Query on ammendment of the gold for take overs

mepbmlist
#21

One way might be to have a game whereby players COMMIT to playing -
generally these are team games though. It wouldn't necessarily need a
downpayment.

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: "Gavinwj" <gavinwj@compuserve.com>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Query on ammendment of the gold for take overs

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

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#22

OK Here's a proposal for your thoughts. Please note that all numbers in
the following proposal could be negotiated separately to the idea
itself. If you're commenting, please say whether you like or dislike
the basic idea itself, as well as giving your opinion on the precise
numbers (scores).

PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE PROPOSAL:

* We all lose when players drop too easily or too soon.

* ME is the best PBM because its is a co-operative team game. Its
weakest elements are its victory point system, and its victory
conditions system. The VP system is poor because it:
  * rewards inactivity and profiteering, which whilst being very "real
world" is not in the spirit of heroic fantasy
  *ignores the fact that the "competitors" do not have a level playing
field - the Noldo almost always win when the FP do, irrespective of the
ability of the player (see the statistics on Bobbin's pages http://www.m
iddleearthpbm.co.uk/ )
The VC system is stupid because the VCs are randomly generated, with no
effort made to attach story to them.
For me, and most of the guys I enjoy gaming with, the VPs and VCs are
ignored, and the highest honour is when your team mates tell you you're
a "team player". It is particularly galling when one reads on the cover
sheets "Game 99 has finished with Jimmy Selfish as the Noldo coming in
in 1st place, and Johnny Maddo as Easterlings (declared turn 30) coming
in in 2nd." It's time to honour and reward the whole team, and the
stickers on the losing team, rather than the individual.

* The Harlequin Web site would be better if there was a reason to "check
in" occasionally.

PROPOSAL FOR PLAYER RATING SYSTEM

At the end of a rated game, Harlequin award 2 points to each active
player on the winning team and 1 point to each active player on the
losing team, or undeclared neutral.

Harlequin list the rated players and their scores on the web site.

ALTERNATIVE SCORING

Though I personally favour the very simple 2 point/1point system above,
we could discuss alternatives. For example 25 points might be awarded
for each game, to be shared out between surviving players at game end,
with a modifier. Perhaps winners get 2 shares, losers and undeclared
neutrals 1. So game 99 ends with 12FP beating 4DS with no undeclared
neutrals. That's 12x2+4=28 shares. Each share is 25 points/28 = 0.9.
Winners get 1.8 points, losers 1.9 points. There are many other
possibilities.

USES

After all current games (which become declared "rated games") concluded,
or a period of about 1 year, we would have a fair statistical list of
who the experienced sticking players are.

It could be used to allow "Rated player only games" - where you have to
have a score of 1 or 2 or whatever to gain access. Or eventually even
championships, where the highest rated players challenge each other.

It could be used by Harlequin to measure the experience of an alliance,
so that games with too many newbies don't happen. They could assure us
that the enemy team has at least 8 points between them or whatever.

It's fun to have a rating, and to improve it, as anyone who has used
Internet auctions or similar will know. It will encourage all to stick
to the end.

CONSIDERATIONS

It will mean a little extra administration for Harlequin at the end of
each game. I think the benefits would justify it.

There would need to be some fairly tight rules about what constitutes an
"active player at game end". For example, it might include anyone
knocked out within the last 3 turns of the game or any knocked out
nation which fought well and gets a commendation vote from the surviving
players.

Games considered "rated games" would have to have some mechanism to
prevent lone maniacs playing on to the death when they have no hope of
winning and wasting everyone's money. I favour the majority vote team
concession principle (last mentioned in my idea for pre-game agreements
- hope this one gets more of a response than that!) That is, if the
majority of players of one allegiance vote to concede defeat, then the
GM stops the game.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?

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

One way might be to have a game whereby players COMMIT to playing -
generally these are team games though. It wouldn't necessarily need a
downpayment.
Clint

#23

"Laurence G. Tilley" wrote:

PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE PROPOSAL:

* We all lose when players drop too easily or too soon.

Totally agreed.

* ME is the best PBM because its is a co-operative team game. Its
weakest elements are its victory point system, and its victory
conditions system. The VP system is poor because it:

VP/VC is very poor, no question.

PROPOSAL FOR PLAYER RATING SYSTEM

At the end of a rated game, Harlequin award 2 points to each active
player on the winning team and 1 point to each active player on the
losing team, or undeclared neutral.

