Thoughts on making games longer, more forgiving and more profitable for Alamaze

[Panda]

Think this post makes some great points.

We live in the world of now, not the world of then.

The hardest sell of gaming is getting my friends to try "pbm" style games. Ironically, we are a gaming group that actively looks for turn based games of our own to play online.

Some catch the fire, some I have bludgeoned into playing then fail to catch the spark and light their inner pbm fire.

IMO upcoming changes, and the changes suggested in this post, would make the game harder/longer/more epic.

[Wynand]

Honestly, how much more forgiving do we want to make the game? Rick has already implemented changes that make it make it easier--chaos, seapower, etc--and more are on the way--170/171, 565, etc. Isn't the point of a game to challenge oneself? Why don't we actually focus on learning how to play the game as is, rather than trying to make it easier to play? Or have we all sunk into the instant gratification morass that seems to exemplify the modern world? Who can claim a sense of satisfaction winning a game that's been nerfed to the lowest common denominator?

Here, here. Well said, sir.

[The Usurper]

Honestly, how much more forgiving do we want to make the game? Rick has already implemented changes that make it make it easier--chaos, seapower, etc--and more are on the way--170/171, 565, etc. Isn't the point of a game to challenge oneself? Why don't we actually focus on learning how to play the game as is, rather than trying to make it easier to play? Or have we all sunk into the instant gratification morass that seems to exemplify the modern world? Who can claim a sense of satisfaction winning a game that's been nerfed to the lowest common denominator?

This doesn't make it easier, it makes it more attractive to get new players and keep them, it's the same game. As for instant gratification, the current game is that. This will make the game harder longer, and more challenging.

Chaos was changed because a lvl 2 wizard in a division, could wipe out an army group in many scenarios. Now it is harder.
Seapower was change to be more complicated and harder to use.
170/171 is being changed because it is too easy, he's making it more difficult to use these orders.
565 is being changed because in the end they upset the balance of the end game, and now it will be harder to recruit and more challenging to the players.

Everyone of your example made the game harder not easier, and my suggestion does nothing to nerf the game at all

[Kellenved]

Methinks you missed the point. All those changes mentioned--which you think make the game harder--were designed to make it easier for kingdoms to survive mistakes or strategic blunders...which is the very definition of a 'nerf'. The same goes for expanding the map.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for expanding the player base and make Alamaze more attractive to players of all skill levels. I just think a better way to go is to arrange different tier levels of games ala primeval.

[Beatific]

It is with much trepidation that I reply (once you see my reasoning you will understand). IMHO it is not the complexity of this game that is the issue of NOOBs (or at least this NOOB). It is the frustration associated with orders missed due to misformatting or mis-service (word?). Personally, I can handle getting my head handed to me because I did not handle some clearly defined aspect of the game properly. Why I left (temporarily, I hope) is that there are elements of the game that are not defined in the rules but that only the "experienced" players know about. Frankly, it is the "union" mentality all over again. It unashamedly gives the long timers the game advantage since they have had the investment in time and (and more importantly) in money to learn these aspects of the game. And the only way to overcome this is to "know someone" or get beaten repeatedly (as pointed out in the recent newsletter). Forget that. I simply will not pay for that abuse.

Those who will are certainly free to do so, however, as pointed out in the same reference, it immediately reduces the customer base to "those who are willing to learn by getting their heads kicked in". Frankly my time is too valuable for that (transparent arrogance here). I do not mind paying to get honestly beaten by good strategy, but to get beaten because of being opportuned because of order misformatting errors or vacationing is intolerable (way intolerable). Indeed, in one way I admire the tolerance of those of you who learned this way (how do you do that?). In another, I pity you (hate me as you will). My gaming philosophy is that all rules should be clearly defined to all playing. Defeat should come due to superior maneuvering, not due to insufficient playing time. But perhaps that is just me. Again, IMHO, it is a philosophy that does not favor the long time investor. But if the long time investor requires this advantage to win then he is not much of a gamer (IMHO) and this is not the right site (my conclusion thus far - prove me wrong if you will). Not a popular opinion to this reader base, I suspect. Thus my trepidation. Reasoning prevails with me, and I see promise on this site, but I am unclear as to whether this stated philosophy is sustainable in a PBEM business model. And, philosophies aside, the business model must be sustainable or we are not even having the indulgence of this discussion.

Or, said in another way, what should be is not what is. And neither is it a vote. We elect to deal with what is, and if it is not adjusted, we do not deal with it. This, I think, was the point of the article reply and it is dead spot on. But that is only one opinion.

