Re: [mepbmlist] Re: 1 week games

[mike bateman]

Wade, I thought you had moved to somewhere in
Scandinavia?

Laurence T. and Mike M.

You guys sound like a couple of old women! Joining
games where you dont know all your teammates is too
scary, eh?

I personally find "challenging" teammates somewhat
enjoyable, the ensuing psych experiment can be quite
entertaining. Of course some folks would classify me
as "challenging", so it might be that I'm the guy
nobody want to play with....:)

Keep in mind that, by failing to play with those
outside your immediate circle, you are leaving the
education (traumatization?) of new players to hacks
like myself.

Mike Bateman

--- wadefrost1ca <wadefrost@...> wrote:
> To Laurence G. Tilley & Mike Mulka,
>
> I almost exculsively play one week games, and I have
> to say that
> most of the various one week teams are excellent.
> The team
> usually works off a private yahoo group, uploads
> PDFs and
> maps within 6 hours of recieving their turn, and
> communication
> fanstastic, if a little nuts (I have arrived home to
> over 40
> messages on turn process day). Lots of fun.
>
> Cheers
> Wade
>
> P.S. Hey Brad, are you going to join 139 or not! I
> need someone
> to drink beer with in Toronto ;-)
>
>

[Urzahil]

I never said that I would only play with previously known players. I
said that I would rather not try a 1-WEEK GAME with unknown players,
(new or not). 1-week games would take a lot closer coordination (and
timing) than I've seen in most throw-together teams.

Would such an experience be new? Yes. Would it be enjoyable? Well,
that's the question. There are 'challenging' players, and then there are
'infuriating' players, (as Dan stated). I can deal with the
'challenging' ones, as long as they're willing to communicate and share
data on a REGULAR basis. However, the 'infuriating' ones, (ie; Always
refuse to send orders till the last minute and make many mistakes as a
result, don't communicate but once a turn (if that), go for their own
VC's at the expense of the team, etc.)... Those players I can do
without, and those players would make a 1-week game too frustrating to
bear.

Mike Mulka

>-----Original Message-----
>From: mike bateman [mailto:mike_a_bateman@...]
>Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:40 PM
>To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: 1 week games
>
>Wade, I thought you had moved to somewhere in
>Scandinavia?
>
>Laurence T. and Mike M.
>
>You guys sound like a couple of old women! Joining
>games where you dont know all your teammates is too
>scary, eh?
>
>I personally find "challenging" teammates somewhat
>enjoyable, the ensuing psych experiment can be quite
>entertaining. Of course some folks would classify me
>as "challenging", so it might be that I'm the guy
>nobody want to play with....:)
>
>Keep in mind that, by failing to play with those
>outside your immediate circle, you are leaving the
>education (traumatization?) of new players to hacks
>like myself.
>
>Mike Bateman

[mike bateman]

Such reasoning eliminates one-week games altoghether.
To my knowledge, a one week grudge match has yet to
run (we waited several months before despairing and
returning to individual games, despite our best
attempts to harass known teams into accepting the
challenge). It seems the only way into a one week is
the random draw. I've always trusted to the fact that
both teams are having difficulties getting together.

Guess I'll just have to settle for slaughtering your
hapless minions more slowly in some other game format
:)

Geez, youd have thought the master of Automajic would
like his games run in a speedy and efficient manner...

The quest for quality teammates (opposition?)
continues.

Mike Bateman

--- Urzahil <urzahil@...> wrote:
> I never said that I would only play with previously
> known players. I
> said that I would rather not try a 1-WEEK GAME with
> unknown players,
> (new or not). 1-week games would take a lot closer
> coordination (and
> timing) than I've seen in most throw-together teams.
>
> Would such an experience be new? Yes. Would it be
> enjoyable? Well,
> that's the question. There are 'challenging'
> players, and then there are
> 'infuriating' players, (as Dan stated). I can deal
> with the
> 'challenging' ones, as long as they're willing to
> communicate and share
> data on a REGULAR basis. However, the 'infuriating'
> ones, (ie; Always
> refuse to send orders till the last minute and make
> many mistakes as a
> result, don't communicate but once a turn (if that),
> go for their own
> VC's at the expense of the team, etc.)... Those
> players I can do
> without, and those players would make a 1-week game
> too frustrating to
> bear.
>
> Mike Mulka
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: mike bateman
> [mailto:mike_a_bateman@...]
> >Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:40 PM
> >To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
> >Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: 1 week games
> >
> >Wade, I thought you had moved to somewhere in
> >Scandinavia?
> >
> >Laurence T. and Mike M.
> >
> >You guys sound like a couple of old women! Joining
> >games where you dont know all your teammates is too
> >scary, eh?
> >
> >I personally find "challenging" teammates somewhat
> >enjoyable, the ensuing psych experiment can be
> quite
> >entertaining. Of course some folks would classify
> me
> >as "challenging", so it might be that I'm the guy
> >nobody want to play with....:)
> >
> >Keep in mind that, by failing to play with those
> >outside your immediate circle, you are leaving the
> >education (traumatization?) of new players to hacks
> >like myself.
> >
> >Mike Bateman
>
>

[D N]

>Would it be enjoyable? Well,
that's the question. There are 'challenging' players,
and then there are
'infuriating' players, (as Dan stated).

