Future of AG - It's feedback time!

[Bob De Quatre]

We think it's time for some changes in the galaxy... So the staff is actively preparing the end of Andromeda's Gates and the start of Andromeda's Gates 2 (we may come up with a better name!).

The first step, that will happen soon, is a drastic decrease of the last 3 tiers' technology prices. We plan that AG will now reach an end in a few months. We will then take a month or so to put in place everything and get ready for AG2.

We'd like you to give us feedback on what works and doesn't work for you in AG. We have our own list, and here is a quick look at the major changes we're planning:

Economy:

• Credits will become strictly personal, no more exchanging credits between players
• Personal equipment will be revised and prices will be adjusted

Domination:

• Gaining control of a planet won't give a resource reward anymore
• Each week, controlled planets will generate a fixed amount of resources
• Domination points will slowly decrease on planets that corporations don't build on

Actions and tags:

• A build will now be defined by an Action that has to be chosen from a list, something like:
  • Exploration
  • Science
  • Mining / Harvesting
  • Spying
  • Piracy
  • Diplomacy
  • Military
• Jobs will evolve to be in direct relation with each of the Actions
• Build tags will also change, they will be more numerous and limited to 2 or 3 per build, so choose them wisely

Resources:

• Building on a planet will still reward resources, but higher scores will result in more resources than they do now!
• In addition to the 3 resources of AG, each planet will provide 2 secret resources
• To gain these secret resources, each corporation will have to first discover them by gaining Research Points (RP)
• Each secret resource has its own amount of Research Points by corporation
• Research Points are earned by building on planets
• Exploration, Science and Mining / Harvesting actions grant RP bonuses
• Resources can no longer be exchanged between corporations
• A black market will be available each week to one corporation for trading resources, at a fixed exchange rate
• The black market is supplied by a percentage of the resources gained by all the corporations 

Aliens:

• Aliens will now have DP on planets, meaning that to control a planet, you'll have to fight the other corporations but also the aliens' presence
• Aliens will have a specific linear tech tree that will grant bonuses to all alien builds

Challenges and rewards:

• In addition to challenges, we will have mini-challenges with simple rules that will give extra resources and credits if your weekly builds meet the rules
• There will be a number of Achievements that can be obtained by reached certain goals, for example building 20 builds with vegetation. These Achievements will be tightly paired with the new set of build tags

Game mechanics:

• To reduce the feeling that players have to build every week, we'll limit the numbers of builds on a given period (details are still to be discussed)
• Players will have to submit their build through a Google Form, to make things easier for the judges
• The map will be updated with new planets and travel paths but the old planets will remain

[robuko]

Oh, super exciting! It seems I have returned from deep space at exactly the right time.

It would be good to know what you want to achieve with v2. I suspect it is about better participation? If so, I suggest to pm people who dropped out and ask them why.

As for the game mechanics, I do not really have a view but can I suggest that you simulate the game play and outcome before we start so that you can see where the issues will be? For instance imbalance of numbers or numbers of power builders.

For me, the idea of GoH in space is perfection and I was so excited by it initially. I lost enthusiasm and dropped out after a little while though.

Things that worked for me:

Collaborative building stories in space!

Things that didn't work for me:

The restrictions on colour use

I thought the judging was pretty bad. Sorry to be rude because I know it is hard work and lots of thought goes into it, but honestly it turned me away. I thought the scores were only weakly correlated to build quality, and systematically favoured Octan. Just my opinion.

As I wrote in the discussion thread, I think the structure of the points or judging system did not incentivise skills development or technique.

Too much emphasis on landscapes. I don't want to build landscapes in space, I want to build vehicles or bases.

Too much emphasis on the game aspect. It was clear by week 3 that Octan is going to win which is pretty discouraging for the other guilds. I would prefer a chapter challenge structure without a defined end point.

Things I thought GoH did very well that I would recommend to copy:

Have the guild leaders not involved in building for the team, only the chapter introductions (because of judging conflicts of interest)

Have a mix of challenge types eg small ship, mecha, figbarf, crash dio, alien city battle, with size guidelines or limits. This might have happened after I fell in a black hole, I don't know. Actually, it looks like the Olympic games challenge was pretty good.

