I NEED your Response

[uncledarkseid]

You may need to change the game winning to three regions instead of five.
This should help keep lizard men kingdoms from not doing one thing above getting their region from winning by status points.
I think getting rid of status points should help too. You can actually win this war game simply by building up pop centers.
Too many times i have watched games sit until turn 15 before ANYONE attacks another kingdom.
whatever you can do to get this back to a war game, the better. Except please don’t attack my SO before 20, I need time to build.

[Zar@shand]

My concern is that this will take a hell of a lot of work to get right. If you change such a fundamental part of the game it will clearly have a knock on effect of other parts and the time to redesign and rebalance is unknown.

I don't necessarily think that having a gold cost tried to emissary/agent orders is a problem. I think the problem is that at game start you have a pot of gold, but no real ongoing gold income. It is very tough especially for a new player to turn that into a regular income that allows you to use all or at least most of your characters. Would something a simple as halving the cost of emissary/agent orders or increasing your starting gold income have a similar effect? I also think there should be a consequence to losing your pc's. I don't like the idea of someone sitting in a sanctuary with no income using 20 characters a turn, with no way to eliminate them.

Edit.
Similar to uncledarkseid above, if you do make changes I would rather see the game become more of a game that is won through war and not through building. By that I mean that conquests should deliver the greatest rewards, as it is the most difficult thing to achive.

[unclemike]

Well, there are both pros and cons to all of this but whatever is decided, make this as an option for the game and not mandatory for all games moving forward. A major change like this could end up unbalancing everything, so let's make it an option in the Game Queue.

We also need to consider the possibility that former players may return to sample the “new” Alamaze and if you change too much for them, they’ll bail. So, making all of this as an option would be better than standard policy moving forward.

I remember back when I first started playing Alamaze, troop maintenance cost was overtly complex for me. Not only do I have to pay the cost of recruiting troops, but also pay them every turn and figure all of that out when filling out my orders. That added a complexity to the game that I didn’t need as a newcomer.

To make the game more appealing to new players, I say reduce it more than just not paying gold cost for figures. Gut major features like: no High Council, no Seapower, no Companion troops, etc. We’ve already done some of that for the Tutorial where there is no Seapower actions, or map regional bonuses, and other things to greatly simplify the game.

Since the Tutorial is pretty much as stripped down as you can get, I guess an experiment would be to start off with the simplified Tutorial and add features that you think are necessary. Try to achieve what would be the absolute minimum regarding the number and type of game features, mechanics, and kingdom actions.

So, rather than voting on a single issue on this thread (of not paying gold cost for figures), start with the Tutorial and add what you feel is necessary for newcomers to enjoy. This endeavor could be as simple as just moving the Tutorial version, with some minor additions, to the newer version of the game and you're done...

[Wookie Panz]

Well, there are both pros and cons to all of this but whatever is decided, make this as an option for the game and not mandatory for all games moving forward. A major change like this could end up unbalancing everything, so let's make it an option in the Game Queue.

We also need to consider the possibility that former players may return to sample the “new” Alamaze and if you change too much for them, they’ll bail. So, making all of this as an option would be better than standard policy moving forward.

I remember back when I first started playing Alamaze, troop maintenance cost was overtly complex for me. Not only do I have to pay the cost of recruiting troops, but also pay them every turn and figure all of that out when filling out my orders. That added a complexity to the game that I didn’t need as a newcomer.

To make the game more appealing to new players, I say reduce it more than just not paying gold cost for figures. Gut major features like: no High Council, no Seapower, no Companion troops, etc. We’ve already done some of that for the Tutorial where there is no Seapower actions, or map regional bonuses, and other things to greatly simplify the game.

Since the Tutorial is pretty much as stripped down as you can get, I guess an experiment would be to start off with the simplified Tutorial and add features that you think are necessary. Try to achieve what would be the absolute minimum regarding the number and type of game features, mechanics, and kingdom actions.

So, rather than voting on a single issue on this thread (of not paying gold cost for figures), start with the Tutorial and add what you feel is necessary for newcomers to enjoy. This endeavor could be as simple as just moving the Tutorial version, with some minor additions, to the newer version of the game and you're done...

I have been wondering if Mithril has been worth the extra trouble?  I don't see it's worth the effort.

[Maximus Dominus]

I'll take the opportunity, this morning, to go through and to share my thoughts with some of these most recent comments on this subject.

