> > > Several years ago, I might have agreed. The problem is that > > > where we used to have a pretty big following, we are really > > > trailing off. At this point maybe what makes the game better > > > is just whatever the hell gets people playing. > > I think some of your reasoning for wanting to make these changes may > have some merit. But I think that your assumption that LPS should > be more "interesting" is incorrect. LPS only happens in the most > unbalanced (and IMO boring) games. Netrek is far more interesting > when you have two teams that are relatively equal in strength. That > isn't to say that we should enforce equality among teams, but I don't > think changing the LPS mechanics will do anything to help the game > attract a larger player base or to improve the game's mechanics. I totally agree. The problem comes when you try to do something that gets rid of LPS that makes it impossible to recover. The target idea here is something that makes it so a medium-clue team at LPS against a high-clue team goes down faster - eliminating some of the tedium, while still allowing a possibility for recovery if a couple high- clue players join the LPS team. I think I managed to cover that necessity fairly well, but I am worried that it adds too much bookkeeping to every player's schedule. If there are simpler ideas out there that preserve a Sun Tzu-like system (fairness, recoverability, makes tactical sense, fits the overall feel of the game) I'd love to hear them. rOn