The Game is dying

General
#1

Unfortunately, I think I am losing interest in the game.

Down to pretty much just Gunboat games, and the quality of the opponent just isn’t available anymore.

In my opinion, way to many people just don’t understand the basic strategy.

Yes, gunboat is for you to play the game the way you want to. Less time constraint without the need to communicate every turn.

But players that don’t use the diplo simply hurt their team. In my opinion, if you don’t diplo, you don’t care about trying to win the game. You don’t care about giving even an above average attempt on the game. You are simply going through the motions knowing your side is going to lose. Why?

Plus, the quality of play is simply horrendous now in my opinion. We even tried the experienced players only game without the ability to drop the game. Of course we still had players drop the no drop gunboat game. And ask Kim Anderson about an experienced game. The game ended on turn 10 with the Dark servants quitting as we (yes, I was a dark servant) got steamrolled with a horrible showing, and again, this was suppose to be experienced players knowing how to play the game?

Oh well, it looks like I will play out my current games and then look to see if the entertainment value is their anymore. Maybe take a stab at a team game again, but even then I still fill you can run into players that don’t get it. A few years ago we had a Noldo player that named two new pure emmisaries on turn 11 despite all eleven other players telling him not to name emmisaries and name agents instead. Anyone want to try and defend those actions? Of course one of them came with stealth. Good old Murphy’s law.

I guess I am just venting as it looks like my two gunboat games aren’t going to last very long, and one of them has only processed turn one. Depressing to know you look like your side is way behind after only one turn being processed. Maybe the other side has some of the same limitations.

Tim Huiatt

#2

Hi there Tim. I spent about 4 years out of the game arriving back about 18 months ago. The difference I noticed in the game is that 4 years ago everyone wanted to argue and you couldn’t coordinate as a team, but now, no one bothers replying so you can’t coordinate as a team :slight_smile: I found the team aspect just as frustrating as days of yore - soooooo - I tried other game types like FA, and you enter thinking that you don’t need allies in the setup, but fact of the matter is - all the others congregate in groups so there’s little change. Also if your ‘not allies’ don’t perform, you’re still just as wrecked. Gixxx and I more recently made a team of 2, taking half the nations each on a fortnight turn around and not playing any other games. You pay for 9 of the 12 positions, so for most of us, you pay about the same to have 1 good game not 3 or 4 dull ones. Our opponent Will Frankenhoff is a live wire. We’ve faced up to so many things that you just don’t experience in the normal games (because they can’t be coordinated), so it’s very interesting. And our ability to coordinate is incredible. Gixxx and I did a good job of separating nations with him owning Mordor, and me owning the everything else (I have to have a serious talk about Will’s part in all of this, he doesn’t seem to appreciate that it’s ALL MINE!!! :slight_smile: So with our nation splits, and not a lot of coordination required between as we have our theatres mostly separated, you can knock out your half of the orders - well coordinated (unless you don’t like yourself :slight_smile: in probably not much more than an hour. Will has his next orders in within about 3 hours of the results coming in on average. It’s not the game that’s a problem Tim, it’s a case that all player’s idea of what makes a team player is different. If it’s bothering you, grab a friend, or go it alone, but corner the positions and play the game for the game, and not for the warm and cuddly feeling of having 11 shower buddies :slight_smile:
Cheers
Rob

#3

Rob,

I do have a buddy to play the game with, my brother. The biggest problem with playing a game with Tony: He can’t seem to find the orders to transfer stuff from one nation he is playing to another nation he is playing. Talk about a bad teammate. Sheesh.

We are looking into going it alone, that might be our next foray if we can’t resurrect team veta schola. The players on that team played a really good team game, problem is real life set in for most of the team and they have faded out of the game. Unfortunate, but I guess that is the way of the game.

I am following your game on the forum. Good luck.

later,

tim

#4

Hiya again Tim. Bad news on partners then buddy, can’t pick your relies I suppose :smiley: It is a far better set up, and I think you’ll find that with such small numbers of players, only those who would really back themselves would take a small player number setup (if you’re no good you’d best be hiding behind 11 unsuspecting allies :smiley:

I thought there’d be others watching along, I like to keep an eye on the happenings in other games too. I’ll keep posting the information that will be generally known between both factions to help out. The way Will has approached the game with far more might than usual in some theatres (eg Harondor) at the cost of others (like Mordor), is very interesting (especially if you’re the one with the mug silly look on your face that he just happens to land on :smiley: It’s a very different dynamic. can’t wait to see who comes out of the rubble on top :slight_smile:

Give it a go, it’s great fun :slight_smile:

Cheers

Rob

#5

I agree with everything my esteemed opponent said. Playing as a single (which is the only way I play any longer) or as a small team is much more rewarding. No communication breakdowns, coordination issues, etc. Basically it gives you free reign to really see how good a player you are–nobody else to blame for screw-ups :slight_smile:

It’s also, in a way, much more of a strategic game. You can calmly make short-term sacrifices in certain theatres in the short-term if you think your offsetting actions do more good in the long-term since you know you won’t have allies dropping the game.

I highly recommend that anyone frustrated with the regular game format give it a whirl.

