ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #14

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 14:31:43 +0000

This file was automatically generated by csd@microplex.com
If you notice anything unusual, please e-tell me.
You better not kill Faction 9 or this service may be discontinued.:-)
Contributions in Silver will be gladly accepted.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0: atl-design list
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 17:54:41 -0800

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.
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 07:52:23 PST
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Design stuff

--Boundary-8826914-0-0

]I'd vote people would just start randomly at any settlement, town or
]city in the world ; why couldn't a faction rise from small settlement
]as well? Besides, that would give them bit of a chance, as right now
]area around starting cities has been fairly thoroughly claimed, or so
]I gather.

This is fairly close to the way it was in Atlantis 1. A major
drawback with this method is that you are placed near a bunch
of random factions. Often, people who play wish to be near
their friends, for either cooperative or competitive reasons.

Geoff

--Boundary-8826914-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 25 Feb 1995 10:29:05                    Sent: 25 Feb 1995 10:28:45
From:"Markus Stenberg " <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: Witek,Szymanski,witek@cs.rpi.edu
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Design stuff
Cc: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
X-Orcl-Application: In-Reply-To:  <2AqJlGgyao3Q075yn@cs.rpi.edu>
X-Orcl-Application: Mime-Version:  1.0
X-Orcl-Application: Content-Type:  TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> > Since I'm not in the game, your input on how it's going is very
> > valuable. I'm a bit worried that the world may get awfully
> > crowded, as people keep signing up like mad. Please let me know
> > if this happens, and I can either close the game, or make some
> > sort of limit/waiting list. Of course, some crowding around the
> > entry cities is expected. Also, any other concerns are welcome,
> > either here or mailed directly to me.
> I think you will have to change the starting locations. Very quickly,
> you will have people having a strong presence in each of those cities.
> A new faction just CAN'T expect to take on these established groups
> and will have a difficult time just getting into virgin territory.
> I think what you should do is allow people in in bursts with new,
> undiscovered places reachable from Atlantis City.

I'd vote people would just start randomly at any settlement, town or
city in the world ; why couldn't a faction rise from small settlement
as well? Besides, that would give them bit of a chance, as right now
area around starting cities has been fairly thoroughly claimed, or so
I gather.

---
Destiny's Champion, Fate's fool, Eternity's Soldier, Time's Tool.
				-The Chronicle of the Black Sword

--Boundary-8826914-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
From: tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu (Tim Ulrich)
Subject: Blitz game
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 17:36:36 -0600 (CST)

Hi,

There's recently been some discussion here about whether or not more
people should be allowed to join the game (fears of overcrowding), as
well as whether or not exits from Atlantis City should be randomized.

Some of the discussions regarding all of this sounded as though people
were forgetting that this is a playtest.  The more crowded the better!
It should help shake loose the bugs.

Also, randomizing exits would make sense, as that would get some of us
way out in the middle of nowhere... and we may find more things like
the infamous Nork sectors where "all roads lead to" Atlantis City.

To really shake down the game, though, it would make a lot of sense to
run a blitz version of this game.  I'm currently playing in Blitz
Atlantis, and we have turns run Monday, Wednesday and Friday.  Trying
that with this game should get us to a stage where we really see if
there are problems at the upper levels (ie. Orcs end up not being
limited to only a 4 combat skill, or we discover that a level 5
stealth unit can still be seen by a level 4 observer.)  These are
things that may not shake out at this slower pace.

I don't know just how much this game takes up in terms of system
resources, but is there any way of running a second game, at the same
time as this one.  A blitz game with say 30 or 40 factions tops may
really help out with the playtest.

(Oh... and of course I would volunteer to play in the blitz game.
Such sacrifices I'm willing to make!  :-) )

--
Any views I express are probably my own...
Nobody else is willing to let me speak for them!

Timothy Ulrich					tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Re: ATLANTIS "bug" fix
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 17:03:00 -0800

I just read that Geoff has "fixed" the "bug" that units with swords but no
combat skill could not tax.  Perhaps this discussion belongs on the design
list, but I'm not a member of that one, so here it goes:

This change eliminates one of the main advantages of training non-leader
units in combat, instead of some other skill, for generic and war trade
:
(END)
factions.  If I can give my herbalists the ability to tax, in addition
to an effective combat skill of 2, just by buying them swords, then why
shouldn't all of my units be herbalists? Or lumberjacks?  Or construction
workers?  This goes double for weaponsmiths, who can make their own swords.
Sure, combat-trained units would be _better_ in a fight, but they now lack
any other raison d'etre, at least for some faction types.

