Posts: 5,607
Threads: 618
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
I think when we get 3rd Cycle Valhalla we can evaluate. We still have the red herrings like new players choose to start in Amberland so it likely skews results away from the Sacred Order.
I'd like to see the top players choose the Sacred Order, the Cimmerians, the Amazons, the Lizard King, the Halfling, Illusionist, Ranger. Not so much the Red Dragons, Nomads, Necromancer, Druid, Gnome.
If those in the second category are perceived to have an advantage, wouldn't the top players want the challenge of the first category and prove something?
Posts: 5,607
Threads: 618
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
08-27-2016, 03:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2016, 03:50 AM by Ry Vor.)
I don't really have any difficulty with moving up hiring Adepts and Centurions to turn 4. It does sort of fit with the High Priestess restriction. Remember, before Centurions and Adepts could not be hired at all, so was sort of easing the idea in. I still think the restriction should apply on how many wizards you have in order to attract an Adept.
That doesn't mean it is in place now, it just means I think, with that caveat on how many wizards you have already, it wouldn't unbalance the game to move from T10 to T4.
Posts: 2,570
Threads: 39
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
0
I think the current set point of no more than 5 is good. It is a good level to keep you in the magic but not allow you to over power everyone else
Posts: 2,071
Threads: 70
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
0
I thought of that as a special ability to sort of refresh a damaged kingdom, rather than just an extra wizard or leader. I am fine with T10. This is extra for if those kingdoms are down to a certain number.
Posts: 2,071
Threads: 70
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
0
(08-27-2016, 02:58 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: I think when we get 3rd Cycle Valhalla we can evaluate. We still have the red herrings like new players choose to start in Amberland so it likely skews results away from the Sacred Order.
I'd like to see the top players choose the Sacred Order, the Cimmerians, the Amazons, the Lizard King, the Halfling, Illusionist, Ranger. Not so much the Red Dragons, Nomads, Necromancer, Druid, Gnome.
If those in the second category are perceived to have an advantage, wouldn't the top players want the challenge of the first category and prove something?
In this latest game, I took CI 
Posts: 2,570
Threads: 39
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
0
Played IL playing HA in a duel.
Played SA in beta not likely to play them for a while. We disagreed on there strength, which is fine.
Looking to play AM NO and LI soon
Posts: 923
Threads: 14
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation:
0
I took the RA/IL in the slugfest. I am the HA in the alliance game. I am playing the AM in 523. I played the CI in beta and not likely to play them. I wont play the SA in a non diplomacy game as I think they are weak and desperately need to be able to use communication to win from a central location. I have the same opinion of the BL. I have not played in region 9.
Posts: 976
Threads: 33
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
08-27-2016, 10:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2016, 10:35 PM by Hawk_.)
(08-27-2016, 02:58 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: I think when we get 3rd Cycle Valhalla we can evaluate. We still have the red herrings like new players choose to start in Amberland so it likely skews results away from the Sacred Order.
I'd like to see the top players choose the Sacred Order, the Cimmerians, the Amazons, the Lizard King, the Halfling, Illusionist, Ranger. Not so much the Red Dragons, Nomads, Necromancer, Druid, Gnome.
If those in the second category are perceived to have an advantage, wouldn't the top players want the challenge of the first category and prove something?
I did pretty decent with the RA in 512. Pretty much just fought with the TY, HA, NO though. Didn't battle any wizard kingdoms or the RD.
Posts: 2,252
Threads: 227
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
Back to the original point of this thread.
Changing the earliest time for this order to turn 4 would be outstanding.
Lord Diamond
Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.
Posts: 2,752
Threads: 70
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
0
I think turn 4 makes sense, but I would oppose lifting the limit on the numbers of them you can hire. If I were one of the non-magical kingdoms like the DW, though, I have a hard time imagining that I would spend much early money to get extra adepts, though. Leaders, on the other hand, yeah, that I can see doing.
|
