Reset, anyone?

[Starbuck]

The round is starting to get a bit boring. I have spoken to some players (not only in 3rd) and they feel the same way and I also doubt much will change if this round continues for another month or 2.

This thread was not started because I am in 3rd and we are top alliance, I would love to continue the round and get higher in player rankings but it's getting very boring.

It's not a big deal really if there's still some coding going on etc that needs to be finished, I just thought I'd bring it up and see how others feel about it too.

EDIT: I'll add a poll (public) to get more responses because some wont give their opinion in the thread.

[Peonboss]

What we need is some one to set up some things to occupy us.
Like maybe games or challenges.
And if they did a really good job maybe we could give them a title even. Like challenge master. But if they never did anything I guess we could take it away and give it to someone else. Just an idea.

[Spywareagen7]

yeah totally lost interest this reset, not the game's fault, just got busy for the winter, let everything slide, and not having success getting it back.

[Carach]

What we need is some one to set up some things to occupy us.
Like maybe games or challenges.
And if they did a really good job maybe we could give them a title even. Like challenge master. But if they never did anything I guess we could take it away and give it to someone else. Just an idea.

largely up to the players, in a player-driven game, to create the fun imo.

i guess AM and co. tried and failed to create some spark after the winter drama.

its all gone a bit dead.

[Luke]

I cant say much but be assured this round will not go on for another 2 months. Not by a long shot.

[Starbuck]

I cant say much but be assured this round will not go on for another 2 months. Not by a long shot.

good news :)

peon imo the games came, it's the lack of interest that made them stop. We've had a Quest Master and games masters of plenty but it doesn't help much if the players aren't interested in whats being done

[Peonboss]

Excuses the last refuge of incompetence.

[LuckyLuciano]

the round was over as soon as geos could be bought IMO
but its been quite a learning experience

[ghostdog]

http://www.gewar.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=135&pictureid=1239

[SJ]

the round was over as soon as geos could be bought IMO
but its been quite a learning experience

Lucky its never been any different, every year this has run, and this is the first year its been an issue. I can promise you that the geos bought made little to no impact on the game overall this round.

As for resetting, well I suspect this will be my final round as a player. So if there is a need a to reset you won't be getting any complaints from me.

[t092]

Never reset,personal idea just.
It's the just state that someone like to see,from beginning and till at last.

And the others (not the someone-s) can see clearly what the game will give
:commando them and what they can and should get from that. :commando

continue....

[Spywareagen7]

the round was over as soon as geos could be bought IMO
but its been quite a learning experience

yup, my least favorite Gewar feature so far

[Uns_Uwe]

Pro reset - as always

[Cash]

My troops are overtrained its time for a reset!!


http://media1.teenormous.com/items/ih1.redbubble.net/work.5856598.1.fc-550x550-red.v3.jpg

[Maniac185]

It's been a busy round. Will any new features be introduced when the new round starts?

[Luke]

Working on one that I hope to introduce at the start. Otherwise shortly in the beginning of the round. Got a setback with the developerserver that got hacked and infected with a virus.

[Spywareagen7]

My troops are overtrained its time for a reset!!


http://media1.teenormous.com/items/ih1.redbubble.net/work.5856598.1.fc-550x550-red.v3.jpg

best picture ever

[laoma]

would love to see Mr. Beeks & The Dude tell us why we should have no reset

[Jeff Lebowski]

would love to see Mr. Beeks & The Dude tell us why we should have no reset

Philosophical reasons. Resets are for losers. No game should ever reset no matter how boring it gets, how often it gets hacked, or how many new features get added. It's unfair to players, and a good way to ensure only simpletons and mediocre people stick around....but that's my opinion, and I was wrong once (granted I was 5 years old then).

[Cash]

Philosophical reasons. Resets are for losers. No game should ever reset no matter how boring it gets, how often it gets hacked, or how many new features get added. It's unfair to players, and a good way to ensure only simpletons and mediocre people stick around....but that's my opinion, and I was wrong once (granted I was 5 years old then).What you said makes good sense but tell me how a player that spends geos and fights everyday defeat players who save and nobody wants to fight??

.

[Carach]

that isn't a very good question, tbh.

people that are like little doggies chasing their own tails, that dont think of the long-game, fail. this has always been so.

Likewise people that suck at diplomacy (ie, almost everyone in this game, apparently), fail.

those that cant adapt to new situations, yup.. they fail.

