There’s a poll taking place on the Middle Earth PBM list. Please cast your vote.
Whats it about?
I prefer to know why Im clicking before hand, sorry!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/surveys?id=1073464
Question
Some games end up dragging on well past the point where it is obvious which team has won the game. When would you like a game to end?
It’s basically about whether you like to be forced to continue a game past the point where it is obvious which team has won. Currently I’m in a game where my team of 12 players is being forced to play against 1 player because he is unwilling to drop. If Clint made an automatic termination rule, this would do away with bug hunts.
Example- Game ends when there is a 2 to 1 ratio of nations(10 nations vs 5). Game ends when there is a 3 to 1 ratio of nations(9 nations vs 3). Game ends when there is a 4 to 1 ratio of nations(8 nations vs 2).
If you need to any more information, go to the MEPBMLIST and check out the debate titled the 2 to 1 LET THE GAME END.
The poll in question is biased and so flawed. It assumes that all respondants want an arbitrary, non presently existing rule, that will terminate a game when there is some ratio between the active nations on one side and the active nations of another alliance. There was no provision for mantaining the staus quo or third options in the poll.
The issue in question is a game that was, essentially, all military from the start. No agent kills or kidnaps, no curses, no One Ring, etc. Twelve players are now faced with trying to eliminate a slippery fellow by military action alone. They fear they can not do this. Probably they can not.
Never mind that they agreed to rule modifications that warp this game well away from the designer’s intent. They want Clint to declare them the victors. I think the term is ‘hoist on your own petard’.
The issue in question is relevant to all game of Middle-Earth whether Fourth Age, 1650, or 2950.
Also, although the rule doesn’t exist now, Clint has stated he would like to implement the rule but last time it was debated there were only a couple people interested…the normal vocal minority. If you look at the poll, you’ll see most players think the rule should be used.
Regarding the poll, there is a category for maintaing the status quo…it’s called “I don’t care”. There is also a third option, which is, “I enjoy bug hunting” and “I enjoy being a bug”.
Your comment, “Twelve players are now faced with trying to eliminate a slippery fellow by military action alone. They fear they can not do this. Probably they can not.” is only inflammatory and is the best the pro-bug players seem to be able to come up with.
The game in question was a grudge game where each team voted a captain. Their teams captain declared our team the victors and then every player except one from their team dropped the game. So in this case we feel Clint should end the game regardless of any bug rule.
Lastly, You should actually read the rules for the NKA game before saying it is a warped game as it is actually a very good game. I think most players that have a couple games under there belts dream of playing a game without agents killing off their best characters or offing that 2,000 HC army in ST/ST in one foul swoop. NKA gives them that opportunity. Unfortunately, there is a loophole as in 1650 and 2950 which allows one player to continue in a game which he knows he has lost and will lose and ruin the fun for the other players.
-Joel Mason
Joel, there is a finite differnce between ‘I don’t care’ (indifference) and actively wishing to maintain the status quo. After years of meditation I have concluded that tinkering with this great game will make it worse and not better. The game can be played on many levels. Some of these levels are invisible to many persons. By all means play on the level that gives you the most enjoyment.
Was it Lady Gladriel who said “Even the wise can not see all ends”? When you chose a game 66% military you did not forsee this possibility arising. Now you wish to correct your lack of foresight by creating a rule for all of us.
You sound as if I’m the only player that wants to make this change. Here’s a line for you…“there is wisdom in a multitude”.
>When you chose a game 66% military you did not forsee this >possibility arising.
Actually as in all other games I foresaw the possibility of a bug hunt as I’ve played this game long enough now that I know it is a common event. Now that myself and 11 other players have a bug playing against us, I thought it a good time to bring up the subject.
>Now you wish to correct your lack of foresight by creating a rule >for all of us.
Actually, one of the players that organizes NKA games has stated he will make it a mandatory rule that there will be automatic termination in future NKA games. Your point is mute. Mine however is not. You would have realized if you read my previous e-mail before mouthing off that the hope is to fix future games whether they be 1650, 2950, or 4th Age. Perhaps you need to meditate more and get back to me. 
Joel, the SHORTEST game I have ever played was 24 turns. The late game is a level onto itself with subtleness that is a joy to exploit. Expand your horizons, think beyond the military, don’t try and keep everyone on your level.
>Joel, the SHORTEST game I have ever played was 24 turns.
Out of my last 5 games, 3 of them ended before turn 15.
>The late game is a level onto itself with subtleness that is a joy >to exploit.
I have played some 20+ games now and know what the late game is like… I have played plenty that lasted 40 to 50+ turns. Games that are still going strong at 40 turns are the best games. Games lasting 40 turns because one player isn’t willing to let go are the worst.
>Expand your horizons, think beyond the military
Now this is an unwarranted crack at the military that I don’t accept. Some of the best thinkers come from the military. Your comment makes me think of the protesters I saw on campus this weekend carrying NO WAR in Iraq signs. I wonder if they know where Iraq is and that the war is over with already. Such a clueless statement. Also I WAS in the Marines and am NOW actually about to complete my accounting masters degree.
>don’t try and keep everyone on your level.
From what I’ve seen it’s the vocal miniority that don’t like the automatic termination. I wonder if some of them are just debating so they can debate something. From the poll it’s obvious that majority of players would like to see the change.