Mix up teams from different guilds to work together on different challenges.

Have more style differentiation between the guilds.

I would also like to say, I want to see a mix of different aliens with different agendas. I hate it when they are all bad guys.

That Google form idea, I dunno, it won't encourage participation.

Thank you for listening, over and out

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by robuko
Checked the Olympics challenge

[Mesabi]

Almost all of this sounds really good to me. Honestly, this fulfills everything I was going to suggest. My only suggestion now is that resources should be more balanced, not just "awsomonium is god" in terms of resources.

 

I also agree with robuko, the google form idea would discourage participation.

[Henjin_Quilones]

I just joined last week, so my opinion may carry less weight, but much of Robuko has expressed seems about right. What attracted me to the game first and foremost was the idea that I could build within and interact with an already-created galaxy, similar to the idea that there is a significant amount of history in GoH that can give meaning and weight to a castle build. I did not just want to build a spaceship, I wanted to build a spaceship with a purpose and within a collaborative context. The problem that I have is that the setup encourages builds that are practical but not beautiful; what I mean is that I need to build on planet X to get resource Y, and it needs to include vehicle Z to get the maximum amount of points with all of the right tags, but I just really wanted to build a spaceship... It feels too strategic and not just about building awesome stories in space. Some may disagree and say that the strategic element, the desire to win and get more resources, is what keeps them going, but I do not feel that way (I always hated Risk and Monopoly, too). I would rather have a story and build the best things that I can, that are going to push me further in my skills as a builder, and get constructive criticism in return to build even better things in the future, rather than be rewarded for a fig on a plate, or a few pieces slapped together without thought for aesthetics. 

Others may disagree, but that is my two cents. 

[EpsilonEta]

Thank you for the inputs. I just came to think of one thing that may solve those issues. The google form won't have to be filled in by the player who built it. If you only want to build a spaceship then do so and the team strategist could tag and place it where it does the most good for the team. Those who only want to build would supply the chess pieses so to say for the strategy minded to use.

Edited November 3, 2016 by EpsilonEta

[rodiziorobs]

I like a lot (most) of the proposed ideas, but I don't like the idea of credits being strictly personal; I think they should be transferable, but only at a high transaction cost.

For example, if I have 500 credits and want to transfer 200 to another player, it will cost me an additional (let's say) 200 credits, leaving me with only 100. This allows a corporation to invest (if its players want to) in pooling resources, but it won't be a given that they will do so like it is now. The ability to buy equipment unexpectedly makes the team strategies more interesting and engaging, as long as it isn't too easy for corps to do. I think if you knew exactly what the other corps could buy (based on their wealthiest member) that a lot of the corporate interaction would be too predictable. (Of course, some of this would depend on the new prices/reward schedule.)

2 hours ago, EpsilonEta said:

The google form won't have to be filled in by the player who built it. If you only want to build a spaceship then do so and the team strategist could tag and place it where it does the most good for the team. Those who only want to build would supply the chess pieses so to say for the strategy minded to use.

I don't feel like this addresses the issue. I understand the desire (and need) to make things easier for the judges, but a form will turn builders away, especially those of us who are primarily mobile users. I would rather be able to post my own builds, and like that I can do so currently using only Flickr (which is already a chore sometimes on mobile) and the forum itself. I don't want to have to deal with yet another roadblock to being able to post, whether it be another app to wrangle or a fellow team member to burden.

If the current system were kept, it would mean the judges would need to get ruthless with honoring tags, similar to how voting contests usually go on EB ("wrong format? Sorry, your vote/tags don't count"). Obviously no one wants to overburden the judges--you guys do enough already--but I don't think a separate form for each entry is the solution here, and will probably create as many or more issues than it solves.

Also, @EpsilonEta, your solution does not consider those who build with story in mind. A lot of people like the strategy, some just like to build, but some of us like a little of both but really come back for the storytelling aspect. Not everything is just build-and-tag.

Thanks for everything you guys (judges, admins, mods) do to keep this game going while keeping it exciting and fresh, I look forward to the final solutions and seeing what is in store. Thanks for taking time to hear feedback.

