Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.

From: js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1993 03:51:20 +0000

In article <Jul.8.13.16.59.1993.7759@gnumath.rutgers.edu>, bonar@gnumath.rutgers.edu (Doug Bonar) writes:
|>
|> 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?
|>
|> Doug

I certainly _don't_ believe that newbies should be able to compete with
established players straight away.  I _do_ believe that it should be possible for
a new player to become as powerful as the established players, however.

If you have unlimited exponential growth, for instance, then this is impossible.
If you have research which grows as the ammount of effort you put into it, then
catching up on someone with a head start is _nearly_ impossible.

These are the things I think should be avoided in an ongoing game.

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