Hi people,
Marc my intention was not to insult you personally merely the arguement
propounded by you and others. I confess to a certain amount of grandstanding
in the cause of lively debate but would point out that satirical and
faecetious posturing have always been part of democracies. Being strongly
opinionated seems to be very common on this list and I do not believe my
comments were out of keeping with that.
The main grist to my mill was the suggestion that positions be assigned as a
reward rather than the basic concept of a PRS. I would think that the
players of moderate ability or inclination would find it offensive that they
forever be denied playing the Noldo because they are in some way inferior.
Whilst that may not have been the intent of the suggestion that is the
outcome.
So that my point is not lost in the making I will restate my arguement some
of which others have already made. I understand that the intent is to keep
players playing and to provide better games but disagree that a PRS will
bring that about.
In my experience rankings tend to encourage the egoist. Whatever the intent,
the top listed players acquire a kudos and through that kudos power with
other players. 'Rank no 2 says we must do this so you better do it'. The
social dynamics of a group is changed if you label one person as leader.
Obviously a Middle Earth side will have some external influences but why add
a large additional one.
It will also mean that many players will be looking to their rank rather
than the interests of their side in a game. Sure, most won't but enough will
that the game will change. Then add in the 'I only play the Noldo Elves to
keep my rank up' mindset. Once upon a time I used to play to win individual
victories, nowadays I play solely for my side. They are two different styles
of play and a PRS would encourage the former over the latter. Playing for
individual victory is fine but you need the team people as well.
As for assigning nations by rank, either the intention is that high ranks
get the tough nations, that they get the powerful ones or are assigned on a
merit basis. My acerbic response was due mainly to the suggestion that
players be REWARDED with 'good' nations like the Noldo. In other words, you
never get to play the good stuff until you have achieved an pre ordained
level so kiss goodbye to ever playing the Noldo if your not too bright or
just plain unlucky. That is, in my opinion, just plain wrong!
In my experience the new player arguement does not stand. As long as there
are a couple of experienced hands to point out rules errors, those who like
the game click and join others and those who don't drop out. I don't see
that a more 'balanced' game is going to deny or create that natural affinity
with the game I assume most of those reading this have. On the other hand
some weird hierachy of status and opportunity may well put many off.
By putting in a PRS you change the game into something different than the 25
player random mix I refer to. If you want balanced games join a team or play
Fourth age. How do you legislate against Sauron turning up at Osgiliath on
the turn the mighty Free host arrive, should an equal number of LAT,s be
given to each side at start and the main artifacts be placed equdistant? The
game is naturally random and the challenge of good play is to make the best
of what you have. You have other options if you want balance so leave my
version of the game alone!
I hope that this is clearer though if anyone seriously believes that
players should be excluded forever from playing 'good' positions on the
basis of ability then feel free to be insulted by me.
Cheers
Chris Courtiour