STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP (THE SEDG) (Sponsored by Flying Moose Technologies' Starweb Analyzer - http://flyingmoose.cjb.net) VOLUME 27 February 28, 2000 CONTENTS Feature Article - HOW TO BUCK THE TREND by Elliot Hudes Questions - Obscure Multigame rules SEDG Web Page URL The Captain's Log - You Have to Think Outside the Box The Swap Corner - HOW DO I part III - Color Control Correspondence FEATURE ARTICLE - HOW TO BUCK THE TREND! By Elliot Hudes (Somnos@compuserve.com) In a recent article I went on a rant bemoaning the weaknesses I see in the Starweb game (SEDG Volume 25 - The Starweb Formula). I still believe every word that I wrote and if you have been following along I received a lot of mail in support. Some felt I had not gone far enough but in my mind I don't want major changes in Starweb as that risks a change in the game. No, I want a change in the scoring. As a reminder of that article here is a reprise of the opening paragraph --> >>Has Starweb become too predictable? Too easy? Is there a winning formula and because of this have we become stuck in a rut? I am going to say a resounding YES! If you play the game as efficiently as possible then you ultimately wind up with the same sort of play in game after game. That is, form a large alliance to enhance cooperation and scoring. And this ultimately leads to the two-pole game and the merchant race.<< Well, rather than hold my breath until I turn blue waiting for FBI to make adjustments I thought I would take a stab at ideas to avoid the scenario spelt out in the above paragraph. Now remember, some of these ideas will run counter to ideal strategy, proven play, scoring and perhaps even survival. So, I don't suppose that all (or perhaps any) will be adopted. In a recent game I tried to get every merchant in the game into my alliance. I figured that in this way I could still reap the benefits of their double hauling while limiting their scoring to something reasonable. Not only that it puts my alliance in an advantageous position in regards to other alliances that would have to expend twice the ships to haul metal. It would most effectively avoid the tiresome problem of two alliances trying to push their merchant into the winning position - for the honor of the alliance. Unfortunately, our recruiting drive was unsuccessful. This leads to another thought. As with my example, once you have allied with a merchant it becomes important to eliminate any competing merchant. Since elimination of their homeworld and capture of their territory may do little to slow them down (in a scoring sense) you may have to target his whole alliance to eliminate his clients. This becomes a priority over and above eliminating loners, dropouts and even smaller alliances. Many players know it is much more strategic and profitable to take out an uncommunicative loner first. You may have to forgo these easing pickings for a more favorable endgame scenario. What if there is only 1 merchant in the game? Or perhaps there are a couple like-minded individuals? You may be able to get them to agree to a scoring agreement early on in the game. Many of them will have enough experience to realize that a win would be easily achieved early enough in the game that many players would not have had the time to achieve their goals. Whether their goals were military or scoring nobody appreciates a game that ends on T13. Of course if you wait until hostilities start you will find merchants in opposite camps will be unable to honor such an agreement. The need for hauling fleets at half the cost of other players will overshadow all else. Trust between opposing alliances would be difficult to maintain and why would the winning merchant wish to slow down and hand the win to the opposition? Merchants that agree to a scoring agreement would often accept a second place that is only a few points from the VPT - allowing them a good ranking. The merchant who ranks 999 is showing that he is a team player. In this vein there are many things a merchant can do to hold down his score while maximally hauling for his allies. After all, you don't want to lose your mercantile advantages just stabilize your scoring. This is an interesting topic as it brings into the game many counter intuitive ideas for negative scoring. I think I will leave this thought for another SEDG. How about a change in the size of alliances? In many cases players try to ally with as many friendly players on their borders on first contact. It is well established that to be left out of an alliance is to be target #1. This often leads to alliances that are not well balanced in terms of character types and alliances that can get to be very large. A large or even moderate sized alliance can fuel the fires of paranoia and cause many of the other players in a game to band together in self-preservation. In a game I played in recently I put together an alliance of 5 players. A sixth player was offered entry and refused on the basis that he didn't feel that a large alliance presented much of a challenge