Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What You Want the Most
#31
There is a bit of a problem in that text results in any given turn are showing artifacts owned as worth say, 300 points.  This has been on the to-do list for a long time.  The actual interim status points awarded are 25 for a fine artifact, 50 for an excellent, 100 for a superior like The Ring of Power.  I can't say I agree that is overvalued.  25 points is too much?  See again the attached file on status points.

We have a few players that are all about winning as the Rex.  We have lots of players that are not.  I keep making the mistake of when I try to poll on what would be best for the community, I keep inadvertently making it sound like I am asking for a personal opinion, like, "I want purple pandas!"  Again, in NC various things happened to give really easy SVC's.  Those have been eliminated.  We addressed that.  Players should know about the significant effort (time, money, thought) that went into updating both ESO and SVC, and for those concepts to become new game enhancers and broaden the strategic options and add to game play.  I don't think the new SVC should be demeaned before the first game is completed with them.  Is it really so terribly easy that a Territory Objective in the SVC can be Substantial in 3 regions and Significant in 2, instead of controlling 4 (Rex)?  And that with the SVC, you still need two more serious objectives achieved whereas as the Rex, you are done with 4 regions. Are players finding it easy to accomplish a Major ESO? 

Another point on those lines is some players want to over-emphasize that "this is a war game".  I see it as something more, where there are different styles that can work.  In Fall of Rome, we got criticism that the kingdoms were too similar in practice.  In Alamaze, we have kingdoms that are not all set up to conquer 4 regions.  They have their other ways to succeed and be relevant even without controlling lots of territory.  I think taking that versatility away would be a step in the wrong direction.

In a more general sense on this thread, I was looking for a hint that if a majority of players had a common thought on what one change would be most beneficial.  I don't think that has been coming out.  I guess in some sense that isn't that bad.   If the answers were in the majority, "disband the Red Dragons", that would be more telling than each person having their unique personal twist.


Attached Files
.pdf   Status Points.pdf (Size: 72.18 KB / Downloads: 10)
Reply
#32
Part of the problem is that some of us are not clear on which set of status point rules we are actually working under. Is the attached file current? Has it been implemented?

I can happily spend an entire game just searching for artifacts if people will let me. I enjoy that very much. Should I get the podium for doing just that though? If the answer is 'yes', then I will be happy to continue.

I didn't like the old SVC simply because some were impossible while others were laughably easy. I hope that we'll find the new conditions to be as challenging in their way as the Rex is. We don't have any data to make a judgment yet. I do hope that games will continue to last a good long time though.
 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
#33
I think might be interesting is different Game wide victory condition.  Rex is normal now, but perhaps some of the less war like players would like a VP game winner.  Some games could be VPs only for land controlled, others could be for any other category listed above.  There would not be a SVC for each kingdom but a SVC sets the game scenario.
Reply
#34
Rick has talked about having different ways to 'win' without ending the game. In my mind, they wouldn't be winning the game but they would be winning a sub-contest. I liken the to Quests. I would love to see quests come in 3-5 stages and not just two. Here is an example.

1. There are three Keys of the Temple. When you find one, you are directed yo the next stage.

2. You must use one of the Keys to retrieve one of the two Books of the Dead which will direct you further, after both Books have been retrieved the third Key sighting either vanishes or is replaced with a minor artifact site.

3. You can use the Book to Summon Ghouls three times. After the third time it vanishes and you receieve instructions and a for the next level. You receive a token that must be carried by the group with the Ghouls.

4. You must pillage 2 towns. After the second town you receive instructions to the final sighting. The Token vanishes and is replaced by the Rod of Truth. There are two of them and they haev minor abilities of their own.

5. Using the Rod, you can search a special Quest site that gives you an awesome artifact or becomes a special pc that you now own. The game announces that this Quest has been completed.

Just off the top of my head....
 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
#35
(01-28-2015, 07:01 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: There is a bit of a problem in that text results in any given turn are showing artifacts owned as worth say, 300 points.  This has been on the to-do list for a long time.  The actual interim status points awarded are 25 for a fine artifact, 50 for an excellent, 100 for a superior like The Ring of Power.  I can't say I agree that is overvalued.  25 points is too much?  See again the attached file on status points.

Another point on those lines is some players want to over-emphasize that "this is a war game".  I see it as something more, where there are different styles that can work.  In Fall of Rome, we got criticism that the kingdoms were too similar in practice.  In Alamaze, we have kingdoms that are not all set up to conquer 4 regions.  They have their other ways to succeed and be relevant even without controlling lots of territory.  I think taking that versatility away would be a step in the wrong direction.

A question for my fellow gamers: IF ARTIFACTS HAD NO STATUS POINTS WOULD YOU STILL SEEK/UTILIZE ARTIFACTS?

You know I love Alamaze - and FoR - so I am trying to contribute to the discussion and I truly believe a majority of players would seek/utilize artifacts just as often without status points.

I think all the kingdoms are capable of winning via Rex [if the contest is allowed to continue until this happens.]

If a kingdom possesses high level agents it is a threat to other kingdoms.  If a kingdom develops high level wizards it is a threat to other kingdoms.  If a kingdom has high levels of production/census it has already conquered territory from other kingdoms.  If a kingdom has high level emissaries/influence it is a threat to other kingdoms.  Capturing prisoners indicates having taken assets from another kingdom.  Huge armies are a threat to other kingdoms. Any/all of these facets of the game enable a player to sweep into another player's holdings and seek conquest in some fashion!  To measure these aspects of a contest via status points is an accurate reflection of both a player's success thus far and potential for the remainder of the contest.  A kingdom could focus exclusively upon any one of the above facets of his kingdom and still seek to conquer his opponents.

