Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Counter espionage
#11
Once again...........
Reply
#12
(09-21-2020, 12:59 PM)RELLGAR Wrote: Once again...........
Don't leave us hanging!!
Reply
#13
(09-20-2020, 05:02 PM)Pine Needle Wrote:
(09-20-2020, 03:14 PM)Acererak Wrote:
(09-19-2020, 05:37 PM)The Painted Man Wrote:
(09-19-2020, 05:00 PM)Senior Tactician Wrote: Oh... my.  So, the counter-espionage value of a PC does NOT reduce chances of kidnap of emissaries inside the PC?  That is good to know.

Yeah, that’s a bit of a game changer. I assumed it was like a 920. Makes me wish I was playing an agent kingdom in one of the new games.

Me too. This is a huge eye opener. No wonder folks seem to be able to kidnap and assasinate with impunity even when you have a legendary castle. This should be altered. Seems silly to think that these kinda of fortifications wouldn’t help protect the inhabitants. Could maybe stop the ridiculous situation you get in sometimes where the UN takes your king, regent, regent over and over and over and nothing you can do to stop it. Especially with castles, guilds etc. What exactly are the CE values protecting against? A 1,000 point defense sabotage? That’s really helpful.
Totally agree. Castles etc. should protect everything- like dire wolf? That makes no sense- the castle just defends food?

Interesting points of view. Back when Maelstrom was beta tested, players were saying just the opposite in that if buildings and fortifications protected figures/groups then what would be the point of using agents for defense of such assets? Or that buildings' counter-espionage combined with agents would make the traditional steal food/gold operation and others much too difficult and unplayable for the game. Basically, they were saying that the new building constructs would upset the balance of the game if it weren't limited to just the pc itself. Now, with a different group of players, just the opposite is being said. Makes no difference to me as the developer but a change in this area of the code is not on Rick's list for an update later this year.
Reply
#14
(09-21-2020, 04:04 PM)unclemike Wrote:
(09-20-2020, 05:02 PM)Pine Needle Wrote:
(09-20-2020, 03:14 PM)Acererak Wrote:
(09-19-2020, 05:37 PM)The Painted Man Wrote:
(09-19-2020, 05:00 PM)Senior Tactician Wrote: Oh... my.  So, the counter-espionage value of a PC does NOT reduce chances of kidnap of emissaries inside the PC?  That is good to know.

Yeah, that’s a bit of a game changer. I assumed it was like a 920. Makes me wish I was playing an agent kingdom in one of the new games.

Ultimately, we want players to have what they want.  On this side of the table, we have me saying things to Mike that he has to interpret.  

Having said that, I remain a bit disappointed that in the Maelstrom test games, the feedback I was getting was not playing out.  Like players saying their troops are going to starve to death and then bragging about how many legendary castles they built.  Still, I think Maelstrom and especially the map and any kingdom anywhere is working out well.

I like to do little builds, like fixing Wind Storm and a few other things, but Mike wants pretty much a big build and has other things on his table outside Alamaze.  

At some point I may either ask you (players) to say what you want, or me list the whole itinerary of intended changes, but I have again nudged Mike to do a smaller change to do a few changes like Wind Storm.

Meanwhile, from a high perch, I don't see any unbalance in the kingdoms, and I think that remains a hallmark of Alamaze.  I'm also pleased that we have a Champion of Alamaze generally taking what were considered less preferred regions. 

I hope that doesn't sound defensive, I am open to ideas, but just giving my perspective.   Generally the next thing is just making adjustments, but if we do a big thing, it will introduce new kingdoms.





















Me too. This is a huge eye opener. No wonder folks seem to be able to kidnap and assasinate with impunity even when you have a legendary castle. This should be altered. Seems silly to think that these kinda of fortifications wouldn’t help protect the inhabitants. Could maybe stop the ridiculous situation you get in sometimes where the UN takes your king, regent, regent over and over and over and nothing you can do to stop it. Especially with castles, guilds etc. What exactly are the CE values protecting against? A 1,000 point defense sabotage? That’s really helpful.
Totally agree. Castles etc. should protect everything- like dire wolf? That makes no sense- the castle just defends food?

Interesting points of view. Back when Maelstrom was beta tested, players were saying just the opposite in that if buildings and fortifications protected figures/groups then what would be the point of using agents for defense of such assets? Or that buildings' counter-espionage combined with agents would make the traditional steal food/gold operation and others much too difficult and unplayable for the game. Basically, they were saying that the new building constructs would upset the balance of the game if it weren't limited to just the pc itself. Now, with a different group of players, just the opposite is being said. Makes no difference to me as the developer but a change in this area of the code is not on Rick's list for an update later this year.
Reply
#15
The play test was not long enough. Only one game that was cut short. It was mentioned by a few. Not the players vault at all. There for the feedback was not that accurate or thourow.
Reply
#16
Not to make excuses, but adding the PC builds including castles was kind of a last week thing when deciding to do Maelstrom.  Originally we were just going to skip it.

In the update I have there are revisions to construction.  

The main things I would like to do quickly are some spell revisions, like Dispel would dispel lower numbered spells, changes to Windstorm, Bounty and others, and counter-espionage moved up to the beginning of the turn instead of carrying over to the next turn.

Also some additional kingdom changes, both positive (like for Sacred Order) and negative (like for Druid). 

Again, we are always trying to make the game the best it can be.
Reply
#17
(09-23-2020, 05:12 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: [quote pid='71451' dateline='1600718669']
[quote pid='71439' dateline='1600635762']
[quote pid='71434' dateline='1600629274']

Meanwhile, from a high perch, I don't see any unbalance in the kingdoms, and I think that remains a hallmark of Alamaze.  I'm also pleased that we have a Champion of Alamaze generally taking what were considered less preferred regions. 

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
You might not see from a high perch his history of selecting nether regions.
Reply
#18
(09-24-2020, 05:04 PM)Pine Needle Wrote: You might not see from a high perch his history of selecting nether regions.

Nether regions are the best regions.
Reply
#19
(09-24-2020, 05:19 PM)The Painted Man Wrote:
(09-24-2020, 05:04 PM)Pine Needle Wrote: You might not see from a high perch his history of selecting nether regions.

Nether regions are the best regions.

Blush
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)