ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #43

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Mon, 28 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 have enough time to read them.
If you want previous versions, they are available via WWW at
http://www.microplex.com/~csd/atlantisv2/
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 Aug 95 14:30:44 -0700
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0 Design: The Times

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the times lately.
While there have been plenty of good ideas put forth, most
of them would be either hard for me to implement, or hard to
use.

Coming soon (I know I keep saying that, but it really is) will
be a new orders system. Along with that, I will give the option
of not receiving the times. Then, you can ftp it or read it on
the newsgroup or whatever. So at least you won't have to get
this monster every turn if you don't want it.

Unfortunately, I think the real problem with the times is that
Atlantis has too many players. It has been sort of fun shoving
all the hundreds in, but it does make some things a bit
unwieldy. I'm considering putting some sort of limit on the
number of factions per game in the next version. Though I don't
know whether the limit would ever be reached! Maybe keep it
below 100 players, and keep a wait list, starting a new game
whenever 50 new players can be found.

I dunno, just an idea.

Geoff

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 19:02:56 -0700
From: bonder@earthlink.net (Bruce Onder)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: The Times

At 2:30 PM 8/22/95, GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM wrote:

>Coming soon (I know I keep saying that, but it really is) will
>be a new orders system. Along with that, I will give the option
>of not receiving the times. Then, you can ftp it or read it on
>the newsgroup or whatever. So at least you won't have to get
>this monster every turn if you don't want it.

This would at least give people the option.  I find the Times pointless to
wade through right now, but sometimes when I'm on r.g.p I will give it a
read.

>Unfortunately, I think the real problem with the times is that
>Atlantis has too many players. It has been sort of fun shoving
>all the hundreds in, but it does make some things a bit
>unwieldy. I'm considering putting some sort of limit on the
>number of factions per game in the next version. Though I don't
>know whether the limit would ever be reached! Maybe keep it
>below 100 players, and keep a wait list, starting a new game
>whenever 50 new players can be found.

I would argue against limiting the size of Atlantis in order to make the
newsletter readable! :)  I like the idea of hundreds -- maybe even
thousands -- of people to interact with.

Perhaps something you could implement would be a simple subscription-based
order that would let the player receive newsletters from the various cities
in Atlantis (ie, Nairn, Tolsta, AC, etc.) that interests him.  Allow a
default SUBSCRIBE ALL command so one can get the whole kit and caboodle.

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.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 23:24:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu>
Subject: I think I found a bug

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hi all, I think I found a bug, perhaps, of course, however, I was just
confused.

I used to be a trade/magic faction.  I became pure magic last turn.

I am building a tower in Atlantis City and the two people I had working n
the tower are inside the tower and have the stone in their possession.
This turn I got the report back that I wasn't allowed to PRODUCE int hat
region.  I assume it's because I became all magic, but I wasn't trying to
produce, I was simply executing a BUILD command.

Either BUILD shoudl be open to anyone or I missed somethign obvios.

of course, now I'm stuck for six turns with a hald-done tower *grumble*.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2

iQCVAwUBMDqRYjokqlyVGmCFAQGUHQP8C9IEayOuTDNvv5m1lwoAifKEDr6aW3fy
KD+oNSv0oyhy1KdkwN2acIZcmAishSZeajtL59J4NcSDNabBfsATGU5TTgE6QNba
Ty1qex7DmCW8kcTWNayhWpKkFTbJbmylro/ZrMxfO0wirYJbB8WqLnopVH3HR2YV
OcIuEwP501M=
=Bnqd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

____           Robert A. Hayden      <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__     Finger for Geek Code Info <=>    Finger for PGP Public Key
 \/  /           -=-=-=-=-=-                      -=-=-=-=-=-
   \/        http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden/Welcome.html

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GED/J d-- s:++>: a-- C++(++++) ULU++ P+ L++ E---- W+(-) N++++ o+ K+++ w---
O- M+ V-- PS++>$ PE++>$ Y++ PGP++ t- 5+++ X++ R+++>$ tv+ b+ DI+++ D+++
G+++++ e++ h r-- y++**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 10:59:27 -0400
From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: The Times

100 players might be a bit small though... Maybe 300-400 per game, and new
games at 50 or 75... Of course, being that final played added could be
rough if everyone else is already really large. :)

(Maybe turn off gateways to area that 50 factions have already traveled
to?)

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 17:16:32 -0400
From: nims@cris.com (Mike Inman)
Subject: Atlantis Design

>From: Bean <ATLANTIS@bluebean.demon.co.uk>
>Subject:       Atl Rules: Keep them simple please
Agreed.

>    Now it may well be that many of these changes would improve the
>realism, fairness or whatever of the game. But I'd like to make a
>counter plea to be considered in your thought processes. One of the
>strongest features of the Atl rules is their simplicity. This means
>non D&D-heads like myself can understand and enjoy the game without
>years of role playing experience and with a sensible weekly time
>outlay.

