#300 - Experimental

[Acererak]

Hey, people are competitive. I get it. Like I have said many times. Not pissed off, but I'm still going to try to play - as are you. Bring on the Giant! Let's get it on! ;-)

[Beatific]

Hey, people are competitive. I get it. Like I have said many times. Not pissed off, but I'm still going to try to play - as are you. Bring on the Giant! Let's get it on! ;-)

I love that. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, I seem to be fresh out of stuff to bring it on with. I guess I need to go lick some wounds now........

[VballMichael]

Ok, maybe I qualify as a veteran, so I will weigh in.
I can't speak for everyone, but one reason I have not weighed in is that there is already way too much venom on the forums and in this thread and I did not want to add. A couple of folks have said to cool off and those have had no effect.
This is not a real game (no offense to Uncle Mike). It is a test, an experiment, a time to see if things work. There is no winner, no status points, nothing.
But, yes, standards of conduct apply. Uncle Mike published battle reports (maybe he should have carved out the capitol), but he was not thinking in terms of someone taking advantage of that and jumping to the capitol. He was showing results to get comments and test things.
As for what one can say on a forum, use common sense as there are no specific game rules on it. It is okay to make a shout-out to the community to say "Help, I am getting my butt kicked and could use an ally" and even to point out that an enemy is fully invested in the invasion, so maybe their home region is open. Putting out pop center locations, specific army sizes, etc... probably over the line, but again just my opinion. For instance, nothing stops someone from emailing every other player and asking for help in taking out an opponent capitol and telling them where it is. Posting on the Forum is just doing that same communication on steroids, but just feels like bad form.
As for the NA NA, I think that is text from the turn .
Anyway, a player hit my village this turn, I will likely retaliate. That is the nature of our little game.
Because it is a test game, I have turned down NAP offers as there is really no reason for NAPs as we are just testing orders and programming, not going for a win. Having said that, I did agree with my region-sharer that we would generally be kind to one another.
Ok, a veteran weighed in. This game should not lead to bad feelings and rage-quitting and the Forum should not be too specific, though it does have its uses even in game play.

[unclemike]

I just want to thank everyone once again for playtesting this game. I need your assistance in verifying that the software works correctly and your help in this regard is very valuable to me.

The main intent and purpose of this prototype is to demonstrate that the new game engine is a viable alternative to the current code and that automating Alamaze games is a very real possibility which will free up Ry Vor's and Cipher's time to do other things. If approved, I think it will make everyone lives easier but it still needs to be evaluated first.

Now onto some of the turn 4 issues:

I didn't post a capital's location in this thread nor any other (I'll never do that btw). Only the battle report of two groups fighting each other in order to alert others about the new surprise penalties (and not to ignore the value of entrenchment).

I double-checked the Giant's battle with the Nomad's capital and the current combat algorithms are working as expected. The problem was that the Giant attacked with an inferior force than what was necessary for attacking a pc, let alone, a capital.

If you can, attack pc's with at least twice the defense or you'll be taking some damage. If it's a capital, add 25% to the defense then double it. The Giant group was well below that assured level and he got butchered by the Nomad's royal guard (and that was with the Giant kingdom's defensive bonus protecting him - only Paladin and Red Dragon are higher).

As I mentioned at the beginning of the game, the combat algorithms (along with sea patrol battles and unusual encounters) may end up being rather easy or very deadly for you until I'm able to convert them into their official versions. This first Alpha test is only meant to test the general operation of the orders, spells, and other events while the second Alpha test is intended for greater accuracy behind the game mechanics.

I thought that was understood so I hope reiterating it will help clarify things once again. About the other issue of pc's clumping together on the map, I've already posted that I'll try something new in the code to spread the pc's more evenly before the 2nd game starts so we shouldn't see that problem anymore.

Regarding the topic of having 0 cities is unfair to a player, I'm not too sure about that one. Everyone is in the same boat when they start a region which may end up being a plentiful or sparse one. And we've all lived with the general condition of a region having more towns/villages than another (including when a region has two cities rather than just one).