[Boxerlego]

Excellent, I'm thrilled on what about to happen with this game. I will just add this list below here about my feedback on the game.

Corporations:

• Special Corporate effects in terms of what your builds can do or what your collecting. Example Your Corporate team is able to collect an additional +10 resources with the present of Magnets in your builds.
• Special Upgradeable Corporate Tires that you can Buy or Earn Depends on how will you chose to boost your Players capabilities.
• A Tech Tree that is more Linear while begin more rewarding for builds and what resources your collecting. None of that Special Tech Branches that was very unfair in regards of home world position.
• I like the thought on Achievements that Rewards Builds. Achievements like Player A has built 25 Water planet Builds and Player A will receiver the following Title "Water Master" and Gain a +25 on all his Water Builds through out the game.

Planets:

• Special Planet Objectives.
• More Planets with some unique properties in terms of what the planet can provided and why.
• Super Planets that take Alot to dominate with some kind of Special Effect kinda of like the 100% Home World Bonus. 
• I like the Idea that Gaining control of a planet won't give a resource reward anymore but how about instead the said Corp gains control over all the valuable resources and everyone else is left with what the planet has to offer normally.

Personal Equipment:

• Equipment that you can buy and Place on Planets that can have a accumulative effect.
• Team Equipment that helps what your trying to collect along with a range of Items that help you and surrounding Team mate builds when they can connect to the build through that item Example item the Water Rod can reward +10 on the Players who has it Water planet builds, However, If Player A B C All have the Water Rod and they all build on the same Planet then Player A B C All get +30 on said Water builds +30 would be the Maximum.
• One Time Use Equipment
• Equipment that We can Find
• Equipment We can Attach to our Builds

Alien:

• A Dominating Alien Presence that can punch out and push builds on Planets like no other. 
• Alien Home Worlds that have special Alien Properties

[MKJoshA]

I'm glad that there will be improvements, but I have to say I'm sad to hear AG 1.0 will end in the next few months. I'm been ready for the long haul and part of me will miss that.

That said, one change I would like to see is in scoring. Right now I could spend 3 hours on a mech and get 3-4 points. I could also spend 8 hours on a 32x32 parts intensive landscape build and get 3-4 points. Can we weight the judging to tend to give more points for larger builds? If someone posts a fig-on-a-plate on a 32x32 plate, they shouldn't get more points, but maybe after that larger builds are judged on a scale of 3-7 instead of 1-7. And smaller builds can still get up to 7 points, but they range stays at 1-7.

As for those worried about the Google Forms. We use them on Brethren of the Brick Sea without too much hassle. Filling the form out for AG would take less time than posting a topic.

[Kodan Black]

A couple thoughts off the top of my head, I'll need to re-read it all and process more:

 

1) It would be nice to reward those who build each week or very frequently. I know the credits kind of does that, but it would be nice to have achievements like "Built 5 times in a row" that does something.

2) Sphere of influence would be nice. That way the more directly linked planets maybe gives either more resources or DP. It would also decrease the degradation of DP over time.

3) The fleet idea as it is now isn't bad but it is pretty limiting. You end up having a hard time moving it around much.

4) The outer ring planets should be different in some way. They are way too important now and too useful.

5) The homeworld bonus should be dropped and subsequently decrease the value of Awesomnium. In general it would be nice to make the game easier to build where you want instead of having to build where it does the most good. I've often felt limited in what I could build because I need to camp a planet for a month to get needed resources.

6) I think a lot of us kind of developed a team in our story lines. I think that maybe if we either relaxed the rule on your sigfig having to be in builds or something that allowed a bit more freedom. Maybe you could predefine up to 3 characters and the build / story only has to contain any of the 3 to qualify.

7) I have enjoyed AG immensely and as evidenced by my having never missed a week or a competition I would imagine I'll be in for AG2. As for timing of builds, every other week would probably produce more quality builds without being too long.

