Duel Game Beta Feedback

[Ry Vor]

We were asking for general feedback on "Do you like the map, the two player format, the 3x a week turnaround?", and "How is your match going?".

Players in a test game should understand we are looking forward to their constructive feedback on what they have.  Not so much, why does it not do these other things I would like it to do?  It's flattering in a sense, that our players feel they can ask for anything, as I doubt that is true in other aspects of any of our lives. 

We haven't received any comments at support from several players in test games for Duel.  As with the beta's for 3rd Cycle, I just don't get why some players request a beta position and then provide no feedback, or even drop.

I think we will have Duel go forward, but we are not seeking re-design ideas, just "do you want to play this variant?"  Again, Duel was thrown out there as sort of a bonus, on a new map.  Pretty much looking for a thumbs up or thumbs down. 

[HeadHoncho]

I like the map, two player format, and turnaround time. My match is going well despite some bad dice rolls, but then I think AN is a pretty dominant Kingdom in this format. Hope that helps.

[Ry Vor]

I like the map, two player format, and turnaround time. My match is going well despite some bad dice rolls, but then I think AN is a pretty dominant Kingdom in this format. Hope that helps.

Perfect.  Only other thing is, do you want to sign up for Duel Games?

To emphasize a point, say the Red Dragon becomes dominant in Duel.  The more successful it becomes, the fewer points will accrue to the RD winner.  The exact formula to be worked out if players want Duel games.

The idea is generally that say Head Honcho challenges VBallMichael to a match, and they in email discuss who will have what kingdom.  If everyone always wants the Dwarves, then the variant isn't viable, but we are not oriented presently to "fix" the Dwarves if such a condition existed.  Just a week or so ago there was concern the Red Dragons were non-competitive, now it seems -  not so much. 

Trust in the designer, and the developer.  It's been going pretty well for 30 years.

[HeadHoncho]

The reality is that as the Third Cycle Kingdoms are currently setup, some will be way stronger than others in this format. That is totally OK if the matchups are consented to in advance by the players.

I would probably play it at the right price point. Not sure $11.95 is perfect (might be slightly high if a game goes five turns, for example), but it's at least very close.

[Jumpingfist]

RD is still weak. I could easily beat them if needed with most the pure mages. Though we will not find out I do not plan to pay for a game admitted that is not worth spending the effort to make it better.

you wonder why players do not provide input. Because you guys attack us when we disagree or call us rude for pointing things out that we feel are not right. Just like you want certain types of input you should respect that we want to provide our own input our way as well.

Within this last week during an email conversation I created a list comparing second cycle with 3rd picking which version is better in each category. To my own surprise they actually came up even. I favored 3rd cycle because I put more importance on certain items on the list the other person weighted other items and favored second cycle.

Maybe it would be worthwhile to listen to input from gamers with 40+ years of experience that are actually paying for your product saying what they would like to see and spend more money on.

[HeadHoncho]

I think JF expresses a valid and understandable viewpoint.

[Lord Diamond]

I think JF expresses a valid and understandable viewpoint.

Agreed. Perhaps JF put it better than I did. I certainly didn't intend my comments to be, in any way, a "personal insult". Rather, it was precisely how I interpreted Rick's reaction to our feedback. My perception is actually based on years of conversation, not simply one thread. 

I may have misunderstood Rick's comments about the original agenda. Considering that I created this thread, the agenda is precisely what I intended it to be. 

The point (made dozens of times over the past ten years) is that you don't get to tell ys what type of feedback you want, although you are free to make specific requests. You are going to get whatever we want to provide as long as we are the ones paying you and not vice versa. The day that changes is the last time I send issue another Paypal payment. It's a package deal. 

I like Duels very much and will pay money to play them. Possibly dozens of times. I can also see using them to entice new players to Alamaze. That doesn't mean that they can't be better or that certain changes won't make them more sustainable, more attractive, and more interesting; thus getting more if my momey. Isn't that why you have a Beta in the first place? 

[Netstrider]

Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down is not a valid feedback request. Or if you insist, I'll reply with Thumbs Down. Maybe my issue is something small that could be easily addressed. Maybe it's something huge and the whole concept is flawed. But you'll never know because you don't want me to tell you. Weird.

As the owner of a company that provides software licensed to over 5 million people, I can tell you that I solicit and listen closely to every bit of feedback I can possibly get. But hey, that's just me and I'm not dealing with a bunch of annoying gamer types.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

Playing the Druids against the Dark Elves in my first Duel. First, I'm glad the seasonal aspects are being removed for future games as I think I was at a distinct disadvantage having the early winter while the Drow did not. I enjoy this format simply because it is so very different from a full fledged game. With such a small map, the chances of an Intercept being successful are very high and you are likely to have much earlier combat. I can see the military kingdoms becoming dominant picks to seize that early advantage. There is also no hope that some other kingdom will intervene to take your enemy's attention away from you, there is no diplomacy to save you, no HC, no water/fleet activities. It is a very "in your face" format which requires very different strategy and tactics from a full fledged 12 player game. I see an even $10 for about what I would expect to pay for this type of game. I think it will be popular to play all the different kingdoms rather quickly but I could see interest waning after this except for grudge matches or "I bet I could beat the X kingdom with the Y kingdom, prove me wrong" mindset.
Having said that, the two things that would most want me to play the Duel format (even after earlier novelty has faded) have already been stated:
1) Let both players play the same kingdom (if they want to) so that the two kingdoms are perfectly evenly matched.
2) A "Ready" button, so that I can speed play a game with another player if we both have a free weekend so a new turn is run shortly after we both have pushed the Ready button.
With those things present, I'd be willing to pay $15-20 a game.

[HeadHoncho]

Just a week or so ago there was concern the Red Dragons were non-competitive, now it seems - not so much.

Trust in the designer, and the developer. It's been going pretty well for 30 years.

I have been debating whether or not to say anything in response to this, and since there seems to be some candid discussion happening here -- which I personally view as a very good thing -- I've decided to comment.

It is not a question of a lack of trust. It is the basic truth that everyone should have the humility and security (as opposed to insecurity) to admit that he or she is not perfect, and can miss things... sometimes even things that may be fairly obvious to others, especially people who are also well-informed on the subject matter in question.

When you have that humility and security, then feedback is not a threat, but a boon.

Let's take the RD as an example. You seem convinced that simply because no one has explicitly criticized the RD position in a week, and that one of the best players in the form of JF has beaten another (admittedly good) player in the form of LD who was similarly handicapped in a one-on-one duel with the BL, that suddenly means the RD is all good.

That is a somewhat astonishing assumption on your part, so much so that I just don't understand it.

Many of the long-time expert players have already commented that the inability to recruit WY from the capital, the inability to recruit prior to T4, and the unavailability of Dispel Dome until a higher level is an enormous handicap on a Kingdom like RD.

Until you address these issues, RD is going to have problems. Even if JF as RD can beat LD as BL.

On the subject of things going pretty well for 30 years, that may be true as to the quality of the game, but the problem is the player base has been continually shrinking, to the extent that we are starting to run into a danger of losing critical mass to form games.

The reasons for this are many and have already been described at various points in the past, so I don't see the need to rehash them now. But as to improving the situation, I honestly don't think that excellent game design and excellent programming, standing all by themselves, will do it.