Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)

From: morrow@newton.crisp.net (John Morrow)

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000

srt@aero.org (Scott Turner) writes:
>I've never agreed that Hades and Faery provide too easy and fast
>travel around the map, but as a number of players think this, I can
>see why adjusting it might be popular.

I personally like the stretegy involved in moving around a map.  Faery
and Hades create wildly random hazards and benefits for players.  It's
alot like a game of Battleship.  "[az93]".  "Darn!  You sank my
galley!".  I personally prefer games of strategy to games of chance.

>But overall, I think it is a mistake to eliminate everything that
>people complain about.  Everyone tends to complain about the part of
>the game that doesn't go right for them.  If you address all these
>complaints you end up removing all the interesting parts of the game
>until you just have a very generic playing field.

Agreed.  But Olympia (in both the first playtest and g1) has had
problems for having "optimal strategies" that greatly benefit those
who care to find them and exploit them -- particularly those who find
and expliot them first.  In the end, there turns out to be just one
correct way to play if you want to be competative.  I find that about
as interesting as a game of Tic-Tac-Toe.

>Take auraculum notification.  No doubt the players who auraculated
>later in the game complained that notification put them at an unfair
>advantage.  Strictly speaking, that's of course true.  But doesn't
>that add some spice and interest to the game, knowing that if you do
>this thing you'll be challenging a power structure?  Doesn't it make
>it interesting to rush to be the first to auraculate?  It makes the
>decision on when to auraculate interesting as well.  Wait, and be more
>powerful?  Or auraculate sooner and get the drop on others who follow?

The ability to auraculate first is largely based on finding the
required material first which advantages large alliances who cover
large tracts of land the fastest.  And what challenge does the first
person to auraculate face?  Would you consider it fair, say, if the
first mage to auraculate had a 50% chance of dying and
unressurrectable death on the spot?  75%?  What chance do later mages
face and should the first mage face that?  Beyond that, though, I
think that any feature that gives a large advantage to the first to
acquire it is problematic in an open ended game (which Olympia aspires
to be) since the idea is to make the game fun for everyone, no matter
when they start.

>Whether that spice is worth the "imbalance" is an open question, but I
>do think that grinding down all the spice to get perfect balance is
>not necessarily a good thing.  Of couser, I'm open to hearing other
>opinions :-).

You don't need "first come" givaways to add spice to the game.  You
can get that through balanced variety.  Paper, rock, and scissors is a
simple yet workable game because each of the three options has an
advantage and a disadvantage such that no choice is always optimal.
If the game rules were changed such that rock crumpled paper instead
of paper covering rock, everyone would quickly learn to pick rock or
leave in frustration since rock would always win unless the other
person also choose rock.  And with everyone choosing rock, would there
even be any point?  I think Olympia should aspire to a paper, rock,
and scissors approach and not a rock beats all approach and you can
only get that by tuning different strategies.

John Morrow

References

Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
jeremy@insignia.com (Jeremy Maiden)
Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
skrenta@rt.com (Rich Skrenta)
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
bfw@icpsr.umich.edu (Ben Wu)
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
srt@aero.org (Scott Turner)
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
jeremy@insignia.com (Jeremy Maiden)
Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
skrenta@rt.com (Rich Skrenta)
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
bfw@icpsr.umich.edu (Ben Wu)
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
srt@aero.org (Scott Turner)
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000