Thoughts on making games longer, more forgiving and more profitable for Alamaze

[Beatific]

Beatific,

You mention orders not going through, vacation, mistakes in order input. Can you elaborate?

It unashamedly gives the long timers the game advantage since they have had the investment in time and (and more importantly) in money to learn these aspects of the game.

This is kind of whiny. It's factual that people playing for a longer time thus have put more $$ into the game as a result of playing the game.
What's your gripe? I put as much $$ as anyone else into the game but I don't get some unfair advantages.

I do not mind paying to get honestly beaten by good strategy

If you got beaten this is what occurred. + the possibility you got in a lopsided war versus more players. I have lost some games (imo) due to a lot of bad die rolls basically but then that's part of the strategy aspect of the game. I play anonymous games now and advise anyone to try them out. You can do your own thing and learn as you go.

People keep mentioning the costs associated with the game but it's subscription based and the set-up fee is pretty marginal imo. The subscription fee is definitely more overall but if you get your ass kicked in some game and play another game and whatnot and learn the game in the meantime I don't think the $$ is some huge issue if you're ok at your subscription rate.

If you got ganged up on I think that's a real issue but again play anonymous games. These are quite fun and you can explore, search for artifacts, do whatever you want to do and learn the game as you go.

But if the long time investor requires this advantage to win then he is not much of a gamer (IMHO) and this is not the right site

Actually, this is not the right world if this is your opinion. Afaik most success derives from someone spending more time doing something than another person. So, if I play Chess for 10 years and you started to play 4 days ago I should win. If you win then what does that say about my "investment" into the game. over a period of months you should be able to get to some level where you're competent and then it's possible you could beat me but right out the gate the person who has more experience generally does better. This is the way the world works. You keep mentioning $$ which is odd.

I understand many of your points and it is the main reason why I have not counted myself out yet. I took myself out of the subscription to get my mind around what the game is and decide whether or not I want to get back in. The game design is great. But there was some commentary about the article written in response to Rick's commentary in the PBM/PBEM online mag about the downside of closed PBEM games (if I recall correctly). And some of the responses were "that can't be right". And I am saying that it is (at least for this NooB) dead spot on. The rules are sketchy at best. What are the army values for each of the kingdoms? What is the significance of the Humans owning all the cities? Where is all of this written in the rules? Answer: It's not. You have to learn by playing. In other games, I know the exact answer to these questions and it is by the smart and devious application of these numbers that games are won. And experience does lend an advantage. But when experience is further leveraged by unwritten rules that only the vet knows, it becomes extremely discouraging to the NooB. Do you mean that I have to play for years before I even have a shot at winning? That is the question that I am grappling with and I strongly emphasize with any NooB who has to answer the same question. There is a plethora of PBEM games out there and so there is a strong temptation on the part of a PBEM NooB to take the more well defined path. At least if I lose (which I no doubt will) it will be due to rules that are right in front of me rather than some invisible set that is known only to vets. Of course, from a vets viewpoint the ready answer is "There is the way the world should be, and there is the way the world is" (a quote from Platoon that aptly summarizes your points). No illusions here. I only seek to explain the challenges a NooB faces that must be addressed if you really seek to grow a business. In the end, that is why the $$ matter. This is a service business. And I am a business man and recognize the challenges that are faced here. Market segmentation is key here. And there may be nothing wrong with a very specialized customer base consisting of those who like to learn by getting their head kicked in over several years. I know too many people on this site personally who have that incredible tolerance to not believe that it is a valid customer base. I lack it (thus my struggles) and my observation from the many board game sites (where game life is measured in days rather than months) where the most frequent problem is people abandoning a game they are losing - is that most of your intended market is the same. Indeed, you face the same problems here. And if the answer is to "take your whupping like a man", well, good luck with that. I do think that the iron man concept could be developed with a more substantial reward/recognition system for any players that refuse to quit, but I am not certain whether that will truly address the root of the problem - the valuation of time. Am I willing to spend my time in a very discouraging situation where I only serve to feed the beasts? The only time the answer to that question is yes is when the experience enjoyment is substantially greater than the humiliation (which is substantial) + the time commitment (which is substantial). Still, my experience with most of the experienced players of this site is that they are not maniacally aggressive with NooBs. And there are also some rather good teachers. And those are both significant considerations that should be more advertised rather than less. Vet player outreach during games could be quite key to overcoming the daunting challenges of learning this alamazing game. Just my $2 (too long for $0.02)

[The Usurper]

How about this for an idea, it is based off of what we call poor man's monopoly. Since we were too lazy to give out the starting cash for monopoly, you began the game on start with 0 dollars. A few players would have to restart since they hit a bad card, but in a game like Alamaze, how would starting with just one village work for longevity. No starting anything but one pop center and your starting adepts and you king. Sure some starting tweaking would need to be done, but how about this for a start.

