From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@s...>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:00:29 +0300 (EEST)
Subject: Re: Whatever (was a lot of things)
> Ãrjan: > The FT2 sensor rules aren't strictly required. OTOH, neither are If optional rule A requires you to also use optional rule B, the book should say so. I was, perhaps wrongly, under the impression you could mix and match freely. > Why use interceptable freighters? Because 12 thrust-15 freighters This is getting a bit extreme... but okay. (Why not just one bigger transport?) > Can you afford to maintain the 12 thrust-15 freighters during times of Skip peacetime. Economics is not (at least yet) part of the game. But this does present an interesting problem: What is the most efficient way of delivering a standard unit of cargo? Exactly how many slower transports you are going to lose? Escorts? > From a more meta point of view: Given a scenario and freedom to custom > You're quite correct, of course. My bad; I should have made sure you So you think the game won't work otherwise? > your own [...]" (FT2 p.2) and "Have fun, and above all: DON'T PLAY THE Ermm, that's just what I said a couple of weeks back. But IMHO, to be able to play the game, the rules must support it 100%. I would like a game that you could play well understanding only the basic principles -- without actually knowing the rules. Unfortunately, most games reward people who memorize loopholes, little glitches, breakpoints, optimization tricks etc. Ever seen a chess player accused of cheesy tactics? > Since you are quite obviously not happy with the FT and FB rules as Well, your memory seems somewhat selective. Just this week I posted a variant table floating method. Whose DS2 hit tables are you analyzing? Who's putting down real money to seek solutions the the interception problem (*and* posted some initial calculations/solutions a few weeks back)? Who posted an extensive list of campaign requirements? IMHO, you have to understand the problem before you can try to solve it. In many cases with FT, we still have a lot of understanding to do... Treat the cause, not the symptoms. > Or, if Love it or leave it, eh? Because it's a bloody good game. The basic core is pretty sound. It's *worth* making better. I have literally _scores_ of other games that just lie on the shelf. They're all broken in some way, but I never bothered to let their authors know -- because I couldn't see anything to be gained there. And, since I don't get to actually play as much as I used to, good games provide interesting intellectual challenges. > Over the past few years you've always given a Actually, I don't personally, but I play with people who do. In any case, I think having all rules printed is a basic requirement for fairness. Would you play tennis on a court without painted boundaries? Who'd get to decide whether the ball was in or not? Assume you are playing against me (I seem to have reattained suitable demonic status by now). I pull out a trick that isn't strictly forbidden in the rules but could be considered cheesy and illogical in wider view -- and turn the game into a very boring no-brainer, perhaps even winning it. (For a concrete example, let's say I try the old suicide-FTL trick) (Yes, I know it's been fixed) Do you: a) Congratulate me and secretly plan to return the favor. b) Stop playing with me, because I'm such a sneaky git. I should have telepathically known that the tactic isn't really legal. c) Start developing a counter-tactic using another loophole. d) Note that the rule is broken and/or too vaguely defined and throw together a quick fix. e) Note that the rule is broken and/or too vaguely defined, discuss the matter with me, analyze the problem thoroughly, consult others, and lobby for a comprehensive, reasoned, logical and universal fix. Personally, I'm an E-type of guy ;-) > Depends. If you play with FT2 only, all of the Advanced Rules are Okay. Perhaps we see printed word to that effect in FT3? Does everyone else agree? Maybe I should go buy some black ping pong balls...