ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #47

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Errors to csd@microplex.com
Now there should be a digest whenever (a) there are 10 emails
or (b) whenever there is an email waiting for more than 48 hours
for a digest to be completed.
So don't get worried if the digest has only 1 or 2 emails, that
just means the list has been slow.
(I hope it works)
If you want previous versions, they are available via WWW at
http://www.microplex.com/~csd/atlantisv2/
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 09:14:19 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Atl: Economic Changes

--Boundary-13047325-0-0

Hi,

Sorry I've been somewhat absent here; I'm working hard on
Atlantis 3. Luckily, the auto-turn system is working like
a charm, and running the game has become quite easy. If
any of you ever run a PBEM game, make sure it's fully
automated!

]Are we likely to see any of the proposed economic system changes implemented
]in
]the playtest?  (After all, shouldn't we playtest them before you decide to
]implement them wholesale in Atl 3?)

Well, since they don't really fit in with the current game, I
was just going to throw them into Atl 3. Really, I can't see
anything going _too_ wrong, as anything to improve trade is
a good thing.

]As a full Trade faction, I'm speaking mainly of the proposed town/city
]growth/decline function from trading in the NPC markets, since this would
]make me more useful in the eyes of my War allies.  But the food ideas, etc.,
]should also be playtested, to find out their real impact.

It would be nice. But, it would be a ton of work to try to
work that into the current game. Far more than just implementing
it for the new game.

]I'd also like to see some price fluctuation (rather than quantity) based on
]supply and demand.  For now, for instance, no one is ever going to buy
]certain things from cites (i.e. definitely not fish and furs), since they
]aren't useful, and cost more than they can sold for at other cities  (it's
]unlikely that useful things will be bought at the high prices as well, but
]the possibility exists, given their usefulness).  Given the current economic
]system, there's no potential profit in player caravans from one city to
]another
](which is probably something that should exist in an open-ended game that
]promotes activites besides war and war-preparation.)  If it were
]possible to buy low, move, and sell high, it would provide something to do
]besides constantly preparing for war (and if it resulted in long-term
]economic growth for the areas, War factions would have an interest in
]_promoting and protecting_ foreign traders, rather than the current
]incentive to keep out everyone who is not an ally.)

Yes, this would be nice. Wait for Atl 3!

]And, of course, there's the ever popular hue and cry for some kind of
]auction-like bidding system.

I'm curious now that the game has gone on for a bit- it this
really an important feature for anyone except those poor souls
stuck in Atlantis City?

]Just wanting to find out what you are working on....

Atlantis 3, Atlantis 3, Atlantis 3. Oh yeah, I have a full
time job too. :)

Geoff

--Boundary-13047325-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 17 Sep 1995 07:40:48                    Sent: 17 Sep 1995 07:40:28
From:"owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net,atlantis@rahul.net
Subject: Atl: Economic Changes
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
X-Orcl-Application: Organization:  Heller Information Services, Inc.
X-Orcl-Application: X-Mailer:  TBBS/TIGER v1.0

To get some discussion going here again:

Geoff,

Are we likely to see any of the proposed economic system changes implemented in
the playtest?  (After all, shouldn't we playtest them before you decide to
implement them wholesale in Atl 3?)

As a full Trade faction, I'm speaking mainly of the proposed town/city
growth/decline function from trading in the NPC markets, since this would
make me more useful in the eyes of my War allies.  But the food ideas, etc.,
should also be playtested, to find out their real impact.

I'd also like to see some price fluctuation (rather than quantity) based on
supply and demand.  For now, for instance, no one is ever going to buy
certain things from cites (i.e. definitely not fish and furs), since they
aren't useful, and cost more than they can sold for at other cities  (it's
unlikely that useful things will be bought at the high prices as well, but
the possibility exists, given their usefulness).  Given the current economic
system, there's no potential profit in player caravans from one city to another
(which is probably something that should exist in an open-ended game that
promotes activites besides war and war-preparation.)  If it were
possible to buy low, move, and sell high, it would provide something to do
besides constantly preparing for war (and if it resulted in long-term
economic growth for the areas, War factions would have an interest in
_promoting and protecting_ foreign traders, rather than the current
incentive to keep out everyone who is not an ally.)

And, of course, there's the ever popular hue and cry for some kind of
auction-like bidding system.

Just wanting to find out what you are working on....

