STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP (THE SEDG) (Sponsored by Flying Moose Technologies' Starweb Analyzer - http://www.flyingmoose.ca) VOLUME 78 April 2004 CONTENTS Feature Article 1) Back to the Game! by Chris Raynard 2)It's a Rant by Elliot Hudes Questions - Talking Black Boxes, Ambushes and Pirate Captures. SEDG Web Page URL The Swap Corner Correspondence FEATURE ARTICLE 1) Back to the Game! by Chris Raynard Hello from another former Starweb player who is getting back to the game. I found your site (www.flyingmoose.ca) while trying to look up anything Starweb related. My story with the game is similar to yours. I found FBI in an issue of Games magazine and signed up as a way to get more mail while I was in college. While I do not recall playing in any games with or against you, I recognize plenty of names from your list of contributors. It is disappointing but not really surprising that the Starweb community has declined given the alternatives that are now available. While the game has no flash and never did, the basic premise is sound. I always found the diplomacy aspect of the game to be the most challenging and rewarding anyway. Could I pull off one more deal, be it an honest alliance or a conniving backstab. I have read the numerous articles predicting the game's demise due to its lack of innovation. One rational for the "predictability" of the game I have not seen advanced is that with the declining pool of players, there develops a familiarity of game playing styles. If 12 of the 15 positions, or whatever the ratio is, are always filled by the same people, there will eventually become a rote response on the part of those players. Player A always plays aggressively; Player B always allies with Player C, etc. I know these are simplified generalizations but it's got to play a role in the diminished enjoyment of the game. The game needs new blood. The question is how to get it. One suggestion I would make is a Newbies-Play-Free Partners variant. Veteran players would take on the responsibility of finding new players while FBI would make the investment so as to attract new players some of whom would then sign up as PAYING customers. Perhaps there would be some sort of bonus if one of the new players won the game. I know it would be tempting to some to front dummy accounts so as to play two positions but I think the majority of players would be above board in this respect. Maybe I'm just being naive. As far as the game mechanics are concerned, there could be some improvements made. Even a color-coded printout or email would make it more interesting. I do like the idea of EB's being able to build something for extra points but nothing as drastic as something that affects movement through the web. Perhaps a "wonder" that generates more points the longer it exists as in the "Age of Empires" game series. As it is, the EB is a really boring position to play. My view may be skewed by my 139 EB rating. Well I've rambled on long enough. Take pity on a frustrated gamer who finds a favorite old shirt has been consumed by moths while hanging in the closet. Chris Raynard Darkfox 2) It's a Rant by Elliot Hudes First, I would like to respond to some of the points Chris made. I think his comment about the declining pool of players creating a familiarity of playing styles and a tendency of rote responses among the same players is bang on. It is very difficult to break out of the mold also. Most of us have developed techniques that work for us. The reason I can see this so clearly is that I am involved in play in another email game loosely based on Starweb. The character types are better developed and can do more than in Starweb, which does lead to more unique strategies but even more importantly, the game pool while still small is at least 50% newbies. Those Starwebbers involved seem to genuinely wish to explore new avenues of playing and I find that you can't assume that anything will role out the way you found it in previous games. Alliances tend to be small and a lot looser. You might have 2 close allies and they in turn may have an ally or two that you don't work with. It doesn't degenerate into one team versus another and frequently you don't know everything that is going on across the universe. And the more unknowns there are the more interesting the game remains. On the other hand you can get frustrated by players who play poorly because of inexperience but that's how they learn. But I didn't start this to try and sell another game. I want to try and find ideas that FBI can implement that will help rejuvenate the game and expand the SW player pool. First, I can eliminate the idea of a retooling of the game. Rick has said on more than one occasion that he doesn't have the dollars needed to reprogram Starweb. I think Chris hit on an idea with his Veteran-Newbie partner game. This would be a new variant AND a way to bring in new blood. Utilizing the existing players to aid in recruiting is a good idea. Other ideas FBI could try are to give players who are responsible for a successful referral 6 free turns in any game they are in. Again, I think FBI needs to do something in terms of advertising whether it is posting to usenet newsgroups dedicated to gaming or placing ads in gaming magazines or ezines. Another thing I think FBI needs to do is to create a new Variant that will promote a game with much more depth. By depth I mean a lot more factions. If the game doesn't degenerate into a two team effort but instead had 3 or 4 factions and a few independent characters going their own way then it would lead to a lot more interesting gaming. How do you do this under the present constraints? Well, one idea I've seen proposed before is the concept of limiting alliances. Call it the Small Alliance Variant (SAV) and limit alliances to two A= orders. Yes, I know that anyone can write more ally orders and the SW program would accept it but I have to believe that the SW gaming community is mostly honest and if they joined a game of this variant it would very likely be adhered to. And in the case of