[Yzalirk]

Although I really have not been a part of this community, I am glad to hear that major tweaks will be enacted when the first game ends.  It especially brings me joy to see that Aliens will play a larger role.  Since I really have not played much, the changes I see from both @Bob De Quatre and @Boxerlego are really good ideas.  Personally, I would like to see:

Events:

• Perhaps corporations, including the Aliens, can get the opportunity to earn double resources or credits by eliminating some sort of threat or completing some sort of special objective.

Planets:

• Hostile Planets - the terrain and wildlife might prove deadlier than expected.  Perhaps some sort of technology must be acquired before actually building on a planet (this could reduce over-expansion and encourage building on "earlier" planets).

Personal Equipment:

• Either more equipment for Aliens or they are compatible with all factions.
• Equipment Upgrade System - perhaps certain equipment can be upgraded at this new Black Market for either credits, resources, or both.  Equipment can only be upgraded twice.  Standard equipment gives a x1 bonus for resources or credits.  Enhanced equipment gives a x2 bonus for resources or credits.  And Superior equipment gives a x3 bonus for resources or credits.
• Equipping Personal Equipment - rather than everything being used by a player, maybe they should be limited to what they can use at a given time.

Aliens:

• Different Factions or Alliances - @robuko sums it up pretty well.  There should be a variety within the Aliens faction each with different ideology and agendas.  This also applies with Alien races but that is obvious.  There could be Aliens who are greedy but with good intentions rather than the "destroy all humans" type of Aliens (reference was implied).
• Each race should select/be given a home planet.

Those are some ideas I had in mind.  I want to come back once the new game starts to do some... Alien business.

[EpsilonEta]

1 hour ago, rodiziorobs said:

I don't want to have to deal with yet another roadblock to being able to post, whether it be another app to wrangle or a fellow team member to burden.

It's very good to hear your opinions and discuss things. As the CEO and team strategist in Kawashita I often get the question of where someone should put their builds. That is hard to know without seeing it first (possible tags, guessed score etc) sometime someone dont ask and post on the "wrong" planet and I may ask them to move. To me it would be a lot easier if they would tag there buildings with what they thaught important (location or job bonus) and tag the rest as optional so I could fill it in myself. It would not be a burden to me and I think it would be a kind of win win situation (especialy for those strategists that dont have moderator rights)

@kodan black, 5, the new system with droping DP will ensure the need to build on planet that have already been dominated. Even long before its about to run out.

6, that is already the case. I have fetured only Ravens family and Pombe have a large team that sometimes act alone. I may be wrong but that rule have never been particularly enforced, as long as your main cast is fetured. (But sometimes I just make a random speceship. Don't tell the judges )

[EpsilonEta]

@goliath, we had planed mini challanges similar to the events you mention.

Aliens are as numerus as there are players building them. Even with our limited alien players (which we try to adress now) we have got several different sentient species and very few are "evil". If anything its the humans invading andromeda who are evil and its natural that some aliens will fight back. Becase of the infinit possibilities of aliens they will all be grouped together as one and share a simple tech tree but items (which will be made for aliens too) will be individual. Aliens will also add to a comon domination on each planet and therefor compeat for planets in the same way corporations do (maybe with adjusted mechanichs and we are considering "diplomacy" or similar to get less hurt by alien presence. Details not finalised)

[Mesabi]

The thing I'm unhappy about with this is having to reintroduce/create new common piece set pieces. For example, my character's ship, Icarus Returning will have to be reintroduced, but I'm guessing I can't have it be an actual build, because I've already posted it.

Additionally, I'm wondering if I should even stay active till the end of the game, as it would be easier to just not participate, and use all my stored up builds in AG 2.0.

[EpsilonEta]

AG2 will folow after AG1 story wise so if you chose to continue the same character only your credits and items will be reset. (But anyone could also finnish up their stories and make a new character for AG2, even in another corporation)

[Jody Meyer]

I knew there would be some feedback, there are some great ideas here and some questions that come to mind. Resetting the items would be a waste, some people worked a lot for those, maybe if they are carried over for that person regardless of what faction they decide to join. Also how do the google forums work?...

