Improved scouting
Davin
I wanted to let you know that Galac-Tac scouting has gotten a minor
(but useful) improvement. Now, if you manage to scout a system where
a combat is taking place, and your scout escapes detection/
destruction, you will now get an additional beginning-of-combat
scouting report! This will tell you the empires who were taking part
in the combat and their pre-combat fleet sizes (in the usual scouting
report format). You will still also get the usual post-combat report,
showing just the winner's (post-combat) fleet strength.
Doesn't that sound like a nice enhancement? Thank Robert for the
suggestion.
Now, can anyone think of a way in which such information could be mis-
used to gain an advantage that they probably shouldn't have?
Jon
Jon
The current scout action is: SCOUT [Ship #] [Loc] [Loc] [Loc] [Loc]
Add another version:
SCOUT2 [Ship #] [Loc] [Ship#] [Loc]
For those of us who don't use multi-leg scout jumps. I am always
redoing my scouts based on current information and it is painful in
terms of actions. This would double the number of scouts we can
directly control.
Davin
you action-constrained <maniacal chuckle>), but I don't know if I like
the name SCOUT2. I thought about making the regular SCOUT action take
either ship #s OR locations as its arguments, but that sounds like it
would confuse the players an awful lot, so I don't much like that
option, either.
Has anyone got suggestions as to how we might handle this that would
better please my sense of aesthetics?
Genny White
In the early part of the game, it's fun to send those flies out four
hops at a time, and get back new info every turn, without having to
reassign the scout ship to a new unexplored star every turn. But at
the very beginning, you're doing charts with those original flies. A
bit later, you're more likely to abort that scout route and chart if
you come across a new unclaimed star. (Well, an undeveloped star
anyway - seems there are those out there who tend to claim stars
without filing the proper paperwork. Perhaps they lick it?) Later,
like now, we've mostly been there, scouted that, and our needs are
more explicit and being able to send ONE scout to ONE location and
maybe plan to stay there and keep an eye on things is more relevant.
I'm wondering if we really need the four-stops style of scouting. If
we do, shall we create an Explore command, that works like the
present scout command with up to four locations, and modify the
current Scout command to take ship-loc-ship-loc so you can do two
scouts in one action? Later in the game, we're usually
action-constrained and don't HAVE four sequential places we haven't
been, so that kinda makes sense.
Would it be confusing to have two commands that are actually giving
the same order to the ship? At first I couldn't think of a precedent
where you give a ship an order and the order changes to something
else (or two orders that result in the same thing), other than a
colonize, develop or destroy that changes to "none" when done, or any
of the orders that also go to "none" because of a cease-fire. But
what about Attack and Secure as precedents - Attack has only ONE
ship-location pair, Secure has two pairs, and Sentry (although a
little different level) has four locations for one ship. All are
hostile movement actions.
So, who likes the Explore (with one ship, four locations) and Scout
(two ships,one location each) idea?
Genny
Jon
detect than smaller fleets. It is simply a matter of scale. The
solar
system is large and 3D. It is said that if you don't care for up to
the second data, emmissions are detectable further out and are simply
older than the ones closer in. It seems to me if you are trying to
determine whether or not a system is a production center or colony
the
the type / strength of the emmission signature will tell you and
distance is your friend.
I feel stongly that you can not provide 90+ percent coverage with
patrols - patrols on the opposite end of the solar system will not
help
you find a scounting fleet on this end of the solar system. So - if
we
wish to abstract this - hide ships from the scouting report; if
distance is the friend of the scouting fleet, accuracy should be as
questionable. So a scout will alway tell you the type of system and
who owns it, but any ships in system would be masked by the
patrolling
ships - the more patrols, the less accurate the ship count.
If a scouting fleet is detected - then all ships in the fleet should
open fire. Not just those which were found. This was put in a long
time ago to prevent a battle fleet from being defeated piecemeal.
Jon
Perhaps we can convince Davin to simply rewrite all actions and
dynamically determine what format we are using? Locations always have
hyphens, Ship Numbers do not. So:
SCOUT 9999 99-99 99-99 99-99 99-99 is different than SCOUT 9999 99-99
9999 99-99
It would also be useful with other actions. Perhaps a TO 9999 9999
9999 99-99, to send three ships to the same location. Of course,
writing a user manaul and explaining all of the different variations
for each Action would take some doing...
> Would it be confusing to have two commands that are actually giving
> the same order to the ship?
>
Genny White
remarkable coincidence you should find entertaining.
I had a couple of long-distance charts set up, expecting them to
arrive two turns later. I did my math very carefully to make sure I'd
know when to expect a report (missing or otherwise).
I sent fly A to star A, and fly B to star B.
To my bafflement, I got a chart back on star B this turn. The fly
could NOT have gotten there yet. I was certain.
In exploring my report further, I find that fly A is reporting the PV
on star B. He just HAPPENED to be passing through on the way to
colony A, had chart orders when he stopped for a potty break at star
B, and decided he might as well chart it while he was there.
OK, this was serendipitous, though not what I had planned.
So, I look for fly B to reroute him to some other purpose. He is not
in deep space. He is not en route to star B. Where oh where could he be?
HE stopped for a potty break at somebody else's colony and got swatted.
Guess I need to start drawing lines between destinations and check
for hazardous rest stops, huh?
ONE coincidence was merely amusing (and lucky). Both in one turn was
hilarious and seemed worthy of mention.
Hope you smiled.
Genny
Davin
format, except I think it'd be TERRIBLY confusing to the players
(especially newbies). Of course, it also makes it twice as easy to
make a typo, even for the long-time players (ship-star-star-ship vs.
ship-star-ship-star, for instance, or accidentally typing a dash in
the middle of a ship number just 'cause you're used to typing it). I
don't know how to reasonably explain such a thing in the manual
without it totally blowing the mind of everyone who tries to read it.
I wonder if it's worth bringing up the old argument about needing more
actions per turn in general? In past games I've always needed more
than whatever I had, but that constraint is itself also part of the
game play, like never having quite enough PI to do what you want to
do.
So what does everyone else think? Any comments on the above or
suggestions for alternatives?
Jon
worked on one ship at a time. We added multiple formats to the
existing actions to provide the ability to do more with the same 30
actions. Now we have 50 actions.
The reasons for the limit in the past were:
1) data entry costs - it took longer for us to imput the actions when
they had more of them to input. This is no longer a problem.
2) processing time - we had very slow equipment that took 28 hours to
process a game. This is no longer a problem.
3) game run-away - if one player gets off to a relatively unhampered
start, they can out-build, out-colonize, out-destroy, out-scout, etc.
every other player in the game since the number of actions are
ultimately determined by PI. The more you allow in a turn, the faster
the gap will happen between the haves and the have-nots. We
constantly fought against drop-outs and people who lost interest
seeing their empire percentile plummet.
Since game starts are random, it just may be that person's lucky day
and you will have to start again, and again, and again until you get
the really great start and - oh, darn, everyone else quits to get
their great start.
I think game run-away is still a problem, but might be less in your
environment since you are not charging a per-turn price and you have
eliminated postage / data entry costs. The players may get annoyed
fighting robo-empires all the time. I am reminded of a production
game (back in the day) when turns cost 6.00 each and players dealt
with a measly 30 actions when an empire consiting of a production
center and two colonies won the game because the last player dropped -
he was at 100% and could not find the empire he wanted to attack!
There were only two empires left, you see. So the guy at 100% dropped
the game and the last guy standing won.
I don't see a solution to this problem and it just may be the way the
game works.
Jon.
Davin
seems that I was arguing the same things (plus bigger memory and disk
limits) back in the days of the BBS. And they're quite valid -
there's no technical reason any more why there should be a small limit
on the number of actions.
But there might be a game reason. You convinced me long ago that
being constrained in the number of actions is a limit similar to never
having quite enough PI (or time or similar resource) and dealing with
such constraints is part of the interest of the game and an important
part of your game strategy. Tiny empires rarely need that many
actions, so it really becomes a constraint just on the big empires.
It seems to me that a limited number of actions keeps the biggest
empires from making maximum/optimal use of their PI/ships/etc. and
keeps game runaway from being even worse, does it not? Unrestricted
actions would make it even more difficult for the smaller empires to
avoid simply being swamped by their passing wake.
So, Jon, were you recommending that we increase the actions or not? I
didn't quite get a definitive suggestion from your note. Come to
think of it...to help with game runaway, we might even consider
*reducing* the number of actions back down to 30, so we have to
"stage" anything big like Marvin is famous for doing.
What do Frank and the other old-timers think about this? (Or anyone
with a small-ish empire, since they could be adversely affected, too.
The bigger empires don't want to be slowed down and the smaller ones
don't want to be run over.)
