Re: [mepbmlist] Digest Number 1171

[Din]

Ok, i've logged on to throw more money into my
account. In a very short while I'll go away till the
money runs out again (which means trying to debate
with me won't be very useful), but I decided to throw
my two cents into something that was mentioned in the
last couple of messages

I don't like new players, or newbies, playing certain
position, as some positions played poorly at the start
of the game will severly hurt the other nations (I
believe the main aim of playing middle earth is to
gain enjoyment - not to make clint rich, or to always
win, but to simply enjoy the experience of the game).
And its hard to enjoy a game when your allies stuff up
really badly at the start.

While the experienced players can help out the newbies
with advice, I don't think its a good idea for the
experienced players to do all the orders for the
newbies (as its the newbies money being used, and they
might resent paying for a turn where they didn't make
any decisions). But I do like giving options, eq you
can do option A since it means you can do this, this
and this, or you can do option B since it means these
other things can now happen. This way the newbie can
decide on how they want to play. If they call it
wrong, then at least it was their call. Hopefully the
newbie will get experience in understanding the ideas
behind why nations do certain things. I would also
mention the types of things that the other side can
do, and give options on how to combat them.

ie A newbie might see that they are playing NG and
notice that they are losing money, so they might want
to disband their armies and make money. I would give
them the advantages and disadvantages of such an
option. Hopefully they would notice that the
disadvantages is larger than the advantages :)

If a newbie was given options, then I don't think it
matters what nation they played, but its hard for the
experienced players to mention all the decisions that
the harder nations need to make, so I would perfer the
newbies to play 'easier' nations.

While I won't comment on which nations shouldn't be
played by newbies (since I don't have the knowledge to
make a correct call), I think it should be stressed
that all nations are different. So some nations are
harder to play than others, or have a different focus.
And they should think about what type of game they
want, and then pick a nation accordingly.

Not sure if it was mentioned, but I seem to remember
reading on the neutral advice that neutrals can attack
neutrals. Hopefully it also said that free/dark can
also attack neutrals. Being a neutral doesn't mean you
are safe from attack, it just means that you have the
possibility of being a friend to each side.

thanks
din

p.s While it won't prove my case, I think the current
team leader for the aussie grudge game (which has not
yet lost a grudge game) played 1650 NG in his first
game since players like me didn't want to play that
nation. Its another issue on how to get players to
choose to play a nation that is going to be stomped
on.

pps death to the corsairs in 1650 g31 :)

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>I don't like new players, or newbies, playing certain
>position, as some positions played poorly at the start
>of the game will severly hurt the other nations (I
>believe the main aim of playing middle earth is to
>gain enjoyment - not to make clint rich,

*** I wish. :-) I agree if you ain't enjoying the game don't play or find
a way to get enjoyment out of it again.

>p.s While it won't prove my case, I think the current
>team leader for the aussie grudge game played 1650 NG in his first
>game since players like me didn't want to play that
>nation.

** Partially the game is more competitive now I think so danger nations are
very much under more stress than they were in the past. So there's some
change in the game that way.

I think the overall feel that I have is that experienced players would like
to restrict the nations offered to new players so that the more complex,
important or dangerous ones are not played (or discouraged from being
played) by new players. Some feel that new players should not be allowed
certain nations, others that they should be if they request them.

New players seem to be of the opinion of allowing a freer choice. Is that
roughly the case or am I well off case?

As to what nations I still need something written for 2950 if at all
possible. The debate for the nations I think is not possible to resolve,
although I have taken a lot of the feedback and implemented those changes
and will offer that as advice to new players. Thanks for the feedback -
much appreciated.

Thanks

Clint

[Richard DEVEREUX]

Clint wrote:

I think the overall feel that I have is that experienced players would like
to restrict the nations offered to new players so that the more complex,
important or dangerous ones are not played (or discouraged from being
played) by new players. Some feel that new players should not be allowed
certain nations, others that they should be if they request them.

New players seem to be of the opinion of allowing a freer choice. Is that
roughly the case or am I well off case?

