DE Question for Mike

[mafmiller]

I prefer change...  I get bored doing repetitive tasks.  I would love to see updates more frequently.


"Introducing the 'Winged-back Elves'.  Be the first to play elves that can take to the sky."  ...Coming in December 2015.

"Wouldn't it be nice to travel to the far reaches of your kingdom, and to do it in this lifetime?  Want to connect your population centers so they can share resources?  Why not build roads?"  ...Roads will debut in February 2016!!!

"New 6-region Primeval map in a land known as Star-Point.  Each of 5 players start in a region that is separated by impassable terrain that meets in the center region controlled by the Humans"  ...Available this April.

"Introducing the 'Kingdom of the Horse-men".  A centaur race that has a affinity for the desert.  Their muscular horse-like bodies offer great mobility and unusual battle tactics.  On their top half sits a mutant humanoid form that even those with the highest constitution would find sickening to look at.  Be the first to play the Horse-men."  ...Coming in June 2016.

Our fall lineup includes new spells, a 9-point race alignment scale, and new population center buildings.

etc...  etc...


Now, that would be awesome and exciting...

Ugh!

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

I'd be good with just more variations to how the game starts (otherwise still using the same Cycle 2 rules) which would keep things "interesting" and fresh for me.
I'd like to see:

1) Crowded: More games where all 15 kingdoms are used (not just 12)

2) Jumpstart: A 10 player game where all 10 kingdoms start with their home region already fully controlled (they have ALL PCs in their home region; nobody starts with a PC anywhere else) with the exception of the two middlemost cities Avalon and Zarathon which remain Human controlled at the start; thus everyone has only 1 starting city). No Turn 4 restrictions (like buying HP). It's "go time" right out of the gate.

3) Scatter: Your 4 starting PCs are randomly placed "anywhere" on the Alamaze map for Turn 0 (except City squares obviously) with no reference to traditional starting regions nor any relation to one another. For example, the Dwarf capital could be KH, other town is RT, first village is EB, and second village is XY. So you actually have no idea where anyone else is at the start of the game.

4) Enemy Mine: Natural Enemy statuses are removed OR on Turn 0, Natural Enemy statuses are randomized (The Elves natural enemy may be the Black Dragons instead of the Dark Elves for that game) OR you start with one random Ally and one random Natural Enemy (and the Ally is permanent for the game just like the Natural Enemy).

5) Region Rotation: The traditional PC starting locations are randomly changed to reflect another kingdom's PC starting locations (the Giant might start where the Ranger would traditionally start and the Underworld might start where the Witchlord would normally start).

6) Power-up: All Wizards start one level higher. All Adepts advanced to P1 at start of game. All starting brigades and fleet sizes are doubled for each kingdom. Everyone starts with one HP. All agents advanced one level. Everyone starts with a random artifact (Fine or Excellent only). All starting Influences increased by 2.

Imagine combining Jumpstart and Power-up!

I know this means more programming headaches so not likely to happen but I can dream!

[unclemike]

Well, I guess with this player base, it looks like the majority wants a stable game without much change. That's ok but it's not for me. I need more to keep interested in it.

For the past week, I've been pushing Rick at the risk of angering him to enhance 3rd Cycle to be more than what he had planned but it looks like he knows his customer base better than I.

I'm just the opposite on all of this. I need new maps with every release along with something brand new like Void terrain which can't be crossed (residual effect from a wizard war). So a region like the Southern Sands may only be reached by teleportation.

I also asked to drop spell density in favor of creating new combat spells because I'm bored as heck with earthquake. I would rather cast something new like ice torrent or disintegrate that were deadly in experimental game 300.

Even more important than those is to offer new actionable commands for players to choose from. For example, I pushed for more building effects, seapower items (like greek fire), and special gear that may be constructed for troops (like mithril armor or fire arrows). I loved how Age of Empires and other successful strategy games offered players several different actionable items to choose from that dramatically affected a player's strategy.

For example, if wizard tower level I increased adept's promotion, tower II emitted a ward popcenter every turn, and tower III radiated a demonic visions in the region, players would have to choose how to spend their gold to defend their region: (1) construct multiple buildings for effects, (2) create special gear for troops/seapower, or (3) recruit a ton of troops.

Offering new actionable commands like these would enhance the strategy aspect of the game and become a completely different experience than 2nd Cycle. Which was my main argument: create an entirely new playing experience than 1st or 2nd Cycle so that players would have greater enjoyment with more options in the new version. But if people want a stable game without much difference than what they're used to then I was wrong about all of this.

I guess I'll go back to just writing the software for this game than trying to help make things better...

[HeadHoncho]

I really don't think it's a monolithic player base, UM. Some of your ideas sound great, and I think all of us love new content. The key in my own personal opinion is to work out the kinks and communicate the rules and changes, and get to a stable release which we all get to play and enjoy for a period of time.

[Lord Diamond]

I like almost all of the suggestions floated by Frost Lord, Imperial Tark, and Unlclemike and have argued for variations on some of them for years.

All I've ever really wanted were OPTIONS and VARIETY in pretty much everything but my love life; I'm a one woman man these days, which is a huge improvement over the years when I was a no-woman man.

[Madmardigan]

I like almost all of the suggestions floated by Frost Lord, Imperial Tark, and Unlclemike and have argued for variations on some of them for years.

All I've ever really wanted were OPTIONS and VARIETY in pretty much everything but my love life; I'm a one woman man these days, which is a huge improvement over the years when I was a no-woman man.

I'm on board with LD here.   
Variety is the spice of life after all.

Well, everything except that part about women 

[Kellenved]

I like almost all of the suggestions floated by Frost Lord, Imperial Tark, and Unlclemike and have argued for variations on some of them for years.

All I've ever really wanted were OPTIONS and VARIETY in pretty much everything but my love life; I'm a one woman man these days, which is a huge improvement over the years when I was a no-woman man.

I'm on board with LD here.   
Variety is the spice of life after all.

Well, everything except that part about women 

I like the suggestions, but there has to be a balance between innovation and stability. Heck, we all saw the thinning of the player base due to the changes in 2nd cycle which--rightly or wrongly--folks disagreed with. 3rd cycle needs to be recognizably Alamaze. Leave the radical changes and different experience for Kingdoms of Arcania.

[unclemike]

I'm actually surprised a bit with so many wanting things to remain as they are rather than desiring new content. If the majority really feels that way then this community would probably be better off with a slower developer like we had before than someone like me. No hard feelings or anything, I'm just trying to gauge the amount of effort that it takes to make the game better with new features to do in the game compared to catering to a small population of people. In other words, I'm not going to kill myself by working hard on developing new concepts if the players don't really want them around. As a gamer, I'm used to having things go the opposite direction, of needing new stuff all the time or people will leave due to boredom or try something else. Oh, I'll stick around to finish 3rd Cycle, don't worry about that but perhaps my time would be better off developing a completely new game like Rick mentioned about offering a WWIII, scifi or other game...

[unclemike]

To help clarify what I mean by that is that I was thinking of proposing a campaign-like game to Rick where the results of one game flow into the next one in order to attract more players who like to be more involved with their gaming than just a one-off, closed-ended type of game. So for something like the WWII/III game, have the battles that were successful in one game affect certain factors going into the next game that's run on a different map, different field units, different actions to take, and so on as an open-ended game. But after reading some of the player's opinions on this thread, that new concept of having a campaign-style game probably won't work with the Alamaze crowd but should do well with other types that would love something like that.

[HeadHoncho]

I haven't seen a single lukewarm post about the Choosing, Mike. Every post I've read has been very excited and positive.

We like new content. The point is that some of us ALSO like a stable platform, a consistent rule set, and the type of award-winning game design that Rick is known for.