in the game. Soon, this game formed an alliance of 8 players to oppose us (including the initially reticent player). I would propose that this player had it correctly figured out. Perhaps when you see an alliance on your border of 4 players you should step back and see who else there is that you can ally with. A game with 3 or 4 alliances might be just as successful and a whole lot more interesting. Yes, you sure do jeopardize your longevity trying this gambit over just joining in. Another idea I have had is a little more of an intellectual stretch and a large leap of faith. How about a slightly larger alliance? Whoa, don't get me wrong. I realize putting 7 players (or half the game) together means that you could easily propel a lone player to the win or wage the most successful military campaign possible. But think about it. The usual scenario in a Super alliance is the push of the Merchant/Berserker against a similar sized alliance OR the pure military devastation with a smaller alliance pushing their merchant. What if your large alliance had as it's mandate that only half the players would exercise military options while the other half concentrated on making sure that players who don't usually score well actually do. Remember the reason that a berserker doesn't do well is that ships can't be spared from the war for them. The Apostle is even more hampered, as they don't get the 200-point bonus for dropping the PBB on their jihad target. So having a lot of ships for an Apostle would help their jihad and their conversion abilities. An Empire Builder that wants to vie for the win would dearly love ships to convert into industry. And a Pirate could use the larger sized alliance to promote his score via plunders. The game's unequal scoring does seem to lead to the handicapped characters being left in the dust. An alliance such as I'm proposing would not function militarily better than one of 3-4 players. The only chance of success would be secrecy. The rest of the game cannot know the size of this group as it would inevitably lead to a military opposition that would preclude you from carrying out your goals. I have also proposed this in real Starweb games and even within such an alliance the players are not totally convinced. The Pirate still wants all the ships while the Berserker/Apostles worry that we will be able to turn them over in a timely fashion. Theoretically, if played out the way I envision it - this type of alliance should be able to propel almost any character type to the front of the pack without depending on leaving behind some character types. I sure would like a chance to prove this. How about character composition? Can this be utilized to give the alliance with the runaway merchant a run for its money? I'm not sure. But it occurs to me that the well-balanced alliance still has a lot of competition for the same resources. The Empire Builder and Apostle may covet the same worlds that the Pirate plunders. If you could put together an alliance that minimizes sharing of resources could you push a character type beyond a merchant's reach? Let's say you band a berserker, Empire Builder, Art Collector, and Pirate. Again, let's suppose the Pirate cared not for score. It is then possible to put all worlds into the EBs name. Let him build some industry and he would do better than in an alliance that contained Apostles and scoring pirates. Up until now I have concentrated on strategies and behaviors that don't necessarily preclude you from winning the game while still giving the merchant a run for his money. For those of you who thrill to the sounds of battle and not the ring of the scoring cash register consider this. Be a spoiler. Form an alliance of like-minded players who want a military goal. Perhaps you will shun merchants, target their allies and even consider hunting berserkers in the hopes of a game won by the underdog. What about the Neutral Trader type Merchant? He usually remains friendly with all parties and declines to join any alliance. As I've said before, a merchant only needs a few friends to win. The fear each alliance has is that to fire such an NT Merchant will drive him into the enemy camp. Nobody wants to expand the ranks of their enemies. My take on this type of player is DON'T TOLERATE IT. If you can talk to the OPPOSITION (and I say opposition not enemy - as they are just gamers like you playing to have fun) then see if you can convince both camps to fire the merchant. If not, fire him (or fire at him :-). It's always better if he has half the clients anyway. Well, those are some of my thoughts about how to escape some of the pitfalls of the game. I'm sure some are risky and others likely unworkable but I'm going to see if I can swing any of them in the hopes of a more interesting game. And seeing a player other than a merchant or berserker win would certainly be a bonus. Elliot Hudes ----------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS - Can anyone answer these? I find myself playing in a private multigame and came across a couple scenarios that are not covered by the multigame rules that FBI appends to your turn 1. I have the answers now but I thought it would be interesting to pose them. 1) How do you turn off all the ambushes in only one of your empires? Let us say you are Moose, Somnos and Slumber. The order to turn off Slumber's ambushes would be ... 