ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #48 From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt) Date: Sun, 24 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: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:09:24 -0700 From: Bruce Onder <bonder@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Limited players At 11:19 AM 9/21/95 PDT, GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM wrote: >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. Good! >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. Why not just allow anyone to buy and sell, and only trade factions can produce them. This makes fish, furs, etc useless to all but the factions who produce them, but provides a steady market for those who can. Certainly anybody who manages to acquire anything ;-) should be able to sell it. Bruce Onder | We write and design games. Digital Arcana | 310.519.5993 | Ask us about our interactive lemurs. | Or don't. ---------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Atlantis 3.0 game Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:00:07 -0700 From: Anson Winsor <apwinsor@magic.CS.UNLV.EDU> I sure would not play the game at $2.50. A high cost would be a sure way to limit how many players join up. But there could be a much better solution to the "too many Players" problem: There could be 2 or more Atlantis 3.0 games running at the same time. New players could be just set into one if they don't care which. Or they could wait try for one that have players they want to interact with. If one becomes too full, then another one starts up. Geoff could decide or listen to players when they consider that one is too full. You can have an open-ended game this way and never need to stop new players from being able to join up. But the Cost. Please keep it low if you want a lot of the players currently in this one. I was thinking that $1.00 a game would cost $52.00 a year. I am not sure that I want to spend this much. But $.50 is only $26.00 a year. Much better, I am interested. I am not sure if Geoff can go much lower per turn. Maybe pay by the month and your cost can be calculated lower maybe $2.00 to $3.00 a month? With multiple game setting, advertising, and word of mouth, how far could it go! ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:56:28 -0500 From: varela@eliza.cc.brandeis.edu (Juan A. Varela) Subject: please remove me from the list Please remove me from the list because I am no longer in the game. ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Hesidence <hesiden@Stoner.COM> Subject: Tactics/Pricing Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 08:02:23 -0500 (CDT) IMHO $1.00 to $2.00 would be about right for a turn. With nice discount for the first few turns since they will be rather short and the lower price may lure in new customers. You only start with one leader how much can you do? Also you may consider paying 20 turns in advance costing less than paying for 10 turns in advance. Anyway what I really wanted to post was about tactics. Tactics seem much to powerful. One point higher gets a free attack, you break the enemy on the first turn you automaticly take no losses and you get another free attack as he runs away. I would suggest something a little less drastic, at least for lower differences in tactics. Difference in Tactics 1 Tactical advantage: On first round the side with higher tactics gets to have all his forces resolve attacks before the other side gets to resolve attacks. The side with the lower tactics will get its chance to attack even if it takes >50% losses. 2 Suprise attack: Same as 1 except if the side with lower tactics takes >50% losses it does not counter attack. If it does not take >50% losses it can counter attack on the first round. 3 Tactically Superior: Side with higher tactics gets a totally free round and if it looses it may retreat without the winners getting a free round. 4 Natural Fortress: Same as 3 but with side with higher tactics get +1 to its defensive combat skill because the better taction forced the battle at the location of his choice. 5 Massacre: Same as 4, but the side with lower tactics cannot retreat if it takes >50% losses it is automaticly destroyed. (alternatively it gets two free rounds as the looser retreats). It would be nice to have *something* like the above so a differece of 1 tactics point isn't so overwhelming. Also I would suggest giving the defender a +1 tactics to help discourage war factions from being too aggressive and because traditionally the defender gets some kind of bonus. ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 10:04:02 -0400 From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy) Subject: Re: Limited players -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. Well, not exactly. But I guess it looks that way. :) What is or isn't reasonable depends on how much money you have, how much you are willing to spend on games of this nature, etc... Sure, there are people that will pay $2.50/turn no problem. The assumption I'm working on in my projections is that more than 5x the people will play if it's 1/5 the cost... So you end up with more profit in the end. $10/month is a bit more than _I_ would pay, although you might be comfortable there... Every game player is different. :) Personally, I'd find a new movie every 2 weeks more enjoyable than 2 Atlantis turns... it's all relative. :) ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 10:18:03 -0400 From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy) Subject: Re: Limited players - I consider Olympia, at $2.50 per turn, to be a low cost PBM. Well, I guess it's all relative as I mentioned before. I see PBeM game at $1.50/turn to be overpriced, but who knows, maybe I'm just nuts. You look at the millions of people that have email access, and the question becomes... How many of them will make a small payment once a year, compared to a larger payment every 1-2 months? Not only does the small yearly payment reduce overhead for the person running it, it makes it easy for people to justify the cost. You just pay once and you play for a whole year. :) Because the PBeM is indeed so small, and over-price in my opinion only, I don't see Atlantis competing with things like Olympia or Phoenix. Of the commercial PBM's that I've playtested their PBeM versions while free, I can honestly say Atlantis is a lot more fun, at least for me. I don't like the super-complex games of that nature... Maybe that came out of the idea that you get mail once every two weeks or something, and want to spend hours pouring over your turn. In Atlantis, since the ability to have _daily_ turns exists, the key is an easy game that is fun, has low overhead in time for the player, and yes can grow as complex as the player wishes... Atlantis is all of those. Anyways, since I'm not involved with Atlantis at all, it really doesn't matter what I think. :) I'll keep playing 2.0 while it's here, and will decide if I'll join 3.0 when it's running and a price is fixed. Because so many people are joining the Internet every day, and purchasing new computer, I see Atlantis's real market it can exploit are the PBM players. Running ads in all the major PBM magazines, and maybe even things such as Internet World, and so on, could rake in thousands of new players. And yes, this would take a lot of Geoff's time.. But 5000 players at $26/year is $130k/year, at which point I think he can hire someone to do that. :) Don't think of $.50 vs Olympia's $2.50, think of the PBM who recently got a computer or INternet email account, and look at $.50 vs $10 or more. What dedicated PBM fantasy gamer wouldn't pay $26/year when they pay much more than that already? Heck, some games are over $20/month... Just ideas for consideration, I'll stop bickering about the price. :) ---------------------------------------------------------- From: yaj@cc.gatech.edu (Jay Luo) Subject: Tactics Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 12:12:00 -0400 (EDT) > Anyway what I really wanted to post was about tactics. Tactics > seem much to powerful. One point higher gets a free attack, you > break the enemy on the first turn you automaticly take no losses > and you get another free attack as he runs away. I would suggest > something a little less drastic, at least for lower differences > in tactics. I've actually found that tactics isn't really that critical except when the opposing sides are fairly closely matched. I have fought and won several battles in which my opponents had higher tactics, by picking the right place to attack in and massively outnumbering the defenders there. I end up taking some losses due to my inferior tactics, but still end up winning. I do like the idea of differentiating how much tactics affects the battle depending on how many levels of difference there are between the two commanders; a level 5 vs a level 1 tactician should get much more benefit than a level 2 vs a level 1 tactician. ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 17:16:24 -0700 From: Bruce Onder <bonder@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Limited players At 10:04 AM 9/22/95 -0400, Jonathan Roy wrote: >What is or isn't >reasonable depends on how much money you have, how much you are willing >to spend on games of this nature, etc... Exactly. >Sure, there are people that will >pay $2.50/turn no problem. The assumption I'm working on in my projections >is that more than 5x the people will play if it's 1/5 the cost... Right. But more than 5x the headaches will also generate more than 5x the headaches. Also, for me it's not so much the price as it is payment methods offered. >So you >end up with more profit in the end. It depends. It is possible for people to think "hey, Atlantis is only 50 cents. It must suck compared to Olympia." A low price can drive away players just as much as a high one. Also, with a high price you may attract more dedicated players. A2 has a lot of churn just because it's free. >$10/month is a bit more than _I_ >would pay, although you might be comfortable there... I would be. Atlantis is enjoyable, and $10 for me is probably not the same sacrifice as it is for someone else (finally!). >Every game player >is different. :) Personally, I'd find a new movie every 2 weeks more >enjoyable than 2 Atlantis turns... it's all relative. :) Right. All I can say is if you value movies more than a PBEM game, that's perfectly valid. Geoff isn't neccessarily competing for your beer money. :) Bruce Onder | We write, design and produce games. Digital Arcana | 310.519.5993 | Ask us about our interactive lemurs. | Or don't. ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Sep 95 09:47:31 PDT From: kbrors@mindscape.com Subject: Re[2]: Limited players I would say $2.50 would many drive players away. As soon as people say I am spending over $100 dollars a year, they start to think do I really want to spend this much? Some would but many won't. Right now many players seem to be students and don't have much money. This is balanced by the how much work is it for Geoff to run one person in Atlantis. If it is alot of hassle he may need to charge $2.50. He can only charge less if he can run several games at once and still have a life. KB ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Limited players Author: Bruce Onder <bonder@earthlink.net> at INTERNET Date: 9/22/95 5:23 PM At 10:04 AM 9/22/95 -0400, Jonathan Roy wrote: >What is or isn't >reasonable depends on how much money you have, how much you are willing >to spend on games of this nature, etc... Exactly. >Sure, there are people that will >pay $2.50/turn no problem. The assumption I'm working on in my projections >is that more than 5x the people will play if it's 1/5 the cost... Right. But more than 5x the headaches will also generate more than 5x the headaches. Also, for me it's not so much the price as it is payment methods offered. >So you >end up with more profit in the end. It depends. It is possible for people to think "hey, Atlantis is only 50 cents. It must suck compared to Olympia." A low price can drive away players just as much as a high one. Also, with a high price you may attract more dedicated players. A2 has a lot of churn just because it's free. >$10/month is a bit more than _I_ >would pay, although you might be comfortable there... I would be. Atlantis is enjoyable, and $10 for me is probably not the same sacrifice as it is for someone else (finally!). >Every game player >is different. :) Personally, I'd find a new movie every 2 weeks more >enjoyable than 2 Atlantis turns... it's all relative. :) Right. All I can say is if you value movies more than a PBEM game, that's perfectly valid. Geoff isn't neccessarily competing for your beer money. :) Bruce Onder | We write, design and produce games. Digital Arcana | 310.519.5993 | Ask us about our interactive lemurs. | Or don't. Up