>Regarding the PERSUADE command:
>1) how did you feel about the hidden complexity? Was it a positive or
>a negative that many "invisible" factors were taken into account? Did
>you find this made the game richer, or was it frustrating to not be
>able to be sure what effect your persuade would have?
I liked the hidden complexity even though it was frustrating. My opinion is
that it made the game richer by making things less obvious and to easy to
exactly predict the outcome.
>2) would you favor splitting the monetary and "other" features of
>persuade into two different commands, e.g. BRIBE and PERSUADE?
>(consider BRIBE to only take into account the money offered, and
>PERSUADE to include all those extra features like fine cloaks, etc.)
>Why or why not?
>1) Was it too complex? Was it too hard to prepare for battle, or did
>you find the extra factors (leadership, loyalty, weather) enriching?
It was complex in that I still have no real idea how the combat system
really worked. I have a vauge idea from the few combats I have been in but
I liked the enriching factors of weather, loyalty etc... It makes thing
just that bit less predictable.
>2) Would you prefer a simpler model? If yes, how would you simplify
>the model (e.g. Russell might want only swords and leather armor :-)?
No. I wouldn't want it any simpler
>3) Would you prefer a more complex model? If so, which of the
>following are features you'd like to see:
> a) more weapon types (e.g. maces, staves, axes, etc.)
Definitly more weapon types.
> b) more armor types (helms, shields, gauntlets, etc.)
More armour types would give a bit more variety.
> c) being able to combine armor of different types (e.g.
> you can use a shield with your platemail)
Yes but the shield/weapon combinations could be very difficult to handle.
i.e. combining a two handed weapon with a shield
> d) having certain types of armor be more effective against
> certain types of weapons, and vice-versa (e.g. platemail
> is great against maces, but sucks against arrows. Chainmail
> is the reverse)
Yes, and make the pros and cons of armour/wepaons a part of the lore for
that skill i.e. Combat, Archery.
> e) making archery weapons more effective (e.g. have a missile
> weapon round every three combat rounds; no combat weapons
> can be used that round).
Yes and no. I would prefer to have a round or two at the very beginning of
combat that is missile weapons only i.e. shoot arrows, throw javelins then
get into close combat where missile weapons can't be used. On boats/ships I
would extend the missile phase to three to four rounds.
> f) place modifiers on certain weapons when used on horseback
> (pole-arms and lances go up, daggers go down :-)
> g) modifiers for effectiveness of mounted troops by terrain
> type (e.g. deadly on the plains, adequate in mountains,
> horrible in swamps and forests)
> h) should equipment become damaged in combat (swords break,
> horses get wounded)?
I am in favour of entropy in all forms in Olympia, which includes weapons
breaking, towers decaying etc...
> i) the complexity of your choice (make a suggestion)
Don't understand the question.
>4) Do you want auto-attacking, if you see someone you hate?
>1) Did you like markets in olympia? Why or why not?
I liked the presence of markets but I am of the opinion that they were to
>2) Were markets too complex? Too simple?
Too simple I think. There was no price drop/increase for under or
oversupply of goods.
>3) Would you favor a market economy, with hairy computations going
>on to limit production of resources, etc. (as per the many suggestions
>on this mailing list during the discussion)? (nothing like unbiased
Yes. I would prefer the markets to reflect the way a real market operates
as best as possible. To this end I would suggest that a market could buy
items that it does not presently sell. These items would of course be
purchaesed at a lower rate than they would normally go for as they would be
seen as a risk by the buyer.
>4) Would you favor doing away with markets completely, and having the
>only source of new items be players manufacturing them? If so, how
>would you like to see inter-player commerce handled?
If you were to go to inter-player commerce I would suggest that this was
handled by the player setting up a market (Trading sub-skill) and he sets
the desired prices (plus maximuim buy price and minimum sell price) of the
items. The market would then be handled by the game. So in one sense the
inter-player market would be similar to the present market system but each
market would have a lot less items for sale (initially at least).