I am also a non D&D-head (watched some friends play a game once, it
never really interested me.)  I suppose I put about 10 hours a week
into Atlantis, about 2 on the turn report, maybe 3 on the design list,
and perhaps 5 interacting with the other players about game matters.

>The fun comes in the human interactions with our allies and
>other factions rather than in cleverly exploiting the game world
>framework - that's just an analytical exercise.

I suppose my bent toward "fairness" comes from the fact that I wouldn't
play Atlantis if I thought it was just a war game.  Unfortunately, going
through the analytical exercise determining how to exploit the game world,
one finds that War is simply the way to go, unless you enjoy taking orders
from egotistical twits you have never met.  I have nothing against war
games, except that I get little satisfaction from winning, and usually
feel rather helpless to do anything about it when I'm losing.

Since I do not enjoy playing the expand and conquer aspect of Atlantis, I
would like to see the game change to where there a place for all kinds of
players.  I agree with Geoff's statement that Magic should always be an
"Adventure", big rewards with big drawbacks.  However, finding a way for
War and Trade to co-exist on semi-equal footing is the challenge I wish
to solve.

>Adding layers of
>complexity would actually reduce my fun. Newbies would take much
>longer to get going and there would probably be less scope for
>individual freedom within the scheme.
>    I would suggest that the rules should do no more set the very
>basic workings necessary for the world to function. Then it's up to
>us as players to build on that framework, filling it in with our
>actions.
>    So as you think through your design ideas please ask yourself the
>questions:
>        'Will this rule change truly enhance game play or am I just
>trying to fit Atlantis to my own model of how a PBM world should be?'

I thought fitting Atlantis to my own model was enhancing game play!?!
(for me, at least)

>        'Is the payback of this complication of the rules worth the
>extra player and games master workload?'

I am against rules which increase player or game master workload, but
truly, I do not beleive that the rules enter into game master workload
in a computer moderated game (except that the GM must constantly explain
them.)  As for player workload, that seems to mostly depend on the player's
ambition.  If the player is content with 4 or 5 regions, with 4 or 5 units
in each region, then the player work-load will be relatively light. However,
conquering the world is a complex task in most universes, more so in
Atlantis, where one man makes all the orders.

>        'Would this increase the players set of behaviour
>alternatives or in fact reduce it?'

I am in favor of placing game world imposed "consequences" on player
behavior, leaving the alternatives open but letting the peasants at
large react to the way a player plays.  If a player wishes to be a
raping-pillaging thief, that is his choice, but the peasants he does
this to should react in some way (Orcs might like him better...)

Getting your fellow players to act as a cohesive society takes far too
much e-mail time, I'd prefer a world where "right and wrong" are at least
recognised by the game.  "Wrong" might still make an easy living, but I
have trouble believing in totally passive peasants.

> (PS I see no reason why the rules should be fair, anyway. If you
>think your faction type is unfairly disadvantaged then.... change
>it! I regard that as part of the game.)

Play it where it lies, eh?  Well, that's what I'm doing in Atlantis 2, and
since it is free, who can complain?  I still attempt to keep "in character"
when writing out my orders, honoring all bargins, helping my brothers at
arms without worrying about exchange of silver, not pillaging (I conquered
and claimed my first hex with help I acquired on the pretext that the current
owner had just pillaged an adjacent hex.), etc. etc.

I play a small faction, making a nice home for myself in a small area.
I do this partly because I like the kind of inter-player contact I get
by playing this way (not too much "move or I'll kill ya" stuff), partly
because it keeps the turn reports short, and mostly because this is the
game I want to play.

I will be rather dissapointed when some gigantic alliance rolls through
my home, kills all my men, pillages all the regions, and recruits enough
men from the local peasantry to ensure that no phoenix forces rise from
the ashes.  The simple analytical exercise of examining Atlantis 2.0's
rules, coupled with some practical experience of how people play this
game, virtually ensures that this will happen sooner or later.  I'll
probably be too discouraged to spend another year (real-time) building
back up to my former position, and so may well not re-start.  If this
makes me a non-D&D head wimp, then, so I am, but really, I see Atlantis
as a game of training, building, cooperation and competition.  If it is
too easy, or attractive, for the competition to trash everything I and
my allies have built, then why bother?

