Future of AG - It's feedback time!

[Kodan Black]

I know that limiting the tags will make it so builders aren't just building for the tags as much, but that also means that the tech tree stuff is going to be much more linear. People are going to pick a path that gets them to the 2 bonuses and then race to the end. I don't think corps will spend much time diverting off to pick other things.

[EpsilonEta]

25 minutes ago, Kodan Black said:

I know that limiting the tags will make it so builders aren't just building for the tags as much, but that also means that the tech tree stuff is going to be much more linear. People are going to pick a path that gets them to the 2 bonuses and then race to the end. I don't think corps will spend much time diverting off to pick other things.

Who said the new techs would even give bonus to tags/specific builds? It could upgrade the fleet, make it easier to hold territory or just make any build earn more secret resources. Maybe you even have to choose between two techs that give effects to progress (like most non effect techs now) or buy both and progres slower. There is a lot to be done with techs but we haven't really goten to that yet.

Edited November 4, 2016 by EpsilonEta

[LucByard]

56 minutes ago, EpsilonEta said:

What rules tie you to the company?

It was just the feeling I got from the actions list. i know it says 'something like' so it's not fixed or final but it looks like it asks us to focus on core corporate activites. If I do a build that focusses on character and story development like 'Rest', none of those things in the list may be happening. Maybe that could be part of AG's style/direction though; if you want to focus on strategy, go corp, if you want story-telling without restrictions, go alien.

56 minutes ago, EpsilonEta said:

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 os Aliens (or Kawashita. You know you can shang faction. They woulden't mind a talanted builder, just saing )

I don't know... MANTIS is a good corp to play for. No pressure for when or what to build, can go where my story leads and follow corporate plan when I'm not tied down. SpacerSteve knows to how to give Yseult the breathing space she needs. : ) 

I like the idea of new corps though, would help give AG2 it's own flavour.

Edited November 4, 2016 by LucByard

[Lady K]

As excited as I am about AG2 beginning, I just as sad to see AG1 ending.    This really has been a great time, when I have had the time to build, and I'd like to thank all the players (those who have faithfully stayed and those who have had to leave for various reasons) for making AG1 so much fun!  

My thoughts on credit sharing are mixed.  On the one hand it is rewarding to save up for something special by earning it for yourself with each build, on the other hand though with the comradery of the corps being able to share / give credits towards a larger goal is equally special.   Maybe an idea would be to limit the amount a player can have on larger items to a certain percentage can be a gift from other players and the rest has to be earned.

On using Google forms, do I have to have a google account for that because I'm not to keen on that idea.

As far as the tags are concerned, my last few builds I felt compelled to try to include as many as possible.   I like the new thoughts on tags being limited and it will be interesting to see how the jobs evolve in relation to the actions shown in the builds. 

Will the personal equipment we already have be revised or only the equipment that is for purchase?   I would hate to have everything (especially my MANTIS tag) taken away for a completely new reset.  I agree that a new player would be far behind in credits and equipment but it also does't seem fair for other players to lose all personal equipment and corporation tags.  It would be nice if everyone had a corporation tag they could keep regardless of what they decide to do with their character, kinda like a badge of honor for participating in AG1.  And then for personal equipment already owned by the end of AG1, maybe a suggestion would be that to keep the same equipment a player would have to re-activate it by additional credits or builds depicting certain actions or maybe they could trade it in for something else say at 50% of credit cost.  So if I wanted to switch from say my Black Pearl to say a Spying Suit I could but the cost would be only reduced by 50% plus the trade in.  

Just some thoughts.    And having previously been active staff, I know how hard they work and I really appreciate all they do to make the game interesting and fun! 

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by Lady K

[pombe]

Before I begin, I'd like to thank the entire staff, past and present, for Andromeda's Gates.  Prior to AG, I was sort of in a Dark Age limbo, where I would buy LEGO, but not really do any building.  AG got me out of building one MOC maybe once every three months to building one every week for over a year and half.

I understand the drive by AFOL's to build spectacular LEGO showcases.  I do.  There are so many awesome builders on Eurobricks, with many of them playing AG, such as (and definitely not limited to) shmails, Narbilu, and LucByard, who serve as inspirations for the community.

However, I do want to make a statement for the rest of us who want to participate and contribute in a meaningful way, but aren't up to those high standards.  I consider myself a mediocre LEGO builder at best, and the AG scoring system has allowed me to contribute heavily to my team despite of my lack of skill.  That's not to say I haven't improved.  Those four point builds took a lot of work for me at the beginning.  When I started out in AG, it would take me over 10 hours to put those together.  Now, with over 60 MOCs of practice, because of AG, I can do the same thing in 2-3 hours.

