PDA

View Full Version : More oil well space?



Aodhan
08-19-2005, 04:29 AM
It's almost impossible for a new guy to find space for a well in Saudi Arabia. Could the oil well space be expanded a bit?

Thanks!

birq
08-19-2005, 04:34 AM
There's a whole lot of west Texas that is just screaming for a drillin'.

Aodhan
08-19-2005, 04:36 AM
There's a whole lot of west Texas that is just screaming for a drillin'.

Sorry, I don't see anything there. :confused:

birq
08-19-2005, 04:39 AM
I meant as opposed to expanding the Saudi field. I was suggesting west Texas to Mickey.

Alaska would make a good drilling spot too.

Aodhan
08-19-2005, 04:39 AM
I meant as opposed to expanding the Saudi field. I was suggesting west Texas to Mickey.

Alaska would make a good drilling spot too.

The only problem would be with the huge guys with tons of money buying them up before the smaller people (i.e., me) can stake out some territory. Is there a maximum limit on the oil wells you can have?

cheakerdoodels
08-19-2005, 04:47 AM
There are a few spots left in the current one if you look hard enough.

rasqual
08-19-2005, 04:56 AM
I'll wager by morning, Mickey'll have coded for bartering ability, where alliances can be built on trading good faith and loyalty for things like wells, geos, jewels, barrels, armies, troops, and more. ;-)

I think when that happens, the wealthy will be pleased to help others who will agree to work toward mutual strategic interests.

Here's a suggestion, Mickey, but I think it'll depend on a "net worth" calculus, as I suggested a while back. How about some "affirmative action" by economic class? That's what the U.S. did with homesteading, you'll recall. Land for anyone at all -- but limited. Perhaps the next few resource locations you create should likewise have quotas that will make them inviting for players who need more time to accumulate the geos they need to buy the wells, mines, or whatever.

Also, I suggest offering a free oil well to each new player -- and make it retroactive to anyone who's presently dirt poor. That's not a lot, but it'd be a bit like the Monopoly money you get when you play that game. Everyone starts with something in their pocket.

And of course, yes, the wealthy could "sponsor" newcomers with gifts or loans, buying loyalty. They hope. ;-)

Mickey
08-19-2005, 04:56 AM
To be honest, I'm not sure how best to balance it. With the current system, all of the existing wells will be gone within 60 days - some as soon as tomorrow. If you hunt often, you'll find the holes as they open up.

As it stands right now, there are 145 wells out there, with very little (if any) room left.

Objectively, should I allow it to hold more wells? Or should people have to be on their toes from now on? I'll be adding other ways to gain money very soon, so that might help spread things out a bit.

I'm not sure if I'll add other oil fields (which would require some script rewriting) or if I'll just go ahead and add new resources in different parts of the world.

cheakerdoodels
08-19-2005, 04:59 AM
I currently count 7 open oil spots if people would just look hard enough.

rasqual
08-19-2005, 05:01 AM
Dang, I started with one idea (affirmative action) in that paragraph, and then switched gears entirely. I guess I returned to it with "a free well for every new baby born in Earth," but my principal suggestion, I guess, is the quota approach to wells. So many per day per player, at a maximum -- that kind of thing.

I dunno. I see peril there, too. But at present, the situation certainly does favor the rich. Realistically that's normal in the world, and I think the driving forces of greed and, where it exists, altruism, should be allowed to play out. However, if poverty is allowed, there should be consequences to the rich. The natives are getting restless! Something. Hmmm.

rasqual
08-19-2005, 05:03 AM
cheakerdoodels, I've just adopted a policy of attacking anyone who posts immediately prior to me. That policy may change by morning, but there you have it. ;-)

Mickey
08-19-2005, 05:04 AM
However, if poverty is allowed, there should be consequences to the rich.

The easy answer there is taxes/upkeep. On armies, on troops, on cities (or their value), on wells, on what?

I'm inclined to say armies and/or troops, so that people are less likely to sit back and horde them. Not sure yet, though.

cheakerdoodels
08-19-2005, 05:05 AM
Aw man you suck rasqual and I posted two minutes before you. You double posted that's worse then what I did.

P.S. I now count 12

Mickey
08-19-2005, 05:08 AM
I'll wager by morning, Mickey'll have coded for bartering ability, where alliances can be built on trading good faith and loyalty for things like wells, geos, jewels, barrels, armies, troops, and more.
Not tonight. I've been running on 4 hours of sleep a night this week, and it's catching up with me. Maybe soon, though.


That's not a lot, but it'd be a bit like the Monopoly money you get when you play that game. Everyone starts with something in their pocket.
Presently, everyone starts with 3 armies at their base, 10 jewels, 20 barrels of oil and 5 Geos. Not a lot, but enough to get their feet wet.