A clarification: By military I mean ME military. Spent two years in 'Nam so don’t get on your high horse. Look forward some day to playing you–and expanding your horizons.
Just wanted to get the last word.
Last word again. My apologies about taking your military comment out of context. I hold you Vietnam vets in the highest regard.
Originally posted by Arthedain73
Joel, the SHORTEST game I have ever played was 24 turns.
Well, I guess this isn’t the person I thought was hiding behind this pseudonym…
If the above statement is true, then you most certainly haven’t been playing in any independent games lately, like 17, for example. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority end Well before turn 24. Shame, that.
A proposal was made to include a more “hands on” moderated version of the 2:1 or whatever rule based on the situation witihin the game. It was ignored, and thus the poll in question never included it or similar options. But as ALL polls are flawed, this one is as good a guage of relative opinion as we’ll likely ever get.
Brad
Joel;
I voted in the new poll tonight. You are not accurate in reporting that the majority of those voting are in favor of a rules change. The poll updates the voting when you enter your vote and tells you how the voters before you have voted by name I might add which I found curious. When I voted the results were running 57 percent wanting no change needed in the rules. I believe there were two votes for the change those being yours and Keiths. and around 30 percent saying they did not care.
Please stop the debate on this forum as well as the other, aren’t a hundred postings enough for you?
I’m sorry Clint did not end your game for you. I think the variant as Keith pointed out took some unplanned turns because Frank did not quit when the rest of his team did. Obviously that was not a rule stipulated in the game at start or Clint would have enforced it. Now the rules tweaks are coming back to bite you. I think Frank will probably end it anyway but come on enough has been written about this subject on the other board.
I voted in the new poll tonight. You are not accurate in reporting that the majority of those voting are in favor of a rules change. The poll updates the voting when you enter your vote and tells you how the voters before you have voted by name I might add which I found curious. When I voted the results were running 57 percent wanting no change needed in the rules. I believe there were two votes for the change those being yours and Keiths. and around 30 percent saying they did not care.
***My statements were based on the poll before I changed it. Then it was 10 players wanting the change, 2 prefering to be bugs, and 5 that didn’t care. Give the NEW poll some time and I think you’ll be in the miniority again. It just started yesterday and the players most likely to know about it are the bugs. I don’t believe Keith has voted in the new poll yet.
Please stop the debate on this forum as well as the other, aren’t a hundred postings enough for you?
****You seem to be the main player that keeps the debate going. I have the right to defend my statements and will try to correct information that others put out when it comes to this issue.
I’m sorry Clint did not end your game for you. I think the variant as Keith pointed out took some unplanned turns because Frank did not quit when the rest of his team did. Obviously that was not a rule stipulated in the game at start or Clint would have enforced it. Now the rules tweaks are coming back to bite you. I think Frank will probably end it anyway but come on enough has been written about this subject on the other board.
***Again you speak of matters that you know nothing of. What you know is just hearsay and then you make opinions on what you “think” you know.
Hi Joel,
actually I’m just finishing game 146 as a bug hunt, and the funny thing is I’m doing it with a nation you dropped: the Stormriders, remember them??
It’s not a classic bug hunt though because it’s 4th age which has a very sensible victory condition open to every nation: hold both Kingdom capitals and six strategic popcenters. Without this though it’d be nearly impossible for the game to end.
Rather than just nation ratio’s I’d like to see a victory condition like this for 1650 and 2950. Something like one nation owning 8 starting enemy capitals after turn 25 should do it. That way the bug couldn’t run and hide forever but would actually have to fight and hold something strategic.
The problem with nation ratio’s is many nations go inactive not when they’re eliminated, but rather when they get so beat up nobody wants to play them anymore. I’d hate to have to pick up a second position in a game that was wrecked just so I could avoid a ratio elimination and keep playing my viable original nation.
Also, I don’t want to see the option of going down fighting eliminated. Even if all my allies have quit I shold still be able to fight to the end. This is different from running away until turn 100, and a strategic victory condition would ensure this remains an option while restraining “hide and seek” players.
Lastly, I think there is one big restriction on the end game already built into 1650: the One Ring. Some players have become masters of winning with the One Ring, but unlike everything else in the game it’s secrets are still not widely known. Bug hunting is actually the biggest incentive to experimenting with the One Ring to find out how it works. And the game still has the possibility to be radically transformed by this knowledge becoming public. I don’t think we should take this away lightly.
Anyway Joel, good luck with your bug. Frankly, its rather rude not to drop in a grudge game when the rest of your team has conceded defeat, so I hope the guy dumps soon.
cheers,
Adam
A Leatherneck who quits? Gunny Lee Ermy had better not hear about this.
Not exactly quits, but let someone else take point. I dropped this game on turn 6. I was located at 0304 and all players west of the Misties became allies by this time. The game became increasingly boring to me but others were enjoying it. I offered to give the position up if anyone was interested in it. If not, I told them I would continue the game. One of them took me up on my offer. Would Gunny be mad? I’d be willing to do the push-ups if so.
So adam, did you take my position and become a bug or did you do the bug hunting. I was under the impression that the game was a sure win by the time you took over my position.
Side note-This game my capitol started at my 3rd choice. Around turn 5 or 6 I found that my first and second choice capitol locations were legitimate places to start…no where near any other starting player’s capitol location.