Re: Olympia Question

William Bruvold (
10 May 1995 18:06:58 GMT

In article <D89ML4.A3M@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
Greg Lindahl <gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <3oe4ko$>,
>John Morrow <> wrote:

Discussing the "open/closed" nature of Olympia

>>Second, Faery and Hades have made the idea of "frontiers" pretty

I believe that the game dynamics would have improved for the better
in oly commerical version 1 if Rich had selected 20 cities, made
them _each_ safe havens, and then dropped nobles randomy into them.
This would have accomplished at least things

a) It would have made the diplomacy of the game much more
contingent on game dynamics and not on past experiences/history and
player reputation. Clearly the AOO alliance in the best example
(but their are others) in which a group of players with past history
decided to cooperate with each other - a task that was made easier
because they were all plopped down in IC at the same time. Spread
them out across the known world and the probability of that kind of
cooperation becomes much harder....While the meta faction may try to
operate the dynamics of being isolated in a far off world force more
compromises (and latter backstabing). Not meant to be an attack on
the AOO - I benefited myself from that situation with our alliance
being set up weeks before the start.

b) Faery is fine the way it is _if_ it really was a dangerous place
Rich's message in vol. 45 of the times gives hope of that. Castles
should not have been allowed their and the Feary hunt should really
be able to wipe out an army moving across the land. THat would
balance the game in a much more interesting way....yes you could
move a large army anywhere using Faery for military advantage but
you would risk losing it to the elves who didn't like you doing it.
Better balance and more interesting development

c) Bad idea (sorry carl) to place a mountain due north of the
starting safe haven. All turn one players are hereby raked over the
coals for allowing a castle to be completed, much less standing, on
Mount Olympia. One way around this would be to extend the safe
haven (or limit movement) so that newbies have enough space to
gather resources/strength to prepare to enter the world and that it
is difficult for a faction to take them out before they do so.

d) Limitations on beastmasters. One of the real closed end aspects
of the game is the fact that beastmasters can stack an unlimited
number of animals (boy, they must be able to train their dog better
than mine). This game advantages to turn one players who were
grabbing monsters and now are breeding the buggers. Without having
to pay maintenance costs it really means that any time spent
producing men (as opposed to monsters with 500/500 ratings) is time
being wasted.

e) But all this said, a number of factions have benefited by
taking newbies "under thier wing" and providing aide and support in
exchange for those valuable noble days. A new faction needs to try
to make contact with established entities (read the times and send
mail requests) to try to pick up a patron. Any established faction
that turns down the opportunity to have a new faction move into
their region and quarry some stones, breed some beasts, and cut some
timber in exchange for safety and support doesn't see that the great
limitation on everyone's power is the number of nobles and the slow
rate of noble point growth. That is one of the things that
encourages the possiblity of a "feudal" system, in which factions
are linked together because of the limitation on nobles in
comparison to the vast spaces of the game. Yes, such a career track
at least initially could be boring (and at 2.50 a week might not be
worth it) but it does provide some decent game play and the
opportunity to develop strength and strategy (and most importantly
an ally to call upon should things get dicey).