"Other ways to succeed" is just another way of saying "artifacts have status points too."  I see artifacts as fundamentally different than the other facets of Alamaze in that artifacts alone do not threaten one's enemies with conquest. BUT POSSESSING ARTIFACTS DOES THREATEN YOUR FELLOW PLAYERS WITH LOSING.  Every other status point measures one's potential to conquer. Artifact status points exist outside of this conquest dynamic and rewards players who may not have had any relevance whatsoever in determining the final condition of the Alamaze world!

"Be relevant without controlling lots of territory" is what I take the most issue with.  A kingdom without lots of territory being "relevant" at the game's conclusion detracts from the role-playing/fantasy element of Alamaze.  I definitely feel cheated at the end of the game when a kingdom possessing little or no territory ranks high in the standings. [This is akin to a student who gets "C" on all his tests, but ends up with an "A" after begging the teacher to assign "extra credit" work. Does this dynamic not cheapen the value of the "A" earned on the tests?] I routinely tell others to "never confuse effort with results."  Artifact status points feels like awarding results to those who put no effort into conquest.

All of the above is just my opinion! Smile I still love Alamaze!
Lord Thanatos
Reply
#36
(01-28-2015, 07:01 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: There is a bit of a problem in that text results in any given turn are showing artifacts owned as worth say, 300 points.  This has been on the to-do list for a long time.  The actual interim status points awarded are 25 for a fine artifact, 50 for an excellent, 100 for a superior like The Ring of Power.  I can't say I agree that is overvalued.  25 points is too much?  See again the attached file on status points.
I guess my main question is on the same line as Lord Diamond... are these actually in effect? I know after a couple of games folks have tried to reconcile their status points to what was reflected on the PDF, without much success. It would be nice to 'borrow' from Fall of Rome the itemized status points report that lines out exactly what you are getting and why.
-The Deliverer
Reply
#37
I do not have a problem if artifact are worth 25-100 points. There are less than a handful worth the full 100. At those levels you would need 10+ artifacts to reach 1000 points. That is fine for me, They do have value and do effect the game. At those point levels they are not tilting the overall scale to much. Trouble is as Kevin has said they do not seem to be at there correct point value.

I try to rate things in relationship to controlling a region 1000 points.
3 high level agents 1200 points. A bit to high to me. 5 high level agents for 1000 seems more on par
3 high level wizards 1200. No problem game changers
10+ artifacts. 1000 points. Ok by me. You are stronger for having the

I think if territory is so important regions should also be worth 1500 or even 2000 as well.
Reply
#38
Alamaze is more than a war game, a game of conquest.  This is a main reason it stands apart from Fall of Rome, which was much more of a war game, even though it had nobles, agents, and the high priestess. 

Alamaze, 2nd Cycle will soon be "fixed" as in not moving once these few remaining changes are in place.  So players that love Alamaze as it is in 2nd Cycle can continue to view it as they wish - as conquest or something more.  Our intention is that 2nd Cycle games will continue indefinitely. 

But the direction I will be taking is more character-centric, more emphasis on adventure.  That doesn't mean we won't implement Fall of Rome tactics, or the more robust political and covert system.   And if things go well, the Fall of Rome GUI, adapted for Alamaze, or that might be the paradoxical "final beginning" of Kingdoms of Arcania.  

In Third Cycle, I want to introduce a couple new character classes.  One would be Hero, separating the abilities in personal combat from overall military leadership as it is presently combined.  I'd like to have spellcaster castes, so an Illusionist, Necromancer, etc, some of which are available to different kingdoms, or perhaps recruited from different regions.  Noble, or what we call emissary at this point in Alamaze, could become a quality, rather than a character class.  In other words, a Baron might be of two classes, Baron and something else, Leader, Wizard, or Agent.  Same might be true of Hero.  While a military leader might have the best chance to be a Hero (as well as whatever rank he has achieved), it could be an Agent, Noble, or Wizard, that has that quality in close combat.
Reply
#39
Interesting, let's get the show on the road!
Lord Alz - "Jeff"
Arch Mage of the Ancient Ones
Reply
#40
(01-29-2015, 10:28 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: Alamaze is more than a war game, a game of conquest.  This is a main reason it stands apart from Fall of Rome, which was much more of a war game, even though it had nobles, agents, and the high priestess. 

Alamaze, 2nd Cycle will soon be "fixed" as in not moving once these few remaining changes are in place.  So players that love Alamaze as it is in 2nd Cycle can continue to view it as they wish - as conquest or something more.  Our intention is that 2nd Cycle games will continue indefinitely. 

But the direction I will be taking is more character-centric, more emphasis on adventure.  That doesn't mean we won't implement Fall of Rome tactics, or the more robust political and covert system.   And if things go well, the Fall of Rome GUI, adapted for Alamaze, or that might be the paradoxical "final beginning" of Kingdoms of Arcania.  

In Third Cycle, I want to introduce a couple new character classes.  One would be Hero, separating the abilities in personal combat from overall military leadership as it is presently combined.  I'd like to have spellcaster castes, so an Illusionist, Necromancer, etc, some of which are available to different kingdoms, or perhaps recruited from different regions.  Noble, or what we call emissary at this point in Alamaze, could become a quality, rather than a character class.  In other words, a Baron might be of two classes, Baron and something else, Leader, Wizard, or Agent.  Same might be true of Hero.  While a military leader might have the best chance to be a Hero (as well as whatever rank he has achieved), it could be an Agent, Noble, or Wizard, that has that quality in close combat.

We worked on most of this for Kingdoms of Arcania. I loved the concepts then and I'd love to see them in the future.
 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)