Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
'Sanctuary' Discussion
#11
(03-19-2015, 09:30 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: Once it is all settled, I think players will like the leader promotion, emergence, death circumstances.  I mean players will value even captains higher, and that Warlords become the rare commodity they were supposed to be, with corresponding benefits, such as some already identified like detecting the presence of some invisible group, without revealing the exact group.  Maybe needed for tactics, or for recruiting a certain brigade type.  I don't know if I really identified wizard death percentiles in combat for the transition and we will have to look at where that stands.

Respectfully disagree on the "like" part for the higher death percentages. The overwhelming sentiment has been this is a noticeable and negative departure from the old way. This is NOT to say the old way was right, merely that the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

Bottom line is that there are balance issues if it's too easy, and there are balance issues if it's too deadly. And yes, people will adjust either way. But it is less FUN if you never want to even use your leaders at all, because you've seen one too many leaders die even attacking on a 1.

Again, yes, we will adapt either way, but fun is diminished, and it's weird when your Warlord is only used to chill out in a patrol to detect invisible groups, or never leads a real battle because you want his 170 bonus.
Reply
#12
Well, more transparency attached.

Again part of the motive is, almost to all orders, will be to characters, rather than just commands not requiring a character, at some point. 

See the attached on leader emergence, promotion, and death, although it was for development rather than to be fully explained. This is what I intended for Alamaze and wanted to get it there, and it serves the purpose as we go forward.


Attached Files
.xlsx   Leader Emergence, Death, Promotion for Classic.xlsx (Size: 11.12 KB / Downloads: 14)
Reply
#13
Totally fine for the new games, I can understand how a game design change to drive certain emphases there makes total sense.

I'm just referring to the Classic Alamaze we all know and love, and how you want us to have that in place regardless of the new games. And this is one area where it definitely feels like a departure from the old Classic. And without the new enhancements from the new games, it kind of just feels like it's hanging out there, I guess.
Reply
#14
(03-20-2015, 12:22 AM)HeadHoncho Wrote: Totally fine for the new games, I can understand how a game design change to drive certain emphases there makes total sense.

I'm just referring to the Classic Alamaze we all know and love, and how you want us to have that in place regardless of the new games. And this is one area where it definitely feels like a departure from the old Classic. And without the new enhancements from the new games, it kind of just feels like it's hanging out there, I guess.

That document was to be incorporated in Classic, as that was the intention.  The "New Proposal" columns after the first couple are what are to be in place.  As far as I know, no previous "public" release was ever made on leader events.   This is what players should expect in Classic.  Again, we have experienced a difference in what was coded in the old platform vs. what was in the new platform.  And once again, we are trying to tie up those loose ends.
Reply
#15
From what I could tell this went into effect a while back already. The RD leaders drop like flies. I look at a RD brigade of only 20 dragons with high attack strength each dragon about 250 combat values by far stronger than any other single troop. So figure the leader should be even stronger, but that is not the case these RD leader die all the time even on tactic 2. It really is not fun to finish a game with worse leaders than when you started.
Reply
#16
(03-19-2015, 08:13 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: A player is eliminated if he has no regent, meaning he had no political emissaries.  This is another thing players could presumably prepare for, hiring an additional governor, etc.   I really want to close the book on Classic, for those players that have said they want to know exactly what rules are in place at the moment, which is understandable, and also so we can go on to creating new, exciting adventures.

Actually there are 3 ways that a player may be eliminated from the game:

1) A sanctuary was never created with Order #455 and the kingdom lost their last pc by some means (military conquest or wizard destroy spell). Also a kingdom may be eliminated if no "open" pc's were available when a capital attempts to relocate (and no sanctuary) even though the kingdom may own several pc's at the time. The latter applies if the capital falls while non-allied groups block the remaining pc's which prevents the capital from relocating there.

2) Last political emissary removed from play by some means (either by military conquest of the capital or an agent's successful assassination/kidnap).

3) Player missed 3 consecutive turns of not submitting their orders.
Reply
#17
(03-20-2015, 12:31 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: That document was to be incorporated in Classic, as that was the intention.  The "New Proposal" columns after the first couple are what are to be in place.  As far as I know, no previous "public" release was ever made on leader events.   This is what players should expect in Classic.  Again, we have experienced a difference in what was coded in the old platform vs. what was in the new platform.  And once again, we are trying to tie up those loose ends.

All I can say is, THANK YOU so much for considering this matter further.  I, and I know others, really appreciate it.
Reply
#18
(03-20-2015, 06:52 PM)HeadHoncho Wrote:
(03-20-2015, 12:31 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: That document was to be incorporated in Classic, as that was the intention.  The "New Proposal" columns after the first couple are what are to be in place.  As far as I know, no previous "public" release was ever made on leader events.   This is what players should expect in Classic.  Again, we have experienced a difference in what was coded in the old platform vs. what was in the new platform.  And once again, we are trying to tie up those loose ends.

All I can say is, THANK YOU so much for considering this matter further.  I, and I know others, really appreciate it.

Thanks for the respect and just again, I really, really do want to tie down Classic.  its just been harder than most would expect.   For several reasons that players don't need to concern themselves with.  Again, I didn't want the past 16 months of my life basically running turns that happened, I want to have a logical way of introducing new rules, maps, kingdoms, orders, etc, into what players know as Alamaze Classic into new games, that will depart from that model, but be based upon them.

Sign up, have fun, and look forward to The Choosing.  I still think its ambitious and will take a few months.
Reply
#19
(03-20-2015, 01:11 AM)Jumpingfist Wrote: From what I could tell this went into effect a while back already.  The RD leaders drop like flies.  I look at a RD brigade of only 20 dragons with high attack strength each dragon about 250 combat values by far stronger than any other single troop. So figure the leader should be even stronger, but that is not the case these RD leader die all the time even on tactic 2.  It really is not fun to finish a game with worse leaders than when you started.

I'm jumping on the band wagon here and I am asking in the nicest possible way to have someone look into rebalancing leader death/promotions for the Classic version.  

In the past several months I have played the RD (twice), the RA and the TR and all of them have been somewhat disappointing or more as if they are missing something.  Losing marshals and generals to village and town attacks is bad enough, but then to have to watch the newly created captains die a battle or two later makes it almost impossible to ever attain a warlord.  

A case in point, as the RD in 157, I went almost 15 turns before I received my first warlord and I had been hitting cities, groups and towns almost continuously to try and up the odds.  

And while I'm sharing, I recently experienced an RD army group barely scratch (not an exaggeration) a surprised WA brigade of recruits.  And yes, the RD group did have a Warlord Wink   

Now I love Uncle Mike's work, but I think there is something seriously wrong with the way leaders are being abused and the way battles are being worked out.  I would like to hear what other players are experiencing out there.  
I am the greatest swordsman that ever lived. Say, um, can I have some of that water?
Reply
#20
(03-21-2015, 10:05 AM)Madmardigan Wrote:
(03-20-2015, 01:11 AM)Jumpingfist Wrote: From what I could tell this went into effect a while back already.  The RD leaders drop like flies.  I look at a RD brigade of only 20 dragons with high attack strength each dragon about 250 combat values by far stronger than any other single troop. So figure the leader should be even stronger, but that is not the case these RD leader die all the time even on tactic 2.  It really is not fun to finish a game with worse leaders than when you started.

I'm jumping on the band wagon here and I am asking in the nicest possible way to have someone look into rebalancing leader death/promotions for the Classic version.  

In the past several months I have played the RD (twice), the RA and the TR and all of them have been somewhat disappointing or more as if they are missing something.  Losing marshals and generals to village and town attacks is bad enough, but then to have to watch the newly created captains die a battle or two later makes it almost impossible to ever attain a warlord.  

A case in point, as the RD in 157, I went almost 15 turns before I received my first warlord and I had been hitting cities, groups and towns almost continuously to try and up the odds.  

And while I'm sharing, I recently experienced an RD army group barely scratch (not an exaggeration) a surprised WA brigade of recruits.  And yes, the RD group did have a Warlord Wink   

Now I love Uncle Mike's work, but I think there is something seriously wrong with the way leaders are being abused and the way battles are being worked out.  I would like to hear what other players are experiencing out there.  

I would love to see that RD/WA battle report.
 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


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)