Lets try this again - Looking for input

[Brekk]

All,

I am looking for input on the kingdoms you have played. Where do you see weaknesses or overwhelming strengths? Over the coming months, I am working on balancing.
Some examples:

• Kingdoms that don’t have access to fear
  
• Kingdoms that can’t take down a legendary
  
• Kingdoms that struggle in the end game
  

Please provide reasons and examples of why these issues exist, etc.

John

Please if you are unable to post here send me a message.

[uncledarkseid]

That works

[Strongwill]

One thing I was thinking about the other day is, why the restrictions on recruiting types per region, could we just recruit any type from any region? And raise the amount that can be recruited into a group? (2) troops blows… (3) turns the pop neutral. Also blows. Some kingdoms have crap for companions that can be recruited. If you are in a fight, for ex: Underdark loads up 7 orcs to your two zamorans someone’s going to get destroyed.

Maybe no restrictions on pop recruiting if pop is above the threshold listed?

And on a personal want, SA,RA,DW,EL,AL,AN and DA maybe never recruit green troops from pops. These military kingdoms, when I think of them, would have the best fighters they could get when recruiting? Just a thought. Maybe they all start w regular troops when recruiting?

Maybe be cool if each troop type that could be recruited from a pop center had a specific added benefit like the WE/ZA/NM do? Could add flavor to game.
Just a thought.

[davekuyk]

I believe a fundamental issue is how the game encourages players to build a single monolithic castle and then explode from there. That strategy itself is not bad or flawed; the issue (IMHO) is that the game overly rewards it. Time and again, I have seen games where players have essentially their entire kingdom at their capital. All groups, all wizards, raising food and gold, an overlap of agent coverage, and realistically, there is little any other single player could do to impact that. An alliance could, but this small community seems to look down on teaming up - a subject for another day. They don't even need to defend their region; the capital may very well product more than the rest of the region.

The reasons for this are several: 1) It is quicker, easier, and safer for players to use hidden ore to raise gold production than it is to take it from someone else. 2) Defenses quickly scale into the six figures, making it prohibitive for all but a few kingdoms to mount an attack until the end game; 3) agent guard/counter-espionage orders were moved to very low numbers at some point (if I understand things correctly one cannot sleep an agent to prevent them from guarding, heck, in theory, one could attack the pop center, capture and execute the agent and the guard would still be in effect for the turn (someone please correct me if that is not the case)), and 4) wizards are largely self-sufficient, meaning auto recons and auto guards mean players can sit in the open and raise without fear of a surprise attack (again, this is compounded by the virtual lack of alliances and teamwork we see).

Hidden capitals compound all of the above.

We end up with the bulk of the board playing single-player, perhaps fighting over Stormgate or some artifacts, and every kingdom is pushed to the end game. Some kingdoms perform better early and mid-game and then suffer late game. The Red Dragon is a good example of that. Early on a beast but the military starts to lose out to others mid game and by the end game all the kingdom really has to offer is mobility. And that is all fine and good, but not if the game forces the end game on everyone.

My thoughts:

Develop game mechanics that further encourage teamwork, some quick examples:

*An agent mission that causes a diversion that allows another kingdom's agents a better chance to succeed
*Coordinated military attack options between kingdoms *within the same battle*: The Sacred Order flanks from the north while the Dwarf holds the center vs. the Tyrant horde. But wait—the previously invisible Necromancer appears and ruins the day for the good guys!
*Spells that require two wizards from different kingdoms to complete (Revelation is a good candidate for this)
*Allow alliances to control regions - the Sacred Order and Dward both control Zanthia and Triumvia and both enjoy the benefits (until the Sacred Order player backstabs the Dwarf)

Give more tools to counter defense:

*Beef up the agent sabotage mission where it destroys 3000 or 10% of a pop center's defense, whichever is higher
*Require a high-ranking emissary to give the order to build a castle or greater at the pop center; allows for the possibility of sleep and other counter-player on that emissary
*A legendary castle requires two turns to complete; the first turn all kingdoms are notified of the start of the work and the location (those building contractors are going to talk)
*Players cannot upgrade a pop center when under a siege (think about it)

Reduce economic building:

*Reduce hidden ore to 1500 gold per casting
*Set diminishing returns for all pop center types; this defines a soft cap where it becomes less practical to raise production (i.e., a town may have a soft cap of 30,000 gold; after that, attempting to increase production is only 50% effective)
*Large gold stockpiles become susceptible to "corruption", the gold version of food spoilage

To sum up, for those who made it this far, I don't believe the goal should be balancing all kingdoms towards the end game; it should be about making the early and mid-game more dynamic and part of the game.

[Strongwill]

Pop recruiting could reduce food and gold production? I don’t think it does now. But you would have to revamp some of the companion recruiting?

[uncledarkseid]

I believe a fundamental issue is how the game encourages players to build a single monolithic castle and then explode from there. That strategy itself is not bad or flawed; the issue (IMHO) is that the game overly rewards it. Time and again, I have seen games where players have essentially their entire kingdom at their capital. All groups, all wizards, raising food and gold, an overlap of agent coverage, and realistically, there is little any other single player could do to impact that. An alliance could, but this small community seems to look down on teaming up - a subject for another day. They don't even need to defend their region; the capital may very well product more than the rest of the region.

The reasons for this are several: 1) It is quicker, easier, and safer for players to use hidden ore to raise gold production than it is to take it from someone else. 2) Defenses quickly scale into the six figures, making it prohibitive for all but a few kingdoms to mount an attack until the end game; 3) agent guard/counter-espionage orders were moved to very low numbers at some point (if I understand things correctly one cannot sleep an agent to prevent them from guarding, heck, in theory, one could attack the pop center, capture and execute the agent and the guard would still be in effect for the turn (someone please correct me if that is not the case)), and 4) wizards are largely self-sufficient, meaning auto recons and auto guards mean players can sit in the open and raise without fear of a surprise attack (again, this is compounded by the virtual lack of alliances and teamwork we see).

Hidden capitals compound all of the above.

We end up with the bulk of the board playing single-player, perhaps fighting over Stormgate or some artifacts, and every kingdom is pushed to the end game. Some kingdoms perform better early and mid-game and then suffer late game. The Red Dragon is a good example of that. Early on a beast but the military starts to lose out to others mid game and by the end game all the kingdom really has to offer is mobility. And that is all fine and good, but not if the game forces the end game on everyone.

My thoughts:

Develop game mechanics that further encourage teamwork, some quick examples:

*An agent mission that causes a diversion that allows another kingdom's agents a better chance to succeed
*Coordinated military attack options between kingdoms *within the same battle*: The Sacred Order flanks from the north while the Dwarf holds the center vs. the Tyrant horde. But wait—the previously invisible Necromancer appears and ruins the day for the good guys!
*Spells that require two wizards from different kingdoms to complete (Revelation is a good candidate for this)
*Allow alliances to control regions - the Sacred Order and Dward both control Zanthia and Triumvia and both enjoy the benefits (until the Sacred Order player backstabs the Dwarf)

Give more tools to counter defense:

*Beef up the agent sabotage mission where it destroys 3000 or 10% of a pop center's defense, whichever is higher
*Require a high-ranking emissary to give the order to build a castle or greater at the pop center; allows for the possibility of sleep and other counter-player on that emissary
*A legendary castle requires two turns to complete; the first turn all kingdoms are notified of the start of the work and the location (those building contractors are going to talk)
*Players cannot upgrade a pop center when under a siege (think about it)

Reduce economic building:

*Reduce hidden ore to 1500 gold per casting
*Set diminishing returns for all pop center types; this defines a soft cap where it becomes less practical to raise production (i.e., a town may have a soft cap of 30,000 gold; after that, attempting to increase production is only 50% effective)
*Large gold stockpiles become susceptible to "corruption", the gold version of food spoilage

To sum up, for those who made it this far, I don't believe the goal should be balancing all kingdoms towards the end game; it should be about making the early and mid-game more dynamic and part of the game.

