STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP (THE SEDG) (Sponsored by Flying Moose Technologies' Starweb Analyzer - http://flyingmoose.cjb.net) VOLUME 56 January 7, 2002 CONTENTS Feature Article – The Multi Mystique v2.0 (Part Two) by Jack Fulmer Questions – Final Art bonuses, Silent communication SEDG Web Page URL The Captain's Log - Captain's Third Semi-Annual Challenge Game! The Swap Corner – V1.5beta feature update, FMT SW Convention Correspondence FEATURE ARTICLE The Multi Mystique v2.0 (Part Two) By Jack Fulmer Part one of this article appeared in SEDG, Volume 55, in December 2001. The original version was published in the Flying Buffalo Quarterly #49, which was printed in February 1984. Many things have changed since then including some of my views on how to play multi- player Starweb. One thing hasn't changed though. I still like to play multi-SW better than all other Starweb variants. Since I am a Starweb player who likes to win games I've written this article from that viewpoint. I realize there are players who don't care about score and still enjoy playing. Whatever your motivations for playing multi-SW may be some part of this article should be of interest to you. I would also be very interested to read multi-SW articles by other players. Diplomacy As you might expect with only five players in the game, relationships gel quickly. Be sure to broadcast your contact information from all three characters during the exploration phase of the game. When you receive contact information for another player initiate communication immediately. One of the aspects of life that has been changed by the internet is Starweb. Email is critical for multi-SW diplomacy. Even in a slow multi-SW game it would be very hard to achieve a smoothly working alliance today without it. Most players would not want to pursue a cumbersome snail mail alliance when they can easily communicate with others via email. I haven't seen anyone try it for years but if you are tempted to be the "Mysterious Unknown" don't do it! I guarantee that you would be under attack no later than turn nine or ten and possibly by all four of the other players. As I've analyzed earlier in this article the only combination with a reasonable possibility of enough points to win a game from your "share" of the web is an MAB. Everybody else must attack someone to have a chance to win the game or at least be a passive ally of an aggressor. Even those players who aren't in the game to win will likely initiate a war at some point. If you don't communicate then you will go to the top of everyone's target list. When looking for allies you should consider how your characters and the other player's characters could work together. I won't try to analyze all of the possible combinations but for example an MPB and an MAC fit well as allies. All of the artifacts go to the Collector. The Pirate gets essentially all of the worlds. At the appropriate point the Apostle declares a jihad against the Pirate and he and the Berserker attack the Pirate population. On the other hand it is very difficult for two players with Collectors to implement a successful alliance when score matters to both players. I will address score management later but for a Collector to have a good chance at winning the game he will need a lot of artifacts. For example owning thirty artifacts for most of the game plus three museums at the end will give you a chance to win. Two allies each of whom has a Collector would need at least sixty artifacts for both to have winning potential. This is possible but definitely not easy. Typically in multi-SW the alliances that I have seen have been two-player ones. I have been in a three-player alliance only twice in nineteen games of multi-SW. Much more common is to have one ally and one or sometimes two non-aggression pacts of some type. Alliances of three or more players in multi-SW eventually result in a boring game. Such a large alliance can defeat one or both of the remaining players so quickly that the game becomes too easy in my opinion. Despite the boredom of an alliance that is too big having an alliance with a competent and trustworthy player is a tremendous asset. Over the years I have managed to win multi-SW games with tie scores five times in a two-player alliance and once in a three-player alliance. If diplomacy is not your strongest skill or if you want a break from Starweb email then try anonymous multi-SW. However, be prepared for war. Since everybody has a Merchant any fleets wandering around dropping consumer goods on your worlds are simply scouts for the invasion. Wandering Apostle fleets also are definitely not to be trusted. In fact in multi-SW there is a very high likelihood that any fleet in your territory is a dangerous spy. If a neighbor sends any fleet farther into my territory than a border world adjacent to his territory I consider it an act of war. Yes, it could be an Artifact Collector fleet and sometimes it will be. A Collector may be the only character whose one ship key at your ring one world on turn 6 is actually harmless. But what are his other characters? If he's an MPC he will be happy to trade a few worlds for artifacts until he has your territory well mapped. Then the blitzkrieg will arrive. I've done it myself. In anonymous multi-SW your wisest policy is to do all artifact trades on your borders or in the other player's territory. If you trade away a world make sure it's far from the recipient's territory. There is no point in making a gift to him of too much map information. Strategy All the skill in the world at diplomacy, logistics or battle tactics is useless without resources. In Starweb the obvious easy way to acquire resources is to capture neutral worlds, keys and artifacts. But many players do not explore as they should. It never ceases to amaze me how often in a multi-SW game I capture neutral worlds that are my ring five, six and even seven worlds. You should explore, explore, and explore until someone stops you. On turns one, two and three you should visit every world available to you unless you simply do not have enough keys. If on turn three you are looking at twenty-five unexplored worlds and you have twenty-five keys then explore all of the new worlds. You should explore even if it means delays in hauling metal to your homeworlds. Every one of your ring three worlds that you own is another precious resource for you and a launching pad for aggression against your neighbors. All of your ring three worlds that you do not own are resources lost and daggers pointed straight at the heart of your territory. Another resource that is often underestimated is information. Your early exploration will gather information as you capture worlds, keys and artifacts. If you enter a neighbor's world you learn the connections and something about his resources. You may also get fleet information showing both their size and movements. Take a look at the turns owned number for your neighbor's worlds. If you see it early enough in the game you may be able to make some important deductions about his territory. When combined with a probe or two you can sometimes identify his homeworld number as early as turn five. If you plan to play an aggressive game that is extremely valuable information. It could also make the difference