Re: Minor Timing problem with selling?

John Morrow (
Thu, 8 Sep 94 10:41:55 EDT

>My aggressive pre-bid on some horses in Aethelarn early in the game was a
>key factor, perhaps *the* key factor in allowing me to be where I am a year
>later. I'd hate for this to be taken away since it's just yet another perk
>of being first on a city list and there are probably already too many
>advantages to being firstest already.

Concerning the advantages of being first in a city list I don't think
this is so much of a problem in most cities except Imperial City.
Why? Imperial City is a safe haven so you can't kill yourself to the
top or kill those on the top, even if you want to.

Imperial City is a critical place and peoples' positions in the City
are based on when they joined the game (yes, I know it if more
complicated that this but suffice to say things would be different if
different people had started out on or near the top), not because of
some game-related action performed by the players. And there is no
way to force those already at the top to leave, as you can in other

The reason I feel this is a problem in Imperial City is that the older
players can sit on top of City and (A) use the single "Perform Magic"
for the month, (B) recruit the ten available peasants for the month,
and (C) (if Rich changes things) control the market in the city that
all players MUST start in. And they can do all this with a handful of
nobles and men because they cannot be attacked. A similar situation
is occuring in the forest outside of Imperial City with respect to
logging. The players that settled down first can set up a perpetual
situation where they can (A) harvest all the resource and (B) "Perform
Common" in one of the more critical locations in the game without the
possiblity of being attacked (yes, I know the loggers are harmless
but they ARE a monopoly).

In short, older players are basking in the benefit of the "safe haven"
designed to protect new players in such a way that it is detrimental
to new players because they are being shut out of these "great deals"
that older players are unlikely to leave voluntarily.


Make Imperial City less attractive for older players.

If they can't be bumped off the top of a safe haven, then being on top
in a safe haven should have less benefits than being on top in other
cities. Shut off "Perform Common" in safe havens. Shut off resources
in safe havens (peasants, wood, stone, etc.). This won't hurt the new
players since they aren't getting this stuff, anyway.


Leave everything on and every time new players are added, add them to
the TOP of Imperial City where they will have "first shot" at the
resources. And any player that leaves Imperial City should be put at
the TOP of the Forest [by22] safe haven, etc. A general way to handle
this would be to make it so that in safe havens (unlike other
locations since they are special), new arrivals are put at the TOP of
the location list instead of at the bottom. This will certainly
discourage people from sitting around and it shouldn't be hard to
implement or explain

BTW, players who call this "sour grapes" should realize that I have
unit(s) in Imperial City not far from the top of the stack and I, too,
benefit from the current situation. I just think it runs counter to
the "spirit" of the safe haven for new players and I'd be more willing
to walk around or go out to the Forest for a visit if I didn't think
my position was so important. Besides, won't it be fun to see people
lining up to be the LAST person out of Imperial City on day 29 so they
can be a the top of the Forest in the next month? :-)

What do people think?

John Morrow

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links