--Boundary-13047325-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Hesidence <hesiden@Stoner.COM>
Subject: Atlantis: proposal for another flag
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 09:22:49 -0500 (CDT)

I know your thinking we don't need YAF (yet another flag).  However I
 keep running into situations where I need more control of how my
 forces automaticly react.  For example,

\__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/
   /  \__/  \__/  \__/1 \__/  \__/  \
   \__/  \__/  \__/A \__/2 \__/  \__/
   /  \__/  \__/  \__/B \__/  \__/  \
   \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/
   /  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \

Say I have have many men in regions A and B, but only a single
scouts in regions 1 and 2.  If I'm attacked in region 1 I get
defenders to help from both regions A and B.  This is good
as it brings all my forces into battle.

If I'm attacked in region 2 only the men from region B come to help,
so if I have my tactian/magic items/whatever in region A I don't
want to come to the aid of a single scout/thief/whatever or if I don't
think region B can handle the threat alone.  If I use the hold flag
on region B then they don't come to the help in region 1 where I want
them.  If I don't put anyone in region 2 then I have a blind spot for
people to sneak up on me.

I think a better flag than HOLD would be a NOAID flag where if set
none of your (or your allies) forces would come to their defense in battle.
This would also be nice for thieves assuming the victims didn't quite
have a high enough observation to see who was stealing from them.

So I guess this doesn't add a new flag, just replace the HOLD flag
with something more flexable.  Well I guess there is no reason to
get rid of the HOLD flag I've just never used it.  Has anyone?  Would
a NOAID flag have work as well or better?

----------------------------------------------------------
From: yaj@cc.gatech.edu (Jay Luo)
Subject: Re: Atlantis: proposal for another flag
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:34:39 -0400 (EDT)

I'd like to second the proposal for a noaid flag.  It is far too easy to
lure just the forces from one hex into joining a losing battle by attacking
outlying scouts.  Much of my recent war strategy has been to assault a
lone scout in a hex adjacent to just one enemy hex, but adjacent to three
or four friendly-controlled hexes; this tricks the garrison of the enemy
hex into fighting a much larger force.  This doesn't make a lot of in-game
sense, though; my armies shouldn't be attacking lone scouts 300-1, they
should be attacking enemy-held positions.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 19:22:42 -0400
From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy)
Subject: Re: Atl: Economic Changes

Re: auctions and bidding

I think there is still a good use for it... Rare items, such as magical
items you make once a month, would be well served by a auction/bidding
system, where you specific a minimum bid, and the highest bid over that
lower limit takes it. Maybe not real important, but still nice.

- Atlantis 3, Atlantis 3, Atlantis 3. Oh yeah, I have a full
 - time job too. :)

Why, Atlantis 3 should _be_ your full time job. ;)
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 07:02:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian P Enright <bpest1+@pitt.edu>
Subject: Limited players

Hi,

I'm not on this list but I have some things to say and this seemed a good
place.

1) As far as limiting the number of players in Atlantis 3.0, for which I
have seen some support for lately (I read the design digest that gets
posted to rec.games.pbm) I have to say I'm against this.  That would make
for a perfectly fine close ended game, but not a good open ended one.  If
the game is closed and no one new is allowed in, then how will the the
players that drop out be replaced?  Of course, you could limit the number
of positions and only allow new players in when a position opened or
something similar, but I don't think it will be neccessary.  Atlantis 3.0
will never have the 500+ factions that this game has, simply because it
will be a pay game, and so fewer people will join, and those that do join
but don't do well right away will be more likely to drop out.  Look at
Olympia, despite being around in its current form for twice as long as
Atlantis 2.0 its never gotten bigger than 200 or so players.  Personally,
I think that Atlantis 3.0 has a chance to do better than Olympia, but I
still can't see it having as many players as this game (or if it ever
did, certainly not as fast).

2) I agree with the previous mails about being able to buy low and
sell high in different cities.  Perhaps only trade factions could issue
the sell order so that not everybody could profit from this.  If a war
faction picked up some items as spoils it would have to either use them
or find someone to sell them for it.  Also, I think adding some other
items, perhaps ones that could not be produced but certain cities would
buy and sell, or that could be used to increase the power of magic or
trade factions (currently all the items are useless or benefit war
factions primarily, with the exception of wagons and horses) would make a
better economic system.