Mike correctly notes that it's different to deal with
lack of communication in a 1-week versus a 2-week
game.

But even with an "infuriatingly" uncooperative
teammate, I've still been really happy with my 1-week
experience. Will do another. Recommend it to any
communicative, experienced PBM'er.

Cheers,

Dan

[Brad Brunet]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Urzahil" <urzahil@...>
> However, the 'infuriating' ones, (ie; Always
> refuse to send orders till the last minute and make many mistakes as a
> result, don't communicate but once a turn (if that), go for their own
> VC's at the expense of the team, etc.)...

In my experience of 5 or 6 1 week games and a multitude of forced 2 week
independent games, the worst allies have always been in the 2 week games.
The *assumption* that 2 weeks gives everyone time to deal with their lives
AND play the game is an urban legend, and between Wade, Mike and myself,
we're not being presumptuous and saying how we *think* it is, but how it
*is*. People get lost and bored and forgetful with such a long time
inbetween turns (fact based on a lot of experience). In a 1 week game,
those same people seem to be interested, insightful, and more than capable
of sending in turns. Again, based on _experience_ and not just me being
loud. Not everything is perfect, of course not, but I've seen more
unexplainable SS's, missing reports, files, mistakes, and 54 hours worth of
"reminder requests" before turns are run in 2 week games than even the worst
1 week game.

My intention isn't to chastize anyone. I really was interested in "why",
because based on my experience and eagerness to see my games develop, I
don't understand why there is such a hard time running 1 week games.

The argument that "I'm in 4 games and can't afford to double my cost by
making them 1 week games." is easily refuted by "Play 2 1 week games, run 2
nations per week (same as 4x2week) at the same cost and have 2 exciting and
fast games end in 1/2'ish the time, play the same number of games a year but
have more fun doing it."

The observation that running more 1 week games would result in fewer games
being run by the company is "Of course. People like myself and above would
cut down the absolute number of *nations* but not necessarily the number of
turns processed each week. Might even increase slightly across the board."

American Brad simply needs the time to guarantee he'll be able to process
the various requests, emails, etc with his lifestyle and ensure he keeps his
high gameing standards up. Well, if you don't check your email every day,
then certainly, 1 weeks games might become burdensome to you. Again, I'm
not trying to browbeat anyone. I simply raised the thread to *poke* the
players a bit and hopefully inspire some to give the 1 weeks a chance.
They'll really enjoy it and within 6 months, we'll have marches in the
street demanding more of them! ;-)

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses.

Brad Brunet

[R.K.Floyd]

Brad B.,

You've had an answer so far for every argument against 1-week games save
one. What's your response to the slow season situation in a 1-week game as
opposed to a 2-week? This does seem like it would change the flow of the
game quite a bit and it's something I thought of even before seeing it
mentioned here. Even now, I try to avoid starting DS games in Fall or early
Winter. How much more of a struggle would it be if Fall/Winter was
effectively doubled?

I have thought of trying 1-week games. Anyone who plays with me knows I
usually answer any email within 8 hours (often much less). Yeah, I'd like to
.. . . but I'm in a similar situation as everyone else. I've got my 2
2-weekers alternating weeks with my third "laid-back" neutral game thrown in
.. . . no way to squeeze in a 1-weeker unless 2 games end at the same time.
I think I might even improve as a player without the "lull" that occurs
where I often don't study the game for 4 or 5 days. Instead of dividing
attention between a different game each week I could keep the 1 game fresh
in my head always. And maybe still squeeze in a laid-back 2-week neutral . .
.. maybe sometime.

Russ


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Brunet" <bbrunec296@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:51 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: 1 week games