I'm replying both to John, and to the design list.

1) It seemed silly to me that a Combat 1 unit could tax, whereas
a unit with a sword (effective Combat 2) could not.
2) While we are early in the game, it may seem like the ability
to tax is a big deal. However, as the game progresses, that will
become less important, and being able to control the territory
(i.e. kill any other would-be-taxers) will become more important.
I think Atlantis 1 demonstrates this.

Geoff
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 20:33:08 -0500
From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy)
Subject: Re: Blitz game

I think the problem is that Atlantis 2.0 doesn't run automatically,
Geoff has to hand run it, so a blitz game probably drive him to
insanity... :)

(Now, just to 100% automate the entire game.. ;) )
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Re: Blitz game
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 18:40:00 -0800

]I think the problem is that Atlantis 2.0 doesn't run automatically,
]Geoff has to hand run it, so a blitz game probably drive him to
]insanity... :)

That is exactly the problem. Perhaps if I could do it over, I
would run a playtest of ~50 people 3 times per week. But I'm
sure many more people are happy this way.

Of course, even with automation, it would still be a lot of work.
Bugs to fix, questions to answer, Times to edit, orders with
improper subject lines to be redirected.

Anyways, I'm learning quite a bit about running a large scale
play by email game; maybe I'll get good at it some time.

Geoff

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1 Mar 1995 10:22:15 -0800
From: "Mike Hughes" <Mike_Hughes@smtp.svl.trw.com>
Subject: Re: Blitz game

Reply to:   RE>>Blitz game

Tim Ulrich writes:
> Some of the discussions regarding all of this sounded as though people
> were forgetting that this is a playtest.  The more crowded the better!
> It should help shake loose the bugs.

With 336 player factions (as of last turn, I haven't pulled the latest
player's list yet), there should be plenty of people to find bugs.  Atlantis
1.1 closed at around 330 factions.

Geoff writes:
> Of course, even with automation, it would still be a lot of work.
> Bugs to fix, questions to answer, Times to edit, orders with
> improper subject lines to be redirected.

This supports my argument for closing the game and giving Geoff more time to
add spells, fill the "empty but closed to players" lairs, etc.  The more new
people added the worse the workload is going to get.

On a side note, I can find nothing in the rules telling people they should use
"ORDERS faction-no" as the subject line when they submit their orders.
Perhaps this should be added to the rules and then any improperly addressed
orders ignored the next week (I'll bet they learn quickly).  Of course,
Geoff's mail load would probably increase tremendously that week.

Comments?

Mike Hughes

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 95 07:40:35 PST
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Blitz game

--Boundary-8906132-0-0

]On a side note, I can find nothing in the rules telling people they should
]use
]"ORDERS faction-no" as the subject line when they submit their orders.
]Perhaps this should be added to the rules and then any improperly addressed
]orders ignored the next week (I'll bet they learn quickly).  Of course,
]Geoff's mail load would probably increase tremendously that week.

This is in the Player Instructions that I mailed out to every
player when they started. I wanted to keep non-rules issues
out of the rules, because these things can change without
affecting the actual game rules.

Geoff

--Boundary-8906132-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 01 Mar 1995 07:33:14                    Sent: 01 Mar 1995 07:31:50
From:"Mike Hughes" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Re: Blitz game
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
X-Orcl-Application: X-Mailer:  Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2

Reply to:   RE>>Blitz game

With 336 player factions (as of last turn, I haven't pulled the latest
player's list yet), there should be plenty of people to find bugs.  Atlantis
1.1 closed at around 330 factions.

Geoff writes:
> Of course, even with automation, it would still be a lot of work.
> Bugs to fix, questions to answer, Times to edit, orders with
> improper subject lines to be redirected.

Comments?

Mike Hughes

--Boundary-8906132-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 10:04:32 -0500
From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy)
Subject: Re: Blitz game

-Of course, even with automation, it would still be a lot of work.
-Bugs to fix, questions to answer, Times to edit, orders with
-improper subject lines to be redirected.