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. One of my "nightmares" (such as
it is), is a game dragging on ad infinitum because one or two people
want to hold to their camps to the end. I don't like this because it's
no fun, and more importantly is costs me money. I could easily end up
spending an extra USD20 on a game that's long over. For that reason,
this rating system might not measure things well.

More to the point, it does not reward people who fight well but get
killed anyway.

I propose a positive system, whereby you get points for each turn you
are in the game. That way, if you die on turn 20, and the game ends on
turn 25, you still earn a solid rating.

I would also like to see some discretionary points in the mix. For
example, I want to give my "team leader" extra points for keeping us
together well.

There would need to be some fairly tight rules about what constitutes an
"active player at game end". For example, it might include anyone
knocked out within the last 3 turns of the game or any knocked out
nation which fought well and gets a commendation vote from the surviving
players.

See my comments above.

Games considered "rated games" would have to have some mechanism to
prevent lone maniacs playing on to the death when they have no hope of
winning and wasting everyone's money. I favour the majority vote team

Deja vu. :slight_smile:

        jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software Engineer, Cryptography Buff, Gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord
http://members.home.net/jasonab/

#24

'Like the generic idea, and happy to do some extra work when the game ends
as well. Obviously with such things the nitty gritty is hard to deal with
but doable.

Another idea on similar lines is compare VPs starting with (or after a
number of turns with a small random element +/- 1 turn) those later in the
game. So invariably the Eothrim lose out on VPs compare with their starting
situation, for example.

What about a vote by the winning (and losing) team for the opposing and same
side team? So you get to vote for....

Best team player: 1,2 & 3 (3pts, 2, 1)
Best individual player: 1,2 & 3 (3pts, 2, 1)
Best player on opposing team: 1,2 & 3 (3pts, 2, 1)
Something about team leaders might be nice/info gatherers/communicators etc,
that would be cool as well. (Nothing fixed for any of the above just
throwing ideas into the melting pot with Laurence's)

...as well.

Clint

···

>One way might be to have a game whereby players COMMIT to playing -
>generally these are team games though. It wouldn't necessarily need a
>downpayment.
>Clint

OK Here's a proposal for your thoughts. Please note that all numbers in
the following proposal could be negotiated separately to the idea
itself. If you're commenting, please say whether you like or dislike
the basic idea itself, as well as giving your opinion on the precise
numbers (scores).

PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE PROPOSAL:

* We all lose when players drop too easily or too soon.

* ME is the best PBM because its is a co-operative team game. Its
weakest elements are its victory point system, and its victory
conditions system. The VP system is poor because it:
  * rewards inactivity and profiteering, which whilst being very "real
world" is not in the spirit of heroic fantasy
  *ignores the fact that the "competitors" do not have a level playing
field - the Noldo almost always win when the FP do, irrespective of the
ability of the player (see the statistics on Bobbin's pages http://www.m
iddleearthpbm.co.uk/ )
The VC system is stupid because the VCs are randomly generated, with no
effort made to attach story to them.
For me, and most of the guys I enjoy gaming with, the VPs and VCs are
ignored, and the highest honour is when your team mates tell you you're
a "team player". It is particularly galling when one reads on the cover
sheets "Game 99 has finished with Jimmy Selfish as the Noldo coming in
in 1st place, and Johnny Maddo as Easterlings (declared turn 30) coming
in in 2nd." It's time to honour and reward the whole team, and the
stickers on the losing team, rather than the individual.

* The Harlequin Web site would be better if there was a reason to "check
in" occasionally.

PROPOSAL FOR PLAYER RATING SYSTEM

At the end of a rated game, Harlequin award 2 points to each active
player on the winning team and 1 point to each active player on the
losing team, or undeclared neutral.

Harlequin list the rated players and their scores on the web site.

ALTERNATIVE SCORING

Though I personally favour the very simple 2 point/1point system above,
we could discuss alternatives. For example 25 points might be awarded
for each game, to be shared out between surviving players at game end,
with a modifier. Perhaps winners get 2 shares, losers and undeclared
neutrals 1. So game 99 ends with 12FP beating 4DS with no undeclared
neutrals. That's 12x2+4=28 shares. Each share is 25 points/28 = 0.9.
Winners get 1.8 points, losers 1.9 points. There are many other
possibilities.

USES

After all current games (which become declared "rated games") concluded,
or a period of about 1 year, we would have a fair statistical list of
who the experienced sticking players are.

It could be used to allow "Rated player only games" - where you have to
have a score of 1 or 2 or whatever to gain access. Or eventually even
championships, where the highest rated players challenge each other.