[LucByard]

13 minutes ago, EpsilonEta said:

AG2 will folow after AG1 story wise so if you chose to continue the same character only your credits and items will be reset. (But anyone could also finnish up their stories and make a new character for AG2, even in another corporation)

That's good news.

While the FAQ did say that your character should be involved in the build, it more broadly says first that your build should progress your character's story and I think that it's been shown by many players that it's beneficial to the depth and complexity of AG's stories to allow builds that don't feature their main character, as long as it does progress your character's arc. I think the judges did right not to enforce this too strictly as the stories could become too flat and 'face value' otherwise.

Some of the new rules make it look as though corporate players will need to be a bit more 'For the corporation' which makes me wonder where my impulsive civilian freight pilot will fit in. Maybe I should play 'alien alliance' but as a non-corporate Human! (if that's allowed, there must be plenty of them around).

I like the switch to controlled planets giving resources regularly but worry the decreasing DP will force a corp's players to spread too thin covering existing territory instead of cracking on with the front line. Maybe the DP loss relating to distance from homeworld or supply base (thematically representing stretched supply lines) and Corps being able to buy/build supply bases on other worlds could work around this. It would also make the world they build it on more strategically important as losing it would affect their nearby planets.

I like the idea of discoverable equipment: On the fifth build with a mining tag on a certain world, the player finds a 'diamond drill bit' etc.

I like making kit cheaper and easier to get. Maybe a player only being allowed 2 or 3 from each category at once would prevent the 'everyone gets everything' problem. Players have to decide what combination suits their play style.

I actually like the form idea, it would make game tags easier to grasp for new players if there are 3 drop-downs from which you pick an available tag (if that's how it works).

Overall, I've enjoyed playing AG so much. I've looked at Historica and the Star Wars one and they just don't seem to have that balance of freedom and strategy that AG achieves. As long as it tries to keep that, I'll give any new rules a go.

As long as Yseult doesn't have to promise to behave ; ) I'll be there.

[SpacerSteve]

I have had a blast with AG1. I have to admit that I was getting a little tired of the current format. I love the idea of no transfers and losing Dp over time. It might stop the corporations from building empires and promote movement through the galaxy and not planet sharing borders!

Several things that I think would make the game better.

1 - Equipment for all of the jobs types. Right now equipment seems to favor special forces. Drivers, pilots, explorers, miners ect could have some pretty cool equipment! I could come up with plenty of ideas for fun equipment if needed/wanted!

2- Octan - I'm not picking on Octan because they are the arch enemies of MANTIS. I think Octan should be a more generic corporation. I think it would be neat to have an Explorien/Octan hybrid or something like that. Ortherwise MANTIS and Kawashita should be Blacktron and Space Ninjago. I think it would be nice if all three corporations weren't tied into existing lego brands directly.

 

More to come.........

Edited November 4, 2016 by SpacerSteve

[goatman461]

I really like how many of the changes seem to address Wick and I's machinations in the early days that took hold.  A larger scoring scale would be good so elaborate builds could be scored exponentially higher. Currently there's just not enough of a difference between a minifig on a plate and a 7 (scoring-wise). However, I wouldn't limit the number of entries during a specified time because that really has no direct correlation to the quality of the build (for example, builders could "save" up their entries to post them more closely together and make a more coherent story). 

Strictly personal credits is lame. Keeps the corporations from investing in their builders and establishing an esprit de corps.

As for color schemes, why not let that develop organically. Don't tie the game down to three corporations, let builders team up however they please with whatever colors and backstory they want. Good, quality teams will attract more, better builders and new factions could take over as old teams fall apart. If you're allowing aliens to accrue DP, that kind of voluntary association should already be worked into the game.

Also, don't fret over giving points for story arcs. Builders are going to want to develop stories regardless, and the subjective side of judging leads to some really stupid builds getting a lot more points than they should, IMHO

Get rid of tags. It's another unnecessary limit on the builders and leads to a lot of dishonest gamesmanship. 

[Kai NRG]

Well I know I disappeared long ago, though I have always kept up with the PM channels and hoped to get back in (though never at the same weekly rate) next year.  So anyhow I'm sure I've missed a lot, but I do like where this is headed and wanted to say that I'm not really sure the forms will be such a drawback - they're used like crazy in BoBS and probably haven't, on their own, scared prospective members away (though the combination of so many forms + a complicated game rule system might have kept some from joining).  'Course it's easier not to have to do anything, but one form will soon become a very easy routine.