Bug fixes, yeah... but the questions could ignored until you had
time to respond, the times could be scraped for the blitz game (or
set up a 'times' mailing list, specificly for that sort of posting to forward
to all players who wanted on it... No gold for that though. :) ) and
people that use wrong order lines... though for them. ;)

(Actully, it should be possible to use procmail or another program to
not only pull out messages that have the correct subject line, but any
mesage that has '#atlantis' on the first text line in the body of the
messages. When I send it in with the wrong header, it's because I'm used
to the other games where I can do that, and i just 'mail atl < move' and
forget.)

Actully, I see you have '

atl-players@tango.rahul.net
atlantis@rahul.net
atl-design@tango.rahul.net

Is there a limit to the number of aliases you can set up? Phoenix
runs in the way that each game has an alias, and anything mailed to that
alias is considered commands for teh game server. (Things lije SHOW PLAYERS
or whatever.) In your case, you could just make any mail going to the
atl-game1@tango.rahul.net address automatically get processed as a set
of orders... People could still mail you questions and all, but the
missing header problme is solved....

Just some ideas. I'm happy to help setup anything like this. :)

(Also consider finding someone else to help maintain the Times.. I'm sure
at least a few people would be willing to help in that way.)
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 15:12:46 -0500
From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96))
Subject: Faction Types

Could someone please explaing the need for faction types.  I just find the
typs to be restrictive, and don't see much of a use for them.

Assuming that we continue to use Faction Types, these are my suggestions.

First, a person should be allowed to produce, tax, and have 1 mage,
regardless of his faction type.  A warrior faction might want a big tough
magic spell.  Any faction that is interested in forming an "Empire" probably
wants to tax, in order to support himself.  And finally, a Magic faction
should also be able to produce.

Second, I think that all Factions should be able to tax the same amount.
Instead of limiting the number of taxable regions, I think it would be
better to limit the number of regions that you can pillage in(this seems
more in the style of a warrior faction).

Thanks

--
"Knowledge is the key to the Universe"
			- Someone; I can't remember who.
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:21:56 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Peter Fleming <pfleming@eros.otago.ac.nz>
Subject: Atlantean Enquirer Mappr

Hi,
  The Atlantean Enquirer Mapper (for Windows) is moving into it's final
version, due next week. It now has Flags, and a Large Strategic Map.
  Any suggestions for improvements, additions and other features, please
email me Soon. As i hope to upload it to some site next week.
  Oh, and any suggestions for where to upload it to...
-banjo

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Hesidence <hesiden@Stoner.COM>
Subject: Re: Faction Types
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 17:00:28 -0600 (CST)

Joshua Higham (NMH96) writes:
>
>
>
> Could someone please explaing the need for faction types.  I just find the
> typs to be restrictive, and don't see much of a use for them.
>
> Assuming that we continue to use Faction Types, these are my suggestions.
>
> First, a person should be allowed to produce, tax, and have 1 mage,
> regardless of his faction type.  A warrior faction might want a big tough
> magic spell.  Any faction that is interested in forming an "Empire" probably
> wants to tax, in order to support himself.  And finally, a Magic faction
> should also be able to produce.
>
> Second, I think that all Factions should be able to tax the same amount.
> Instead of limiting the number of taxable regions, I think it would be
> better to limit the number of regions that you can pillage in(this seems
> more in the style of a warrior faction).

I presume the reason for faction types is to promote inter-player
cooperation.  It may also be an attempt to limit the size of
a players faction, so they don't become unbeatably huge.
However I think if it is attempting to limit player size then
it not going to work since a close alliace of just two or three players
could grow very large.

I like faction types because it promotes interplayer cooperation, but
I also really really really hate it because I would like to be able
to do everything without limiting myself to being 50 to 100 times
smaller than a specialized faction.  I would be happy if with being
able to have at least one mage, tax one region, and produce in one
region no matter what faction type I am.   New improved chart below

Faction type      Maximum number of  Maximum number of     Maximum number of
                  taxable regions    produceable regions   magicians
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
War             100                  1	                   1
Trade             1                100                     1
Magic             1                  1                     5*
War/Trade         5                  5                     1
War/Magic         5                  1                     3
Trade/Magic       1                  5                     3
Generic           2                  2                     2

*probably want to increase the number of magicians for a pure
 magic faction.  Or perhaps only pure magic factions can have
 mages with skills above 3 (or 4), depending on how powerful
 magic turns out to be.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 20:35:23 -0500
From: mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Joshua Mosher)
Subject: Re: Faction Types