It could be used by Harlequin to measure the experience of an alliance,
so that games with too many newbies don't happen. They could assure us
that the enemy team has at least 8 points between them or whatever.

It's fun to have a rating, and to improve it, as anyone who has used
Internet auctions or similar will know. It will encourage all to stick
to the end.

CONSIDERATIONS

It will mean a little extra administration for Harlequin at the end of
each game. I think the benefits would justify it.

There would need to be some fairly tight rules about what constitutes an
"active player at game end". For example, it might include anyone
knocked out within the last 3 turns of the game or any knocked out
nation which fought well and gets a commendation vote from the surviving
players.

Games considered "rated games" would have to have some mechanism to
prevent lone maniacs playing on to the death when they have no hope of
winning and wasting everyone's money. I favour the majority vote team
concession principle (last mentioned in my idea for pre-game agreements
- hope this one gets more of a response than that!) That is, if the
majority of players of one allegiance vote to concede defeat, then the
GM stops the game.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?

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

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#25

One extra thing about this but would take some player input at the start of
each game, is to enhance the set-up options (that extra sheet at the end of
the TURNSHEET that most players ignore, or others religiously send in with
the same details as before... ) so that you could specifiy some of the
following:

Team victory/individual
Team captain (very useful for me that is)
Positions - quantity allowed that sort of thing
Other things - but they leave me for the moment.

Now this is certainly doable. BUT I don't want it to go into the "will onyl
play team games of 12; 1 week turn around game with 3 positions each type
choice as this stops players actually getting games going. I am sort of in
that situation at present with FOUR games all nearly ready to go (and have
been for ages), with some similar positions in each game waiting for
set-ups.

···

> Games considered "rated games" would have to have some mechanism to
> prevent lone maniacs playing on to the death when they have no hope of
> winning and wasting everyone's money. I favour the majority vote team

Deja vu. :slight_smile:

jason

#26

Isn't that largely due to the style of play of the Noldo player, and the
situation that they are unable to be effectively attacked?

Each time I see the starting items list it just amazes me the way they are
used so badly for the team as a whole. (Not having a go at anyone in
particular here for all those allies in games that I am FP on btw). The odd
challenge or plus agent artefact elsewhere (the Woodmen are effectively as
good as stealthy agents to start off with as the Noldo so should have equal
"rights" to the artefacts for example, and you can bet your bottom dollar
that Elrond et al will be hunted down ad infinitum).

Opinions?

Clint

···

  *ignores the fact that the "competitors" do not have a level playing
field - the Noldo almost always win when the FP do, irrespective of the
ability of the player (see the statistics on Bobbin's pages http://www.m
iddleearthpbm.co.uk/ )

#27

Harlequin Games wrote:

One way might be to have a game whereby players COMMIT to playing -
generally these are team games though. It wouldn't necessarily need a
downpayment.

A player commits. Later he defaults. What ya gonna do?

Gavin

#28

Be wary next time?

Clint

···

> One way might be to have a game whereby players COMMIT to playing -
> generally these are team games though. It wouldn't necessarily need a
> downpayment.

A player commits. Later he defaults. What ya gonna do?

Gavin

#29

Just one comment - this player rating system will automatically give the
highest scores to players who have played the most games.

This makes it far more useful for seeing the experience (and 'stickiness' of
a player) than for 'rating' them.

For example, two players:

1. 4 games, played to the end = 4 x 2 = 8
2. 8 games, dropped out of them all = 8 x 1 = 8

Who is the 'best' player? One is certainly more experienced, but the other
is a 'sticker'.

Maybe you need to show points and average per game:

1. Points 8, Average 2
2. Points 8, Average 1

The first number shows their experience, the second their 'stickiness' or
'team player rating'.

I suggest if a player is knocked out they get 2 points for a game (or maybe
1.5 to reflect the knock out?)

The voting systems that other people have suggested are far better ways of
providing player ratings which actually reflect how 'good' a player someone
is, but are far less likely to work thanks to the admin required.

Tony

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Laurence G. Tilley <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: 13 August 2000 18:08
Subject: [mepbmlist] Player Rating System

Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
>One way might be to have a game whereby players COMMIT to playing -
>generally these are team games though. It wouldn't necessarily need a
>downpayment.
>Clint

OK Here's a proposal for your thoughts. Please note that all numbers in
the following proposal could be negotiated separately to the idea
itself. If you're commenting, please say whether you like or dislike
the basic idea itself, as well as giving your opinion on the precise
numbers (scores).

PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE PROPOSAL:

* We all lose when players drop too easily or too soon.

* ME is the best PBM because its is a co-operative team game. Its
weakest elements are its victory point system, and its victory
conditions system. The VP system is poor because it:
  * rewards inactivity and profiteering, which whilst being very "real
world" is not in the spirit of heroic fantasy
  *ignores the fact that the "competitors" do not have a level playing
field - the Noldo almost always win when the FP do, irrespective of the
ability of the player (see the statistics on Bobbin's pages http://www.m
iddleearthpbm.co.uk/ )
The VC system is stupid because the VCs are randomly generated, with no
effort made to attach story to them.
For me, and most of the guys I enjoy gaming with, the VPs and VCs are
ignored, and the highest honour is when your team mates tell you you're
a "team player". It is particularly galling when one reads on the cover
sheets "Game 99 has finished with Jimmy Selfish as the Noldo coming in
in 1st place, and Johnny Maddo as Easterlings (declared turn 30) coming
in in 2nd." It's time to honour and reward the whole team, and the
stickers on the losing team, rather than the individual.

* The Harlequin Web site would be better if there was a reason to "check
in" occasionally.

PROPOSAL FOR PLAYER RATING SYSTEM

At the end of a rated game, Harlequin award 2 points to each active
player on the winning team and 1 point to each active player on the
losing team, or undeclared neutral.

Harlequin list the rated players and their scores on the web site.

ALTERNATIVE SCORING

Though I personally favour the very simple 2 point/1point system above,
we could discuss alternatives. For example 25 points might be awarded
for each game, to be shared out between surviving players at game end,
with a modifier. Perhaps winners get 2 shares, losers and undeclared
neutrals 1. So game 99 ends with 12FP beating 4DS with no undeclared
neutrals. That's 12x2+4=28 shares. Each share is 25 points/28 = 0.9.
Winners get 1.8 points, losers 1.9 points. There are many other
possibilities.

USES

After all current games (which become declared "rated games") concluded,
or a period of about 1 year, we would have a fair statistical list of
who the experienced sticking players are.

It could be used to allow "Rated player only games" - where you have to
have a score of 1 or 2 or whatever to gain access. Or eventually even
championships, where the highest rated players challenge each other.

It could be used by Harlequin to measure the experience of an alliance,
so that games with too many newbies don't happen. They could assure us
that the enemy team has at least 8 points between them or whatever.

It's fun to have a rating, and to improve it, as anyone who has used
Internet auctions or similar will know. It will encourage all to stick
to the end.

CONSIDERATIONS

It will mean a little extra administration for Harlequin at the end of
each game. I think the benefits would justify it.

There would need to be some fairly tight rules about what constitutes an
"active player at game end". For example, it might include anyone
knocked out within the last 3 turns of the game or any knocked out
nation which fought well and gets a commendation vote from the surviving
players.

Games considered "rated games" would have to have some mechanism to
prevent lone maniacs playing on to the death when they have no hope of
winning and wasting everyone's money. I favour the majority vote team
concession principle (last mentioned in my idea for pre-game agreements
- hope this one gets more of a response than that!) That is, if the
majority of players of one allegiance vote to concede defeat, then the
GM stops the game.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?

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

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#30

>One way might be to have a game whereby players COMMIT to playing -
>generally these are team games though. It wouldn't necessarily need a
>downpayment.
>Clint

OK Here's a proposal for your thoughts. Please note that all numbers in
the following proposal could be negotiated separately to the idea
itself. If you're commenting, please say whether you like or dislike
the basic idea itself, as well as giving your opinion on the precise
numbers (scores).

PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE PROPOSAL:

* We all lose when players drop too easily or too soon.

* ME is the best PBM because its is a co-operative team game. Its
weakest elements are its victory point system, and its victory
conditions system. The VP system is poor because it:
  * rewards inactivity and profiteering, which whilst being very "real
world" is not in the spirit of heroic fantasy
  *ignores the fact that the "competitors" do not have a level playing
field - the Noldo almost always win when the FP do, irrespective of the
ability of the player (see the statistics on Bobbin's pages http://www.m
iddleearthpbm.co.uk/ )
The VC system is stupid because the VCs are randomly generated, with no
effort made to attach story to them.
For me, and most of the guys I enjoy gaming with, the VPs and VCs are
ignored, and the highest honour is when your team mates tell you you're
a "team player". It is particularly galling when one reads on the cover
sheets "Game 99 has finished with Jimmy Selfish as the Noldo coming in
in 1st place, and Johnny Maddo as Easterlings (declared turn 30) coming
in in 2nd." It's time to honour and reward the whole team, and the
stickers on the losing team, rather than the individual.