Points reset?  Hmm... I'd better earn those last 40 credits towards my tag asap then! 
 

One thing that I would really like to see addressed is the judging system.  This has already been brought up in different ways, but my particular beef with it is that it doesn't really provide incentive towards spending more time on a really good build.  Why spend two weeks for a seven, when you could spend a couple hours on two different Saturdays for two fours?  I dropped out because I was tired of doing just average builds - slapping together a few odd colors, a vehicle, and a bit of a story every Saturday was pretty much what it boiled down to - but couldn't find the incentive to spend more time on really good builds.  Oh, on the side, I did get really busy with BoBS, not to mention real life... those probably had something to do with it, I'll admit... 

[Kodan Black]

Yeah the tags and tied into that is some of the tech tree does seem to promote building to gain DP and less build what you want. Honestly I feel a bit like I'm gaming the system when I try to incorporate a land vehicle, space vehicle and civil building each week to get the points. Not only does it get a bit tedious to do so, but it also means that instead of doing the best build I can, I'll aim for a 4 point build that ticks off the bonus boxes. 

Not sure how to achieve it exactly but just more freedom to build whatever and maybe by including more it organically gets rewarded via higher score. Make people build more within a job function so an explorer should be more building explorer type builds, but then within that can have less need to include a truck just for the bonus. 

I Also agree that the notion of degrading DP makes sense, but it should be able to be offset by proximity to home planet, or fleets (yes, more than 1 would be good), or some other thing. Otherwise you do end up having players spread thin and I think it makes it harder to collaborate on builds. Honestly some of the best builds/stories are when players post within each other's storylines. I would love to see that somehow encouraged.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Kodan Black

[SpacerSteve]

28 minutes ago, Kodan Black said:

Yeah the tags and tied into that is some of the tech tree does seem to promote building to gain DP and less build what you want. Honestly I feel a bit like I'm gaming the system when I try to incorporate a land vehicle, space vehicle and civil building each week to get the points. Not only does it get a bit tedious to do so, but it also means that instead of doing the best build I can, I'll aim for a 4 point build that ticks off the bonus boxes. 

Not sure how to achieve it exactly but just more freedom to build whatever and maybe by including more it organically gets rewarded via higher score. Make people build more within a job function so an explorer should be more building explorer type builds, but then within that can have less need to include a truck just for the bonus.

I agree with this very much. I think the main reason I am getting tired of AG1 is the feeling that I need to fit as many bonuses into my builds just to keep up with the other corporations bonuses. In the early days it seemed that there was much more variety. Then we got our tech and it turned into Ground vehicle, spaceship, civil/military building, spy free for all. I'd enjoy more bonus for creativity so that we could keep up with other corporations. I would also like to see rewards for larger builds to encourage ore than minifig on a plate. Its kind of sad when a MFOAP that has nothing to do with sci-fi gets more points and resources than a beautiful starship.

[Dannylonglegs]

Really? only a few months?... that's nowhere near enough time for my innumerable story arch plans! I guess I'll have to keep Dr. Long around for 2.0., which was not actually in my plans. wow. did not see this coming, to be honest. 

I wish it was ending in the summer.

More thoughts later.

 

~Insectoid Aristocrat

 

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by Dannylonglegs

[StarHawk3]

So far I really like the proposed rules changes. Personally I am in favor of not transferring credits as it will make acquiring items more like personal achievements. More items that benefit different job classes would be great as well. 

I am also in favor of bonuses for higher scoring builds. It never seemed right that getting a bunch of 1pt. builds could be better then a single 7pt. build. I suspect limiting limiting the number of tags will help with this too. I think that tags should be limited to 2 as it could help cut back on the spying on a spaceship dropping a truck on a civil building type builds. I am in favor of any change that promotes larger better building instead of the pressure of getting every tag available to your corporation every week.

