[Discuss] War Island Change

[John P. Murphy]

On Oct 5, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Tom Vogt wrote:

> John P. Murphy schrieb:
>> If you want nothing but mindless war, you've already been given the
>> only solution: disallow realm-to-realm messaging.
>
> As has already been mentioned: That will only cause people to move to
> mail and IRC.


That might still be OK: there's nothing at all binding about out-of- 
game communication.  But I agree that it's still a bad thing to push  
communication OOG.


>>   Nothing short of
>> that will prevent the "diplomacy" that people are decrying.  No
>> matter what, the players will always, always, always find the optimal
>> strategy for victory, and then attempt to follow it.  But mindless
>> war is not going to make the south islands any more fun: mindless war
>> ultimately means much more time spent sitting in the capital waiting
>> to get enough taxes to hire another unit, which is just going to get
>> destroyed anyway.
>>
>
> Then we need to reduce the amount this matters. We can do that.


I agree.  I'll have to think on the matter.


>> Wrong.  Suddenly you have people seeking the most conservative and
>> incremental strategies imaginable.
>
> Not we way I intend it to be. Here's how it works:
>
> Every looting, victory and some other things add to a score called
> "glory". That's not new code, it's been in the game for a year or soo,
> but so far it hasn't been used in any visible way (mostly as a tool  
> for
> me to judge how things are going).
>
> Now, every week the governments on the war islands will get a notice
> about how they're doing in relation to the other realms.
>
> Every three weeks, whoever is last loses their jobs and a point of  
> prestige.
>
>
> Judging you in comparison to the others means you can't go the  
> "let's do
> one looting to get a positive score and we're done" route.


Every three weeks is a good balance.  This might screw up monthly  
elections, though -- if everyone gets dumped from their posts the  
third week of the month, say, then there's another election right  
around the corner.  It might be worth coupling this with a mandate  
that all the SI realms are dictatorships.


>> On top of that, you've added a nice positive feedback loop to that
>> once a realm starts to lose it gets engulfed in weekly chaos, which
>> in turn will ensure that they continue to lose.
>>
>
> Good. On the war islands, more chaos is good.

Chaos in general is good, but you have to be careful with positive  
feedback loops.  If a small edge can turn into a wide lead with very  
little work, then this works against the game.

In control theory, it's frequently worth basing your actions not just  
on a variable, but on the rate at which the variable is changing.   
What if instead of punishing the realms with the least glory, you  
punish the realms where the change in glory is the smallest?  That  
way, all of the realms are being judged both in relation to the  
others and in relation to their own past performance.  A realm that  
was doing poorly, but is improving, would thus be less likely to be  
punished (or punished in different ways) than a successful realm  
which is really just coasting on its past victories.


>>   Second that they'll
>> become so risk-averse that only sure-fire victories will be pursued.
>> The most risk-averse strategy?  Two realms ganging up on a third,
>> where that third is losing its government every week.
>>
>
> The code takes that into account. You get little glory for trashing a
> very small enemy, and much for a heroic defense (or charge). The small
> realm stands a real chance of having the weaker of the attackers  
> suffer
> instead.
>
> And even if not, then there's only two realms left and one of them
> _will_ draw the shorter straw the next round.

I can see how this would be the case.  I suspect, though, that unless  
it's made crystal-clear that this is happening, the rulers will play  
it as safe as possible, and then blame a drop in glory on situations  
beyond their control.

>> I don't think you've defined the problem nearly well enough to be
>> talking about solutions.  Before you start implementing fixes, it
>> would be a very good idea to sit down, think about, and articulate
>> exactly what you mean by "war island".
>>
> Why? That's already very plainly stated in the game itself. Constant
> warfare.

There's a difference between constant warfare and continual battles,  
though.  I can't speak for other rulers, but when I had a character  
ruling one of the SEI realms, I never forgot for a minute that all of  
the other realms were enemies to be eventually defeated.  There was  
never any question but that they had to be eradicated: but it was  
frequently necessary to smile at some of them and convince them to do  
some of my work for me.  Sometimes this meant sitting at home and  
recovering strength while other realms fought.  (I got a LOT of  
mileage out of, "Oh, were were defeated so very badly by our common  
enemy!  Please, step up your attacks on them, lest we both get  
overrun!"  It was hilarious.)  From the outside (and, I hope, to my  
"partners") it looked like an alliance, but there's a reason that my  
character Alexei gained a reputation for both treachery and for success.

So, was that in line with "constant warfare"?  I think so, even if  
parts of the war went cold for a time.  The ultimate goal was always  
complete victory, and every negotiation was designed to further the  
case of the war effort in one way or another.  However, plenty of  
other people saw periods of watching and waiting, and complained that  
this was not in the spirit of a "war island".  Even though the war  
was constant, the battles were not.  But we could both point to the  
island description and say that we were arguing in the spirit of what  
was intended.  That's why I think the definition needs to be thought  
over: does "constant war" merely mean "continual battles", or does it  
mean, "settle for nothing less than military victory and conquest"?

John


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss