I can assure you that changing the way the scores are given wont stop me
from playing on.
Basically the way I see it is the Free Peoples would never surrender.
Can you really see Elrond walking up to Sauron and saying "O.k. you win we
give in you can have Middle Earth and we shall bother you no more" ?, I
think not. Even if you are one against 12 there is still a chance for
victory through the one ring.
I am sorry but I believe that surrender is no option in any game
including this one.
Thomas Crane
P.S. I hold on in every game that I play whether it is Middle Earth or
something else. If you think 12 against one in Middle Earth is hard you
should try hanging on in some other games.
···
G
PS
please guys, generate some discussion on the world champs scoring!
It is a game. So is Chess. World Class Chess players quit all the
time. They call it resigning. Some call it the "index finger to
king" move, because it is accomplished by knocking the king over with
a finger.
When the game is mathematiclly hopeless, it's time to save the
turnfee and move on to the next one. Unless you get some sort of
sick satisfaction from making the better players on the winning team
spend more cash on turnfees than you do as a holdout, I can't see the
logic in your position - and that's the kind of player that I'd just
as soon not play with.
As for the Elrond comment, I can see him getting into a boat and
leaving Middle Earth, to the Isles in the West. Plenty of Elves did.
I do find it somewhat sad that you didn't picture yourself on the
winning side either.
So was that a vote for changing or not changing the scoring system?
G
I can assure you that changing the way the scores are given
wont stop me
from playing on.
Basically the way I see it is the Free Peoples would never
surrender.
Can you really see Elrond walking up to Sauron and saying "O.k. you
win we
give in you can have Middle Earth and we shall bother you no
more" ?, I
think not. Even if you are one against 12 there is still a chance
for
victory through the one ring.
I am sorry but I believe that surrender is no option in any game
including this one.
Thomas Crane
P.S. I hold on in every game that I play whether it is Middle Earth
or
something else. If you think 12 against one in Middle Earth is hard
you
···
--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Lord Grrrr!!!!" <grrrr!!!!@s...> wrote:
should try hanging on in some other games.
What I think I will do is Poll all the players in the championship and ask
them what they think of the present scoring system and sugegst the footballs
scoring system.
Ie 3 pts for a win.
1 point for a draw.
0 for a loss.
(A win includes a Ring drop btw).
As for the quitting option that is a hard one to do. There are lots of
different styles of play and the one about not quitting seems fine to me.
It's a personal choice. A determined team should be able to take out the
odd errant player reasonably quickly. One option is when you ask the other
side to surrender then they have 10 turns to pull it out of the bag. (Or X
turns). Obviously you cannot ask when it is still quite even but a clear
victory on the cards (just a mater of time) might be appropriate.
Clint
···
It is a game. So is Chess. World Class Chess players quit all the
time. They call it resigning. Some call it the "index finger to
king" move, because it is accomplished by knocking the king over with
a finger.
When the game is mathematiclly hopeless, it's time to save the
turnfee and move on to the next one. Unless you get some sort of
sick satisfaction from making the better players on the winning team
spend more cash on turnfees than you do as a holdout, I can't see the
logic in your position - and that's the kind of player that I'd just
as soon not play with.
As for the Elrond comment, I can see him getting into a boat and
leaving Middle Earth, to the Isles in the West. Plenty of Elves did.
I do find it somewhat sad that you didn't picture yourself on the
winning side either.
So was that a vote for changing or not changing the scoring system?
G
--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Lord Grrrr!!!!" <grrrr!!!!@s...> wrote:
> I can assure you that changing the way the scores are given
wont stop me
> from playing on.
>
> Basically the way I see it is the Free Peoples would never
surrender.
> Can you really see Elrond walking up to Sauron and saying "O.k. you
win we
> give in you can have Middle Earth and we shall bother you no
more" ?, I
> think not. Even if you are one against 12 there is still a chance
for
> victory through the one ring.
>
> I am sorry but I believe that surrender is no option in any game
> including this one.
>
> Thomas Crane
>
> P.S. I hold on in every game that I play whether it is Middle Earth
or
> something else. If you think 12 against one in Middle Earth is hard
you
> should try hanging on in some other games.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/5198/9//430399//960850580/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Hi,
I agree with the idea of reducing the scoring to 0-3 points and giving the teams
a surrender option. I must, however, emphasize that in no way whatsoever are my
world championship team considering such a thing, as we are going to turn the
game around soon (I am the Dog Lord in the UK game 30 team - that's the UK team
being given a good kicking by the Americans, not to be confused with the UK team
apparently getting a good kicking from the Australians).
One variation I'd throw into the ring, though, is that there are always three
points earned from each game, as follows:
If a team gets an absolute victory, either annihilation or One Ring, then the
score is 3-0.
If there are equal numbers after 52 turns then it is 1.5 points each.
If there is a superior team after 52 turns then the score is 2-1.
If a surrender is accepted before 52 turns it is also 2-1.
The aim is to give teams a reason to surrender and stop a game dragging on. If
the losing team get no benefit to surrender, then there is no reason to do so.
The winning team has to make the call on whether they can get annihilation in
under 52 turns, or if the risk of losing to a fluke One Ring victory is greater.
I think the world championships are a great idea, and getting a quicker turn
around of games will keep interest alive. Stopping such wide variation in
scoring (currently 0 -17 pts) will prevent one or more teams running away with
things early.
regards
Chris Soanes
Harlequin Games wrote:
···
What I think I will do is Poll all the players in the championship and ask
them what they think of the present scoring system and sugegst the footballs
scoring system.