RD: And who can blame them? A newbie's money is as good as the money of the most senior veteran. You start restricting the nations which a newbie is "allowed" to play (what a breathtakingly arrogant concept!) and you will cut off the flow of new blood into the game. Does anybody REALLY want that?
The frustrations of playing with newbies are part of the game. If you don't want to play with newbies, stick with your veteran friends. Simple.

The only "regulation" of newbies which I favour, is that Clint shares them as equally as possible between teams.

Richard.



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

[Jason Bennett]

Richard DEVEREUX wrote:

> RD: And who can blame them? A newbie's money is as good as the
> money of the most senior veteran. You start restricting the nations
> which a newbie is "allowed" to play (what a breathtakingly arrogant
> concept!) and you will cut off the flow of new blood into the game.


You mean, as opposed to the "breathtakingly arrogant" concept of showing
up your first game and demanding the biggest, most important nation,
regardless of advice to the contrary?

I still do not understand the controversy of having people "step up" in
difficulty over the course of 2-3 games. Everyone benefits in the long
run. New players get less frustrated because their nations don't get
stepped on (and they don't get yelled at), and experienced players are
less frustrated because their games go more smoothly.

jason


--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@...
E pur si muove!

[Kenneth Weed]

Advise? Yes, definitely advise newbies. Give them an idea of how much
harder nation A is to play than nation B. Give them an idea of how much
more involved decisions are, and how many more people may depend on them.
Give them a clue. Tell them you cant play X? No.

We have already heard how good teams can make a newbie strong in any
positions, and bad ones can frustrate them, even in positions that are
"newbie approved". The newbie may get frustrated, no matter which position
he plays, but the simple fact of the matter is, if you say ok, here are the
4 nations you can choose from, he is just as likely to get frustrated BEFORE
he even pays. Maybe some sort of intro for each game, giving
their...Nazgul? Heck I don't know, which ever one is the silly winning
percentage one, so you know that the person playing the Noldo is 0 of 0. If
it frustrates you that bad, try to hand off the position, otherwise, you
know that the Noldo player could use some advice, and provide it to him.
Maybe this will let teams know that certain positions are newbies, and
instead of quiting the games and running scared, they will put more effort
into helping those players grow, and learn. The way you get better at
making choices? Its by making them, seeing what the outcome is, and dealing
with those outcomes. IMHO, dont deny anything...this game has been made
flexible enough with the allowance for any game that both sides agree
on...passing a Grand High Decree that newbies can only play on second
thursdays if playing nation 15 is silly. If thats what you want, build a
variant like that, dont make it law. IMHO.

-Ken

>From: Jason Bennett <jasonab@...>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Digest Number 1171
>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:34:38 -0500
>
>Richard DEVEREUX wrote:
>
> > RD: And who can blame them? A newbie's money is as good as the
> > money of the most senior veteran. You start restricting the nations
> > which a newbie is "allowed" to play (what a breathtakingly arrogant
> > concept!) and you will cut off the flow of new blood into the game.
>
>
>You mean, as opposed to the "breathtakingly arrogant" concept of showing
>up your first game and demanding the biggest, most important nation,
>regardless of advice to the contrary?
>
>I still do not understand the controversy of having people "step up" in
>difficulty over the course of 2-3 games. Everyone benefits in the long
>run. New players get less frustrated because their nations don't get
>stepped on (and they don't get yelled at), and experienced players are
>less frustrated because their games go more smoothly.
>
> jason
>
>
>--
>Jason Bennett, jasonab@...
>E pur si muove!
>

[Steve Prindeville]

The way I look at newbies playing is the same thing as the King of a nationdying and his third son is given the crown. He must learn kingship on thejob! While the King may have talented advisors and army commanders he does not have to listen to them.

Publish a rating on the difficulty of running all nations. Ask for 5 nations that a player would like to run. If more experienced players do not request the most difficlut nation and the newbie does, then WTF! Let him play the nation he requested, no one else wanted to. How do you learn somethingbetter? Having someone tell you that getting hit upside the head with a stick hurts OR getting hit upside the head with a stick.

