ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #44

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0000

This is kept by me (csd@microplex.com)
If there are any problems, please tell me 'cause I normally
don't haveiksdjaskldj enough time to read them.
If you want previous versions, they are available via WWW at
http://www.microplex.com/~csd/atlantisv2/
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:54:35 -0700
From: bonder@earthlink.net (Bruce Onder)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Scoring

At 7:03 PM 8/27/95, Geoff Dunbar wrote:
>Knowing that the number of players will be limited makes it more
>likely that I would attempt to play a pay version of this game.
>Interaction with lots of people is fun, but from what I read on
>the atl-players list, a lot of new starting factions are NOT having
>a lot of fun trying to get their factions established.

Right, but I was one of those factions.  I was the guy who posted his first
orders to the player's list!

>One only needs to read the squabbles over the exit cities to realize
>that this game is over-populated. I would deeply dislike paying
>money for a game where I could easily find myself trapped with no
>possibility of expansion. I also want to know that a restart will be
>feasible - I'd hate to restart now in the current game!

I think that limiting the amount of players is going to achieve nothing to
eliminate these problems.  Instead:

1.  Make Atlantis bigger.
2.  Give new players an option to hop to a specific hex from AC.

>100 players, perhaps allowed into the game in batches (possibly tied
>to rotation of the exit cities, to ensure fresh starts for all) sounds
>good to me.

I don't have time to wait around to be seeded into a game I'm paying for.
Why can't Geoff just make it easier for new players to start somewhere
safe?  This, IMO, becomes a much more vital concern once A3 goes commercial
-- at that point, he has to seriously consider the effect of rules on
newbies (who won't pay for a game where the only option is to get smeared
all across the map).

>On the other hand (I can never argue just one side of an issue),
>setting a 100-player limit might encourage those lousy WARGAMERS who
>want to make the game one of world conquest. By putting a limit on
>their competition, perhaps that will subtly encourage the urge to
>"win"?

I think that the only real effect of limiting players is that each faction
will keep more of its resources "in house."

>What would people think of a method of "scoring"? This might give
>people who insist on "winning" something to strive for, and if done
>correctly might shift the emphasis from warfare to economy.

Sorry.  I am not interested in a finite game.

>Probably scoring is a silly idea. But I'd rather have people get a
>sense of "victory" by reaching 92% on their faction score, than have
>them get that sense of victory by burning down the faction I spent
>the last 6 months building up from scratch. Maybe the scoring could
>be done once per game year, in a special end-of-year "non-turn" that
>would display various interesting statistics on what each faction has
>done during the last 12 turns, or something like that.

I think that if Atlantis is big enough and you can decide to zap your
faction to the edges of the world that you can avoid getting squashed early
on.  After that, it really is up to you to find a way to keep the warriors
from impinging on your freedoms.

Bruce Onder                      | We write and design computer games.
Digital Arcana                   | Ask about our interactive underpants.
310.519.5993                     |
310.837.8533 fax                 | Or don't.

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Hesidence <hesiden@Stoner.COM>
Subject: Atlantis Design
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 16:41:40 -0500 (CDT)

I'm not a alt-design list subscriber, but I play one in T.V.
Er, I mean I read it from the archive sometimes.

on scoring:
 Sounds fun, I like to know how well I'm doing compaired to others.
 Needs to have ability to be anonymous, so aggressive factions can't
 use the info to attack weaker factions.

trade vs war:
 It seems we have two problems.  First war factions can tax, which
 allows them to become powerful very quickly.  Second its a natural
 for war factions to kill others.

First I think trade factions power should be boosted some, by
 having units that produce increase in skill by 10 days.  I know
 Geoff says this is bad because it would make combining units of
 different skill levels difficult.  To fix this I would make the production
 formula a little different by making the skill level a real number
 instead of an integer.  So with 60 days of study that is a skill
 level of 1.5 and a with 120 days of study thats a skill level of 2.33.

So if 5 lumberjacks with 30 days of study produced wood.  The next
 month they would have 40 days of study and next turn could produce
 5 * 1.1667 = 5.833 wood (rounded up/down whatever).

NOW the only reason a trade faction would have to worry about combining
 units would be if they wanted a unit with a high skill so they could
 produce plate armor or whatever.  In such a case, they wouldn't want
 to combine units anyway.  In fact this makes it easier to combine
 units since you don't have to worry about messing up when combining
 units and ending up with a unit that has 170 of training (like I did).

As for war factions killing others, thats part of the game.
 It is a real bummer to get wiped out, but I don't see anyway
 around it.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 15:43:48 -0700
From: bonder@earthlink.net (Bruce Onder)
Subject: Re: Atlantis Design

At 4:41 PM 8/28/95, Mark Hesidence wrote:
>on scoring:
> Sounds fun, I like to know how well I'm doing compaired to others.
> Needs to have ability to be anonymous, so aggressive factions can't
> use the info to attack weaker factions.

How "well" are you doing can be very subjective.  If you want to build
ships and find a new land to conquer, actually touching virgin beaches is a
sign of sure success.  How many regions you are taxing, or highest TAC
training, is not a very good indicator.

I would hate to see Atlantis reduced to who has the most tallies in column A.

> As for war factions killing others, thats part of the game.
> It is a real bummer to get wiped out, but I don't see anyway
> around it.

Same here.  I think it would help to require a certain level of presence in
order to tax a region -- for instance, is it reasonable that 1 man can tax
250 viking peasants each and every month?  Maybe a quick and dirty 10:1
ratio should be required to get the tax (IOW, to get the tax from a region
with 250 peasants, you need 25 men)?

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0: atl-design list
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 22:19:21 -0700

This is a weekly posting for the atl-design mailing list. This list
is meant for anyone interested in the rules and design of Atlantis
2.0. The moderator of the Atlantis 2.0 game is on this list, so your
ideas could actually become reality! To send a message to everyone
on the list, send email to:

atl-design@tango.rahul.net

To subscribe or un-subscribe to this list, mail to
atlantis@rahul.net. Make sure you specify exactly what you want me
to do, because a lot of mail goes to this address.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave McGaw <u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Shadow Sight, is it worth it? [Repost]
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 17:25:58 +0100 (BST)

> To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net,atl-players@tango.rahul.net
>
>
> I sent this to the design list about a week ago, and it was met with
> deafening silence.  I'll try this again, but hey, maybe there are just no
> Magic factions on the design list, so I'm crossposting to the players list
> as well (simply to see if there is anyone using the spell at all).
>
> I have a question/observation about the spell Shadow Sight.
>
> (If you don't want to see a spoiler, delete now.  Message follows after
> many line feeds).
>

I've been waiting for this to pop up again.

The Shadow sight spell (Ethereal 3) is for use primarily with the portal
spells (I would imagine)

Getting info on a region, can allow you to send a portal into a specified area(Not as yet, but I'm pretty sure the Portal 3 [Con 5 Eth 5] spell is going to
allow specialised area to be selected)

This means you COULD check out an area while another mage creates the portal,
then send it to the area you just scouted!

Comments?

Dave