I voted yes but I am very afraid of unforeseen results lol.

   

Whether one places religion aside or not, as a general rule of thumb, I don't tend to find fear as a particularly sound foundation for arriving at decisions on most things in life. Yes, a certain degree of fear can be healthy. Fear, after all, is a primary mechanism which helps to keep us alive. However, nothing pertaining to playing Alamaze or making changes to Alamaze rise to the level of our very survival. The other side of the fear coin is that fear often over-influences us, and keeps us from making progress in life or in society.

There is a certain irony that inheres in being very afraid of unseen results. Change is one of the great constants and true certainties of life. To not be able to always see what the results of our decisions will be shouldn't ground us, therefore, to doing nothing. Change and decisions both carry with then a natural accompanying of risk, but it should be noted that risk also routinely carries with it a natural accompanying of reward. Additionally, being stagnant is definitely no guarantee of success.

From my perspective, and it is a perspective and an opinion that none of you have to share, Alamaze could certainly stand to benefit from further change, beyond whatever changes) that it may have endured to date. For all of the change that Alamaze has endured, thus far, when I stand back and look at it, what I see is a game that holds vast potential, yet which is woefully short of players. Without more players, how successful do you, do each of you, view Alamaze to be?

A number of months back, the Alamaze forum was on the fritz. Things got so bad at one point that forum users couldn't even stay logged in. And for quite some time, nothing was done to fix it. A wholesale lack of change facilitated the forum being neglected and riddled with problems, with the passage of time. The prospect of change carried with it the possibility of risk. Try to fix the Alamaze forum, and one possibility was that you could end up losing all of the postings that had been posted over the years in the Alamaze forum. Those of you who have been a part of the Alamaze player community and Alamaze forum community for a while, judge for yourself, now, whether trying to fix what all ailed the Alamaze forum was worth the risk that was taken.

When was the last time that any of you who use the Aamaze forum, now, were unable to stay logged in? Sure, you may not like the color of the forum, or you may prefer that Frank Frazetta art image that used to adorn the top of the Alamaze forum, but does the Alamaze forum work, now, when you try to use it? Doing nothing is frequently an illusion of safety.

Now, transition your thoughts from what the Alamaze forum used to be like, to what Alamaze, the game, is currently like, and to the current size of the overall Alamaze player base. Are you happy with it? Are you content with it? As things stand right now, do you think that Alamaze is where it needs to be, in order to get wherever you think or hope it might end up at? Back when you used to hope that someone would fix the Alamaze forum, did your hope fix it, or did someone have to take action to fix it?

You may need to change the game winning to three regions instead of five. 
This should help keep lizard men kingdoms from not doing one thing above getting their region from winning by status points.
I think getting rid of status points should help too.  You can actually win this war game simply by building up pop centers.
Too many times i have watched games sit until turn 15 before ANYONE attacks another kingdom.
whatever you can do to get this back to a war game, the better.  Except please don’t attack my SO before 20, I need time to build.

You may be right. Change might be needed. In fact, changes (plural) might be needed. In fact, changes might always be needed. Wat it boils down to is that there is always room for improvement, and various players, especially experienced veterans of the game, can see for themselves that Alamaze has room for improvement. If the game was perfectly balanced, and if nothing about the game's design, implementation, or execution was deficient or flawed, why would veteran players of many years see and sense that certain things about the game just aren't quite right? That Alamaze has been worked on for the last ten to twenty years, which is well after when Alamaze first came into existence almost forty years ago, more than amply demonstrates the getting the game to where one thinks that it should be can be an enormously elusive goal. So, do you do nothing and just hope that everything works out OK, or do you muster a sufficient degree of courage to try and attempt further changes to the game?

Virtually any game on the market, or which comes out in the future, can be made winnable. You simply set the criteria for victory, and voila! You win, and the rest of you lose. End of story. But is the win satisfying? More importantly, is the game fun? Which is more important? Winning a game, or having fun playing a game? Are they equally important, or is it a comparison of oranges and apples? Is it fun sitting and waiting for fifteen turns for players to begin attacking other kingdoms? Alamaze was intentionally designed as a game with a lengthy build-up stage. Since it was designed that way, should touching its design simply be off-limits? Is changing the design elements and components and parameters of a game that's already been designed, and redesigned, and redesigned again, and redesigned yet again, verboten? Is Alamaze's current game design a sacred cow that must be revered to the point of foreclosing all possibility of future changes to its underlying design? And how do you get the game from where it currently is to more of a war game, such as uncledarkseid envisions or hopes for, without making changes to it?