At 5:00 PM 3/1/95, Mark Hesidence wrote:

>I like faction types because it promotes interplayer cooperation, but
>I also really really really hate it because I would like to be able
>to do everything without limiting myself to being 50 to 100 times
>smaller than a specialized faction.  I would be happy if with being
>able to have at least one mage, tax one region, and produce in one
>region no matter what faction type I am.   New improved chart below

I would like to ask the reverse question: what is the harm of faction
types? As Mark says in response to the original poster, it encourages
factions to work together to get ahead. It adds a bit of challenge to
empire building. It is an experiment that we get to play with. It avoids
the problem of generic factions that Atlantis 1.1 suffered under, where in
order to be successful all factions had to look alike.

Adding the "one of each minimum" doesn't seem to do much to the faction
types: if you are a pure War faction for example with 100 regions under
taxation, what will the production of one region matter? Likewise with
taxing in one region with a pure Trade faction. The Magic faction is the
only one I can imagine benefitting. Of course, a magician for each faction
also would be a benefit, but my whole argument (and I think the philosophy
of the game) is that by cooperating with other factions you get the benefit
of their different strengths, so _you_ don't need them.

Josh Mosher

----------------------------------------------------------
From: SARIKAKIS ANDREAS <andrew@ergasya.tuc.gr>
Subject: Blitz game
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 11:52:28 WET

A blitz game would have a lot of fun and would also test the game.However
 the blitz game cannot start until the game has a somewhat complete form that
 means that there are enough spells for magicians.In one month of real time a
 magician would have advanced to level 4 in his field and at the time there
 aren't enough spells for level 1.
   About closing the game I believe that the game should close at around 500
 factions.The huge increase of factions shows that there are many players that
 are interested to join the game and it would be unfair for them not to give
 them a chance in joining the game.

andrew@hra.ergasya.tuc.gr
	 (Faction 181)
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Hesidence <hesiden@Stoner.COM>
Subject: Re: Faction Types
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 07:37:46 -0600 (CST)

Joshua Mosher writes:
>
> At 5:00 PM 3/1/95, Mark Hesidence wrote:
>
> >I like faction types because it promotes interplayer cooperation, but
> >I also really really really hate it because I would like to be able
> >to do everything without limiting myself to being 50 to 100 times
> >smaller than a specialized faction.  I would be happy if with being
> >able to have at least one mage, tax one region, and produce in one
> >region no matter what faction type I am.   New improved chart below
>
> I would like to ask the reverse question: what is the harm of faction
> types?

Harm?  Thats hard to say.  What defense does a trade faction have
against a war faction if it decides to double cross?  If I'm a
trade faction how much trust should I put in a war faction to
defend me from other war factions?  I rather depend on my own
skill than someone elses (thus I'm not a trade faction) but that
doesn't mean I don't want to produce things or use magic and
I'm not going to carve out much on an empire as a generic faction.

> As Mark says in response to the original poster, it encourages
> factions to work together to get ahead. It adds a bit of challenge to
> empire building. It is an experiment that we get to play with. It avoids
> the problem of generic factions that Atlantis 1.1 suffered under, where in
> order to be successful all factions had to look alike.
>
> Adding the "one of each minimum" doesn't seem to do much to the faction
> types: if you are a pure War faction for example with 100 regions under
> taxation, what will the production of one region matter?

Well if it matters so little WHY NOT allow a war faction to produce
in one region?

> Likewise with
> taxing in one region with a pure Trade faction.

Cities have quite a large tax base, Seldmere tax is over 20,000
and towns seem to have over $5000.  This would make them perfect
HQ's for a trade faction and at least one spot where he could feel
safe from a double cross.

> The Magic faction is the
> only one I can imagine benefitting. Of course, a magician for each faction
> also would be a benefit, but my whole argument (and I think the philosophy
> of the game) is that by cooperating with other factions you get the benefit
> of their different strengths, so _you_ don't need them.

Well like I said, I like the need for cooperation.  The
"one of each minimum" does not change this a single mage cannot
learn all the magic foundations and will still want to share spells.
A war faction cannot produce everything that it needs (at least
not very quickly).  A trade faction can't tax everywhere and will
want to sell its products to others.  Yet with "one of each minimum"
everyone can experience the game fully not just 1/3 of it.