Shame I only got the two players response on this - but
thanks to Laurence
and Richard much appreciated.
Two replies ? Didn't I put in this message on the 31/7/2000 which went like
...
I don't think the idea of the GM throwing in money from outside the game to
make an inactive nation look better. Don't forget there is another side that
helped bankrupt the nation that just dropped. They might say 'why bother' if
GM's step in to work against them.
I suggest that the side with the inactive nation be the only one who can
throw in any money.
Just keeping the list of who got turns in (processed, SS, etc) I think is
good enough
Thanks
m
p.s so I'm voting for less work for Clint.
···
****
What I did ignore was the later messages over the difference in dead nations
(ie dead because the enemy killed it, and dead because the nation dropped).
But my reply would be the same as above. Unless its a order entry fix, I
don't want to have the GM have any input in a game. Once GM's starts
interfering in games, I start thinking 'whose side is he on'.
its also bad PR. Clint gets money every turn that I play. His beefing up a
dead nation will make it harder for me (and my allies), to stomp on it.
Thats means more money for him. Now did Clint beef up a nation so that the
game runs longer and he gets more money to pay his bills (in a industry that
I'm surprised anyone makes money), or did he do it to help the standby
position ? Now anyone who has a cat is a nice person in my book (unless the
cat doesn't have a bell and is allowed to wander out at night), but more
paranoid people might question his motives.
I'm still voting for less vote for Clint.
Clint
--------------------------------------------------------------
------<e|-
Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com:
http://click.egroups.com/1/8011/11//430399//965739173/
--------------------------------------------------------------
------|e>-
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Okay thanks Micahel - I stand corrected here - just trying to get some
feedback so my apologies if I stepped on any toes here... 
Generally I work on the concept that if it is a good game then you players
will play, and if a bad game then they won't. If I can make it a better
game then I will try to as it also earns me more money. (Also more fun to
run!)
So IMHO I think it will make a better game, and I will do it an unbiased
manner (as much as I can) but you are probably right.
Clint
···
****************************************************
Harlequin Games
mailto: pbm@harlequingames.com
www.harlequingames.com
Middle Earth - Legends- Serim Ral
CTF 2187 - Starquest - Crack of Doom
Battle of the Planets - Exile
****************************************************
340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Peters" <MPeters@nskomatsu.com.au>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 12:23 AM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Query on ammendment of the gold for take overs
>
> Shame I only got the two players response on this - but
> thanks to Laurence
> and Richard much appreciated.
>
Two replies ? Didn't I put in this message on the 31/7/2000 which went
like
...
I don't think the idea of the GM throwing in money from outside the game
to
make an inactive nation look better. Don't forget there is another side
that
helped bankrupt the nation that just dropped. They might say 'why bother'
if
GM's step in to work against them.
I suggest that the side with the inactive nation be the only one who can
throw in any money.
Just keeping the list of who got turns in (processed, SS, etc) I think is
good enough
Thanks
m
p.s so I'm voting for less work for Clint.
****
What I did ignore was the later messages over the difference in dead
nations
(ie dead because the enemy killed it, and dead because the nation
dropped).
But my reply would be the same as above. Unless its a order entry fix, I
don't want to have the GM have any input in a game. Once GM's starts
interfering in games, I start thinking 'whose side is he on'.
its also bad PR. Clint gets money every turn that I play. His beefing up a
dead nation will make it harder for me (and my allies), to stomp on it.
Thats means more money for him. Now did Clint beef up a nation so that the
game runs longer and he gets more money to pay his bills (in a industry
that
I'm surprised anyone makes money), or did he do it to help the standby
position ? Now anyone who has a cat is a nice person in my book (unless
the
cat doesn't have a bell and is allowed to wander out at night), but more
paranoid people might question his motives.
I'm still voting for less vote for Clint.
> Clint
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------<e|-
> Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/8011/11//430399//965739173/
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------|e>-
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>
>
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
> Shame I only got the two players response on this - but
> thanks to Laurence
> and Richard much appreciated.
>
Leave it alone, is my say.
Want to get more players to take up stand-bys, offer free turns, :).
b.e.
Generally I work on the concept that if it is a good game then you players
will play, and if a bad game then they won't. If I can make it a better
game then I will try to as it also earns me more money. (Also more fun to
run!)
So IMHO I think it will make a better game, and I will do it an unbiased
manner (as much as I can) but you are probably right.