This thread has a lot of interesting ideas, but this one is my favorite. This could be a pretty cool option. Maybe start with a king, a baron, an agent, several adepts, a general, 8 influence, a village, and a single kingdom brigade. More adepts and leaders could come with reinforcements. This setup could be tweaked to customize each kingdom. I'd give it a shot.

Very similar to the age of empires games

[Kalrex]

Beatific,

I actually have a physical copy of the rules from Pegasus days and most stuff (Human controlled cities) is there. I'm surprised not on the site but never cross referenced it. This should be a known quantity, agreed.

Regards army values and whatnot, the "fog of war" element and of course you get a set-up that tells you if your army is good or bad.
The design of the game is also logical, ie Dwarves are good in the mountains and whatnot... game was made during the time when fantasy gaming was peaking (TSR days) so some stuff was fairly obvious at the time and maybe not anymore. Still though, unexpected stuff happens to everybody.

"There are plenty of PBM's out there"- Not sure about this one. MEPBM is a rip off of this game. Hyborian War and Legends are options but they have exactly the same learning curve issues and maybe more. This is fundamentally a very good game but it is difficult. That being said a lot of kids played circa 1980's so maybe it's difficult today cause gaming overall is easier.

Regards $$ I'm sure Rick wants as much as possible. I'm sure he wants to grow his player base. Comments to the effect of $$ = victory is not correct though.

[Beatific]

Beatific,

I actually have a physical copy of the rules from Pegasus days and most stuff (Human controlled cities) is there. I'm surprised not on the site but never cross referenced it. This should be a known quantity, agreed.

Regards army values and whatnot, the "fog of war" element and of course you get a set-up that tells you if your army is good or bad.
The design of the game is also logical, ie Dwarves are good in the mountains and whatnot... game was made during the time when fantasy gaming was peaking (TSR days) so some stuff was fairly obvious at the time and maybe not anymore. Still though, unexpected stuff happens to everybody.

"There are plenty of PBM's out there"- Not sure about this one. MEPBM is a rip off of this game. Hyborian War and Legends are options but they have exactly the same learning curve issues and maybe more. This is fundamentally a very good game but it is difficult. That being said a lot of kids played circa 1980's so maybe it's difficult today cause gaming overall is easier.

Regards $$ I'm sure Rick wants as much as possible. I'm sure he wants to grow his player base. Comments to the effect of $$ = victory is not correct though.

Well, if you consider the total $$ to be time X monthly cost, an extended time frame for learning = $$. A moot point, however, since the cost for this site is still not all that bad. It is why I said time valuation is the root of the problem for NooBs. I personally place a lot more value to my time than to the $20/month cost. $$ comes into play though when providing service from a business perspective. The business can only provide services (like a vacation service) if it has the money to support it. I would rather see an increase in services at a moderate subscription cost increase, rather than miss a few turns and screw up a whole game (with investment in time) because I took vacation in a place that did not support internet access. But if I am the only person that would use the service then clearly it is not a market segment to target. $$ come into play in that the business managers can only provide services or improve the game based on the cash flow. They cannot do it all at once so need clear direction on which to do first. Existing customer base says "improve the game" so that is the direction. NooB needs are different, though, so improving the game may not expand the customer base. Which is basically the point of the article. If the current users do not need to see the need for expanding the customer base and the business management is content with its market size then improving the game makes sense. If, however, everyone (important) agrees that expanding the customer base is more strategic for the sustainability of the business then, perhaps, services and learning curve management should be more of a focus. And the latter could even be done at a very low cost due to the helpfulness of the community. I am not advocating any particular approach, but rather trying to explain the consequences of decisions taken in view of the market (as I observe it). Could be wrong, of course, but I don't think so. Still, free observations, so take it for the price you paid

[Brogan]

How about this for an idea, it is based off of what we call poor man's monopoly. Since we were too lazy to give out the starting cash for monopoly, you began the game on start with 0 dollars. A few players would have to restart since they hit a bad card, but in a game like Alamaze, how would starting with just one village work for longevity. No starting anything but one pop center and your starting adepts and you king. Sure some starting tweaking would need to be done, but how about this for a start.