2) Signs in a multigame may be individualized for each of your multi positions. How do you order it so that Moose or Somnos have different signs? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP - is now available on the web. Look for our new MAPPER'S SECTION on the SEDG Web Page. SW-Z1292 just recently posted! http://www.accessv.com/~somnos/sedg.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEATURE - THE CAPTAIN'S LOG 000219.0948-5 But You Have To Think Outside The Box... By Walt Schmidt walts@dorsai.org "The (achiever) is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself." - Archibald MacLeish We continue with a general discussion that touches upon the (hoped for) evolution of Starweb - an evolution that will allow it to continue as a viable and profitable game for the next decade (or two). As others have already written, if we take an objective look at the game - it really isn't a game of the 90's, no less the new millennium. And when I, a CPA, or as sometimes known - a Chief Pain in the Ass, by trade [YOU got that right, Nemo!] [Morning, Alter] [MORNING...] look at things Starweb related, the need for Starweb and the other Flying Buffalo offerings to be profitable and evolve, if we all are going to enjoy Starweb for years to come, becomes obvious. You probably know the often quoted: "That which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger." Let me mention another quote, equally correct but less well known: "All history is nothing but a succession of "crises" - of rupture, repudiation and resistance. When there is no "crisis," there is stagnation, petrification and death." - Eugene Ionesco To paraphrase Ionesco - Stagnation Kills! And I, for one, would not like to see Starweb stagnate and suffer an untimely death. So what can we (all) [WE all?] [Yes, Alter, we - all of us] do you might ask? We can speak amongst ourselves of things we would like to see. Then given a commonality of idea, we can test out our thoughts in a private- game. Right now there is a small group of us who, in an attempt to limit the push-the-merchant syndrome, have instituted certain rules to that end. And, we are about to begin what we are calling a Private Partners game. Now while we don't expect this particular private game to have any effects on the Starweb rules, we do realize that if enough ideas are tried-out, evolution is inevitable. Are you listening Rick? [WHO is this Rick?] [Not to worry, Alter - he isn't virtual - he's real] [OKAY, if you say so, Nemo] [And Alter] [YES Nemo] [He's a fellow Vet - so be nice]. Thinking out loud - working with Loomis - and remembering that viable and profitable concept I mention at the start of this log - perhaps Rick would be willing to try out ideas that are more of a "settings- change," than that of a "program-change" nature. All you have to do is ask him. But being the pessimistic purveyor of humanities lack of out-of-the-box thinking - I'm not sure if there are enough of us to make the evolution of Starweb happen. On the other hand - perhaps there are enough of us die-hard Starweb fans to mount an attack of the apparent stagnation of our game. Thinking back to the early 80s, I remember what Flight Simulator was like when I ran it on my PCjr. Today, if you haven't yet "flown" Flight Simulation 2000, in addition to missing out on a real-cool game, you're missing a good example of how a simple concept can be kept - but can evolve into something not even imagined those dozen and a half years ago, when it was first released. Keeping this concept in mind, we have the beginnings of the Starweb evolution already available thanks to Elliot, Flying Moose, and their SWAP. It allows you to take Starweb to a level unheard of in its first two and a half decades of existence. Now it's up to the rest of us, with more than a little continuing help from Elliot - I mean you are reading this, his SEDG, aren't you - to engineer that which will take the evolution process itself, to the next level. And all we have to do - in my humble opinion - is a little thinking outside the box... - Shai Dorsai ! Nemo ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEATURE - THE SWAP CORNER HOW DO I part III - Color Control A) Color-code all my allies worlds in the same color? 1. Select File->Preferences 2. Select Game->Teams from the list of preferences. 3. Fill out a Team Name e.g. Allies, enemies, scum of_the_Universe (no blanks allowed). 4. Type the name of each player in the Team Members field and use the Add button to add the names to each team created. 5. Push OK. 6. Right click on an empty portion of the Map View. 7. Select 'Display by Team' on this menu. The characters on any team will now have the same colors on the map. B) Change the color designated for a player or team. 1. Select File->Preferences 2. Select Game->Colors from the list of preferences. 