And even after a year and half of building, I still have a long way to go before I can compare myself to the likes of shmails.  Maybe shmails has years on me in terms of building with LEGO.  Or maybe I'm just a slow learner.  Or maybe he's just a genius in a way I could never be.  No matter what, though, I know I'm not on his level.

I want to make it clear that I don't want to take anything away from builders like shmails.    I want to see their awesome MOCs and see that they earn crazy points for them.  I don't want them to leave AG2, because they feel the game is filled with mediocre builds from players like me and that their contributions don't earn as much as they should.  But I also want to contribute and be able to tip the scales in favor of my team.  So I hope that AG2 has a scoring system that will allow for the recognition of truly spectacular builds and allows for me to build also.  Meanwhile, I hope that the game will challenge me to grow as a builder and improve so that one day I might be on shmails' level (one can dream).

 

Edited November 7, 2016 by pombe

[MKJoshA]

43 minutes ago, pombe said:

Before I begin, I'd like to thank the entire staff, past and present, for Andromeda's Gates.  Prior to AG, I was sort of in a Dark Age limbo, where I would buy LEGO, but not really do any building.  AG got me out of building one MOC maybe once every three months to building one every week for over a year and half.

I understand the drive by AFOL's to build spectacular LEGO showcases.  I do.  There are so many awesome builders on Eurobricks, with many of them playing AG, such as (and definitely not limited to) shmails, Narbilu, and LucByard, who serve as inspirations for the community.

However, I do want to make a statement for the rest of us who want to participate and contribute in a meaningful way, but aren't up to those high standards.  I consider myself a mediocre LEGO builder at best, and the AG scoring system has allowed me to contribute heavily to my team despite of my lack of skill.  That's not to say I haven't improved.  Those four point builds took a lot of work for me at the beginning.  When I started out in AG, it would take me over 10 hours to put those together.  Now, with over 60 MOCs of practice, because of AG, I can do the same thing in 2-3 hours.

And even after a year and half of building, I still have a long way to go before I can compare myself to the likes of shmails.  Maybe shmails has years on me in terms of building with LEGO.  Or maybe I'm just a slow learner.  Or maybe he's just a genius in a way I could never be.  No matter what, though, I know I'm not on his level.

I want to make it clear that I don't want to take anything away from builders like shmails.    I want to see their awesome MOCs and see that they earn crazy points for them.  I don't want them to leave AG2, because they feel the game is filled with mediocre builds from players like me and that their contributions don't earn as much as they should.  But I also want to contribute and be able to tip the scales in favor of my team.  So I hope that AG2 has a scoring system that will allow for the recognition of truly spectacular builds and allows for me to build also.  Meanwhile, I hope that the game will challenge me to grow as a builder and improve so that one day I might be on shmails' level (one can dream).

 

I second this!

[rodiziorobs]

3 hours ago, MKJoshA said:

I second this!

And thirded, although I can't say I have had the same influence on AG as Pombe has (can anyone? )

[EpsilonEta]

To Pombe I'd like to say; the way to improve from where you are would be to try making something higher than a 4 (feel free to take a few weeks off while you build) Also, step out of your comfort zone and build something other than a land vehicle (or even better, don't include a vehicle or building at all, you could focus on terrain. Stop helping Octan so much. It's not like I would but a small land vehicle in the snow just to score 3 free domination points.)

No really, it's great to know AG have helped people to improve but it's a shame that 4 points is about optimal score per effort as it doesn't motivate players to improve beyond that. And those who are that good don't get that much for actually showing it, which otherwise would inspier more players to try harder. We will try to adress this in AG2.

[Bob De Quatre]

Thanks everyone for your feedback!

EE  answered to most of your concerns (thanks for that!), and we'll discuss some idea to check if they are viable and how to implement them.

[mediumsnowman]

Interesting, most interesting. I'm excited! 

I would agree the judging scale needs to be overhauled. It's not bad right now, but I think it could be better.

Will AG 2.0 get a new subforum, and this one locked?

Also, when can we expect for the revised tech prices to be published?

[Norseman]

I'm a newcomer myself and have only completed one build, but I believe AG could really benefit from the ability for players to license their own ships or even corporations, and to strike deals between the corporations of other users like the current BOBS rules allow for. A skill system for your main character could also be an interesting dynamic, as well as the ability to control more independent characters than your single sigfig. Having and maintaining a crew would be very fun, as well as being to add bonuses to their performance through the burning of XP or something like that.

I'm a little sad that AG will be ending in the next few months, as I've ad a pretty far-reaching story arc in the works here now - I've just barely finished background work on most of the secondary characters of it!

As far as background or world creation goes, I'd like to volunteer services for that. My work has me at a computer with hours of free time that I would be happy to spend writing. If you would like a sample of my abilities in this regard, PM me and I will provide you with some.

[av_bossk]

I will give you my short feedback on AG because I'm not here since a long time.