between victory or defeat if he attacks you first. Despite the emphasis on exploration you must also find a way to get your homeworlds to full production early in the game. You should be able to do this by turn seven or eight. If you are not at full production by turn nine then you are in trouble versus the other players. Besides you will need as many ships as you can to either attack others or kill your own population. All right, you have explored every available world, captured your share of the web's resources and are well on your way to full production. The details of what you do next depend heavily upon your character choices, an alliance, if any, and whether or not you are playing a regular or anonymous multi-SW game. However, you should never forget that many players will be aggressors unless you attack them first. In a regular game you should try to secure at least half of your borders through an alliance or non-aggression pacts. If you have formed an alliance you may decide that the members of the alliance have sufficient resources to win the game. If you need more resources or simply want to play aggressively you will need to decide whom to attack. If you are playing an anonymous game you can't really secure your borders. You will have to make a judgement about which of your neighbors can be ignored, who might attack you and who will be your victim. Factors to consider when deciding whom to attack include your neighbor's movement patterns, their communications in a regular game, your character types, their character types if you know them and your relative strategic position. Of course if you have an ally their plans have to be coordinated with yours. If you see any of your neighbors miss a turn move them straight to the top of your victim list. They will have put themselves at a disadvantage compared to you. This is particularly true if they miss a turn early in the game. It is likely that another player or two have also noticed the missed turn. Therefore you should launch your attack sooner than you would have without seeing the missed turn so as to beat the others to the spoils. When another player is not communicating much with you move them higher on your target list. If they are not talking to anyone very much then they probably won't be able to call on other players for help. There is also a distinct possibility that they have already decided to attack you. Anyone communicating with other players but not you has placed you number one on their hit list. Hit them first if you can. Tactics Did you include a Pirate or a Berserker as one of your characters? Who among your possible targets does not have a Pirate or Berserker and may therefor be at a tactical disadvantage? Are you in the enviable position of playing an MPB bordered by a resource rich and tactical advantage poor MEC? Once again there are many possible combinations of character types that you and your neighbors might have. There is one common factor though. Because everyone has a Merchant there will be plenty of ships in the game. Consider this scenario. It is turn eight. You have a Pirate. You have achieved full production at all of your homeworlds on turn eight. You own a world that is on ring three for both you and a neighbor. On turn four you arrived at one of the neighbor's ring two worlds. You left his world immediately but you probed the two unknown worlds connected to his ring two world. Through your probe you deduced the location of his homeworld. You give the orders so that on turn nine more than one hundred of your ships arrive at your ring three world. On turn ten you appear at his homeworld with enough Pirate ships to capture all of his keys at the homeworld. This scenario is quite possible in multi-SW. I have done it many times. There is a distinct advantage available in multi-SW to any player who can make an early attack in force. Even an attack that does not conquer your neighbor can be decisive in winning the game. Your attack may gain for you the resources that you need to achieve a winning score. It will also deny those resources to your opponent. At the same time it will force him to abandon his scoring plans to defend himself while your position and scores develop as you intended. Gifts No matter which characters you choose you will need to optimize the ownership of your resources among them. This means that how efficiently you use your limited number of gift orders will have an impact on your chance of winning the game. Give early, give often, give intelligently, but most of all prioritize your gifts. Your priorities of giving should be based upon the expected scoring of your characters. If you are playing a Pirate or an Empire Builder they should get all the worlds they need before you worry much about getting the Golden Shekel to your merchant. If you are playing an MPB then prioritize giving plunderable worlds to your Pirate before giving him worlds that will remain unplundered for metal production. One way to maximize the efficiency of your gift orders is to reduce the number of them that you need to make. Early in the game you will probably want to change ownership of a number of your fleets at the same time that you are trying to move worlds and artifacts from one character to another. You can do this by creating neutral fleets and having the desired character capture the keys instead of using gifts. Here is a practical example that happens all of the time in multi-SW. By about turn five or six you will be hitting the limits of exploring new world connections. You should at the same time be setting up eighteen or so Merchant fleets to haul metal to your three homeworlds but will still be frantically giving worlds to another character. If you have an Empire Builder or a Pirate then you probably tried to maximize the number of keys that they owned on turns one through three at the expense of the merchant. Typically from about turn five until turn eight to ten you will have "extra" fleets from your non- Merchant characters available at your homeworlds. Simply transfer all of the ships away from one or more of those keys and have a merchant fleet capture them. You must be very careful to have all other non- Merchant keys at the world at peace. Don't forget those Iships or Pships also. It can really hurt to set up a fleet transfer like this and see three or four neutral keys sitting at a homeworld on turn six. Score Management If you want to win many multi-SW games you need to plan your scoring and pay attention to your competitor's scores. Your scoring plan will of course be determined partly by your character choices, partly by the resources that you acquire and also by your relationships with the other players. Some information regarding scoring patterns that I have seen in more than twenty years of multi-SW may be helpful to you. I have gathered my game files and find that I don't have complete records on all nineteen of my finished multi-SW games. In the discussion below I will give the number of games from which I have derived the data. Average Victory Point Limit (17 games): 8153 Average Ending Turn (17 games): 17 Average Winner's Score (19 games): 8849 Merchant Data (17 games): Average Ending Score: 8970 Average Ending Score as a % of Victory Point Limit: 110.0% Average Ending Score as a % of Winner's