Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Longer waiting lists for better games

[Ovatha Easterling]

Perhaps it is a question of leadership. Instead of Clint trying to match
sides through some elaborate formula that spells near parity, he should
ensure that each side has someone who is good with newbies. A
cheerleader/guru/fight-to-the-last-ditch kind of guy.

Clint, say you were king and were making military appointments. A
particular city will come under siege and it is vital that the city hold.
Who do you appoint? The officer with the most senority and medals? Or, the
most subborn SOB in the barracks? You are certainly doing the former and
not the later. You are trying to quantify the observations of Onasander,
Saxe, etc. Yes, Player Ratings are fun to play with but they won't make the
games longer, I think.

>From: "kingoftherill" <kingoftherill@...>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Longer waiting lists for better games
>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:47:21 -0000
>
>--- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:
> >
> > > >*** 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.
> >
> > *** Um I don't necessarily agree with this.
> >
> > Clint
>
>I'd have to agree with Clint here. I'm in a game entering its 21st
>turn. Both teams started with significant numbers of first time or
>second game players. I think those games that end in 15 or 20 turns
>do so not because one team has significantly outplayed the
>opposition, or that one team has played badly. I believe it is more a
>collapse of the will of the dropping. In our game the opposition came
>out strongly and agressively. Our side was totally on the defensive,
>we were simply reacting to what the other side chose to throw at us.
>True the weak hearted dropped out. Were replaced by those of sterner
>stuff and the game continued. Still the other side held the
>initiative and we continued in the main to try to stem the flood.
>Gradually the momentum has changed. Not because the other side has
>blundered but because it is extremely hard to crush the opposition in
>this game if your opponents support each other.
>
>It is our opinion that we will eventually prevail, but it did indeed
>look dark there for awhile. Games that end soon in turn 15 or 20 end
>in my opinion because those playing on the downhill side are not
>enjoying having it put to them turn after discourageing turn and give
>up rather than fight the uphill battle. That we have hung on and now
>the game is more competitive has made the game I hope anyway more fun
>for all involved. If it stays to course it will last into the 40s I'm
>sure, it doesn't seem that our opposition are quitters either.
>
>Brad Jenison
>

[corsairs game 101]

Refering to the title, the only way I see "Longer waiting lists for better
games" is that when the next game is going to start within a month, there
isn't much incentive to play a losing hand. If you were going to have to
wait 6 months to start, you'd probably keep playing the poor situation.

Darrell

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

I can't see many players wanting to wait 6 months and I think it would
destroy the game.

Prime example - when we took over Allsorts they had 2 2950 games with
mostly the same nations taken on both games! Contacting them we managed to
get a game out of it, but some had dropped from waiting. Same with some of
the 1000 games I have tried to set-up recently - taking around 4-6mths
meaning that I get around 3-5 players drop from boredom.

From that perspective alone I don't think that longer waiting lists of the
number described below would be feasible. I think we have a working method
that is fine at present. Some players want to play longer games - that's
okay with us as well - and we'd encourage them as well!

Clint

>Refering to the title, the only way I see "Longer waiting lists for better
>games" is that when the next game is going to start within a month, there
>isn't much incentive to play a losing hand. If you were going to have to
>wait 6 months to start, you'd probably keep playing the poor situation.