Genny White
At 09:46 AM 2/24/09, Jon wrote:
>The reasons for the limit in the past were:
>1) data entry costs -
>2) processing time -
Agreed, not a "problem" now.
>3) game run-away - if one player gets off to a relatively unhampered
>start, they can out-build, out-colonize, out-destroy, out-scout, etc.
>every other player in the game since the number of actions are
>ultimately determined by PI. The more you allow in a turn, the faster
>the gap will happen between the haves and the have-nots. We
>constantly fought against drop-outs and people who lost interest
>seeing their empire percentile plummet.
This is a very good point. Of course, you can't fill up even 30
actions at the earliest part of the game, since you only have a
handful of ships to give directions to, and a very small stockpile of
PI to build with. It seems that the way you use those early actions,
combined with raw luck, determines what you'll have to work with down
the road when the action limit becomes a factor. (If you spent all
your early PI building stations or a humongous battleship, you don't
have a lot of scouts to direct, shuttles to set up, etc.) So, play
style and experience make a lot of difference in the need for more
than 50 actions. At this point in the game the top dogs can always
find something to fill up more actions if they had them, but the poor
hypothetical rookie who didn't grab (or luck into) a lot of territory
at the very beginning may not have 50 things he can do at this point,
because he doesn't have the network and the income stream to work
with. So, even with the 50 limit, the player that gets a good start
can outrun, outbuild, etc. the little guy, and there's no way more
actions would really help the underdog - there's still more PI
flowing into the leaders than he can hope to attain unless he's very,
very lucky or very, very good and takes out another player
successfully, and the rookies are going to get discouraged.
I'm also mindful of those who HAVE hours and hours of personal time
to strategize and organize, who would take unlimited actions and
tromp all over players who just can't put in that kind of time. So,
the 50-turn limit helps to level that playing field, like a timer in
a chess tournament. It forces all the players to think about what
their most important moves are, because you just can't consider every
possibility and pre-think every scenario. You have to make choices,
and unlimited actions would take away that challenge.
All that being said, I'd love to have unlimited actions, or at least
more than 50. I could do a lot with it. But, like the time limit in
chess, action limits are part of the Way The Game Is Played and I
think we should have a limit. Going from 30 to 50 was good. Would
more be better? If so, where do we stop, 75, 100? Having that many
could be virtually the same as no limits, so back to Jon's very good point.
>... The players may get annoyed
>fighting robo-empires all the time.
The robo-empires we have now may not be a production feature at
all... they were created to fill in gaps when several test-game
players dropped at the very beginning and we NEEDED the positions to
be filled to make an effective (and fair and fun) game for the
remaining players. Hopefully a production game will start with a good
number of players and no robo-players will ever be created in the
first place. However, the robot function is also being thought about
for guys "on vacation" who choose to have the system generate orders
for a limited time when they KNOW they will not be able to get a turn
in. It may not generate ideal orders at all - so it's the player's
choice whether to skip the turn and possibly fall behind (especially
in the early part of the game) or allow the system to decide what his
empire does while he's away. This is still under development, and as
always, suggestions are encouraged from our test players and past
Masters of the Galaxy. Robo-empires are not supposed to replace live
players - I don't like playing when I KNOW some of the positions are
robots - takes some of the interpersonal fun out of the game. (No, I
DON'T know which empires are robots! I'm coming to some conclusions,
but not necessarily basing my decisions on my assumptions. Being
wrong could be fatal. And there's always the chance that a Live
Person could pick up one of these dropped positions and change the
course of history.)
>...There were only two empires left, you see. So the guy at 100% dropped
>the game and the last guy standing won.
That's hilarious. And very unsatisfying for the last two players. But
I can see how it could happen. The last guy hid well enough that he
legitimately won, IMHO. But I'd hate to be the guy at 100% spending
MONEY to hunt for him. THththttt. Here's a point for the flat-fee
concept, at least. He might have dragged it on indefinitely and
finally found the guy if he didn't have to pay by turn to do it. Bet
people wouldn't drop as readily if they didn't have to make that $6
decision every week.
It's good to hear from you out here, Jon - thanks for taking the time.
Genny
James White
Increasing number of actions based on the number of production centers
you have?
While on the one hand, you're giving the big wigs even more actions to
play with, you're also tempting them to create tons of production
centers, which spread their PI thin. This might even help the little
wigs some, since it would give them a better chance at stealing some
tech from one of the numerous underprotected production centers. What
do yall think?
Davin
number of actions submitted by each (human) player over the course of
our game and averaged them by turn. Here's the results:
Turn #Acts #A<50
1 17 17
2 23 23
3 25 25
4 25 25
5 27 27
6 31 26
7 27 27
8 29 29
9 28 22
10 25 17
11 23 14
12 27 22
13 37 30
14 25 25
15 25 17
16 29 21
17 24 18
18 31 24
19 32 26
20 35 30
21 30 25
22 24 14
23 27 12
24 29 20
25 26 17
26 36 9
27 36 25
It didn't format very pretty, but hopefully it'll give you some
information to refer to. Column 1 is the turn #. Column 2 is the
average number of actions submitted (by humans) for this turn. Column
3 is the same average, except excluding those people who used all 50
actions (and presumably needed more). The difference between columns
2 & 3 is greatest when many players used all 50 actions. You can see
that quite a lot of players DID use up all their actions on many turns
(except at the beginning of the game), so it seems that 50 or more
actions are often desired (and probably needed).
Part of the reason for checking this stems from the option to
increase, or possibly even decrease, the number of actions available
for each turn. Fewer actions would benefit smaller empires and more
actions would benefit larger empires. The trick is coming up with
good game balance and fun play for everyone rather than satisfying any
particular empire's desire to "take over".
What other comments have you all?
Davin
I agree with your conclusion that it would tempt people to create lots
more production centers. While doing so has a small disadvantage
associated with it (spreading your PI too thin), it also has competing
advantages, and I'm afraid your change would tip the scales too far
and the game would tend to be nothing but PCs. (I don't think that
stealing tech has ever been especially effective as an overall game
strategy because deterrence is relatively easy.)
On the other hand, perhaps we can argue that more PCs increases the
amount of administrative work required, and we all know that big
governments spend all their time in meetings and getting nothing much
accomplished, so maybe we can justify REDUCING the number of actions
if you have lots of PCs??? (Ok, so maybe that won't be much more
effective than just reducing to a fixed number, but it sounds good...
and evil.)
(Thanks for taking the time to contribute to this [rather important]
discussion!)
Jon
are cheap, we can build a lot of them and the SCOUT action only allows
one ship per action. It seems to be the biggest consumer of actions -
yes?
Jon
adjusted the PI generated based on the number of colonies each
production center controlled. To get the maximum PI, you had to have
4 or 5 colonies in support. I don't think this ever made it into
production, but it was a discussion from way back.
Jon
actions. As Genny pointed out, when players are paying 6.00 per turn,
they tend to stay in the game only until they believe that the outcome
is no longer in doubt. Since you are going to charge a flat fee, and
I assume they can join as many games as they want, then they will be
more likely to drop a position and move on to a game where they are
doing better. This will allow the "run-away" scenario in the game
they dropped for those Empires that border their (now defunct)
empire.
Players being players, they may even send their old turn sheet to a
buddy so that they can quickly colonize and/or destroy their empire
and directly benefit. There is no way to stop this.
So, I would vote to not increase the actions. 50 seems plentiful, and
I would even play with 30.
Jon.
Davin
> I don't know what the effect will be with increasing the number of
> actions. As Genny pointed out, when players are paying 6.00 per turn,
> they tend to stay in the game only until they believe that the outcome
> is no longer in doubt. Since you are going to charge a flat fee, and
> I assume they can join as many games as they want, then they will be
> more likely to drop a position and move on to a game where they are
> doing better. This will allow the "run-away" scenario in the game
> they dropped for those Empires that border their (now defunct)
> empire.
because it isn't costing them hard dollars to continue playing just to
see how it comes out. Of course, that also means that they don't have
a big cash capital investment they're trying to protect, either, just
an emotional one. But I think they'd tend to keep playing that
position (maybe not as enthusiastically) while they started another
game as well. (I expect most GT players to be playing in a few
different games at once anyway.)
So I don't know which way it's likely to swing. What does everyone
else think about it? Will typical players be more likely or less
likely to drop out from an effectively free game than a pay-by-turn
game where they're not in competition for the top slots?
BTW, Jon... the robots don't play aggressively but they do play
defensively, so a dropped position isn't going to be a push-over.
That was sorta the point of having a robot to keep things going in the
first place.