[Spywareagen7]

that isn't a very good question, tbh.

people that are like little doggies chasing their own tails, that dont think of the long-game, fail. this has always been so.

Likewise people that suck at diplomacy (ie, almost everyone in this game, apparently), fail.

those that cant adapt to new situations, yup.. they fail.

And then everyone attacked Carach

[Cash]

that isn't a very good question, tbh.

people that are like little doggies chasing their own tails, that dont think of the long-game, fail. this has always been so.

Likewise people that suck at diplomacy (ie, almost everyone in this game, apparently), fail.

those that cant adapt to new situations, yup.. they fail.Those are dumb answers, tbh!

The long game?? Means don't attack save. Fail

Diplomacy?? Please give me back my city that you took from me or I was hit and ran please give me back my city. Fail

New situations?? Is this when people who attack you are not in the alliance that your attacking? Win for alliance that your attacking...

[Jeff Lebowski]

Those are dumb answers, tbh!

The long game?? Means don't attack save. Fail

Diplomacy?? Please give me back my city that you took from me or I was hit and ran please give me back my city. Fail

New situations?? Is this when people who attack you are not in the alliance that your attacking? Win for alliance that your attacking...

Long game means "be persistent". Saving is part of the game, but it shouldn't be a core element of your strategy. Some other thing to eliminate are hit & run attacks, attacking more cities then you can hold, gang-banging players, and the "I log on every few days, have less then optimal resources, do no jeweling and cry because I'm not in effective". No one here has a reason to cry about missed opportunities. If you're persistent...you will win.

Diplomacy means "be honorable". If you have a pact with another group then always try to remain as honorable to them as possible. Don't get involved in shady tactics, or with shady people. If you have an agreement to return cities...do so. If you see they could use some help. help.

New situations means "Be Flexible". Realize that sometimes your plan may be garbage, and needs to be thrown away. Realize that not everyone in your alliance will be decent and truthful, and that new enemies and friends will arise out of the most unlikely places. Try not to be myopic in your decision making.

So when you add context to what Carach said, you see that he was giving you very good advice....

[Cash]

So when you add context to what Carach said, you see that he was giving you very good advice....I like it better with context!! Thanks to you and Carach for the advice....

[brett]

I feel strongly against the reset. It took us a long time to rebuild from zero and constantly being zeroed and now that we are finally making progress other people deem the game stale.

[Luke]

No brett. I don't think other people deem the game stale. Check the players online and compare it to 2 months ago. Less and less are active. When 2 months ago at the same time we had about 27-28 players minimum at this time(when I usually check before I go to bed), we just now just had 10. And 4 months ago it was about 38-40 players. When we hit bottom, we know it's time for a reset. Especially after a round like this.

I know it sucks when you finally get somewhere....we should definately find some way in the next round to make a game without resets. Stabilize it...either by geos or levels.

The only positive thing though is that when I was a player, the days/weeks right after a reset were the most exciting ones.

[ghostdog]

Philosophical reasons. Resets are for losers. No game should ever reset no matter how boring it gets, how often it gets hacked, or how many new features get added. It's unfair to players, and a good way to ensure only simpletons and mediocre people stick around....but that's my opinion, and I was wrong once (granted I was 5 years old then).

For the record I'm not pro reset for no reason but I take umbrage with your statements.
" No game should ever reset no matter how boring it gets"
" It's unfair to players, and a good way to ensure only simpletons and mediocre people stick around"
1st of all I do applaud your return to the game & the efforts & level of achievements you have reached but I think you are missing the big picture here. There is an imbalance to the game & there needs to be a way for people of different playing styles & the amount of time people are able to dedicate to the game to all have a good gaming experience. A few of the main problems with this game, there are not enough challenges, achievements or goals to be had to keep player retention. This is an undisputed fact all you have to do is look at the player attrition. This is not to be taken as a personal affront to the coders & developers of the game but instead to be looked at as constructive criticism. I only speak for myself but I have heard similar grumblings from my fellow players that they have lost their passion for the game. I myself haven't really enjoyed the game since the old beta game. It appears to me that a certain minority has had undue influence on some of the recent changes to the game & these changes have led to the current disinterest & apathy for the game. I think the secular mentality of the game needs to change & the inclusion of the opinions of all members will only benefit the game. I understand the current limitations in implementing any changes to improve the game but I think if you make everyone feel they have are part in the decision making processes of how to improve the game you may find more people willing to help.