My opinion, I could be wrong...

Steve

>Richard DEVEREUX wrote:

> RD: And who can blame them? A newbie's money is as good as the
> money of the most senior veteran. You start restricting the nations
> which a newbie is "allowed" to play (what a breathtakingly arrogant
> concept!) and you will cut off the flow of new blood into the game.

You mean, as opposed to the "breathtakingly arrogant" concept of showing
up your first game and demanding the biggest, most important nation,
regardless of advice to the contrary?

I still do not understand the controversy of having people "step up" in
difficulty over the course of 2-3 games. Everyone benefits in the long
run. New players get less frustrated because their nations don't get
stepped on (and they don't get yelled at), and experienced players are
less frustrated because their games go more smoothly.

jason

[Jason Bennett]

Steve Prindeville wrote:

> WTF! Let him play the nation he requested, no one else wanted to. How
> do you learn something better? Having someone tell you that getting
> hit upside the head with a stick hurts OR getting hit upside the head
> with a stick.
>

My problem with the collective "newbies learn by getting hammered" idea
is that it ignores that fact that MEPBM isn't a 1 vs 19 game. If one
player gets hit with a stick, the entire team does.

There are 19 other people, counting both teams, who want a good game
(and a win, but that's secondary). Allowing first-time players to slam
6000MA into a city/citidel against all advice doesn't just hurt him - it
hurts everyone, all of whom are paying customers.

It's fairly clear to me that I'm in the minority here, and I know Clint
will do his best to keep the games balanced. I just don't want to be the
beneficiary of the "I wonder what this does" syndrome.

jason

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@...
E pur si muove!

[Tony Zbaraschuk]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:05:26PM -0500, Jason Bennett wrote:
> Steve Prindeville wrote:
>
> > WTF! Let him play the nation he requested, no one else wanted to. How
> > do you learn something better? Having someone tell you that getting
> > hit upside the head with a stick hurts OR getting hit upside the head
> > with a stick.
>
> My problem with the collective "newbies learn by getting hammered" idea
> is that it ignores that fact that MEPBM isn't a 1 vs 19 game. If one
> player gets hit with a stick, the entire team does.

The other thing to note is that with all the information out there on
the web (such as the Mouth of Sauron newsletters, from which I learned
before and during my first game), even a new player isn't completely
at a loss, and can have a reasonable shot at not messing up.

Tony Z


--
The real danger of lying to kids is not that they'll find out you
lied and stop trusting you; it's that they'll believe the lies and
try to live by them. --Eileen Lufkin

[corsairs game 101]

>The other thing to note is that with all the information out there on
>the web (such as the Mouth of Sauron newsletters, from which I learned
>before and during my first game), even a new player isn't completely
>at a loss, and can have a reasonable shot at not messing up.
>
>Tony Z

Except the sheer weight of the information drowns most. After signing up
for my first game, I had more than a month to read and re-read the mountains
of information available. Still, had I not found a very good mentor to take
me under his wing on GT0, I would have fumbled about for half the game.
Fortunately, I was Woodmen, and it isn’t too hard to pick up HvInfan,
MovArmy, NamAgen, GrdLoc, ScoChar….

Had I been an elven nation, expected to know which agent and curse artifacts
needed to be LATed on GT1, while building armies, and sailing navies, and
building companies and recovering artifacts and… and… and….

Too much to know for a first game, and the team gets screwed too badly if
the newbie messes up.

Darrell S

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

Excellent - this is exactly the sort of thing I need. It gives new
players an insight into why. Lots of new players pick Elves "because
they're in LoTR" not from any actual reading of Brees of the like. Any
more like this would be very welcome - thanks Marc.