> So, I would vote to not increase the actions. 50 seems plentiful, and
> I would even play with 30.
you think that would do to game balance? Would you recommend dropping
back down to 30 actions to try to keep the larger empires from running
away as badly?
Davin
ratio, not actions available, which has rather different effects. As
I recall, that change did make it into production for a while but we
later lost those changes due to a hardware crash (or perhaps just a
reformat).
However, varying actions based on the PC/C ratio rather than the total
number of PC's does avoid many of my objections. So maybe we should
consider that as an option, if indeed we feel that varying the number
of actions is an appropriate thing to do for this problem. What does
everyone else think?
Davin
usually be maxxing out at 50. Let's see what we've got...
Turn #A #A<50 #S<50 #S=50
1 17 17 1 0
2 23 23 1 0
3 25 25 1 0
4 25 25 3 0
5 27 27 2 0
6 31 26 3 16
7 27 27 4 0
8 29 29 8 0
9 28 22 2 12
10 25 17 0 12
11 23 14 0 15
12 27 22 2 9
13 37 30 7 1
14 25 25 3 0
15 25 17 4 5
16 29 21 5 3
17 24 18 1 4
18 31 24 5 13
19 32 26 6 10
20 35 30 2 2
21 30 25 7 7
22 24 14 4 3
23 27 12 0 10
24 29 20 0 14
25 26 17 2 20
26 36 9 0 10
27 36 25 1 4
Ok, those are the new numbers. New column #4 is the average # of
SCOUT actions submitted by unconstrained players (those with fewer
than 50 actions total), and new column #5 is the average # of SCOUT
actions submitted by constrained players (those using all 50 actions).
As you will note, unconstrained players use very few SCOUT actions, on
average. Most scouting seems to be getting done by the players who
don't have enough actions. Or perhaps conversely, scouting seems to
be a major cause of players not having enough actions.
So scouting is only a major consumer of actions for the big empires
and virtually none at all for the small empires. Does that answer
your question, Jon? And don't forget that only some styles use one
action per scout, other styles use one action for up to 4 scouts,
which is quite efficient (even in the beginning where you can CHART
effectively with cargo ships instead of scouts).
Therefore, if we cut back the number of actions available then we're
likely to severely impact the amount of scouting being done. Is that
a good thing or a bad thing?
On the other hand, if we increase the number of actions available
(apparently not everybody's favorite option anyway), then that would
tend to allow more scouting rather than necessarily more building/
expansion by the larger empires.
What do these numbers say to y'all?
fge...@airmail.net
I think unlimited actions is a bad idea. Like you said earlier, the empire that gets the "golden" starting position would increase his lead over the other empires because they could outspend all the other empires. As far as the number of actions leaving it at 50 would not be a problem with me.
fg
On Tue 09/02/24 09:33 , Davin sent:
Msg sent via Internet America Webmail - www.internetamerica.com
fge...@airmail.net
I absolutely disagree with this one! What about the player that turns every system they control into PC's where the other players do the colonies/PC scenario. The PC player would have far more actions than the others.
fg
On Tue 09/02/24 12:25 , James White sent:
fge...@airmail.net
I agree. Leave it at 50. But if you do send your old reports to a buddy playing in the game, I do hope you're getting $$$ for it! <GR>
f
On Wed 09/02/25 10:15 , Jon sent:
I don't know what the effect will be with increasing the number of
actions. As Genny pointed out, when players are paying 6.00 per turn,
they tend to stay in the game only until they believe that the outcome
is no longer in doubt. Since you are going to charge a flat fee, and
I assume they can join as many games as they want, then they will be
more likely to drop a position and move on to a game where they are
doing better. This will allow the "run-away" scenario in the game
they dropped for those Empires that border their (now defunct)
empire.
Players being players, they may even send their old turn sheet to a
buddy so that they can quickly colonize and/or destroy their empire
and directly benefit. There is no way to stop this.
So, I would vote to not increase the actions. 50 seems plentiful, and
I would even play with 30.
Jon.
On Feb 24, 10:33 am, Davin <da...@talisman-games.com> wrote:
fge...@airmail.net
Once again, I disagree. If I knew that my percentile was below the average, and it was constantly dropping each turn, I would tend to destroy all protecting elements in my PC's and give my latest turn report to somone in the same boat that I was in before I dropped my position.
f
On Wed 09/02/25 11:02 , Davin sent:
On Feb 25, 11:15 am, Jon <Jon.ca...@paladin.net> wrote:
> I don't know what the effect will be with increasing the number of
> actions. As Genny pointed out, when players are paying 6.00 per turn,
> they tend to stay in the game only until they believe that the outcome
> is no longer in doubt. Since you are going to charge a flat fee, and
> I assume they can join as many games as they want, then they will be
> more likely to drop a position and move on to a game where they are
> doing better. This will allow the "run-away" scenario in the game
> they dropped for those Empires that border their (now defunct)
> empire.
I would think that they would be LESS likely to drop a poor position
because it isn't costing them hard dollars to continue playing just to
see how it comes out. Of course, that also means that they don't have
a big cash capital investment they're trying to protect, either, just
an emotional one. But I think they'd tend to keep playing that
position (maybe not as enthusiastically) while they started another
game as well. (I expect most GT players to be playing in a few
different games at once anyway.)
So I don't know which way it's likely to swing. What does everyone
else think about it? Will typical players be more likely or less
likely to drop out from an effectively free game than a pay-by-turn
game where they're not in competition for the top slots?
BTW, Jon... the robots don't play aggressively but they do play
defensively, so a dropped position isn't going to be a push-over.
That was sorta the point of having a robot to keep things going in the
first place.
> So, I would vote to not increase the actions. 50 seems plentiful, and
> I would even play with 30.
So limiting it to 30 wouldn't be a problem for you, Jon, but what do
you think that would do to game balance? Would you recommend dropping
back down to 30 actions to try to keep the larger empires from running
away as badly?
Davin
> I think unlimited actions is a bad idea. Like you said earlier, the
> empire that gets the "golden" starting position would increase his
> lead over the other empires because they could outspend all the other
> empires. As far as the number of actions leaving it at 50 would not
> be a problem with me.
number) is bad because that gives them TOO many. Is then 50 possibly
too many already? For the same reasons you don't want many more
actions, are we already above that threshold and need to cut back down
(like to 30 or 40)? Won't cutting back help with game balance and
help keep the biggest guys from outspending the smaller guys quite as
badly?
Davin
> I absolutely disagree with this one! What about the player that
> turns every system they control into PC's where the other players do
> the colonies/PC scenario. The PC player would have far more actions
> than the others.
suggested elsewhere) rather than the total number of PCs. What kind
of effect would that have? (I don't know if I like that idea or not.
I'm not even sure if I'd want it to go up for good ratios or down for
bad ratios.)
Davin
> I agree. Leave it at 50. But if you do send your old reports to
> a buddy playing in the game, I do hope you're getting $$$ for it!
dropping (and giving/selling their turn to their buddy)? How can we
keep them from being frustrated?
Davin
> Once again, I disagree. If I knew that my percentile was below the
> average, and it was constantly dropping each turn, I would tend to
> destroy all protecting elements in my PC's and give my latest turn
> report to somone in the same boat that I was in before I dropped my
> position.
First, why would you want to give up on a "free" position just because
you're below average? Wouldn't you want to keep playing and maybe
have some great gains when the big boys fight it out? Or maybe you'd
like to try out a different strategy that you wouldn't want to have
risked a big empire on before? Or maybe you'd just form an alliance
with a big neighbor and help him with scouting and harassing? What
motivates you to just "give up"?
Second, why would you take time and effort to demolish your own
infrastructure before you quit? Why not leave a lot of static
defenses in place (at least in the HW/PCs) to make it more difficult
for other players to take over your space? Even if you have a friend
in the game you want to help, give him your report and let him take
over all your colonies (and see where there are defenses he needs to
avoid). He'd get a big boost out of that even without actually
killing you - maybe even bigger considering the behavior of your other
neighbors. So, why the "scorched earth" policy?
I want to know what motivates you (and everyone else) to quit playing
(especially in a drastic fashion). Maybe if we understand the
emotions involved we can adjust the game parameters to make life in
the slow lane more interesting. So can you do a little self-analysis
for me? (That goes for anyone else that feels the same way, too.)
fge...@airmail.net
On Sun 09/03/ 1 10:31 , Davin sent:
fge...@airmail.net
On Sun 09/03/ 1 10:51 , Davin sent:
Jon
have to understand the "Gamer Mentality". They won't play if they are
in a bad starting position - they will simply join another game. A
minority will play a "spoiler" position to ruin someone else's game -
they continually pick on one player for whatever reason.
Being frustrated is part of any game - things can't always go your
way.
Jon.