Exploits

[Ry Vor]

Ry Vor
    Simply change the rules in the published downloadable version to reflect these changes.  I got angry in that I had my orders completed, and saved the day I received them.  Had I been unable to review them, then 3 positions orders would have failed to be corrected.
   Also, if reading this forum for updates is required to play the game correctly, then that should be noted prominently on the turn report or some other readily available source for new players.  Just a 40 year game players opinion.  And, yes this is by far the BEST turn based game on the market.  Thanks for listening to my rant.

We all have our moments.  I think we do note prominently, from the initial welcome email on, that the forum is a vital (as in actually, really vital) part of playing Alamaze.  It has been very hard for us to attract Millennials, but I believe we have a few like Atuan and Tomag. 

If everyone could get your friend involved, that would be splendid.  Don't forget the competely free DUEL: play with your buddy, show him Alamaze, neither of you pays anything.  We could have Alamaze forever.  And, shall we whisper, "Kingdoms of Arcania"?

[admin]

I've asked Charles (Suspense & Decision) and others to let me know what other "major"  PBEM's have done in the last five years to improve their game experience.  Have no answers.

Hmmm......Well, since I'm Charles, and since I am the one who publishes Suspense & Decision magazine, I'm quite happy to try and respond, even though I don't recall off the top of my head that exact question from you, Rick (and I've fielded quite a number of questions from you in the many years that I have known you and interacted with you). Of course, in fairness, there's probably been questions posed to me down through the years that I don't even remember.

I started typing up a response at length to you, here in this thread, but then I got to thinking, why not just make an article out of it in either Issue #15 or Issue #16 of Suspense & Decision magazine, since you injected the magazine into your response, above.

The submission deadline for Issue #15 is only four days away, and I've already written one article for Issue #15. Not sure if time constraints will allow me the opportunity to write another article for Issue #15 along these lines, but maybe I can get one done. We'll see.

Since you're interested in the answer to the question about the last five years, perhaps others will be, as well.

[RELLGAR]

Please explain to me why the sale of an artifact, or the ransoming of am emissary in the same turn is an exploit.  I totally agree with the exploits outlined above should be addressed.  But the limitation to 1 trade only between the same kingdoms seems a little excessive to me.  Why should I have to wait 3 turns to ransom 3 different emissaries if I have the gold, and the prisoner holding kingdom is in agreement.  Tides of war change, and if the enemy of my enemy wants to return the emissaries he captures from that same enemy to me all in the same turn, why is that an exploit.  Convince me please!

You make one trade with a given kingdom per turn.  If this was basically any other board, PC, or PBEM game among humans, they certainly wouldn't have allowed it.  And its clearly an exploit.  "Send me 100,000 gold in trade and I will send you back 125,000 for your artifact.  Trade me again the same trade.  We just made a fortune."

Come on.   Trick of the Trade is not supposed to be Alamaze's Channel / Fireball.  You can make maybe 25,000 extra gold per turn when you have your rails greased.  That's what it's intended to be at maximum, not some really bad form.

Yes so why not program a maximum cap of 100k is affected by the ToT bonus.  Not the 1 order a turn per kingdom  for all 200 order's? Can this be done Mike?
It makes much more sense while fixing the problem.

[Wookie Panz]

Please explain to me why the sale of an artifact, or the ransoming of am emissary in the same turn is an exploit.  I totally agree with the exploits outlined above should be addressed.  But the limitation to 1 trade only between the same kingdoms seems a little excessive to me.  Why should I have to wait 3 turns to ransom 3 different emissaries if I have the gold, and the prisoner holding kingdom is in agreement.  Tides of war change, and if the enemy of my enemy wants to return the emissaries he captures from that same enemy to me all in the same turn, why is that an exploit.  Convince me please!

You make one trade with a given kingdom per turn.  If this was basically any other board, PC, or PBEM game among humans, they certainly wouldn't have allowed it.  And its clearly an exploit.  "Send me 100,000 gold in trade and I will send you back 125,000 for your artifact.  Trade me again the same trade.  We just made a fortune."

Come on.   Trick of the Trade is not supposed to be Alamaze's Channel / Fireball.  You can make maybe 25,000 extra gold per turn when you have your rails greased.  That's what it's intended to be at maximum, not some really bad form.

Yes so why not program a maximum cap of 100k is affected by the ToT bonus.  Not the 1 order a turn per kingdom  for all 200 order's? Can this be done Mike?
It makes much more sense while fixing the problem.

The Trick of the trade will take two turns to complete the trade cycle now.  The first turn the trader trades to the player with the trick. They each use a trade order.  The second turn the ToT player returns 1/2 the profit plus the investment for next turn back to the trader.  So you split the max, 25k gold between two players over two turns and you make 6k a turn each.  I'm not complaining, just saying that is what the trick will do for you now.

[Jumpingfist]

These changes do not seem to be thought out changes but more reactionary. I do not understand the sudden urgency, great to see your looking to fix bugs though. I know I have sent to support a few potential bugs I can see happening but basically get blown off or have to read some excuse.
-Tot was brought up during the betas that this exact thing could and would likely happen
-intercepting across sea zones and the emissaries have been there since I can remember and mentioned multiple times in the forums.
Personally I see no issues with the emmisary rebelling it's own PC. But if it is decided to be an issue so be it.

As for the solutions
ToT - why not make it a net bonus. So after all trades are done 200-215 then calculate the total gain / loss of the orders and apply the ToT bonus. This way in any one turn only the ToT kingdom gets the benefit and if he chooses to trade some of his gain the next turn he will miss out. Perhaps even limit the amount to 50 bonus (first 200k net extra) But do not limit the amounts traded. In the later game high amounts are going to want to be traded naturally as a course of game play. I would say many more issues and annoyances to players are likely to come up by limiting trades to 1 per turn.

Intercept - the solution is flawed. You can still intercept enemy groups across sea zones. Say someone is keeping a brigade at Avalon or viperhead to block emmisary movement. Not an enemy army group can jump across the water but your own units could not. This needs a real fix that is why I mentioned it for the upcoming game. A quick fix that does not resolve the issue and creates a new one is not good

Emmisary 310 vs owned PCs. There are already 2 other ways to do this 240 and 3x 560. Both give you a benefit but cost you control of the PC. 240 a chance to loose RR. I have always looked at the emmisary as a cost of orders but no extra gain way to do this same thing. Perhaps still allow it but make it at normal difficulty including natural bonuses(reagion control, traits, reaction level). So you must at least send a capable Emmy not just an ambassador. I believe the bug comes in if someone is using it to train troops but I would say they are already paying the price in 10% less production per attack and 10-30% troop loss for the chance at promotion.

If I find time later tonight I will post other items I feel are bug or broken.

[RELLGAR]

These changes do not seem to be thought out changes but more reactionary.   I do not understand the sudden urgency, great to see your looking to fix bugs though.  I know I have sent to support a few potential bugs I can see happening but basically get blown off or have to read some excuse.  
-Tot was brought up during the betas that this exact thing could and would likely happen
-intercepting across sea zones and the emissaries have been there since I can remember and mentioned multiple times in the forums.  
Personally I see no issues with the emmisary rebelling it's own PC.   But if it is decided to be an issue so be it.  

As for the solutions
ToT -  why not make it a net bonus.  So after all trades are done 200-215 then calculate the total gain / loss of the orders and apply the ToT bonus.  This way in any one turn only the ToT kingdom gets the benefit and if he chooses to trade some of his gain the next turn he will miss out.  Perhaps even limit the amount to 50 bonus (first 200k net extra) But do not limit the amounts traded.  In the later game high amounts are going to want to be traded naturally as a course of game play.   I would say many more issues and annoyances to players are likely to come up by limiting trades to 1 per turn.

Intercept - the solution is flawed.  You can still intercept enemy groups across sea zones.  Say someone is keeping a brigade at Avalon or viperhead to block emmisary movement.  Not an enemy army group can jump across the water but your own units could not.   This needs a real fix that is why I mentioned it for the upcoming game.  A quick fix that does not resolve the issue and creates a new one is not good

Emmisary 310 vs owned PCs.   There are already 2 other ways to do this 240 and 3x 560.  Both give you a benefit but cost you control of the PC.  240 a chance to loose RR.   I have always looked at the emmisary as a cost of orders but no extra gain way to do this same thing.  Perhaps still allow it but make it at normal difficulty including natural bonuses(reagion control, traits, reaction level).  So you must at least send a capable Emmy not just an ambassador.   I believe the bug comes in if someone is using it to train troops but I would say they are already paying the price in 10% less production per attack and 10-30% troop loss for the chance at promotion.

If I find time later tonight I will post other items I feel are bug or broken.

Very intelligent  analysis.  Thanks

[Ohman the heartless]

Rick is the BOSS and his word is law. Or that is basically what he told me. Truly, poorly thought about fixes don't do anything but create more problems to fix. Limit the trade amounts in a reasonable way. Say 100,000k max thru turn 10, 200,000 turns 11 thru 25, unlimited after that. These larger limit I feel are truly needed at the later stages in team games especially. If I spend monies to build 12 fleets in all 4 sea zones, and use a 711 Standing Order for them all I can net 72,000 gold per turn with no orders used. In my opinion this should be an exploit as well. The TOT has been abused, I must agree, but if the bells go off for Uncle Mike why can't he just void the trade for the offending 2 parties. Normal trades are conscious choices by each player. Fix the TOT exploit, but don't fundamentally change the game.

[Ry Vor]

I wonder what other aspect of life you can casually second guess the decisions of the people that make the coffee, so to speak.  At some point, it won't be worth the negativity. There will always be Starweb for you. One minute to learn, 30 seconds to do a turn. No confusion on what can be done. You can play a game over the course of six months with about 30 minutes total of your attention. Go ahead and try it.

Alamaze isn't for everyone.

[Drogo]

I'd rather my customers second guess and offer suggestions about my coffee then have them going to the coffee shop down the street.

Also, FWIW there were some very good points made. The fix for intercepting groups crossing seas is not a fix as JF pointed out.

[Atuan]

Rick noone wants an exploit and yes people were using TOT counter to what it was intended. Noone here is asking you not to make changes or remove exploits, however they are asking for a better solution than eliminating trades.

For example I recovered 2 of my allies emissaries. For him to receive them back with neither of us having ToT it will take 2 turns. This assumes I dont need to supply my ally with food, gold or an artifact. Now if you want to change the orders to where I can trade any number of emissaries, artifacts food/gold and high council seat all in one order that would certainly solve part of the trade issue. You still come to the part where I could have a huge military in which to feed in a warlords game I am using my other kingdoms to feed it. Now based on this change I would be limited even if I am not using ToT. This cannot be how you intend it and the issue is, while playing fairly I would now be stuck and suffering in a game in which I had properly planned out and used each kingdom to maximize its potential. I would say don't limit trades just limit the income one can gain through ToT to whatever level you are looking to limit it to. Or heck remove it all together and give the kingdom Rich or some other trait to make up for it.

I believe JF covered the issues pretty well on intercepting armies. And I agree that intercepting my own group to move across a sea is crap without the proper sea support. Just set the intercept rules to ensure the kingdom doing the intercepting has fleets or the ability to fly and you solve this.

Once again we enjoy the fact that you care about alamaze and you are willing to make changes for the better, we just want to help ensure the changes cover other loopholes or problems before they become an issue.

Sincerely,

Atuan