MESSAGE FROM THE BRIDGE

By Bill Rapp

Greetings to all. It seems that I must apologize for the delay in getting this issue of the WC newsletter into your hands, but as the saying goes, "better late than never." In any case, we've got a lot to say in the issue, so let's get started!

This issue is going to cover my thoughts on what a PLAYER wants when he joins a PBM game, and how I have attempted to make our game system conform to those wishes.

For those of you who don't know anything about my background, perhaps I had better fill in some of the blanks. I have played in several PBM game systems since 1981. When I was first introduced to WC in 1989, Robert Vivrette was moderating WC, and I was put into a standby position in Game 6. I started a new game from scratch (Game 12) and managed to win that game. I have played WC for a long time and still enjoy the challenge of playing against the other competitive souls.

Robert Vivrette and I entered into a partnership in 1990, and a year later, Robert sold his remaining interest of the WC game system to me.

These above facts are important as the resulting transformation of the WC game system over the past few years is based on my perspective of what tends to make a game "good."

As a player, I always wanted to play against other players who consider themselves good tacticians and strategists. (One thing can always be counted on is a gamer's ego!) My earlier experiences taught me several things: I didn't like "open-ended" game systems (games with no victory conditions) because I tended to flounder without a goal. In addition, I was likely to encounter an "older" player who could snuff my measly forces merely by glancing in my direction. Not fun...

I also found that any game, including WC, could become unbalanced when a player drops a position. This condition can be a boon for the players adjacent to the dropped position, but tends to spell the beginning of the end for the rest of you. Hence the "Missed Turn Option" policy change announced in August 1993. This policy is evolving today to handle the new influx of players that we anticipate joining electronically through the Internet. See the article on Missed Turn Options.

Several of our subscribers have expressed their concerns about the ideology of running the standby positions. One player accused me of conspiring with a competing player to bring about his downfall. Another subscriber stated that game moderator neutrality is violated when a standby position makes an offensive move towards another active player's position. These are valid concerns which I will attempt to address in the article, HOW WE RUN STANDBY POSITIONS.

In this newsletter, I am going to implement the next logical step in making the WC game system as "bullet-proof" (I keep using war terminology for some reason... ) as possible. Here's what I have in mind:

First and foremost, the WC Rating System is activated. In general, the rating system will reward individuals who compete against more experienced players and prevail! We gave a lot of thought to rating players, and how to ensure that the rating system was designed to make the game system fair for one and all. All the "gory" details can be found in the WC RATINGS SYSTEM article.

Secondly, I am going to implement another policy change for any dropped/homeless/standby positions. See the article on HOW WE RUN STANDBYS. This will directly affect each and every one of you at some point in time, so don't miss this article!

Lastly, PTS is implementing a pricing change to encourage players with "defensively challenged" positions to continue to play without the financial burden of having to pay full price. If, on turn 11 or after, your empire has fewer than 5 cities (villages don't count), you will be charged by the number of cities in your possession. Here's the associated cost breakdown:

PAPER E-MAIL
Four cities = $4.00 $3.00
Three cities = $3.00 $2.00
Two cities = $2.00 $1.50
One city = $1.50 $1.00

All of the above changes are designed to encourage continuity in the game positions. From a managerial viewpoint, there are several positive effects that happen when a player continues to play in a position that he/she would have otherwise dropped. The most obvious effect is that PTS continues to receive some REVENUE from the position. This helps us to hold the costs down to our subscribers. The second, and equally important effect is that a paying player, not the moderator's helper, is effecting the balance of the game. This eliminates any ETHICAL considerations. Third, we don't have to take the TIME to do the position. This allows PTS to allocate our time in a more creative manner (newsletters as an example).

It boils down to the basic fact the we want to give players a valid reason to actively participate in a hopeless position despite the fact that he/she can't "win". Let's face it, the fewer standby positions, the better for all concerned. I hope you like the approach I've chosen!

In other news, our keypuncher Jason Piccone has gone off to college! Jason worked with PTS for four years, and will be sorely missed. He's still actively playing in WC, so don't let your guard down!

Lastly, I'd like to introduce several new staff members. Alex Limbach has taken over my day-to-day duties and is our full time moderator. Andrew Stuart is programming for PTS on a full-time basis; look for lots of interesting options in the near future! Melissa Thompson has taken on the keypunching duties since September, and has proved to be very competent.

Thank you for your continuing interest in WC, and I hope you all have a great '95. See you on the battlefield!

Return to the WC Newsletters

Last edited on 3/19/95

The author, Bill Rapp, can be reached at conquest@dnai.com