Re: What's wrong with Olympia today (long)

From: srt@aero.org (Scott "TCB" Turner)

Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 04:35:20 +0000

(Greg Lindahl) writes:
>However, I don't think taxation by players is such a good idea,
>because it's hard to keep such a scheme from becoming a "rich get
>richer, poor get poorer" situation -- the two-dozen biggest players
>collude to snarf up the big avilable properties, suck the lifeblood
>out of them, and fight with each other while most players are reduced
>to peons. The best way to kill a game is to create a situation where
>the new players have little hope of catching up with the old players.
>Is there any way that a taxation scheme wouldn't make this problem
>worse? I think not.

Let's face it, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is an
accurate reflection of how the world works.  The more realistic and
detailed Olympia becomes, the more this will be true.  And if you think
that you don't want this in Olympia, it's because you aren't thinking
very hard about it.

What does "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" mean, anyway?
It means that people who have been successfully achieving their goals
have increased ability to achieve their goals, and generally, increased
ability to do so at the expense of the less successful.  What part of
this would you throw out of Olympia?

Throw out the part that success makes you more powerful, and you get
a kind of boring game where you aren't allowed to progress.  For
example, we could simply legislate that no one in Olympia could be
killed, that everyone in Olympia gets income equal to the income of
the player with the most income, units equal to the player with the most
units, and so on.  I'm sure that would be a lot of fun.  But at least
the rich wouldn't be getting any richer.

Conversely, you could throw out the ability for people to use their
success to take advantage of other people.  Then Olympia becomes a kind
of foot race with no interaction between players, where the people doing
best would probably be determined largely by random numbers.  You
couldn't even have a market economy, because anyone with money could
control the market to the detriment of others.

Either way, the game becomes boring.  I think it's pretty ridiculous to
talk about a game with a whole bunch of safeguards built into it.  Of
course taxation will be a coveted source of income, that will lead to
conflicts and intrigues.  That's the whole *point* of the game.  And
before everyone objects, of course I think taxation will need to be play
balanced.  But to talk of elaborate "two-tier" safeguard systems and so
on is just silly.

-- Scott T.

References

Olympia - Future Implimentation Propositions
morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)
Sat, 16 May 1992 02:32:15 +0000
What's wrong with Olympia today (long)
dennis@tellabs.com (Dennis Faherty)
Mon, 18 May 1992 22:36:18 +0000
Re: What's wrong with Olympia today (long)
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Tue, 19 May 1992 01:08:16 +0000

Referenced By

Olympia - Future Implimentation Propositions
morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)
Sat, 16 May 1992 02:32:15 +0000
What's wrong with Olympia today (long)
dennis@tellabs.com (Dennis Faherty)
Mon, 18 May 1992 22:36:18 +0000
Re: What's wrong with Olympia today (long)
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Tue, 19 May 1992 01:08:16 +0000