Alamaze & Fall of Rome Forum
#300 - Experimental - Printable Version

+- Alamaze & Fall of Rome Forum (https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum)
+-- Forum: ALAMAZE (https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Forum: Active Games (https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: #300 - Experimental (/showthread.php?tid=9626)



RE: #300 - Experimental - Lord Thanatos - 03-25-2015

(03-25-2015, 10:18 PM)Airborne Ranger Wrote:
(03-25-2015, 08:28 PM)DuPont Wrote:
(03-25-2015, 07:38 PM)Lord Thanatos Wrote:
(03-25-2015, 02:23 PM)Airborne Ranger Wrote:
(03-25-2015, 09:47 AM)Hawk_ Wrote: With regard to elimination-  In game 300 it was previously explained in the thread that elimination was part of the playtest.

That does not apply to other games.

The thread above dates 3/20 to the official announcement of "Sanctuary". 

The player in question was eliminated on 3/16.  To apply for a sanctuary it would have been nice if the the new order announcement should have occurred on 3/10.  Possibly announced somewhere on the turn report for players that might have missed it on the forum.  

Not a huge issue to me as I was not impacted.  I just wanted to explain the timeline on behalf of players who are not as active on the forum.

I myself like the elimination and do not like sanctuary. All this does is give a kingdom that was defeated a chance to hang around and just be a pain in the butt for the Kingdom that eliminated it. They have no chance of winning but just want to get revenge at who beat them. If you are beaten then you are beaten! Plan ahead and you will not need sanctuary.

I see no reason to believe this encourages gang banging, diplomacy is major part of game, I am tired of hearing about this ganging up on someone when someone gets beaten. There is usually more to the story. If you keep changing rules every time someone complains there will never be and end to it.

I absolutely hate having a Kingdom get beaten but able to stay around and just be a nuisance. That's why we have a limit of 40 turns, if you cannot be taken out why have turn limit then? Just keep playing, no one can win...............just my opinion.

My guess is that you did NOT play Fall of Rome.  Lord Diamond and I had a Championship/Titan type contest where we each played six kingdoms.  He eliminated one of my kingdoms that had approximately 12 popcenters (if I remember correctly) by blocking all of the other popcenters with small groups and attacking the capital with a large group.  I returned the favor and eliminated one of his kingdoms two or three turns later. [I may have the order reversed and was the one that eliminated him first, but the fact that it happened is beyond dispute.]  Thereafter, I (and Lord Diamond) eliminated strong kingdoms fairly regularly in future Fall of Rome games.  A player definitely had to guard against this tactic.

Now to Alamaze...  Each kingdom begins with exactly four popcenters.  The goal is now to block three with a single brigade and attack the capital.  Difficult to do?  Maybe since each kingdom begins with popcenters in three different regions.  What if three players were to coordinate?  Pretend you are the SO: Town and village in R9, plus village in R6 and town in R3.  Could a RA/DA/DW team eliminate the SO on T3?  Definitely before Exploratory was implemented.  What about now?  T4 purchase HP (a team of two shares this cost) and divine SO towns/villages; T5 move to those locations (a team of two has 8 groups); T6 attack SO capital and the SO is gone.  Three players coordinating makes this so much easier.

So now pretend you are one of those god damn cowards who insist on playing this game with two "buddies" every time . . . Such players would have to be not only cowards, but also fools to not make plans/attempts to eliminate an opponent simply by blocking all the opponent's popcenters.  I have told Rick for years that I love Alamaze so much that I am never going to leave.  This game mechanic is as close to making me leave as it is possible to get.  The first time three or more players coordinate to block all my popcenters while I am otherwise still doing well will likely force me to say "enough."

Now pretend you care to acknowledge that other players may like to play differently than you do . . .  Every player in Alamaze knows that I focus much more intently to prevent a player who attacked me from winning than I ever do to win myself.  A player certainly better factor that into his calculation when he decides to attack me.  Should Rick cater to players with this playstyle?  DuPont and I both share this particular mindset and I would bet heavily that very few players pay more each month than either DuPont or I.  Maybe the players want to expand the player base instead of contract it?  Just a random thought, of course.

Regarding changing rules every time someone complains:  The ability to eliminate a player is a result of complaints.  Alamaze was CHANGED to allow those whiners who couldn't absolutely eliminate another player the ability to do so.  Glass houses, stones, etc...  I am always happy to engage in this debate.