3) It seems that more and more Creatures (2) are appearing, and I must
say I like this.  I would like to see more of this in Atlantis 3.0, it
might change the land rush mentality that this game currently has toward
unexplored land.  Also, I think player units should be able to enter
lairs.  Not that lairs should be seperate taxable hexes like shafts,
perhaps just special kind of structures, so you couldn't see what is in
them before you enter and you couldn't get support from any troops in the
hex, just those who enter the lair. Perhaps monsters would automatically
attack anyone who enters a lair. That would make it so you would have
to be pretty sure (or foolish) before entering one.  Of course, there
would have to be a reason for a person to enter, as in the possability of
some nice spoils, but this could certainly vary from lair to lair (in
some you might get nothing while in others you could get some vary nice
things indeed).  I think including lairs in the game would give the war
factions (myself included) something to do besides tax and beat up on each
other and the city guard, and make Atlantis something less of a wargame
(nothing against wargames, but they don't make the best open ended games).

4) I'm not a magic faction, so I don't know if anything like this exists
now, but how about a Control Creature spell.  Sort of like Summon Tree Men,
but you would have to find a creature first (can't be used on creatures
in lairs, as this would make it too predictable).  Definitaly a high
level spell, one level 5 foundation or more perferably two.  A mage would
have to be in the same hex as a creature and hope that it didn't
attack before the spell was cast.  Once you had a creature, it would stay
loyal to your faction until it died or you gave it away.  Creatures could
not be trained in skills or tax, and they would have to be paid for in
maintance (one green giant would need as much as 5 ldrs or something
similar). The problem I see with this right now is that it would have to
be a month long spell, and MOVE is processed before CAST, so you couldn't
be sure if the creature would still be in the same hex when the spell is
cast, but perhaps something could be done with this.  Basically, I really
like the idea (though I'm sure there are plenty of you who don't), but I'd
like to see it hard to obtain and an adventure to use.  I have no desire to
see the problems of Beastmastery repeated in Atlantis (for those of you who
have played Olympia, as I know Geoff has).

Brian Enright
bpest1+@pitt.edu
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 10:15:08 -0400
From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy)
Subject: Re: Limited players

- Atlantis 3.0 will never have the 500+ factions that this game has, simply
 - because it will be a pay game, and so fewer people will join, and those
 - that do join but don't do well right away will be more likely to drop out.
 - Look at Olympia, despite being around in its current form for twice as
 - long as Atlantis 2.0 its never gotten bigger than 200 or so players.
 - Personally, I think that Atlantis 3.0 has a chance to do better than
 - Olympia, but I still can't see it having as many players as this game
 - (or if it ever did, certainly not as fast).

BZZT! Olympia is what, $2.50/turn or something similar? At the least it's
$1.50/turn, and that is just outrageous. Geoff has said before that he
plans to keep Atlantis low cost. I'd thought a lot about it, and Atlantis
could get really big, really fast. Imagine if turns are $.50/turn, and you
play in a game that is one a week. That's only $26/year! Even _I_ would
pay for that, and I've been long opposed to pay PBeM games. (Because the
PBeM games always sell out to PBM firms, that feel $2.50/turn is reasonable...
It's NOT.)

Say half of the ~1000 people that have tried 2.0 join. That's already $13K/year,
which isn't bad to start... Over the first 6 months or so, I would imagine
Atlantis could grow to 1000 players easily. With some good advertising and
marketing, I think Atlantis 3.0 could really dominate the commercial PBeM
scene... And in so doing, you can run multiple, smaller 500 player games,
larger openended no-limit games, etc etc. Geoff had mentioned running
Atlantis 1.0 wargames at some point, and that'd be cool to for some people. :)
On top of that, some people might want to play in 2 or more games, and some
people might prefer or 2 or 3 moves a week game....

All in all, I think Atlantis 3.0 can become a great success, and should
be able to blow Olympia's userbase away in the first month or so. Once
3.0 hits 2000 players playing a single game, once a week, it's proftable
enough tha Geoff could even make Atlantis his full time job. (Perhaps
write other games, or make multiple versions of Atlantis 3.0 for wargames,
or something... Closed games with set victory conditions. Maybe a prize to
the winner. :) )

Anyways, it is NOT a given that 3.0 will have a very small userbase, nor
will it take a long time to surpass Olympia's userbase... I honestly
believe Atlantis 3.0 could pull in 500+ users in the first month, and if
some good marketing is done, maybe 5000 users within the first year. Just
depends on the time and money Geoff wants to invest I think. :)

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:56:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian P Enright <bpest1+@pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Limited players

On Thu, 21 Sep 1995, Jonathan Roy wrote:

> BZZT!