From what I have been able to perceive, thus far, experienced Alamaze players have grown accustomed to certain things being certain ways. Recently, it was Windstar, if memory serves me correctly, who sent emissaries and a military group to one of my starting towns in Game 5712. When I confronted him with casus belli and the prospect of war, if he took control of that population center, what was it that he said to me?

When I first started playing Alamaze (Maelstrom), I asked about this topic. I was told that it is common practice to do just that. 

Common practice. It was just him doing what he was used to, what everyone around him had grown used to. I had a different perspective, however. I thought that this 'common practice" was not a good practice. Our two perspectives suddenly found themselves at odds with one another. Was Alamaze suddenly any the poorer, because a new mindset and a new way of looking at things entered the equation? My mindset made Alamaze more of a war game. After all, I immediately set about changing the status quo and was adamant that Windstar's pursuing of what had long since become a "common practice" would lead to war. War!

Windstar thought about it, and then he came back with a response, and he had apparently decided that he would withdraw his military group, and then the following turn he would withdraw his emissaries. yet, I labeled that as half measures. I say all of this to underscore the fact that this proposal to eliminate gold dependency for characters in Alamaze, which is one of a lot of different changes that I proposed to Brekk over the last couple of months, isn't designed to make Alamaze less of a wargame. The reality is that there are numerous changes that would need to be made, to transform Alamaze from what it is, right now, to more of a wargame. Characters being unable to carry out hostile actions against other kingdoms does not make Alamaze a game that is more warlike. If your characters cease to function, because the game's design is predicated upon stringent adherence to gold dependency, then how does a player pursue revenge upon their enemies? Gold dependency castrates Alamaze's ability to be more warlike. Characters effectively become eunuchs, too impotent to get the job done. And what is their job? To aid the grand cause of pursuing victory over their kingdom's enemies and other players.

There's probably no one currently playing Alamaze, today, that has known Alamaze's game designer any longer than I have, and I dare say and suggest that there's no one else who uses this Alamaze forum that likes Rick McDowell or respects Rick McDowell's eye and talent for game design. That said, personally speaking, I am very strongly of the mind that Alamaze could still benefit enormously from making even more changes to its underlying design. I don't look at Alamaze through rose colored glasses. Rick McDowell is an award winning game designer. He also didn't lift a finger to fix the Aamaze forum for years on end. I know, because I kept on telling him numerous different times that the Alamaze forum needed fixing and the software upgraded to its most recent version.

The Alamaze forum in its current form, it sure does work a whole lot better than it did for a while. Yet, did you know and realize that the forum software used here has now fallen two versions behind? I do.

   

How do I know this? Because I look at things. I scrutinize things. I take into consideration that bad things could happen, whether you make changes or whether you do not make changes. I also don't tend to advocate in favor of changes that I think will likely destroy things that I love, enjoy, and/or care for. Like each of you, though, I am no seer who can foresee the future. Simultaneously, I make a conscious effort to not allow fear and uncertainty overpower my attempts to reason through possibilities and likelihoods with a sound mind. I try to ask myself whether a given proposed change holds potential to improve Alamaze for more people, rather than fewer people. And my experience in life is that various things that I propose sometimes clashes with what other people think. Even game designers. Even game programmers. Even old owners. Even new owners. Even new players. Even experienced players. Heck, sometimes, things that I propose clash with other things that I think. I try, where possible, to harmoniously reconcile competing priorities and competing ideas, concepts, and proposals.

I don't have an opinion as to whether it would be a good change or not. It would definitely enhance the power of the political/covert figures relative to status quo.

For those who don't know it, yet, luty is a very smart fellow. He has a very sharp eye. He also is no stranger to programming, and in particular, to the programming of turn-based games. And like myself and all of you, luty is no seer. He probably lacks sufficient data to make a determination of whether the proposed change in question would be good or whether it would be bad. Heck, it could be either, or it could be both, simultaneously, just in different ways.

He does recognize, as I will freely admit, that the proposed change would definitely enhance the power of political and covert figures/characters. As I understand the proposed change, it would also extend to high priestesses, and not just to agents and fanatics on the covert end of things, nor just to political emissaries/nobility that are utilized to carry out rebel and usurp missions.

