Re: More Arguments. Favourite games.

From: "Enno Rehling" <schick.mir.spam@gmx.de>

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:47:09 +0000

> OK: Let me start with a petrol bomb. I think that Atlantis (and
> descendants) is inferior to Olympia (the modern kind) because it
> doesn't have noble points. Noble points are the way that Olympia
> limits the number of units you can employ, and limit the power of your
> mages -- if you want to have a really kick-ass group of mages, you
> have to use all your noble points to build them. They work pretty darn
> well. I wish you guys would adopt them...

I like them, too. dind't mention them for two reasons: a) someone else =
was sure to bring them up, and b) I haven't played long enough to see =
how much they really do.
We thought about this long and hard. One development I fathered, SAGA =
(still a work in progress) uses the idea. Eressea doesn't, and there are =
at least two reasons for it. It's hard to add them to a running game =
after a year or two - you'd have to effectively start over, and we =
didn't want that. And it's hard to add it to a game that only has 22 =
skills, of which just 3 are "high power". OLY has the advantage of its =
skill tree.
I'm thinking of adding noble points (or faction points, or whatever you =
call them) to a later version of Eressea. But the game needs more =
breadth and more alternative routes, otherwise distribution will lokk =
kinda the same for everyone. If Oly has that, and not just one good way =
to distribute plus variations, then that's great.
We limit the number of units a player can have, the number of mages and =
alchemists. they can yhoose only one race, one colour of magic, and =
that's it. It caps the maximum influence they can have, and they can't =
have it all. But to integrate noble points into the existing game isn't =
really feasible.

> Some people have disliked the fact that Olympia2 strictly conserves
> noble points, so that when you beat up an enemy, he'll end up running
> away and rebuilding. Well, the idea of noble points is separate from
> strict conservation. So, what do people think of noble points in
> general?

Ah. To me, noble points should be simply a question of how much =
influence a player can have, and what percentage of the overall =
available game mechanisms he can use. But his strength should be rising =
even when the number of NP isn't - because he invests time. If you kill =
his mage, he may still have the NP invested in it, but he has a low =
level mage that's in serious need of training.

> >those were also what gave me the most problems. Planning up to 30 =
moves
> >ahead, with no means of synchronization or error-recovery was a
> >nightmare.
>=20
> Ah, but you CAN synchronize and do error recovery. You just have to
> think hard.  I agree that this is hard for novice players. But this is
> the jewel that allows experts to beat the crap out of hordes of
> novices. My current enemies in Olympia can't manage an amphibious
> landing to save their lives.

Furchtbar. It's a design style that I really hate. Making a game hard to =
play to seperate good players from bad. You have a computer background, =
so you get an advantage at playing. Your enemies lose because of =
technicalities, not because of strategic decisions. Nah, I don't like =
that.
If I lose, I want to lose because I fell victim to treachery, bad =
planning on my part or military strength. Not because of technical =
difficulties in making my units do what I want them to do. Also not =
because of typos, a bad interface, and a number of other things. I've =
always tried to eliminate those.

> > As a designer,
> > I'm more willing to do small, closed-ended games now, because at =
some
> > point you want a blank slate, and try some new stuff without =
upsetting
> > everyone who doesn't like to have new rules thrown at them every =
other
> > week.
>=20
> One nice thing that "Olympia: The Age of Gods" has done is take a
> previously open-ended engine and turn it into a closed-ended
> game. That can have cool effects; if you set it up as a 2-sided
> battle, people can get in and immediately fight, and they know what to
> expect in advance. I would imagine that the action would start earlier
> and be pretty continuous.

We're planning to do that with Eressea. It's pretty easy to make it =
close-ended, but you'll need to have all players seeded from the start =
or you'll get unfairness due to age. I'm not worried about action. We =
already have plenty of that. :-)

Enno.

References

More Arguments. Favourite games.
"Enno Rehling" <schick.mir.spam@gmx.de>
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 20:49:16 +0000
Re: More Arguments. Favourite games.
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 23:47:54 +0000

Referenced By

More Arguments. Favourite games.
"Enno Rehling" <schick.mir.spam@gmx.de>
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 20:49:16 +0000
Re: More Arguments. Favourite games.
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 23:47:54 +0000