That is hard core, and awesome!

[Airborne Ranger]

I LIKE THE IDEA.

If Zim likes it, I like it.

See how east that was!

---

I meant easy!

---

Honestly, how much more forgiving do we want to make the game? Rick has already implemented changes that make it make it easier--chaos, seapower, etc--and more are on the way--170/171, 565, etc. Isn't the point of a game to challenge oneself? Why don't we actually focus on learning how to play the game as is, rather than trying to make it easier to play? Or have we all sunk into the instant gratification morass that seems to exemplify the modern world? Who can claim a sense of satisfaction winning a game that's been nerfed to the lowest common denominator?

Here, here. Well said, sir.

I do not see by making the map larger makes the game easier? In fact it might be harder.

[Cloud]

Since starting in February, I have traveled a LOT for me. That includes more than a month, all told, staying where there was no internet access. I am currently playing in 5 games. The only turn I ever missed was at home - I prepared my orders but never sent them because I'm stupid. It doesn't really seem that hard to me to do the minimal amount of work necessary to play the game.

I would not support increasing the standard subscription fee to accommodate the extra time and assistance from the game masters that some seem to want. If they want to offer a deluxe package with extra hand-holding, that's fine - but don't boost my fees because others can't hack it.

One thing I don't think Noobs understand is that this game has a remarkably steep learning curve in the early going, but that it rapidly levels off and perfection is nearly impossible. I have personally witnessed truly Master-level veterans of the game make ridiculous mistakes many times.

Some of the complaints I am seeing are about specific choices the game designers have made. They are on record that they do not wish the game to be just about math so they keep some values and, indeed, some commands secret. This does tend to favor those who have played before. If I find a palantir, I know what to do with it. A straight up noob may have to issue a 'learn about artifact' order or, you know, search the forums for the answer like I did. This aspect of the game is in place by design.

Cloud

[kevindusi]

One thing I don't think Noobs understand is that this game has a remarkably steep learning curve in the early going, but that it rapidly levels off and perfection is nearly impossible. I have personally witnessed truly Master-level veterans of the game make ridiculous mistakes many times.

You leave 129 out of this!!

[Beatific]

Since starting in February, I have traveled a LOT for me. That includes more than a month, all told, staying where there was no internet access. I am currently playing in 5 games. The only turn I ever missed was at home - I prepared my orders but never sent them because I'm stupid. It doesn't really seem that hard to me to do the minimal amount of work necessary to play the game.

I would not support increasing the standard subscription fee to accommodate the extra time and assistance from the game masters that some seem to want. If they want to offer a deluxe package with extra hand-holding, that's fine - but don't boost my fees because others can't hack it.

One thing I don't think Noobs understand is that this game has a remarkably steep learning curve in the early going, but that it rapidly levels off and perfection is nearly impossible. I have personally witnessed truly Master-level veterans of the game make ridiculous mistakes many times.

Some of the complaints I am seeing are about specific choices the game designers have made. They are on record that they do not wish the game to be just about math so they keep some values and, indeed, some commands secret. This does tend to favor those who have played before. If I find a palantir, I know what to do with it. A straight up noob may have to issue a 'learn about artifact' order or, you know, search the forums for the answer like I did. This aspect of the game is in place by design.

Cloud

Then, by design, the target market is smaller and the designers should be content with this and focus on changing the game for the current user base rather than adjusting the business model to attract a more mainstream customer base. Nothing wrong with that. Accept the high burn rate (hopefully customers are leaving at a lower rate than entering) and focus on game development for the current base. As long as Alamaze management agrees and accepts the lower margins, you're in business........and it should be sustainable until the current base becomes exhausted with the product or a disrupting technology displaces you. Don't know what the critical threshold for number of subscribers required to sustain the business, but they certainly do. And enjoy!