NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/netrek/11352

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!tom
From: [e-mail] (Tom Holub)
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Subject: Re: Coaches (again).
Date: 2 Jan 1993 01:35:53 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
)
)
)While I was initially for this idea...I'm now against it.  I think it
)is adding something to INL games that is not netrek.  Therefore, INL
)games will no longer be a yardstick of how good a netrek team can be..
)but rather a metric for some game that is fundamentally different in
)a very appreciable way.  No longer do individual players have to
)think both strategically and tactically to the same degree, instead we
)introduce a meta-player that diminishes the complexity on the individual
)level.

I agree that having a coach changes the game; I disagree that this makes
it bad for the INL.  INL netrek is not the same game as pickup netrek,
even before we change anything else; the 2-hour timer and the revised
winning conditions make an INL game fundamentally different from a
pickup game.  INL netrek requires a level of coordination that is much
greater than any you'll find in pickup games, and I think that justifies
taking measures to improve a team's ability to coordinate.  INL netrek also
requires 120-150 minutes of constant concentration, and I think that
justifies having a halftime to give hands, brains, and bladders a break.
The situations encountered in the INL differ from the situations
encountered in standard netrek, and the game needs to be changed in
some ways to accomidate the differences.
 -Tom