Thoughts on the new Update leave them here

[Ruingurth]

The new section for artifacts should also show the artifacts that you have a foreknowledge of.


R

[unclemike]

The new section for artifacts should also show the artifacts that you have a foreknowledge of.


R

Good idea. I just added it...

[Eregnon]

The new orders show zero gold for selling influence. Does that mean you no longer get 10,000 gold for selling influence? Or does it mean you can buy influence for free, then sell it for 10,000 gold?

[Brekk]

Its a loophole like others we may need to close, thank you and others for pointing it out.

Influence is an order for the king/Queen that will now no longer have a cost gold, but in the past you could sell influence for gold. So a loop was created unintentionally. Mike may have fixed it already and made it zero gold I do not know as I just got home a few minutes ago.

John

[unclemike]

Well, this topic was discussed and the argument was that since the ruler is limited to only one sole action per turn (either sell influence or increase it), the player wouldn't be able to do both every turn. It's either one or the other. There is no loophole.

Then the issue was that kingdoms would then be able to reach a 20 influence very early in the game, which is a far more impactful situation than generating an extra 10,000 gold. The argument here was that having a high influence of 20 would make it easier for new players to be more effective in rebelling/usurping popcenters (rather than failing and quitting due to frustration). Again, the goal of the release was to make the game simpler and easier for new players to enjoy.

So, let's think this through before making any knee-jerk adjustments. Would it be helpful for new players if they were able to raise their influence to 20 earlier in the game than otherwise? For free, limited to one pt per turn. Longer if they sell it for the 10 grand of gold.

Truthfully, I guess it's not much more of a factor than not paying the cost for the other things. They all kind of fall into the same category for the most part, either pay or not pay. It's a new concept for everyone to dwell upon for sure...

With that in mind, I can change the code however people feel comfortable with, but right now the code works in that the player pays 0 gold for increasing influence up to the 20 max. If selling, the kingdom receives 10,000 gold, but loses a point of influence. There is no loophole here. Either order consumes the sole action for the ruler, which limits all of this. The only exception being the Ancient Ones with 3 consuls would be the kingdom that may capitalize on the new policy, but for the others, it may be minor.

Afterall, on average, every kingdom starts with a 12 influence I think. So, that's +8 levels at 15,000 gold each results in a savings of 120,000 gold over the course of 8 turns. That's if the ruler is not needed to do other things with their sole action order like raising regional reactions, moving the capital if under attack, etc.

So, is an extra 120,000 over 8 turns really a game breaker? Let us know your opinion...

[VballMichael]

I can live with that. It is no more than a P5 wizard making 10K gold by using an action, and it really takes 2 orders because you need to get the influence back up. It does help the AN, but we all love them anyway.

I am more concerned with the Dragons now being able to destroy PCs in the water. Yes, it was bad to simply eliminate an RD group because they had no ships, but now the AT and PI cannot even defend against the flyers with ships. Being in the water was always one way to protect yourself for those kingdoms.

[Strongwill]

I have no problem with it. It’s just different lol.

Mike something that may (and we would need to play a few out to see how much) make a difference in over powering some kingdoms is the companion recruiting. I love having the ability to recruit more, but if a kingdom has very limited companions won’t this put them at an extreme disadvantage? I was thinking of maybe the pop recruiting could rise from 2 to 3-4 before going neutral to offset those kingdoms that have limited companions? Or do you see it not being problematic in games?

---

Mike, also spoke to John, need to somehow exclude drops from final status point tally’s at end game. If you don’t finish, shouldn’t take a place in final tally. IMO

Are we going to revamp the status point? Maybe lowering building up, and increasing military, leaders and wizard development? I always thought you should get a ton more credit for having wizards at P9 or greater because of cost and risk of loss of the cost going above the assured lvl. Maybe one more tier level for wizards? Just a thought.

[unclemike]

I can live with that. It is no more than a P5 wizard making 10K gold by using an action, and it really takes 2 orders because you need to get the influence back up. It does help the AN, but we all love them anyway.

I am more concerned with the Dragons now being able to destroy PCs in the water. Yes, it was bad to simply eliminate an RD group because they had no ships, but now the AT and PI cannot even defend against the flyers with ships. Being in the water was always one way to protect yourself for those kingdoms.

Dragons are always a problem later in the game. Without the rule change, water capitals were invulnerable to dragons which isn't fair either.

How about we come up with a new solution, something like a new spell or ability for AT/PI to submerge their capital. Or, a allow the Summon Kraken (and Elder Kraken) to intercept flying groups. Much like with the movie Clash of the Titans, the Kraken could be an enormous creature capable of reaching flying groups.

Come up with a way that would be satisfactory for the game...

[Brekk]

Mike,

Thank you for reminding me about the decision on selling, Mike did point that out and yes I think if you choose to sell go ahead, at 20+ you do not get that point back for even a fraction of the gold revenue.

Dragons - Yes, sea towns will now be treated as water, granting pirates and Atlanteans a significant terrain bonus that dragons lack. It's important to remember that dragons have a finite recruitment pool, and their kingdom troops form the core of their power. The issue at hand has been the exploitation of sea towns, with players erecting impenetrable fortresses and amassing excessive resources—200-300k+ in gold/food—by turn 15. Such tactics detract from the enjoyment of the game for all involved, essentially rendering oneself immune to challenge.

This concern prompted us to increase the defensive bonus of kingdom customization, aligning it more closely with other strategies. I will continue to monitor this situation closely. If mages consistently face early setbacks by turn 10, adjustments will be made. However, mages now possess the capacity to engage in combat directly, as they are equally—if not more—capable of recruitment and strategic maneuvers, thanks to summon spells and the removal of the leadership requirement for troop recruitment.

I appreciate the feedback and discussions; I am not a closed box. I am eager to explain and work with our community to grow and strengthen our community, ensuring a vibrant and engaging environment for all Alamaze players.

Additionally, the decision to treat sea towns as water squares aims to address inconsistencies and balance concerns. Having a water square treated as water when a thriving metropolis sits on stilts didn't make a lot of sense. This is also why you can still intercept via water, and why ships are now uncapped in their build—allowing for the creation of armadas on patrol. There are still many ways to protect these water PCs, ensuring strategic diversity and opportunities for all players.

Let's keep an eye on these developments as we strive to maintain a balanced and enjoyable gaming experience for all participants.

John

[Brekk]

I have no problem with it. It’s just different lol.

Mike something that may (and we would need to play a few out to see how much) make a difference in over powering some kingdoms is the companion recruiting. I love having the ability to recruit more, but if a kingdom has very limited companions won’t this put them at an extreme disadvantage? I was thinking of maybe the pop recruiting could rise from 2 to 3-4 before going neutral to offset those kingdoms that have limited companions? Or do you see it not being problematic in games?

---

Mike, also spoke to John, need to somehow exclude drops from final status point tally’s at end game. If you don’t  finish, shouldn’t take a place in final tally. IMO

Are we going to revamp the status point? Maybe lowering building up, and increasing military, leaders and wizard development? I always thought you should get a ton more credit for having wizards at P9 or greater because of cost and risk of loss of the cost going above the assured lvl. Maybe one more tier level for wizards? Just a thought.

Strongwill, add this to the discussion link for future changes.
https://alamaze.net/forum/thread-17222.html