STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP (THE SEDG) (Sponsored by Flying Moose Technologies' Starweb Analyzer - http://www.flyingmoose.ca) VOLUME 80 August 2004 CONTENTS Feature Article – Starweb and Other Unhealthy Habits Questions – Captures and Ambushes SEDG Web Page URL The Swap Corner Correspondence FEATURE ARTICLE Starweb and Other Unhealthy Habits By Elliot Hudes "Ummm, dear," I asked as innocently as I could. "Yes, hon," she replied. "I really can't make dinner at your parents Sunday night. I've got too many irons in the fire at the moment." "Oh, that's too bad," my wife answered trying to hide the disappointment in her voice. A few moments of awkward silence followed and I noticed the wrinkling of her brow. The wind howled against the windowpanes, magnetic poles inverted, a dog barked and somewhere dark magic shifted emotional tracts. "Didn't that project at work wind up last week," she asked in a colder more calculating tone. Mustering my most diplomatic negotiating skills borne in the fires of countless Starweb games I replied. "Yah but my due date is Sunday and I've got so much to do," I responded trying to bury the whinier aspects of my voice below a thin veneer of confidence. I'm afraid that the jig was up. "Due date?" She said a little louder. "What due date?" "My Starweb due date honey." Jeez, did my voice just crack. "Starweb!" She spat the word. I didn't know if it was a statement or a question so I just stood their struck dumb and stared at the scuff marks on my shoes. "You're breaking a dinner engagement at my parents because of STARWEB!" You know it sounded much more criminal coming from her lips than any transgression I had imagined. After all, dinners at the in-laws, although pleasant, didn't rank up their with the thrill of battle, the soaring thru space lanes and the unbridled feeling of a three-to-one capture. And there was that due date. "But it's turn 4," I pleaded. After all, everyone knew the importance of turn 4. The most diplomatic and strategically packed turn of the game, where the course of the match could be steered and your fate sealed by one invaluable alliance deal sealed in blood. Why was she being so difficult? "Turn 4. Turn 4." She echoed. It was difficult to know how to respond to these non-questions. "How did you get turn 4?" "Well, I secretly signed up for another game 6 weeks ago," I responded sheepishly. "But Elliot – you promised. Not another game." Has this scenario or one similar to it ever been played out in your house? Yes? Well then you are a Starweb Addict (or Gaming addict as the case may be). Let me ask a few more questions. Have you ever been in more than one Starweb game simultaneously? Yes. Well that's no crime (except perhaps in the matrimonial law books). Have you ever been in several games at the same time? Yes? I suppose that can be OK also. After all, who is to say how you spend your leisure time. Have you ever been in 8 or 10 or even 12 games at the same time? Yah? Hmmm, you may have a problem. Have you ever felt so saturated in games that you were afraid you would bust? But if a great ally or friend from the Starweb past asks you to join a partner game or some private variant you can't say no, even though you couldn't possibly handle another due date? Have you ever looked at your due date list on the calendar and realized that not only are several games due the same day but that over the 2 week cycle you never have more than 1 day free between them? Have you ever felt that the never-ending onslaught of due dates have become a chore that is preempting your ability to watch reality TV? If you say yes to any of the above scenarios then you may find that FBI and Rick thinks you are a great guy but your significant other thinks you've fallen off the deep end. To tell the truth I resemble some of these statements but not all of them. I have been in up to 8 games at a time and I must say that if a little is good then a lot is not better. Aside from the difficulty keeping all the names and details in the RAM between your ears and keeping up with the reams of email, it is not as much fun when you have to sit down every single day and map, write orders and NOT miss a due date. As opposed to that TV show – Eight was enough (and more). But while I'm on my musings about Starweb Addiction let me tell you about the ally I had several years back. I received an email explaining to me that my ally was going to drop the game. In fact, he was dropping all his online games both live and PBEM. It appeared that he was cohabitating with a member of the fairer sex and she (very rightly so) pointed out that he was paying a lot more attention and time to his gaming than to her and that this was a problem in a mature romantic relationship. He agreed and dropped. Thirteen days later to the day and coincident with the due date I received a high priority email from him that basically stated: "GIRLFRIEND IS OUT, GAMING IS IN. I have begged FBI to