The changes to the aliens seems interesting. Will they be more like a fourth corporation or will anyone be able to build for them in AG2? It seems like aliens and alien fleets are under used right now and could use the change.   

I have had a lot of fun with AG1 and really look forward to the plans you have for it's future. 

 

 

 

[robuko]

The bakahomepage map site is completely awesome and I love it, it's beautifully done and there is nothing major I would change about it. Just wanted to express my thanks and appreciation for building and maintaining it. It adds a lot to the game.

[EpsilonEta]

Thanks for all the feedback!

12 hours ago, Jody Meyer said:

I knew there would be some feedback, there are some great ideas here and some questions that come to mind. Resetting the items would be a waste, some people worked a lot for those, maybe if they are carried over for that person regardless of what faction they decide to join. Also how do the google forums work?...

And some people haven't worked at all for their items. At least it would be the earned credits that caried over  but that would put new player behind from the start. (maybe 10% could carry over. I don't know. Staf will have a lot to talk about at least)
I'm no expert on forms but I would assume you click on a link, enter your builds name, location and a link to the thread and then tick a few radio buttons for tags. Each tag could than also have an explanation to them.

12 hours ago, LucByard said:

Some of the new rules make it look as though corporate players will need to be a bit more 'For the corporation' which makes me wonder where my impulsive civilian freight pilot will fit in. Maybe I should play 'alien alliance' but as a non-corporate Human! (if that's allowed, there must be plenty of them around).

I like the switch to controlled planets giving resources regularly but worry the decreasing DP will force a corp's players to spread too thin covering existing territory instead of cracking on with the front line. Maybe the DP loss relating to distance from homeworld or supply base (thematically representing stretched supply lines) and Corps being able to buy/build supply bases on other worlds could work around this. It would also make the world they build it on more strategically important as losing it would affect their nearby planets.

I like the idea of discoverable equipment: On the fifth build with a mining tag on a certain world, the player finds a 'diamond drill bit' etc.

I like making kit cheaper and easier to get. Maybe a player only being allowed 2 or 3 from each category at once would prevent the 'everyone gets everything' problem. Players have to decide what combination suits their play style.

I actually like the form idea, it would make game tags easier to grasp for new players if there are 3 drop-downs from which you pick an available tag (if that's how it works).

Overall, I've enjoyed playing AG so much. I've looked at Historica and the Star Wars one and they just don't seem to have that balance of freedom and strategy that AG achieves. As long as it tries to keep that, I'll give any new rules a go.

As long as Yseult doesn't have to promise to behave ; ) I'll be there.

What rules tie you too hard to the company? I would like the game to be very open to new ideas. You should be able to ally with the aliens but you could also rebell at your company from the inside. The main differance would be if you give your scores to Mantis or Aliens (or Kawashita. You know you can change faction. They woulden't mind a talanted builder, just saing )
We will go over the game balance and try to make a large territory managable even with relativly few players. Bases is also a good ide to consider.
I think a limit to the number of items and changing your equipment betwwen builds would make the game too complicated and with individual credits it will take a while to get items anyway.

11 hours ago, SpacerSteve said:

I have had a blast with AG1. I have to admit that I was getting a little tired of the current format. I love the idea of no transfers and losing Dp over time. It might stop the corporations from building empires and promote movement through the galaxy and not planet sharing borders!

Several things that I think would make the game better.

1 - Equipment for all of the jobs types. Right now equipment seems to favor special forces. Drivers, pilots, explorers, miners ect could have some pretty cool equipment! I could come up with plenty of ideas for fun equipment if needed/wanted!

2- Octan - I'm not picking on Octan because they are the arch enemies of MANTIS. I think Octan should be a more generic corporation. I think it would be neat to have an Explorien/Octan hybrid or something like that. Ortherwise MANTIS and Kawashita should be Blacktron and Space Ninjago. I think it would be nice if all three corporations weren't tied into existing lego brands directly.

