Exploits

[Drogo]

Rick, you should feel free to disregard any suggestions but I don't see the percentage in discouraging them.

To be fair you also ask for player feedback as often as you complain about unsolicited suggestions so that may be sending us some mixed signals

[Ohman the heartless]

RyVor
No one wants to leave Alamaze, I am sure. All we want is fair input. Bad exploits are terrible, but so are rash fixes!

[Ry Vor]

I think I am about done with this. 

There was a question on what other company has even tried to improve their game over the last five years.  No answer. 

If players think I shouldn't decide what is best for Alamaze, the end is neigh.  I have always, as in 30 years, been more receptive to player input than any other purveyor of PBEM. That is not in dispute.

I am really disappointed with players wanting to perpetuate abuses that they uncovered.  Not what I thought of as our player community mentality.

[Ohman the heartless]

You may ban me for this last comment. That is your right! We are not asking to perpetuate anything that is not for the betterment of the game. Your game!! But, as paying customers I feel WE are entitled to a reasonable conversation. You established these forums as a means to do that. I understand you are reading many, many different posts. None of these are attacking this game. None are defending the exploits. We all agree they need to me removed now. That issue has never been disputed by any of the posts I have written, or read. But, as I believe you have said, this forum should not be used for personal venting, and for you to express DISAPPOINTMENT for wanting to perpetuate abuses, when NO ONE has disputed any of the 3 exploits is unbusinesslike and unprofessional.

[Ry Vor]

I'm not in it for the business. 

I'm in it for creating the most complete, strategic, fantasy-setting multi-player game on Earth.

[Jumpingfist]

I think I am about done with this. 

There was a question on what other company has even tried to improve their game over the last five years.  No answer. 

If players think I shouldn't decide what is best for Alamaze, the end is neigh.  I have always, as in 30 years, been more receptive to player input than any other purveyor of PBEM.  That is not in dispute.  

I am really disappointed with players wanting to perpetuate abuses that they uncovered.  Not what I thought of as our player community mentality.

Seriously you are calling out the players?   How are we suppose to know what items are and are not abuses?  All 3 of the items listed have been mentioned on the forum before and it was not commented that it is abusive.   Nobody really had an issue with you deciding these items were abusive but now you are shaming players.  I am disappointed in you for this.  

I am sorry for trying to help you make YOUR game better.  I will climb back in my forum rabbit hole now

An example have you read your 320 order?   Are we really suppose to know not to do specifically what it tells us we can?

1. #320 INCITE REBELLION IN POPULATION CENTER - This order directs a specified political emissary (not the king) to attempt to incite rebellion in the non-neutral population center in which he is based. The chance of success is dependent upon many factors, including: the emissary's rank; the regional reaction; the size of the population center; the king's influence; any emissary's status quo efforts; capital status of population center, and a small random chance modifier (+-10%, ie: a Count might act as either a Baron or Duke). If successful, the population center will immediately rebel and declare its neutrality. A king may automatically relinquish control of any population center under his control, except his capital, by using this order with any of his political emissaries: the normal criteria for success are not considered. If the king presently in control of the target population center is in control of the region, there is a 15% Negative modification to the chance of inciting rebellion. There is a 15% positive modification if the influence level of the controlling king is only minor. There is a 15% positive modifier if the controlling king has a hostile reaction in the region, and a 15% negative modifier if the reaction level is friendly. Cities will be approximately 25% more difficult to Incite Rebellion. There is a player resource available in Helpful Charts where a player can gauge his chances of success by entering the known factors. Stir Unrest in effect makes Incite Rebellion and Usurp Control easier to achieve. 
   

[VballMichael]

320 by itself is not the abuse. 320 plus ensuing 150 repeat is the abuse. No village would keep doing that. But how stop the abuse without a correction?

[unclemike]

Everyone, the points that you're making are good and the game can advance in a number of ways when trying to solve these issues but also consider that we discussed many of these concepts privately while we were investigating what approach is best for the game.

Rick as the creator and designer of the game has decided to go the route of limiting trades to 100k per transaction and only once per kingdom in a turn. Not just for single player games but also teams. Even though he's not fully explaining his reasoning but such a change may be an attempt to move team games in another direction where you cannot easily cannibalize a kingdom in favor of another for the sake of improving the overall competition among players.

For example, a player mentioned that he likes to send food from two kingdoms to favor a third in team games. Well, have you considered that these new trade restrictions are meant to slow down that abundance of food in the attempt to prevent building up an uber military that dominates others? Much like how the Jan 2017 changes are meant to slow down the dominance of wizard kingdoms in having their way?

All of you are only considering the fact that we're addressing the issue of exploits but Rick has to consider more than that when he makes a decision on something like this. He's also considering the overall design of the game and if there are any other potential issues to resolve at the same time. Or it could be simply that he wants to take the game in another direction (like slowing down the artificial buildup of a kingdom in team games). That may have been an issue on his mind to address later on but decided to include the change along with the fixes to the exploit situation. None of you are considering any of this whenever a change is made. I'm aware of it because I have behind the scenes knowledge but Rick really does consider a lot more than people are giving him credit for.

So there's quite a few factors involved here and even though people may be used to trading unlimited amounts any number of times (like a child having full access to the cookie jar), now things have changed where the result may achieve greater competition and fairer gameplay in Alamaze.

I'd say, let's give it a try before saying such a change is unbearable in a game. Who knows, after a while, all of you may end up loving the new trading rules on how it challenges you and balances the game among kingdoms.

[Drogo]

This makes sense of course but can you explain the reasoning behind the 732 sea crossing fix? That just does not seem to do what it was intended to do and that does seem like something that the players caught. Maybe I'm missing something and it was considered a purposeful. Can you or Rick speak to this?

In any event I'll reiterate my feeling that it makes a ton of sense to ignore and/or overrule players suggestions but it doesn't make sense to discourage us from sharing thoughts and asking questions. I think it's generally a testament to the product and not a criticism of it.

[Hawk_]

I must say I felt completely in character when I 320d a pop center with an evil kingdom and then turned around and attacked it.  I have doing this way back into 2nd cycle to train leaders and sometimes hunt enemy agents.

I am fine with the new changes also.  Just never felt I was cheating.