While I'm at it, let me pull out a real world Alamaze example that is currently occurring in real time.

   

This example hails from Game 5663, where slow Amazon and Forgotten players have been busy, of late, conquering my kingdom. When I ask myself, is this example capable of replication in other games with other players, I arrive at the conclusion that this scenario is capable of repeating itself - but not just with me.

And in case you're wondering, most of my attempts to steal gold this turn failed. I didn't generate this image. The Alaamze game system did. I merely edited out the location of my kingdom's sanctuary.

Attacking, reducing, and eliminating other players primary sources of gold, which tend to be population centers, has long been a feature of Alamaze's game design. Rick McDowell, Alamaze's design, didn't want to release a game with his name on it that wasn't, in effect, of award-winning quality. So, what we ended up with, it would appear, is a game structured around gold dependency, one which isn't nearly as warlike as at least some Alamaze veteran players would otherwise prefer.

When I first "met" Rick McDowell, he invited me to look at Fall of Rome, and to give him my feedback on it. I did, and I criticized all kinds of of things that I encountered, saw, and interacted with. I criticized companies that I felt were taking advantage of him. I criticized numerous elements of game design that he had come up with. I kept on nitpicking his baby, Fall of Rome, for quite a while after that. And from that scrutiny and criticism, some things about Fall of Rome were changed, and some were not changed. I'm not here to force anyone to implement any changes that I propose or advocate in favor of. I'm not here because I fell in love with Alamaze the first time that I tried it, well over thirty years ago. Heck, I'm not here because I am a friend of Rick McDowell. Nor am I here to try and help ensure that Rick McDowell's other baby, Alamaze, remains intact, just as Rick von Frankenstein created it (and recreated it, and recreated it, and recreated it, yet again). I'm here, because I didn't want Alamaze to die.

I have no vested interest in ruining Alamaze, nor in destroying the game that some of you have grown attached to and love. I have pondered gold dependency in game design going back to at least when I first played Middle-earth PBM, back when it was run by Game Systems, Inc.. It's not something that I think about every day, nor every week, nor every month, nor even every year. It is, however, a subject that I didn't just walk in off the street on. When I look at games, particularly games that I play, I ask myself - over and over and over, again - what makes this game fun? I also ask myself, what about this game diminishes the fun that I could be having? What will make this game better? What would make this game worse?

All things considered, I tend to answer more questions of others than others tend to answer of my questions that I pose to them. I also concern myself with possibilities that have not yet manifested themselves - such as what will future players of Alamaze, once that have never played Alamaze before, gravitate towards and away from? What inhibits gameplay, and what facilitates gameplay? What creates or forms or constitutes obstacles or impediments to gameplay and to smooth transitions from a point of zero knowledge and understanding about a game to a point of enthusiasm and understanding of the basics of the game?

My concern is that this will take a hell of a lot of work to get right. If you change such a fundamental part of the game it will clearly have a knock on effect of other parts and the time to redesign and rebalance is unknown.
I don't necessarily think that having a gold cost tried to emissary/agent orders is a problem. I think the problem is that at game start you have a pot of gold, but no real ongoing gold income. It is very tough especially for a new player to turn that into a regular income that allows you to use all or at least most of your characters. Would something a simple as halving the cost of emissary/agent orders or increasing your starting gold income have a similar effect? I also think there should be a consequence to losing your pc's. I don't like the idea of someone sitting in a sanctuary with no income using 20 characters a turn, with no way to eliminate them.
Edit.
Similar to uncledarkseid above, if you do make changes I would rather see the game become more of a game that is won through war and not through building. By that I mean that conquests should deliver the greatest rewards, as it is the most difficult thing to achive.

Zar@shand is correct. He's absolutely correct. This proposed change may mean that it will take a hell of a lot of work to get right. Of course, it is also possible that it won't. Both are possibilities. When spells are cast by wizards, and it costs no gold for those spells to be cast, does it destroy Alamaze?

From what I have been able to discern, thus far, my first-hand experience with close to a hundred turns of experience, now, is that Alamaze remains very much intact, if gold dependency is not attached to the casting of spells by wizards. Rick McDowell's original PBM baby doesn't die a horrible flaming death, just because characters can be used, without it costing the player's kingdom gold, just to carry out orders.

