Re: Olympia Gripes

From: wbruvold@weber.ucsd.edu (William Bruvold)

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.951127154641.14991B-100000@arcturus.oac.uci.edu>,
Mark Hendrickson  <eahg128@arcturus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>Gentlemen:
>
>	Russel writes:
>
>"If you mean, why don't we start fighting each other, the answer is that
>we'd prefer to regard the game as having reached a conclusion than start
>fighting our allies."
>
>	Well, in an open ended game you can certainly quit whenever you
>feel you're no longer enjoying it.  But to declare the game "concluded"
>simply because you & your friends quit is amazingly self-centered & unless
>you're more persuasive than I think you will be, totally wrong.  Jesus, the
>entire game doesn't revolve around your little cliq!  >:(
>

1.  Why G1 continues to live

(note that the AOO is a reference to the vocal members of that group
calling for g2 and proclaiming "the end" to g1.  I realize that many
members of the alliance do not feel that way).

I also do not believe that the AOO has "won" the game.
Given the nature of growth in olympia, there is no way that an
alliance of even 30 players could "control everything" when their
opponents number over 120.  As Carl and Berry have
posted ad nausem, the AOO is a very loose alliance.  We have yet to
see (and I believe we still will) a concentrated attack on one or
two of the most offensive AOO members.  Only that would be a good
test of the alliance's viability in the later part of the game.
I think given some recent postings there are a number of candidates
who could be possible targets.  The real issue would be at that
point whether the AOO comes to the rescue of an alliance member,
collapses, or something else.  Frankly, a couple of attacks on 2
members would test the mettle of the AOO (and make for a much more
interesting Winter and Fall)

Furthermore, the AOO's claim that it can "eliminate all other
players at will" rings hollow.  There are vast areas in which the
AOO has no presence or is the weakest presence in the area.
Furthermore, there are other regions in which the local AOO member
has declared his opposition to the aggressive tactics practiced by
certain other members of the alliance and is probably not a reliable
alliance members.  Given time, a player
can have his mage learn AAB and breed enough beasts to withstand the
stealth/teleport attack.  At that point,
the faction becomes much more difficult for AOO/BtA to eliminate.
That is, I believe, the stage we soon will reach for many of the
"middle echelon" non-AOO factions.  Alliances of non-AOO members
have reached that point.

If the AOO really wants to prove
it can "seize everything worth controling" I suggest it does the
following -- put a noble in every city that teaches beastmastery and
seize every bark producing grove and then start eliminating
beastmasters.  Given the current game dynamics, that is really the
only "test" that a faction can "control everything worth owning".
Indeed, that would be an "interesting" goal for the AOO.

I agree that for established players, Olympia can grow boring.  I
have been with the game since turn 1 and I also contemplated
dropping (untill I actually read and tried to understand the Oddyses
rules).  So like other open ended games, I figured I had to try to
come up with a goal.  I got a number of medium and long term ones
but in the short term I am cleaning out the remaining hidden
locations in my area.  The people agitating for the relaunch forget
that they signed up for a "open ended" game.  If they didn't
anticipate that it would be an open ended game, they should have
saved their money and should shut up about relaunch.

2.The Problems with g2 discussions

But the real danger is the AOO is influencing beliefs and
expectations to kill the game because _they_ want a restart.
Essentially, if they can convince enough listeners that the game has
"ended" and g2 is starting soon, they discourage new sign ups ("why
don't I just wait to start in a new world on equal footing") and
encourage drops ("save 2.50 a week since it will be starting soon").
Furthermore, the individual position does not want to be late in
dropping as it means his money gets wasted on a game that has
"died."

Olympia _has_ to have a critical mass of players to survive.  The
map is simply too large to work without well over 100 players.  200
or 300 is probably better.  That is the only way that local
conflicts can arise, making at least that part of the game
interesting.

Who this really hurts are players that signed up between turn 35
and turn 50.  They have dumped money into the game, begun to develop
their positions, probably are starting to feel like they have
learned the basics of writing a good order sheet and developing a
position and now the game will be depopulated.

3.  Would G2 be any different (or will we be discussion g3 before
too long)?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that g2 will end any
differently.  Even if the new grouping meets stiffer opposition
in the new game, eventually it too will be able to eliminate its
nearest rival.  At that point, won't it feel that the game is
"over"?  Unless the allies turn on one another (something current
AOO members discount), they will call for another relaunch.

4.  Some concrete suggestions.

A) ttransfer of noblesshould be made
impossible in g1 ASAP. Even
though there are players like Carl who have "done it all" and have
grown tired, their nobles will continue to exist.  As has been
posted here before, better that BtA cease to exist rather than have
him consolidated with another player (and thus eliminate the
possibility that conflict could break out between Carl and the would
be transferee).  Perhaps some compensation can be made to players
that have made potions of slavery.  Without that "fix" the game
really does have problems.

B)  If the large factions in the current game can not be encouraged
to stay and Rich wants to satisfy their demands for a gaming
experience, I suggest that he sets up a game called "Battle for
Mount Olympus"  It would be a _closed_ ended game, with victory
conditions, and be restricted to 20 players.  Map would be much
smaller, the AOO would have its opportunity to play a closed ended
war game, and it would not "suck off" too many players.  Meanwhile,
g1 could continue to go along, with some interesting scramble for
the vacated land, and probably some more interesting politics out of
gamers more in tune with the nature of open ended gaming.

C)  Rich needs to make a decision on what he is going to do,
announce it, and stick to it.  That way the problems in g1 that are
associated with anticipation of the launch of g2 can be put to
rest.

Well that is more fodder for flames that I should fill up band width
with.

Erik

References

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

Referenced By

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