For now, I play it where it lies, and enjoy every turn.  If the future
Atlantis can put War and Trade on an equal footing, I'd think that it
is a much better way to spend my time than waiting for the enevitable
Gengis-Kahns to come along and wipe me out.  On a strategic note, yes,
I am trying to spread my forces out, so they won't be wiped clean by a
single strike, but I don't know if I am going to be able to spread far
enough before that strike comes, the branch that went to Yakleks with
2000 of the initial 5000 silver already got wiped out by a newbie alliance,
Oh! the shame of it all ;(

I'm sorry, were you reading all this, hoping that there was a cohesive
point to it.  I'm afraid there's not one today.  Oh, magic spell suggestion
for the day:

Unfavorable Wind - when cast, this spell brings an unfavorable wind to all
adjacent hexes, effectively blocking all ships from entry into the hex
in which this spell was cast.  This is a month-long spell (and a rather
high-level one, I would think.)

Mike Inman
NIMS@CRIS.COM

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 08:51:09 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Joakim Aronius <d92joaar@und.ida.liu.se>
Subject: Atl: Automatic Orders

_Ignore if it has been discussed before_

Autotax is great.
Why not introduce the command 'Auto' or 'Allways'(alw) which could be
used with any command like:

War:
Allways Give 1111 250 sil  ; Taxers supporting producers
Allways Tax
Allways Study Combat

Producers:
Allways Give 2222 10 iron  ; miners supplying..
Allways Give 3333 10 swo   ; armorers, who gives stuff to taxers

Magic:
Allways Give 4444 "Enchanted Wagon"
Allways Cast "Enchant Wagon"

etc,etc,etc

The 'Allways-orders' should preferably _NOT_ appear, like the autotax, in
the description of the unit. But rather in the 'Orders Template' in the end
of the repport.

The 'Orders Template' is good, but if one could specify a set of orders
which are supposed to be executed each turn it would be much better.

The Allways lines should be copied directly to the template and would not
clog the database with any data.

It's easy to change, for example, 'give' orders to other unit numbers. etc.

/Joakim

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 08:27:53 -0400
From: nims@cris.com (M. Inman)
Subject: Re: Atlantis Design

>> I will be rather dissapointed when some gigantic alliance rolls through
>> my home, kills all my men, pillages all the regions, and recruits enough
>> men from the local peasantry to ensure that no phoenix forces rise from
>> the ashes.  The simple analytical exercise of examining Atlantis 2.0's
>> rules, coupled with some practical experience of how people play this
>> game, virtually ensures that this will happen sooner or later.
>
>Yeah, it'll be a shame. Who knows - maybe it won't happen, and Atl
>will settle down to some kind of stasis.
>

A "quick and dirty" analytical analysis:  The Atlantis world is about 100x100,
or 10,000 hexes, so figure about 5000 land hexes.  There are about 500 active
factions, so there are ~10 land hexes available per faction.  If we end up
with 50 or more "mega alliances" who pursue world domination, the
semi-independants (like the entire Monzon region) will most likely all
get ground to dust, probably within 3 more game years since the advent of
magical portals offering instant transport to anywhere.

I think that there are maybe 5 "mega alliances" out there who are going to
follow through on their world-conquest schemes.  A SWAG (Sophisticated
Wild Assed Guess) at the highest number of factions who can successfully
remain allied for a long period of time would be around 20 or so (based on
the chaos factor, inter-faction trust, etc.)  So, I don't think that all
areas of the Atlantis world are doomed, probably only 10-25% of the land
masses will be affected by these rolling (flying, teleporting) war machines.
It would just be a shame if my territory fell into that 10-25%.

>I was reading through the rules again recently. Maybe you should look
>at the 'citadel' structure!

I am currently a "forest dweller", so I'll probably settle for a fort,
at first (transporting a citadel worth of stone would take a long time!)
I might consider building a citadel in the mountains, if I find a mountain
hex I can claim.

>You've set off an unpleasant chain of thoughts in my mind!

Sorry, like I said, it's already happened to one branch of my faction, and
the other branch appears to have narrowly escaped due to our opponents
simply losing interest in the game.  Interestingly enough, it was the
independant branch, working in virgin territory, who got smashed.  The
branch in Monzon probably survived because our opponents had too many
political enemies in the area, and lost interest in playing the bully
when it became clear that his alliance wasn't really the biggest one in
town.  He also made what I consider to be several tactical errors, moving
a load of troops into a recently pillaged region for the winter, recruiting
loads of men but not training them adequately.  Splitting his forces into
two widedly dispersed groups, even as he was planning an attack, etc.  Due
to all this, my forces were able to sit tight and recruit and train all
winter long, until we were a near match for all the men he had moved into
the adjacent hex.  Coupled with our friends outside, we were more than a
match for his forces, but we were afraid to attack him because of the
rather fuzzy state of ally assistance when attacks originate from different
hexes.

I've enjoyed the last turn much more than the previous 8 or so, since I
can start making more intricate plans about multiple skill training,
building ships, recruiting the appropriate men for the appropriate skills,
etc.  If I can get my ship-building base going, I'll be more than happy
to explore the world, and do some pillaging and conquering of my own, but I'd
like to feel that I have a secure home, first.

