>> Easier just to report the faction of units rather than their immediate
>> superior in the tree. I never really saw the point of that.
>
>Uh... This blows away Greg Linahl's goal to hide the ownership of
>units. In fact, if no one can see the FT's except the player, then
>their sole purpose is for the loyalty check.
Let me clarify. I would rather Faction number than lord number. I would rather
no number at all than either. I would rather sneaks could find out my faction
simply, and my FT with a little extra work.
>> Punting FTs seems to be throwing the bathwater out with the baby. You lose
>> a lot of the political possibilities.
>
>Such as?
Such as persuading nobles to defect to your cause, complete with their
possessions and skills and vassals, rather than attacking them. Such as being
able to force a faction to become a sub-faction of yours, nominally part of your
FT. [with the normal consequences of defection 50% stay with each part].
That sort of thing.
>> I realise that Olympia is tending more towards the 'run around and hit
>> people' type game, but I'd rather it didn't.
>
>I don't really agree here. I have a terrible time getting players to
>attack one another. Has any player, besides myself, actually attacked
>another player in the 57 turns of the alpha test?
Part of that is that we're exploring the system, and the locations still. The
map is _big_ and there aren't a great number of us, so there is room for all.
Only when you have competition for resources will there be combat.
Personally I'm not fighting as I'm trying to test various things and avoid
messing up other peoples tests. If you want us to fight the odd pitched battle
to test things, say so, and I'll arrange to have a disposable army for someone
to attack.
>Recently I've added the permissions system, which was long overdue, and
>some ways to summon new kinds of fighters. But I also improved the trade
>system.
Yes. Improved trade makes it more viable than it was compared with being a
landowner.
>What changes do you think have made Olympia more combat oriented?
>Do you not agree with these additions?
>What non-combat additions would you like to see?
Well partly the emphasis on factions. Permissions being faction orientated. If
someone declares my faction hostile, _all_ my units get attacked, wherever they
are, rather than just the ones causing hassle. I'd rather be viewed as just a
collection of nobles who happen to cooperate rather than a faction, per se.
Factions would be more interesting if they spanned players, had specific goals
and could choose to be openly part of the faction (followers of a certain
religion) or not (thieves guild).
factions for factions sake just irks me in some undefinable way. Very
combatative - us and them. I play wargames when I want to do that.
Olympia is so much more than a wargame though.
>--
>Rich Skrenta <skrenta@shadow.com>