I think Clint has a point here. Some of the nations rely heavily on
support from
their neigbours, and an early dropout could therefore lead to that
nation
disappearing as well, which would seriously shift the balance of the
game.
Especially when talking about nations like NG/SG. If only the nation
dropped was
in a somewhat decent shape, so an experienced player would agree to take
over,
this could be avoided, and the balance kept. I wouldn't like a nation
that I had
harassed so much with agents that the player decided to quit, to come
back in an
even better shape, but we need to do something about those early drops.
The question is what. Giving a bag of gold to anyone willing to take a
dropout
wouldn't be fair at all. Some positions need more and some less. Some
shouldn't
get anything. It all depends on how long the nation has been inactive,
and how
fast the destruction goes. You can't expect the GM to go through old
turns (do
you keep old turns?) and compare them with the last ones (after all some
of them
have cats to get home to), and then try to put the nation in the shape
it was in
before. These corrections would be a source of the paranoia Michael was
talking
about. Automatic sells sounds good though. Maybe a change in the program
would
be the solution. All resources could be sold every turn and any deficit
then
ignored by the program, so the taxes stay where they are. If taxes would
normally have gone up, enough troops should get the boot every turn to
cover for
it instead, and if that isn't enough so be it. This would keep the
nation in
shape, with all pop centres intact (except those that the enemy hasn't
taken)
and a normal tax rate. If the nation was in good shape from the
beginning, it
will lose some gold but still be OK, while a nation in economic trouble
will
still be in economic trouble when another player takes over, and be a
less
important military power because of the troops disbanded, but in the
same shape
he was in from the beginning, with the chance fair chance of rebuilding
the
nation.
/Pontus
PS. Why did you mention DiabloII..? I have an exam I have to focus on...
DS.
···
Clint
****************************************************
Harlequin Games
mailto: pbm@harlequingames.com
www.harlequingames.com
Middle Earth - Legends- Serim Ral
CTF 2187 - Starquest - Crack of Doom
Battle of the Planets - Exile
****************************************************
340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Peters" <MPeters@nskomatsu.com.au>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 12:23 AM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Query on ammendment of the gold for take overs
>
> >
> > Shame I only got the two players response on this - but
> > thanks to Laurence
> > and Richard much appreciated.
> >
>
> Two replies ? Didn't I put in this message on the 31/7/2000 which went
like
> ...
>
>
> I don't think the idea of the GM throwing in money from outside the game
to
> make an inactive nation look better. Don't forget there is another side
that
> helped bankrupt the nation that just dropped. They might say 'why bother'
if
> GM's step in to work against them.
>
> I suggest that the side with the inactive nation be the only one who can
> throw in any money.
>
> Just keeping the list of who got turns in (processed, SS, etc) I think is
> good enough
>
> Thanks
> m
>
> p.s so I'm voting for less work for Clint.
>
> ****
>
> What I did ignore was the later messages over the difference in dead
nations
> (ie dead because the enemy killed it, and dead because the nation
dropped).
> But my reply would be the same as above. Unless its a order entry fix, I
> don't want to have the GM have any input in a game. Once GM's starts
> interfering in games, I start thinking 'whose side is he on'.
>
> its also bad PR. Clint gets money every turn that I play. His beefing up a
> dead nation will make it harder for me (and my allies), to stomp on it.
> Thats means more money for him. Now did Clint beef up a nation so that the
> game runs longer and he gets more money to pay his bills (in a industry
that
> I'm surprised anyone makes money), or did he do it to help the standby
> position ? Now anyone who has a cat is a nice person in my book (unless
the
> cat doesn't have a bell and is allowed to wander out at night), but more
> paranoid people might question his motives.
>
> I'm still voting for less vote for Clint.
>
> > Clint
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------<e|-
> > Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com:
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/8011/11//430399//965739173/
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------|e>-
> >
> > Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> > To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> > http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>
>
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Okay, okay, okay... here you go GM listening to player shocker. I'll
reintroduce the Free for taking up a standby position as of TODAY.
Thanks for the input much appreciated.
Clint
···
> > Shame I only got the two players response on this - but
> > thanks to Laurence
> > and Richard much appreciated.
> >
Leave it alone, is my say.
Want to get more players to take up stand-bys, offer free turns, :).
b.e.
It's really very easy to stop early drops: make it cost real money for the
player concerned. A deposit of twenty-five pounds, refundable upon
elimination or the nation being taken over by another player, should do the
trick.
