A Question of Skill
Gary Seven
in some games, a single player seems to run away with the game based
soely on his economic size/power. While some players reply that that is
to be expected in an expansion based game, many of the more advanced
players who read this group have responded that such an inbalance is
usually because of an inbalance in skill rather than a balance flaw in
the game. Since this same trend appears in several other well known
strategy games (Warcraft, C&C, etc.), I tend to accept this arguement.
In an attempt to prevent these massacres, it seems reasonable to group
players of similar skill into games. The problem is, that there is no
clear way to do this.
While it seems quite reasonable to define a Novice as a player who has
played no PvP Stars! games before, how does a 'Beginner' differ from an
'Intermediate' player? When does one become 'Advanced'? Is there a
skill difference between an 'Advanced' and an 'Expert' player?
If an Advanced player in an Intermediate game can frequently lead to a
runaway game, then it seems important that there be some clear way of
distinguishing the two. Anyone have any ideas?
--GAry Seven
David Moen
Some people have suggested a player rating system similar to that used by
chess players. The usual objection to this is that it is hard for a rating
system to take into account the diffrent factors affecting success in a
wide range of game types. For instance, a rating derived from a head-to-head
series probably says nothing about a player's diplomatic ability, just race
design, economic management and tactics. (Of course, one _might_ expect
someone who excelled in these to do well in diplomacy too, but some people
have good technical ability without a corresponding level of people skills,
or vice-versa).
Others have proposed standard definitions for several proposed standard skill
levels. One problem is there has been no way to standardize the various
competing proposed standards definitions. :-)
I suppose it might be possible for someone in the newsgroup to organize and
propagate a standard set of skill level definitions. Feel like taking on the job?
My suggestion is for a host to define the level of experience he is looking for,
not by using terms like "beginner:", "intermediate", or "advanced", but by
listing several objectively measurable criteria. For instance:
- this game is open to anyone who has never played against human opposition before,
doesn't know what that terms "HG", HP" and "monster" mean, and has never tested a race
design to see what economic output it could get.
- this game is open to players who have played against other humans 1 to 5 times,
but have never won a game, have always played until the game was finished or until
being entirely wiped out
- this game is open to anyone ho has won at at least one game against other players,
or finished second in at least two games against other players, but have not played
more than seven games against humans.
- this game is open to people who have played against human opposition more than twice
but no more than six times, and who read the newsgroup regularly
- this game is open to players who have won a game rated "Intermediate" but have never
finished higher than fourth in a game with Advanced opponents.
- this game is open only to people who have played at least ten games against human
opposition, have finished first or second at least twice in those games, and have
benchmarked races to at least 50K by 2450
No doubt you can come up with better criteria than these.
Another approach is to build a general concept of skill level in your mind and then
interview potential players to see how they match it.
Getting a good balance of skills in a game is a difficult thing to do. If it is an
important goal, one should be willing to put a fair amount of effort into achieving
it.
--
David Moen
(to reply by e-mail substitute dgmoen for netabuse)
Will Waggoner
been no real solution. One point that has been tossed around, however,
is that of using Barry's BB benchmarking system to "rate" players.
Since his testbed method removes random factors from play, everyone
should play one testbed (or more if you'd like to average your scores)
with the *humanoid* race. Then, everyone is reaching for the same goal
from the same footing - no advantages present other than the random
generation of the universe. Perhaps one universe should be generated
and stored somewhere (on a web page? Maybe I should do this.) so that
everyone can use the same universe to do their testing, thereby taking
out even that random factor. Ratings would be evident by the number of
years it takes a player to reach the benchmark with those lowly
humanoids. =]
Off to make a web page for player benchmarking,
Will Waggoner
Bennett
Will Waggoner wrote in message
Perhaps one universe should be generated
>and stored somewhere (on a web page? Maybe I should do this.)
Isn't there a "seed" function in version i so that the same uni can be
generated over and again?
Cheers
Bennett
Dog
> players of similar skill into games. The problem is, that there is no
> clear way to do this.
I reckon the *best* monster control is public player scores :)
If I had to assess a player's skill in a test of some sort, it would be a
fleet design test.
After all, fleet design is one of the most advanced topics in stars.
(We could do it on race design, but it'd be much harder to assess)
Give the prospective players a test-bed with a set of tech levels and MT
toys, and a finite number of minerals.
Then and ask them to design some ships.
1: A Torpedo Flagship
2: A Beamer Flagship
3: A skirmisher
4: A utility of their choice.
And ask them to document the reasoning behind their decisions.
And how many they would make of each.
I think you'd get a pretty good estimate of their skill from this :-)
Peace & Mung Beans
Dog
Bryan W. Reed
Gary Seven <gary...@abcde.cncfamily.com> wrote:
>
>While it seems quite reasonable to define a Novice as a player who has
>played no PvP Stars! games before, how does a 'Beginner' differ from an
>'Intermediate' player? When does one become 'Advanced'? Is there a
>skill difference between an 'Advanced' and an 'Expert' player?
>
Trouble is, even a "novice" who's played a lot of games against the AI
can often beat players who call themselves "intermediate." So even the
obvious definition of "novice" doesn't always work.
I'd say someone who can't build a monster in an enemy-free universe is
a beginner. Beyond that, I don't know (hard for me to say, since I'm
probably intermediate, myself).
Have fun,
Bryan
Will Waggoner
> Isn't there a "seed" function in version i so that the same uni can be
> generated over and again?
Yes, there is - but I'm not sure how the universe gets created from that
seed. It should use the same universe over and over again, but I'm not
sure if the unique game ID you can get with starstat will be the same.
That ID is what I would use to check and make sure everyone's universe
sent to me was the same. If the ID is indeed the same, then it would be
easy to replicate the universe. Then again, it would be just as easy to
download the game setup from a web page as it is to get the seed # from
a web page. =] Add that to the fact that I have been working on page
graphics for awhile and I haven't been able to think of any content, and
*voila* another stars page is born.
Regards,
Will Waggoner
David Moen
>
> If I had to assess a player's skill in a test of some sort, it would be a
> fleet design test.
>
> After all, fleet design is one of the most advanced topics in stars.
> (We could do it on race design, but it'd be much harder to assess)
I'd say that the most important factor for success in Stars! is diplomacy.
A better ship design won't help you too much if you have no allies, and a
coalition of players arrayed against you. Standards based on economic
benchmark attainment, or ship design, or victories against the AI don't give
much indication of how well a player will perform against other players,
because one's success against other humans is highly dependent on one's
diplomatic skill.
Problem is: there is no simple way to measure skill in diplomacy. Best is
one's record of outcomes against other humans.
Damon Domjan
Reed) wrote:
>In article <36B5E298...@abcde.cncfamily.com>,
>Gary Seven <gary...@abcde.cncfamily.com> wrote:
>>
>>While it seems quite reasonable to define a Novice as a player who has
>>played no PvP Stars! games before, how does a 'Beginner' differ from an
>>'Intermediate' player? When does one become 'Advanced'? Is there a
>>skill difference between an 'Advanced' and an 'Expert' player?
>>
>
>Trouble is, even a "novice" who's played a lot of games against the AI
>can often beat players who call themselves "intermediate." So even the
>obvious definition of "novice" doesn't always work.
Quite true. I played the demo for several months before purchasing
Stars!, waited two weeks while getting a feel for race design,
devouring every text I could, and more practice against the AI plus
(woohoo!) playing with the higher tech hulls and different PRT's
before playing several blitzes (I was winning until I ran into Wilco's
IT...SOB had Arm BB's gating around faster'n I could respond :) and
finally joining a beginner PBEM.
>I'd say someone who can't build a monster in an enemy-free universe is
>a beginner. Beyond that, I don't know (hard for me to say, since I'm
>probably intermediate, myself).
The only problem with that designation is it could simply be their
race design; warfighting is a huge part of Stars!...then again so is
diplomacy and econ :) But oh well.
>Have fun,
Always.
>Bryan
Damon
Orca on #Stars!
Morten Lassen
>one's record of outcomes against other humans.
And that leads us to a ladder which is actually maintained!
/Mort
starp...@danbbs.dk
http://fly.to/starplayer
-----------------------------------------------
38.......simulated!
-Lt. Gorman, US Colonial Marines
-----------------------------------------------
jason...@msn.com
David Moen <neta...@ibm.net> wrote:
> Dog wrote:
> >
> > If I had to assess a player's skill in a test of some sort, it would be a
> > fleet design test.
> I'd say that the most important factor for success in Stars! is diplomacy.
> A better ship design won't help you too much if you have no allies, and a
> coalition of players arrayed against you.
Both right in a way, IMO. If I understand Dog correctly, he is going by a
real game factor. Advanced and expert players (especially the latter) can
spot a player's skill level a mile off by ship design *mistakes*, during
actual human games. It is not that the poor or good ship designs are so
vital in themselves - they are just excellent "flags", highly correlated with
player skill and experience. However, I am not sure Dog's test would capture
this real-world truth, simply because it is limited to an easier task than
games usually present to players (set tech, vs. deciding when to build and
when to wait for needed bits of a useful design; varying parts of the tech
tree, etc).