[The Usurper]

Methinks you missed the point. All those changes mentioned--which you think make the game harder--were designed to make it easier for kingdoms to survive mistakes or strategic blunders...which is the very definition of a 'nerf'. The same goes for expanding the map.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for expanding the player base and make Alamaze more attractive to players of all skill levels. I just think a better way to go is to arrange different tier levels of games ala primeval.

I didn't miss your point, I simply do not agree with it, and think you are dead wrong. It was all done to help the balance of the game by slowing down the pace. The High Priestess new rule, exploratory all those changes made the GAME HARDER and LONGER to WIN for everyone, not Easier! It turns out when only super experience people play they get better at the game and can soon come up with strategies that the GAME DESIGNER did not expect. So you are seeing Rick upgrading to the game and not downgrading it as you suggest. I could be wrong but it seem you might gravitate toward, INSTANT GRATIFICATION.

[Lord Diamond]

How about this for an idea, it is based off of what we call poor man's monopoly. Since we were too lazy to give out the starting cash for monopoly, you began the game on start with 0 dollars. A few players would have to restart since they hit a bad card, but in a game like Alamaze, how would starting with just one village work for longevity. No starting anything but one pop center and your starting adepts and you king. Sure some starting tweaking would need to be done, but how about this for a start.

This thread has a lot of interesting ideas, but this one is my favorite. This could be a pretty cool option. Maybe start with a king, a baron, an agent, several adepts, a general, 8 influence, a village, and a single kingdom brigade. More adepts and leaders could come with reinforcements. This setup could be tweaked to customize each kingdom. I'd give it a shot.

[Kalrex]

Beatific,

You mention orders not going through, vacation, mistakes in order input. Can you elaborate?

It unashamedly gives the long timers the game advantage since they have had the investment in time and (and more importantly) in money to learn these aspects of the game.

This is kind of whiny. It's factual that people playing for a longer time thus have put more $$ into the game as a result of playing the game.
What's your gripe? I put as much $$ as anyone else into the game but I don't get some unfair advantages.

I do not mind paying to get honestly beaten by good strategy

If you got beaten this is what occurred. + the possibility you got in a lopsided war versus more players. I have lost some games (imo) due to a lot of bad die rolls basically but then that's part of the strategy aspect of the game. I play anonymous games now and advise anyone to try them out. You can do your own thing and learn as you go.

People keep mentioning the costs associated with the game but it's subscription based and the set-up fee is pretty marginal imo. The subscription fee is definitely more overall but if you get your ass kicked in some game and play another game and whatnot and learn the game in the meantime I don't think the $$ is some huge issue if you're ok at your subscription rate.

If you got ganged up on I think that's a real issue but again play anonymous games. These are quite fun and you can explore, search for artifacts, do whatever you want to do and learn the game as you go.

But if the long time investor requires this advantage to win then he is not much of a gamer (IMHO) and this is not the right site

Actually, this is not the right world if this is your opinion. Afaik most success derives from someone spending more time doing something than another person. So, if I play Chess for 10 years and you started to play 4 days ago I should win. If you win then what does that say about my "investment" into the game. over a period of months you should be able to get to some level where you're competent and then it's possible you could beat me but right out the gate the person who has more experience generally does better. This is the way the world works. You keep mentioning $$ which is odd.

[Kalrex]

Maybe start with a king, a baron, an agent, several adepts, a general, 8 influence, a village, and a single kingdom brigade. More adepts and leaders could come with reinforcements. This setup could be tweaked to customize each kingdom. I'd give it a shot.

I will never play this type of variant but if enough people will and it increases the player base I'm for it.

Some complaints about the game itself seem irresolvable to me. It seems like some people suggest a fundamental change to the game or abstract issues which suggest nothing will satisfy them asides a completely different game/code/rules set. I'm unsure the motivations of those people posting here are legitimate or they have other aims...

[Lord Diamond]

Maybe start with a king, a baron, an agent, several adepts, a general, 8 influence, a village, and a single kingdom brigade. More adepts and leaders could come with reinforcements. This setup could be tweaked to customize each kingdom. I'd give it a shot.

I will never play this type of variant but if enough people will and it increases the player base I'm for it.

Some complaints about the game itself seem irresolvable to me. It seems like some people suggest a fundamental change to the game or abstract issues which suggest nothing will satisfy them asides a completely different game/code/rules set. I'm unsure the motivations of those people posting here are legitimate or they have other aims...

Kalrex, I don't disagree with anything you typed. For my part, I just enjoy a variety of options. I wouldn't want to see the fundamental aspects of Alamaze vanish and I certainly don't want a game that is so easy to play that skill and experience mean nothing. We aren't supposed to master a game on the first try and anything that that simplified wouldn't be worth the money we are spending.