Just so the record is clear: Those who complain about 3 v 1 gangbangs generally complain BEFORE such an event transpires, then when it inevitably does fight like hell to stick around and prevent the gangs from winning if at all possible, and generally despise the new game mechanic that allows players to be eliminated.  If someone wants to have two allies right from the beginning then play either a Magic or Warlord contest.  Oh wait . . . that would put such players on even footing with their opponents.  Those players willing to join 3 v 1 absolutely don't want that to occur.  They want the advantage such gang bangs provide them and the refuge they take is claiming "diplomacy."  Why is anonymous such a popular variant?  Because gang-bangs are way too common and way too easy.

If a player doesn't believe the ability to outright eliminate a kingdom won't encourage more 3 v 1 "diplomacy" then such a player is either intellectually dishonest or simply a fool !!!!!!!!!

I do agree that a better change would have been to eliminate the 40 turn limit instead of creating an elimination game mechanic.

Finally, my opinion is that the players who want the ability to eliminate an opponent are more likely to be the players who quit contests when things are not going their way.  Why is this my opinion?  Because a player who rarely if ever quits is probably a player who doesn't want someone else to dictate when he has to quit.  A Player who is okay with being eliminated is probably okay with quitting to join a different contest.  Such players are referred to as having a "glass jaw."  New thought: maybe we should have Rick correlate those players who like the eliminate feature with how often such players have quit a contest???  I would be interested in those results.  We can call it market research.

As always, just my two cents (unless one looks at my monthly Alamaze bill) . . .

Slow clap...
I have not seen this gang bang attack you guys have come across and have not played Rome game, if this is the case stay with anon games. If players do the things you claim to have said then call them out for all to see? I agree, that is not a way to play alamaze, but a mechanic to screw someone.

2nd there was no reason to make verbal attacks on my comments (glass jaw, stupid for not believing in gang attacks) I was just giving my opinion. Just like those that do gang bang verbal attacks on a computer are cowardly and intellectually ignorant, maybe I read it wrong but you seem to be mad about my comments? I was just joining discussion.

I like to read all other opinions but when someone goes out to make comments like you did I lose all respect for their opinion. All you had to state was your experience etc. Why go and make comments like that, you do not even know me? That is what pisses me off, just like you get mad about gang bangers, I have issues with computer tough guys.

I have read many of your other posts and agreed and learned from them.

If you would have laid off those ignorant comments I would have been more open to your side. Maybe you are just mad but hell I never did anything to you so why the attacks? These are the things that also make people want to drop, just down right discourteous. So much for having fun or discussing in forum. I am sure if you knew my backround you would feel pretty stupid about those comments.

I have nothing against you at all Airborne.  I cannot even remember if we have played in a game together.

I despise the gang-bangs (what skill is being utilized when an opponent is so outnumbered?).  I deplore the elimination mechanic because it exacerbates this problem.  I detest that I cannot understand why this change is worthwhile.

I am simply frustrated!

And . . . I sincerely apologize to you.


RE: #300 - Experimental - Airborne Ranger - 03-25-2015

(03-25-2015, 10:38 PM)Lord Thanatos Wrote:
(03-25-2015, 10:18 PM)Airborne Ranger Wrote:
(03-25-2015, 08:28 PM)DuPont Wrote:
(03-25-2015, 07:38 PM)Lord Thanatos Wrote:
(03-25-2015, 02:23 PM)Airborne Ranger Wrote: I myself like the elimination and do not like sanctuary. All this does is give a kingdom that was defeated a chance to hang around and just be a pain in the butt for the Kingdom that eliminated it. They have no chance of winning but just want to get revenge at who beat them. If you are beaten then you are beaten! Plan ahead and you will not need sanctuary.

I see no reason to believe this encourages gang banging, diplomacy is major part of game, I am tired of hearing about this ganging up on someone when someone gets beaten. There is usually more to the story. If you keep changing rules every time someone complains there will never be and end to it.

I absolutely hate having a Kingdom get beaten but able to stay around and just be a nuisance. That's why we have a limit of 40 turns, if you cannot be taken out why have turn limit then? Just keep playing, no one can win...............just my opinion.

My guess is that you did NOT play Fall of Rome.  Lord Diamond and I had a Championship/Titan type contest where we each played six kingdoms.  He eliminated one of my kingdoms that had approximately 12 popcenters (if I remember correctly) by blocking all of the other popcenters with small groups and attacking the capital with a large group.  I returned the favor and eliminated one of his kingdoms two or three turns later. [I may have the order reversed and was the one that eliminated him first, but the fact that it happened is beyond dispute.]  Thereafter, I (and Lord Diamond) eliminated strong kingdoms fairly regularly in future Fall of Rome games.  A player definitely had to guard against this tactic.

Now to Alamaze...  Each kingdom begins with exactly four popcenters.  The goal is now to block three with a single brigade and attack the capital.  Difficult to do?  Maybe since each kingdom begins with popcenters in three different regions.  What if three players were to coordinate?  Pretend you are the SO: Town and village in R9, plus village in R6 and town in R3.  Could a RA/DA/DW team eliminate the SO on T3?  Definitely before Exploratory was implemented.  What about now?  T4 purchase HP (a team of two shares this cost) and divine SO towns/villages; T5 move to those locations (a team of two has 8 groups); T6 attack SO capital and the SO is gone.  Three players coordinating makes this so much easier.

So now pretend you are one of those god damn cowards who insist on playing this game with two "buddies" every time . . . Such players would have to be not only cowards, but also fools to not make plans/attempts to eliminate an opponent simply by blocking all the opponent's popcenters.  I have told Rick for years that I love Alamaze so much that I am never going to leave.  This game mechanic is as close to making me leave as it is possible to get.  The first time three or more players coordinate to block all my popcenters while I am otherwise still doing well will likely force me to say "enough."

Now pretend you care to acknowledge that other players may like to play differently than you do . . .  Every player in Alamaze knows that I focus much more intently to prevent a player who attacked me from winning than I ever do to win myself.  A player certainly better factor that into his calculation when he decides to attack me.  Should Rick cater to players with this playstyle?  DuPont and I both share this particular mindset and I would bet heavily that very few players pay more each month than either DuPont or I.  Maybe the players want to expand the player base instead of contract it?  Just a random thought, of course.

Regarding changing rules every time someone complains:  The ability to eliminate a player is a result of complaints.  Alamaze was CHANGED to allow those whiners who couldn't absolutely eliminate another player the ability to do so.  Glass houses, stones, etc...  I am always happy to engage in this debate.

Just so the record is clear: Those who complain about 3 v 1 gangbangs generally complain BEFORE such an event transpires, then when it inevitably does fight like hell to stick around and prevent the gangs from winning if at all possible, and generally despise the new game mechanic that allows players to be eliminated.  If someone wants to have two allies right from the beginning then play either a Magic or Warlord contest.  Oh wait . . . that would put such players on even footing with their opponents.  Those players willing to join 3 v 1 absolutely don't want that to occur.  They want the advantage such gang bangs provide them and the refuge they take is claiming "diplomacy."  Why is anonymous such a popular variant?  Because gang-bangs are way too common and way too easy.

If a player doesn't believe the ability to outright eliminate a kingdom won't encourage more 3 v 1 "diplomacy" then such a player is either intellectually dishonest or simply a fool !!!!!!!!!

I do agree that a better change would have been to eliminate the 40 turn limit instead of creating an elimination game mechanic.

Finally, my opinion is that the players who want the ability to eliminate an opponent are more likely to be the players who quit contests when things are not going their way.  Why is this my opinion?  Because a player who rarely if ever quits is probably a player who doesn't want someone else to dictate when he has to quit.  A Player who is okay with being eliminated is probably okay with quitting to join a different contest.  Such players are referred to as having a "glass jaw."  New thought: maybe we should have Rick correlate those players who like the eliminate feature with how often such players have quit a contest???  I would be interested in those results.  We can call it market research.

As always, just my two cents (unless one looks at my monthly Alamaze bill) . . .

Slow clap...
I have not seen this gang bang attack you guys have come across and have not played Rome game, if this is the case stay with anon games. If players do the things you claim to have said then call them out for all to see? I agree, that is not a way to play alamaze, but a mechanic to screw someone.

2nd there was no reason to make verbal attacks on my comments (glass jaw, stupid for not believing in gang attacks) I was just giving my opinion. Just like those that do gang bang verbal attacks on a computer are cowardly and intellectually ignorant, maybe I read it wrong but you seem to be mad about my comments? I was just joining discussion.

I like to read all other opinions but when someone goes out to make comments like you did I lose all respect for their opinion. All you had to state was your experience etc. Why go and make comments like that, you do not even know me? That is what pisses me off, just like you get mad about gang bangers, I have issues with computer tough guys.

