Startup Fees for 1650 World Championship Challenge Do Not...

Interesting couple of questions posed here ...

1) Is Automagic offically supported by ME Games? If so which version?
2) Are individual players responsible for using the latest version?

Without knowing this, it's hard to comment on the above problem. I'd
suggest ME Games needs to include something about this in the House Rules.

He is going to continue playing the current game he is in,
but has confided to me because of the poor customer service
from this event, he may never play Mepbm again.

Why do people take such drastic steps because of one mistake? Various
moderators of MEPBM have annoyed me (to varying degrees, GAD being the
worst), but I don't think I've ever seriously contemplated giving up
the game - it's simply too enjoyable.

Colin

       It is worth taking note of and pointing out that there exists a great
and glaring difference between a simple mistake and failure of customer
service. The jist of the complaint, and the originator of it can correct me if I am
wrong, gravitates around what the Australian team feels is a failure by the
company, in terms of customer service and responsiveness, and not simply that a
mistake was made.
       Middle-earth PBM is quite often touted and paraded before the masses
as a team-oriented game. The Australians are, apparently, feeling that, not
only is the company's commitment to customer service in question, but that, in
the process and by extension, the entire team feels slighted.
       After all, how Middle-earth Games chooses to respond to a particular
situation which may crop up is something that is well within its control,
regardless of what the actual mistake is, or which individual is responsible.
       As to the questions that you pose, they are reasonable questions to
ask. However, the posing of questions works both ways. Whether Middle-earth
Games "officially" supports Automagic or not, have they dissuaded players from
using it? Has the company benefitted from players using it, whether directly or
indirectly? For that matter, is Automagic routinely discussed in this forum?
What impression is the end user, the customer, left with? Arguing
technicalities, merely because it can, can be far more damaging to the public's impression
of the company than the initial problem. Furthermore, it would also be a course
fraught with the prospect of alienating third-party developers from
developing products that enhance the gaming experience offered by their core game
product.
       With regards to your characterization of players choosing to forego
future game play based upon perceptions of poor customer service with a given
company as being "drastic," what, exactly, makes such a decision to rise to the
level of being "drastic?" Players have a slew of game offerings available for
them, both free and for a fee. I see little, if anything, "drastic" about
exchanging one game for another, and especially when everyone and his brother
knows, from common knowledge, that games come a dime a dozen in this day. The
company receiving money from players to play the game they offer may feel it is
drastic, for them to lose a paying customer (or in the present scenario, the
prospect of losing an entire team of customers), but that largely emanates forth
from which perspective one views things from.
       Every company has a choice in how it handles customer service
situations and issues which arise. If a given company does the bare minimum, then
couldn't the question also be asked as to whether that is, ultimately, both the
right philosophy to adopt, as well as the philosophy most conducive to ensuring
its long term success?
       Once upon a time ago, there was something known as going above and
beyond the call of duty, giving more than what was reasonably to be expected.
       In the end, Middle-earth Games must decide, for itself, what its
approach to customer service will be. I have never had a bad experience with the
company, but again, I have never played a game run by them yet. Of course, when
I played the game when it was run by GSI, I never had a bad experience with
them, either.
       Ultimately, the end user - the paying customer, just like the company
running the business, has choices to make. To all involved, it is a game, to
be sure. To the company, it is their livelihood, and they have issues such as
profit margins and other players to consider. For the players, both at the
individual and team levels, the game is also an experience. It can be a good
experience or a bad experience. I'm not aware of anyone in any field of endeavor
that enjoys paying for a bad experience, where a good experience could have been
had for the same price.
       A lot of the things that I have seen discussed in this forum, thus
far, are only of passing interest to me. I am still trying to round up enough
people that I know for a full game, so that I can play with people that I know
(no slight intended to anyone else, mind you). This particular item, though,
caught my attention. After all, I only recently ended my play of another PBM game
due to customer service deficiencies.
       I would call upon both sides to address the issues in a forthright
manner.

