David:
The purpose of the random VCs (which scarecly anyone understands) is to tempt the selfish and short sighted amongst us. This game WAS the Wild West. Some persons thrive in cutthroat and chaotic conditions. Some persons do not, especially those who try and foce an outside ethical system onto this fantasy simulation.
Ed
···
From: "sootypye69" <sootypye69@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] PRS&VC`s
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:59:03 -0000Sorry, didn`t make myself clear. I should have sent a separate mail
about a change in VC`s instead of relating them to the current plans
for PRS. I had a separate notion that`s long been bugging me about
VC`s. The way things stand i do not find them relevant to how i play
a game, however that may be more due to the fact that i generally
play grudge games where the team is everything and the VC`s less
important.
I do agree that things were not better in the "old days" where at the
end of a long game "team-mates" turned on one another to "get the
win". It would not be good to return to that scenario. That`s why i`d
like to see a change in VC`s to reflect team goals, NOT individual
goals. In an open game for instance it might mean your silent cloud
lord would have to kill elrond and not Ren to get his points. I`d
also like to see them injected with a bit of "realism". You know, for
fun...
As far as the PRS goes, i guess i`m really one of the silent majority
[i know another CONTRADICTION there, but that`s just me i guess]: I
DON`T CARE. I can only see the PRS providing me with bragging rights
or a deep sense of shame ;-).
The only people who seem passionate about PRS are Harly [who want to
promote it] and "the vocal minority" [who hate it!].david murray
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Darrell Shimel
<threeedgedsword35@y...> wrote:
> In 2 separate emails David Murray says:
>
> > I don`t mind participating in the PRS. To begin
> > with it might be interesting, but i`m sure it won`t
> > change how i play the game.
>
> then
>
> --- sootypye69 <sootypye69@h...> wrote:
> > is there anyway to make them [VCs] more
> > relevant for each nation,
> [clip]
> > My reason for making VC`s [or at least some
> > of them] relevant
> > and permanent would be to increase faithfulness to
> > Tolkien`s work and
> > perhaps a long running vendetta between nations.
> > Again you could ppit
> > certain nations against one another. What if you had
> > permanent VC`s
> > [in each game] of the Northmen AND Long Rider taking
> > and holding
> > Riavod for example. I think this could lead to
> > interesting , and
> > varied play where VC`s actually DO have some
> > relevance to the bigger
> > game!
>
> You're contradicting yourself. Either the rating
> system won't change the way you play, or it could not
> interesting and varried play.
>
> Why would someone go to the effort to capture a pop to
> add 100 victory points, but not protect his
> characters, armies, pops and horde gold in the end
> game to get an additional 1000 points?
>
> Even if 80=90% of the people totally ignore the VC
> based ranking system, that puts 2-5 people per
> non-grudge game that does care. It only takes one to
> really screw up the game.
>
> As someone that has been playing since the GWC game, I
> can tell you all that there was one "jerk" per game
> that cared about getting the GWC. And, that didn't
> carry over from game to game. It didn't get listed on
> the web. You didn't get called "one of the best
> players". You just saved $15 on the next game.
>
> This PRS WILL reward bad play. It will therefore
> cause more bad play. It is a really bad idea.
>
> The only reason I can think of that Clint wants to
> force this on players is because of the XP based
> ranking system that rewards points for spending more
> money.
>
> Other than, "it might be interesting to see the
> numbers", I've not heard any reasons of why this would
> be a good system.
>
> The "it adds another layer" argument is really an
> argument that it will be fun to try to move up in the
> rankings. In other words, it is an argument that it
> WILL turn people into greedy, selfish, defensive, poor
> team players.
>
> I love the current "non-system" where people pick
> nations and games based on fun and challenge. I love
> that there is no punishment for being a great team
> player.
>
> I would hate a return to the days of careful game
> selection, poor team play in the late game, and even
> outright back stabbing.
>
> The absolute WORST thing about the current proposed
> system is the way the last nation to play a position
> takes all the blame for a loss. This is a 100%
> encouragment to drop a position at the first sign of
> trouble in hopes someone else will pick it up. Anyone
> interested in points would never pick up a dropped
> position, because odds are it is in trouble and you
> may not be able to get others to pick it up after you.
>
> Very bad idea, all the way around.
>
> Darrell Shimel
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
_________________________________________________________________
Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S. locations. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx