Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Summary of Maelstrom and 3rd Cycle Changes
#31
(10-03-2019, 08:17 PM)Ry Vor Wrote:
(10-03-2019, 05:33 PM)Acererak Wrote: Dragons are currently immune to so many spells, how about giving them one achilles heel in that command tornado cast against them does extra damage, and windstorm reduces their charge bonus?

This is in addition to my other requests first and most of all I will always beat the drum for pop centers to have slots for leaders and wizards to be based there (and thus add to defenses in battle). Add them with castle/fortress if you have to but also should be base for capitals and major cities.

The plan is to allow wizards and leaders (but not brigades) to be based in controlled PC's in the next update, up to three each. 

We will give an appropriate boost to the lagging kingdoms.

The whole PC Improvement model will get a makeover.

Windstorm, Dispel fix, plus a number of other spells adjusted (Speed to be from base rather than 20mp, Kraken, Crack the Sky, also how some spell effects are handled.

Some new spells, maybe traits, more customization including possibly negative traits (Cruel, Ugly) that have penalties but provide customization bonus points.

Stormgate likely starts with at least a Castle, possibly Great Castle.

Rework the special abilities of all brigade types.
Sounds great Rick. And honestly, appreciate you asking all of us but you tend to know where to take the game.
Reply
#32
I do think we've done pretty well with Alamaze, apart from the marketing failure.  There has to be 1000's that would like this kind of experience.

I am proud of the longevity of the design - Alamaze now going on 33, not counting two years plus of development before 1st Cycle of Steel and 1st Cycle of Magic that won Game of the Year at Origins and GenCon (yes, we know, you always say it), here in Maelstrom 4th Cycle and looking ahead. 

More to the point, I appreciate our players' view points, and every update let alone Cycle has upset some players who had been with us from the beginning.  Mainly 2nd Cycle was pretty universally received and really elevated Alamaze over 1st Cycle, then about a 20 year run as 2nd Cycle.  Taking Alamaze back in 2013, we updated 2nd Cycle, then went next gen with 3rd Cycle The Choosing.  We lost some devout 2nd Cycle players as, at least in my mind, a lot of the hard won tricks and exploits of 2nd Cycle had been removed, and to me in retrospect these should have been more obvious but in my defense I had been away from the game for more than a decade and changes had been made in North Carolina, so when I saw it we went to 3rd Cycle, which the most obvious change was a bunch of new kingdoms, new map, and two different kingdoms could be in any kingdom.

Maelstrom probably introduced at least as many new concepts as The Choosing, and taking that alternate kingdom in a region possibility out a dimension so any kingdom could be in any region was the biggie.  Obviously a new map that can't guarantee a viable combination of kingdom and region, but nearly so, with 24 to the 12th power combination of possible kingdoms in regions.  Complete and grueling rework of spell list levels, the PC Improvements model, kingdom adjustments, greater kingdom customization.

To the point of the things next to change, I am specifically looking for commentary on the ramifications of allowing wizards and leaders to base in PC's.  I have a resolution to the PC falling and what happens to the leaders and wizards, etc,  but I may not have thought this all the way through, as I am bouncing around.
Reply
#33
Leaders and wizards can default to the lowest g group with room or capitol or highest defence pc with room, assuming there not killed. Or can they be captured?
Reply
#34
(10-04-2019, 05:02 PM)RELLGAR Wrote: Leaders and wizards can default to the lowest g group with room or capitol or highest defence pc with room, assuming there not killed. Or can they be captured?

I am thinking wizards and leaders in PC's are at great risk.  They could only escape to (slots) in the capital.  Maybe not the more realistic mechanic but for the game does convey the danger of being in a conquered PC rather than having the option of retreating from battle.

So right now, its if the PC is lost, the leaders and wizards have the same chance of escape as nobles, but they are not captured, they are executed.

A Marshal (+15%) based in a PC would give +15% bonus to PC defense.   A P3 Wizard would add Presence and could cast a spell from the PC.
Reply
#35
Honestly, if you asked me, I wouldn't change Maelstrom at all. It's been working fine for nearly a year now and I wouldn't change anything with it.

Instead, I would rather see a brand new release of Alamaze that has 20-30 new kingdoms, 20 new spells, 30 new troop types, new concepts like personnel or garrison manning pc's, high-level wizards casting two spells a turn, etc. with new kingdoms being the primary focus of the release. I mean, we've been playing with the same 24 kingdoms since The Choosing which came out March 2016, I think it's time for a brand new version of the game for players to enjoy.

The following are some of the primary focus points of each release:

2nd Cycle (Resurgent): original game from the 80's, spreadsheet order entry (yuck)

3rd Cycle (The Choosing): 24 kingdoms playable on two maps Resurgent and Classic (1980) but kingdoms stuck in region, introduced new concepts like kingdom traits and companion brigades, games fully automated

4th Cycle (Maelstrom): 24 kingdoms playable anywhere on the new Maelstrom map, new building/fortification types, adjustment of spell lists

5th Cycle (TBA): a motherlode of new kingdoms, spells, troops, artifacts, etc. playable on 3 new maps (yes, 3 brand new maps)

So I would rather not waste my time redeveloping Maelstrom which doesn't need anything but rather work on an entirely new release of Alamaze with new kingdoms being the primary focus of the release.
Reply
#36
(10-06-2019, 10:15 AM)unclemike Wrote: Honestly, if you asked me, I wouldn't change Maelstrom at all. It's been working fine for nearly a year now and I wouldn't change anything with it.