Also, I've played in a game where another kingdom invaded early and plundered everything in sight. So forget about having 0 cities as being unfair, how about having your starting region being reduced to 0 villages early on. That's really a challenge and encourages the player to deal with the invader that much more quickly than usual.

There are also some advantages to a region having 0 cities which allows a player to gain control of their region sooner than others (enjoying the benefits of control and being ready to move into another region that much earlier than any of their neighbors). So the 0 city situation can actually end up being an advantage in the game for some players. Overall, having 0 cities involves incorporating different strategies and tactics during play which makes the game that much more enjoyable and unique.

Anyway, this is just an experimental game and we're trying a bunch of new things all together so don't be discouraged if you absolutely hate something that happens since the game may not be approved anyway. I just want everyone to know that your opinions, suggestions, and concerns aren't ignored and will be considered at some point. And remember to have some fun in the game

[Beatific]

Ok, maybe I qualify as a veteran, so I will weigh in.
I can't speak for everyone, but one reason I have not weighed in is that there is already way too much venom on the forums and in this thread and I did not want to add. A couple of folks have said to cool off and those have had no effect.
This is not a real game (no offense to Uncle Mike). It is a test, an experiment, a time to see if things work. There is no winner, no status points, nothing.
But, yes, standards of conduct apply. Uncle Mike published battle reports (maybe he should have carved out the capitol), but he was not thinking in terms of someone taking advantage of that and jumping to the capitol. He was showing results to get comments and test things.
As for what one can say on a forum, use common sense as there are no specific game rules on it. It is okay to make a shout-out to the community to say "Help, I am getting my butt kicked and could use an ally" and even to point out that an enemy is fully invested in the invasion, so maybe their home region is open. Putting out pop center locations, specific army sizes, etc... probably over the line, but again just my opinion. For instance, nothing stops someone from emailing every other player and asking for help in taking out an opponent capitol and telling them where it is. Posting on the Forum is just doing that same communication on steroids, but just feels like bad form.
As for the NA NA, I think that is text from the turn .
Anyway, a player hit my village this turn, I will likely retaliate. That is the nature of our little game.
Because it is a test game, I have turned down NAP offers as there is really no reason for NAPs as we are just testing orders and programming, not going for a win. Having said that, I did agree with my region-sharer that we would generally be kind to one another.
Ok, a veteran weighed in. This game should not lead to bad feelings and rage-quitting and the Forum should not be too specific, though it does have its uses even in game play.

Excellent...clearly spoken. A personal standard expressed but a universal standard absent. And I tend to agree with the personal standard expressed. Also point well taken about this being an experimental game. My query is about standard game related forum etiquette. I will assume that your defined behavior code applies to that. I think the reason the arguments are coming out here is because we are being so transparent about everything. I do not get the feeling there is any rage (in game enmity, yes, but not site rage). Ace has been pretty clear about that and I am cool with it as well. My questions come from a NooB perspective and the last thing I want is to make a forum communication mistake thinking I know the unwritten rules and being in error (thus causing that rage). Thanks! And yes Uncle Mike, I agree entirely with your post. No anger here. And truly enjoying the fruits of your labor. Thank you for your hard work.

[unclemike]

Even though turn 6 is about a week away for this game, the code now itemizes status points so players may see how they're being calculated (and looks better this way too).

[Jumpingfist]

Even though turn 6 is about a week away for this game, the code now itemizes status points so players may see how they're being calculated (and looks better this way too).

I love this change already.   Let's us know we are getting what we should no questioned asked.

[Ry Vor]

This is how we did it in Fall of Rome:  The player got the breakdown of his status points, and he got a kingdom identified with all the other standings, 1 - 12 (in FoR) with their total points only (not broken down). 

[Stillgard]

(SW) I just lost a General and a Captain investigating an US. Ouch!

[Ry Vor]

US encounters will be getting tougher.  It's not supposed to be just about getting their first, but having powerful enough leaders to overcome what are often legendary guardians. At some point we will match Guardians with the difficulty of the encounter and resultant artifact, graded Fine, Excellent, and Superior.

Meanwhile in existing games expect more leader fatalities, more difficult promotion to Warlord, in all kinds of battles.  Soon more benefit to Weapon Artifacts.