And don't give me that namby-pamby "some poor souls can't afford it",
either. Like any other leisure activity; if you can't afford it, don't do
it.
Sorry to be so blunt, folks, but I've been playing by mail for over 25 years
and this is the only system I've seen work. And to be honest, putting my old
curmudgeonly codger hat on for a minute, today's crop of players seem
willing to drop a game at the slightest excuse. There are few players
willing to work a position up and see a game through.
Gavin (usually much more liberal than this!)
Gavinwj wrote:
A deposit of twenty-five pounds ....
And don't give me that namby-pamby "some poor souls can't afford it",
either. Like any other leisure activity; if you can't afford it, don't do
it.
But from Harlequin's point of view its a business. Instituting a deposit
along those lines simply doesn't make good business sense. At the risk
of sounding namby pamby, there would be a large number of players who
would simply not sign up for games. The reason a lot of people sign up
for new games (and I include myself in this) is they think an extra five
quid start-up plus 3.90 a turn isn't oo much even if they are on a tight
budget. However if I had to pay an up front deposit of 25 quid, then I
simply woulndt play any more games of Middle Earth. I rarely have that
sort of 'leisure activity money available in a big lump sum anyway.
Sorry to be so blunt, folks, but I've been playing by mail for over 25 years
and this is the only system I've seen work.
Maybe so, but 25 quid is WAY over the top. Fiove quid perhaps but even
then ...
AS a GM I've tried this sort of system, and to be honest it made news
games a lot harder to get off the ground, and didn't really seem to
affect drop-outs anyway. Money is not the be all and end all solution.
People drop for all sorts of reasons, if they dont like a game theyre
not going to play just because they've put a deposit down. And anyway, I
woulndt want a member of my team just routinely putting in orders just
to use up credit, I'd want someone with enthusiasm who was willing to
play a full part in a game - better to have a new player in the
position!
There are few players willing to work a position up and see a game through.
I think you're being a little unfair, but yes PBM players are becoming
increasingly transient. It's the way of all leisure activities these
days, it's a social problem not a PBM problem. Charging more money isn't
going to solve the issue, it'll just make Harlequin's business suffer
and reduce ME to a game no longer played by students, the unemployed,
the disabled and everyone else who doesn't have much monmey.
One of the big attractions of PBM as a leisure pursuit is that it is
affordable. Any GM seriously wanting to run PBM games as a business
would be foolish to charge lareg deposits or high turn fees. A nice
elitist complex game, fine - but a mass market game that is a going
concern on a business level? Forget it.
Colin.
ColinForbes wrote:
Maybe so, but 25 quid is WAY over the top. Fiove quid perhaps but even
then ...
Gosh, you're quick! Chris Harvey had a five pound deposit system for StarWeb
games back in the late 70s. Figure out what a fiver got you in 1978 (about
16 pints of Tuborg and a bag of crisps) and what 25 gets you now, and the
latter is probably a bargain.
As for the rest of your response... we've covered that ground. Money is a
very high motivator of behaviour for more than 90% of the population.
And anyway, I
woulndt want a member of my team just routinely putting in orders just
to use up credit, I'd want someone with enthusiasm who was willing to
play a full part in a game
Wouldn't happen. Said player would tell his teammates he wants out and
they'd ante up if the position was worth saving. That way, he gets the
deposit back. The deposit is *not* game credit; it's a separate payment,
held in escrow.
Gavin
Sonme good points here - back to the old programming changes thing. I can
bring it up with GSI again and see if they are up for modifying the SS turn
but they are not a big fan of that. We have back-ups of the turns but don't
keep them as such.
Clint
···
****************************************************
Harlequin Games
mailto: pbm@harlequingames.com
www.harlequingames.com
Middle Earth - Legends- Serim Ral
CTF 2187 - Starquest - Crack of Doom
Battle of the Planets - Exile
****************************************************
340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pontus Gustavsson" <pontus@gustavsson.net>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Query on ammendment of the gold for take overs
> Generally I work on the concept that if it is a good game then you
players
> will play, and if a bad game then they won't. If I can make it a better
> game then I will try to as it also earns me more money. (Also more fun
to
> run!)
>
> So IMHO I think it will make a better game, and I will do it an unbiased
> manner (as much as I can) but you are probably right.
I think Clint has a point here. Some of the nations rely heavily on
support from
their neigbours, and an early dropout could therefore lead to that
nation
disappearing as well, which would seriously shift the balance of the
game.