Ie 3 pts for a win.
1 point for a draw.
0 for a loss.
(A win includes a Ring drop btw).
Hi,
I agree with this, although I do tend to think that the game system makes it
more work to take out hangers on than it should be. i.e. when there are few
players left prices tend to rise, everyone has 90+ emmies, and knocking up
pop centres to MTs is just too easy. Yes, good co-ordination can still beat
the hangers-on but it still takes far too long and is too expensive.
I feel that one of the potential improvements offered by the Fourth Age game
(which I'm not otherwise keen on) is the fixed length of the game and
introduction of a "substantive" victory condition rather than an "absolute"
victory condition, i.e. you don't need to knock out all the enemy down to
the last man, you can win by taking all of certain specified pop centres.
If this applied to 1650 and 2950 you could win by, say, holding all ten DS
and all ten FP starting capital sites at once. In my opinion, this would be
a great improvement, as the hanger-on cannot just survive in ridiculous
out-of-the-way places but is forced to make a stand.
regards
Chris Soanes
ggiacoppe@aol.com wrote:
···
When the game is mathematiclly hopeless, it's time to save the
turnfee and move on to the next one. Unless you get some sort of
sick satisfaction from making the better players on the winning team
spend more cash on turnfees than you do as a holdout, I can't see the
logic in your position - and that's the kind of player that I'd just
as soon not play with.
Yes I like this secondary idea for scoring and would like to go with that.
Any objections or anyone else like it?
Thanks
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: <chris.soanes@cwcom.net>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: 13 June 2000 21:51
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: When to quit
Hi,
I agree with the idea of reducing the scoring to 0-3 points and giving the
teams
a surrender option. I must, however, emphasize that in no way whatsoever
are my
world championship team considering such a thing, as we are going to turn
the
game around soon (I am the Dog Lord in the UK game 30 team - that's the UK
team
being given a good kicking by the Americans, not to be confused with the
UK team
apparently getting a good kicking from the Australians).
One variation I'd throw into the ring, though, is that there are always
three
points earned from each game, as follows:
If a team gets an absolute victory, either annihilation or One Ring, then
the
score is 3-0.
If there are equal numbers after 52 turns then it is 1.5 points each.
If there is a superior team after 52 turns then the score is 2-1.
If a surrender is accepted before 52 turns it is also 2-1.
The aim is to give teams a reason to surrender and stop a game dragging
on. If
the losing team get no benefit to surrender, then there is no reason to do
so.
The winning team has to make the call on whether they can get annihilation
in
under 52 turns, or if the risk of losing to a fluke One Ring victory is
greater.
I think the world championships are a great idea, and getting a quicker
turn
around of games will keep interest alive. Stopping such wide variation in
scoring (currently 0 -17 pts) will prevent one or more teams running away
with
things early.
regards
Chris Soanes
Harlequin Games wrote:
> What I think I will do is Poll all the players in the championship and
ask
> them what they think of the present scoring system and sugegst the
footballs
> scoring system.
>
> Ie 3 pts for a win.
> 1 point for a draw.
> 0 for a loss.
>
> (A win includes a Ring drop btw).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
beMANY! has a new way to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on
saving more each month: Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance
rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
http://click.egroups.com/1/3821/9//430399//960930504/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
One strong vote here.
Ben Shushan (co-captain, US team)
Harlequin Games wrote:
···
Yes I like this secondary idea for scoring and would like to go with that.
Any objections or anyone else like it?
Thanks
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: <chris.soanes@cwcom.net>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: 13 June 2000 21:51
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: When to quit
> Hi,
>
> I agree with the idea of reducing the scoring to 0-3 points and giving the
teams
> a surrender option. I must, however, emphasize that in no way whatsoever
are my
> world championship team considering such a thing, as we are going to turn
the
> game around soon (I am the Dog Lord in the UK game 30 team - that's the UK
team
> being given a good kicking by the Americans, not to be confused with the
UK team
> apparently getting a good kicking from the Australians).
>
> One variation I'd throw into the ring, though, is that there are always
three
> points earned from each game, as follows:
>
> If a team gets an absolute victory, either annihilation or One Ring, then
the
> score is 3-0.
> If there are equal numbers after 52 turns then it is 1.5 points each.
> If there is a superior team after 52 turns then the score is 2-1.
> If a surrender is accepted before 52 turns it is also 2-1.
>
> The aim is to give teams a reason to surrender and stop a game dragging
on. If
> the losing team get no benefit to surrender, then there is no reason to do
so.
> The winning team has to make the call on whether they can get annihilation
in
> under 52 turns, or if the risk of losing to a fluke One Ring victory is
greater.
>
> I think the world championships are a great idea, and getting a quicker
turn
> around of games will keep interest alive. Stopping such wide variation in
> scoring (currently 0 -17 pts) will prevent one or more teams running away
with
> things early.
>
> regards
>
> Chris Soanes
>
>
> Harlequin Games wrote:
>
> > What I think I will do is Poll all the players in the championship and
ask
> > them what they think of the present scoring system and sugegst the
footballs
> > scoring system.
> >
> > Ie 3 pts for a win.
> > 1 point for a draw.
> > 0 for a loss.
> >
> > (A win includes a Ring drop btw).
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> beMANY! has a new way to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on
> saving more each month: Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance
> rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3821/9//430399//960930504/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>
>
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
