Re: Olympia gripes

From: sjc@mcs.kent.EDU (Steve Chapin)

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:
}}
}} The same guys will ally again and you'll face the AOO
}} the next time.

Quite possibly, but this time everyone will know how awful the AOO is,
and will be on guard against the AOO.  Gadzooks, they might even
cooperate and come out ahead!

}} Perhaps they wont have the chance to deal that much
}} in private with Rich this time ?

I think you're confusing things.  Many AOO members were players in the
original playtest (the REAL Oly I; this is Oly II, game 1) and also in
the Oly II playtest.  They put in hours of player time making finding
bugs, exploring corners of the code, and making suggestions to have
Oly II be more playable.

I know for a fact that Rich carefully considers every suggestion made
to change the game, but there has to be a sound and logical line of
reason indicating why a game feature should be changed (this is
separate from bug fixing; Rich will fix bugs immediately, if you point
out how the semantics of the game don't match the rules), and then
only if it reason is quite substantive.  He does not believe in
tinkering on the fly with a running game, because of the affects on
players and their strategies.

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

I think I know, but I'll leave it to Rich or Carl to tell their own
stories.

}} Why wasnt all other potential Auraculum forgers told so ?

Told what?

sjc@mcs.kent.edu               Steve Chapin              Today's Usage Lesson:
     It's a wise dog that scratches its own fleas. (William Strunk, Jr.)

"But Doctor...I *am* Pagliacci..." (The Comedian, in "Watchmen")

References

Olympia - Time for G2?
Rob Rodgers <rrodgers@unex.ucla.edu>
Mon, 25 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000