2016 The Choosing Philosophy and Other Stuff

[Ry Vor]

I've gotten the last bit of code adjustments off to Uncle Mike.  We will study the betas next turns' battles, and hopefully, other attempts at new abilities and traits, new spells, etc. 

But we are pretty confident we have the 1000's of changes from 2nd Cycle ready to go.

And I want to say again, the interface Uncle Mike has created is something we are most proud of, and if every Alamaze player would tell their old friends about it, that alone should be enough to reinvigorate their new opportunity to rule a kingdom in Alamaze. 

Then, I am pleased with the design advancements.  Players will judge where it stands in Multlplayer Turn Based Strategy Games, but it may take a year for the transition from 2nd Cycle to 3rd Cycle to take shape in players' minds.  It took longer than that for me.

On the Philosophy front, I am really a bit torn on what formats to offer initially now that The Choosing is practically here.  Especially for the first games.  Obviously with two years of development, I'm not excited by the silence that an anonymous game offers.  I would prefer not having an anonymous game initially.  But I have bowed to player preference before - but that would need to be 12 players, not a couple, at least while we launch 3rd Cycle. 

I'm still confused on why Alliance Games (team games) are not viewed as many players do: that it is a good middle ground between the isolation of Anonymous games, and the sometimes demanding requirements of Full-On diplomacy games.  Added benefit: I don't know of a player who played in an Alliance game where they did not learn something quite useful.  On the community side, there are some players who like to play with some teammates they have gotten along with, new players especially learn at a huge rate if their second game after Primeval is Alliance.

As always, Alamaze 3rd Cycle was designed as a game with diplomacy.  Many kingdoms require diplomacy to be viable, otherwise we don't have Alamaze, we have a sophisticated game of Risk.  Halflings, Underworld, Pirates, possibly several other kingdoms really bring a unique element to strategy games as a whole, but can't really prosper easily with no communication.  You could make that argument for unexpected kingdoms like the Red Dragons and The Tyrant as well, where their intimidation might dictate early diplomacy, but that is lost in Anonymous.

I'd like to see the first games be 1) Alliance, 2) Full On (was called Diplomacy in 2nd Cycle) be the primary games as we kick off.   Other views invited.  Especially trying to understand why Alliance is not the most popular choice.  But I might post a thread for all three formats. Also, a couple kingdoms were promised, so I am also debating how to choose kingdoms for the first few games.

[Jumpingfist]

For alliance games I would guess there are two things that many feel are the main reasons against the format. 1st if a teammate drops your team is basically hosed. Sometimes it is ok if they give the teammates a heads up. They can be replaced or given to another teammate. 2nd would be the feeling of being gang banged on a larger scale. This is also an issue at times with warlords. You start fighting one team another joins in planned or not and you are facing 6 vs 3. To me it is part of the game and strategy to help keep this from happening. I personally also find the alliance game to be one of the best formats for the reasons you mentioned. You get to work closely with 2 others but do not have to worry about the diplomacy of 11 other kingdoms.

For promised kingdoms if they want to play the alliance game give thier team the first pick in the draft or if the diplomacy game have them pick privately with you and then when you post the game have them assigned to there choices already. There are enough new kingdoms to go around really is not even an issue.

[Jumpingfist]

Oh I also think picking by zone would be a better way to select than kingdoms. Judging from the betas players are not used to if you take the NE the CI is off the table. Easy to understand zones/regions 1-10 plus dispersed 1 and dispersed 2.

[mafmiller]

In 3rd Cycle, I would prefer full diplomacy for the reasons stated ... some of the new kingdoms lose A LOT of their flavor without diplomacy. I don't prefer team games in general (although I do enjoy them once in a while), because having to plan my turns with my team limits my choices. Although I certainly have liked reaching the podium (the very few times it has happened ), I don't tend to focus on that goal ... instead, I very much enjoy exploring, both the actual land of Alamaze, and the many actions I can take. This is limited in a team game.

[Atuan]

Here's my issue with anon games. The UN/Pirates are pretty much screwed. While the TY has enough to stay valid and fight for a few different regions the RD basically is disadvantaged due to their emissaries being extremely dispersed, with diplomacy they have the ability to take a portion of a couple of regions they are in and build a viable kingdom. I'm honestly not sure the Dragon kingdoms are not severely hampered in the 3rd cycle with their 565 brigades needing to be vet and turn 4. I would personally think they could recruit great bats turn 1 but that's just my opinion having read their set ups but not having played them.

I would love to play a diplomacy or alliance game. I wont be touching the PI/UN/HA/RD in an anon game.

And honestly I expect both games to fill same day and likely 4 would fill same day.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

For alliance games I would guess there are two things that many feel are the main reasons against the format.  1st if a teammate drops your team is basically hosed.  Sometimes it is ok if they give the teammates a heads up.  They can be replaced or given to another teammate.  2nd would be the feeling of being gang banged on a larger scale.  This is also an issue at times with warlords.   You start fighting one team another joins in planned or not and you are facing 6 vs 3.  To me it is part of the game and strategy to help keep this from happening.  I personally also find the alliance game to be one of the best formats for the reasons you mentioned.  You get to work closely with 2 others but do not have to worry about the diplomacy of 11 other kingdoms.

One solution here might be to have the alliance games 6 v 6 (just 2 teams).  That way a dropped player (before replacing him) is only 1/6 of the team instead of 1/3; less of an overall impact.  Furthermore, you don't have to worry about Team 1, 2, and 3 fighting while Team 4 sits in its corner building up (in a 4 team game); in a 2 team game, there's only one enemy to worry about... the other team.  Lastly, in a 2-team 6v6 if the opposing team decides to do a 3-1 against one of your team kingdoms, then your team can counter that with a 3-1 somewhere else. That's still not fun for the playing getting smacked 3-1 but they should have some joy knowing that the rest of their team will be retaliating elsewhere.

I must say, I'm greatly enjoying the 5v5 game I'm in right now.  And having the game count for Valhalla status points will also be important to attract certain players.

[HeadHoncho]

Only downside to team games for me is the extra time it takes to plan and coordinate, and the frustration when other teammates don't respond to email.

[Lord Thanatos]

Here's my issue with anon games.  The UN/Pirates are pretty much screwed.  While the TY has enough to stay valid and fight for a few different regions the RD basically is disadvantaged due to their emissaries being extremely dispersed, with diplomacy they have the ability to take a portion of a couple of regions they are in and build a viable kingdom.   I'm honestly not sure the Dragon kingdoms are not severely hampered in the 3rd cycle with their 565 brigades needing to be vet and turn 4.  I would personally think they could recruit great bats turn  1 but that's just my opinion having read their set ups but not having played them.

I would love to play a diplomacy or alliance game.   I wont be touching the PI/UN/HA/RD in an anon game.

And honestly I expect both games to fill same day and likely 4 would fill same day.

There are 24 kingdoms available.  This is really not a problem anymore, my friend.  If you feel this way just don't pick those kingdoms.  Players who disagree with you might select one of those.  The RD certainly doesn't belong at the list you made for any number of reasons.

Oh well, let's see how things work out when the contests begin . . .

[Lord Thanatos]

I do not mind just thought the idea of getting more automated was to also avoid the need to open a bunch of extra stuff.   If players are at a disadvantage for not keeping up an extra spread they are more likely to stop playing.   Many feel they are to busy for such things to play a game.

I'm not sure we are getting each other's thoughts here.   As the Elves, you'll get a universal result that the Dwarves attempted to denigrate the Dark Elves in the Talking Mountains.  You won't necessarily know what the result was or what the new Dark Elven reaction is in that region.  Most of these won't necessarily influence your own turn much, but you'll have an idea in that case that the Dwarves are concerned about the Dark Elves, or at least want kingdoms to think they are.

To restate the philosophy part, we want players to feel it is a 12 kingdom game, not 3 or 4 as the local wars tend to boil it down to.  You'll have a feel for what is going on in the rest of the world without having to be doing diplomacy with distant kingdoms to get that sense.  Also, to the perspective of those that feel that defending is much harder than attacking, it will be an enhancement to know a neighbor is enamoring in your region.

This is great!

[Atuan]

Here's my issue with anon games.  The UN/Pirates are pretty much screwed.  While the TY has enough to stay valid and fight for a few different regions the RD basically is disadvantaged due to their emissaries being extremely dispersed, with diplomacy they have the ability to take a portion of a couple of regions they are in and build a viable kingdom.   I'm honestly not sure the Dragon kingdoms are not severely hampered in the 3rd cycle with their 565 brigades needing to be vet and turn 4.  I would personally think they could recruit great bats turn  1 but that's just my opinion having read their set ups but not having played them.

I would love to play a diplomacy or alliance game.   I wont be touching the PI/UN/HA/RD in an anon game.

And honestly I expect both games to fill same day and likely 4 would fill same day.

There are 24 kingdoms available.  This is really not a problem anymore, my friend.  If you feel this way just don't pick those kingdoms.  Players who disagree with you might select one of those.  The RD certainly doesn't belong at the list you made for any number of reasons.

Oh well, let's see how things work out when the contests begin . . .

Not exactly there are 2 for each. The issue is UN/PI are one of the two 12. And yes I agree with the fact others might enjoy playing them even in an anon game but the advantages those kingdoms have are minimized by that structure.