Perhaps you are correct, but this is firstly a game. I honestly believe
that game balance is more important than realism, fog of war, whatever. The
Woodmen generally lose, the Noldo generally win. This game has lacked
balance. The sides may possibly be balanced against each other...the
nations most definitely are not.
In chess, the knight moves up 2, over 1. This has no bearing in reality or
any similar concept. I think that if the primary form of measure is VP,
then there should be an attempt to make sure that the Woodmen have as fair a
chance as anyone else to win. A multiplier, a handicap, whatever, just make
it so that all players in this "Game" start on near equal footing.
Or they can all agree not to. Harley grants games where the rules are
slightly modified so long as everyone in the game understands the rules
change (Oh and BTW, thank you for that, complete and utter inflexibility
almost caused me to quit this game forever...) If these great players who
keep kickin my butt want to play a position where they start at a
disdvantage, great! I am all for it. But I believe a game by default
should be fair and even to all players. Life is unfair. Games are played,
they are not lived (in fact, I play games for escapism)...do not confuse the
two.
IMHO.
-Ken (if I give only my first name, does that mean my opinion only counts
half? :)
>From: "Philip VINCENT" <philipvincent@...>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Fwd: Re: Bree 18 Please read article on Player
>Ratings
>Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:16:16 +1000
>
>
> >
> > >1) determine the mean nation, assign the mean nation
> > >a point multiplier of 1.00
> > >
> > >2) For every nation above the mean apply an end game multiplier
> > >which is a proportional HANDICAP
> > >
> > >3) For every nation below the mean apply an end game multiplier
> > >which is a proportional BONUS.
> >
> >If I get this straight, the woodmen would benifit when ending a winning
> >game
> >at 1000VP, if that was 200VP over average. Meanwhile, a Noldor could be
> >reduced for finishing with a 1200VP, if that 1200VP was below the Noldor
> >average.
> >
> >While this is better than a straight add, it does nothing to change the
> >fact
> >the the VPs frequently reward poor team play. Step in the right
>direction,
> >but not far enough in my mind.
> >
> >It is too bad that the VP number rewards selfishness and punishes team
> >play.
> > I think any ranking based on that number should DEFINATLY be dropped
> >from
> >any grudge games. I'd like to see it dropped from all games.
> >
>
>For my 2 cents worth (aussie dollars so like Stags not much!) the one
>things
>I think VP's do is make the game Tolkein like (probably more life like than
>one thinks at first hand). The Tolkein World had all the Freeps looking out
>for themselves (hello the Elves and the Dwarves), and the DS were by
>default
>quite happy to backstab each other - very DS I would of thought. I dont
>think I play a VP game (I hope not anyway but thats for others to decide)
>but VP's do add a tilt to the game that otherwise would not exist. In fact
>I
>think in almost every era you can find Generals compete-ing to have their
>flag fly higher (would Monty and Patton be a good example of this) I
>certainly know a certain Pacfic US General had his very own self interests
>at heart when the Japs kicked him out of the PI's and he rocked into Oz cap
>in hand, ofcourse his peronal VP's were his downfall in Korea.
>
>I'm just saying take VP's as a positive. Call it the 'fog of war', you just
>never know what's around the corner do you!
>
>
>Phil
>G15 FK (and yes the Freeps are hammering me:-)
>
>
>