Halls of Valhalla: Forseti Middle Era Open

[Aethyr]

OK--

I've settled (last change I promise)

Mid: Man
Late: Marignon

Thanks

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I'll update tomorrow, the list.
Actually, feel free to as indecisive as you like. Without LB, no game can start, and if you're indecisive, it gives me a reason to put off choosing a faction.

[Aethyr]

Ha! My problem is that I've spent almost 100% of my dom3 play time in EA. Thanks for the flexibility.

[Aethyr]

OK, here I go again...

Mid: T'ien Ch'i
Late: Marignon (unchanged)

My preference is to play a Mid Era game.

[Warhammer]

I probably shouldn't do this, but here goes:

MA: Ermor, Man, Pythium
Late: Man, Marignon, Jomon

I'm definitely interested in the short game as it appears my Dagur game will be short.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Okay. I'll spin off a thread for BAG once llamabeast returns to us.

Before he went on vacation, we were in a bit of a discussion about whether I was creating to many games. We haven't finalized anything, including my opinion, but I was thinking about several options.

1). Continue creating games once a week.
2). Create a game on a bimonthly basis (say, first and third Sundays, for instance)
3). Create a game on a monthly basis.
4). Stop creating games
5). Poll people for feedbacks and opinions

Problems were several-fold. Limited number of subs, people over-joining games (maybe I can limit participation to one Valhalla game at a time), college curriculum. The capacity of the llamaserver was not an issue. Primarily, we're wondering if we're harming games by creating a shortage of substitutes, and letting people join to many games.

I had several thoughts on the subjects, but decided to take the position of devil's advocate, and argue that this surplus of games may actually be beneficial, or at least that a deficit of substitutes existed before. I came to the conclusion that it would be interesting to watch how atla, bragi, and dagur develop. I'll spare you from all my talking points, though, since I'm not trying to convince you yet. Right now, I'd be interested in hearing what people have to say, though the final word comes down to llama, then me, and lastly, you.

At the moment, I'm leaning towards creating games once every two weeks.

[Warhammer]

I think creating games on a bimonthly basis is best. There are several reasons for this:

1) It gives people a chance to try new nations and pretender builds.
2) People know how long it will be until the next game is started.
3) People can get acclimated to their games before deciding if they are going to join a new one.

I would also leave open the option of creating an additional game if demand is high. I think games are best if they are in the 8-10 player range, enough to give a good degree of variety and interaction, but small enough to keep the game moving. If the scheduled 8-10 player game fills up fast, you can always have a spillover game start up to take the overflow.

The only other important thing is to keep eras fluid, don't start up a bunch of any one type of game at one time, unless that is what players want.

[Aethyr]

I think Warhammer's idea of an "on demand" game to catch any spill over is a great one.

I think this approach would allow for a slower approach with beneifts:
1) Add only 1 game a month;
2) Generate addtional games "on demand";
3) Assessment what that demand really is, and increase to bi-monthly later if warranted;
4) Evaluate impact on substitute availability;

I also concur that some attempt should be made to give all eras exposure.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I do plan to expose all eras.
I'll probably do three medium games followed by one large game, then change some setting, especially the era.

Thanks for the feedback, and I'll be glad to hear more.

[Warhammer]

I wouldn't wait 4 games before changing the era, but that is just me. I would do one in each era, then the big game in era X. But that's me...