Zar@shand doesn't think that gold dependency for characters is a problem. Yet, even still, he perceives there to be a problem that pertains to gold. He characterizes it as players start with a pot of gold (they do, though it's just not called a pot of gold), and that players suffer from what he characterizes as "no real ongoing gold income." He still calls into question the game's underlying design, as it relates to gold. He merely favors an alternate approach to try and "fix" what he perceives to be a flaw or deficiency in the game's current design.

He wonders aloud whether cutting the cost of emissary and/or agent orders or increasing the size of that starting pot of gold might not remedy the flaws or deficiencies that he perceives in the gold mechanics of the game, as they currently exist and manifest themselves.

Additionally, he also thinks that there should be consequences to a player losing control of their population centers. There actually still would be, even if the proposed changes to gold dependency posited by Brekk were fully implemented. When DuPont recently lost control of his kingdom's last population center in game 5684, after Brekk, himself, conquered that population center, DuPont was eliminated from that game, wasn't he? Strange that an exceedingly experienced and knowledgeable player such as DuPont didn't create a sanctuary ahead of time, to stave off being eliminated from the game, but perhaps that was a mere oversight on his part, rather than an intended or desired thing on his part, by that stage of the game's progress. Or maybe it just seems strange to me, but quite clearly, consequences to losing control of one's population centers would still exist, even if the proposed change in the game's gold dependency structure were implemented. There would also remain, if I'm not mistaken in my relative lack of experience with playing Alamaze compared to others gathered here, certain risks to moving one's characters to population centers controlled by other kingdoms, when trying to extend one's reach or influence of one's characters across the game map. or am I wrong about that?

Zar@shand goes on to underscore that if the change(s) to gold dependency mechanics is changed, he personally would prefer to see Alamaze become more structured around the concept of war, rather than the concept of building. Nevermind the fact that Alamaze's game designer deliberately designed the game to be a game where players must build up their forces from game start, and to pursue building up of their kingdom and its forces and assets for basically the entire span of the game's duration. he and I are actually in agreement, on transitioning Alamaze to a more warlike experience, though he has his own ideas about how to address what he perceives to be flaws or shortcomings in the game's current design, as it relates to gold.

I have been wondering if Mithril has been worth the extra trouble?  I don't see it's worth the effort.

A different subject, of course, but let it never be said that Dan is incapable of making an astute observation.

Or said another way, is Alamaze getting it's money's worth from the current way that its Mithril mechanics are designed and implemented? Is Mithril an under-utilized part of the game? Mithril is definitely a concept alive and well within the fantasy genre, but how vibrant of an implementation of the concept of Mithril was actually programmed into Alamaze, in accordance with the design envisioned by the game's designer? Did Rick McDowell flub the whole Mithril thing? Asking that question aloud doesn't mean that I hate Rick, or that I think any the less of him or his game design skills. Far from it, in fact. Rick didn't always like every question that I asked of him, nor every last criticism that I voiced about various aspects of game design, but what he did like and what he did value was the fact that I would question things. Even his political writings underscore the importance of thinking for yourself and of questioning the established order.

Alamaze was so much of a sacred cow that Rick McDowell changed and revised its underlying design, again, and again, and again. He tinkered with the design of Alamaze and with its underlying mechanics for decades on end. Sometimes, he would go off on what I might describe as a "fucking tangent." Alamaze's current chief programmer proposed a whole bunch of good stuff to Rick a long while back (and on more than one occasion), but Rick got this Amorica idea in his mind. Not that I hate the idea of American Indian tribes in an Alamaze setting, but I do question whether Rick's Amorica concept was better than unclemike's space setting and other concepts.

I will respond to unclemike's recent posting in a separate posting, as this response is already fairly lengthy, and the forum software likely has a limit to how long a given posting can be, and I don't want to run into that barrier, if I can avoid it.

[Maximus Dominus]

Well, there are both pros and cons to all of this but whatever is decided, make this as an option for the game and not mandatory for all games moving forward. A major change like this could end up unbalancing everything, so let's make it an option in the Game Queue.

Mike is right. This change to the game's current gold dependency mechanics could end up unbalancing everything. But that is what is known as speculation, not actual determined fact. Mike has programmed an awful lot of the stuff that collectively comprises 4th Cycle Alamaze, the Alamaze of the here and now, so he definitely doesn't want to see all of his hard work go to waste.