Score: 103.0% Pirate Data (12 games): Average Ending Score: 8947 Average Ending Score as a % of Victory Point Limit: 105.2% Average Ending Score as a % of Winner's Score: 99.5% Berserker Data (14 games): Average Ending Score: 9220 Average Ending Score as a % of Victory Point Limit: 113.7% Average Ending Score as a % of Winner's Score: 106.8% I have data on other character types but with too few data points to be statistically significant in my opinion. The two things that I have found to be most important regarding score management are timing and balance. Timing in this case means having the correct character scoring as needed to win and scoring those points at the correct time. Balance means managing your resources in such a way that you maximize all of your character's scores. If you have done a proper job of developing your position and have reached full production promptly then simply unloading ninety metal per turn will ensure the Merchant score that you will need. Empire Builders, Pirates and Collectors need their worlds, plunders and artifacts just as fast as you can get the resources to them. Berserkers and Apostles who are on the jihad plan will score most of their points in the last few turns of the game. There is no need to push your Merchant score rapidly except possibly late in the game. If you have 125 metal on all of your homeworlds by turn 10 then you are probably starving another character of needed resources. Unless you are an MBC who has lots of artifacts if your Berserker is dropping PBBs on turn 11 then you are neglecting the score of another character. Your Pirate should plunder aggressively but with careful planning to be sure to follow "Fulmer's Rule of 27". This rule states that as a Pirate you should identify the smallest number of worlds in your empire within one move of each of your homeworlds whose metal production equals 27 and plunder all other worlds except for your homeworlds. Usually this will mean 6 to 8 worlds in support of each homeworld early in the game and fewer as metal production increases. Plunder everything else as soon as you own it and as often as you can. That fourth plunder of world 42 on turn 17 could make the difference between winning and losing. You must be patient with Berserker scoring. It is perfectly normal to be far behind the score of other players who have not included a Berserker until turn fourteen, fifteen or even sixteen. If you have played your total position well and planned careful use of your resources then your Berserker will score massively just in time to win the game. In nine Berserker games for which I have full turn-by- turn details I have scored an average of 67 points per turn through turn ten. Then the pattern is an average of 708 on turn eleven, 1,286 on turn twelve, 1,210 on turn thirteen, 1,826 on turn fourteen, 1,418 on turn fifteen, 1,811 on turn sixteen, 1,260 on turn seventeen and 1,287 on turn eighteen. Unless it is a game with an unusually low ending score with proper play your Berserker can catch the other character's scores. Apostle scoring when a jihad is planned is similar to the Berserker pattern. It starts from a higher base score resulting from world ownership and converts but does not include the points for PBBs. Therefor the Apostle scoring curve is flatter. Empire Builder and Collector scoring plans are simple. Get all the worlds and artifacts to them as early as you can. They will need all the turns of ownership possible to have a chance at winning. Personal Experiences As of this writing I've finished nineteen games of multi-SW and I hope to finish many more. I've won or shared the win in fifteen of those games. I can say that I enjoyed every one of them. The combinations I have played are varied but clearly show my preferences. I have played one MEC, one MBC, two MPCs, three MABs, and twelve MPBs. I just can't resist that Pirate and the chance to put 120 Pirate ships plus a one-ship Berserker key into somebody's homeworld on turn ten! For quite a few years I have played primarily anonymous multi-SW. This is because I want to play several games at once but can't afford the time for voluminous correspondence. If I played more regular games I would have to play fewer Starweb games in total. I do miss the contact with other players. Maybe someday I will have the time for more regular games. The challenges of multi-SW have been varied and contributed greatly to my enjoyment. I like the larger scope for strategy, tactics and logistical challenges of multi-SW. One of the most rewarding experiences is to successfully strike the balance that I have mentioned among all your plans and resources to score well with all three of your characters. I still play an occasional game of regular Starweb but usually feel "cramped". In multi-SW and particularly in anonymous multi-SW you are very much the master of your own fate. In anonymous multi-SW you don't need a grand alliance to hope to stay in the game to the end. In fact I have had no ally at all in my eight anonymous multi-SW games and have won six of them. I keep thinking there is a lot that I have left unsaid but am up against my deadline for completing this article. Stick around until 2021 or so and if I am still here I promise to write The Multi Mystique v3.0. Jack Fulmer Hawaii December, 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS - Can anyone answer these? Asked by Ken Cassady in Issue 53: "Here is a question for the newsletter how many points can the AC get in one turn during the game (not after)." Editor: Last turn I reported it as 1780. As I suspected – my math was off – here is the corrected answer. Sorry, I don't remember who sent it to me but I suspect it was John Shannonhouse (I'm having a senior's moment ). >> Elliot, In the AC question, you HAVE miscalculated. All of the numbers you give are correct, but they add up to 1680 (960+480+90+150=1680). << Elliot: I figured I did. I got the 1680 initially then developed a mental block and kept adding 960+480 and got 1540 instead of 1440 subsequently. Thanks for the correction. Last issue I asked: If the Art Collector has all the art at the end of the game, how many points would he reap on the last turn? Has anyone seen this happen? The answer – 5180 points on the last turn of the game. He gets 1500 for the Nebula scrolls plus 1000 each for having the complete set of Ancients and the Pyramids. Then you must add the 1680 for having all the art on the final turn also. (Geez, I hope I didn't flub the math on this one :-). New Question: This one is much more subjective. I would like to hear from people regarding actions they have taken to facilitate nonverbal communication in Anonymous games. How did you make your wish for alliance known? How did you telegraph your character type or your needs for certain resources? Were you able to get help in a military campaign? How? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP - is now available on the web. http://www.accessv.com/~somnos/sedg.htm Look for our MAPPER'S SECTION on the SEDG Web Page. I have been neglecting the mapping section on the web for a while. I have some new maps and I will upload them soon. In addition I have been tinkering around in the lab creating new Starweb universes :-). I think I shall include in an upcoming SEDG some of the world coordinates of one such universe for those out there who would enjoy cracking a map! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEATURE - THE CAPTAIN'S LOG - Web Date 020107.0817 5 (Walt Schmidt walts@dorsai.org) "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly. - William Shakespeare It's time to announce, for a second time, the Captain's Third Semi- Annual Challenge Game! A seven player, bi-weekly, email, dual-multi, 15,000 victory point (lowest of your two scores) game. All communications are allowed, and the only other requirements or rules are there ain't any - other than those printed in the Starweb Rules booklet. So far we have four - Steven Dooley, Jeff Calkins, Elliot Hudes, and I. Once we have three more, for a total of seven players, we will pick our tentative two character-types, I will share this information with all - and we all will then have several chances to change our minds. Folks - here's your chance to test the mettle of your "characters" against others of us who read or write SEDG. The winner of this proposed game will be the recipient of Yet Another Captain Nemo Fabulous No-Prize, get special mention in an edition of SEDG, and, receive a specially designed No-Prize certificate - designed by himself and suitable for framing or any other use the winner can think of... So, Be Thee Up To It?!! The next three to email me ( walts@dorsai.org ) are in, and the game will then begin. Makes admiral sense to me! See you next issue... Shai Dorsai ! Nemo ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEATURE - THE SWAP CORNER Flying Moose Technologies Starweb Analyzer V1.5 beta (and beyond) For those of you that enjoy using our software to play Starweb, go to our web site http://flyingmoose.cjb.net and obtain V1.4, which has already been released. If you haven't used the beta version previously you will need to obtain the Registration key from us to turn the Evaluation version into a fully functional Registered version. This is free of charge for customers who have been using our software (even if you have been on board since V1.0). V1.5 beta is now being loaded onto our web page. Mike promises to keep putting up new versions as he adds new features. V1.5BETA – DEC. 30TH RELEASE – THREE NEW FEATURES 1) Shortest route between two worlds. You designate a ring 0 world and then any world you click on will show the shortest path to it with the connections illuminated in red. Multiple routes of equal distance are shown. 2) Connections are now shown in a 3-D glowing blue to aid the eye when you have a nightmare map with connections that cross over each other. 3) Fleet icons on the map. If allied fleets are at a world they are represented by a small spaceship icon below the world facing to the right. Enemy fleets are below the world facing left. Proposed addition – Mike is talking about adding an explosion between the fleets to denote combat at that world. PREVIOUS V1.5BETA FEATURES Mike has decided that he dislikes the Order Editor hovering over the Analysis window obscuring either the List or Map Views. So he has invoked two changes. Presently, when you open the Analysis window you will notice that the List View (on the left) is now divided into two – a top and bottom. The top still contains the world information as before (World View default). The bottom area contains the Filter and Ring control features previously found on the tool bar. They are essentially unchanged except for new icons, the 'apply now' option is the default and the And/Or radio buttons are at the top. The fun begins when you open the Order Editor. The Draft, Final and Previous orders are added as tabs after the Filters and automatically open to the Draft Order Template. This simple change allows you to use the Order Editor without obscuring your view of the Map or World info. When the Order Editor is invoked its Menu items and Tool Bar buttons are added to the existing Menus and Tool Bar. The Filter Deselect All button remains on the Tool Bar for ease of removing the filters when you are busy with the Order Editor (which closes the Filter Tab by default). There are now 3 new buttons on the Tool Bar – a) Maximize Map Window – removes the World View, Filter or Order Editor window and puts up the map over the whole Analysis window. This allows you to see as much of the map as possible. Clicking on this button will toggle it on or off. b) Maximize List Window – puts the List View up from top to bottom of the Analysis Window beside the map (Currently how you view the Analysis window). This minimizes the Filter Dialogue and Order Editor. c) Maximize the Filter/Editor Window – plasters the Filter Dialogue and Order Editor window to the left of the Map View from top to bottom. You cannot see the World View but it gives you a lot of room to work on orders if screen space is at a premium. Mike is also very busy making further use of Starweb Analyzer and email interactions. Currently you can use the Analyzer to use your default mail program (MAPI supported) for emailing your orders to FBI or your Draft orders to an ally. By introducing email addresses into the header information of a Dummy Turnsheet (already a good idea for incorporating map information not available on an existing turnsheet) it will be possible to email players by right clicking on a world in the World View (not the map) and selecting 'send email to'. IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS FOR NEW FEATURES OR REQUESTS – NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO SEND THEM IN! BUG REPORT 1) The Setup Wizard has an interesting bug (in both V1.4 and V1.5b). If you are setting up a Multigame and use the 'Turnsheet Filename' radio button to find a turnsheet that the Analyzer can import your information you run into a problem if the Analyzer must rename your turnsheet. It will rename it name1 name2 name 3_t#.txt In actuality you must name the turnsheet after the first character listed on your turnsheet or the turn won't be incorporated (it must be named either name1_t3.txt or name1.t#). We shall repair this problem in upcoming versions. 2) Windows XP – this OS is causing some problems and I would appreciate feedback from anyone who is using it with V1.4 or V1.5b. Has anyone had problems with the Filter window not displaying the Owner filters? Of course no SWAP Corner is complete without a plug for our upcoming convention. FLYING MOOSE TECHNOLOGIES STARWEB CONVENTION. Yes, it's now official. Here is the information about the Con. The web site http://members.home.net/mikewulkan/toppage2.htm will have more details including a map to the resort and links to the Resort's homepage. The Flying Moose Technologies' - Great White North (Canadian) Starweb Tournament It's official! Flying Moose Technologies will host the first Canadian Starweb Tournament and we shall be bringing Flying Buffalo's head Honcho -- Rick Loomis up to moderate the game. Come and enjoy 3 days of gaming, playing the award winning Starweb face to face with your allies and opponents. There will be a beautiful plaque presented to the winner of the tournament and the satisfaction of crushing your enemies. When: Friday April 26th 9 a.m. - Sunday April 28th 6 p.m. Due to the location of the Tournament it is recommended that you arrive no later than Thursday evening. Registration: Please send your registration fee to Flying Moose Technologies 2912 Remea Crt. Mississauga, Ontario Canada L5L 2H5 Cost: $100.00 US or $150.00 Canadian. For those that Register after Dec. 25th the price will be $120.00 US (or $175.00 Canadian). Where: Birch Haven Resort, Baysville Ontario. This Resort/Conference Center is found in Muskoka - a region composed of thousands of lakes and hills nestled in northern Ontario. It is a robust ecologic niche entrenched in the geologic formation known as the Canadian Shield, an area virtually stripped of topsoil by the most recent glacier's advance leaving outcroppings of three billion year old Precambrian rock and thousands of lakes in its wake. Call (705) 767-3354 to make your Resort reservation - 1 night payment by credit card will be required to hold the room. Birch Haven will charge $30/person/day Canadian (without meals) based on a double occupancy. It will be $45/day for single occupancy - the rooms come with kitchenettes. Due to this being the offseason the Restaurant will be closed but there are several restaurants in nearby Baysville (2 minute drive) as well as General Stores to help you stock your fridge while you game. Directions: It's a 2-hour drive from Toronto. For those landing at Toronto International Airport - take Highway 401 east to Highway #400. Go north on Highway #400 past Barrie and then get onto Highway #11 north. You will pass the following towns - Orillia, Gravenhurst and Bracebridge. Exit Highway #117 and go east 16 kilometers (10 miles) until you reach Basyville. After you pass over the bridge in Baysville look for the Birch Haven Resort and Conference Center on your left (within 2 kilometers). (Out of town guests - it is recommended that you rent a car. There may be some opportunity to grab a ride with a local Torontonian on Thursday evening - check with me if you wish to explore this). Refund Policy: This convention is basically being put on by the Canadian fans and to limit our risk of large losses (to bring FBI to Canada, reserve the Resort etc.) we are making the registration fee nonrefundable after Dec. 25th, 2001. If the Convention must be cancelled from our end your Registration fee will be refunded. Starweb Analyzer: If you bring a laptop you will be able to get your turns on diskette to input into your Starweb Analyzer. If you have a laptop but not the Starweb Analyzer I encourage you to check out our web site. http://flyingmoose.cjb.net. If you prefer paper and pen - I will ensure that I have an inkjet printer available for paper turns. If we get a large response there might be a chance of running other FBI games. Please let me know if this is of interest to you. For more info on FBI games - http://www.flyingbuffalo.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRESPONDENCE Rick Loomis sent me a detailed response to the many suggestions for Starweb in SEDG #54 (Starweb - The Next Generation by Walt Schmidt). The quoted segments come directly from the SEDG and his response follows them. Rick Loomis writes: I meant to write this before the next issue of the SEDG, but have been really busy the last month. Anyway, I absolutely don't want to discourage anyone from discussing how Starweb can be better, or more importantly, marketed better. However I did want to respond to some of the suggestions given last time. Believe me, I'm not against outside ideas. I got the idea of having you tell me how many orders you gave, and having the computer count how many I typed, while laughing about a customers "stupid idea". ("Hey, wait a minute - we could really do that - and it would eliminate certain kinds of common errors...") >Loomis uses, for the most part, push technology. Let's add to this a >little more push, and a bit of pull technology, too. Yes, one can >obtain the Starweb rules directly from the Flying Buffalo web site. >But, I want to download the results of my turns, too. And, why not >allow me to upload my turns. Given these abilities, they almost beg >the next suggestion. I'm afraid I don't really see the advantage in being able to download your turn, as opposed to just receiving it by email. The only difference is that you would know exactly when to get your turn (when the program is scheduled to run it). We could schedule game turns that closely with the current model, if there were a good reason for it. As it is, if your due date is today, you know we will process the turn and email out the results sometime tomorrow between 930AM and 3 or 4PM. For weekly games, I believe Chuck promises to get the results out by noon of the date it is scheduled to be processed, so you have a 2 1/2 hour window. We could narrow it further if there were a benefit. We can certainly schedule faster turnaround games if we had enough players. The ADVANTAGES of the current system are that (1) it is more secure - no one else can crack the computer and download your turn. Your turn results are not available on the net to a hacker. They are on a floppy disk sitting on Chuck's desk. The only way a hacker can get a copy of your turn is from you, or by convincing us that he is you, and getting us to email him a copy of your turn. (2) it is more flexible. We don't cut off receipt of turns at 6:01PM on the due date. We give you those extra few hours to get the turn in, even tho officially it was due the night before, because from experience we know there will be a LOT of turns coming in during that time, and missed turns destroy the fun and cause customers to drop out and quit playing. I know more people would be on time if they absolutely had to, but we'd still have more missed turns - don't ask me to explain it - I've been doing this for 31 years and I am intimately familiar with the problem. As it is, if we are going to run the game at 10AM, and you call at 945 and say you just got home from Germany and are doing your turn as we speak, and could we give you another 45minutes, we can just process some other couple of games and put your game last. It's no big deal - and it's customer service. If everyone knew the game was going to be run at 1:00AM, and came online to download their results at 1:02AM, there would be "heck to pay" so to speak if we held up the game 45 minutes for you. Also, if for instance we realize that there are 12 players still playing in a game, but 8 of them are still missing the turn, we can look at it and say "There must be something wrong with the incoming mail - better wait an additional day". Uploading your turns would be entirely possible, and maybe we'll add that one of these days, although it brings security problems again. Although with the Starweb Analyzer being available, uploading your turn isn't as much of a new advantage as it might have been. (Things like order checking, for instance). Quite frankly, however, we have twice sold the right to produce an online, uploaddownload version of Starweb, and both times the purchaser never finished the program. >Currently, we have email games, we have private games, and we have >selected variants. Why not allow us to have private, all online, >games. >Allow us to have shorter than two-week turn arounds. Allow us to have, >say, an all Apostle game - to have regular online contests. > >We would download T-1 after 0800 on Saturday, with the first four >turns due no later than: T-1 - 