As an example, a player who hasn't played much will tend to use too many ship
types at the lower tech levels - he doesn't understand he must save his slots
for longer-lived designs because he hasn't hit the bottleneck before. He'll
use some designs with e.g. marginally better engines, when experience would
tell him that the wait for significantly better ones will actually be quite
short. Moving up, intermediate players often make mistakes that overlook
relatively minor but tactically important ship-design issues. Like using
heavy armor, because of the greater dp per part and thus per ship, rather
than focusing on power per unit of expense and the move-first drawback of
weight in battle. Or filling all 6 weapons slots on a cruiser with jihads,
rather than using more elec/computers - or full 6 armors on a beam BB thus
sacrificing the important extra 1/4 move to 2 1/4, worth a full round against
enemy missle BBs. Advanced players will make fewer mistakes, but some will be
noticeable - especially at the higher tech levels, with elec slot or weapons
vs. elec/mech on nubs, or weight and range mismatched combinations against
possibly counterdesigns.
Each of those things may be minor in terms of its in-game effects (though
close battles *do* turn on them - the more important point though is that any
oversight in such matters can lead to incorrect battle-decisions - fighting
when the other guy will win because of a minor overlooked point). But
really, they indicate experience and stars lore. It is a rare player who
makes such mistakes but "plays above them", or doesn't make them and "plays
below that".
None of that means diplomacy isn't the biggest factor - but the same
experience tends to lead to more successful (and much less "reactive" or "one
race thinking") diplomacy.
Sincerely,
Jason Cawley
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jason...@msn.com
gary...@abcde.cncfamily.com wrote:
> In an attempt to prevent these massacres, it seems reasonable to group
> players of similar skill into games. The problem is, that there is no
> clear way to do this.
>
> While it seems quite reasonable to define a Novice as a player who has
> played no PvP Stars! games before, how does a 'Beginner' differ from an
> 'Intermediate' player?
A beginner has played only one or two *human* games, typically, and hasn't
won one yet. Usually a player doesn't belong at this level if he has a lot
of experience vs. the AIs (meaning months, dozens of games, that sort of
thing) or if he knows a reasonable amount of stars lore from NG, website
strategy guides, etc. If you know how to design a race that stomps AIs with
ease, you aren't a "beginner" really - though maybe for your first human game
you could try that (personally, I started with intermediate rated games -
doable). If you have beaten human players at any level (1 on 1 excluded,
perhaps), then you aren't a beginner. Most players should move up to
intermediate if they are playing regularly at all in human games.
Another useful dividing line is that a beginner will be hard pressed to break
10k by 2450 in an Acc BBS start. Seriously. The bar is low; lots and lots of
people (most of whom don't read this NG regularly) play stars 'cause its neat
but aren't geeky about it :-) And don't know much race design. If you are in
that category, you can move up to intermediate after reading one or two
articles about empire management and race design, running one or two testbeds
alone to get the hang of it, and stomp the AIs once or twice using what you
have learned. You won't be under 10k long.
>When does one become 'Advanced'?
An advanced player has won an intermediate-rated, many-player (8+), human
PBEM. Not second, not alliance victory - won. By concession or last man
standing, or a reasonable hard set of VCs (not some 80 year easy to get
mark/simple "race"). Usually knows an extensive amount of stars lore about
race design, empire management, ship designs and tactics, etc. Can break 25k
in 2450 in tiny testbeds (not small - that is too easy :-) Note - must meet
*all* these conditions :-) Many of the people who follow this NG regularly,
or play blitz regularly, are true advanced players - though quite a few of
them probably think of themselves as intermediate.
Is there a
> skill difference between an 'Advanced' and an 'Expert' player?
There is, but there are few games *advertised* for expert only, so experts
tend to play in advanced-rated games. Which is fine. They also sometimes
play in invitation only expert-rated games. Advanced players who seriously
meet the requirements above can hold there own in a game with some experts in
it - certainly enough to be important powers, etc. Experts may matter for
league- leading, or as threats to be stopped - but they aren't going to run
away with an advanced game without a fight (not to mention that there are
fairly often 2- 3 on them in such a game). Experts win constantly at
intermediate level - not "win their share", can't lose practically. They
have almost always won several large human PBEMs, including advanced or
expert rated ones (if playing mostly with a small group of very strong
players, it is possible the WL record will vary, though). Experts make
discoveries of new ideas or tactics, try innovative or risky race designs.
