Subject: MN: FW: Comments on (my) Week 5 Proposals

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 14:52:50 +1000

Proposal comments from my ill-fated variable move times proposal below,
which I'd like to answer. Maybe then someone can tell me if it's worth
reproposing:

> Prop 733
> "I don't believe in variable-length moves... it's not as if one is
> *actually* on the trains. I view the game more as being moving pieces
> round a board, not getting on and off trains..."
> 
> "Sorry for not saying this on the list, but this seems quite wrong to
> me. Surely the whole point of increasing velocity is that you can move
> a 
> larger in the *same* time?"
> 
OK, this is fair. And the velocity point is well made; a bow to my unknown
commentator.

Kevan complained a while back that people were moving too quickly; notably,
he didn't lower the line velocity maximum but rather eliminated the bonuses
for passing through interchanges. This, to my mind, implies that the real
problem is people doing overly complex multi-line fandagos in Quadrant 0
with the intent to pick up all the bonuses. Certainly I agree that it seems
almost against the spirit of the game to go from Charing Cross to Leicester
Square via Green Park, Baker Street, Paddington and who-knows-where else.
And I am as guilty of doing that as anyone else.

As an aside, people will always try to maximise the number of tokens they
collect each turn - that's the way of the game. This would seem to suggest
that Kevan's aforementioned amendment was not really a complete fix. Am I
reading Kevan's intent correctly?

Now, I thought that with P733 I would include a penalty for changing lines.
The idea here is that complex move, with many line changes and lots of
distance covered, would take longer; it means that you can do a simple move
and some complex Actions, or some simple Actions and a complex move, but not
both (without time extension). This would be working along the same line as
Kevan's intent (which I agree with).

#1: We're moving pieces on a board to simulate travel on the LU, surely?
While Cluedo is a board game, for example, you're simulating moving round a
real mansion. Some of our moves may be a little more unusual, but surely
going to gaol in Monopoly is similar?

#2: Velocity surely does mean you travel further in a given time. However,
what about changing trains? If you really want to get technical, the trains
move at a relatively constant velocity so a longer move _does_ take more
time, and thus our term 'Line Velocity' is a misnomer. I'm certainly not
proposing a change to the name LV, but it's not really talking about the
velocity of a line is it either?

I may be biased, but I don't think either of these are really good reasons.
Is there one part of this proposal (such as, for #2, the distance formula)
that is unacceptable while the rest of it is sound? Please let me know,
because I really think this is a good idea.

Have fun, anyway,

Paul Wayper -- DPI ITS Computer Systems Officer
_____________________________________________________________________
SigClean 1.5a prevents all errors in transcription, transmission, and
reception of eMail, destroys sig and email viruses, and stops flames.
Report all bugs to the author. SigClean is FreeWare. (c) 1998-9 PJW

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/l-nomic-d
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications