Re: Olympia Gripes

From: morrow@newton.texel.com (John Morrow)

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000

wbruvold@weber.ucsd.edu (William Bruvold) writes:
>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.

The only time I've ever seen a solid resistence willing to die for a
cause was in the first playtest.  That was because Dr. Pain made no
secret of the fact that he was hostile, offensive, and out to kill
anyone who got in his way.  There was no doubt that he was the bad guy
and I'd suggest he lost largely because he role-played himself into a
bad position (admirable in my eyes).  I believe a similar alliance was
formed earlier in that playtest to take out another "mad dog" player.
Perhaps if the AOO announced, clearly and distinctly, that they were
going to start systematically wiping out all other factions (start
with the first one on the player list or pick randomly) within a turn
or two, the other players would take them seriously and band together.
How about it, guys?

Of course it doesn't help that two or more of the "police men" from
that first playtest are in the AOO along with BtA and Dr. Pain.
Maybe that would be the straw...

>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.

There has been quite a bit of combat against the AOO, including the
IN attack and the little dog that killed BtA early in the game.  My
own small alliance committed suicide trying to attack the AOO castle
in Faery while it was still relatively undefended (we literally
stumbled upon another AOO army that handily wiped out our entire
alliance's army and some borrowed forces).  Just take a look at the
restarts and shifts in standing for evidence of failed attacks.

>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)

Many people will need a reason to attack the AOO in force.  Threatened
genocide is a good motivation that has worked before if the AOO wants
to be bothered writing the orders to start the extermination and risk
players who can't deal with it cross-gaming later on.  It might make
the game more interesting for everyone and settle the issue once and
for all.

>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.

Several things to ponder:

1) "Scrying/Visions"
2) "Farcast/Aura Blast" (does this still work?)
3) "Faery"
4) "Hades"
5) "Teleport" (with or without stealth)

I'd suspect (and have suspected for some time) that the AOO can get
anoyone in a matter of game months once they figure out where someone
is.  It is only a matter of making them want to do so.  If they had to
raise and support (i.e. pay for beasts) an army, build ships, sail
them up to an enemy, and attack, you would have a point.  But there
are just too many ways for them to quickly bring large amounts of
force to bear, any place in the world.  And the combat system doesn't
take into account many factors that would make them easier to handle
in the real world.

>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.

There are other things the AOO can do -- like simply march an army up
to a castle via Faery.  Remember that they can find out where you are.
It is just a matter of writing the orders.

> 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.

If the AOO really wants a challenge, they should just turn "mad dog
killer" and see if people can muster enough force to stop them.
Otherwise, you won't get the rest of the players to do much to stop
them.  Even the first playtest alliance crumbled once the Dr. Pain
threat was over.  Only when faced with death will the rest of the
players ally.

>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.

As someone who has dropped, I didn't do so because I didn't want to
be in an open-ended game.  I did so (A) because my alliance was
destroyed, (B) I realized I wouldn't be able to rebuild anything
like it in the current climate of the game, and (C) I realized that
a certain alliance was powerful enough to wipe out *any* faction it
felt like wiping out.  In short, if I played any longer, it would
be at the whim of the AOO who could turn my faction off any time it
wanted to.  While I don't mind loosing in a fair fight, I don't find
a constant threat (real or potential) of instant extermination very fun.

>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."

As charter member of the "Start G2 Already" club and not a member
of the AOO, I'd like to point out that it was AOO members who argued
against me early on.  They were the ones claiming it wasn't a "done
deal" until recently.  If the AOO "loses", it will only be because the
players have lost interest in writing efficient orders or they have
dropped out.

My position is actually that Rich should start G2 and keep G1 running,
providing some sort of discount for players who want to play both
games.  The players who find G1 a done deal or boring will drop,
leaving big holes for other players to romp in.  G2 will give Rich the
opportunity to fix holes without messing up established players.
There are still things you can do in "G1", with or without the AOO.
But I think the flaws (which were only partially patched) are huge
enough that G1 will be forever broken to some degree, at least as far
as I'm concerned.

>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.

But Oly stabilized at less than 200 players.  You can't force people
to play.  I'm starting to think that G2 should have no more than 1000
land squares -- 5 squares each (not counting interior locations and
cities) for the 200 players Olypia can rasonably be expected to
attract.  And cities should only teach two skills each.  That way,
players should need to fight for room and control of cities will be
important.  The current map is so big that, as other people have
pointed out there is little players need to fight over.  Perhaps 1000
land on a 50 X 50 map (2500 total squares, 40% land) or a 60 X 50 map
(3000 total squares, 33% land) would do it.  It would certainly be
easier to map if the world was no wider than 75 or so squares. :-)

For this to work, it would also help if Oly regained some more of its
non-combat flavor such as the Entertainment skill, so players wouldn't
have to control land to pay the bills.  And I still think some
protection for non-combat factions would help role-players have more
fun without worrying that death lies behind every turn.  And make
things take a little longer to do and there might actually be a market
for nobles hiring out other nobles instead of everyone doing
everything by themselves.  Something else to toss on the pile of
possible fixes.

>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.

Many of the G1 players are veterans of the Olypia playest as well as
playtests for other similar games (e.g. Atlantis).  They (we) took
what they learned and applied it to the next game.  I realize you
are paying good money here, unlike a playtest, but I wouldn't call
it wasted time.  And G1 certainly isn't going to end for a few
months and, as far as I know, Rich will keep it going even after
G2.  If you enjoy it, keep playing.

>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.

Sure there is.  If G2 eliminates or cuts back rapid transit and
long-range spotting and attacks (including free armies), an alliance
like the AOO becomes a local problem, not a global one.  It becomes
much harder to attack anyone from afar when you need to load an army
that you are paying for into a ship and have to move them
conventionally.  Tack on some legitimate benefits to defending and you
would need a mighty big and powerful alliance to take over the world.
Watch "The Final Countdown" for a good illustration of the absolute
superiority of long range detection and attack.

>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.

That isn't the only problem.  Honest.  The problem is making magic
powerful, interesting, and desirable without having it break the game.
Perhaps more magic of the "Raise Magical Barrier"/"Lower Magical
Barrier" where each magic has an accessible defense would help.

>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.

I'm not in the game right now.  I'm *waiting* for G2 because I hope it
will fix many of the problems that appeared so quickly in G1.  I don't
like rapid transit and long range spying unless it is very restricted
(e.g. teleport self, a few fixed gates, etc.).  Have you ever been
in Faery?  I have.  It isn't big enough for more than one alliance
and it's quite a powerful little holding.

>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.

I'd like Rich to do that, too.  But remember he is human.  He has a
day job, a life, a wife (contrary to rumors posted earlier :-), and
other concerns.  Olympia represents a huge investment in time and
effort for him as do any changes needed to start G2.  Play G1 until
you hear differently.  I'd suspect you won't see a G2 until early next
year, even if Rich made it a priority, since he would need to finalize
the rule changes, code them, and test them.  In the meantime, the AOO
can announce a genocidal war against all non-AOO factions and make the
game interesting again.  I might even be tempted to restart for that.
:-)

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

You were too polite and even made a few good points.  Try being
obnoxious and unreasonable if you want flames...

John Morrow

References

Re: Olympia Gripes
wbruvold@weber.ucsd.edu (William Bruvold)
Tue, 28 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Olympia - Time for G2?
Rob Rodgers <rrodgers@unex.ucla.edu>
Mon, 25 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000