Login

**Hawk_** · 10-23-2013, 03:22 PM

(10-23-2013, 05:08 AM)kevindusi Wrote: I've tried to get Bluefile to quit because he doesn't read the rules, but he just ends up calling me with questions instead of opening a PDF.

I went back and studied my old AN turns closer. In game 105 I was wasting 15,000 gold per turn that I never realized from the 480 ceiling.

However, my 640 orders did not cost me anything after I reached the seapower limit.

I probably wasted 120,000 gold from that ongoing error.

I need to hire a new accountant.

If only I knew any Alamaze players with accounting connections...

**DuPont** · 10-23-2013, 03:41 PM

Not speaking to the playability and 'ragequit' but this is a quite logical outcome. Politicians sometimes spend huge sums on advertising and this fails to improve their poll numbers.

**HeadHoncho** · 10-23-2013, 04:28 PM

I'm not suggesting it's world-conceptually indefensible. Just game-mechanically undesirable.

I'm not even suggesting we should extend this to Denigrates, where the reaction level of the other Kingdom may be unknown. But for your OWN regional reaction and influence? Why penalize someone even further for a rules nuance like this? The barrier to entry is already high enough, and I say that as someone who has played this game lots and lots, and is STILL learning!

**bluefile2** · 10-23-2013, 08:06 PM

reading is for losers. I ragequit!

**Jumbie** · 10-24-2013, 12:08 AM

Yeah, but those two players didn't quit because of this particular rule, did they? Just the general rule difficulty. And really, the charm of this game comes in large part FROM the complex rules system. I know for instance a lot of old school fans of WoW and Diablo have quit those games because the complexity was dropped to give a more general appeal.

**Lord Thanatos** · 10-24-2013, 12:48 AM

(10-23-2013, 04:28 PM)HeadHoncho Wrote: I'm not suggesting it's world-conceptually indefensible. Just game-mechanically undesirable.

I'm not even suggesting we should extend this to Denigrates, where the reaction level of the other Kingdom may be unknown. But for your OWN regional reaction and influence? Why penalize someone even further for a rules nuance like this? The barrier to entry is already high enough, and I say that as someone who has played this game lots and lots, and is STILL learning!

Now that you know you will be charged for attempting to enamor above your maximum level, I bet you know better than to make this mistake again?

Those who would quit because a game mechanic is undesirable may be too pedantic to ever fully please?

Trial and error is a time-tested method of learning. I do not make the same mistakes I made in my early games; I make different mistakes now. That is how players learn this game...

Just my humble two cents.

Iatronas · (This post was last modified: 10-24-2013, 12:59 AM by Iatronas.)

I won't quit over the order entry complexity, but there sure is a learning curve involved. However, I think dumbing down the game by eliminating the cost/penalty would be a mistake. Maybe give a clearer turn message when reported to the player that money WAS spent even with no effect occurred (such as in the 480 standing order example above).

I think part of the complexity is trying to interpret the Commands sections to match what you are trying to do. It is more difficult than it sounds to fix. Another improvement would be the development of an online order-entry portal that would at least ensure that each column has the expected type of data. Like when casting spells ... 888 3WA MA MN, the column for the order #, column A should have a number and two letters, column B has two letters, ooops no column C added, etc.

My personal noob issues are typically regards things like Excel problems with replacing an "A" for ally with "AD" as the name of the emissary I just used in the previous order. Or turn sequence/order things like trying to train a wizard that I've just moved off my pop center. Or not assuming that the enemy is friendly in the region I am trying to usurp the pop center in (thus adds 15% to the formula).

How many times out of ten turns do you have NO order errors? I think in my WA game, I've had maybe only two - and we are on turn 9 already. I hope my ability to review and look at each order for accuracy improves over time.

**Ry Vor** · (This post was last modified: 10-24-2013, 01:50 AM by Ry Vor.)

I make mistakes regularly in the few games I am in. I have gotten better over the six months we've been back up. The programmer and game master makes mistakes in the few games he is in. The Imperators who play in Titan games make mistakes. In fact, if they submit turns for all their kingdoms without a mistake, they feel they have been especially good players that turn.

As you gain experience, and learn from your mistakes, you get better, and make fewer mistakes.

Alamaze is a fairly demanding, or unforgiving game for mistakes. What pursuit in life is not? Maybe single player computer games, where you can just restart if it doesn't look good. NFL coaches preach making no mistakes as their main strategy - don't turn it over, don't commit penalties. This - Alamaze - is live competition, and there are consequences to mistakes. As suggested before, until you gain lots of confidence, likely taking months of play, you should have everything done the night before the due date, and then spend a few minutes reviewing each order before submitting your turn the next morning.

I try to not be too defensive regarding Alamaze, and maybe always don't succeed, but, if I make a mistake in life, I don't generally blame someone else for my mistakes. It's not "arbitrary mechanics" or "flawed design" if it executes as it says it will and not how I thought it might.

To over-simplify, any person learning chess that thinks if they don't win in their first couple games, it must be a problem with the game since they are smart people and understand games, instead that person has underestimated chess, and that's just a two player game with only a couple pages of rules. It's not the fault of chess, its that you aren't that good, yet. Then consider Alamaze and its complexity. On that score, please don't ask the game master to explain your battle reports or errors to you, or think/insist there must be a program error if something went wrong to your way of thinking. The game has been running for 25 years, and has been priced (silly cheap) on the re-release assuming there would not be frequent requests of the game master to explain or examine results.

**HeadHoncho** · 10-24-2013, 03:40 AM

Look, I'm all for learning from one's own mistakes, and I'm all for personal responsibility. I owned my mistake from the very first post in this thread. My point is basically that you have a choice in making the learning curve steeper or flatter. You obviously recognize this dynamic by virtue of the fact that you have made changes -- some extremely significant -- to the game rules and mechanics. I applaud those changes.

If you want to continue charging Kingdoms 15k and 16k gold for failed King orders, that's totally your prerogative, but you might find that some people, especially newbies, will appreciate a little more leeway. Add to that the fact that some failed orders DON'T cost money (e.g. fleet builds, and there are others), while these King orders apparently do, and a separate question of consistency arises.

Just my $0.02, presented in the forums which you have made for us.

**Hawk_** · (This post was last modified: 10-24-2013, 03:50 AM by Hawk_.)

One thing I noticed is the turnsheet shows no costs next to the standing orders. It would be nice if they printed there like they do for all of the normal orders.
It would have made my mistake easier to see. The 640 would have been 0 and the 480 would have still showed 15,000.

Either way this game is way funner than chess. JMHO

Thanks