M. Inman
nims@cris.com

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 21:15:10 -0400
From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy)
Subject: New server features

Great! I'm glad all this stuff is happening now. :) With the auto
reply, special address per game, etc etc, Atlantis is really getting
up to speed with the other more establish games such as Phoenix or
Olympia.

Three cheers for Geoff!

(Now, to just get a few thousand more players. ;) )

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Scoring
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 95 19:03:11 -0700

Looks like this got sent to me only; I'm forwarding it to the
list.

Geoff

------- Forwarded Message

Return-Path: vjg@cbnea.att.com
Received: from tango.rahul.net by bolero.rahul.net with SMTP id AA03311
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <atlantis@rahul.net>); Wed, 23 Aug 1995 21:54:48 -0700
Received: from gw2.att.com by tango.rahul.net with SMTP id AA11199
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>); Wed, 23 Aug 1995 21:54:44 -0700
Received: from cbnea.UUCP by ig1.att.att.com id AA19533; Thu, 24 Aug 95 00:53:47 EDT
Message-Id: <9508240453.AA19533@ig1.att.att.com>
From: vjg@cbnea.att.com
To: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Original-From: v.guinto
Original-To: att!tango.rahul.net!owner-atl-design
Date: 23 Aug 1995  10:01 EDT
Subject: SCORING? was Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: The Times

I start off responding to a point someone else made, and then
veer off drastically out into the fringes of logic and likelyhood...

Bruce Onder wrote:
>GDUNBAR wrote:
>>Unfortunately, I think the real problem with the times is that
>>Atlantis has too many players. It has been sort of fun shoving
>>all the hundreds in, but it does make some things a bit
>>unwieldy. I'm considering putting some sort of limit on the
>>number of factions per game in the next version. Though I don't
>>know whether the limit would ever be reached! Maybe keep it
>>below 100 players, and keep a wait list, starting a new game
>>whenever 50 new players can be found.
>
>I would argue against limiting the size of Atlantis in order to make the
>newsletter readable! :)  I like the idea of hundreds -- maybe even
>thousands -- of people to interact with.

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.

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!

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.

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"?

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.

I'd like to see scoring on a per-faction basis according to achievement
of maximum utility. Each faction type would be scored separately, based
both on the territory they control and their overall faction makeup.
Trade factions could have a percentile score based on their production
of goods from the territories in which they are producing (where, to
achieve 100%, they would have to produce ALL available of ALL types of
products in a region); war factions could be scored based on the
percent of available tax income they are collecting, and maybe the
percentage of their troops that have reached maximum combat capability;
magic factions could be assigned a score based on the percentage of
all possible spells that they have managed to acquire. And of course,
you'd be scored based on your achievement of whatever limits you set
for yourself with your faction points. (4 points spent on magic but
you have only 3 trained mages? Only 60% for you!)

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.

Just a thought...

- -Vince Guinto
 vjg@cbnea.att.com

------- End of Forwarded Message

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:03:06 -0400
From: lam@diamond.eng.tridom.com (Larry Morris)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Scoring

Vince Guinto writes:
> 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"?
>
> 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.

But, um, the game *is* one of world conquest. I maintain that us
"lousy wargamers" simply play the game as it was designed. Consider:

- The game is fundamentally growth-oriented. Limits to growth (except
   for Magic factions) are principally determined by competition.
 - Trade items are strongly oriented towards mobility and combat
   strength. The same, with rare exceptions, for magic spells.
 - Other than war and war support, the only "sidelines" are trading
   fish, furs and herbs (now *that's* excitement) or the stealth vs.
   observation game. (with the only useful skills being "steal" and
   "assassinate". Ok, maybe this constitutes war support ;-)
 - Other than giving your units fun names, role-playing is pretty
   much limited to the Times. Once-a-week orders pretty much limit
   you to strategic decisions.

Scoring? I don't play either war or role-playing games to achieve a
number. In war games, I enjoy the challenge and uncertainty of out-
guessing an opponent. In roleplay, I enjoy solving interesting puzzles
and finding novel solutions, plus "getting into" role. Artificial goals
are meaningless, and won't change the essential nature of Atlantis.

If you want to move towards a role-playing game rather than pure
conquest (something I'd like to see too, incidentally), some things
that might work:

- Add quests, artifacts, relics, one-of-a-kind items that provide
   subtle or mysterious advantages (or disadvantages).
 - Add external threats (monsters, etc) that require interfaction
   cooperation to defeat.
 - Add a storyline. "Doom of the world is imminent unless these things
   happen..." comes to mind.
 - Add a tactical-level "game within a game", perhaps a regional MUD
   open between turns in key internal locations.
 - Using a voting system, make the most effective roleplayers the more
   central characters. The Times, now a sideline rag, could become
   the key to winning quests and principal roles.

Just some ideas!

-Larry Morris
Crimson Robes (60)