Earning jewels is dead simple (although boring) and unlimited. Coming up with enough money to purchase a well shouldn't be a big deal. The issue now is finding a place to buy a well.

cheakerdoodels
08-19-2005, 05:12 AM
Hey Mickey I wondered if you could give people the option of either getting oil how we currently do or get it all in one lump sum every day. It just bugs me how it is now.

Oh yeah I don't know how people can't find space I now count 17.

rasqual
08-19-2005, 05:24 AM
Yeah, you're right about what's at issue just now. I do think daily quotas might help. Take pains to calculate the likely duration of an asset field's availability, given the number of players bothering to collect resources to fund such purchases.

Again, I think armies should cost something to billet at the home base, more when they're occupying cities, and also should cost by the mile to transport to cities. That cost would be the first indication that they're not doing the "drop in from space" thing. It would, IMO, "geography" (pronounced "eye" at the end) the game a bit, because cost would be an impediment to distant conquests. Regionalize, might be a better word. I think that's important. For simplicity, I guess you could make ocean travel about the same price and speed as land travel, though it'd be cool if you could leverage someone's KML to do real-world differentiation of ocean from land. I know, I know -- it'll come in time. :-)

There should be more cost to taking and keeping larger cities as well. That's realistic. And perhaps a city could suffer collateral damage -- and I think that'd be simple to calculate. For every troop-against-troop loss, there'd be some modicum of damage to the economy of a city. It could recover, given improvements in stability and careful cultivation of regional resources by the governing authorities. But if a battle had a realistic deleterious effect on a city and an occupying power's ability to extract taxes, it'd be interesting for a lot of reasons -- not the least among them being the encouragement of diplomacy. What good is conquering a town, if you know you'll be inheriting something that will need a lot of reconstruction and infrastructure repair? You might not only lose out on taxes, heck -- if the fight's bad (take a nuke, for example), you might end up having to pay something per capita just to make things recover. The economy could have a "cusp," beyond which it could spiral into chaos.

Something has to be done to make nuclear weapons (a) a deterrent, (b) not in the hands of rogue states (only superpowers), and rare. Heck, the world's just born and already proliferation is the norm. ;-)

cheakerdoodels
08-19-2005, 05:31 AM
I really don't like the idea of an kind of upkeep it just bugs me. I don't think that their should be any aoutmated thing that takes away your money because it would do the same thing as lowering oil production.

d4v3n90r7
08-19-2005, 09:00 AM
Im sorry I find this new feature an enhancement, but totally unfair - nice to see the same old names god-whoring the game.

Whereas myself Im currently only on the compy mondays and fridays, im sure others have the same problems that when a new feature comes out, it is exploited quickly or am not around to see it quick enough.

Any room for the little guys please? Without them there is no future to this game.

daniel hill
08-19-2005, 09:48 AM
i totaly agree its unfair the fact 1 the only way you can get an oil well is to let someone give you it or get an open one which is not often if not impossible so you got 0% chance of getting one.

i believe there should be a way of getting them off people like being able to attack them or buy them off them.

Also there is a lot of speculation about the amount of jewels Rascal has he seems to have a never ending supply of jewels and is unfairly taking over the game?

SnakeMan
08-19-2005, 02:04 PM
Lo.OL My system is better, if they are going to be implemented hehehe. Citys with a production of jems and if u wanna spend wells, also read my post. Spend geos in a machine to search for oil in the ocean, then spend more geos (work is hard lol) so u can get the oil. If u take a look we are nothing compared with the ocean... =op

Snaky.

d4v3n90r7
08-19-2005, 02:19 PM
My point is that there is no room for newer members, Rasqal and the like will continue to god-mod the game, so whats the point in trying to compete?

The world is a big place, isnt there enough resources for everyone?

birq
08-19-2005, 02:49 PM
We need to get this back to a single thread.

birq
08-19-2005, 02:57 PM
Rasqal and the like will continue to god-mod the game, so whats the point in trying to compete?
That's not really a fair statement; there's no benefit to holding cities at this point. Rasqual is at the top of the list, but it doesn't really mean anything real right now. (Sorry to belittle your accomplishments, Rasq :))

He can't drill more wells simply because he controls more cities. He can't buy more armies simply because he controls more cities. He doesn't get Geos or jewels or oil for his cities. His only real benefit to holding cities is that he has a place to stockpile troops under a nuke shield, and he could do that just as effectively with a single city.

His holding cities doesn't keep you from drilling or finding jewels or buying armies or taking over someone else's poorly-defended city.

rasqual
08-19-2005, 03:18 PM
I won't take pains to defend my besmirched honor, except to say that my hope for realism is all the more encouraged -- we seem to have full-blown class warfare already.

Let them eat cake, I say! ;-)

Actually, I was just advocating affirmative action for these ungrateful boors. Noblesse oblige and all, you know. ;-D

d4v3n90r7
08-19-2005, 04:34 PM
Just because we see pitfalls doesn't mean we are ungrateful.

rasqual
08-19-2005, 05:21 PM
I was engaging in self-lampoon, not genuine predication. ;-)