Good to hear from you, Calidor.
(01-25-2023, 02:54 AM)Calidor Wrote: Good Stuff Charles!
Thank you.
(01-25-2023, 02:54 AM)Calidor Wrote: Alamaze to me will always be the greatest PBM game, but it's utterly hampered by low player population.
What is the greatest PBM game is always likely to be subjective, to a very large degree. Alamaze certainly is a PBM game that has enjoyed a very long run, was played by a great many players stretching across a period of many years, has transitioned to a more modern format, and has enjoyed the benefit of numerous programming updates in recent years, alone, not even counting ones that may have bee made in decades past.
Which begs the question of why its current player population is as low as it is?
Clearly, something is wrong. And my best guess is that it isn't any one, single thing that accounts for the player population of Alamaze being as low as it is at the moment. Far more likely, I believe, is that the problem is traceable to more than one issue.
More importantly, though, is the question of, what - exactly and specifically - is being done, if anything, to remedy the low player population? Are there any actual initiatives underway, currently? If so, what are they? If not, then why not? Specifically and exactly, why not? Is there even a time frame for remedying the problem?
I certainly don't think just leaving things as is provides a solution or remedy. I also don't think that disengagement is the answer. Fixing what ails Alamaze, which to a large degree is a player population growth issue, far more so than a programming issue, per se.
Certainly, as big as the gaming industry has grown into, and as many gamers exist in the gaming population at large, now, the problem is not that the potential player pool for Alamaze is of insufficient size. Rather, the
actual player population of the
current moment is the problem.
The player growth for Alamaze has stagnated. This is not necessarily a reflection on the game, itself, but rather, it could just as easily (and in my belief, far more likely) be chalked up to practices, procedures, habits, and generally speaking, ways of doing things.
Player growth, currently, is a problem. How is it, though, that the programming has improved considerably, both in quantity and quality, yet the player growth hasn't kept pace? Honestly, I think that the underlying problem(s), while they perhaps seem intractable, are actually solvable -
and that they can be solved without an enormous amount of money and resources being dumped into a bottomless pit.
(01-25-2023, 02:54 AM)Calidor Wrote: Along the way a lot of the gameplay has become centered around "insider knowledge" of things. I haven't played in a long time but some of these are things like: You can "intercept" your teammates groups in a team game and zip across water without boats. You can cast "windstorm" and remove a ridiculous amount of defense from a PC (think this was fixed). But those are issues that probably don't reveal themselves until a few games are played. I think the main issue is that the rules really need to be organized/indexed and updated to a single source.
I can't really speak to the insider knowledge pertaining to things that may not be common knowledge disseminated via the rules or other ancillary documents. If it is the case that insider knowledge is only known to some, but not to others, then that creates the potential for strategic imbalance. Insider knowledge can be converted into common knowledge, though, so this is a fixable problem, I think - one that doesn't necessarily require any programming changes, just documentation changes.
(01-25-2023, 02:54 AM)Calidor Wrote: Much of the focus that I have seen is around making the game "fresh" for existing players but over time it just results in more layers of "stuff" that a new player has to wade through to get up to speed. Things like the Turn Entry tool and the graphical map turn results are HUGE improvements and it's stuff like that where I see a need to focus energy.
I will say this, based upon the limited amount of playing around with the game interface and game information, thus far -
overwhelming would be an understatement.
Alamaze is no exercise in simplicity. Rather, it is a game with multiple layers of complexity to it. That said, Alamaze isn't the only complex game on the market. The base, underlying product strikes me as sound, and form what I have seen, thus far, Alamaze is an infinitely better game than its predecessor, Fall of Rome, ever was. When I browse and read through the various kingdom set-up reports for Alamaze, while there are some similarities between and across various kingdoms, Alamaze doesn't "feel" generic, as Fall of Rome always felt to me. If variety is the spice of life, then Alamaze reminds me of Arrakis from Dune. There's spice aplenty in Alamaze! Indeed, Alamaze is a world of spice. This variety, this spice if you will, is certainly
not where the problem lies with Alamaze.
As for the complexity of the game, while there is a
LOT of stuff for players to remember, if they ever hope to seriously compete against the best players in the game, I do feel as if the complexity, itself, is manageable. More than manageable, actually. Documentation, presentation, and organization are key, for all of them are instrumental in facilitating the ability of human beings, aka the players of Alamaze, to better and more quickly grasp the information presented to them, in the first instance, and to better enable them to retain said information, in the second place. The "master key" to it all is in transitioning numerous different things into a more intuitive approach.