* The Harlequin Web site would be better if there was a reason to "check
in" occasionally.

PROPOSAL FOR PLAYER RATING SYSTEM

At the end of a rated game, Harlequin award 2 points to each active
player on the winning team and 1 point to each active player on the
losing team, or undeclared neutral.

Harlequin list the rated players and their scores on the web site.

RD: Yes, I like this. Agree with all you've said so far.

ALTERNATIVE SCORING

Though I personally favour the very simple 2 point/1point system above,
we could discuss alternatives. For example 25 points might be awarded
for each game, to be shared out between surviving players at game end,
with a modifier. Perhaps winners get 2 shares, losers and undeclared
neutrals 1. So game 99 ends with 12FP beating 4DS with no undeclared
neutrals. That's 12x2+4=28 shares. Each share is 25 points/28 = 0.9.
Winners get 1.8 points, losers 1.9 points. There are many other
possibilities.

RD: No, too complicated.

USES

After all current games (which become declared "rated games") concluded,
or a period of about 1 year, we would have a fair statistical list of
who the experienced sticking players are.

It could be used to allow "Rated player only games" - where you have to
have a score of 1 or 2 or whatever to gain access. Or eventually even
championships, where the highest rated players challenge each other.

It could be used by Harlequin to measure the experience of an alliance,
so that games with too many newbies don't happen. They could assure us
that the enemy team has at least 8 points between them or whatever.

It's fun to have a rating, and to improve it, as anyone who has used
Internet auctions or similar will know. It will encourage all to stick
to the end.

CONSIDERATIONS

It will mean a little extra administration for Harlequin at the end of
each game. I think the benefits would justify it.

There would need to be some fairly tight rules about what constitutes an
"active player at game end". For example, it might include anyone
knocked out within the last 3 turns of the game or any knocked out
nation which fought well and gets a commendation vote from the surviving
players.

Games considered "rated games" would have to have some mechanism to
prevent lone maniacs playing on to the death when they have no hope of
winning and wasting everyone's money. I favour the majority vote team
concession principle (last mentioned in my idea for pre-game agreements
- hope this one gets more of a response than that!) That is, if the
majority of players of one allegiance vote to concede defeat, then the
GM stops the game.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?

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

RD: Yes, I go with most of the above, but prefer the scoring system to be as
simple as possible, in everybody's interest, not least Harlequin's. If
there is any chance of a misunderstanding, somebody WILL misunderstand it!

Just one question: who gets the free turn? Everybody who scores 2 points in
a game(g)? Or does that still go to the top VP scorer? I thought of a vote
amongst the winning team, but that is open to abuse by players voting for
their mates instead of the most deserving player.

Regards,

Richard.

···

Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote

#31

I doubt your premise. The guy who played 8 games probably played less
turns that the one who played 4 but stuck to the end.

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

···

TONY ACKROYD <janton@cwcom.net> wrote

For example, two players:

1. 4 games, played to the end = 4 x 2 = 8
2. 8 games, dropped out of them all = 8 x 1 = 8

Who is the 'best' player? One is certainly more experienced, but the other
is a 'sticker'.

#32

Yup others suggested some kind of vote, and it is problematic. You'd
get people canvassing and trading votes etc. Not good. The only vote
I'd favour would be a team vote for the best played nation on the
opposition side - in many cases you don't know who the player is, which
reduces the "vote for your mates" element.

So: 2 points for each player on the winning side; 1 point for each on
the losing side; a bonus point for one nation on each side elected by
the opposition - The nice part of this, is that a QAv who holds on
despite constant battering and capital destruction by the FP, might get
recognition for his endurance, rather than the ClL who has all the
advantages to start with.

And yes. The proposal is for a system to rate "stickiness" rather that
personal skill. Perhaps we go even simpler: Harlequin award 1 point to
each player who stays with a game to its end or who gets eliminated
rather than dropping.

No problem with a parallel system to rate skill.

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

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

RD: Yes, I go with most of the above, but prefer the scoring system to be as
simple as possible, in everybody's interest, not least Harlequin's. If
there is any chance of a misunderstanding, somebody WILL misunderstand it!

Just one question: who gets the free turn? Everybody who scores 2 points in
a game(g)? Or does that still go to the top VP scorer? I thought of a vote
amongst the winning team, but that is open to abuse by players voting for
their mates instead of the most deserving player.