Nature
Follow This Easy Process To Get Started Playing Alamaze
Step #1 - Register for Forum Account      Step #2 - Create New Player Account      Step #3 - Sign In  (to issue turn orders and join games)
ATTENTION: After Creating Player Account and Signing In, select the GAME QUEUE link in the Order System screen to Create or Join games.
Alamaze Website                 Search Forum              Contact Support@Alamaze.net


Player Aids             Rulebook             Spellbook             Help Guides             Kingdom Set-Ups             Kingdom Abbreviations             Valhalla             Discord

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"True" Classic Interest?
#1
We are interested in learning if there is general interest in providing a game format similar to what Alamaze was prior to the Resurgence.  So at least, Classic as it was before the new platform, and at most, going retro to virtually what it was in NC (sans the conversations with Phil, sadly).  Likely something in-between.  So, if you long for Westmen (for example) and multiple walls of flame and invisible army groups, and perhaps other elements that have been changed, or maybe just want nothing further changed and have it fixed at some point to be determined, although open to new scenarios with those familiar kingdoms, please post here.  We have had a couple players drop recently longing for the old days, when things were known and not changing.  So before we devote resources to that, we want to know if others would like that as well, although you could play in both Classic and Resurgent.  Just trying to gauge interest in retaining Classic, as in, before the recent changes.  Post your interest here before we make accommodations for that.  What we have in mind would not slow future development, and might be an easier re-entry for those players who have yet to return.  These games might once again be moderated by Cipher.  TBD.
Reply

#2
(03-30-2015, 03:35 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: We are interested in learning if there is general interest in providing a game format similar to what Alamaze was prior to the Resurgence.  So at least, Classic as it was before the new platform, and at most, going retro to virtually what it was in NC (sans the conversations with Phil, sadly).  Likely something in-between.  So, if you long for Westmen (for example) and multiple walls of flame and invisible army groups, and perhaps other elements that have been changed, or maybe just want nothing further changed and have it fixed at some point to be determined, although open to new scenarios with those familiar kingdoms, please post here.  We have had a couple players drop recently longing for the old days, when things were known and not changing.  So before we devote resources to that, we want to know if others would like that as well, although you could play in both Classic and Resurgent.  Just trying to gauge interest in retaining Classic, as in, before the recent changes.  Post your interest here before we make accommodations for that.  What we have in mind would not slow future development, and might be an easier re-entry for those players who have yet to return.  These games might once again be moderated by Cipher.  TBD.

Every game that I play, I am always looking for the next expansion update.  I have trouble staying enthusiastic about playing the same game repeatedly.  Alamaze has so many different nuances (multiple kingdoms, game variants, strategies...etc) that it would take a while for me to get bored  ...but it will happen eventually unless changes and upgrades are implemented. 

For me to go back and play the older version of Alamaze, you would have to stop all changes with the new platform and let me play the same game for a few years...  Then I may go back just to play something different.

My 2 cents.  Shy
The Frost Lord,
Centurion in the Military War College
Pioneer of Alamaze
Reply

#3
Here is my take. I like many of the changes, dislike a couple. That will always be true. All I care about in that regard is that our rules or victory conditions don't change mud-game when I am mid-strategy.
Reply

#4
I agree with both FL and HH.

I dislike changes mid-game. I would love to both start a d finish a game with the same rules and orders and not have them change on me mid-game. All changes should be well documented and communicated. Notes within a particular game's forum are not enough for me. I would go so far as to request that the Orders & Rules be updated as changes are made and not down the road. I do realize what a pain it is and still feel that it is necessary.

That being said, I love changes! Give me something to look forward to in my next game.

I will likely never go back to Classic so long as there is something new to play. Maybe as a one-off nostalgia game, but nothing substantial.
 Lord Diamond

Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.





Reply

#5
I would play but not if it did not include the order checker and getting my turns at a consistent time. Also I do not think support would be ready for it. There were many bugs that really did need fixing.

As to the sub topic. Updates
My view is bug fixes should happen right away and be posted in every game running for two turns unless an order number is changed which would not really be a bug fix but if so. It should be posted until a rules update
True updates should happen at most about one game cycle so maybe once every three months. These should be posted in the forum as a complete set of changes two weeks before they go into effect. When they do go into effect an update to the rules and commands updated as well.
-Items should never be updated without them being communicated in a set admin only forum thread. An example of the most latest version of this not happening. How many players even know SVC can not be claimed until turn 20? This was mentioned once in a game thread and then made a rule for all games.
-update to game mechanics should also be posted. Formulas do not need to be given if that is the choice. But, let everyone know if defensive values or leadership numbers were tweaked. Again these should follow update time lines for something like death rate changes set-ups should be changed. Players in current games with those kingdoms should be sent those changes. An example RD leadership death at +10%. My last setup was still listed at +35%. I could tell it was wrong until finally a new chart came out. I was only getting pissed off my leaders died so fast.
Reply

#6
Agree with JF.
Reply

#7
I like the classic. If bugs are fixed I would play it. 
Reply

#8
(03-30-2015, 12:33 PM)Jumpingfist Wrote: I would play but not if it did not include the order checker and getting my turns at a consistent time.  Also I do not think support would be ready for it.  There were many bugs that really did need fixing.  

As to the sub topic.   Updates
My view is bug fixes should happen right away and be posted in every game running for two turns unless an order number is changed which would not really be a bug fix but if so.  It should be posted until a rules update
True updates should happen at most about one game cycle so maybe once every three months.  These should be posted in the forum as a complete set of changes two weeks before they go into effect.  When they do go into effect an update to the rules and commands updated as well.  
-Items should never be updated without them being communicated in a set admin only forum thread.  An example of the most latest version of this not happening.  How many players even know SVC can not be claimed until turn 20?  This was mentioned once in a game thread and then made a rule for all games.
-update to game mechanics should also be posted.  Formulas do not need to be given if that is the choice.  But, let everyone know if defensive values or leadership numbers were tweaked.  Again these should follow update time lines for something like death rate changes set-ups should be changed.   Players in current games with those kingdoms should be sent those changes.  An example RD leadership death at +10%.  My last setup was still listed at +35%.  I could tell it was wrong until finally a new chart came out.  I was only getting pissed off my leaders died so fast.

Is it true that SVC can only be claimed on turn 20 or later (instead of turn 15 or later)?

I am a pretty avid forum reader.  Where was this information posted?
Lord Thanatos
Reply

#9
To me the focus should be on the new cycle/scenarios. There is a place for the old but freeze it like you stated and push it out to pasture for anyone to ride when there is interest.
Lord Alz - "Jeff"
Arch Mage of the Ancient Ones
Reply

#10
So, the point of this thread was to say if players want a game that is unchanging, we can offer Classic. Then players in those games will know everything is static, nothing will change during the game.

As Alamaze goes forward in Resurgence, there are always likely to be changes occurring, and we won't have separate rules or unit values, or other aspects that are unique to each game, changes will affect all games in play as well as those yet to start.

Here are some examples of what has changed mid-game:
1. ESO's became automated.
2. ESO's can now be set as late as Turn 3 and claimed any turn T10 - T15, not just set T1 and claimed only T10 or T15.
3. Building fleets now require a port PC, and are limited to 3 fleets built per turn. Previously the Dwarf might build 12 fleets in Mystery in a single turn, with no population center anywhere on the western edge of the map.
4. Dropped positions recently had groups entrench, rather than be surprised, to not totally exploit dropped positions.
5. Counter espionage became more effective, instead of picking one of three aspects to counter espionage upon, and generally became more effective overall.
6. Weapon artifacts became effective in Unusual Encounters.
7. Dragons were allowed to explore unusual sightings.
8. Emissaries relocating to foreign capitals are now informed that they are at capitals, instead of being incarcerated on next turn's actions.
9. Setup changes, such as the DW special order or EL changes effected all games, not just new games.
10. Some unit values changed if they were clearly not working as intended. This actually is happening now in the work week away from processing, as regards a thorough review of the RD, BL, TR, GI, OG, WY values, and leadership changes for all kingdoms: death, emergence, promotion by kind of battle/encounter/success or failure/kingdom modification, etc.
11. Dropped positions now have their groups and artifacts and emissaries eliminated, but not the held prisoners by others or of course their controlled PC's are not eliminated. This is to prevent the exploitation of an un-played position.

There are probably many more. If we see something that is wrong, or has a better solution, we are not going to wait until the next release to fix them. We started on "Final 2nd Cycle changes" 18 months ago. That would have been a long time to wait.

There was some concern about the unique rules in #300 being pervasive. They are only in #300 but some/many may be introduced in The Choosing. The change to the SVC being not before turn 20 instead of turn 17 was due to the trepidation of some players regarding the new SVC model still ending games too early. It was discussed in the game-forming thread for the only game currently in play with the SVC option.

When I say Classic may be retro for various changes that are in Resurgent, obviously we are not going to re-introduce bugs that have been fixed, etc. So what we are trying to find in this thread is how many players want to play Classic as an alternative to the changing Resurgent. It will be work, just a separate set of rules for example is more involved than players might think, and it would likely depend on Cipher's interest in doing those things, and I don't want his time absorbed with that if there isn't enough demand.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 Melroy van den Berg.