Some things, now, are intuitive, already. Not everything is, though, And any time that something isn't intuitive, a learning curve (which is one form of obstacle to learning and playing) manifests itself. When I look at my turn results for my SOLO training mode games of Alamaze, I'm like,
"What the hell?!" It all comes across as far more complex and overwhelming than it needs to be. The presentation of information is a bane! Yeah, it's like fighting a Balrog. It really doesn't have to be this way.
(01-25-2023, 02:54 AM)Calidor Wrote: Making the game accessible would be my #1 priority and adding more options/kingdoms/rules would be way back on my personal list.
I agree - though I don't know what might already be in the pipeline, and shutting down the pipeline of changes/additions/improvements could be frustrating, to the programmer even if to no one else.
(01-25-2023, 02:54 AM)Calidor Wrote: If there were hundreds of players instead of the same 15-20 this game would be amazing.
I think that you're right. The question, though, is: Is growing the player base for Alamaze the
actual priority? From my perspective, based upon what I've seen, read, and encountered recently, it's not. That said, there's a lot of background that collectively forms the WHY that accounts for that. Hard questions frequently are not popular questions. Even still, hard questions do need to be asked.
(01-25-2023, 02:54 AM)Calidor Wrote: Right now there are grudges that go back for years... and that reminds me.. one other improvement is that I would love to have in game communication.
Grudges can be good things or bad things, depending upon the type of grudge in question. In-game grudges can fire and drive competitive spirit between players. Outside the game, some grudges amount to little more than blowing smoke, but personality conflicts can be problematic, if taken to excess.
(01-25-2023, 02:54 AM)Calidor Wrote: Where we send messages to and from kingdoms in the game interface. This would let there be true communication and maintain anonymity.
I'm not opposed to such, but honestly, do I think that adding such a feature would be key to growing the player base of Alamaze? No, I don't. If you don't have players, who's gonna use such a feature? Of the two, player growth or this messaging system that you mention, which is the more important problem of the two?
From my perspective, it's the issue of player growth (or more specifically, the lack thereof).
(01-25-2023, 02:54 AM)Calidor Wrote: I poke my head in every few months to see how things are progressing and always hope to see something to get that spark back.
To get the spark back implies that you believe that the spark once existed. Thus, tell em, what caused the spark to no longer reside here with Alamaze?
How do you think that we could get that spark back?
Do you believe that it's possible for Alamaze to get that spark back?
(01-25-2023, 02:54 AM)Calidor Wrote: PS: I believe the billing is also confusing. I never had any issue but I think it would be great to have your account page show you what you signed up for, what games you are in, what slots you have open and your next billing date/amount.
Well, if the billing is confusing, that's certainly problematic. Why? Because deals with a person's money, and for some reason, people often find billing that is confusing to them (which is a separate and distinct thing from whether billing is confusing to the company that's doing the billing).
(01-25-2023, 02:54 AM)Calidor Wrote: It's kind a weird in that you have so many subscription levels, then also pay setup fees which vary by game type, and then sometimes I think after a certain number of turns are played you no longer use that slot in your subscription. I think that presents a significant barrier to new players.
Assuming that the service levels/subscription plans listed here are correct, my own assessment is that they are crafted in such a manner and way so as to
inhibit player growth. Descriptive terms such as madness and insanity come to mind.
Ideally,
lots of people would be playing Alamaze
all the time. Yet, clearly and indisputably, that isn't happening. Why isn't it happening?
Even at the Imperator level, the highest level of play available, one is still limited in how many different games of Alamaze that they can play in at one time. This chosen approach is counterproductive, and in more than one way.
What does the whole Service Levels scheme in play remind me of? An exercise in Soviet central planning. Instead of making it quick and easy to join Alamaze and then play to your heart's content, what the site visitor is treated to are a multi-tier system of payment subscription models -
NONE of which appear to be working, as designed and intended!
Even the lowest priced subscription tier isn't bringing new players in, in any significant numbers. Absent a bare bones minimum number of players, Alamaze will fade, dissipate, and disappear. Ignoring things and just taking a hands-off approach and letting the game die is in whose interests? Nobody's, insofar as I am aware. I really don't think that the grand objective with Alamaze was for it to become relegated to a tax deduction.
There is a saying - when in doubt, Keep It Simple, Stupid (the K.I.S.S. principle). How do you make growing the player base idiot-proof? If what is in place, now, isn't working, then fundamental common sense says to try something else. What's
Plan B?
Has Alamaze tried different "things" over the years. Yes, as far as I know, it has. Do I think that pricing the game at $42.95 per month is ever gonna motivate and inspire throngs of players to play Alamaze? Nope, not in a zillion years. And to pay that much to play against the current player community size for the game is, to me, a bridge too far to ask.