Especially when talking about nations like NG/SG. If only the nation
dropped was
in a somewhat decent shape, so an experienced player would agree to take
over,
this could be avoided, and the balance kept. I wouldn't like a nation
that I had
harassed so much with agents that the player decided to quit, to come
back in an
even better shape, but we need to do something about those early drops.
The question is what. Giving a bag of gold to anyone willing to take a
dropout
wouldn't be fair at all. Some positions need more and some less. Some
shouldn't
get anything. It all depends on how long the nation has been inactive,
and how
fast the destruction goes. You can't expect the GM to go through old
turns (do
you keep old turns?) and compare them with the last ones (after all some
of them
have cats to get home to), and then try to put the nation in the shape
it was in
before. These corrections would be a source of the paranoia Michael was
talking
about. Automatic sells sounds good though. Maybe a change in the program
would
be the solution. All resources could be sold every turn and any deficit
then
ignored by the program, so the taxes stay where they are. If taxes would
normally have gone up, enough troops should get the boot every turn to
cover for
it instead, and if that isn't enough so be it. This would keep the
nation in
shape, with all pop centres intact (except those that the enemy hasn't
taken)
and a normal tax rate. If the nation was in good shape from the
beginning, it
will lose some gold but still be OK, while a nation in economic trouble
will
still be in economic trouble when another player takes over, and be a
less
important military power because of the troops disbanded, but in the
same shape
he was in from the beginning, with the chance fair chance of rebuilding
the
nation.
/Pontus
PS. Why did you mention DiabloII..? I have an exam I have to focus on...
DS.
>
>
> Clint
> ****************************************************
> Harlequin Games
>
> mailto: pbm@harlequingames.com
> www.harlequingames.com
> Middle Earth - Legends- Serim Ral
> CTF 2187 - Starquest - Crack of Doom
> Battle of the Planets - Exile
> ****************************************************
> 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
> Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
> Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Peters" <MPeters@nskomatsu.com.au>
> To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 12:23 AM
> Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Query on ammendment of the gold for take overs
>
> >
> > >
> > > Shame I only got the two players response on this - but
> > > thanks to Laurence
> > > and Richard much appreciated.
> > >
> >
> > Two replies ? Didn't I put in this message on the 31/7/2000 which went
> like
> > ...
> >
> >
> > I don't think the idea of the GM throwing in money from outside the
game
> to
> > make an inactive nation look better. Don't forget there is another
side
> that
> > helped bankrupt the nation that just dropped. They might say 'why
bother'
> if
> > GM's step in to work against them.
> >
> > I suggest that the side with the inactive nation be the only one who
can
> > throw in any money.
> >
> > Just keeping the list of who got turns in (processed, SS, etc) I think
is
> > good enough
> >
> > Thanks
> > m
> >
> > p.s so I'm voting for less work for Clint.
> >
> > ****
> >
> > What I did ignore was the later messages over the difference in dead
> nations
> > (ie dead because the enemy killed it, and dead because the nation
> dropped).
> > But my reply would be the same as above. Unless its a order entry fix,
I
> > don't want to have the GM have any input in a game. Once GM's starts
> > interfering in games, I start thinking 'whose side is he on'.
> >
> > its also bad PR. Clint gets money every turn that I play. His beefing
up a
> > dead nation will make it harder for me (and my allies), to stomp on
it.
> > Thats means more money for him. Now did Clint beef up a nation so that
the
> > game runs longer and he gets more money to pay his bills (in a
industry
> that
> > I'm surprised anyone makes money), or did he do it to help the standby
> > position ? Now anyone who has a cat is a nice person in my book
(unless
> the
> > cat doesn't have a bell and is allowed to wander out at night), but
more
> > paranoid people might question his motives.
> >
> > I'm still voting for less vote for Clint.
> >
> > > Clint
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------<e|-
> > > Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com:
> > > http://click.egroups.com/1/8011/11//430399//965739173/
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------|e>-
> > >
> > > Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> > > To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> > > http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> > To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> > http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
ColinForbes wrote:
There are few players willing to work a position up and see a game through.
I think you're being a little unfair, but yes PBM players are becoming
increasingly transient.
No I'm not being unfair. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number
of players I've met in MEPBM who I would consider to be "stayers".
As for the quality of correspondence... Grammar, spelling? Forget it.
Gavin (PBM as a recruiting tool for the Tories? I don't think so.)
