Re: Player Ethics, e.g. Olympia From: wbruvold@weber.ucsd.edu (William Bruvold) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0000 Olympia has "died" because, in the end, it is a world with limitless resources. Once the AOO had "dominated" the first stage of the game, they didn't press the attack. In large part this was because the non-AOO group had nothing that the AOO wanted. But the same is also true. The non-aoo could simply chug away and do whatever they wanted (short of going into Faery) with nothing to fear. Withering on the vine, Olympia is now very stale for those that started on turn 1. What could have "saved" olympia? Well Mark's solution, playing with an idea of enriching the experiences of others could have worked to an extent but quite a bit to ask from people paying money each week ("why should I pay good money to play a "mad dog" and let others reap enjoyment from hunting me down?"). My own prefered solution would have been for the AOO to actually try to win. That is, to either eliminate all non-aoo factions or to demand tribute from them. THis would have generated responses by the other group and would have made for a more enriching experience. AOO could have, I believed, actually had fun implementing the iron hand of law but they chose, instead, to simply drop 2.50 a week and breed dragon after dragon after dragon. But, in the end, the experience of Olympia is a facinating case study in why games have to be designed to break Meta alliances apart. The game, for all intents and purposes was over after turn 30. THe aoo was strong _AND_ well coordinated _AND_ faced opposition from groups too disorganized to operate effectively. Furthermore, inside the AOO there was nothing to compete over. None of the "leaders" had an incentive to demand anything from their fellow allies. For the game to be truly open ended, there had to be a reason _WITHIN_ the game for member of all meta-alliances to turn on one another. I guess that my greatest fear about Olympia II (if it is ever launched) is that Rich will tweak the game system/rules/combat but not address a big design question -- why would allies ever turn on one another? If he doesn't answer this question, he will have to rely on Mark's "ethical gamer" who, in the end, is unlikely to exist in a commercial game in great enough numbers to keep things interesting. Erik Referenced By Up