3) Select 'Players' if you wish to change the color of selected players. Or select Teams if you wish to change the color of a whole alliance (Please make sure you have defined the team or alliance under 'Teams' in the preference menu). Defining Teams was covered in SEDG Volume 17. 4) You may select any player or team and then click on the color palette at the bottom. 5) Note - the map can only be viewed in player mode or team mode. If you change the color of an individual player but have the map shown in 'Team' mode you will not see a color change. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRESPONDENCE Hi Elliot, I just want to make some comments and you will probably need to edit them since they concern an ongoing game. This was my first game as an Apostle and my first game after a long stretch with no Starweb at all. I really enjoyed the formation of our 6 player alliance and getting involved in the wars etc. however now that we have no major opponents that everyone agrees on it has gotten quite boring. I have had a hard time explaining to my allies what my needs were and our reluctant pirate sat back and played his own game while the rest of us secured his borders. This has also been an interesting game from the start we have all had to haul our own metal with a boost from an ally from time to time. Not a single merchant and only one AC. Paul Balsamo made some valid points in his comments and I would agree that a 100 point bonus would help strengthen the position. My Berserker ally is quite cooperative in many ways but she is dropping bombs on multiple players on the same turn and I usually only get one turn to get wherever. I have not successfully communicated that at one bomb for me and three bombs for her it does little to enhance my scoring position. I need more lead time to reach the target and more coordination of who the target will be on which turns. I have actually gotten more cooperation on a turn by turn basis from a Berserker who is not a member of the alliance. I have one other suggestion to make here as well. I have mentioned it to FBI but I think that snail mail games should be for snail mail players only and e-mail games should be for e-mail only. In the game I was just talking about we had a couple of players who did not use e- mail and one of them did not even have a telephone number. I think that Rick is doing the entire game a disservice by putting these people into games with people who have access to e-mail. They wind up being targets for everyone else. As a matter of fact as soon as pressure was applied to the player with no phone, he dropped. Little things like these are the reason that this wonderful game is not growing. Actually with only 15 players per game I was surprised when I found it again. I have checked out some of the other games but for sheer fun Starweb is in a class by itself. Sharon Wyatt Editor's note: Sharon - a game without merchants sounds like a gift from heaven :-). As to the difficulty coordinating with allies - that is part of the game. You find out how good a player is not only by his battle prowess but by how well he does the other aspects of the game such as helping his allies to score. I have been in games with players who don't have email and disliked it also. My solution is to try to restrict myself to email games. Herb Diehr said: Hi, Elliot! As far as changes to Star Web, I believe the little tweaks Rick has made over the years are fine; strategies need to change. This two- alliance game is rather dull. However, Rick needs better marketing. Alas, all small businesses fail in some regards, due to the lack of collective skills within the small population of the corporation. My company feels that, acutely! Here are some brief ideas how to help: 1. A small Star Web game for only five players, run anonymously and with no alliances, gifts, merchants or joint shooting. Web would have 75 worlds and games run every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, for $50 per player per game. If this price point is off, change it! May be a fun game. 2. Make an Internet version available for a user fee. It wouldn't have to be much. StarFleetBattlesOnLine seems to be doing OK. 3. Create other variants of Star Web. Lots of possibilities! 4. Tunnels and Trolls had a computer game; Star Web might do OK, too. (Might eliminate the PBM, though!) 5. I, at least, really liked the Pandora's Pirate! How about a game with five (weaker) Pandora's berserkers and 10 normal players? Well, that's my input. Hope things improve. Will continue to pray for Rick. Herb Diehr Editor: Gee, I really like the idea of a small SW game with 75 worlds AND an online version. In my mind, I think SW needs to have a GUI interface and more graphics to compete with the games out there. Well, that's it for Volume 27. Don't be afraid to submit articles or suggestions. They don't have to be long. Address your correspondence to Elliot Hudes at somnos@compuserve.com