Revisit of Elimination of Kingdoms

[DuPont]

I would not knowingly play in a game with the elimination rule because it would just be catnip for the gang-bangers. I really didn't care about it in 300 because that was an experimental game that was free. But in any game where I was paying, that would never be an option for me - I just KNOW what would happen.

[unclemike]

I actually have the opposite opinion. I really wouldn't want to play in a game without clear rules on eliminating opponents. What's the point of playing in a game like Chess if you can never take out your opponent?

Besides, I would rather start in a new game than being a pest to others from a beaten-and-out position. That's not my style of play and wouldn't be fun at all. For those who are worried about getting "gang-banged", how did the Fall of Rome players deal with that situation? Or the players in Age of Empires or just about any other game in existence?

Having clear rules on eliminating opponents, like when you last pc falls, you're out, is conventional game design. Trying to do the opposite like involving an encampment concept would be the optional variant but not the norm moving forward.

[Lord Diamond]

I think I posted at least a couple times, that the way 2nd Cycle is now, is how it will stay.  The last change was to give the BL the chance to recruit a Phoenix brigade.  All other changes listed as on the table are deferred until the next scenario or later.

So in Classic, you can wail away with no population center.  There is no way I know of though to have no emissary and no king therefore, to continue.

I am talking about the future games. I am certainly not going to play any 'classic' version of any game and I doubt many others will either. If not enough play, there will be no games.

In Fall of Rome it was very easy (and common) to eliminate a kingdom and that was okay because I hadn't just paid $24 simply for a setup fee. If the setup fee goes away with the future games, I won't have a big problem with elimination. 

[Lord Thanatos]

I actually have the opposite opinion. I really wouldn't want to play in a game without clear rules on eliminating opponents. What's the point of playing in a game like Chess if you can never take out your opponent?

Besides, I would rather start in a new game than being a pest to others from a beaten-and-out position. That's not my style of play and wouldn't be fun at all. For those who are worried about getting "gang-banged", how did the Fall of Rome players deal with that situation? Or the players in Age of Empires or just about any other game in existence?

Having clear rules on eliminating opponents, like when you last pc falls, you're out, is conventional game design. Trying to do the opposite like involving an encampment concept would be the optional variant but not the norm moving forward.

Well, your style of play is NOT universally accepted.  Many of the players who play lots of Alamaze games have made it clear they disagree with this style of play.  Anyone who ever received an Iron-willed vote is likely to disagree with you.

There are certain players you absolutely know will not drop the contest so long as there is a single wounded envoy capable of issuing a hearty F-U command each turn!  Deal with it!

And for you to not understand/acknowledge that a clear elimination path would horribly exacerbate the 3 v 1 gangbang problem is inconceivable to me.  That is why I stopped playing FoR!  If I played under a different name then I always placed.  If I signed up as Lord Thanatos I immediately faced three or four opponents.  How is this fun?  Not fun for me.  Certainly shouldn't be fun for the morons who know they couldn't possibly win 1 v 1.

You want to kill your player base?  Create an automatic elimination function.

And I don't give a damn about "conventional game design."  You want 12 year olds who quit the first time their kingdom doesn't start well?  Go ahead and make that the target audience.

Comparing Alamaze to Chess is not the same thing - and you know it!  And, for the record, among skilled players the two most likely outcomes in chess are a draw and a resignation.  Alamaze allows both of these outcomes.

[Alamaze has always "felt" like I was in a story where my kingdom would develop under my guidance.  I could choose how to develop my kingdom and I get attached to it, whether striving to control four regions or fighting to be able to issue four orders each turn.  So long as I am enjoying the contest I am willing to pay for it.  That is why I HATE both SVC and automatic elimination. Both game mechanics shorten the games I am enjoying. (Both also create more 3 v 1 outcomes - but that is a player issue, not a design issue.)  I have seen the UN control four regions, actually five, on turn 42 in a special no-turn-limit game.  Wizard kingdoms and military kingdoms and emissary kingdoms can all control four regions if things break right during the contest.  Alamaze is a game within a fantasy world.  Eliminate the "feel" of being in that fantasy world and then you have only a game like all the rest...]

As always, just my 2 cents.

[Ry Vor]

I'm not so sure Classic, as in how Alamaze stands today, won't continue into the future.  After all, the game survived for 15 or so years in North Carolina and however long RSI ran it, with virtually no development.  And for those passionate players arguing strongly for a certain aspect, like no kingdom elimination, they may find that in Classic, but it might be different in future games.  We've made more than 100 changes in the less than 2 years from the Resurgence, and as you who have been here from the beginning of that know, many of these were met by strong dissent.  Initially.  Then I think we have had few if any players wishing to go back to how it was before.  I just want players to know if they love Alamaze as it is now and don't want things changed, they will have Classic there for them.

