Re: Olympia and Game Theory (LONG)

From: srt@sun-dimas.aero.org (Scott Turner)

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000

whalen@stromboli.usc.edu (Tim Whalen) writes:
>C. Rethinking Faerie, Cloudlands and Hades to discourage the "warp zone"
>   concept.  These should be places that anybody *can* get to but that
>   nobody can reasonably aspire to "control"  Restrict access absolutely
>   to nobles and non-combat items.  (No recruiting, teleporting, breeding,
>   capturing, etc.)  Access from Olympia should be dynamic (i.e. locations
>   of faerie hills, mountain under Cloudlands, GYs with Hades access
>   changes every other game year or something...)

The argument here is "there shouldn't exist any powerful thing in the
game that any particular faction (or group) can control" -- presumably
because it is "unfair" to the factions that don't control it.  I think
that's a silly argument.

First, having powerful things to struggle for is part of the fun of a
multiplayer PBEM like Olympia.  Too much of the "design discussion"
about Olympia seems to run along the lines of "I find myself on the
short end of this stick in G1, so let's eliminate that stick."  If you
don't own a castle and have a bunch of garrisoned land you're at a
much more severe disadvantage in Oly than if you don't have access to
Faerie; should we therefore cry out for the elimination of castles?

Second, what does "control" mean?  The only way to "control" anything
in Oly is through force of arms.  If Faerie is really such a powerful
and great thing, why doesn't someone take it away from whoever is
currently "controlling" it?  It's no different than any other set of
regions in Oly.

-- Scott T.

References

Re: Olympia and Game Theory (LONG)
whalen@stromboli.usc.edu (Tim Whalen)
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Olympia and Game Theory (LONG)
whalen@stromboli.usc.edu (Tim Whalen)
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000