I would like to see a complete revamp on status points. I think the game would be well
 served to have status points be rewarded as kingdom specific. The military kingdoms can be rewarded status points for battles, leaders, group readings. The wizard kingdoms can be rewarded for high-level wizards, the underworld can have huge status gains for kidnapping, assassinating, prisoners, stolen artifacts. The incentive would be to eliminate someone playing the lizard man kingdom, and sitting in dark over for 32 turns, and then teleporting to a few regions and winning. I think I ended a game a month ago as the red Dragon that I didn’t even place in, but I had fought over 100 battles. It was one of the most fun games I’ve ever played and I believe I played it the way the red Dragon is supposed to be played.  Had i received 200 points per battle i would have been top three.  You are a political kingdom, every time you rebel or usurp the town should be a huge bonus for you. I would eliminate the incentive to build great temples and great towers at the end of the game. I have watched a wizard kingdom one time, I believe in darkover, do nothing but build the entire game and finishing in the top three. Not one battle not one enemy not one iota of properly playing the game as it was designed.  

If you were a kingdom with trick of the trade, why not be rewarded with status points every time you make a trade? If you are a kingdom with adventurer’s trait, why not get a big reward every time you investigate and encounter
if you are devout, you can be rewarded for calling down avenging Angels. If you are a gold producing kingdom like the dwarf for the gnome, have a bigger reward for top gold. I think the worst thing this game has maybe the status points in general.  You can eliminate status points completely drop the victory back down to four regions and just let people go for it.

Also, in general the game may be too complicated at this point. At the height of its popularity, it was a simpler game.

[davekuyk]

I like the idea of reworking status points. Status points are a good way to incentivize players to take certain actions. Rename them "Victory Points," and one can see how they are something players chase. Status points for building the first temple (for example) are fine, but status points for each temple? I'm not so sure. Diminishing returns is a familiar game design mechanic and something to be considered in this area.

Secret victory conditions in the olden days addressed some of the issues with player X building the entire game and then emerging on turn 30. With secret victory conditions, you don't know if that WA player with two regions is close to ending the game. It is essential to make secret victories meaningful and satisfactory for all involved. Perhaps players could choose from a pool of "secret" victory conditions or take only the standard victory condition and get a bonus (more gold, inf, etc.). Everyone would know the possible routes to victory; the trick is determining who is trying for what, along with those trying to disguise their intentions. This is something you see in the world of board games.

[Lord Garth]

If memory serves, there are only 3 kingdoms that do not have access to the 'fear' spell: AN, RA and GN. Then there is this whole thing with the AT where they had Fear then lost it and now have it again. Not sure what's going on there.

I'm assuming in the original design that the AN and RA were considered 'Good' kingdoms, had Stalwart, and were denied the use of Fear. They couldn't even get it via Crack the Sky as that spell was beyond max assured level. However the game is ever changing. Fortifications were introduced and Fear is necessary to crack a Legendary.

The Ranger in particular seems left behind by changes in the game. Their spell list is not strong. It's the only kingdom I can think of that has no offensive regional effect spells. And with greater focus on companions today they are a somewhat military type nation with only 3 companions types. They have good leaders but the leadership requirement has been dropped yet they must have at least a Veteran or higher to recruit any companion at all. The variety of companions and max allowed of each is almost as critical to a kingdom as it's wizards.

I'm glad you are looking into kingdom parity which has been a hallmark of Alamaze since the first cycle. Even if a kingdom was a little stronger or weaker it was offset by it's starting location. Like the Giants starting in central Amberland. Plus with better parity we are likely to see a better variety of kingdoms in each game.

[Strongwill]

Above post is similar to my post above on companions. The entire concept and troops should be revamped. Kingdoms like DU and TY have so many types, many are just never used. Other kingdoms have hardly any. Imo

[Brekk]

Guys, keep it coming.

I have some back-end server work to do with Mike, then it's onto some of these items. Please put them here so I can track them in one place, and we can discuss them closer to the time. I agree on many of the points here, but we will discuss more and also see what is feasible due to programming restrictions. The Alamaze code is complicated and involved, and sometimes simple things are not always reasonable or even doable. However, we can discuss what might be done instead within the realm of the code. Mike is the code king, so often he has a great compromise if something specific can't be done.