WF

#6

Been gone from the game for more than a year. Signed on to see if there was an interesting thread and there was—this one.

This game was never designed or intended to be a team game. In the GSI days ANYONE could come in second or third and receive significant in-game benefits. You could actually benefit from a cr@p team and non-communication. Pretty alien concept–huh?

When Harley took over the game the GM’s English friends were ballistic about what a poor TEAM game this was, operating on the assumption it WAS a team game. My conclusion came to be that the GM had not debriefed the game’s designers. Because Harley was mighty anxious to make it a team game, making the changes required. When I objected that Cardiff did not understand the game and were changing it, the GM sent me some pretty huffy and offended notes denying the game was being changed.

As long as ‘Teams and Fairplay’ are the only thing people can imagine, that is all that will be provided.

#7

Game 42, All Neutral FA, one nation decided to commit suicide and hand his nation off (949, 315, move arty-laden character to a set location, etc…).

One other nation in the game complained.

MEGames REVERSED the orders that the suicide nation issued and that ran. The 949’s were reversed, characters relocated, etc.

One person complained and now multiple players are quitting as a result of the GM’s inability to tell the difference between running a computer program, and meddling in moderating human behaviour.

I’m not far behind gents - note to MEGames - MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS~! If you can’t tell what that is, it will soon enough become the story you tell your friends about “that time we ran an MEPBM game until it died…”

#8

Bravo! I played the game way back when it was snail mail only - back in the late 80’s or early 90’s. When players on the same side kept their victory conditions secret and actually <<GASP>> tried to win the game individually!! I do not like the “grudge” game mentality that invades every game. I pretty much stick to gunboat games.

#9

Ed,

I guess my point was missed, or you are trying to say maybe I miss the point. I think the original design of the game was exactly like you pointed it out to be. It was designed before the internet, before modern communication had become the norm. And there is nothing wrong with this game.

But I am one of the believers that the concept, design, layout and differences of each nation and each faction make this an absolutely fascinating game. A fascinating team game. I think the sides are balanced. Simply put, play a game, where you play both the dark servants and the free people with the current 12 vs 12. Who would win? There are still lots or arguments as to which side is more powerful.

There is nothing wrong with the original design of an individual game, where your nation can come in second even though the other side won. The problem is I don’t like that game. If that is the game that is going to be played, then I guess I don’t want to play it and I would stop playing. The original game design is no longer enticing to me. If this is the way the game is suppose to be played, then I guess I am out.

My point is I think it has evolved more to a team game. My team, with my twelve nations, vs your team and there twelve nations. Which team plays better to win. This is the game that I would prefer to play, and unfortunately, this game doesn’t really exist anymore except in grudge games. The individual games, the gunboat games, way to many individuals that have no concept of how to play the game. If you say they are playing to win and accumulate the most victory points, I would say they don’t even have the chance to do that.

Obviously this is an opinion. I know a few that don’t like my style of play.

Ed, you ended playing because the game was no longer fun for you. It is quickly becoming no longer fun for me either. I know saying this comes off as arrogant, but I just think we have way to many individuals that don’t understand the concept of what it takes to win, how to win a team game or how to win the original game design that Ed mentioned.

Yes, there are a thousand ways to skin a cat, but taking a perfectly smooth round rock is probably one of the hardest ways I have ever heard of skinning a cat.

#10

Hiya Tim. The easiest answer is - if you like the game - but you can’t find 11 other players you can rely on, then find 6, or 3, or 1, or whatever you can to enjoy the game, and don’t settle for another 6 you can’t rely on. If the community isn’t big enough to give you 12 specimens of excellence, settle for less and don’t try to change the world. There’s an old saying “never try to teach a pig to sing, it’s a waste of time and annoys the pig!” :slight_smile: I’ve tried beating my head against poor team play for years, and the only result is - I’ve got a flat head :slight_smile:

Cheers

Rob

#11

I disagree. I think too many people play the “team” game and don’t try to win. Check my scores in the PRS ratings. I play to win. I try to get the highest amount of victory points I can. Check my nation VP totals.

I think the game plays best when people try to win individually. It makes for a much more interesting game than to enter a game and sacrifice oneself “for the team”.

I have played in games where players became angry when a particular person would not destroy their position for the sake of “the team”. I do not play a game to not win or not win big.

I liked the game a lot better when people were playing to win individually (which is why I almost always play gunboats now).

#12

I could be wrong, but to pursue personal victories in factional play as the main focus of the game seems to be like watching Lady Gaga film clips… in a foreign language. It just seems to ask the question “Why?” If the idea was to pursue an individual goal - what possible benefit is there in factions? wouldn’t you just have 25 discreet non aligned nations? I think that the old paper based game only worked well in the poor team player environment because of the lack of communication. Those teams would have been spanked within an inch of their lives by a motivated ‘team’ team. The game has scope for non team motivated players, but they will typically get their side trashed by opponents who want to work together

#13

Tim:
Harley consumed a great deal of resources and customer goodwill making this game a ‘team’ game. You show precious little gratitude for it in your Original Post. One thing is pretty clear, Harley is unlikely to invest more resources into the game.

