PRS

mepbmlist
#1

Recently recruiting a neutral I sent him my pdf and some out line
plans I had. He got in contact and said he saw why I was taking ???,
it was one of my victory conditions. I said to be honest I hadn't
actually noticed but now that I have did he realise that two of my
other conditions were taking two pop centres of his? Victory
conditions are a lottery, if they are mainly character terminations
you can rely on Cloud Lord, Noldo and other nations agents doing the
job for you, even encounters can see the end of a character you have
to see terminated. Specific pop centres and or artifacts are almost
impossible to achieve and I am sure team mates would have words if
towards game end you had your mage locating obscure 750 combat
artifacts rather than tracking the Noldo killer agent. I believe most
players will look on PRS as a bit of a hoot. "Aha, won my last ten
straight ten games and don't appear in the top 100, must be doing
something right." It will be interesting to see the scores but I
don't see it making much difference to the way the vast majority of
players play. We have players now who greedily keep artifacts rather
than using them for the common good or have to be ground down to send
out some of their reserves to help a nation from going under. "No
it's all my gold, why does the QA have to send gold to the Witch-
king? He should stop recruiting so many troops". And if it does it
make a difference then it can quickly be scrapped.

Lewis

#2

I think Lewis said exactly what i had in mind.
Regardng his point about VC`s; is there anyway to make them more
relevant for each nation, perhaps even the same for each game? At the
moment they are random, "a lottery". I don`t see the point in having
team-mates characters as a VC. An example [in 2950] a "permanent" VC
could be for the WW to take Edoras. The Dwarves to regain Durins
artifacts, regain and hold Erebor and Moria or to kill Bolg! I
know...you`ll probably say it`s a programming matter that you can`t
touch. 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! At the moment that is why VC`s fail [and why i generally ignore
them].

david murray

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "loodles9" <lewismorton99@t...>
wrote:

Recently recruiting a neutral I sent him my pdf and some out line
plans I had. He got in contact and said he saw why I was

taking ???,

it was one of my victory conditions. I said to be honest I hadn't
actually noticed but now that I have did he realise that two of my
other conditions were taking two pop centres of his? Victory
conditions are a lottery, if they are mainly character terminations
you can rely on Cloud Lord, Noldo and other nations agents doing

the

job for you, even encounters can see the end of a character you

have

to see terminated. Specific pop centres and or artifacts are almost
impossible to achieve and I am sure team mates would have words if
towards game end you had your mage locating obscure 750 combat
artifacts rather than tracking the Noldo killer agent. I believe

most

players will look on PRS as a bit of a hoot. "Aha, won my last ten
straight ten games and don't appear in the top 100, must be doing
something right." It will be interesting to see the scores but I
don't see it making much difference to the way the vast majority of
players play. We have players now who greedily keep artifacts

rather

than using them for the common good or have to be ground down to

send

···

out some of their reserves to help a nation from going under. "No
it's all my gold, why does the QA have to send gold to the Witch-
king? He should stop recruiting so many troops". And if it does it
make a difference then it can quickly be scrapped.

Lewis

#3

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

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

···

--- sootypye69 <sootypye69@hotmail.com> wrote:

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

#4

I was under the impression that a drop counted as a Loss against that
player, regardless of the outcome of that nation and it's team later in the
game.

Clint, can you clear this up? I believe this is a significant part of the
argument that a rating system that rewards Team victory is somehow
anti-Team.

How do picked up nations count for the person who picked them up? If the
rest of the allegiance drops the turn this poor guy gets his pdf, what
happens to him? Similarly, if the Other team quits same time, what so? As
Darrell pointed our earlier, people should be rewarded for picking up
abandoned (but viable) nations.

Thanks,

Brad Brunet

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Shimel" <threeedgedsword35@yahoo.com>

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.

#5

I was under the impression that a drop counted as a
Loss against that
player, regardless of the outcome of that nation and
it's team later in the
game.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Clint clearly
said that the last person to play a position takes the
hit. The player that drops a position has no effects
on his rankings if someone picks up hte position. In
fact, if the team goes on to win, the person that
drops a position that isn't picked up, gets credit for
the win.

Clint, can you clear this up? I believe this is a
significant part of the
argument that a rating system that rewards Team
victory is somehow
anti-Team.

It is A significant part, but far from the most
significant part. The ranking that improves based on
VCs is the one that most encourages poor team play.

Darrell Shimel

···

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

#6

Sorry, 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

#7

The only people who seem passionate about PRS are Harly [who want to
promote it] and "the vocal minority" [who hate it!].

Just feel that it would be good for the game overall :slight_smile: - I think the majority are either on the fence or don't particularly care or are positive.

Thanks
Clint

#8

I am passionately in favour, but all passion fades in time when it is not
requited. The vocal minority is as vocal as it is small, but as is often
the case the antis make more noise than the pros, when change is on the
tables. Personally, I'm completely tired by the endless circular debate
(on which I wrote very extensively the first time around) and utterly
baffled as to why ME Games just don't get on with it.

It seems to me that the only people contributing now are the very small
vocal minority who say the same things over and over, with bigger and
bigger loud hailers, and a number of newcomers who never read the original
discussion. Sooner or later if ME Games don't come up with the goods, all
the supporters will have gone home to bed, and just the vocal minority will
be left preaching to the seagulls.

mefacesmo.gif
     Laurence G.Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

At 17:17 24/02/2004, ME Games Ltd wrote:

>The only people who seem passionate about PRS are Harly [who want to
>promote it] and "the vocal minority" [who hate it!].

Just feel that it would be good for the game overall :slight_smile: - I think the
majority are either on the fence or don't particularly care or are positive.

#9

I guess it`s hard to tell...the only people shouting are the ones who
loathe the idea as a matter of principle. I see no harm in running a
test period. If it obviously sucks then logic would be that there is
no point in continuing with it...

david murray

>The only people who seem passionate about PRS are Harly [who want

to

>promote it] and "the vocal minority" [who hate it!].

Just feel that it would be good for the game overall :slight_smile: - I think

the

majority are either on the fence or don't particularly care or are

positive.

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, ME Games Ltd <me@M...> wrote:

Thanks
Clint