Clint

>Here is a stab at a list of suggested nations for new players in 2950.
>I have three categories: good, mixed, poor; I also discuss the pros
>and cons of running the "big" positions at the end.
>
>In designing this list, I've considered a few factors. The ideal
>nation has some breathing room; it is no fun to have your nation
>hammered in the first few turns when you're figuring out the rules. A
>good choice also has some flexibility (e.g. you could pick a military
>or character-based path). Finally, you'd like a position where you
>are not going to be under tremendous economic pressure; there are a
>number of nations that run a real risk of bankruptcy, especially in
>winter.
>For all nations, name at least 2 emissaries as soon as you can and
>place camps. Each nation starts with 5-6 pop centers, and there are
>200 slots for new camps. These new spaces fill up within the first 10
>turns; you will have a far easier game with 15 pop centers on turn 10
>than you will with 5.
>
>Good choices for the free:
>
>Rangers.
>
>The Rangers are safe and the local climate is good; try to place camps
>in the hills/rough and on or below row xx09. Your main tactical goal
>is to work with the Noldo to take 2006 from the Witch-King. This is a
>flexible nation - you can play banker to your team and develop in any
>of the 4 main skill classes.
>
>Dwarfs.
>The dwarfs are a secure position that can also play a military role in
>the east. Use your far western armies only to post camps; they are
>too far from the servants to use militarily. Your main tactical goal
>is to work with the Northmen in the east; try to set up a shuttle
>sending troops from 3707 to 3916. This nation is probably best as a
>military nation, although you can do a decent job with emmys or agents.
>
>Good neutral choice:
>
>Corsairs, Khand. Fairly isolated, reasonably powerful. The Corsairs
>can reasonably join either alliance and tough enough to withstand an
>attack from either. In practice the Khand usually join the dark
>servants. Talk to people for a better game; there is some risk of
>isolation if you are not strong at communicating.
>
>Good dark servant choices:
>
>Quiet Avenger; Blind Sorceror; Fire King.
>
>All three nations are reasonably secure and permit you to build up a
>strong nation. Each has a different specialty - emissary/agent (QA),
>military (Fire King), mage (Blind S.) The fire king should expect to
>run a shuttle from 3426 to 3224 to the Ithil pass and work with the
>Mordor nations; place camps in spots where you can use that
>hire-for-free ability to get the free. The BS can do the
>artifact-hunting game or develop curse squads; expect a lot of
>requests for intelligence-gathering. The QA needs to talk to the
>neighboring neutrals, and usually develops into a character-based
>position by midgame.
>
>Poor choices: the following nations make poor picks for new players
>for different reasons. Nations on this list have several of the
>following features: 1) they come under early pressure; 2) they require
>a good understanding of the "opening moves" that place new players at
>a big disadvantage; 3) they provide little freedom to name characters,
>learn the rules, build up your nation, etc. I put Rohan on this list
>for several reasons. Rohan can be badly hurt if either the WW or Duns
>go dark; if the servants choose to target it, Rohan can also really
>struggle with survival in the early game.
>
>Northmen, Northern Gondor, Rohan (free)
>Rhun (neutral)
>Witch-King, Dragon Lord (dark)
>
>Mixed choices: the following nations may be reasonably spots for new
>players. Relative to the best nations, they are more vulnerable to
>deadly early enemy attack. They can also have a tendency to get very
>poor, and running them requires a higher level of interaction with
>other players. At the same time, many of these nations also have some
>strong assets and can be enjoyable *if* you go into the game well
>aware of their strengths and weaknesses.
>
>Woodmen, Silvans, Sinda (free): The WM and Sinda can be subjected to a
>deadly early attack by the servants that place them on the defensive.
> If they survive the early going they can be good choices. The WM
>should never be afraid to ask for gold early and often. The Silvans
>can be run effectively as an agent nation. They are cursed with a
>poor climate and the ability to raise more troops than they can
>afford, while it takes longer than it looks like to get those troops
>to the front lines. Any of these nations should coordinate closely
>with the other Mirkwood powers.
>
>WW, Duns (neutrals): Both are strong nations, but it can be tricky to
>run neutrals like these in your initial game. If either goes dark it
>is a huge benefit to the dark servants but a big challenge to fend off
>the free; if they go free they are more secure but a bit far from the
>action. I'd suggest trying these positions - with their subtle
>military and diplomatic challenges - after you have a good feel for
>the game.
>
>Ice King, Long Rider (dark): the Long Rider position is fun but
>requires a lot of skill; if it was an animal it would be a cheetah.
>You have to make the most of your position in the first few turns, and
>it is easy to get stuck with few camps, no armies, and a boring
>position. The Ice King is usually faced with lots of demands and can
>easily come under severe cash shortage pressure; for a player with
>some experience it can be a lot of fun (armies and agents, which
>require emissaries to develop the economy to support them.)
>
>"Powerhouse" nations:
>
>The Noldo and SG (free), along with the Cloud Lord, Dog Lord, and Dark
>Lts. (dark) are strong positions. Running any of these in your first
>game has some significant drawbacks that you should be aware of. All
>are faced with some complex strategic decisions that will have a big
>impact on the game. Three of them (cloud lord, dark lts., noldo) are
>relied upon heavily by their teams to perform specialized roles. You
>will need a higher than usual level of co-ordination with your
>teammates to enjoy these nations, and if you stumble the consequences
>for the entire game will be severe. I would strongly advise avoiding
>the cloud lord, dark lts., or noldo in your first game for the above
>reasons.
>
>Of these five, the two most suitable are the dog lord and SG.
>I've put the Dog Lord on this "caution" list because of the
>complexities of raising large cavalry armies and the bewildering array
>of possible military options (ithil pass, rohan, mirkwood, rhun.)
>Southern Gondor needs to co-ordinate closely with Northern Gondor, the
>naval movement rules are tricky, and you will be expected to ship lots
>of gold to your teammates. It can also be difficult to fend off a
>dark corsair nation. Either is a great choice for a second or
>subsequent game.
>cheers,
>
>Marc
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