Of course, it's well worth being cognizant of, and remaining cognizant of, the fact that everything in Alamaze isn't currently balanced, as it is. It simply isn't, whether one likes being confronted with that news of the obvious or not. In fact, some things can't be balanced against one another, for in some instances, you're dealing with apples and oranges of game design elements. It should also be noted that game balance isn't the end all of game design. Certainly, it is a worthwhile and valuable consideration, but in game design, game implementation, and game execution, there are (and always have been) what are known as competing priorities and competing considerations. You don't always get to have your cake and eat it, too, where game design is concerned.

Mike proposes to make changes to the current gold dependency scheme an option. I could certainly abide that. Of course, increasing the number of options for the creation of new games is not without potential risks or consequences, either. It holds the potential to further increase the possibility that more games with less players will be created. That's something to be considered, also, but if you make it an option, whether you advertise that option or not aside, undoing the proposed change(s) to the gold dependency mechanics would allow for reverting back to the current way of doing things, should that eventually become desired, again.

Then again, since the cost for character orders can be zeroed out within the programming, resulting in a cost of zero for certain characters to carry out certain orders, it is doubtful what the proposed changes to the gold dependency mechanics necessarily has to involve a considerable undertaking, in and of itself, as currently envisioned.

We also need to consider the possibility that former players may return to sample the “new” Alamaze and if you change too much for them, they’ll bail. So, making all of this as an option would be better than standard policy moving forward.

Absolutely. I agree 100% with Mike that former players may return to sample the "new" Alamaze, and if you change too much for them, they'll bail. Then again, the bailing portion has already transpired, hasn't it? And how long has it been, now, since they bailed on Alamaze? A few weeks? A couple of months? years, even? Yeah, they might return, one day. And just like some returned, previously, and found that their First Cycle Alamaze had become 2nd Cycle, or 3rd Cycle, or even 4th Cycle Alamaze, future returning players to Alamaze may bemoan the fact that their particular flavor of Alamaze has not remained stagnant and unchanging, just as it had not remained stagnant and unchanging when the returned the last time, or the time before that.

I remember back when I first started playing Alamaze, troop maintenance cost was overtly complex for me. Not only do I have to pay the cost of recruiting troops, but also pay them every turn and figure all of that out when filling out my orders. That added a complexity to the game that I didn’t need as a newcomer.

The issue, of course, isn't just and only about complexity. There is also the functionality conundrum associated with scenarios that develop over the course of playing the game, where some players' gold situation becomes problematic, and directly impacts both their ability to remain competitive within the game, and their desire to even bother with continue attempting to play. But hey, players suffering from gold shortages to the degree where it impairs their ability to issue orders to their characters could always just drop the game, right? Anybody have any statistics or experience in how games of Alaamze are affected, when players drop out of playing? Or is the potential for contributing to player dropouts something that should even be considered, where this particular gold dependency issue is concerned?

To make the game more appealing to new players, I say reduce it more than just not paying gold cost for figures. Gut major features like: no High Council, no Seapower, no Companion troops, etc. We’ve already done some of that for the Tutorial where there is no Seapower actions, or map regional bonuses, and other things to greatly simplify the game.

So, much broader changes to the game's current design and mechanics is desired by the game's chief programmer? But wouldn't broader changes than what's proposed, but cautioned about, also carry with it considerable risk and chance that any returning former Alamaze players of old might not like broader changes beyond what's being currently proposed with the gold dependency change(s) that Brekk has brought to the table?

And is it possible and conceivable that broader changes also carry with them risks of negatively impacting game balance, and also risk unbalancing this "everything" of which Mike previously spoke and warned about?

Since the Tutorial is pretty much as stripped down as you can get, I guess an experiment would be to start off with the simplified Tutorial and add features that you think are necessary. Try to achieve what would be the absolute minimum regarding the number and type of game features, mechanics, and kingdom actions.

There is no truth, whatsoever, in the assertion that the Alamaze Tutorial is "pretty much as stripped down as you can get." That statement is utterly preposterous. The Tutorial in its current incarnation is a sloppily crafted exercise in failure writ large. The new owner has already told me that most players never even bother to finish the tutorial. There is no proof, whatsoever, that the Tutorial is pretty much as stripped down as you can get. It sure as hell isn't as stripped down as I could get. Maybe the truth is that it's was stripped down as Mike wants to get. I didn't create the current Tutorial, nor do I have an undue emotional attachment to whatever work and effort went into its creation.