accidental alliances, it should be a simple thing for Chuck to check the top of each printout when he runs the game and ensure that only 2 allies show up on each player's turnsheet. If more appear that turn it would only take a few minutes for him to rerun the turn and delete the extra ally that the player had added that turn. I also concede that the veteran player is savvy enough to manipulate his orders so that he could disguise his alliance of 4 players by being very careful not to ambush players that can't be added to his alliance list. I think we can't prevent this sort of play but just by calling it the Small Alliance Variant we would likely limit this type of player from joining. Another Variant I would like to see played is the Intermediate Scoring Game (ISG). In this variant players must choose an end score between 7000 - 15000. In fact I believe this should be the new Standard length game. Here's why. It is already well known that certain character types win more often and certain character types have little chance of winning. For the uninitiated, consider that the only pirates that win do it by vast plunders in a game with a very low VPT often around 4000- 5000. This works because the merchant or berserker hasn't the resources to get their scores rolling yet (and the Art Collector hasn't had time to pool his art into museums). But to win like this the game often ends by turn 14. In a game where you aren't likely to get your HW to full ship production until turn 8 or 9 this doesn't leave much time for any interesting play (read 'play' as fighting). Most players agree that games that end early are boring because nothing of note has happened yet. These days with runaway merchants or berserkers even the 10,000- point game can end by turn 16. I believe that if the game ran just a little longer, say, to turns 18-22 there would be a lot more interest in the game itself. This would allow an alliance the chance to truly attempt to eradicate an opposing alliance in a military venture as a strategy to control their scoring. In the short games the best you can do is eliminate one player if you have many cooperating in his demise. A longer game would also allow players to see a runaway player and make plans to bring him down. Before you start saying 'There is an extralong variant', let me tell you that these games of 25,000 VPT are in a whole new category as they often last until turns 26-33. I like them but they are marathons and some players could lose interest in such long games. By specifying a 7000-15000 limit we ensure that the end score is still unknown so nobody can predict the ending and that the game won't end too soon. I predict a much more interesting a spicy game. Now before FBI Inc. starts whining how new variants dilute his player pool I must point out that whenever Rick sends out his monthly email about games ready to go he often gets more sign ups and sometimes even has to run 2 of the proposed games. I would suggest that he throws out these new variants in his monthly email and then monitor the games to see if they play out to be more fun for the players involved. Finally, I must make a pitch for player retention. It is just as important to keep old players as to recruit new ones. I think my Variants and others (such as Rick's one of playing against him) are excellent but there are other things that FBI could do to help out. First, why haven't we seen a FBQ for years now? You don't keep players interested in the games if you don't keep your magazine current. Second - the rankings (which are on the FBI web site) are years old. I think that FBI needs to update these at least every 6 months. I've played many games since the last 2000 update and want to see my ranking! It's almost as if FBI is just ignoring it's PBM fans. Honestly - if FBI doesn't do something to encourage more new players to join and do things to entice older players to continue then Starweb will go the way of the Dodo. Elliot Hudes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS - Can anyone answer these? Has anyone been in a game where the Black Box communicates? If so, what sort of information would it give out or respond to? Paul Balsamo replied: Great recap of 1330. BTW: I did communicate with the BB once in my first game (SW-739). I was a collector, had the black box and sent it a diplo asking "do you do anything except give me 30 points per turn?" I answered "Isn't 30 points enough, but yes, I do do something else." I never found out what it did. Here's a new question. Who wants to take bragging rights to: 1)Largest ambush executed. 2)Largest pirate capture. I haven't received any response to these questions yet. I can start the ball rolling. I've personally gone through an ambush of 83 ships to get to an enemy HW. I still arrived with over 200 ships and won the battle but it sure hurt. As to large pirate captures - I don't think I've seen more than 50 ships captured. Anyone else ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP - is now available on the web. Look for our new MAPPER'S SECTION on the SEDG Web Page. http://www.accessv.com/~somnos/sedg.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEATURE - THE SWAP CORNER STARWEB ANALYZER V1.5 - It's on the web site and it's no longer a Beta! Go get it! As before - registered clients of any previous V1.x version can upgrade for free. www.flyingmoose.ca The Starweb Analyzer V2.0 (written under the .Net Framework). Mike has been busy recreating the analyzer and upgrading it. It's almost ready for beta testing. One more feature I would like to tease you with - ANIMATED GRAPHICS. Now it is possible to see fleet icons firing at each other or the world below. PBB bombs are shown with beautiful mushroom clouds emanating from afflicted worlds. As soon as it progresses a little further we shall invite some of you to beta test it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRESPONDENCE Note to subscribers - The SEDG is now coming out sporadically as articles become available. Well, that's it for Volume 78. 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