Re: Olympia Turn Length

From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1992 19:18:52 +0000

In article <2A2724B5.17078@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>Greg Lindahl writes
>> Carl Edman writes:
>> >Nothing would prevent players who preferred the old
>> >style to continue to send in orders once a week or even only
>> >once a month.
>>
>> Except it would probably be a less effective way to play.
>> If I am attacked, the best possible response comes from a
>> human who can respond immediately, not someone who can
>> only read mail once every 2 or 3 days or a program. We
>> already have one compuserve player and will hopefully
>> get more.
>
>Sure. But while I can understand that some people really don't have
>time to send in orders more than once a week, I really don't think that
>it would be _that_ terrible if just in the relatively rare case that
>they are attacked, they might just have to make an exception once. Do
>you ?
>
I think you miss the point.  Many players might not *KNOW* they've been
attacked because they only *read* mail once a week.  The real issue here
is what sort of time demand we want Olympia to have.  I've seen Conquer
and the like grow into hese really ridiculous monsters in short order,
and I don't play those games.  I like the leisurely pace of one turn per
week.  (Also, it makes for a lot more time to incorporate changes, and
for some flexibilty in case a bug needs to be fixed (not that Rich every
makes mistakes))

Mel

References

Re: Olympia Turn Length
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Sat, 30 May 1992 04:39:28 +0000
Re: Olympia Turn Length
cedman@714-725-3177.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Sat, 30 May 1992 06:46:14 +0000