That said, there are things about Alamaze and its interface and its design that I not only like, but which I like quite a lot. I like the Ready button concept, and I also know where it originated, which was in Fall of Rome and with Centurion and its idea development.

The Tutorial presently isn't well-written. It is verbosity unleashed upon unsuspecting newcomers! It engenders confusion. It's boring as fuck. It's not that it is entirely devoid of any and all value. Rather, it's what's known as a lemon. Me? I love good, homemade lemonade. But I still know a lemon when I see one. Unbridled loyalty to an existing design does Alamaze and its player community no favors.

Are we all to literally believe that the Alamaze Tutorial in its current form cannot possible be improved upon? I believe that it can be. In fact, I think that a whole new direction is needed. Tutorials and player inculcation, in fact, could benefit from a rethink, a new approach, and a redesign. The current Tutorial is unquestionably one of the single biggest failures in Alamaze's entire arsenal of tricks to grow the Alamaze player base with new players.

So, rather than voting on a single issue on this thread (of not paying gold cost for figures), start with the Tutorial and add what you feel is necessary for newcomers to enjoy. This endeavor could be as simple as just moving the Tutorial version, with some minor additions, to the newer version of the game and you're done...

Oh, my Lord! To borrow from Scalia's writings, this is worthy of the mad hatter.

Just as simple as moving the Tutorial, and with some minor additions, you're done. Just like that, huh?

Nothing quite like simplicity, is there? There is a certain admonishment against the embrace of simplicity that comes to mind, whenever I encounter the advocacy by others of how simple that something is or can be. It's this one:

   

Unfortunately, the actual reality that Alamaze finds itself in gives rise to credible possibility that a couple of shakes of simplicity from Mike's shaker of convenience just isn't likely to cut the mustard, as far as turning around Alamaze's current and longstanding predicament of an underwhelming player population of the game is concerned.

Just as your well-intentioned prior rulebook evangelism proved to be well off the mark, where trying to learn how to play Alamaze is concerned, likewise, you're wrong on this, as well. Reading the entire 4th Cycle Rulebook is, in fact, not necessary at all, for new players to transition into the game and to begin having fun playing Alamaze - and never, ever was. Any such theories have already been disproved.

Just as the entirety of Alamaze is not and was not a sacred cow that the game's designer wouldn't tinker with, likewise, the Alamaze Tutorial is no sacred cow, either. One of the surest signs that it is a failure is that most people who have tried to use it never bothered to finish it. And that is my understanding, based upon what Alamaze's new owner previously told me via e-mail. If I am mistaken on that particular point, then Brekk can certainly correct me.

And if most people who have tried the Alamaze Tutorial never bothered to finish it, then it can't simply be assumed that they learned everything that the very same tutorial was designed and implemented to teach them. Perhaps they learned elsewhere whatever they missed from abandoning the Tutorial mid-way through, or perhaps they simply said to heck with it, and bailed on Alamaze, altogether. If the latter is true, then that they bailed on Alaamze mid-way through the tutorial does not speak well - nor bode well - for the Tutorial in its current form.

Of course, I'm not inclined towards having blind faith in the Alamaze Tutorial, to begin with. Rather, I approach it with the same willingness to scrutinize and to look under the hood as I do everything else that pertains to Alamaze. If the desire and the objective is to improve Alamaze, where possible, then why wouldn't one scrutinize even such basics as the Alamaze Tutorial, itself? I'm not aware of any actual reason of substance as to why the Alamaze Tutorial should be given a free pass from scrutiny.

[luty]

Here's something that would be a pretty major investment, but that might pay off. If someone could build a competent AI player - not necessarily an absolutely optimized winning machine, but something that can read a kingdom's status, assign reasonable priorities, and issue a set of coherent, nonrandom orders that advance the kingdom's position - then it would be relatively straightforward to experiment with changing elements of the game and gauging balance. You could implement a change ("assassination now costs 10x as much, and building fleets is free") and then run many many games of AI-vs-AI to look at outcomes from that, much faster than purely human playtesting would run.

You'd still need human playtesting to fine-tune, of course.

An AI opponent - or even a suite of them, with different performance characteristics - also could potentially increase engagement from humans, since you could get a viable game going quicker without having to wait for 12 people.

[unclemike]

Maximus, why all the personal attacks and criticism of those of us who posted on this thread? We're just posting ideas. No need to jump off the top rope and go ballistic on us. Just about every comment from you was criticism, some of which were a bit nasty. Tone it down please or don't bother posting. It's not helpful...