1 - Well, drivers, pilots and explorers have tags to use and credits could be sent to those who best use it so it work kind of good now but in AG2 we will adjust it. We havent started on equipment yet as we wantet to have the job classes and game mechanics done first but if you want to brainstorm then go ahead. Also the new tag system will give you a personal bonus to anything you like to build. (after X spaceship builds you get a bonus for ships)
2 - This is just a thaught that poped up in my head and would probably not work but if Octan won they could be an allmighty presence in AG2 and a new or doughter company take their place in the game.

11 hours ago, goatman461 said:

I really like how many of the changes seem to address Wick and I's machinations in the early days that took hold.  A larger scoring scale would be good so elaborate builds could be scored exponentially higher. Currently there's just not enough of a difference between a minifig on a plate and a 7 (scoring-wise). However, I wouldn't limit the number of entries during a specified time because that really has no direct correlation to the quality of the build (for example, builders could "save" up their entries to post them more closely together and make a more coherent story). 

Strictly personal credits is lame. Keeps the corporations from investing in their builders and establishing an esprit de corps.

As for color schemes, why not let that develop organically. Don't tie the game down to three corporations, let builders team up however they please with whatever colors and backstory they want. Good, quality teams will attract more, better builders and new factions could take over as old teams fall apart. If you're allowing aliens to accrue DP, that kind of voluntary association should already be worked into the game.

Also, don't fret over giving points for story arcs. Builders are going to want to develop stories regardless, and the subjective side of judging leads to some really stupid builds getting a lot more points than they should, IMHO

Get rid of tags. It's another unnecessary limit on the builders and leads to a lot of dishonest gamesmanship. 

We will reward resources on an exponential scale. The question is by how much. Score^2 would probably be too mush as each increase would give twice as much but two scores higer doubeling your reward might work. This is also something to discuss. We want to reward good builds but not make inexperienced builders worthless. If DP was kept linear then small builds could still help maintain control of dominated planets. There are a lot of options to concider.
The build limmit is ment o be a fixed number within a time period (as in max 3 every month) to force people to skip weeks once in a while. They could then build something bigger for next week or something else altogether, not focusing on AG all the time.
It depends on what credits are supposed to be. Now they have been a company resource to be distributed on players who then fell they have to work up to pay this dept. We want it to be more of an individual reward.
It would be kind of cool to have a kind of wild west style where numeros companies with diferent styles and aligence fight for riches in andromeda but I have no on how to make that work. On the other hand, we have already seen diviations from the company styles in the past. Pombe invented the black Octan ships and most Kawashita use dark red instead of regular red (even mantis had e short period of white and pink ). You could even invent a daughter company with alternat colors and maybe others join in.
I think the changes to tags will adress that but feel free to elaborate.

10 hours ago, Kai NRG said:

One thing that I would really like to see addressed is the judging system.  This has already been brought up in different ways, but my particular beef with it is that it doesn't really provide incentive towards spending more time on a really good build.  Why spend two weeks for a seven, when you could spend a couple hours on two different Saturdays for two fours?  I dropped out because I was tired of doing just average builds - slapping together a few odd colors, a vehicle, and a bit of a story every Saturday was pretty much what it boiled down to - but couldn't find the incentive to spend more time on really good builds.  Oh, on the side, I did get really busy with BoBS, not to mention real life... those probably had something to do with it, I'll admit... 

Yes, we just need to decide on just how exponential. (see above)

@Kodan Black and @spacer steve by limiting it to 2 tags per build you can't "tick ALL the boxes" and will have to focus on the thing you want to build. You can still put in more things but you shoulden't fell you had to. Also, the new game mecanics allow for more diverse techs. We havent discussed this yet but I think an early one would be to slow DP degreas so you could hold a larger territory for less effort. The fleet could also be upgraded in several ways. One good sugestion was to make it prevent DP loss in it's area. The new tech sould not limit what you could build, only how effective it is.

10 hours ago, Dannylonglegs said:

Really? only a few months?... that's nowhere near enough time for my innumerable story arch plans! I guess I'll have to keep Dr. Long around for 2.0., which was not actually in my plans. wow. did not see this coming, to be honest. 

I wish it was ending in the summer.

Just make sure that Octan build half as mush as they do now and the game will last twice as long (an Kawashita have a chans of catching up)

Edited November 4, 2016 by EpsilonEta