For those who are short on cash this won't work. For those with money it
won't be a problem to get the deposit I reckon.
We have cut the cost of set-up to �10 which we think brought in a few
players, and we were considering reducing it to zero. The problem with the
zero option is that it will bring in a lot of players who just want to give
it a try and then drop and as this game suffers from drop outs then we don't
really want to go down that route. We are playing with some ideas here in
the office but suggestions welcome. I might not agree with all of them, but
they do help a lot to decide policy and give us some feedback.
Clint
It's really very easy to stop early drops: make it cost real money for the
player concerned. A deposit of twenty-five pounds, refundable upon
elimination or the nation being taken over by another player, should do
the
trick.
And don't give me that namby-pamby "some poor souls can't afford it",
either. Like any other leisure activity; if you can't afford it, don't do
it.
Sorry to be so blunt, folks, but I've been playing by mail for over 25
years
and this is the only system I've seen work. And to be honest, putting my
old
···
curmudgeonly codger hat on for a minute, today's crop of players seem
willing to drop a game at the slightest excuse. There are few players
willing to work a position up and see a game through.
Gavin (usually much more liberal than this!)
Harlequin Games wrote:
We are playing with some ideas here in
the office but suggestions welcome. I might not agree with all of them, but
they do help a lot to decide policy and give us some feedback.
Pagoda Games allow you to run a game of Godfather without other players for
a few turns so you can get used to the system and see if the game is for
you. It's a reduced size version of the full game, without a deadline, but
gives you a very good idea of what to expect. Since I'd been burned by St
Vals many years ago, I signed up for the sample game at the Con and very
quickly decided that it was a game I wanted to play "for real". Maybe a
two-player, limited map variant of MEPBM might be worth trying? The second
player would be a GM or a willing regular player who would play for free for
five turns or so. The experienced player would have to agree to submit good
orders upon receipt of the turn, in case the new player decides on a fast
game. Therefore, email access would be required. (Dragon Lord vs Elves?)
And, yes, I'm now in a regular game of Godfather.
Gavin
I liked Gavin's idea of a deposit, but I thought �25 was rather high.
Here then might be your solution - drop the �10 start-up, and make it a
�10 deposit instead. That might bring in players who want to give it a
serious try, and still discourage those who might drop after 2 turns.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley
···
Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
We have cut the cost of set-up to �10 which we think brought in a few
players, and we were considering reducing it to zero. The problem with the
zero option is that it will bring in a lot of players who just want to give
it a try and then drop and as this game suffers from drop outs then we don't
really want to go down that route.
Sounds a good idea this one - it's something that we are implementing with
Legends but hadn't got around to doing in ME although we had thought of
something like it.
I'll do some thinking about this and get back to you all - although as per
usual feedback would be great.
Clint
Harlequin Games wrote:
> We are playing with some ideas here in
> the office but suggestions welcome. I might not agree with all of them,
but
> they do help a lot to decide policy and give us some feedback.
Pagoda Games allow you to run a game of Godfather without other players
for
a few turns so you can get used to the system and see if the game is for
you. It's a reduced size version of the full game, without a deadline, but
gives you a very good idea of what to expect. Since I'd been burned by St
Vals many years ago, I signed up for the sample game at the Con and very
quickly decided that it was a game I wanted to play "for real". Maybe a
two-player, limited map variant of MEPBM might be worth trying? The second
player would be a GM or a willing regular player who would play for free
for
five turns or so. The experienced player would have to agree to submit
good
···
orders upon receipt of the turn, in case the new player decides on a fast
game. Therefore, email access would be required. (Dragon Lord vs Elves?)
And, yes, I'm now in a regular game of Godfather.
Gavin
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
We sort of see the �10 as a deposit as it is really. A sort of reason
to give players 2 turns so that they play.
Clint
>We have cut the cost of set-up to �10 which we think brought in a few
>players, and we were considering reducing it to zero. The problem with
the
>zero option is that it will bring in a lot of players who just want to
give
>it a try and then drop and as this game suffers from drop outs then we
don't
···
>really want to go down that route.
I liked Gavin's idea of a deposit, but I thought �25 was rather high.
Here then might be your solution - drop the �10 start-up, and make it a
�10 deposit instead. That might bring in players who want to give it a
serious try, and still discourage those who might drop after 2 turns.