AG is amazing and it brings something that really missing with Lego official sets, a true Sci-Fi theme !

I can't read all was written here because I don't have enough time but I read many good ideas (weekly ressources, no more extra ressources when taking control to avoid permanent switch, etc...).

I just have one thing on reward points. I agree to correctly reward regular builders because they make this game living but (because it's currently my case) I wonder how to also correctly reward some builders who, sometimes, take a break of few weeks (or months, I hope I could finish this month, @Bob De Quatre I think you know what I'm talking about  ) to build massive and/or complex vehicules, spaceships, landscape, base, etc... Maybe it shuold not have a limit reward of 7 anymore because it is a little frustrating to spend many time on a build and just take as much as 7 figs on a plate (if it worths it of course).

But I'm confident in the future of AG !

I hope I don't have made too many wording mistakes.

[Mesabi]

One thing I forgot to add in my original post, is that I think alien attacks should do percentage damage instead of linear. Right now, hey don't really do anything, if someone does an Alien build, it evenly takes points away, making no major change in corporation's holdings. Don't know if this has been addressed yet, but It's a change I would like to see.

[EpsilonEta]

One idea we had was for aliens to steal resorces from the companies with domination on the planet. This would also make it tactical for players to do alien builds sometimes. It could even be implimented in AG1 if there is interest in that.

[SpacerSteve]

What would be kind of neat is if aliens had a linear tech tree they automatically get when they steal enough resources. as the game goes on they would also get stronger. for example they could start taking 1 extra dp or 10 extra resources. just a thought. 

Edited November 11, 2016 by SpacerSteve

[Mesabi]

Don't think anyone has brought this up either.

What about adding in a fourth corporation? It might balance the scales a bit, and allow for more alliances and deals between corporations. (I'm thinking a whole new corporation in addition to the new aliens to clarify.)

[Kodan Black]

7 hours ago, SpacerSteve said:

What would be kind of neat is if aliens had a linear tech tree they automatically get when they steal enough resources. as the game goes on they would also get stronger. for example they could start taking 1 extra dp or 10 extra resources. just a thought. 

I like this as it allows a loose coalition of builders who can be alien and contribute to a larger entity that benefits them. Maybe instead of rewarding credits, alien builds contribute to a pool that benefits all aliens. And the alien tag is available at a certain number of builds (roughly commensurate with the # it would take today to achieve the tag). But that would make the aliens a kind of corporation-lite that either players who want to build infrequently can join up into or it adds a more strategic component for corporation builders who may want to utilize alien builds.

[Yzalirk]

I personally like the idea of Aliens being a separate faction, basically like a "corporation" but not entirely, simply because it allows for players to develop their own Alien race and establish them with a significant role rather than them being viewed as a mosquito - not necessarily dangerous but more of a pest.  Perhaps they could by like a Coalition or a Confederacy united to end Corporate imperialism.  That is my thought on that.

But I do think it would be cool to see a new a new faction utilizing the color Blue.  Why Blue?  Really no special reason.  Not sure what their ideology would be... maybe space politicians seeking dominance through policies and democracy?

 

[Henjin_Quilones]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

But I do think it would be cool to see a new a new faction utilizing the color Blue.  Why Blue?  Really no special reason.  

Why blue? Because I have a bunch of blue spaceship pieces and nowhere to build with them right now...

[Yzalirk]

12 hours ago, Henjin_Quilones said:

Why blue? Because I have a bunch of blue spaceship pieces and nowhere to build with them right now...

Since Red and Green are taken, primarily for MANTIS and Kawashita, I think Blue would make for a nice contrasting color since it is not in use.  Even Octan uses Red and Green!

Another thing I just thought of regarding the Alien faction - if they are to be considered one faction but with a lot of diversity, how will it be represented as a whole?  Basically, what will the emblem be (if there is to be one) and what would the faction be called?  Just me two-cents here, I believe either "Hub," "Coalition," or "Confederacy" should be present in the name to signify that it is a collective of many different Aliens.  For example, "United Coalition of Andromeda" or "The Andromeda Confederacy."  Since MANTIS has the Training Camp and Kawashita has the Dojo, this Alien faction should have the Hub.

[Mesabi]

Can we get a comment from the staff about a fourth corporation? I really want to know what you guys think. Not that I'm thinking of jumping ship

[LucByard]

On 11/18/2016 at 1:24 AM, Mesabi said:

Can we get a comment from the staff about a fourth corporation? I really want to know what you guys think. Not that I'm thinking of jumping ship

I'm sure that's something the game-runners have been or are considering but there would be consequences to putting a fourth corp on the map. Aside form diluting active players which will slow the game down, the Galaxy board was designed on a hex-grid with 3 points of rotational symmetry (i.e. if you rotate the map 120 degrees, the gate links and resources are the same). This is intentional to prevent any corp from having an initial advantage just on account of the map and is a very specific and well executed piece of design by (I presume) Bob. The problem with adding a fourth corp would be where to start it that does not affect this balance. This might be why the game-runners seem to be more focussed on making more of the aliens, like a faction with no homeworld, thereby keeping the balance.

