Re: Olympia gripes

From: bill@rses.vuw.ac.nz (Bill Viggers)

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000

In article <49crkk$mi8@wmwap1.math.Uni-Wuppertal.DE>, brumm@wcpj2.chemie.uni-wuppertal.de (Martin Brumm) writes:
|>
|> Oh yeah i would really love to play with HIS auraculum, as all players who
|> managed to forge an auraculum after turn 50 got only the "low profile" variant
|> of that powerfull thingie. BTA was the only one, to be allowed to use the old
|> and much more powerfull auraculum.
|>

This is in line with Richs policy on the game as a whole from what
	I've seen.  If something is broken he took steps to see that it
	didn't get worse.  Think about how much worse it would be if all
	the AOO magi had access to the powerful auraculum, and remember
	they are the only ones in the game with them.  So exactly who
	is being hurt by the reduction in auraculum power?

|> I really liked Olympia for the atmosphere playing in a small alliance and the
|> effort Rich did in the beginning. But now more and more i hear about the
|> Backstage dealings and even see this : "BAH i dont play OLY 1 anymore, so shut
|> it down"- attitude, the more i feel disappointed.

Backstage dealings?  I'm curious.  Rich goes a long way out of his
	way to be fair.  He has rerun a turn that exposed a major bug, and
	offered to rerun another.  The reruns giving a rebate on the turns
	fee.

He shut down the design list when people complained that a vocal
	minority were getting too much say in the devlopment of the game.

|> And if you think Game 2 will see a different situation, you are mistaken.
|> The same guys will ally again and you'll face the AOO the next time.
|> Perhaps they wont have the chance to deal that much in private with Rich this
|> time ?

The only reason the AOO survived let alone thrived was because of
	the lack of a smart unified oposition early on in the game.  That
	kind of situation is unlikely to happen in a second game.  Besides
	which you might find that having 'won' a game together they prefer
	fighting each other next time.  A little more challenge.

|>
|> For others to remember: We all pay the same game fee (at least i hope so) and
|> therefor should be treated equally.

And exactly when have people been treated differently?

|>
|> Why was BTA allowed to keep and Artifact( Auraculum) more powerfull than othrs ?

Because he created it under the origional rules?

|>
|> Why wasnt all other potential Auraculum forgers told so ?

All potential auraculum forgers find out what they can do from the
	lore sheet.  It would have been unfair of Rich to change the
	auraculum of BtA once he forged it with particular powers in mind.
	Likewise Rich saw a problem and changed it so that it wouldn't
	cause such in the future.

What exactly _is_ the difference between the First Auraculum and
	the modern immitations anyway?  I'm curious...

|> Greetings
|> Martin Brumm aka. Marco& Polo(the latter an Aurablasted Auraculum holder, cuase BTA got the notice that Polo was forging an Auraculum, to my knowledge that power was canceled from all the later Auraculii)

Are you _sure_ about this?

Bill speaking for Merlinium the grey and definitly not for Rich.

References

Olympia - Time for G2?
Rob Rodgers <rrodgers@unex.ucla.edu>
Mon, 25 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia gripes
Mark Hendrickson <eahg128@rigel.oac.uci.edu>
Sat, 25 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia gripes
tandmb@sierra.net (Tony Baldacci)
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia gripes
brumm@wcpj2.chemie.uni-wuppertal.de (Martin Brumm)
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000