[Jeff Lebowski]

For the record I'm not pro reset for no reason but I take umbrage with your statements.
" No game should ever reset no matter how boring it gets"
" It's unfair to players, and a good way to ensure only simpletons and mediocre people stick around"
1st of all I do applaud your return to the game & the efforts & level of achievements you have reached but I think you are missing the big picture here. There is an imbalance to the game & there needs to be a way for people of different playing styles & the amount of time people are able to dedicate to the game to all have a good gaming experience. A few of the main problems with this game, there are not enough challenges, achievements or goals to be had to keep player retention. This is an undisputed fact all you have to do is look at the player attrition. This is not to be taken as a personal affront to the coders & developers of the game but instead to be looked at as constructive criticism. I only speak for myself but I have heard similar grumblings from my fellow players that they have lost their passion for the game. I myself haven't really enjoyed the game since the old beta game. It appears to me that a certain minority has had undue influence on some of the recent changes to the game & these changes have led to the current disinterest & apathy for the game. I think the secular mentality of the game needs to change & the inclusion of the opinions of all members will only benefit the game. I understand the current limitations in implementing any changes to improve the game but I think if you make everyone feel they have are part in the decision making processes of how to improve the game you may find more people willing to help.

We could literally debate this topic until 2021 and i doubt i will ever change my thought process on this. Resets are and have always been stupid...doing a round (based on a ser timeframe) makes sense, but not whim based resets (luke hates my stance on this ).

Anyway, i got asked why i said no to the reset and i answered it. I think the current resetting is unprofessional and shows a true lack of respect to player's hard work. It forces good players to leave and allows the lesser players to impose their will with extremely boring and easily exploitable strategies. They then pass those poor strategies on to new players and disgruntle them as well...but thats just one person's opinion, and easily ignored.

[ghostdog]

Hey I respect your opinion Jeff. This is not a role-playing game that can go on without an end. It's a war game & their needs to be a clear cut winner just like any other war game. There are many different ways to derive a clear cut winner to the game. It could be time based for example every round last 2 months with a pre determined end date or based on area of control of an alliance that controls for instance 75 % of the cities or make a point based system that takes into account % of area controlled & length of control & alliance score on armies or hp's killed. In my opinion an open ended war game just makes no sense as it will breed the same repetition of long periods of saving then attacks followed by counter attacks then saving again. Where is the opportunity for strategy to enter the game?

[laoma]

really love to see valid post like those from today..

a short answer to you Jeff (more details later as I am busy to hit&run)

Most users ever online was 860, 08-09-2007 at 02:57 PM.

[t092]

need not reset for no new change will come at all.

SO GO On ...

------------------
苟盎

[laoma]

Long game means "be persistent".

100% true....no reset would guarantee that persistent player have a strong foothold in our game.

Once I stated no reset would be very welcome and I admit for me no reset would be a higher motivation to play, as I am persitent and ready to play Gewar as a life long game. But in that, for sure, I belong to a small minority.
I doubt very much that it makes sense to play without a new beginning in the existing version of Gewar.

By the way Mr. Jeff, your personal view how to play Gewar makes me feel like I have to behave as a monk in here...
Be nice with each other, live in asceticism by having no features, hit our enemies honourful (are there any enemies left these days ?)
I don't say that because I have any problem with your idea if you say that as a player.
Differen't views (game style), maybe a million that is what Gewar need.
Just imagine we would live in a community where everybody play by the exact style....:mad:

[Capt_ItchyBeard]

I have read this over and over, and there are good reasons to reset and good reasons not too.

That being said here is my answer to the problems that face players.

To reset now (or soon) without making changes that will help the game move forward would hurt rather then help. I agree with Jeff it only allows players that are not as active or "lesser" to gain advantage and makes the vets frustrated.

Simple changes would help (I know what I think is simple may not be)

1. Give the alliance leader more power within his alliance.

a. Allow him be able to control who his alliance can and cannot attack.
ie if you are in a nap with a alliance make a function that will not
allow you to attack a member of that group, or player

b. Dues: If you are a member of a alliance create a alliance bank account the he controls and can transfer to who ever he wants. (to include members outside the alliance)

I guess I don't care either way if we reset or not because the players that play and play right always rise to the top.