************************************************** **************
Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@...
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Fax: 1-503-296-2325
US Alternate: Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
************************************************** **************

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

> > My problem with the collective "newbies learn by getting hammered" idea
> > is that it ignores that fact that MEPBM isn't a 1 vs 19 game. If one
> > player gets hit with a stick, the entire team does.
>
>The other thing to note is that with all the information out there on
>the web (such as the Mouth of Sauron newsletters, from which I learned
>before and during my first game), even a new player isn't completely
>at a loss, and can have a reasonable shot at not messing up.

*** I would guesstimate that over half the players who join have never seen
Bree or MoS or have a clue about the game. Informed choices of positions I
am a fan of - then let the team help out, but ill-informed or no
information at game start I am worried about.

Clint

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>Except the sheer weight of the information drowns most. After signing up
>for my first game, I had more than a month to read and re-read the mountains
>of information available. Still, had I not found a very good mentor to take
>me under his wing on GT0, I would have fumbled about for half the game.
>Fortunately, I was Woodmen, and it isn’t too hard to pick up HvInfan,
>MovArmy, NamAgen, GrdLoc, ScoChar….

*** Yes I've given new players a list of say 8 orders to learn before and
then come back if they want more. I find it helps a lot.

Clint (player)

[Steve Prindeville]

I think there may be an overestimation on the value of a particular nation,Noldo, if someone screws up a couple of turns. In Game 223 the Noldo player never communicated and then dropped after turn 2. We missed his map info and the LAT's he should have done, but the Free prevailed in a well fought game. Yes there is a lot that the Noldo have to do, but if they do not do it that does not spell the end of the game.

Furthermore, I do not think there is any one nation that will spell the endfor a team if a nation does not do what it is supposed to. There is a backup for almost all nations.

Steve





Fri Nov*22,*2002 8:06*am
Show Message Info



#12283 of 19865

Msg List

<!--
document.writeln("<Prev");
// -->


<Prev

|
<!--
document.writeln("Next>");
// -->


Next>



Up Thread View Formatted Use*Fixed*Width*Font Wrap*Lines



"Steve Prindeville" <stevep@...>

stevep@...
Send Email















Forward




<!--
document.writeln("<*Prev Message");
// -->


<*Prev Message

*|*
<!--
document.writeln("Next Message*>");
// -->


Next Message*>

















Expand Messages
Author

Sort by Date

[Laurence G. Tilley]

At 00:44 22/11/2002, Christopher wrote:
>Would players accept longer waiting times to fill games, if MEPBM
>somehow segregated (for lack of a better term) positions from
>newbies.

