Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Kingdom Elimination
#21
(02-12-2015, 12:54 PM)Lord Thanatos Wrote:
(02-12-2015, 01:18 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: I just wonder if a strong kingdom with lots of gold and in a near win position then has ambition to gain a puppet, a wizard kingdom maybe, "Just stay in, I am happy to fund your research.  Do take out those capitals, old boy."  I don't know if that's fair to the other players, if a kingdom has no population or no king, to be propped up so.

All you are suggesting is that "to be fair to the other players" a strong kingdom who wishes to "prop up" a vassal needs to provide is a village in addition to all that gold.  I see no problem at all with what you describe.

I think few people are dropping Alamaze because they can't knock their opponents out of the game.  However, changing the game in a way that losing players can be completely eliminated by their opponents may drive more people away from the game.

If you change the rules maybe  you should make it so that the game can be switched back and forth easily.  Then you can see which format becomes more popular among players.
Reply
#22
I think that's a fair point, Hawk, although I suppose the realist in me still prefers the possibility of elimination.
Reply
#23
Of all the aruments, LT's sound the most logical. I do like the idea of tne system generating an Envoy 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
#24
Here's my haypenny's worth of input.(I haven't been around long enough for two cents...)

To me, the problem of kingdom elimination boils down the availability of a new game to join. With the Service Level method of paying for Alamaze, you have the ability to be in a certain number of games at any given time. If I was in a situation where I'd been virtually eliminated in a game, I would probably stick with it if no other game was ready to join. After all, why not? At that point it's a choice between playing a crap position or not playing at all. I think I would always choose to play. (I'm not a fan of making support constantly update my service level based on how many games I'm involved in at any particular time.)

With a large enough player base, this problem goes away - there will always be a game being created. And to be fair, over the past few months it seems like there pretty much has always been a game being created. But I also know how long some sign-up threads had been active when I first joined back in November-December. So maybe a problem, maybe not. I have no problem being eliminated if another game is available to fill the void.
Reply
#25
Excellent point, thanks for sharing it. Another reason the service level vs. pay-per-turn dynamic has an impact on this discussion.
Reply
#26
Not having enough of players may be a problem of the past. The new software can start a game with any number of players if desired. So if Ry Vor wants, he could develop a game signup web page (still in the works) where the players choose how many players should be in a given game (anywhere from 1, solo mode, to infinite).

Pricing could be changed to charging fees based upon the number of players per game or frequency of turns per week or such. So more options open up with the automated system coming up so don't let having a smaller pool of players affect your opinion in supporting solid game design (e.g., 0 pc's, you're out of the game).
Reply
#27
I very strongly dislike the idea of a player being eliminated if he loses all his PCs. I would probably give up playing in all but anonymous if that were the case because I'm sure that it will encourage gang-bangs. A group will team up - lets say target the DA - divine his pop centers and target all of them in the same turn. Doesn't matter what assets he has - if they can take out his pop centers, he's gone. I probably can't express strongly enough how much I dislike this.
But I do like the suggestion that there should be a location for the encampment. In my experience, people in a camp can't actually move out of it - only the king/regent can 355 into a new location. Because the camp is everywhere and nowhere, the program won't let people move or agents do missions - anybody in there is stuck until you have a new capital. I would say put the camp in a random location within a 10 square radius of the last capital.
Reply
#28
Perhaps something like placing the encampment where the highest ranking group finishes that is not on a PC. Have it cost two brigades of troops. If you can not pay you are eliminated.

I agree with DuPont it does seem it would encourage more teaming up. It is almost impossible to hard code a teaming up rule that can not be taken advantage of.
Reply
#29
I believe I would vote FOR the elimination of a kingdom pending the loss of all PC's. Not only does it make intuitive sense but Alamaze is a wargame and there should be a way to eliminate an opponent. Give them a turn or two to take back a PC if you prefer but I like the possibility of taking someone out completely. My $.02
-This Khal Drogo, it's said he has a hundred thousand men in his horde
Reply
#30
I like the idea of letting a player try for a few turns to regain a PC, and if he cannot then he is eliminated. I also think that his capital should automatically move to that PC if the king/regent is in an encampment.
Stillgard

105 Dwarf King
116 Dark Elf Vampire
122 Mighty Troll Tyrant
134 Enlightened Sorcerer
139 Dwarf King
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)