They lose because of diplomacy or to other experts; rarely otherwise. An
expert has many races he can meet all the usual benchmarks with and is
comfortable playing vs. humans. He can probably tell whether a race is
playable at the advanced level just by looking at it or thinking about it.
The cases that usually cause run-away problems, in my experience, are -
intermediate rated players join advanced games because they think the set-up
looks neat or that they will learn a lot. They'd learn more most of the time
trying to (solo) win an intermediate game. Or they play in beginner games
because they assume that everyone is geeky about stars or reads strategy
articles, when they do not. Experts or advanced players play in intermediate
rated games because - 1. they don't know their strength yet/on their way up 2.
the game is advertised for int/adv or any level, and the set-up is attractive
to them - or there aren't enough adv rated games to find a spot in one 3.
sometimes, an advanced player moves up to advanced from intermediate, loses
several games, and drops back down thinking he has overreached - when he just
wasn't the best or lucky in those games and should have stuck it out.
The simplest rule is if you win a game at one level, unless it was close/a
tough fight/down to the wire, move up. Once playing at advanced, you don't
have to bother about dubbing yourself an expert - there aren't enough expert-
only games for it to matter, you will be competitve and not misplaced, and
others will do the dubbing for you or invite you to join an expert game :-)
If you *aren't* losing the majority of your games, you need to move up -
think about it - many enter, one wins - if you win more than your share, move
up.
And to hosts - don't advertise a game as int/adv, or put "adv" in the ad,
unless you really want advanced players to dominate that game.
I hope this is useful. Good issue to raise, BTW...
GaklE
>On 1 Feb 1999 20:52:09 GMT, br...@HARLIE.ee.cornell.edu (Bryan W.
>Reed) wrote:
>
>>In article <36B5E298...@abcde.cncfamily.com>,
>>Gary Seven <gary...@abcde.cncfamily.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>While it seems quite reasonable to define a Novice as a player who has
>>>played no PvP Stars! games before, how does a 'Beginner' differ from an
>>>'Intermediate' player? When does one become 'Advanced'? Is there a
>>>skill difference between an 'Advanced' and an 'Expert' player?
Well...my classification...
Beginner: Just starting one's first long-term game. Maybe you've read a
strategy doc or two. Maybe you've thrown your hand at a blitz.
(Damon/Orca, I think is the only one I know who's blitzed before PBEM.)
There are still a bunch of weird buttons on the screen. You're still not
quite sure what the difference between F5, F4, F9, and F10 are. And those
little blue diamonds on the bottom left hand corner confuse you
sometimes.
Primary fleet strategy? Build cruisers and destroyers! Hey, they're
cheaper than battleships, the thoughts materialize within your brain-flowing
like liquid helium. And besides, battleships actually don't look quite as
cool, now that you think of it. Are you feeling lucky? Good so is the
annoying guy next to you in that pbem, building those scouts loaded with
armageddon missiles to back up his heavy yakimora BBs with neutronium armor.
Intermediate: This gets a bit foggy. There are some who will go into their
first PBEM (or autohosted game) and come out capable of easily holding their
own in an advanced game. I've seen a few capable of it.
I would classify intermediate as knowing how to construct a decent race--you
know how to make 25k by 50 and you have a *decent* grasp of stars!
economics. You're also starting to get the hang of fleet tactics. Though
you still get burned quite in battles. (To find out how you rate--try
blitzing some weekend and see how you last against some of the better
blitzer.
You've managed to figure out the use of a few of the filters, and you even
think you have a fairly decent production queue setting. You're still not
sure of how to make the most of the battle board; you think you know it all.
And the most important thing is that you know what hell people are talking
about when they complain of getting their asses whooped by a woosey CA with
a 19% PGR, with IFE NRSE ISB/ Grav immune/ 1 in 10/ 1/1000 12/9/16 G-box,
10/3/15 3 cheap race.
Arguably there are a few Beginners know a little bit about the latter as
well.....
Not back in my day, though. No no...not back then.... I remember a day
when....
Advanced: You can handle yourself very well in PBEM. You can get 25k by 50
most times and probably have managed to get 40-50k by 50 (given the proper
universe settings). You know when to hold back on offensives and when to
push forward. You have a firm grasp of fleet tactics, but every once in a
while, you'll find yourself being shown a new trick or two. End game ship
design is starting to become a new challenge that you've taken up, seeing as
how you now last till the end more often than not. You've probably even won
your share of games. Even if you haven't you've been a *huge* pain in the
ass for anyone who has.