Certainly. A good game of MEPBM lasts 2 years, in which time I pay Clint
UKP 202.80 I would say that before embarking on such an enterprise it's
well worth waiting a few more weeks in order to get the best possible
matched teams.

I'm not necessarily suggesting a newbie ghetto league - though if the
official line is going to be that it's ok to be a "tootling along" player
who doesn't communicate much, then we should have a league for
tootlers. More seriously, we need to make sure that we don't have games
with too many newbies starting at once - these games in my experience are
always shortlived and disappointing. This is one more reason why I like
the idea of a PRS - it makes Clint accountable. If he says "there are
about the same number of newbies on both sides" it can be checked against
actual data. If you find yourself on a team with 8 newbies (unless you
agreed) you can complain to him or drop with no loss of honour.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

[Laurence G. Tilley]

At 15:31 22/11/2002, Christopher wrote:
>I too support the PRS, although not for the reason to determine who
>should play with whom.

That's a kind of negative skew on what I said. Imagine that you were a
newishby having a tough time of it, then you found that the chaps on your
team had a very low total score, and the opposition had a very high
one. You'd be able to complain. Conversely, if you "felt" that you'd be
given an unfair opposition, and Clint could prove that you were reasonably
matched, then he could shut you up and make you eat humble pie.

>However, the scenario you describe - starting a game with 8 newbies,
>and dropping with no loss of honor (yeah us U.S. folks spell it
>without the u! ;-), makes me wonder how will the dropping player's
>PRS rating may suffer. Maybe I am missing something, but isn't a
>part of the player rating system dependent on players feedback from
>each particular game? If I drop early, won't I get "bashed" by my
>fellow players for it?

Yes, but in the end all games are about personal honour - the main reason I
would NOT drop in a difficult situation is because I would not want to let
others down. The main reason I'd drop in the situation above, is the 200
quid. I can cope with a black mark for dropping much more easily than 200
quid for a dull game.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

[Laurence G. Tilley]

At 15:36 22/11/2002, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote quoting LGT:
> >Certainly. A good game of MEPBM lasts 2 years, in which time I pay Clint
> >UKP 202.80 I would say that before embarking on such an enterprise it's
> >well worth waiting a few more weeks in order to get the best possible
> >matched teams.
>
>*** Not sure if that would help. Most games nowadays seems to last around
>15-20 turns.

You prove my point. Games lasting 15 to 20 turns are games where one team
has seriously outplayed the other, and I'd suggest that in some of those
cases it's because they're mismatched. When I've had games lasting 15 to
20 turns it's always been where we've won quite systematically and without
any major surprises being launched by the enemy. It's been where we have
developed out nations strongly and the opposition has failed almost wholly
to do so. I still think of turns 15 to 25 as "the mid-game" because in a
hard fought game, that's what it is. Hard fought games usually go on for
40+ turns.

>** I agree. How many is appropriate amount?
>
> >This is one more reason why I like
> >the idea of a PRS - it makes Clint accountable.
>
>*** Already am... :-) To act or not to act that is the query...
>
> >If he says "there are
> >about the same number of newbies on both sides" it can be checked against
> >actual data.
>
>*** Or you can take me at my word... :-) At present - you can always check
>with the teams themselves.

I'm not questioning your word, merely your omniscience. The problem comes
not from virgin newbies, who by definition cannot be measured, but from
newishbies - say those with less than 5 games experience. Some of those
are very skilled players, and some are nightmares. With 8 newishbies on
each side, you'll have the data to make sure that you don't have 8
newishbies who've won all their games on one side and 8 who have lost all
their games on the other.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

[Richard DEVEREUX]

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Prindeville
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Digest Number 1171


I think there may be an overestimation on the value of a particular nation, Noldo, if someone screws up a couple of turns. In Game 223 the Noldo player never communicated and then dropped after turn 2. We missed his map info and the LAT's he should have done, but the Free prevailed in a well fought game. Yes there is a lot that the Noldo have to do, but if they do not do it that does not spell the end of the game.