1159Sat; T-2 - 2359Sat; T-3 - 1159Sun; >and, T-4 - 2359Sun. After that, one turn each day through the >following Saturday and we would have a T-17 game that would run for a >little more than two weeks, and have its winners announced on Sunday - >can you say par-tay har-day. > >We could have recurring tournaments that run over a three-day weekend. >We could have the first annual Starweb Duplicate Tournament - with X >number of webs each with exactly the same set-up. While each web would >have its own top-scorer, the overall tournament winner would be the >player with the best score amongst all the webs. We could also have >awards for best type-scores. Think of the alliance play - not only to >have your alliance win the overall best-of-tournament, but try and >also garner as many best-of-type scores - can you say bragging-rights! We can/could do all that with the current system. We have run online tournaments with games due daily, and even faster than daily turns. The problem is not whether the game is online, the problem is getting enough players willing to play. You find me enough players to fill a game, and I can run an All Apostle game, or a "duplicate web-different players" tournament, or a daily game, or a weekend game like we do at the conventions, with turns due every couple of hours. One problem with that kind of game is that it tends to "burn players out". We can get enough to start one, but then no one wants to play a second one, and some of the players who did play, drop out for awhile to "recover". >Why not let the Starweb universe expand past 2^8. A single web with 30 >or more players surely does raise some real interesting alliance-based >questions. And, why does player-type X's action (only) earn them Y >points. Next we have some suggestions about changing the rules to SW. Some problems with that. If I change Starweb, I either eliminate the current version of the game, or take away a number of it's players. Every time we offer a new "variant" (and we've been doing that for 20+ years also), we dilute the pool of players who are waiting for the older variants. There are some number of players who will try anything, and there are some players who will play more games in order to play the new one, but most players are limited by either funds, or (usually) time. They can only play so many games a month. If they want to try a new "extra long" game, they have to cancel the "bitter end" game they were going to play. If we have to spend limited resources (time & money) reprogramming the new variant, there is a good chance we will end up with the same amount of sales in the end, or at least, not enough new sales to cover the extra resources expended. However, more importantly than that, we will make it harder to fill new games, and thus longer between game starts. The longer you have to wait before your game starts, the less money we take in (you are waiting for a new game instead of paying us turn fees) and the more likely some people will drop out when the game finally starts. When we have a variant that takes a year to fill up, we almost always have a few people who never actually send in a turn - they wanted to play last year, but this year they have other priorities, and have lost interest. I am truthfully willing to consider changes to Starweb that would "improve the game" if they didn't cost too awfully much to implement. But we are REALLY limited in our available resources. If we are going to spend the time designing, reprogramming, playtesting, ruleswriting, and advertising a "new game" wouldn't it be better (from "keeping Flying Buffalo in business" point of view) to make that an entirely new game that gets new customers, as opposed to a slightly better version of Starweb, that just moves all the already available customers over from the "old version" to the "new version"? Actually I have always wanted to do a Starweb with more character types, and lots more worlds. Given infinite resources I would do exactly that. A long time ago, even. > The Ghost of Starweb Future > By guest Captain – Elliot Hudes > I have to believe >there is an untapped mine of other similarly encumbered young to >middle aged people who would enjoy a game of this type. The real >question is how to get to them. The answer is obviously advertising. >FBQ has an award winning game that only gets new players by word of >mouth. I found out about it in the 70s from a flier I spotted at a >Sci-fi convention. I hear that FBI also advertised in magazines. I >think that these are avenues that need to be looked at again. There >must be fanzines, periodicals and even web sites where Starweb (and >other FBI games) could be exposed. Absolutely. We need to do more marketing and advertising. But again, our resources are extremely limited. As they say, it's hard to fly with the eagles when you are up to your ass in alligators. I definitely intend to do more advertising. However it is easy to waste all your money on advertising that gets no new customers. If I spend $3000 on an ad in a major sf magazine, I could be out of business in 3 months if it gets me only a handful of new players. Any ideas for cheap "guerrilla marketing" are welcome. >Another idea I had meshes very well with Walter's thoughts of a web >server that allows you to upload and download turns. In addition to a >wider selection of variants and due dates a server can help to >automate the process of gaming from FBI's end. Gamers upload and >download directly to the FBI computer and there is no requirement for >human intervention. So running 1000 games would cost FBI no more than >running 1 as there is no increase in their staffing or overhead. So >why not offer an initial free game to any new players? There are tons >of free internet games out there competing with Starweb which will >cost money and time for a player to get set up (they must send FBI $$ >and set up an account – and we all know how lazy people can be when it >comes to getting off their duff, writing a check and sending it in). This is a very good idea. That's why we invented and are running RIFTLORDS. The problem is NOT the cost to Flying Buffalo to run the games or the turns. The problem is that Starweb is much less fun if players drop out without playing. When you offer a "free game", more than half of the people drop out without actually playing a turn. So how much fun would a "demo game" of Starweb be, if only half the players were actually playing? If it isn't fun, why would they then try a paid game? I specifically created Riftlords as an introductory game that people could try for free, and it wouldn't hurt the game no matter how many new players signed up and then dropped out. If you think a free trial game would get more people to play, get them to try Riftlords. Once they've played that and gotten used to a "turn based" game with turns every two weeks, then introduce them to Starweb. Hmm. Having said all that, I wonder whether we could get any new players if we did offer a limited, free demo game for new players. We'd have to explain to them at the start that there are likely to be dropouts. Maybe we could set up a limited map with fewer worlds and fewer players (maybe 6 players, one of each character type). And we could say the game only runs for 12 turns. That wouldn't really cost us much, unless it