Expert: You've simply played stars! for way longer than any sane person
would expect one to cling to a game. Perhaps it's sentimental, perhaps it's
obsession; you're not quite sure anymore. In any case, it's absorbed some
amount of almost every day of your life for quite some time. You've
forgotten more of the crazy ideas that you've tried than other most anyone
else has even thought of. You've completely given up with testbedding
(Unless your initials are J.C. Or unless you're plain and simply bored,
it's raining out, it's saterday, and there's nothing else to do (Reference:
"Happy Hour" by king missile--track 5, Title "It's Saterday" for further
ideas of stuff to do.)) Testbedding to see how high a resouce benchmark by
50 is pretty much a joke, though sometimes you aspire to reach 150k by 50
with some blasted "CA"-from-hell that would make most "newbies" (as you've
been calling novices since your slightly overly-pretentious days as an
advanced player) give up upon first sight of your score at year 20. When
people ask you why you play. You just stare at them dumbly anymore. "Talk
to the hand," your unspoken expression says to them. "Morons. Get with
it."
Granted, you've played for a while. During some time, you've probably
received some email from one Jeff of the other. You're not quite which--you
hardly remember their names--you were paying too much attention to a large
battle fleet that just blew a single enemy mine layer. You were bored. You
wanted were shooting for the insulting irony approach. The result wasn't
quite as affective. So much like indiscrimantly destroying a fly with a
warhammer. A wall now-glued to a peice of moist, but drying fly matter.
You've not only won a lot of games, but you're probably not even sure how
many you've won before. Maybe you've lost a few too-perhaps more than
you've won, but you're not about to admit that now. No one knows, no one
cares. You're fleet of 150 nubians just kicked 'their' 300 BBs'. You don't
need quantity. You alter the space-time fabric around your ships with your
god-like psi powers. At least that's what you'd imagine your opponents
believe. You're not that well glued to reality. It's all good.
Joat? CA? Blah, you've even become bored of that, and have tried playing
HE--maximum micro-managment possible-just for kicks, you say. Why not?
Everything else is cliche-even that. Jump Gates? No, you haven't gotten
that, nor even the coveted multi-function pod. From time to time you hear
stories from the upper echelons-those few--those very few, who've been
beyond the limits of all player skills, and simply played more than even
you, the expert, would imagine.
As for those few most-coveted MT-devices. You say next time. Next
time...next time...
You've won another game by year 90. It was listed as expert. It always
leaves you with an echo of dismay anymore. Every once in a while, however.
Not often, mind you. but every once in a while, you'll find yourself in a
truly challenging game. Okay, you played AR in a tiny packed universe, and
as joke decided to play IT in a tiny sparse. Oh yeah, it was a no-factory
IT. You've done everything.
You no longer read the newsgroup. Though on occasions, you deign to write
it.
How's that? Too much? Probably.
>>Trouble is, even a "novice" who's played a lot of games against the AI
>>can often beat players who call themselves "intermediate." So even the
>>obvious definition of "novice" doesn't always work.
>
>Quite true. I played the demo for several months before purchasing
>Stars!, waited two weeks while getting a feel for race design,
>devouring every text I could, and more practice against the AI plus
>(woohoo!) playing with the higher tech hulls and different PRT's
>before playing several blitzes (I was winning until I ran into Wilco's
>IT...SOB had Arm BB's gating around faster'n I could respond :) and
>finally joining a beginner PBEM.
Hey, it took you 4-6 months for you to beat me for the first time, if I
recall correctly. :)
(Wait...maybe that just says that I've been playing this game for far too
long....ughh...nevermind that comment now.)
Of course, now I can't come close in blitz anymore :) I know my
limitations. :)
>>I'd say someone who can't build a monster in an enemy-free universe is
>>a beginner. Beyond that, I don't know (hard for me to say, since I'm
>>probably intermediate, myself).
>
>The only problem with that designation is it could simply be their
>race design; warfighting is a huge part of Stars!...then again so is
>diplomacy and econ :) But oh well.
Well you get the warfighting then-that's your strength. I'll stick to
diplomacy and infrastructure....a political bean counter with a penchant for
writing.
"'Hypothetical Deity', he's evil!! Kill him!! Kill him!!" the voices
resound.
The self esteem plummets as the countless mutlitudes of resources drop on a
myriad of worlds, once bountiful. A shame.