In case anyone is interested, the reason why some newcomers drop out of the tutorial is because they are bots and not actual people. Bots not only create accounts for themselves, but also sign up and start the tutorial! This is why many tutorial games don't finish. Some are obvious like SecondHandAppliances, TechworksTalent, PoolGearAustralia, CanadianEquityLoans, etc. Others we can tell by the email address and such. So, please don't form an opinion that the tutorial is unpopular due to the drops caused by bots.

Luty, regarding your A.I. request, we actually tried to incorporate such as a sample game. The A.I. would play the other side in a two-player game, but it didn't work out that well and we went towards the two-player Duel format. However, if Brek wants, we could add a helpful tool of sorts that for every turn, the A.I. simulator could suggest possible moves. Like in a Chess simulator to help new players learn the game or to do better. Or something like that paper clip popup in Microsoft Word that's annoying as can be...

I guess anything is possible. Please keep the suggestions and ideas coming and we'll see what we can do, but no more criticisms of people's posts. That will only cause them to hold back on their ideas, which is not what we are asking.

[Brekk]

Hey everyone,

I'd like to echo Mike's sentiments and encourage us all to consider different perspectives. We're well aware that Alamaze has room for improvements and adjustments. Mike and I are already looking ahead to what the next release could bring, and that's why I wanted to share some ideas for you all to weigh in on and vote for or provide feedback.

I want to make it clear that my goal for Alamaze is to transform it into a more strategic wargame with intense political dynamics and secret agents. Alamaze already has all the necessary elements, as its very existence proves. My vision isn't simply about simplifying the game; it's about introducing changes that might be a bit challenging at first but could turn out to be exciting and unique. And don't worry, if we ever make a change that completely messes things up, we have backups for that very reason.

I've heard some mention of ESO, and while I appreciate what they bring to the table, I also understand the frustration they can cause with long game stalls. So, here's a thought: instead of status points, what if you earned points over time as you conquer, eliminate opponents, engage in espionage, etc., say every three turns, similar to how ESO functions? This would encourage more active engagement and prevent players from just sitting idly by while their neighbors grow stronger.

I don't want to overwhelm anyone with my ideas, though. My plan is to compile a list of potential changes and share it with all of you for feedback. Let's remember to keep the discussions respectful and constructive. Play nice, please.

John

[Maximus Dominus]

Maximus, why all the personal attacks and criticism of those of us who posted on this thread? We're just posting ideas. No need to jump off the top rope and go ballistic on us. Just about every comment from you was criticism, some of which were a bit nasty. Tone it down please or don't bother posting. It's not helpful...

In case anyone is interested, the reason why some newcomers drop out of the tutorial is because they are bots and not actual people. Bots not only create accounts for themselves, but also sign up and start the tutorial! This is why many tutorial games don't finish. Some are obvious like SecondHandAppliances, TechworksTalent, PoolGearAustralia, CanadianEquityLoans, etc. Others we can tell by the email address and such. So, please don't form an opinion that the tutorial is unpopular due to the drops caused by bots.

Luty, regarding your A.I. request, we actually tried to incorporate such as a sample game. The A.I. would play the other side in a two-player game, but it didn't work out that well and we went towards the two-player Duel format. However, if Brek wants, we could add a helpful tool of sorts that for every turn, the A.I. simulator could suggest possible moves. Like in a Chess simulator to help new players learn the game or to do better. Or something like that paper clip popup in Microsoft Word that's annoying as can be...

I guess anything is possible. Please keep the suggestions and ideas coming and we'll see what we can do, but no more criticisms of people's posts. That will only cause them to hold back on their ideas, which is not what we are asking.

Just now getting back to this thread and reading this.

I haven't "gone ballistic" on anyone. You certainly remain as defensive as you've always been. Of course, you were criticized for that numerous times, before I ever came back to Alamaze.

A lot of what ails Alamaze can be chalked up to a lack of criticism. Things have been allowed to slide. Otherwise, a security issue would have been in place for a decade or more.

Certainly, I can withhold criticism, and I can certainly refrain from even bothering with responding to your postings, specifically. That you choose to take criticisms of things that you post, or of things that you have created in Alamaze, personally, that's on you. If what people post cannot be criticized, then flaws in their postings and in their reasoning will be afforded a free pass that does Alamaze no good. That's a recipe for failure.