From: matso@dtek.chalmers.se (Mats Olsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Subject: A modest proposal...
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:12:31 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology


    I have been following the debate between the followers of the new 
"high-octane" bombing/ogging game and the few remaining knights that
still are true to the dogfighting creed. To avoid any future misunder-
standings, I might well point out that I, myself, is an old, grayed
knight when it comes to trecking. Only this last month have I been able
to arm myself in my old colors and step out into the world (thanks to
the improved transatlantic link and renewed interest). 

    As I see it, FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF WINNING THE GAME the old fashioned
dogfight, where you try to wear out your enemy in long, drawn out battles
of wit and agility is a total waste of time. In a clued game, the winner
will be the side with the most armies and most time over target, to borrow
from another poster. Therefore, surviving becomes almost irrelevant
(unless you are carrying) and in fact is a hindrance sometimes, if it
leaves you badly damaged and out of the battle for a minute or two.  Hell,
if suicide wasn't penalized with being dropped out of the server, it
would just be a fast way to teleport to your homeplanet and a fresh ship.
While it might be more skillfull to survive ogging the enemy than to die
doing it, it MIGHT well be less clued... as dying gets you to a new ship
faster and therefore better time over target (THE best way would be a
mutual kill - you would then leave no kill for his teammates).

    This is a valid playing style... hell! it is THE style, as it leads
to victory, right? I can see it... but I don't have to like it. I would
personally like a game where you can feel more clued surviving than
dying. Maybe its just me and my oldfashioned ways.

   One thing to bear in mind though: offense MUST be worth more than
defence, otherwise there would be no incentive to attack and a static
(boring) game would result. Therefore drastic things like limiting the
number of ships for each side, having long delays to get a new ship
or anything like it would probably (read certainly) lead to a worse game.
(Trust me - I ran a hacked xtrek server 3-4 years ago that died due to
this).

    But maybe a slight change, a small penalty for dying would make it 
a little less attractive (winning-the-game-wise) to die?

    How about blocking one army from popping for each ship destroyed?

    Note that this does not invalidate ogging... only non-skillfull
ogging, ie ogging which leaves the ogger dead but not the target.
    Some adjustements to avoid ruining play balance would be in order -
such as excepting ships killed by a starbase and possible not invoking
it if a side has few planets left. If a whole army is too drastic,
perhaps half an army or a third would still do the trick (ie 50% or 33%
chance of blocking next pop). If it is not enough, maybe 1.5 armies...
Hmm... maybe even 1/10 of an army per planet held... would autobalance
things then...

    Any opinions? Nah, probably not. This posting is probably too reasoned,
much too bland to give rise to any followups. Should have insulted everyone 
in general and a few in particular, then I would probably get some feedback.
    Hmm... see the above as a threat :-)

    /Mats
--
  Chalmers  | USENET: matso@dtek.chalmers.se   | "The supreme irony of life is
 University | SNAIL:  Mats Olsson              | that hardly anyone gets out of
     of     |         Richertsgatan2E/5023     | it alive." 
 Technology |         412 81 Gothenburg SWEDEN |                   - Job, R.A.H