Itch

[laoma]

Itchy, man, if we would get a big part of what you wrote, well ;bravo

may be we should have the possibility to hide moving armies, by paying Geo's for it.....smile
with that feature, army interception and army splitting I would love to fight THE DUDE
even my cash would be just 10% of his

[thomas85]

1. Give the alliance leader more power within his alliance.

a. Allow him be able to control who his alliance can and cannot attack.
ie if you are in a nap with a alliance make a function that will not
allow you to attack a member of that group, or player

I strongly oppose. That would be taking away individual player's freedom. If players want they may give their leader dictatorial power but there should never be a built-in feature in this game that guarantees such powers to any alliance leader.

[Capt_ItchyBeard]

I strongly oppose. That would be taking away individual player's freedom. If players want they may give their leader dictatorial power but there should never be a built-in feature in this game that guarantees such powers to any alliance leader.


Thomas a player can leave a alliance anytime they feel its not for them. So for a individual's freedom nothing would change.

[laoma]

I strongly oppose. That would be taking away individual player's freedom. If players want they may give their leader dictatorial power but there should never be a built-in feature in this game that guarantees such powers to any alliance leader.

......than we would have alliances leaded by dictators like in real life, as well we would have alliances ruled like a democracy....plus individuals

just imagine the feature that you could define an alliance as you want to, trust me Gewar would quickly grow by membership...

to many restrictions / strong limitation lead to death not only in Gewar also in Nature

[Starbuck]

I agree with Thomas

The point of being in a team is to decide together on who to fight so why give the alliance leader all the perks when you agree on who to hit anyway? If leaders are telling rather then asking then they aren't good leaders in my opinion. Most alliances have more then one leader, the one that started the alliance + a few more!

[Capt_ItchyBeard]

I agree with Thomas

The point of being in a team is to decide together on who to fight so why give the alliance leader all the perks when you agree on who to hit anyway? If leaders are telling rather then asking then they aren't good leaders in my opinion. Most alliances have more then one leader, the one that started the alliance + a few more!

Not sure of your point. Giving the alliance leader perks changes nothing to a individual player. As a player you decide who you play the game with.

Also I agree a good leader listens to all and at times votes on the best way to go. (to each there own) It would make it harder to decide what alliance to be part of or not, would make people think twice about who to join instead of all the random attacks.

[stanley6148]

Some great points are made by both sides. I am new to GEwar but some things that would excite me would be;
1: Army splitting
2: Have armies travel faster. Maybe by plane for donators or for Geos.
3: As stated by laoma, army interception would be cool.

[Peonboss]

Itchy has a very valid idea and the playtime and score to back it up. Simple fact is lots of people who end up leading an alliance shouldn't. The alliance leader should be on more than anyone else and far to many of them are only on a few hours a day.
But that is what works for some people, and why I have not run an alliance since the world famous GFY.

Simple check boxes on an alliance page would make an alliance far more custom able and I think this idea is really worth developing. I know it will not happen over night but this could be a valid game changer idea and I would love to beta it. Bravo itchy.

[Cash]

Also on your alliance page could be check boxes for each alliance in the game. Your alliance could vote on which alliances to check not to attack. Call it NAP boxes... Then members of other alliances could see which alliances are NAP'd or not.

The color and shapes of alliances need to be used better to. Of course enimies need to be different colors but if you work with other alliances they need to be the same color but a different shape.

[Starbuck]

If this doesn't change the individual playing style then why do it? You decide who you want to join and if you aren't happy you have the option to leave. If the alliance leader restricts you to only hit some alliances but you have decided as a team who you will be fighting then what's the point in coding it to the leader too. Imo the leaders of alliances these days haven't that much of a say to be able to restrict players, specially in alliances like AO/3rd/WTO etc because they have been playing together for such a long time and have more then 1 leader who decide on things.

EDIT: I like the check box idea on alliance page for NAP's or other stuff, that sounds cool!!

[Capt_ItchyBeard]

If this doesn't change the individual playing style then why do it? You decide who you want to join and if you aren't happy you have the option to leave. If the alliance leader restricts you to only hit some alliances but you have decided as a team who you will be fighting then what's the point in coding it to the leader too. Imo the leaders of alliances these days haven't that much of a say to be able to restrict players, specially in alliances like AO/3rd/WTO etc because they have been playing together for such a long time and have more then 1 leader who decide on things.