Can't say I'm familar with this sound.

Olympia is what, $2.50/turn or something similar

$2.50

? At the least it's
> $1.50/turn, and that is just outrageous. Geoff has said before that he
> plans to keep Atlantis low cost

Well, perhaps you you have information that I don't, but $2.50 a turn is
generally considered low cost, considering you might pay $20 a turn on a
PBM (usually at least two weeks to a turn) or $5.00 a turn on a game like
Odessey.  Still, this is really all specualtion until Geoff comes up with
a price.

I'd thought a lot about it, and Atlantis
> could get really big, really fast. Imagine if turns are $.50/turn, and you
> play in a game that is one a week. That's only $26/year! Even _I_ would
> pay for that, and I've been long opposed to pay PBeM games. (Because the
> PBeM games always sell out to PBM firms, that feel $2.50/turn is reasonable...
> It's NOT.)

If the market will bear the price, then it is reasonable, at least
according to the price theory of market allocation.  Those who are
willing to pay the price participate, and those who aren't don't.  As long as
enough people are willing to participte at the given price to support the
company, and other companies don't bid the price down, the price is
reasonable.  Of course, if Geoff set a price of say $0.50 a turn and was
successful at it, he probably would bring the accetable price down, and
other e-mail games, or at least other open ended fanatsy games (since
different e-mail games are imperfect substitutes) would have to follow suit.

>
> Say half of the ~1000 people that have tried 2.0 join.

Not quite this many considering the game was closed around faction 970 or
so, and a fair number of restarts would be included in that number.
Still, not too far off, I'd figure about 800 or 850.

That's already $13K/year,
> which isn't bad to start... Over the first 6 months or so, I would imagine
> Atlantis could grow to 1000 players easily. With some good advertising and
> marketing, I think Atlantis 3.0 could really dominate the commercial PBeM
> scene... And in so doing, you can run multiple, smaller 500 player games,
> larger openended no-limit games, etc etc. Geoff had mentioned running
> Atlantis 1.0 wargames at some point, and that'd be cool to for some people. :)
> On top of that, some people might want to play in 2 or more games, and some
> people might prefer or 2 or 3 moves a week game....
>
> All in all, I think Atlantis 3.0 can become a great success, and should
> be able to blow Olympia's userbase away in the first month or so. Once
> 3.0 hits 2000 players playing a single game, once a week, it's proftable
> enough tha Geoff could even make Atlantis his full time job. (Perhaps
> write other games, or make multiple versions of Atlantis 3.0 for wargames,
> or something... Closed games with set victory conditions. Maybe a prize to
> the winner. :) )
>
> Anyways, it is NOT a given that 3.0 will have a very small userbase, nor
> will it take a long time to surpass Olympia's userbase...

While I did say that I thought it was likely that Atlantis 3.0 would not
gain as many players as 2.0 has, I never said it would take a long time
to surpass Olympia's.  My thought was that for an open ended commercial
PBeM game it would probably gain most of it's customers in the beginning
with it leveling off after a while (though I could be completely wrong
about this), as I believe Olympia has done.

I honestly
> believe Atlantis 3.0 could pull in 500+ users in the first month, and if
> some good marketing is done, maybe 5000 users within the first year. Just
> depends on the time and money Geoff wants to invest I think. :)
>

Well, even if I consede all of this to you, and there's certainly a
chance you're absolutly right, this dosen't affect my original point, which
is why I brought this up in the first place. That a game which is
supposed to be open ended should not complelty close itself to new
members, as this type of policy is much better suited to close ended war
games.  Even if none of the original players dropped out (hardly likely)
to let no new players in would limit growth, especially in the field of
magic where the limit on expansion comes into play fairly early (whether
it's 5 or 7 mages).  As existing war factions begin to fully exploit the
tax base of their area, and conquer cities they become much more able to
support large numbers of magic allies.  But there are other options for
new players also, I got in just before 2.0 closed, and I've been able to
setup as a war/trade faction in a region that was almost uninhabited.  As
long as new players can reach new land, whether through rotating exits or
free longboats, or can cut deals alliances, they should be let in.  Sure,
some of them will have problems getting setup, but so did some of the
original factions .  A quick glance at the player list shows that factions
4 through 13 or 14 are no longer in existance.

