Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.

From: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1993 18:16:56 +0000

In article <Jul.8.13.16.59.1993.7759@gnumath.rutgers.edu> bonar@gnumath.rutgers.edu (Doug Bonar) writes:
   In article <srt.742146336@aerospace.aero.org> srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner) writes:
   > Carl suggested having to transmit orders and reports to and from a
   > main unit as a way to encourage empire building via vassals and to
   > even the game out for newbies.
   >
   > I like Carl's ideas (he's too modest to mention that he's got a neat

You do ?!  Well, from what you wrote to me about Epos, I never guessed. :-)

> implementation of this in a new game he's implementing) but I don't
   > think it really addresses the issue of making the game fair for an
   > incoming newbie.  This game mechanism may mean that it is more
   > difficult to build a big empire, but an incoming newbie player is
   > still going to be at a big disadvantage to an established player with
   > a strong (if small) empire.

Well, delay from units being far away does sound neat.

But I still wonder why it is that newbies having a hard time competing
   with established players is a problem.  It is awkward in the game
   (maybe), but if I can't get a better position in the game than when I
   started (ever!) I really don't see much reason to play.  If you want
   newbies and established players to be on an even footing in playing,
   it seems to me you are asking that a newbie be as far along on
   achieving any goal as an established player can be.  So, why play?

Absolutely.  The rewards for players who play skillfully for a long
time are both superior positions and superior knowledge of the game.
Under no circumstances should beginners be given those same
advantages.  However, there is no need to be quite as cruel to
beginners as at least some PBeM have been.

Putting new players with lots of money but without any skills or
protection in the world turns being a homicidal maniac from being an
optional playing style to a prerequisite for successful advancement.
So I would suggest that new players are given an opportunity to
"purchase" some skills, protection and support before they are put
into the world.  While older more powerful players will still be able
to kill them, this course of action would not any longer be profitable
and might be costly.  Few players would engage in mass slaughter
unless they had a specific reason (and that would be fine too).
Instead new players become valueable to older players both because
they may have "purchased" some skills which the older player may not
yet have acquired and as potential vassals in a "delayed-order-report"
world.

Carl Edman

References

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
pmf@astro.cf.ac.uk (Phillip Fayers)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 11:28:46 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 15:01:42 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 15:45:36 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
bonar@gnumath.rutgers.edu (Doug Bonar)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 17:17:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
pmf@astro.cf.ac.uk (Phillip Fayers)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 11:28:46 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 15:01:42 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 15:45:36 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
bonar@gnumath.rutgers.edu (Doug Bonar)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 17:17:00 +0000