Re: The AOO and Vengeance

From: skrenta@rt.com (Rich Skrenta)

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000

srt@aero.org (Scott Turner) writes:
> What I mean by "balanced" is that all the players have roughly the
> same chance of winning.

Remember that no-one is supposed to win Olympia.  :-)

The best label I can think of for what Olympia is trying to
be is an epic open-ended game.  To me, this means that:

Players should be able to join at any time and make progress.

Players should not be excessively inhibited from making
        progress by existing players.

There should be multiple avenues of growth, none of which
        are in every way superior to others.

Play should last a long time.

Oly g1 has fallen somewhat short of these goals.  Gatecraft is
neglected, since teleporting or taking short-cuts through Faery is
much easier.  There's little reason to make men if you can make
beasts.  One group exerts a powerful influence over the game.
Ramp-up is too fast: distant parts of the world were explored early,
and a faction can learn all the skills in a relatively short period
of time.

On the other hand, g1 continues to churn along with a bunch of
players despite its failings.  The criticisms against oly are valid,
but the game hasn't burned up in a huge ball of fire as previous
versions and some related games have.

The game balance hasn't been amazing, but some have been amazed
that the game lasted at all, and are doubly surprised when new
tricks are found in the old system.

References

Re: The AOO and Vengeance
srt@aero.org (Scott Turner)
Wed, 06 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: The AOO and Vengeance
srt@aero.org (Scott Turner)
Wed, 06 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000