reinsert me in all my games and I won't be missing this due date!" And he didn't miss it either. OK. We have established that you have a problem. So do you recognize the following pathologic gaming habits? Do you deny that you are playing games? Do you downplay the number of games you are in to your significant other? In fact, do you try to keep secret the number of active games you are in? Do you write your orders in places or times where nobody can witness your gaming? Do you say or think things like "I can quit any time I choose?" Do you have players phoning your home and asking for you by character name? When this happens does anyone take notice? I've had allies phone me and ask for SOMNOS and the kids just yell for me. All right – you've sent off a particularly ambitious proposal or SW plan or alliance deal by email. Do you find yourself sneaking to the office, den or wherever you keep your Internet connection several times a day to see if the recipient has responded? Even when you only sent it 10 minutes ago? OK. We need a way to learn some new coping mechanisms before Starweb consumes us and we SNAP! There is no organization like Starweb Anonymous. Most of us live in different towns and couldn't make the meetings anyway. An email or Internet based support group would only keep us online longer and this in effect would only transfer our addiction to the generalized online experience. Would our significant others even notice the change? I doubt it. Obviously we are most interested in solutions that keep us playing. Is this possible? Can an alcoholic have only 1 drink? Well, if you look to making your game play more efficient and less time consuming (here it comes, can you feel it?) I would suggest buying Flying Moose Technologies Starweb Analyzer. (HAHA! A FREE PLUG! Did you like that Mike?) Another strategy would be to sign up for only Anonymous Starweb games as this will eliminate all the strategy sessions, email and let you get on with doing your turn. (Of course this strategy is often unsuccessful as the SW Addict uses the new found time to sign up for more games ). You don't even have to crack the map cuzz you won't have much of it. If you want some personal interaction I would suggest a partner's game. Tell your partner he is the voice of the alliance and can do the majority of the negotiating while you just support him and play. Think of your partner as your sponsor – if you get the urge to sign up again he can try to talk you out of it. Now let's say you manage to control your habit and find yourself in only a couple of Starweb games, one being anonymous at that. What do you do with all that new spare time? Well, get online and send your significant other a bouquet of roses from an online florist and then check out www.flyingbuffalo.com and check out some of their other many fine games ;-). Gotta go – I hear my wife calling and it's hard to write orders in this dark closet. Elliot ---------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS - Can anyone answer these? Previous issue's question - who wants to take bragging rights to: 1)Largest ambush executed. 2)Largest pirate capture. On the subject of greatest ambush / pirate capture, I don't remember the numbers, but the most SATISFYING one I recall was the infamous "SNEAK UP ON SNARK" attack from L/29. The map is featured on the SEDG cite. As you recall, we formed an early (T3/T4) alliance and I figured out *most* of the shape to this complex map by T6 (thanks to trading turnsheets). Larry Rodin (Uncleharry) discovered the Roy Hamilton (SNARK) HW early and we managed to coordinate the arrival of 5 HW's worth of production to both of his Ring 1's by T12. With no way to escape we had the HW on T13 with a massive Pirate(CURIOSITY) captures Pirate (SNARK). To his credit SNARK got enough keys out to be a marauding force the rest of the game, but the victory (some 20 turns later) was a foregone conclusion. David Benepe Editor: Ah, memories tend to magnify past glories :-). I looked up the turn in question – have a look. W113 (15,183) [DAVZO] (Industry=32/0,Metal=32,Mines=3,Population=100, Limit=100,Turns=5,I-Ships=5) F49[CURIOSITY]=254 (Moved,Cargo=22) F106[CURIOSITY]=4 (Captured,Lost by [SNARK],Moved,Cargo=4) F163[CURIOSITY]=8 (Captured,Lost by [SNARK],Moved,Cargo=8) F182[CURIOSITY]=8 (Captured,Lost by [SNARK],Moved,Cargo=8) F218[CURIOSITY]=3 (Captured,Lost by [SNARK]) F219[CURIOSITY]=2 (Captured,Lost by [SNARK],Moved,Cargo=2) F238[CURIOSITY]=6 (Captured,Lost by [SNARK],Moved,Cargo=6) (F37[SNARK]-->W15 F79[SNARK]-->W183 F80[SNARK]-->W183 F100[SNARK]-- >W183 F125[SNARK]-->W183 F156[SNARK]-->W15 F165[DUTCH]-->W15) Anyone else wish to brag about some great capture or ambush? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP - is now available on the web. Look for our new MAPPER'S SECTION on the SEDG Web Page. A new map From SW1341 is posted. 