It is relatively easy to change a young camel into an old camel. Much more difficult to change a camel into a horse. Harley assumed it was dealing with a horse, some of the results of that can be seen in your Original Post.

My position was always that the Stassun/Field game should be left alone and Harley create its own team game from the bottom up. It engendered a lot of hostility towards myself. But the KS would have been published seven years ago.

Rob:
Whatever errors were made, or not made, by the previous administration this is now your baby. You have the challenge to direct it onward and upward. Good fortune to you. If I may presume to advise you:

l. The less you allow others to do your thinking for you, the more successful you will be.

  1. Management principles also apply to GMing. Become familiar with them. Brad’s post, above, reveals a significant management error. While I can dissect it for you, it will mean more to you if you can figure it out for yourself.

  2. Avoid emotionalism. This can cloud your judgement and create mistakes. More insidious is that the ego-protection needs to defend the mistakes, prevents learning from experience.

  3. For better or worse, you are now an international man. You mental horizon and flexibility must adjust to that reality.

#14

Gentlemen,

we have had this discussion before. I am tired of argueing with Ed, so it is all here:

http://www.mepbm.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9627

:smiley:

#15

I like Tim’s perspective on what makes it a good game. I’d also be okay if it was Ed’s dream scenario (25 players out to gain the most VP’s), as there are enough items of common self interest to ensure a certain level of cooperation (e.g. the DarkL has a vested interest in seeing the Fire King hold up against the FP).

However, in both cases you need to have solid understanding of the core business of your nation and what dependencies exist with other nations on your side. If you want to get creative within that framework, fine… but I’ve seen too much “my nation, my way” from even experienced players that effectively threw the game away because the basics were not attended to.

#16

Hey man,
they want and must earn money with this game.

This game is a TEAM-game!
Something Mr. Mills never understood.-

The indy-games are horrible and the GM’s aren’t doing something against it.

#17

Cheers…where’s my beer, anyway…?

#18

Hi everybody,
I played for many years the german version of the game. Our long time GM just handed over the game into UK hands. The player community in Germany has become so small that it was almost impossible to fill up regular 25 player games. As one of you has mentioned above many of the early ME players are now working class members and parents and finding time to play ME can be difficult. On top of this the online role playing games (WoW and Lord of the rings) seem to be a tough rival system for ME and many young players do tend to go that way.
I found myself two good gaming lads and we turned towards the FA scenario. Our last two FA events lasted 42 and 28 turns and were most interesting but after a couple of years everybody seems to get tempted again by a standard game. So we joined on of the recent 2950 games.
All the clichés of the group game came quickly true. By turn 3 two of the important nations had been dropped, a couple of turns later another player on our side had deliberately ruined his nation and passed vital information to the other side. By turn 10 we had stabilized our side, were on the winning path and the opposition droped and the game ended. Overall I call this a most frustrating experience which I even paid for.
As a consequence I am back to the small team " FA grudge game". Unfortunately it seems to be very difficult to find an experienced opposing team. I have opened a threat in the forum which almost 100 people have visited but got not one single reply. Maybe one of you guys favouring team play might be interested?

#19

I think the real question is, “Why are there individual victory conditions when it is - supposedly - a team game only?”.
The beauty of the game is in balancing a team play with individual play. The Dark Servants will lose if the FP eliminate the FK-IK and burn Mordor. The FP will lose if the Gondors are destroyed and Mordor absorbs Gondor. So all the DS have to work to make sure Mordor remains intact and all the FP have to work to make sure they don’t lose Gondor (this is just one scenario of many, DS not lose the QA, the FP not lose the Noldo, etc).
FYI, a “motivated ‘team’ team” does not make a superior “motivated ‘team’ team”. What wins this game is superior play and luck, regardless of team play.
In addition, you misunderstand my concept of “team” and “individual play”. It is not black & white. It appears that you are stating (and correct me if I am wrong) that if a person pursues an individual high score then they are trashing the team? This is not at all what I am saying. There is room in the game (less so with the grudge game mentality) to pursue an individual high score and a faction win. If I am playing the BS I must support the DS so that I can win. What I do not like is the mentality that a particular nation must completely strip itself of playability to support a front line nation in the “spirit of the team”. This is pretty much why I have turned away from all but gunboat games.
However, if one finds enjoyment by playing a particular nation that strips itself of resources to support a front line nation - then by all means do so. It makes no sense - to me - to pay my turn fee so that I can ship every spare thing (gold - artifacts - pop centers - etc) off to someone else to have fun with.
Play the game for fun - it is your money so you have the right to use it as you will. If I don’t like the way you play then I have the choice to not play with you. I do not tell people how to spend their money - I am in favor of suggestions but I will not get angry if you decide to do something else. I have seen a number of people get angry when so-and-so player doesn’t play the “team” game. I have picked up a number of those positions that people have dropped - and went on to win the game.
I would like to thank the people that suffered through my learning curve in the game a few years ago - I sucked the first few games I played after not playing for 15 years.

#20

Does anyone have any suggestions as players on how to energize the game?

Tim