EDIT: I like the check box idea on alliance page for NAP's or other stuff, that sounds cool!!


the point is simple. you prevent rouge attacks within your alliance, force them to work together or leave. You also create a clear leader to handle things instead of a few. Also you give the alliance leader the power to handle his/her alliance.

It does change the individual playing style. You would need modify how you play to the alliance rules. As for the long standing alliance's they could be part of the problem. As for deciding together who to attack or not with voting well that comes down to how the leader, leads the alliance.

The alliance bank would allow the alliance leader to fund the active members or other players or alliance's without fighting directly.
Diplomacy at its best.

[HellCarrot]

No brett. I don't think other people deem the game stale. Check the players online and compare it to 2 months ago. Less and less are active. When 2 months ago at the same time we had about 27-28 players minimum at this time(when I usually check before I go to bed), we just now just had 10. And 4 months ago it was about 38-40 players. When we hit bottom, we know it's time for a reset. Especially after a round like this.

I know it sucks when you finally get somewhere....we should definately find some way in the next round to make a game without resets. Stabilize it...either by geos or levels.

The only positive thing though is that when I was a player, the days/weeks right after a reset were the most exciting ones.

well now, u gone and said the word reset. you may as well just do it and not drag it out.
People stop playing when you say reset and just sit and wait for it. Very few bother with the million geos either.
SO U SAID RESET SO NOW LETS JUST DO IT, I hate the wait for it to happen, it is boring and seems to go forever and ever and ever

[Starbuck]

I agree with HC... The word is out, announce the winners and lets get it done lol However I like spending my millions first before the new round starts, gives alliances the opportunity to discuss what to do in the new round, where to go etc

[Peonboss]

Any chance of a quick reset are blown by this thread. But it was great to make everyone spend their saved geos.

[laoma]

Any chance of a quick reset are blown by this thread. But it was great to make everyone spend their saved geos.

little activity so far, don't you think so ;)


by the way, since I read SB wish "to announce winners", I almost hit the NO button...;woop

[Toky]

winner has no meaning in this game......no reset please! play as you like....just do it :)

[Mooi]

Honestly, I do not see any reason to have reset. good portion of people who are wanting to reset, are people who lost their battles and lost in the stimulus to continue the round. It does not really have to change for some reason you guys have more to play. you who must change, the game has been the same. I said what I thought I go back to sleep. before I finish this round agreement to give some emotion to people who do not have to fight.

[Luke]

In theory you would be right Mooi. But again i will say: checked the amount of players online or those still playing? Really low.

[HellCarrot]

I would find it interesting how many would continue to play if it was never reset. I am not having a dig at the idea or anything.
but alot changes in alliances in a reset, change goals in a reset, take new areas in a reset and new alliances are made in a reset. noobs get to start on even level with the rest of the game
just wondering if that would all still happen on such a high level like it does now without a reset

would we have to become jewelers to keep an income up, or do naps to keep from fighting to much and lossing all your geos as the end wont come to start again

NO LUKE NOT PICKING ON THE IDEA

[laevus]

To me the only reasons to do resets are:

Substantial changes to funcionality - emphasis on substantial
Cheating to the extent that it throws off the balance of the game irreparably
Pre-determined round duration, maybe with specific victory conditions

And the game would maintain interest at a higher level if there were victory conditions...at least similar to the old ones. Maybe even modified to include somethign like a gold star next to a players name for 20M kills in a round, silver for 10M etc...so that from round to round you can still see how accomlished a player has been.

[Carach]

I strongly oppose. That would be taking away individual player's freedom. If players want they may give their leader dictatorial power but there should never be a built-in feature in this game that guarantees such powers to any alliance leader.

players cede their individual freedom upon joining an alliance that has a unified policy.

however, the idea outlined would be bad when people hit and run then one of the usual vulture possies grabs the city and omg! u cant hit it :|

[Capt_ItchyBeard]

players cede their individual freedom upon joining an alliance that has a unified policy.

however, the idea outlined would be bad when people hit and run then one of the usual vulture possies grabs the city and omg! u cant hit it :|


you whine like a gurl

[Starbuck]

Sounds like a valid point to me but I'm a girl so what do I know haha

[R2D2]

i like laevus's idea about the gold stars.. could be some source of motivation for people to get the best rank they can.

[THEOtheGREAT]

The sooner the Better!!!!!!!!!!!

VOTE FOR A RESET!!!