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 I'm sorry to say there hasn't been a lot of movement with The Starweb Analyzer V2.0. It is being built in the Dotnet framework and has a lot of potential for neat new features but at present it isn't as advanced as V1.5. It is being alpha tested by a few diehard fans and I will report more about it when we have gotten a little further along. Elliot ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRESPONDENCE Jack Fulmer had some comments about Variants: Hi El! I'm glad to see you are still publishing the SEDG even if it is less regularly issued. Here are some comments and such regarding your "Variants" article in SEDG #79. Anonymous: I'm glad to see that you agree with me about the fun of anonymous games. It's true that ACs and EBs are scarce in single player anonymous games. You did not mention apostles. They are fairly common. As you would expect they almost never win but do score reasonably well. As I've written before in the SEDG to have a chance at winning an anonymous apostle usually needs a berserker ally. But then you have the problem of keeping ahead of the berserker's score if you want to win. Pirates will usually not attack an anonymous apostle after about turn 11 or 12. Typically by then worlds are starting to roll over to full conversion and become useless to the pirates. If I were going to play another anonymous apostle I would choose 1,000 as my ending score and definitely not allow any merchant to haul for me. I would be hoping for an ending score in the 4,000 to 6,000 range. I would plan to overcome the early point leads that the pirates build up and to do so before the berserkers got in scoring gear. Multi / Anonymous Multi: I think that you glossed over how different anonymous multi games are from anonymous regular games. For my views see articles that I wrote in previous volumes of the SEDG. Anonymous Partners Bitter End: FBI ran this one a couple of years ago. You signed up as a pair with your partner. Any character choice was OK as I remember. You were started with an empire adjacent to that of your partner. You and he were allies and could communicate. All of the other players were unknown to you. You could not communicate with them. Although you started as partners only one player could win with 128+ worlds. So at the end their had to be a "falling out", amicable or otherwise between you and your partner. My partner and I did OK. We played one pirate and one berserker. We took out one adjacent partnership and put a serious hurt on another. However, they were not pushovers. So by the time we reached about 60+ worlds another, more distant partnership had built an unstoppable pirate juggernaut. I made it to be about the 6th or 7th to last dropout (no worlds or keys). I think that my partner came in third with the game lasting about 60 turns or so. Private anonymous games: I have played in some private anonymous games over the years. Some have been as part of a team and one was a one-on-one game. One of the games consisted of two opposing teams of three players each. Each team was required to play one and only one of each of the six character types. So each actual player was playing two characters. The winner was to be whichever team had the highest score for their lowest scoring player. The end of the game occurred when one team got all six of their characters past the victory point limit. Final scores were determined using the standard bonuses. I don't remember how we picked what the ending score would be. Our team was so successful that our opponents surrendered early since they had no chance to win. Another game had two teams of two players. As in the game described above each team had to play exactly one of each character type. Therefore each person played three characters. Winning scores were to be determined as in the three-person team game above. In this one my partner and I were winning when he had to drop for personal reasons. I was going to continue the game playing all six characters when the opposing team semi-conceded. As I remember it they conceded that we were ahead but questioned whether or not I could have maintained the lead even though they were electing to concede. Not very satisfying as an ending particularly since I was sure I was going to demolish them! Keep up the good work on the SEDG! Regards... Jack John had a lot to say about last issue and since I have the room I reproduce his email in its entirety. John David Gault said: > Anonymous games [snip] > the other players may see you with a different name. This Tower of > Babel approach is quite good at ensuring that communication even if >attempted will not be useful. My take on these games is that they >are a lot of fun. Primitive communication utilizing your actions in >the game (e.g. gifting a world to an EB) is part of the enjoyment and >skill of the game. Players don't have reams of email diplomacy and >can spend less time doing turns and play more games. You are much >more reliant on your own skills and at times luck (I have been >attacked by all my neighbors much to my chagrin). There tends to be >more pirates, berserkers and merchants in the game and almost no art >collectors or empire builders. My view - Definitely worth playing. That is not my experience at all. I have tried this twice, followed the published etiquette such as retreating from worlds where the others had more ships than I at first meeting, and attempted all the obvious forms of communication such as dropping CGs to show that you are a Merchant. Result: No one cooperated in any way, I only got shot at. Unless and until communication is added to the game (such as the Battle Plan-like message scheme I proposed in an earlier SEDG), Anonymous SW is simply broken. Editor: I disagree. Some players realize that merchants run away with the game and so, hunt them. It's regular SW that has a problem when you have merchants promise not to score to avoid elimination. > Multi Starweb > I have no experience with this variant. You run 3 positions and play >in a game of 5 players. I'd recommend this as the first game for a beginner. It is generally boring because the number of players is too small for the degree of interaction in a 15 player game. From the point of view of a good player it also has the problem that your positions pretty much have to be working at cross purposes, since you are required to choose 3 different character types. The 2 position x 7 player variant used in the Captain's Challenge games alleviates both of these problems, and I would like to see it become a regular offering, possibly instead of Multi. > Anonymous Multi > This game is similar to the Anonymous game except you play 3 >positions. Suffers from all the problems of Anonymous plus those of Multi. > Bitter End > I have not been in this variant so forgive my accuracy. In this game > you win if you own greater than 50% of the universe (128 worlds). >All character types are available but I can't honestly see why anyone >would collect art or empire build in this variant. It appears to me >that alliances would have a lot of trouble being whole game alliances >unless players agree in advance to subsume their desire to win in >favor of another player. I've played it once. The only character type that can win is a Pirate. The strategy that dominates the game is simply to mass all your ships and keys into a small number of huge naval forces which roam around the universe absorbing any opponent's fleet they meet. The only way to stop this juggernaut is to have a bigger one of your own. If you love combat and don't care much for all the abstract conditions that score points in the normal game, or if you are tired of having your Pirates get beat up and you want revenge, this is your game. But if you don't resent those aspects of the regular game, then don't bother playing Bitter End, because it has no other point. > Extra Long > This game runs to 25,000 points. This makes the game last from 24-35 > turns in the games I've been in. It's no surprise when it's going to > end and this makes the endgame a little more predictable. For >players that say, "there isn't enough time in the game to vanquish >your enemy before you need to score' this is the game for you. We >have all been in the situation where your incursion into enemy >territory is bearing fruit but your allies need to score makes you >give up a lot of your resources to the scoring effort e.g. turning >pirate ships into berserker PBBs. This game gives you enough time to >plan and execute a brilliant military campaign, which can be part of >your scoring plans. After all, dead players score no points :-). > > It's too bad you can't pick scores between 20,000 and 30,000 to help > keep the final turn a mystery. Au contraire. The lack of that mystery is the point of the variant. It's too bad they don't just offer a similar version that is not Extra Long (by setting a fixed ending score of, say, 5,000 or 8,000 or 10,000). Editor: No, I disagree. The point of the variant is in the name. It's an Extralong Starweb game. I believe it would make for an interesting game if the variant were played to an unknown score just as it is to a fixed one. > Partner > This game allows you to sign up with a partner. You are pre-allied >on the first turnsheet and the game contains 7 such partnerships. I > suppose there is nothing stopping you from turning on your partner >but the game presumes you will be allied ;-). The biggest problem I have with Starweb is that lots of players "pre- ally" this way in regular games. It's easy enough to do, especially with the use of reserved names, which let your friends know who you are before any players who don't have them are allowed to exchange information. The only way I can think of to police this is to play Anonymous Starweb after the message scheme has been added to it. > Private Handicapped Starweb Game (SW-X1330) This is way too complicated for me to have any interest in playing it. However, the handicap scheme is a good