A few of us have indicated we are willing to give Play When Ready another try. To those of us who played in Game 2 and are willing to play this variant one more time, does anyone have any suggestions for changes? As it stands now, I am still willing to try PoWeR one more time, even if no changes are made.
Here are a few of my thoughts:
Pre-align the neutrals. A speedy game is NOT condusive to good diplomacy. A good game from the neutrals probably requries good diplomacy in turns 1-5 or 1-10.
Grudge game with or without pre-aligned neutrals. I often knew what I wanted to do, 30 minutes after I received my turn. However, almost as frequently I wanted to see a teammates pdf to confirm my plans. Some turns, my waiting for a teamamte’s pdf caused me to delay turning in my next turn by days.
Institutionalize some incentive for submitting turns by end of day 4. Incentives that have been mentioned on other threads include:
Emailing to all players, the names of the turtles.
Adding an additional “fee” for turns submitted after a certain time.
Adding an additional fee for the last player to submit.
I agree 100%. Turnaround times for communications are short, and if a neutral is slow to respond it creates a lot of problems (e.g. Easterlings in game 2).
Institutionalize some incentive for submitting turns by end of day 4.
I like the “list of shame” approach (i.e. let everyone know who the slowpokes are).
John,
ok. i’ll play in another PoWeR game, but only when Game 2 is officially over.
As of yet game 2 is still an ongoing game as there is no official word that it is ended. Given the practice of ME Games to send notice of forfeit and giving the option to submit turns (or not) for the final turn, and given that such notice has NOT occurred for Game 2, there is only one reasonable conclusion: The game is still on.
Regarding the next PoWeR game. I like the list of “turtles” idea. I also like the pre-aligned neutrals idea.
I am willing to play the PWR format as well. Like Dave, though, I must wait until 2 is over. I am at my limit for games.
I also like the pre-aligned as well. I don’t mind the neutrals (it would be fair to say that I am biased) but the possibility for a repeat of the Easterlings in 2 is definately a downside.
I two liked it and wished things could have ran more quickly and would be willing to try it again. I dont think you have to start the neutrals on teams already but a mandatory 3/4 day turn around would really go along way into speeding things up. I can see how a faster turn around would be harder on the DS team.
Ill definately play again. Once Id gotten my early game internet woes sorted I was getting my orders in the day after turns had arrived mostly. Corrections can of course be submitted subsequently if needed.
Having watched this game relatively closely can I suggest that you have a fixed turnaround time.
One of the following might suit 90% of the players I think:
Monday and Thursdays the turns run (that gives time for edits on Friday, or sorting out problems)
Monday and Friday (less time to sort out the rare problem for the w/end but easier on the pace).
Monday, Wednesday, Friday. (Faster pace - there will be some missed turns I have no doubt for this).
If you want to go with penalising playerss there’s probably systems for that but I think they would annoy the player concerned. Fixed cost for the game might be a way forward - that would certainly encourage faster play.
Other factors are upto you guys to decide what you want to do. We could set-up a poll for this?
Guys, I’d be in for a Mon/THurs rapid turn-around pre-fixed schedule after Game 2 ends. I can’t do the Mon/Fri thing, and frankly I notice a significant drop off in MEPBM emails over weekends in all games. I think a lot of folks find it more difficult to get MEPBM time in on weekends.
What would the turn price be? Simply based on the original “when ready” PoWeR format averaged for 3.5 days per? I forget the original formula, but it sounds like 2 turns a week for the price of 1…this kind of marketting might net you a wider audience…
Not sure - I’ve got to look at the figures for the game and see how much we had to “support” it financially. If there’s a player base for it then I’m sure we can organise something but if there’s not then…
Okay if you’re interested contact me directly. I’ve emailed everyone in the game.
Note if you are joining the game with team-mates you NEED to tell me so that I can balance the teams fairly. Ie if you’ve chatted to others about rejoining and decided that you like your team-mates that’s JOINING WITH OTHERS. Sorry to shout but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve written this.
You get a big advantage joining with trusted allies over players that have joined without such allies. There’s a limit of 5 players per team.
Note I’ve sent out an email - I need you to get back to me if you want me to get the game off the ground.
To be clear to all, a whole bunch of the folks (mostly from the victorious FP in from Game 2) are now interested in putting together a DS team for PoWeR. It is likely that we will end up with 12. We already number 9. As such, we’ll need opposition that is organized and capable as FP to challenge us. And if you want to join us as a DS, please email me.
So Team Leaders, if you have a team that is interested in playing grudge PoWeR, 12v12 please post on this forum, or send Clint an email.
The concept as I understand it is:
1650 12v12
2 turns/week, turns running on Mondays and Thursdays. (Thus turns are due to ME Games on Sundays and Wednesdays)
all turns submitted to ME Games via MEOW or AutoMagic
Easterlings not in game. We can discuss split of the other four neutrals.
Standard grudge fortification upgrades.
could also discuss the +20 non-major stat upgrade idea
Some sort of price break on the game fee cost that Clint is working on figuring out based upon the first PoWeR experiment.
Okay, I’m in, dangit. Dave sent you an email, I’ll join you on the DS if you have space, and/or if Clint allows it (likely depend on either a “team” or other signups…?). 2 turns a week. Yum…!
I think it would be difficult to run a Grudge format of this game for the reasons I’ve given.
What about splitting into 2 nations per side and playing 12v12. Pretty sure then you could have a fast game. I’d consider a slightly better price break for that of course.
Dave can you sound out your 12 (to be) and get back to me on this?
I can get you more players and split them onto either side if that would be appropriate.