Brian Enright
bpest1+@pitt.edu
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 08:28:57 -0700
From: Bruce Onder <bonder@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Limited players

At 10:15 AM 9/21/95 -0400, Jonathan Roy wrote:
>BZZT! Olympia is what, $2.50/turn or something similar? At the least it's
>$1.50/turn, and that is just outrageous.

How come?  That's $10 a month.  Even a college student should be able to
part with a couple six packs a month to play.

>Geoff has said before that he
>plans to keep Atlantis low cost.

That doesn't mean low cost relative to Olympia.

>I'd thought a lot about it, and Atlantis
>could get really big, really fast.

Yeah, and the potential headaches from having many more players coulod get
really big, really fast too.

>Imagine if turns are $.50/turn, and you
>play in a game that is one a week. That's only $26/year! Even _I_ would
>pay for that, and I've been long opposed to pay PBeM games. (Because the
>PBeM games always sell out to PBM firms, that feel $2.50/turn is reasonable...
>It's NOT.)

It's perfectly reasonable to me.  There are commercial games out there that
don't offer as much, IMO, that tack on all sorts of extra fees.  The cost of
a weekly turn could easily be $10.

>Say half of the ~1000 people that have tried 2.0 join. That's already
$13K/year,
>which isn't bad to start...

Right, but if only 200 people join at $2.50 per turn, that's already $24,000.

>And in so doing, you can run multiple, smaller 500 player games,
>larger openended no-limit games, etc etc. Geoff had mentioned running
>Atlantis 1.0 wargames at some point, and that'd be cool to for some people. :)
>On top of that, some people might want to play in 2 or more games, and some
>people might prefer or 2 or 3 moves a week game....

This does make sense.  I've actually suggested to others that a game should
have a "light" version that's cheaper but less full-featured, and a "pro"
:-) version that has more features and otherwise "rewards" the higher-paying
player.

>Anyways, it is NOT a given that 3.0 will have a very small userbase, nor
>will it take a long time to surpass Olympia's userbase... I honestly
>believe Atlantis 3.0 could pull in 500+ users in the first month, and if
>some good marketing is done, maybe 5000 users within the first year. Just
>depends on the time and money Geoff wants to invest I think. :)

On the one hand you seem to be implying that Geoff should sink his own money
into marketing a game you currently have enjoyed for free, and then also
offer you a price you happen to think is reasonable.  Geoff could outprice
Olympia and I would certainly not complain about paying only .50 per turn.
OTOH, I am not going to say that $2.50 per turn is unreasoanble, because
it's not.

IMO.

Bruce Onder               | We write and design games.
Digital Arcana            |
310.519.5993              | Ask us about our interactive lemurs.
                          | Or don't.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 11:19:42 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Limited players

--Boundary-13170205-0-0

]1) As far as limiting the number of players in Atlantis 3.0, for which I
]have seen some support for lately (I read the design digest that gets
]posted to rec.games.pbm) I have to say I'm against this.  That would make
]for a perfectly fine close ended game, but not a good open ended one.  If
]the game is closed and no one new is allowed in, then how will the the
]players that drop out be replaced?  Of course, you could limit the number
]of positions and only allow new players in when a position opened or
]something similar, but I don't think it will be neccessary.  Atlantis 3.0
]will never have the 500+ factions that this game has, simply because it
]will be a pay game, and so fewer people will join, and those that do join
]but don't do well right away will be more likely to drop out.  Look at
]Olympia, despite being around in its current form for twice as long as
]Atlantis 2.0 its never gotten bigger than 200 or so players.  Personally,
]I think that Atlantis 3.0 has a chance to do better than Olympia, but I
]still can't see it having as many players as this game (or if it ever
]did, certainly not as fast).

I have decided against limiting the number of players in Atlantis
3.0, for a couple of reasons. The first is as above; I kind of doubt
that there will be as many players in A3 as there are in A2. The
second is that hopefully new players will be dealt with better.

]2) I agree with the previous mails about being able to buy low and
]sell high in different cities.  Perhaps only trade factions could issue
]the sell order so that not everybody could profit from this.  If a war
]faction picked up some items as spoils it would have to either use them
]or find someone to sell them for it.  Also, I think adding some other
]items, perhaps ones that could not be produced but certain cities would
]buy and sell, or that could be used to increase the power of magic or
]trade factions (currently all the items are useless or benefit war
]factions primarily, with the exception of wagons and horses) would make a
]better economic system.

