Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.

From: skrenta@usl.com (Rich Skrenta)

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1993 12:30:28 +0000

desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
> why a player who plays _skillfully_ merits such a reward, if it is one,
> and the player who does not play skillfully does not.  If it really is a
> lot of fun to have a big empire and know lots of secrets, why not let
> everyone do it?  Or pick those who do randomly?

You can't seriously be suggesting that the player who carefully reads
the rules, plots his strategy, and coordinates well with other players,
should have the same probability of doing well as one who submits
random commands to the server?

> In fact, I think it sounds a little sick to play games to have *power*
> over others.

Oh, come on.  The whole point of empire building games is to model economic,
military and political power.  If you can't influence other players, what's
the point?

I think it's a bit excessive to characterize the gleam in the armchair
Napolean's eye as "sick".  But that's a personal value judgement of yours.
Some people think D&D or games of chance are evil.  Wargames have often
been criticized as promoting aggressive behavior.  However, for many
players, being able to hurt other players is important -- it's what gives
the game meaning.

> > I believe that Carl is talking about epic, open ended PBM games, where a
> > strong position built up over a long time _is_ valued by the player.
>
> Obviously "_is_" is too strong.  I think that "may be" valued is more
> accurate.  Personally, I find such games a lot more fun in the early
> growth phase, before I build up all of that baggage to deal with.  I
> know lots of players who feel the same way.

This isn't what I found running Olympia.  Players, after investing 5-10
hours/week developing their positions, tended to get *very* upset when
bad things happened to them.  Not just the sore losers, either.  The more
real the game becomes to the players, the more acutely they feel the sting
of defeat.

So let's sketch the ideal David DesJardins game:

Each turn, each player has an equal probability for
	success, regardless of what he does (or perhaps, what
	the other players do.)

Players have little influence over one another's positions.

Investment in positions is minimal, so players feel
	little loss simply walking away from the game.

The expert has little advantage over the new player.

What fits?  Rolling dice against one another?

--
Rich Skrenta <skrenta@usl.com>

References

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Fri, 09 Jul 1993 03:35:06 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Fri, 09 Jul 1993 03:35:06 +0000