Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player

From: bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager)

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:12:16 +0000

In article <3EE5DE60.60C32CE9@spam.me>, Stephen Baillie  <dont@spam.me> wrote:
>> The actual equipment is probably among the easier aspects to
>> handle. More difficult, I find, are the inherent capabilities
>> given to new positions.
>
>Equipment in TBG isn't as minor a concern as in Fantasy games, as in it
>you have (are?) a spaceship which is simply the sum of its parts
>(engines, etc).  Equipment there is more akin to characters or skills in
>a fantasy setting.

In space games, I tend to think that you can't really give new players
starships. Or if you do, you need to give them a crappy one that
anyone else can have in any quantity whenever they feel like it. A
"space probe" perhaps :-)

>So to extrapolate the idea to a fantasy medium, perhaps what you'd have
>is that starting players get a party consisting of a mercenary or two
>who have been hired for a certain number of turns, but will leave after
>that.

But that just makes the problem even worse. Now you'll have the
multiplayers starting a new set of positions every two or three turns
when the free mercs from the previous batch disappear.

Unless any player can at any time request any arbitrary amount of
three-turn-mercs to join their party at no cost :-)

>All this really shows is that Quest wasn't designed to discourage people
>from playing multiple positions, which is no surprise given that
>multiple positions are allowed.  Contrary to your assumption, I'm not

I have found it rather a recurring theme in PBMs. BSE certainly had
this problem. Entire fleet battles were fought with starter ships at
times.

>familiar with Quest, so I can't comment in too much depth as to how it
>would be different if it had been thus designed, but perhaps a good
>starting (continuing?) point for discussion would be brainstorming a few
>more ideas about how Quest-like games might make playing multiple
>positions less of an advantage?  I've given a couple to start off with,
>but I can't say how well they actually fit Quest...

I used Quest more for familiarity of terms than anything.

My own thoughts so far is to give new players absolutely nothing
beyond a game account and access to the game's interface. They then
have two basic options for progressing:

1) Contact other players in order to obtain starting equipment, loans,
missions, whatever.

2) Play any one of a number of information-based minigames aimed at
generating small amounts of money and that requires a lot of player
attention in order to succeed in. Anyone already inside the game can
play these games for profit if they wish, but the payback is
sufficiently small that most established players will have more
profitable ways to spend their time.

The main problem with this is that you are basically raising the
threshold of entering the game proper. If your game is a commercial
one, this is of course highly undesirable. And even if it's not, it
_will_ be causing you to have fewer players which might be bad for
your self-esteem :-)

Cheers
	Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

References

Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
wavey@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:01:26 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
Stephen Baillie <dont@spam.me>
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 06:18:34 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager)
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:43:12 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
Stephen Baillie <dont@spam.me>
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:34:39 +0000

Referenced By

Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
wavey@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:01:26 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
Stephen Baillie <dont@spam.me>
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 06:18:34 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager)
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:43:12 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
Stephen Baillie <dont@spam.me>
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:34:39 +0000