be “backstabbing” by any measure, but for those of you who might worry about tarnishing your reputation, no one would ever have to know it was you.
Of course without Winners’ Certificates to reward the victorious, I doubt we could come up with 25 players 100% committed to the format.
Drew
Thanks Drew. So Ed, is this what you’re looking for? I’ll play. I’ll be one of the anonymous 25… Actually it would be fun.
Dave
Oops you just violated the anonymity rule. j/k
I thought you’d know who the 25 players are (as you do in knowning who’s in a GB game), but not who was DS, FP, or N, thereby preserving the appropriate level of anonymity. right?
Isnt this gunboat only with single nations and neutrals? Interesting! Even better if every
player had 2 nations and both nations were enemies of the other… Oh dear playing
with myself again!
Guy,
I think it’s like regular GB, except:
[ul]
[li]with single nation per player
[/li][li]10DS, 10FP, 5N
[/li][li]diplos every turn via 50 words or less (i.e. higher per turn cost is likely)
[/li][li]anonymous
[/li][li]VCs explicitly count
[/li][li]there are no rules against taking action against characters or nations of your own alignment
[/li][/ul]
If there were to be interest, I wonder what Clint would charge as it’s clearly more work to have to sort all the diplos… And we still need to see if this is what Ed is wishing for
Dave
Well no, actually. You can’t absolutely guarantee your anonymity if your name is on a list somewhere, now can you? My comment was, the player list not to be published by MEGames before or after the game. Not list of nations played, but list of players, period.
Actually, I don’t see it’s all that much like GB at all. There is very little to no communication, prealigned neuts, and everybody with a pairing. I envision a lot of communication within a team, teams with neutrals, and dare I say it, the occasional cross alliance diplo…
First of all, I don’t see that the diplos ought to raise the prices, for as I understand it now, this service is already offered in the current price structure. Yes there would be more than in a “normal” game, but if you batch all the diplo work to be done to sync with the turn processing, shouldn’t take all that awfully long to cut & paste the diplos to send along. Maybe have a fixed “postage” cost per diplo sent in excess of whatever number Clint thinks he would need to make the game profitable.
And I probably wasn’t clear on the diplos. Each player can send individualized diplos to each nation, NOT the GB practice of one canned diplo to all allies.
An important point I didn’t mention: under no circumstances could a current player pickup a drop. Best case scenario, dropped positions are not replaced at all; second best, an anonymous player pool much like the current GB pool.
Well Drew, I think you have to list the 25 players, you just don’t get to know which side they’re on, just as you don’t in GB. what’s wrong with that?
And if you insist on a completely anonymous game, you do make it harder to fill the 25 as none of us players could ask other players to play.
Dave
Offer a 1650 game where each of the 25 nations are controlled by separate players, with the 5 neuts truly neutral. BUT everyone must remain anonymous, and has to communicate with limited-word diplos, one per recipient per fortnight. No yahoogroups or the like, and all talking is one to one between nations. MEGames pledges to not release the player list before or after; players are honor bound to abide by the anonymity rules until the game ends.
Hya Drew
Get 25 players to play and we can do it. The GB game is close to this. I didn’t get how the VCs would count though. if you need your side to win then why would you detriment your side? With limited information it’s going to be hard to judge which side is winning. I don’t mind limited information (both GB and the All v All Neutral game are like that with, as a player, me vainly trying to get rumours traded etc) at all btw, skillful players will work within whatever constraints that the game format gives them, and use whatever advantages they can get in other ways.
I don’t quite get why it would have to be anonymous either (some GB games don’t allow you to sign your name on the diplos, but I’m reasonably sure you can infer who is playing what by their style, so if I started writing in Welsh then I assume most players would guesstimate who I was, certain players use the same character names again and again, some people don’t punctuate etc, you get the idea why i think it would be hard to keep the game truly anonymous). Not releasing names is fine with me if that’s what players want.
The problem I have is that I tried to get games like this going a few times and didn’t get enough players to set-up such a game.
Diplos would add around 1 hour per process per game for reference.
Clint (GM)
I can’t help but comment on this thread about player ratings… First off I beleive they are fine the way they are… Ratings do account for kills if nations victroy conditions have them… Killer nations have kills… Artifact hunter nations have artifacts to find to get the specail victory incentive…
Now players who overly concern themselves over victory conditions aren’t necessarily the best players or best team players no question on that… I hold most of these players in total disdain…
But the only change I recommend changing that eliminated nations the players be allowed to vote on the rating of best player, best team player and best opposition… Many times these are very exceptional players targeted becuase of that reason and eliminated becuase of the havoc they are causing the enemy… A well concieved strategy by the opposing team can eliminate this player… Positions Like Dragonlord WK Rhaudar and Duns easily come to mind here… Player who perfer these position play them not for ratings but challenge… They are often veteran players and just surving until the end is Huge and unmeasureable on the rating scales…
Player rating done by votes should be allowed to give credit to players who performed well in all these aspects… all the ratings have thier place…
There definitely is all things said exceptional players who may never crack the top 100 that can beat the pants off the top fifty players in PRS scale becuase their pure disire to ensure every game they play they lead thier team to a victory even if the oppostion eliminates them!
Clint, you miss the point of where Ed is trying to take this: back to the GSI days when it was really play-by-postal-mail. In those days, a “side” didn’t win. In those days, it was possible for DkL to be first, Noldo to be second and Harad to be third (as a neutral), no matter which side was stronger at game end. VCs add to the total points for each nation. Nations “win”, not sides. Points totals determine who wins.
At least that is my (and I think Drew’s) interpretation of Ed’s cryptic comments.
Dave
Ah but Clint, you have just proved Ed’s point. This game was designed for a SINGLE PLAYER to win, not an entire allegiance – VCs were only the most obvious aspect of that. The vast majority of current players are so ingrained to the grudge game methodology (the call of the allegiance over the needs of the individual nation, the hive mentality, the fascist-like drive toward efficiency for the greater good), that the original design of the game is almost entirely lost. You know, maybe I would’ve forgotten it myself by now were it not for the Delenda est Carthago refrain from Ed. Except for the occasional gunboat game, I almost exclusively play with grudge teams, a couple of which, in our quests for victory, operate exactly as I describe above. I like those games, and those teams. But that is not the original concept, a concept that is in all actuality dead, and thus, a concept for which I mourn.
I understand you are running a business, and the marketplace has changed. Dave and others have chronicled all that ad nauseum. I’m not criticizing your running of the game, as my friend Ed seems wont to do, nor complaining about anything other than, the game has changed, and in many ways, that’s too bad.
The hypothetical framework for a Fog of War Deluxe “variant” I laid out earlier in this thread was to get people thinking about how things used to be, and maybe why things might’ve been done in a certain way. The VCs are not “stupid” as many posters have suggested, nor even counterproductive, when you fully grasp that one player was meant to win a game of MEPBM. Not his allies; they don’t “win” just because their side won. The converse was true: their side winning was a prerequisite to them winning, but certainly did not ensure their individual victory. The current state of the game is such that, the VCs are ignored by all parties involved. That’s fine, because they have no relevance to current play. That’s my take on the various PRS formulae as well: ignore the hell out of 'em, as it means nothing to me.
Alas, enough of all this. Now back to my seamlessly integrated grudge games, where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Thanks for listening.
Drew