All of this is planned for A3. Regarding the only trade factions can
sell, I was going to do that a little differently; only trade factions
can buy trade items. This does not include swords, iron, etc, but only
the useless items that can be moved to make money. The rationale is
that if a war faction attacks and defeats someone with trade items
(player or monster), he should be allowed to sell the goods.

]3) It seems that more and more Creatures (2) are appearing, and I must
]say I like this.  I would like to see more of this in Atlantis 3.0, it
]might change the land rush mentality that this game currently has toward
]unexplored land.  Also, I think player units should be able to enter
]lairs.  Not that lairs should be seperate taxable hexes like shafts,
]perhaps just special kind of structures, so you couldn't see what is in
]them before you enter and you couldn't get support from any troops in the
]hex, just those who enter the lair. Perhaps monsters would automatically
]attack anyone who enters a lair. That would make it so you would have
]to be pretty sure (or foolish) before entering one.  Of course, there
]would have to be a reason for a person to enter, as in the possability of
]some nice spoils, but this could certainly vary from lair to lair (in
]some you might get nothing while in others you could get some vary nice
]things indeed).  I think including lairs in the game would give the war
]factions (myself included) something to do besides tax and beat up on each
]other and the city guard, and make Atlantis something less of a wargame
](nothing against wargames, but they don't make the best open ended games).

Yeah, I kindof petered out on the lairs in Atlantis 2.0. Sorry about
that. The underworld too.

]4) I'm not a magic faction, so I don't know if anything like this exists
]now, but how about a Control Creature spell.  Sort of like Summon Tree Men,
]but you would have to find a creature first (can't be used on creatures
]in lairs, as this would make it too predictable).  Definitaly a high
]level spell, one level 5 foundation or more perferably two.  A mage would
]have to be in the same hex as a creature and hope that it didn't
]attack before the spell was cast.  Once you had a creature, it would stay
]loyal to your faction until it died or you gave it away.  Creatures could
]not be trained in skills or tax, and they would have to be paid for in
]maintance (one green giant would need as much as 5 ldrs or something
]similar). The problem I see with this right now is that it would have to
]be a month long spell, and MOVE is processed before CAST, so you couldn't
]be sure if the creature would still be in the same hex when the spell is
]cast, but perhaps something could be done with this.  Basically, I really
]like the idea (though I'm sure there are plenty of you who don't), but I'd
]like to see it hard to obtain and an adventure to use.  I have no desire to
]see the problems of Beastmastery repeated in Atlantis (for those of you who
]have played Olympia, as I know Geoff has).

Stuff like this is planned, and I hope to learn from Olympia's
mistakes where this is concerned. Actually, Russell Wallace has
done the majority of the magic design for Atlantis 3, so it will
have a bit of a different flavor than the magic of Atlantis 2.
It will be cool though!

Geoff

--Boundary-13170205-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 21 Sep 1995 04:06:03                    Sent: 21 Sep 1995 04:05:53
From:"Brian P Enright " <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Limited players
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
X-Orcl-Application: Mime-Version:  1.0
X-Orcl-Application: Content-Type:  TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hi,

I'm not on this list but I have some things to say and this seemed a good
place.

Brian Enright
bpest1+@pitt.edu

--Boundary-13170205-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 Sep 95 12:01:42 -0700
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Limited players

--Boundary-663179-0-0

Some stuff on the pricing issue:

]On Thu, 21 Sep 1995, Jonathan Roy wrote:
]
]> BZZT!
]
]Can't say I'm familar with this sound.
]
]Olympia is what, $2.50/turn or something similar
]
]$2.50
]
]? At the least it's
]> $1.50/turn, and that is just outrageous. Geoff has said before that he
]> plans to keep Atlantis low cost
]
]
]Well, perhaps you you have information that I don't, but $2.50 a turn is
]generally considered low cost, considering you might pay $20 a turn on a
]PBM (usually at least two weeks to a turn) or $5.00 a turn on a game like
]Odessey.  Still, this is really all specualtion until Geoff comes up with
]a price.

I consider Olympia, at $2.50 per turn, to be a low cost PBM.
That puts in at the bottom of PBM games, and although it has
the advantage over mail games that email is much cheaper,
I don't think that's a factor. The product is the same, it's
just getting to you in a different manner. (I mean in the
service a player receives. Obviously it makes a difference
in what the company can do).