was successful, in which case it would be worth he cost. Let me think on that for a bit. Perhaps you will hear an announcment about it soon. (Editor: And we did!) > To get over the 'payment inertia' FBI could subscribe to an online >service like Paypal so that players could put money in their accounts >over the web with just a keystroke (or find out how to create a secure >web page where it's safe to transmit credit card info as many websites >do). ??? I don't understand this suggestion. Flying Buffalo can already receive payments by paypal, and we already have a secure webpage where it is safe to transmit credit card info. Just go to our "store" online, and click on "secure order form" and for "item purchased" type in "add $50 to account number xxx" For paypal, just go to your paypal account and make a payment to "postmaster@flyingbuffalo.com". In the "notes" space, tell us your name and account number. > Interface – I am going to resort to giving a plug for my >software, the Starweb Analyzer (by Flying Moose Technologies). I have >many testimonials now from players who say they would not have entered >a game, played on or even considered playing without our graphical >interface. The pages of text data that comprises a Starweb turnsheet >is dry and to put it bluntly, dull. This is very true. I should probably promote the Starweb Analyzer more strongly from my end. (Editor: You get no argument from me :-). > The most challenging part would be finding the talent and the >will to make the changes. Previously when backed into a corner, Rick >has stated that he doesn't feel the award winning game needs further >changes and that even adjusting the scoring of merchants would mean >major changes to the program that would cost money and time. I think >that if Starweb doesn't continue to change and grow it will be a relic >of the 70s and will be left behind. I guess that's OK if Rick is >planning to retire in the near future but I ask – where is that gamer >from 30 years ago who sat down and wrote this amazing game? With some >adjustments and movement to the web it could be a game enjoyed by many >for another 20 years. I have heard the arguments that an advanced >Starweb game would only compete with Starweb Classic in a limited pool >of available gamers. POPPYCOCK! An improved product brings in more >business and continues to grow. If there isn't room for Starweb >Classic alongside of Starweb 2001 then that is evolution in action. >But to deny that changes should be made is the road to extinction. This one is a bit tricky to answer. First of all, I have no intention of retiring. I admit I am 54 years old, and can't last forever. I started Flying Buffalo because it provides games *I* like to play, and no one else does exactly that. I intend to keep running Flying Buffalo (God willing) for at least another 30 years, and longer if medical science keeps improving at the current rate! Why would I quit? I'm doing what I love. If I won the lottery, for instance, I'd keep doing what I'm doing, except I'd be able to hire other people to do the stuff that isn't fun, and I'd be creating wonderful new pbm games that we could all play. However, Starweb IS running and it IS bringing in a revenue stream. There are a lot of mistakes I could make, but making expensive changes to Starweb that ended up in NOT bringing in any new customers could be disastrous. Everyone has an opinion about things that would make Starweb "better" but everyone has a DIFFERENT opinion. How many hundred years has chess been available? How many hundred variants have been invented? Which variant is widely played today? If I am going to risk my limited resources, I would really rather risk them on a completely NEW game. I have made changes to SW in the past, and may well make some in the future. In the ORIGINAL version of the game, the Merchant made even MORE points per metal dropped. I cut that in HALF many years ago. People still complain that the merchants get points too easily. The problem is in the diplomacy, not in the scoring. As long as there are players out there who don't care how many points the merchant scores, as long as they get the metal to support their war of conquest, you'll have merchants running away with the game! > If the limitation is in the area of resources such as time or >money rather than a paucity of qualities such as drive or vision t >hen I put it to all of you – Don't we have a plethora of players with >both gaming and computing skills already addicted to the game? >Couldn't they come up with some sort of deal with FBI to work on a >joint project such as Starweb 2000? Programming isn't the limitation. I've had many many many offers of "free" programming over the last 30 years. Believe me, no programming is truly "free". At the very least, it takes a lot of my time as I explain to the programmer what is needed, and what can't be done, and what has been tried before and failed, and why this current version is "user unfriendly" from the moderators point of view. One of the reasons Flying Buffalo has stayed in business all these years as hundreds of our competitors have quit or failed, is that while we pick up their customers as they go away, we generally don't pick up their games with all of the programming problems and operating problems that caused them to fail in the first place! We have purchased a few outside games (Feudal Lords, Mobius, Illuminati, Starlord) and I'm not entirely sure we actually came out ahead in any of those! (Given what it cost us to implement them properly.) If I could be absolutely certain that the "free" programmer was competent, and would follow through completely, even if it took 5 years to finish, and no money was forthcoming until after the game was running 5 years from now, I would love to do a "cosmic encounter" version of Starweb where there were more player types available than players in the game, so that no two games would ever be the same. Then it might not matter if some of the characters weren't entirely balanced, as each new combination would create different opportunities! Rick Editor: Thanks for the detailed response. I will make sure it goes into the next issue of the SEDG. I appreciated hearing your point of view. Certainly we gamers aren't always aware of the concerns you have from a business perspective. As to your confusion regarding my comments on Paypal - I hadn't realized you had this service already. I won't be adding any editorial comments - I think you very eloquently addressed many ideas, criticisms and suggestions posed two issues ago. I hope you are successful in advertising in future and that some very competent programmer does help you design a cosmic encounter game and follow through on it. I would certainly be one of the first to play it! Now Rick, you will have to suffer through some more correspondence with helpful suggestions :-). El Richard Broman writes: I can't really consider myself one of the "good ol boys" in this game, since I am only now returning from an extended absence from the game spanning since the late 80s. But When I was playing full-time, I rose up a $400.00 monthly phone bill, and dreamed of the day that the game could be run directly over "that strange computer network the Universities were developing".... ;) Now with the net in full swing, the SW