We have cut the cost of set-up to £10 which we think brought in a few
players, and we were considering reducing it to zero. The problem with the
zero option is that it will bring in a lot of players who just want to give
it a try and then drop and as this game suffers from drop outs then we don't
really want to go down that route. We are playing with some ideas here in
the office but suggestions welcome. I might not agree with all of them, but
they do help a lot to decide policy and give us some feedback.
have you ever set up games where all the players are "new" to the game? i
know that could take time to set up, but, if you set up games where you did
reduce the setup to new players to Zero that might encourage new startups.
For the players it would mean playing against opponents who did not have
all the information/encounters to hand, who were therefore of a similar
ability early on, and thus find it more rewarding to play the game instead
of being thrashed by experienced players. as a suggestion you could
categorize "new" players as those who have been in 0 to 2 or 3 games. there
might be a higher dropout rate by those "just trying it out", but then
again there might be a desire to stick around if they aren`t getting
thrashed by people who already know all the dragon recruitment factors or
encounter answers. as an experiment i`d bet that it would pay off in the
numbers who would come back having been impressed that they could try it
out for a free set-up...
···
######################################-
Banky: [to Alyssa] Since you like chicks, right, do you just look at
yourself naked in the
mirror all the time?
######################################
CYA, don`t wanna be ya,
David Murray.
Yes more or less - there is a massive drop out rate generally though...
We quit elike the one nation vs one nation game though as an introduction.
Clint
"have you ever set up games where all the players are "new" to the game? "
Harlequin Games wrote:
Yes more or less - there is a massive drop out rate generally though...
We quit elike the one nation vs one nation game though as an introduction.
Clint
"have you ever set up games where all the players are "new" to the game? "
Sounds like there's a problem in setting the correct "expectation level". If
new players are expecting one thing and find another, there will be a high
drop out rate.
Gavin
PS Glad you like the idea!
For those who are short on cash this won't work. For those with money it
won't be a problem to get the deposit I reckon.
We have cut the cost of set-up to �10 which we think brought in a few
players, and we were considering reducing it to zero. The problem with
the
zero option is that it will bring in a lot of players who just want to
give
it a try and then drop and as this game suffers from drop outs then we
don't
really want to go down that route. We are playing with some ideas here in
the office but suggestions welcome. I might not agree with all of them,
but
they do help a lot to decide policy and give us some feedback.
Clint
> It's really very easy to stop early drops: make it cost real money for
the
> player concerned. A deposit of twenty-five pounds, refundable upon
> elimination or the nation being taken over by another player, should do
the
> trick.
>
> And don't give me that namby-pamby "some poor souls can't afford it",
> either. Like any other leisure activity; if you can't afford it, don't
do
> it.
>
> Sorry to be so blunt, folks, but I've been playing by mail for over 25
years
> and this is the only system I've seen work. And to be honest, putting my
old
> curmudgeonly codger hat on for a minute, today's crop of players seem
> willing to drop a game at the slightest excuse. There are few players
> willing to work a position up and see a game through.
>
> Gavin (usually much more liberal than this!)
RD: Today's crop of players will drop a game at the slightest excuse because
there are so many misguided GMs offering the zero option, startup and 2 (or
more) turns free. And you wonder why these 'players' drop when they can
take up some other game for nowt. Frankly, these 'players' are not worth
bothering with. They cost GMs money and annoy genuine players by their lack
of commitment.
Golden Rule: GMs should never, ever, offer something for nothing. A tenner
for a setup and maybe a couple of turns is BLOODY good value for money. I
sympathise with Gavin's ideal of a twenty-five quid deposit, but if
Harlequin are the only people charging it, they will very quickly go out of
business because of the short-sighted GMs elsewhere offering something for
nothing.
Richard.
Richard John Devereux wrote:
Golden Rule: GMs should never, ever, offer something for nothing. A tenner
for a setup and maybe a couple of turns is BLOODY good value for money. I
sympathise with Gavin's ideal of a twenty-five quid deposit, but if
Harlequin are the only people charging it, they will very quickly go out of
business because of the short-sighted GMs elsewhere offering something for
nothing.
Thanks for the support. However, you and others are assuming a zero-sum or
even negative result if a deposit system is used. Yes, it would drive away
the munchkins (good riddance) but it would add to the pool of committed
players. I know quite a few players who've quit games in disgust when the
freebie mob dropped out and who would return to the fold if they knew their
allies were in the game for the long haul. Harlequin already has a very good
reputation as for way they run their games. Wouldn't a reasonable guarantee
of being able to see a game to completion add to that reputation?
Gavin
