Re: Olympia - Free Market Economy

From: Bill.Viggers@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Bill Viggers)

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 06:04:07 +0000

In article <1992Jun23.043114.5816@aero.org>, srt@aero.org (Scott "TCB" Turner) writes:
|> (John Morrow) writes:
|> >You miss the main difference as I see it.  When I kill a newbie, no
|> >one gets back a turn report saying THEY are dead and have to make up a
|> >new character -- that anything they did up to that point is now null
|> >and void and they must start over.
|>
|> Sure.  But no one has been saying, "Dr. Pain, you should stop this
|> because you're wrecking the game for the players."  And they won't,
|> because everyone realizes that to some extent this is a competitive,
|> dangerous environment.  Possible death comes along with it.
|>

Actually I'm not so sure it *is* wrecking the game for the players.
	I'm really in two minds about it.  Before the Pain saga Olympia
	was a little slow.  To be honest, the most exiciting game turn
	I've had yet, is the one with Zyzak in Drassa, when I may have
	been killed.
		On the other hand It isn't any fun for the new players
	to be killed off on the first turn.  This is one of the problems
	being faced on our local MUD with regard to player killing.  Pain
	makes the game exciting for me personally, but if I was a newbie,
	I know where I *wouldnt* want to start...

|> What everyone *has* been saying is "Dr. Pain, you should stop this
|> because attacking other units is wrong."  That's the big claim the
|> Drassans make for wanting to revenge me, for instance.  They want to
|> bring "civilization" to the Dark Nation.  And that's Oleg's
|> justification for the "interesting players list".  But these same
|> people different attitude towards people like yourself, who are doing
|> the same thing to independents.  (So you are attacking to capture not
|> kill, big deal.)  What this says to me is that it isn't a moral issue
|> at all.  It's just that the complainers don't want to get killed.
|> They don't complain about you because you're not threatening their
|> positions.
|>

Hey I want to make the continent safe for mages to study in.  Stuff
	civilisation.  And attacking to capture isn't (at least in my mind)
	as 'morally wrong' as attacking another player.  Why?  well inside
	the game, nothing (unless you want to make out PC's to be a privlaged
	class of the people).  But outside the game, there are real people
	who get attached to their positions.  To which I guess your reply
	is 'then they shouldn't play olympia'.  Well some people out there
	are not interested in the combat aspect, they want to explore, or
	trade or whatever.  But this topic has already been thrashed to death.

However internal to the game (ie as viewed by the residents of
	Olympia), attacking to capture is not as bad as to kill.  Its the
	difference between murder and kidnapping.

|> That's a fine attitude - I don't want my faction to die, either - but
|> come out and say so.  Don't carry on about how using combat is
|> anti-social, etc.  And don't try to get the rules to the game changed
|> on that basis.
|>

Oh I think that *all* combat is anti social.  But on the other hand
	I'm an anti-social sort of person.  "I don't attack independant units,
	I arrest transients"

|> >Perhaps you should not moan and groan when people, who do not want to
|> >be "next" rise up against you.
|>
|> When have you ever seen me moan and groan about people opposing me?
|> Far from it.  I've been taunting the Drassans from day one to stop
|> talking and start walking.  It's not my fault they're all cowards. :-)
|>

Hey dude its psychological warfare :->

|> What I do moan and groan about is people who want to change the rules
|> of the game to protect themselves.  I'll never complain about someone
|> who does something clever or hurts me in the context of the game.  But
|> to go outside the game to get the rules changed rather than to play
|> within the rules is childish.

Oh I agree, but on the other hand, if a rules change seems to make
	sence (such as the one that let you persuade the black company), then
	it should be made.

|>
|> We all suggest rule changes or additions that we think will improve
|> the game.  But there are a number of people who are constantly
|> proposing rule changes that are pretty obviously intended to simply
|> remove someone else's advantages, whether they're combat-related, or
|> economic-related.  I'll continue to moan and groan when that
|> happens.
|>

Or enchance their own position.  I'm as guilty of this as anyone else,
	I've suggested several changes to the magic system.  This makes me
	directly more powerful, but I think it also enhances the game as a
	whole.

|> >If Dr.  Pain were a little more diplomatic and a little less
|> >bloodthirsty throughout, he might have had a lot more support and
|> >certainly less enemies but, alas, that is not the case...
|>
|> Ha!  Diplomacy has no place in a religious crusade!
|>

Religion?  Ahh the white rose will have her day.

Bill (aka Merlinium the grey, guildmaster magician of Olympia)

References

Re: Olympia - Free Market Economy
srt@aero.org (Scott "TCB" Turner)
Mon, 22 Jun 1992 18:08:32 +0000
Re: Olympia - Free Market Economy
morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)
Tue, 23 Jun 1992 00:41:20 +0000
Re: Olympia - Free Market Economy
srt@aero.org (Scott "TCB" Turner)
Tue, 23 Jun 1992 04:31:14 +0000