Re: Olympia musings

From: Kevin McGee <KDMcGee@aol.com>

Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0000

khearn@pyramid.com (Keith Hearn) wrote:
>I've been playing Olympia since turn 43. I realize that that makes me
>  a relative newcomer, but I think it's long enough for me to
>  have gotten a feel for things. I see very little inter-player trade
>  going on. Almost everyone has become a generalist. If you want a
>  ship, you build it yourself. If you want swords, you make them.
>  There is nothing like an economy based on making and trading goods.
>

I started right around that time.

>(snip)
>
>This leads to there being no niche for shipbuilders in the game.
>  A game like Olympia should be full of niches, like shipbuilders,
>  weaponmakers, transportation companies, miners, et al. But since
>  anyone can set themself up to do just about anything in a few turns,
>  the niches simply aren't there.
>

This could be solved by greatly increasing the times needed to train
for a particular skill.  Make it a real investment.  I know almost half
the skills in Olympia and I started playing in the spring of this year.

>Then there's also the consideration of realism, if we want to consider
>  it. Does anyone *really* think they can learn to build a sailing
>  ship in just a week? It should take months, at a minimum. Similarly
>  for most other skills. One doesn't learn to make a sword in a week.
>

Well, I agree with this, but PBM/PBEM games are seldom known for their
realism.

>I think Olympia would be a better game if skills took longer to learn.
>  It would encourage people to specialize and fill niches, rather than
>  all of us being generalists who can do anything, and thus don't need
>  to work together.
>

I agree with this.

>If it took months to learn to make a ship, and years (game years) to
>  become really good at it, then those who took the time to learn
>  would have a market for their products. Other players would seriously
>  consider buying a ship from someone else, rather than just spending
>  a week training one of their own people to do it.
>

Yes, my point exactly.

>A faction would still be able to do anything they wanted, but it would
>  take a long time. There would be no artificial constraints on what
>  you can do. You could make a decent profit without a castle, by
>  spending your time learning to do something that those who built
>  castles haven't had the time to learn.
>

It's an open-ended game, right?  So what if something took a long time
to accomplish. Maybe it would make things more valuable.  Nothing much in
the game is very valuable, apart from those araculm (sic) thingies.  This
is one of the big reasons that it's turn 75 and the AOO wants to declare
victory.  Everything happens way too fast/easy and they've done it all.

>(snip)
>
>It is also too easy to become very experienced. Becoming
>  a grand master at something should require years of working at it,
>  not just 9 tries. A swordmaker should have to make dozens of swords
>  before he is even a journeyman.
>
>I've been playing Olympia for only 33 turns, yet I already know 52 of
>  the 70 skills. I've got nobles that are masters or grand masters in
>  several skills. By turn 100 I may know every skill in the game
>  (magic spells not included). In 12 game years should half a dozen
>  nobles be able to learn everything there is to know? I don't think
>  so.
>
  Like I said, everything happens way too fast.

>Yes, this would make the game start slower, but once a few player had
>  gotten over the first hurdles, trade between factions would start
>  up, and a real economy could develop.
>

>(snip)
>  Keith Hearn
>  khearn@pyramid.com
>

Good points.

-Kevin McGee

References

Olympia musings
khearn@pyramid.com (Keith Hearn)
Thu, 07 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0000