At the same time, I would say that $2.50 would be the most I
would charge for Atlantis. I consider Olympia to be setting
the market for this sort of thing, and to price Atlantis
higher would be stupid. After all, although it's a great game
(or not. Insert your own opinion), it's not yet the smoothly
oiled machine that Olympia is.

]. I'd thought a lot about it, and Atlantis
]> could get really big, really fast. Imagine if turns are $.50/turn, and you
]> play in a game that is one a week. That's only $26/year! Even _I_ would
]> pay for that, and I've been long opposed to pay PBeM games. (Because the
]> PBeM games always sell out to PBM firms, that feel $2.50/turn is
]reasonable...
]> It's NOT.)
]
]
]If the market will bear the price, then it is reasonable, at least
]according to the price theory of market allocation.  Those who are
]willing to pay the price participate, and those who aren't don't.  As long as
]enough people are willing to participte at the given price to support the
]company, and other companies don't bid the price down, the price is
]reasonable.  Of course, if Geoff set a price of say $0.50 a turn and was
]successful at it, he probably would bring the accetable price down, and
]other e-mail games, or at least other open ended fanatsy games (since
]different e-mail games are imperfect substitutes) would have to follow suit.

Well, for the PBM industry, prices are above $2.50 per turn, and in
some cases _way_ above $2.50 per turn. And this doesn't even consider
that most of these games are going to charge you much more for the
monstrous 100 page reports that Atlantis can generate. As for the
PBEM industry, well, it's pretty small so far.

One thing to note is that the number of people who will pay _anything_
to play a PBEM game (even 1 cent per turn) is much less than the
number who would play for free. Many of the freebies just want to
try something out; these people would not want to go through the
hastle of paying at all. So, charging a very low amount (I would
consider $.50 per turn very low) is not guaranteed to bring in the
same number of players. Indeed, in looking at the ~800 people who
have received turns, how many have seriously played the game?
Many drop out, for whatever reason; lack of time, lack of interest.

Anyways, my thoughts for pricing are somewhere from $1.00 to $2.50
per turn. I'm going to have to do some serious evaluation of
how many people I think will play at these prices. If a lot
of people are willing to pay $1.00 per turn to play, that is
certainly an option. But, if, say, only 50 people are that
interested in Atlantis, then the price will sadly have to be
higher.

One other point I would like to make is that, while the costs
of running a PBEM game may seem quite low (especially when
compared to PBM games), keep in mind that the amount of
support/administration is quite similar. So, if 1000 people
decide to play Atlantis seriously, that's 1000 people I have
to deal with signup, payment, and all the little issues that
come up. Currently, there are a few less than 400 factions,
but for every turn I run, there are, what, a hundred mails
of "bug reports","turn lost" problems, etc. Many of these are
legitimate problems, bugs etc, that I really need to deal with,
but so many more are just someone who hasn't read the rules
correctly.

So, anyways, I'm still undecided on what to charge for Atlantis
3.0. Less than or equal to $2.50. :)

Geoff

P.S. Here are some of the expenses for Atlantis, if anyone is
interested:

Per month:
Phone lines (2) $30.
Full Time Net Connection $100.
Advertising $0 (so far)
Costs to accept Visa- unknown
Time: about 20 hours per week, maybe more

Fixed:
Computer: $3000

--Boundary-663179-0-0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: 21 Sep 95 09:04:29
From:"Brian P Enright " <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Re: Limited players
Reply-to: Enright,P,Brian
X-Orcl-Application: Sender:  Brian P Enright <bpest1+@pitt.edu>
X-Orcl-Application: In-Reply-To:  <9509211415.AA09135@acasun.eckerd.edu>
X-Orcl-Application: Mime-Version:  1.0
X-Orcl-Application: Content-Type:  TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

On Thu, 21 Sep 1995, Jonathan Roy wrote:

> BZZT!

Can't say I'm familar with this sound.

Olympia is what, $2.50/turn or something similar

$2.50

? At the least it's
> $1.50/turn, and that is just outrageous. Geoff has said before that he
> plans to keep Atlantis low cost

>
> Say half of the ~1000 people that have tried 2.0 join.

Not quite this many considering the game was closed around faction 970 or
so, and a fair number of restarts would be included in that number.
Still, not too far off, I'd figure about 800 or 850.

Brian Enright
bpest1+@pitt.edu

--Boundary-663179-0-0--