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Urzahil" <urzahil@...>
> > However, the 'infuriating' ones, (ie; Always
> > refuse to send orders till the last minute and make many mistakes as a
> > result, don't communicate but once a turn (if that), go for their own
> > VC's at the expense of the team, etc.)...
>
> In my experience of 5 or 6 1 week games and a multitude of forced 2 week
> independent games, the worst allies have always been in the 2 week games.
> The *assumption* that 2 weeks gives everyone time to deal with their lives
> AND play the game is an urban legend, and between Wade, Mike and myself,
> we're not being presumptuous and saying how we *think* it is, but how it
> *is*. People get lost and bored and forgetful with such a long time
> inbetween turns (fact based on a lot of experience). In a 1 week game,
> those same people seem to be interested, insightful, and more than capable
> of sending in turns. Again, based on _experience_ and not just me being
> loud. Not everything is perfect, of course not, but I've seen more
> unexplainable SS's, missing reports, files, mistakes, and 54 hours worth
of
> "reminder requests" before turns are run in 2 week games than even the
worst
> 1 week game.
>
> My intention isn't to chastize anyone. I really was interested in "why",
> because based on my experience and eagerness to see my games develop, I
> don't understand why there is such a hard time running 1 week games.
>
> The argument that "I'm in 4 games and can't afford to double my cost by
> making them 1 week games." is easily refuted by "Play 2 1 week games, run
2
> nations per week (same as 4x2week) at the same cost and have 2 exciting
and
> fast games end in 1/2'ish the time, play the same number of games a year
but
> have more fun doing it."
>
> The observation that running more 1 week games would result in fewer games
> being run by the company is "Of course. People like myself and above
would
> cut down the absolute number of *nations* but not necessarily the number
of
> turns processed each week. Might even increase slightly across the
board."
>
> American Brad simply needs the time to guarantee he'll be able to process
> the various requests, emails, etc with his lifestyle and ensure he keeps
his
> high gameing standards up. Well, if you don't check your email every day,
> then certainly, 1 weeks games might become burdensome to you. Again, I'm
> not trying to browbeat anyone. I simply raised the thread to *poke* the
> players a bit and hopefully inspire some to give the 1 weeks a chance.
> They'll really enjoy it and within 6 months, we'll have marches in the
> street demanding more of them! ;-)
>
> Thanks for all the thoughtful responses.
>
> Brad Brunet
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

[mike bateman]

> I figure that anyone
> who's played a game with me, and avoided me stabbing
> them to death with my
> knitting needles, has been baptised by fire.

A shocking but rather enjoyable mental image :)

> Which brings me to the Player Rating System...

Laurence, I see you have concluded that Brad cant be
reasoned with but can be diverted? Geez, this guy
catches on quick... :)

Mike Bateman

>
> From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@...>
> Date: 2003/10/07 Tue AM 02:10:36 EDT
> To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
> Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: 1 week games
>
> At 02:40 07/10/2003, mike bateman wrote:
> >Wade, I thought you had moved to somewhere in
> >Scandinavia?
>
> He can run, but he can't hide.


I'm not sure if it was a "slinking" thing or a victorious escape, but he's back in Toronto with a woooman.

Canadian Brad

1

> From: mike bateman <mike_a_bateman@...>
> > Which brings me to the Player Rating System...
>
> Laurence, I see you have concluded that Brad cant be
> reasoned with but can be diverted?

Yeah, ha ha. You've been away Mike... I've been whacked enough, I'll let Laurence natter on here...

Humble Brad
;-)

1

[BLUEFENIX]

The solution could be doubling starting treasures for each nation, so
then no problem for winter station.

Ricard.-

----- Mensaje Original -----
De: <bbrunec296@...>
Fecha: Martes, Octubre 7, 2003 3:06 pm
Asunto: [mepbmlist] Re: 1 week games

> Deleted a message. Was it Russ? Claims I have an answer for
> everything except the seasons? Yeah, that's a suffering situation
> those 8 month winters. But then, Wade and I are Canadians, so we
> really don't take issue with 32 turns of Polar conditions. Which
> Carolina were you from Russ? ;-) But seriously...South? No,
> anyway... There is no answer. The length of the seasons is
> doubled. If its such a hardship that you won't play a winter
> game in the best of times, then, well, don't sign up for
> 139...just start marching for those 1 week games in March..!
>
> Brad
>
> 1
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> -~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &
> Canada.http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ofVplB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> --~->
>
> 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/
>
>
>

[Laurence G. Tilley]

At 13:58 07/10/2003, bbrunec296@... wrote:
> >... 2003, mike bateman wrote:
> > >Wade, I thought you had moved to somewhere in
> > >Scandinavia?
> >
> > He can run, but he can't hide.
>
>I'm not sure if it was a "slinking" thing or a victorious escape, but he's
>back in Toronto with a woooman.

A Scandinavian one? Very nice. Still got the old "Mail Order Brides"
thing going over there then?

Laurence G. Tilley

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

[mike bateman]

--- "Laurence G. Tilley"
<laurence@...> wrote:
> At 13:41 07/10/2003, mike bateman wrote:
> > > Which brings me to the Player Rating System...
> >
> >Laurence, I see you have concluded that Brad cant
> be
> >reasoned with but can be diverted? Geez, this guy
> >catches on quick... :)
>
> Yes, but now you've blown my cover. Were you that
> kid at school who always
> went to tell teacher?

Clint! Clint! Laurence is picking on me!

Mike Bateman