Furthermore, I do not think there is any one nation that will spell the end for a team if a nation does not do what it is supposed to. There is a backup for almost all nations.

Steve
RD: I agree. In the first "Last Alliance" game, the Noldo player was consistently the least communicative and least co-operative member of the team, and messed up more often than anyone else. Yet the FP still won thanks to good teamwork from the rest of their players. Conclusion: the Noldo are NOT indispensible!

Richard.



Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>I honestly believe Clint and company (no offense intended to the
>other folks at MEPBM) will try to keep everyone happy - (well
>almost) with the exception of those few vocal disgruntled players.
>If the position (in this case Noldo) is available and the game is so-
>called balanced in the eyes of MEPBM, I think I would get the
>position (please note that it could be any position the players
>view "powerful" or "important" - not Noldo specifically).

*** Yes I can't see that being a problem. If you had played 4 Noldos in a
row then I would probably ask that you allow someone else to play it but
otherwise there'd be no problem.

Clint

[Laurence G. Tilley]

At 06:48 26/11/2002, Christopher wrote:
>Laurence:
>
>But on the second point - I am a bit bothered by the thought that a
>black mark is occassionally honorable (although, I do tell my
>children to "turn the other cheek") or justifiable due to the cost
>(literally) of a dull game.
>
>Playing this scenario out again - my slippery slope logic - hold on
>now... it may get sloopy at the end...
>
>I drop, get bashed by fellow teammates, for honors sake my PRS
>suffers, I save my money. However now I want to join another game.
>If I decide to go for the Noldo position, do you think my PRS may
>somehow limit or prevent me from getting that position?

Yes, it probably would, not with the GMs, but it would reduce your chance
of getting head-hunted by the elite ;-) teams. Like you, I'm an advocate
of a PRS (though not necessarily every aspect of Clint's complex systems)
but it's not inconsistent to be an advocate, and anticipate some of the
problems. One of the problems will be with the umpiring - without a PRS,
if Clint has to arbitrate over something like a possible breach of house
rules, and he decides against you, then it's going to annoy you for about
one game. Under a PRS the effects of his decisions will be more lasting.

Better systems are those where rules mean minimal subjective umpiring
(though there's a complexity cost). But even if you have a rigid
comprehensive rule e.g. "a drop is someone who ceases to play within 5
turns or ceases to hand over a position to another player within 25 turns,
except where that takes place within three turns of the game end" - there's
going to be players who disagree with a justice of the rule (or with the
GMs on the spot ruling) and there's going to be times when extenuating
circumstances apply. For example when you feel the drop is reasonable
because you belatedly find that you have been teamed up with the Rugrats.

And that essentially is my point - there are times when honour is not
always recognised by rules or by the judgements of others. All I'm saying
is that I'd feel OK about dropping if I felt MEPBM games had sold me a duff
product, even if my ratings suffered.

And I'm not saying that this has happened to me either - it's just that a
couple of games came very close - I don't have grounds to complain formally
about them, as I went in knowing there'd be newbies, I just got a bit of a
system shock when I found out how many there were when the newishbies and
the tootlers-along were included in the count.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

Yes we have plans for it. We've just got a new server. We work on lots of
things off list and generally I find that the best way is to ask us if we
want to look at something. Find it much more pleasant that way. We've got
a bunch of improvements coming up, the Forum is one of them all you need to
do is ask politely and we can look into it... :-)

Clint

>Clint and co,
>
>You know all this free time you've got lately which you've been using to
>re-write rulebooks, do a PRS and organise a newbie revolution... well..
>
>Could you not spend some time fixing the pbmforum instead? It's one
>god-awful system at the moment, and it doesn't work properly.
>
>When will it be fixed? Any plans....?
>
>Ta
>
>Kev