In this day and age, why in the world would you want to make things so unnecessarily complicated? This multi-tier paid subscription model that currently reigns over the Alamaze game system reminds me of a troll or an ogre guarding a bridge that one expects potential new players to cross. Said another way, the pricing structure is
UGLY!
At the moment, the size of the Alamaze player base is far and away more important of an issue than the pricing model. The current pricing model is broken. It simply doesn't work. It doesn't accomplish what it was designed and intended to accomplish. To the contrary, in fact, the current pricing model is an impediment to growth, it is an obstacle to growth, and in particular, an obstacle to rapid growth of the player base. A $42.95 price tag to
NOT even play Alamaze to your heart's content strains credulity. At the end of the day, the amount of profit is the amount of profit, whether achieved in increments or in lump sum. More players paying less is a more sustainable and realistic approach to achieving the goal of profitability than is less players paying more.
Growth is what drives profit. If you don't have growth, how do you obtain profit? And where profit is concerned, aside from player growth, what are Alamaze's current other option(s) that it has already implemented? Or are there any? Or are all of the eggs in one basket?
If there aren't a lot of players that form the current player base for Alamaze, then by extension, there aren't a lot of players opting in at the $42.95 subscription level. Thus, why retain it? How long has it been in place? What is the projected time frame for that subscription level to attain profitability for the company?
Here's the thing - everybody and anybody that has looked at Alamaze, to include the owner and the programmer and the current player base, knows that something is broken. My own first-hand exploring and playing around with the game's interface, and looking at its pricing methodology that's in play, leads me to conclude that something is broken. None of this is rocket science.
The current paid subscription model is not working, and hasn't been working in quite some time, from the looks of it. So, why allow it to continue to remain in place? At a bare minimum, the current pricing model can be suspended, and a new pricing model put in place at a later date. Grow the player base, first, and as that begins to take hold, then worry about what subscription model is the right model. Profit is never going to be achieved without growth. Growth is at the very heart of everything. from what I can tell, there's more reasons to not play Alamaze than to play it.
A core and central part of the overall complexity problem (the bad complexity, not the good complexity - think of cholesterol kind of like cholesterol) is that what I shall term to
"Alamaze Experience" is the result of a piecemeal approach. Said another way, it's not an
integrated experience. A lot of different things have been added over time, which collectively adds up to what individuals perceive to be the Alamaze Experience of the current moment.
Consider, if you will, the following:
https://www.alamaze.co/
https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/index.php
http://fallofromegame.com/alamazeorders/
And for the person who is new and plans to play Alamaze:
https://www.alamaze.co/
https://www.alamaze.co/sign-up/
http://fallofromegame.com/alamazeorders/...racct.html
https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/memb...n=register
This is what I mean by
Not Integrated. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Each different thing that a person has to do, in order to go from not knowing about Alamaze to actually playing Alamaze, is a potential obstacle. To sign up to try Alamaze
SHOULD, ideally require one screen. It's not that it can't work without that degree of integration, but newcomers sure do have to do a lot of different things, in order to begin playing and becoming a part of the player community.
And I haven't even listed this link, yet:
http://fallofromegame.com/alamazeorders/...lebook.pdf
But even before they click on that link to access the current Alamaze Rulebook, they first need to click on this link:
http://fallofromegame.com/alamazeorders/helpguides.html
Compare the current Alamaze way of doing things to ordering things on Amazon. The closer that you get to achieving
One Click access, the closer that you get to eliminating as many hurdles and obstacles to playing Alamaze and to becoming a participating member of the Alamaze player community.
Alamaze has a BIG rulebook, and it has an interface that adds to the burden of what all that a potential newcomer has to absorb. This is a
fact. The interface isn't a terrible face, but it could still be improved upon, considerably. To play Alamaze, the player has to
leave the interface. Why?
Players receive a game HTML file and a Snapshot HTML file, both of which are separate from the game interface, itself. How is this not overly complicated? Even in SOLO training mode, I lost count of how many times that I had to switch back and forth between the game interface and these HTML files.
The reason why a player has to do that is because the information that they need is lacking, in some way, shape or form, from what gets presented to them by the game interface. I didn't have to do this, when I played Fall of Rome. Yet, there are things about the current interface that reminds me of Fall of Rome's interface, and to a lesser degree, Centurion's interface.
Given a choice between playing Fall of Rome or playing Alamaze, I'd choose Alamaze. Why? Because the kingdoms/races in the game aren't generic, like they seemed to me to be in fall of Rome.
Sorry for the length of the reply, Calidor. You got me going, though.
Buddy/Ignore List
That same core group has aged with the game, there have been some lost, and others who disappeared in the middle of games and we never heard them again. (sad)