Instead, I would rather see a brand new release of Alamaze that has 20-30 new kingdoms, 20 new spells, 30 new troop types, new concepts like personnel or garrison manning pc's, high-level wizards casting two spells a turn, etc. with new kingdoms being the primary focus of the release. I mean, we've been playing with the same 24 kingdoms since The Choosing which came out March 2016, I think it's time for a brand new version of the game for players to enjoy.

The following are some of the primary focus points of each release:

2nd Cycle (Resurgent): original game from the 80's, spreadsheet order entry (yuck)

3rd Cycle (The Choosing): 24 kingdoms playable on two maps Resurgent and Classic (1980) but kingdoms stuck in region, introduced new concepts like kingdom traits and companion brigades, games fully automated

4th Cycle (Maelstrom): 24 kingdoms playable anywhere on the new Maelstrom map, new building/fortification types, adjustment of spell lists

5th Cycle (TBA): a motherlode of new kingdoms, spells, troops, artifacts, etc. playable on 3 new maps (yes, 3 brand new maps)

So I would rather not waste my time redeveloping Maelstrom which doesn't need anything but rather work on an entirely new release of Alamaze with new kingdoms being the primary focus of the release.

You are the one who puts the work in so I respect that.  In response, I would only say the following.

I think the new Maelstrom is great and agree that it has been working as intended.  If we did nothing else, I wish we would fix a few minor things like giving the SA riders and tweaking a few of the kingdoms in minor ways just for balance.  I think the Weapon artifacts being broken like they are should be fixed, and then maybe adjust the pricing of some of the building/fortifications as they don't exactly work from a cost vs benefit relationship.  

Outside of those tweeks, I agree about Maelstrom.  

As to starting a whole new version with new maps, kingdoms, spells, etc, I am all for that, but hope that the minor fixes to Maelstrom would take priority to make it more complete and polished.  

Ashgar
Ashgar the Bloodthirsty. 

My blood, your blood, what difference does it make!  

Time will tell.................
Reply
#37
Maelstrom still has a lot of play left in it. Many have not played different region/kingdom combos. If it is going to be a 5th cycle then do it right and don’t leave so much off the table. Ie do not rush to get to market when you have a version that is still very new to many of us
Reply
#38
Uncle Mike surprises.

I think the question posed is do you want more than a minor tune-up to Maelstrom and perhaps pursue maybe a new design on Alamaze principles, or do a more rebuild of Maelstrom which included a PC Improvement redo, change in ESO and Victory, new spells and spell revisions, new artifacts, some trait changes, three new kingdoms.

In terms of a brand new (not forgetting Alamaze at all though) game, it would be what I have been working on since the initial Maelstrom design (so 2017) that for working purposes is called "Build Your Own".  I kind of would like this to be on a smaller scale, where you may know your sergeants, etc.  Traits might come from characters that are loyal, and loyalty might always be an issue, like rebelling and usurping PC's, or maintaining status quo so to speak on a character, who will have an ambition, like being paid so much per turn or being named Admiral, etc. 

Personally I think I should focus on a marketing effort for Alamaze to attract players, maybe including doing some Youtube videos on what Alamaze is about and how to play.

Easier for me is the new wave of players tell your friends about Alamaze.  Older blokes, tell your old frenemies how smooth Alamaze Maelstrom is rolling.
Reply
#39
Like I said, I think Maelstrom is well designed and doesn't need any changing. I really like the multitude of buildings and fortifications that kingdoms may build for themselves. That is my favorite part of the Maelstrom release. Other players like the regional benefits from the new map but those are kind of minor compared to the enhancements from constructing buildings and improved defenses from fortifications for your kingdom.

So far, the comments for improving Maelstrom are minor at best. I would rather work on something bigger than do minor tweaks that aren't necessary for the game.

For example, about the victory situation where a small region like Stormgate can throw off the percentages. The solution is to just have a player-enforced rule that to declare victory, your kingdom cannot have Stormgate as one of your regions. It's really that simple and doesn't require any code changes. Our games can have a bunch of player-enforced rules so why not for a victory situation as well?

There was a comment about weapon artifacts being "broke" but in what manner? They work according to what is stated in their descriptions where they provide a +10% to +25% combat bonus during all battle phases among other effects for the given weapon. So what is broke? Do you want a bigger combat bonus?

Again, a lot of the comments so far have been minor and either the player has been misinformed about how something works or the situation can be worked around with a player-enforced rule. The matter becomes manageable that way and is not a big deal.

What is a big deal in my opinion is to have the programmer spend time tweaking the game which Maelstrom doesn't really need and instead utilize the valuable and limited resource to develop something special for the Alamaze environment. Like a slew of new kingdoms which would enhance the game and make it more exciting to play.

Just think if the game had 10-12 new kingdoms to choose. From Giant Ants (fire ants, flying ants, giant wasps) to Lycans (werewolves, vampires, rats) to Valkyries (summon thor as a combat spell) to Free Traders (cannot be declared as enemy by any kingdom, foreknowledge of a mythical city) to Pharohs (chariots, build structures easily) to Knights of Destiny to Dark Hill Dwarves and others.

A year ago, Rick came up with some really cool kingdom proposals that would make Alamaze far more interesting to play than just doing an update to the Maelstrom version which doesn't need any changes to tell the truth. Just my opinion but I have always been a big fan of more kingdoms to play perhaps from my Age of Empires background where each expansion set had a ton of new kingdoms to play so I know how valuable they would be to the game.
Reply
#40
UM I like all you said. I would also like specialized companion 1 or 2 kingdom specific Cool stuff Smile
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)