The encampment idea is not very good and is problematic.  A simple solution there might be that as a king order, a king identifies an area with no PC or sighting as the Sanctuary.  This would have to be done before the last PC is lost, and likely within a range of an existing PC when created, and cost some gold and food to create.  It would be hidden until used, so not subject to actions to destroy it or block the relocation.  But as said, Classic is closed to development, so something like that might be used in a future game.

[HeadHoncho]

You seem to be assuming that the dissenters to certain changes are either happy or neutral about those changes after-the-fact. Honestly, I question that assumption. I and several other veteran players think there are a number of changes that ought to be rolled back.

I believe the reason there's no clamor for rollbacks is not because the changes are beloved, but because we've learned that it isn't particularly productive to ask for them. And that is a significant difference.

[Lord Diamond]

I'm not so sure Classic, as in how Alamaze stands today, won't continue into the future.  After all, the game survived for 15 or so years in North Carolina and however long RSI ran it, with virtually no development.  And for those passionate players arguing strongly for a certain aspect, like no kingdom elimination, they may find that in Classic, but it might be different in future games.  We've made more than 100 changes in the less than 2 years from the Resurgence, and as you who have been here from the beginning of that know, many of these were met by strong dissent.  Initially.  Then I think we have had few if any players wishing to go back to how it was before.  I just want players to know if they love Alamaze as it is now and don't want things changed, they will have Classic there for them.

The encampment idea is not very good and is problematic.  A simple solution there might be that as a king order, a king identifies an area with no PC or sighting as the Sanctuary.  This would have to be done before the last PC is lost, and likely within a range of an existing PC when created, and cost some gold and food to create.  It would be hidden until used, so not subject to actions to destroy it or block the relocation.  But as said, Classic is closed to development, so something like that might be used in a future game.

I remember how well Alamaze survived in NC. I waited nearly two yewrs to get a 15 player game started before I asked for my deposit back. 

Fix the encampment idea then. Make it so the only order anyone in an encampment can use is relocate capital. 

[Drogo]

You seem to be assuming that the dissenters to certain changes are either happy or neutral about those changes after-the-fact. Honestly, I question that assumption. I and several other veteran players think there are a number of changes that ought to be rolled back.

I believe the reason there's no clamor for rollbacks is not because the changes are beloved, but because we've learned that it isn't particularly productive to ask for them. And that is a significant difference.

I'm not sure this is fair.  I haven't been around that long but it seems that many of the changes have been improvements and have been in response to player feedback and concerns.  Rick seems to do a pretty good job of listening to feedback and maybe we've all been a bit spoiled by this democratic approach.  In how many areas do a product's customers have so great an influence in its design? It's a bit like telling a restaurant what they should serve on their menu. Of course it counts to give the customers what they want but not all customers will agree or want the same thing so its really up to the Chef to design the menu.  You can only design a game by democratic procedure so far and even if we don't get it made 'our exact way' you can be sure that our ideas are at least being heard.

And no, this won't stop me from suggesting changes or from complaining with an eye towards bettering the game.  I just realize that the buck has to stop somewhere and you can't please all the people all the time so let's give the game designer some license to run his game as he thinks best.  We're all eating at this restaurant for a reason, it's a good restaurant even if you don't like everything on the menu. Let's keep lobbying for improvements but let's let the chef do his job too.  

[HeadHoncho]

I'm not questioning a designer's right to do what he wants with his own game, Drogo. I'm also not at all saying every change has been bad. I'm simply pointing out that you can't assume a lack of clamor to change certain rules back, equals affirmation.

[Beatific]

I'm not questioning a designer's right to do what he wants with his own game, Drogo. I'm also not at all saying every change has been bad. I'm simply pointing out that you can't assume a lack of clamor to change certain rules back, equals affirmation.

Well, maybe I was wrong then.  My observation is that, in general, if someone on this site doesn't like something, they are usually pretty quick to vocalize it in the forums.  In general.  I am certain that there are those who are more timid, as you suggest, but, at the the end of the day we vote with our pocketbooks.  It kind of goes back to what Rick has always said....where else can you find the good value (fun vs cost)?

I had pointed out that a menu sort of approach during game set up could answer these, but I am wondering if that dilutes and divides the player base in such a way that games overall start slower.   Not sure if there is going to be a good answer that everyone is satisfied with though.  This is a pretty tough problem.  And a lot of passion surrounding it.