[brett]

wasn't this kind of the point of having levels? is it possible for the players that want to be reset to simply go to the other level?

[Carach]

you whine like a gurl

just remember where 3/4 of ur value comes from, itchy ;)

[pitoh]

When you play a game normally you have a start and an end....normally a players/teams have objectives and normally there's a rank that show up the best and the worst players/teams when the game is finish. Then there's another game and so on....so for everyone there's the possibility to win, but if you're not good then well you'll never win a game...

Laevus stars idea is great (how was before, nothing new) but we don't need to esagerate giving stars for win a forum game or stuff like that....

I think that the best idea is a time limit, so when Luke press the bottom you already knows when the reset finish.....so anyone needs a banking plan too based on the time (don't know if it clear).....

Blies
pitoh
;smoking

[Spywareagen7]

The idea of having goals has been brought up in the past, and if done right could be done fairly easily, and give players the individual achievement we're looking for without requiring a reset. Small goals like first player (or 5 players or whatever) to kill a million troops (example only) PRIZE then the count resets for everyone, first alliance to claim and hold X amount of value for Y amount of time PRIZE, 1st alliance to reach a certain amount of kills per member (total kills per alliance would be unbalanced because of sizes, this would encourage alliances to mostly harbor more active players), 1st person to finally take one of LUKES FREAKING INDESTRUCTIBLE, UNCONQUERABLE, UN-NUKE-ABLE cities PRIZE... etc This creates individual and Alliance goals

One of my other observations and Pet Peeves is that every time the round is about to end, everyone goes into scramble mode trying to figure out who'll be on their team next round, who they want to fight, where they want to be etc. You'll all notice that I'm now in my 3rd alliance of the round (and I joined Purple Monkey prior to announcements of a potentially pending reset). I've never known a GOOD alliance leader who got mad when people left to try other things, it's part of the game, if you're bored, don't like the decisions your leader is making, getting attacked with no support LEAVE YOUR FREAKING ALLIANCE, find friends who are doing or will do what you want to do, start your own crusade... Sure it sucks when someone bails mid-fight but having been an alliance leader, and a member in the past I understand, nobody is going to harbor bad thoughts, and if they do, you probably shouldn't have been in their alliance anyways. Just because you have so many friends in one place doesn't mean that trying new things won't be fun.

I personally keep an open mind about everyone in this game, there's not many players that I truly dislike because its hard for most people who I've never even met in person to really piss me off permanently. Drive me crazy, plague my dreams, make my blood boil for a round or so... YES, but when entering an alliance there's not many people that I'd "refuse" to play with (Maybe 1 or 2, and not because of hate, just because they are bad at communicating and/or being a team player).

That all said, I hope that whenever this round does reset, we see a great breakdown of some major alliances, new people landing in smaller groups, and equal teams fighting each other to create good playing atmosphere. I also can't wait for all the goodies that Luke is going to unveil in the new version, I hope everyone's got their smart phones fully charged, laptops with wifi cards running google earth 24/7, a way around any admin privileges preventing you from playing at work, and a WHOLE LOTTA TIME to play... Inactives beware, the days of holding cities for months at a time are over!!!!

[Maniac185]

Anyone know if there's a city held longer then McMurdo (http://www.gewar.net/war/cities.php?do=show&id=391)?

[ghetto bob]

Anyone know if there's a city held longer then McMurdo (http://www.gewar.net/war/cities.php?do=show&id=391)?

There are 19 cities with longer own time than McMurdo, sorry.

[stanley6148]

Stupid question but what exactly happens at a reset?
When does the reset start?

[cheuk18me94]

http://www.gewar.net/forum/showthread.php?p=227890#post227890
Anyday from now......
I think Luke will give all of us millions of geos and uranium again. Mad days come very soon.

[thomas85]

Stupid question but what exactly happens at a reset?
When does the reset start?
There are no such things as stupid questions. Check the GEWar wiki page about Reset (http://www.gewar.net/wiki/index.php/Reset).

[stanley6148]

Thanks cheuk & thomas!

[Maniac185]

There are 19 cities with longer own time than McMurdo, sorry.

No that is good. My curiosity got the better of me and I had to ask

[RagingMongoose]

good news :)

peon imo the games came, it's the lack of interest that made them stop. We've had a Quest Master and games masters of plenty but it doesn't help much if the players aren't interested in whats being done

Maybe you should give it another go. Why don't you post a game GM2? haha.