I have read many of your other posts and agreed and learned from them.

If you would have laid off those ignorant comments I would have been more open to your side. Maybe you are just mad but hell I never did anything to you so why the attacks? These are the things that also make people want to drop, just down right discourteous. So much for having fun or discussing in forum. I am sure if you knew my backround you would feel pretty stupid about those comments.

I have nothing against you at all Airborne.  I cannot even remember if we have played in a game together.

I despise the gang-bangs (what skill is being utilized when an opponent is so outnumbered?).  I deplore the elimination mechanic because it exacerbates this problem.  I detest that I cannot understand why this change is worthwhile.

I am simply frustrated!

And . . . I sincerely apologize to you.

No problem, I can understand your frustration, but I never encountered these gang bangs yet. As I have just came back to alamaze after being out for over 7 years things/rules changed, only a few players I recognize from back then. It seems to have gotten less friendly and more competitive to win.
I apologize also for getting pissed, getting called or insinuated as cowardly got my goat, after putting 20 years in Army as a paratrooper and Ranger, then going back overseas to Iraq as a security contractor for a few more tours I took offense. Just never had games get so many people mad. I  used to talk to Phil by phone about game/personal things back in the day, I miss that. There was no forum but Valhalla. I even wrote an article about games in it. Was a lot more friendly then. I can only remember players like Dusi and Frankenhoff that are still around.

So for get it, all is good!


RE: #300 - Experimental - unclemike - 03-26-2015

Just an update. The code review process is going well, only a few minor tweaks so far, so we should be able to get the games back up and running fairly soon.

Regarding elimination, I agree with Airborne. All the games that I have ever played in have clear rules on eliminating opponents. Chess, Age of Empires, and just about every other game in existence has ways of eliminating the other person rather than having them linger on forever in the game.

So to satisfy like-minded players, I was thinking of suggesting to Ry Vor to add a new game variant called Survival mode. In Survival mode, sanctuaries are illegal and players are eliminated when they lose their last pc. I can even have the code override the default mechanism of not relocating capitals if non-allied groups are at the pc so players can't be eliminated if others just cover up your remaining pc's rather than attacking them.

Since some have commented that they won't pay the setup fees if they can't stay forever in a game then perhaps we can convince Ry Vor to give a discount for Survival mode games. I'm sure they'll be popular then.

If so then my favorite variant of the game will be Anonymous-Steel-Survival or ASS.


RE: #300 - Experimental - Jumpingfist - 03-26-2015

Covering up all the PCs should not be a way to remove a kingdom. Maybe just put in a check where the capital will go. First uncovered PC or sanctuary. Second if all covered, PC with group not strong enough to siege. If none for one or two relocate to highest defense PC covered PC.


RE: #300 - Experimental - gkmetty - 03-26-2015

Providing a variant is a great solution.


RE: #300 - Experimental - Rogal - 03-26-2015

Anyone want to try and do some sea battles?  I think I am mainly talking to the northern kingdoms since I can atm only build fleets in the Sea of Terror.  Just asking before I start wasting some gold on a fleet that might not get used.  After the next turn I  can have more then the single fleet.


RE: #300 - Experimental - Lord Diamond - 03-30-2015

I disagree with forced elimination for another reason and that is the setup fee. If I pay a seup fee, plus my monthly subscription, I whould beable to play in a game for as long as I am having fun. If there were no setup fee and I could simply jump into a new game with no additional expense, I would be okay with being eliminated.

Lord Thanatos, we had many games where we eliminated one another. The particular game you mentioned was one where I eliminated your Alamanni before the turn six status points. I was proud of that one as it left you at a significant disadvantage the rest of the game. That was the quickest anyone I knew of had managed one, but they were very (too?) common.

I dislike the ability to eliminate anyone with a viable kingdom by simply blockading his alternate capitals with a brigade of recruits.


RE: #300 - Experimental - unclemike - 04-06-2015

Game 300 is now officially over. Congrats to Hawk with his SVC victory!

When this game first started, I thought others would take it lightly since it was free but I had fun 'til the last turn! The Druid and 1st Cycle kingdoms gave it a different feel and this was the first game with a Lich that caused havoc. I had a great time and thank you all for participating and of your patience in working out the bugs...


RE: #300 - Experimental - Ry Vor - 04-06-2015

I'm going to start a thread in Valhalla for #300.  Congratulations to Mike for creating and running this game, and I look forward to player posts in the new Valhalla thread.

This thread is now closed.