idea and I would like to see it become part of the regular game to make it more fair (or equivalently, just modify the point values awarded to each type of character for various actions). However, I disagree with the specifics of your handicap chart in two respects. First, the Pirate needs the biggest handicap, greater than that for an Apostle. Second, art collectors and Empire Builders are not the only character types that need compensation if too many exist in a game. Pirates especially need it, since each world can only be plundered for points a fixed number of times. I suggest this new handicap chart, which is simply a multiplier to be applied to each player's regular score before they are compared. VICTORY HANDICAP CHART CHARACTER BASIC SOLE CHARACTER TOO MANY EMPIRE BUILDER 1. 0.8 1.2 (if > 4) PIRATE 1.8 1.5 2.2 (if > 3) MERCHANT 0.5 0.4 N/A BERSERKER 0.5 0.4 N/A ART COLLECTOR 1.0 0.8 1.25 (if > 2) APOSTLE 1.5 1.5 N/A Note that I have eliminated the bonus for being the sole Apostle, as don't believe this makes the game any easier. Other character types are just as capable - maybe more capable - of unconverting your converts than are other Apostles, and with no other Apostles you lose the ability to cooperate with them when it's time to start killing pop at the end. > PROPOSED VARIANTS [snip] > Small Alliance Variant (SAV) > This variant limits alliances to two A= orders. [snip] Very bad idea. I agree that mega-alliances are starting to ruin Starweb, but actually allying with someone is not the same thing as the A= order, which is often needed to turn off auto-attacks against players toward whom I have adopted a policy of "wait and see" (neutrality). Doing that must never be restricted. If you actually want to stop the mega-alliances, you either have to trust players to comply (just as nothing stops them from forming pre- game alliances now), or funnel all communications through a central moderator who blocks any mega-alliance from forming (and will have to make judgment calls, both regarding what behavior counts as an "alliance" and how to prevent or penalize violations). In particular, if the moderator rejects a set of orders, does he extend the deadline so the player can change them? Editor: The idea of limiting 'A=' orders was to make it a bit more difficult for multiple allies and to convey the idea of a small alliance game. Your idea of monitoring communications is cumbersome and unworkable and I don't think players would tolerate this form of censorship. > 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. A blacklist against such players is what I hoped would happen when wrote my rant in FBQ. But I don't think anyone at FB is willing to even attempt it because of the disagreements it would generate. John David Galt Editor: A blacklist for players who ally too much? It's too draconian. You need rules built within the game that enforce the behaviors you wish to promote or game mechanics that steer players in certain directions. Richard Broman writes: Rick and Elliot, I'm commenting after having read Elliot's SEDG article, at http://www.accessv.com/~somnos/vol78.txt where he "rants" about the need for revision in SW. I agree with Elliot on many points, but I disagree with one crucial point. Elliot states, "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'm frustrated that such an excellent game as Starweb could be stymied by something as mundane as lack of dollars, when the game is about the cheapest form of entertainment going in the current market. Rick. It would take a little bit of networking, but it's only human-interaction that sets up contacts with people who have the programming skill to implement code changes. Rick has more than once admitted to me in email that his ultimate goal is to tool a game with at least 50 character-types, thus eliminating the sense of repetition and stereotyped classes. I heartily applaud this goal! In fact, I seriously think such a game would revitalize the gaming industry on a deeply fundamental level. I don't make such a claim lightly. Really. I was involved in the playtesting of "Magic: The Gathering" expressly because the creator of that game saw the value of gaming perspective which I shared. I think a 50-class game would be a quantum-leap beyond what current gaming offers. Go for it! Editor: Truthfully the conversation between Rich and Rick went on for a few more interesting emails back and forth on the time, logistics and effects of a new game. If Rick wishes to have any of it published here or wishes to comment – just send it to me. One comment was that in addition to a 50-class game the ability to combine character classes would be interesting. In this vein FBI has already recently offered the STARWEB CHANGE GAME - a game where you can change character types. You can change every turn if you want. Email FBI if you're interested in this new variant. Well, that's it for Volume 80. 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