That's the word on the street, cats.
-Gaël
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
"The Deliverator stands tall, your pie in thirty minutes or you can
have it free, shoot the driver, take his car, file a class action suit."
-Snow Crash
-Neal Stephenson
-----------------------------
Ga...@banet.net ---------------------------------
Hmmm...this is what I get for typing to Morphine and Soul Coughing...weird
shit. Deal.
James Moody
>> In an attempt to prevent these massacres, it seems reasonable to group
>> players of similar skill into games. The problem is, that there is no
>> clear way to do this.
>
>I reckon the *best* monster control is public player scores :)
>
>If I had to assess a player's skill in a test of some sort, it would be a
>fleet design test.
>
>After all, fleet design is one of the most advanced topics in stars.
>(We could do it on race design, but it'd be much harder to assess)
>
>Give the prospective players a test-bed with a set of tech levels and MT
>toys, and a finite number of minerals.
>Then and ask them to design some ships.
>
>1: A Torpedo Flagship
>2: A Beamer Flagship
>3: A skirmisher
>4: A utility of their choice.
>
>And ask them to document the reasoning behind their decisions.
>And how many they would make of each.
>
>I think you'd get a pretty good estimate of their skill from this :-)
True skill in ship designing is to design to the enemies designs.
Consequently it may be difficult to judge, unless you add the enemies
designs to the equation.
And again - true counterdesigns are only really available (to every
race) at the nubian stage. There is only so much you can do with a BB.
Not only that, but the ship design has to suit the players style. Then
everyone would design slightly differently.
Plus - someone would post the 100% score designs, then what? it
becomes "this person knows how to retrieve newsgroup messages".
oops.... :-)
James Moody
(Major Denis Bloodnok)
M Sean Collins
but tiny sparce, might find that they are only a "novice" in a med packed.
Ones play experience is determined by what they have played in, and with
what race they have played with. Change the race and/or the conditions they
play under, and suddenly they are playing at a much lower level.
PLaying on the IRC as opposed to playing a PBEM game can also greatly
affect ones play level. Both realms require vastly different skills and race
designs.
Deciding your skill level above the intemedat level is never going to be
something that can be meassured against some standard rules. ALthough some
conclusions can be drawn if you're always winning. I think that Jason said
it best.
"If you *aren't* losing the majority of your games, you need to move up"
Just my opinion.
Sean
Sometimes known as Thumped asking silly questions on the IRC.
jason...@msn.com
scol...@telepath.com wrote:
> I think that it should be noted that an "expert" that has played nothing
> but tiny sparce, might find that they are only a "novice" in a med packed.
Well, I don't think there are any :-) There are certainly advanced players
who have mostly played blitz - but up to small dense at least. Others that
play mostly PBEM (which is really what the ratings are for, BTW - in blitz,
everyone just jumps in the pot since the games are fast enough - but PBEMs
are a 3-6 month commitment, and mismatched player skill levels therefore
matter a lot more, since a longer game is made less interesting) and might be
out of their depth at first in a tiny blitz game - for, like, a few weeks or
a month :-)
But I don't think there are experts who aren't comformtable, and formidable,
playing in almost all galaxy conditions. It is true that many experienced
players avoid the largest galaxies - but that is mostly for time reasons
(since they do so much detail-work, usually, their workload in huge is much
higher than an intermediate player's, flying by the seat of his pants).
> Ones play experience is determined by what they have played in, and with
> what race they have played with. Change the race and/or the conditions they
> play under, and suddenly they are playing at a much lower level.
Again, upper level players are not one-race-rs. Maybe some advanced players
are much stronger with their best race or three; experts? No. Most advanced
players, also no. The amount of stars skill that is general is quite high
after a certain relatively low skill-threshold. And making good race designs
involves knowing the alternatives, to pick among them, and knowing what
competitor races can do. To me that explains the fact I see empircally anyway
- strong players aren't tied to particulars, and the higher you go in skill
level the truer that is.
LordHelmchen
So the problem for Players having read ant tested for half a year and
now looking for their first pbem game is still not solved...
I think a standard universe like Will Waggoner is suggesting is the best
way to do it. hope to see the URL soon...
--
LordHelmchen
(currently in my first pbem game after reading for half a year :-)
Alienist of Alienate
tich tor ang tesmur \\//_
My ICQ# is 3748639
Visit my W3 Page @ http://lord.helmchen.joice.net
Visit the Stars! Nations @
http://home.joice.net/j100773/StarsNations.index.html