Duel Game Beta Feedback

[Lord Diamond]

I have only encountered one MAJOR issue with the duel games that, in my opinion, needs to be changed; the Seasons! Ezerbrite gets a huge advantage over Westania. Many games will end before the next Summer comes around. I understand that the whole point of Centauria was to teach new players and I get that. However, I think that both regions should be on the same seasonal rotation.


MINOR Issue: Too few pcs. You doubled the size of the regions and apparently just added one city. Most of the map is bare wilderness. I think a few more pcs should be added to each region.

[VballMichael]

Agree. Canticar and I were just discussing this. Turn 1 is about even because both sides have one town and one village, so that does not disadvantage the east. Then 5-7 are bad for the west, right about the time of invading. We will see, but i suspect that will prove a huge advantage for the east.

As to map size, in one duel, we got our regions on turns 4 and 5. In my other duel, neither has it on turn 5, partly because we are wizards and both counted on the find towns spell for turn 2 that cannot be cast until turn 4.
I would like an extra town or two.

Finally, someone else mentioned this, but since there are only two kingdoms, I would not have the owned pop centers spread evenly between them. I could denigrate my opponent in his region on turn 1 since we both own about the same holdings. Maybe just a village (and no group) in the opponent region.

[Atuan]

The group in the other region is huge. Had I paid attention to how the seige trait works I would have skipped playing with the city and ended on the ra capital on turn 3 before me moved it.

[Ry Vor]

I have only encountered one MAJOR issue with the duel games that, in my opinion, needs to be changed; the Seasons! Ezerbrite gets a huge advantage over Westania. Many games will end before the next Summer comes around. I understand that the whole point of Centauria was to teach new players and I get that. However, I think that both regions should be on the same seasonal rotation.


MINOR Issue: Too few pcs. You doubled the size of the regions and apparently just added one city. Most of the map is bare wilderness. I think a few more pcs should be added to each region.

Good - I came on the forum a few minutes ago to actually start this thread, getting feedback on the Duel game and the Centauria map.

The main question or concern I had from The Gray Mouser being in one game (and in the East) was whether others thought the seasonality favored the East a bit too much.  So I think I will ask Uncle Mike to eliminate seasonality on the games on the Centauria map.  I think that is a good improvement in this format, as the original purpose was to introduce Alamaze to new players and hitting your bad season kind of whups new players upside the head as well as being an additional thing to learn.  If that is involved to code, then we'll treat both regions as subject to Summer. 

On the idea of Denigrating the other player on Turn 1.  You could do that, and Denigration will have a concerning chance to fail as your regional reaction is worse in that region.  Meanwhile the other player is likely Enamoring his region.  So the best you could hope for is that you both wasted an order as you will each have the same regional reaction you started with.  If the die roll goes against you, you have gained nothing and your opponent is Friendly in his region.

On the region size: they are the same as on Resurgent. Don't count the water areas as they are not in play - just there for aesthetics.

I think we are close to being able to go with Duel.  The Gray Mouser says he is really enjoying it and the Elf vs. Dwarf duel had about equal status points after turn 6.  No significant engagements of group vs. group yet.  Both sides mainly cleaning the trash out of the home region.  Elves gained control on turn 4, Dwarves on turn 5.

[Jumpingfist]

Both regions as the same season is a great idea. I would actually recommend both be on a Winter schedule. The idea would be to help slow the game down and also let new player experience the harshness of winter and learn to manage it before they try a full game.

[Lord Diamond]

I think some serious consideration needs to be done with th setups and kingdom configurations of Beta. Using the same setups as a 12-player game isn't going to work.

The Red Dragon, for example, gets the 'Rich' attribute (30,000 gold and +4,000 gold production at capital) because in the standard game he starts off dispersed. In teh duel game he gets the exact same regional advantage as his opponent does, yet starts with 100,000 gold. In the BL vs RD game, the RD started in the Summer side, gets 60,000 more gold, and one more brigade.

I am certain that there will be other issues that will make the kingdoms wildly unbalanced. Combined with the East-West kingdom divisions, and the viable combinations are more limited than you's initially think.

I don't know that any kingdom would be near equal to the Red Dragon in this format.

I know it is highly unlikely, but I am still advocating the creation of 22 kingdoms for the East and near matching 22 kingdoms for the East. Then tweak them to reflect the fact that they are opposed to a single kingdom and not eleven.

[Atuan]

LD your statement about Rich in this format is certainly something that should be looked at. For example the TY(which really shouldn't have 7 starting PCs and doesnt) fits in the same area. I believe the ESO bonus shouldn't count.

As to kingdoms that could stand up to the RD. I am guessing JF will tell you the TY are likely more powerful.

[Jumpingfist]

TY would not be my first choice vs the RD in this format, but it would be I fun fight. TY does have that p4 wraith vs the RD mobility.

[Jumpingfist]

Been holding off to give a full feedback. Seems most things already got covered.

I see a lot of potential in this format but maybe not as much as it currently stands. It is fun to just battle one person not having to factor in things like playing it slow so you do not draw to much attention or purposely not taking regions to fast.

1) I agree with LD and IT we should have access to all kingdom to play on either side of the map. In addition to being able to play the same kingdom vs itself. Initially we were giving a choice either allow all kingdoms vs each other but risk having capitals start in the same region or have kingdoms divided between two set regions. So really was no choice no body wants a game that randomly starts with your capitals 2 squares from each other. Nobody wants to risk tossing there money away. The better options was not offered. I hope Ry Vor is willing to allocate some of UM time to creating 22 kingdom setups for each side.

2) winter effect discussed in another thread. In this fast format it is not good to have the two kingdoms on different seasons. Gives a big advantage to the kingdom not suffering from the early winter. Having both kingdoms on the same cycle that Ry Vor suggested is a great solution to this.

3) starting towns and armies. Having both kingdoms start with there 2nd group in the other kingdoms region gives to much of a random chance of discovering the other kingdoms capital early on or village. Even if the other capital is not found additional random information can effect the game early on. Plus effect how long it takes to merge groups to beable to take towns militarily. Starting with the kingdoms 2nd town in there home region I think would help keep things less random. Regions would be better defined to there perspective kingdoms as well.

4) modifying kingdoms to fit into this format. I am not in favor of this except perhaps the TYs 7 PCs to 4 PCs. UM already made this modification. The ESO bonus for dispersed kingdoms is not really much of a deal since many games will not even go that far. I did not even pick ESO stuff for my RD game. Also one of the main goals of this format is to allow new players get familiar with kingdoms and the game as a whole. Better to let them explore them in there standard configuration. Some may be stronger than others but they all should have counters like a chess match.

I think this could be a great format especially with items 1 and 2 addressed. I see it as something stats could follow through even if we change to a new game type since the ranking would likely be based play vs players.

[Ry Vor]

I think we'll just get back on our original agenda.  Not sure if people know how expensive and time consuming coding is.  This was supposed to be just a surprise bonus, not a long project.