players who want to see their beloved game survive this new era should rise up and storm the gates of Castle Loomis. To do this properly requires that we employ all the strategy at our collective disposal. We're all born strategists, and the obstacle of Rick's mere reluctance to change shouldn't hinder us in our quest. So let us collect our ideas together regarding ways that we could persuade Rick to consider our plea. Perhaps, with the weight of enough fanatical SW players pressing on him, he may buckle and capitulate. It is my sincere hope that we find a way to make for a pleasant capitulation. For FBInc to continue providing us with the game we love, we should respect Rick's desire to keep it hands-on. Notice that if you send in an order that has an error, you see on your turnsheet the "?" prompt symbol, and the same order typed correctly. That doesn't happen automatically. I visualize Rick or Chuck typing it in manually after a short glance over the game's printout. Using a program that recognizes only .txt-formatted files seems unusually self-limiting. Reading over the history of FBInc you can see that he's been running this game on a computer with less memory than most of today's PDAs! If he's like most of the rest of our society, and has a PC at home, there has to be a reason he hasn't migrated the program to a system with much more versatility. Geez, it's about 400 dollars to get a scanner with a handwriting recognizer capability! He could receive hand- written turns and just scan them through! But he doesn't. He's running it manually because he likes the game "hands- on". I certainly sympathize. The creative personality type craves gratification through his creation, and working with it directly must be satisfying for him. What's all this rambling on about? To try and persuade you at FM to get this "SW 2001" idea in focus enough to make it actually happen. I've been reading SEDG online, and I like some of the ideas, others I don't. I'd hate to see all you powerful minds focus your creativity on the many new things that could be included into a new version of the game, and NOT spend any effort on actually bringing them to pass. I think Rick would be more receptive if we suggest changes to the game that do not alter it fundamentally. The game MUST be recognizable as RICK's game. If we suggest scouts, dreadnoughts, traps and wormholes it starts looking more and more like all the other sci-fi games out there. Back in the 70s, StarWeb was THE QUINTISSENTIAL sci-fi game that incorporated the concept of multiple character types. The idea blossomed, and all new games AFTER StarWeb's appearance started mimicking the idea. Nothing more flattering than imitation! Rick should be applauded for that. And it is precisely in that aspect that I think we have the best chance of persuading Rick to change the game. Rather than even BRING UP the idea of "new technologies" that would fundamentally alter the game, suggest changes in the character types that will make the game more interesting, especially ones that will emphasize the differences between character types. I like the idea of letting the Apostle exceed the pop limit. Imagine: a fully converted world exceeds the max, then your enemy drops a BUNCH of CGs and voila! instant Deaths! Only for the brave Apostle player.... And the idea that a Pirate can plunder a world he does not own is the quintessential act of piracy. Perhaps permissible if the Pirate outnumbers the home fleet by more than (say) 10 to 1. Berzerkers and Goodlife. Fred (I believe) is dead, so there might be copyright issues, but a good idea.... Editor's note: Fred is not dead – I have corresponded with him and in fact he has a new Berserker book (not sure if it has been released yet). EB's making a transport might be too hard to program, but I wonder why no one has suggested that the EB be the only character who can increase MINES??? (duh, basic...) And do we have to start a CHAIN LETTER to get him to cool down the Merchant??? (are you reading this, Elliot?) I personally think the Merchant should be REQUIRED to play monopolistically to win. Make him unload at FOUR points per metal, and give him 2 points for each shot fired at a RIVAL Merchant. I played in pre-library days; I'm in a multi game with 4 Collectors. Seems like a good improvement to me. More Artifacts would be nice. Especially the Special ones. How about V101: "The Cornucopia"? Gives 30 points to ANY character type OR can be used to Build/Mine/Increase Pop/Migrate 1? (one or the other every turn, mutually exclusive) Or "Sequels to the Nebula Scrolls"? These ideas are not extreme. They don't radically change the gameplay, and it is the gamePLAY that I think Rick would like to keep. Let's pipe this letter around (or your own version) and collect a list of players who have looked it over, and would like to see it happen. And there are almost certainly programmers among you (especially at FM!) who could do it. Waxing poetic occasionally, Richard Broman aka REDJAC-KESLA-BORATIS (a TrekkIE, not a TrekkER!) Editor: I liked many of your ideas Richard but perhaps it emphasizes Rick's criticism that everyone has a different vision for Starweb upgrades. I certainly agree with your comments about the merchants and disagree with Rick (most vehemently). A merchant can gift his HW and have only 2 clients and pull in 720 points/turn from early in the game. If there were 5 merchants in a game then there might be competition. Who can afford not to ally with a merchant early on to decrease the number of ships used in hauling and to get to full production earlier? An exchange between myself and Jack Fulmer regarding this issues Feature: EH> I was tempted to join a multi game after reading it (the feature article). Unfortunately I do get a lot out of email correspondence. One thing that wasn't clear. In a Multi game if you ally with only 1 person, doesn't that lead to two alliances of two players or a two vs three? Jack> Regarding multi-SW alliances... I don't remember ever playing against another strong alliance. I presume that there must have been some level of cooperation among the other players in the games that I have played. If there was another alliance it was so weak that I never noticed it. I'm not sure why that has been the case. Why not ask for reader comments about their alliance experiences in multi-SW? EH> Ok, I'm asking. Anyone care to comment on alliances in Multi-SW? Does having 3 characters preclude the development of a strong alliance? Leonard Schussel said: Greetings Elliot and Happy New Year - Playing anonymous has cut back on my web communication, so I'm out of touch with the typical gaming chit-chat. I would like to see a science oriented play addition in the next generation of Starweb. I was thinking on each starweb world, the player could develop a science for technological advance - in either chemistry, biology, physics or geology. The player could use 10% of his population as researchers - but then they could not be used for metal production. Set threshols of 100, 150 and 200 points and give either a battle advantage, a speed enhancement (more worlds per turn on key movement) a production enhancement, a defensive support, a cheaper PBB, or the like. Well, that's it for Volume 56. 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