What we don't know is if the plan will be to keep the current corps, replace some (the winner or loser perhaps) or even replace them all. After all, it's not unlike large corporations to move in  when they think there's money to be made, then just pull out when they think it's not lucrative enough anymore,

Edited November 19, 2016 by LucByard

[robuko]

On 18/11/2016 at 9:24 AM, Mesabi said:

Can we get a comment from the staff about a fourth corporation? I really want to know what you guys think. Not that I'm thinking of jumping ship

In my view there are not enough active builders to fill 3 corporations. I would far prefer just to give people more freedom to build as they like without the color restriction.

[rodiziorobs]

6 hours ago, robuko said:

In my view there are not enough active builders to fill 3 corporations. I would far prefer just to give people more freedom to build as they like without the color restriction.

I agree on the lack of active builders; perhaps in the early days of AG it would have been feasible but certainly not now.

However, I have never seen the color palette for each corp to be much of a restriction. I have probably built as much or more for Octan as MANTIS, depending on where the story has gone.

I like that each corp has had distinct colors so you can tell at a glance which corp is represented, but I feel like I have been able to build pretty much whatever I wanted for any corp. I would like to see that flexibility continue.

[mccoyed]

I've been gone for a long time and was slowing down before that. I've been doing an internship (becoming a high school teacher) and it's taken up most of my free time and creative energy. That said, as more or less a founding member of AG, I'll weigh in on some of the things I think about the game:

• We should do whatever we can to reduce gamification while still keeping AG distinct from the other role-building games. One of the things that annoyed me was the way that the game would often get in the way of stories and builds, which also affected judging. Many builders tossed out weekly vehicle/tag/bonus builds simply to be effective at the mechanics in the game. I'm with goatman about getting rid of tags altogether since cultural difference, language differences, and overly literal thinking all seemed to get in the way especially with the more loosely defined roles like "special operations". I typically ignored the theory-crafting and min/max playing of AG and did what I wanted with my builds. This meant that I wasn't as useful to my corporation even when I was a very active builder. This may have annoyed my CEOs sometimes, but I never took the "game" all that seriously and the more AG became about the game, the less I was interested in stories. It's no one's fault if builders like me felt pressure to "serve the game" by playing to mechanical benefits, but I think we should reduce this in AG2. I got tired of seeing weekly (excellent) builds that were just going through the motions to score the maximum number of points. Eventually, the game became driven by a dichotomy between the players/teams that focused heavily on "playing the game" and those who were more focused on "casual" role-building along the lines of GoH.

 

• We need to develop more baseline lore if we're going to further develop aliens and worlds. I think freedom is great, but limits also boost creativity so I'm for keeping corporate colors and actually developing more clear cultural/aesthetic/procedural differences that players will have to adhere to (or there should be consequences!). The tension between being a "company person" and going your own way should be relevant to both narrative and game-play. That way players like LucByard and myself can have our cake and eat it too.

 

• I like the idea of balkanizing the corporations that lose the game. Assuming Octan wins, Octan gets to stay its big imperial self, while the other corps should break up into smaller corps alongside more new corps introduced in AG2. That way, individual players could control their own small corps just as GoH players can be feudal lords in charge of their own mini-faction within the larger Guild structure. I think AG should work like that, and it will definitely promote "mergers" and alliances and more chaotic espionage/sabotage. The scaling you're talking about would also work well by encouraging mergers and takeovers and small inter-corporate wars. There was a lot of defensive playing in AG1 and I'd like to see more action and boldness in AG2.

 

• If we stick to the big corporate faction system of AG1, I think the aliens should get wise to the corporate warfare paradigm that humans brought to Andromeda and they should found their own alliance of alien species as a new fourth corporation. It makes sense to me that the aliens of Andromeda would start to organize given some of the big events of AG1. If we want to maintain the factions of AG1, it makes sense because it'll give players who prefer less strict faction-based rules to play Alien because there will be looser cultural/aesthetic/procedural standards due to the variety within the group.

 

• Turnover needs to be reduced in faction leaders, staff, and judges. It seems like that smoothed out eventually but there was a time when there were new leaders every week, it seemed like, and new judges too. There needs to be a little more stability and accountability. Some other members have already made suggestions about how faction leaders can minimize their biases when judging. I think this problem should be taken seriously so that judging isn't such a bone of contention in AG2. I'm not sure how to tackle turnover since this is a hobby and people have lives or they get burnt out or move on to other things.

Edited November 27, 2016 by mccoyed