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

Hi,

The jist of the complaint, and the originator of it can correct me
if I am wrong, gravitates around what the Australian team feels
is a failure by the company, in terms of customer service and
responsiveness, and not simply that a mistake was made.

As I understand it, the fault lies more with the team as they were
wrned this might be a problem. Remember that the game software is
notoriously difficult to use and setting up games along lines that
were not originally intended (in this case a game with pre-aligned
neutrals) is far from easy - so problems will occur.

At the risk of annoying Mr Ovatha Easterlings ;-), if ME Games had
access to the software, I'm sure this sort of mistake would not occur.

Whether Middle-earth Games "officially" supports Automagic or not,
have they dissuaded players from using it?

What I meant was to query who is responsible for any in-game problems
caused by using AM? If a fax machine messes my orders up, I don't
blame ME Games. If email eats my orders in cyberspace, I don't blame
ME games. If the MEPBM program messes my orders up, or an employee of
ME Games inputs my orders incorrectly, then I most certainly DO blame
ME Games.

If a mistake is caused by AM who is to blame?

For that matter, is Automagic routinely discussed in this forum?

Pretty often, yes.

I see little, if anything, "drastic" about exchanging one game for
another, and especially when everyone and his brother knows, from
common knowledge, that games come a dime a dozen in this day.

If there was another Middle Earth product out there, I would agree
with you. There isn't though. I play MEPBM not because it's a good
strategy game (there are better) but because I enjoy team play (not
many team games out there) and I love the Middle Earth background.

And once again, PBM games are NOT a dime a dozen. They are an
increasingly rare breed of game.

Colin

While I do not agree to this forum for resolving this issue, I must
say that there was no such suggestion made to our team (in any of our
grudge matches) in regards to reviewing the original setup for errors.

Matter of fact I questioned Harly about the double setup fee that was
charged to our team initially and was informed that this is standard
procedure due to the extra time needed to setup these variant games.

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Colin Forbes" <colin@t...> wrote:

> if I am wrong, gravitates around what the Australian team feels
> is a failure by the company, in terms of customer service and
> responsiveness, and not simply that a mistake was made.

As I understand it, the fault lies more with the team as they were
wrned this might be a problem. Remember that the game software is
notoriously difficult to use and setting up games along lines that
were not originally intended (in this case a game with pre-aligned
neutrals) is far from easy - so problems will occur.

Since I'm on the other team, it isn't obvious to us what the problem
is. Initial relations foul-ups should not have
impacted turn 3 results unless they weren't noticed by the player
for several turns. If you're talking about not taking down
3621 with the Eo (which we thought was rather odd), I'd put it
in the category of annoying-but-not-fatal if I was in your shoes.
Ditto for the Corsairs failure to attack in 2635 (heck, you should
_eventually_ get it!) I'd have more understanding if there was a
turn 1 problem that we were not aware of - you folks know how to
reach me/us if there is something to discuss.

In any case, quite an interesting match so far. I very much
like our chances, but it isn't that far off of an even match.

Marc Pinsonneault (dog/ice 1650).

···

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <cameyer@v...> wrote:

While I do not agree to this forum for resolving this issue, I must
say that there was no such suggestion made to our team (in any of our
grudge matches) in regards to reviewing the original setup for errors.

Matter of fact I questioned Harly about the double setup fee that was
charged to our team initially and was informed that this is standard
procedure due to the extra time needed to setup these variant games.

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Colin Forbes" <colin@t...> wrote:

> > if I am wrong, gravitates around what the Australian team feels
> > is a failure by the company, in terms of customer service and
> > responsiveness, and not simply that a mistake was made.
>
> As I understand it, the fault lies more with the team as they were
> wrned this might be a problem. Remember that the game software is
> notoriously difficult to use and setting up games along lines that
> were not originally intended (in this case a game with pre-aligned
> neutrals) is far from easy - so problems will occur.