RFE: no trading

[DrPraetorious]

This has come up in multiplayer games - it would be nice if there were a toggle (and a corresponding flag) to disable sending gems, gold, etc. to other players - the concept being that this would reduce the tendency to form alliances.

[Gandalf Parker]

That would help but there are ways to pass the items anyway in mid game. Ive often exchanged mages with other nations by agreeing where to send them so that they can be taken by charm spells (or one of the many variations). You could just as simply pile them with gems and equipment. For equipment you could just send a scout and have him attack. He wouldnt even have to be charmed. Just killing him would give a chance of exchanging the item.

The most dangerous part of alliances that I see is the non-aggression pacts. And I cant come up with a way to control that.

[HoneyBadger]

This is another example of there being a "right" way and "wrong" way to play.

From the nature of the game, as the Devs seem to express it, no nation should ever be allying with another nation, but you can't prevent players from doing so, even though it's disruptive to the concept of a "Dom3 Multi-player" game.

I'm thinking one solution would be education. Broadcasting and indoctrinating as many people as possible about the "Dom3 Philosophy" could go a long way towards solving such problems.

This is a unique situation though, and I kind of question who's side I should be on. I'm all for the freedom to play a given game any way we want, and usually I would stand up for our right to do whatever the hell we want in a game (if you want to "win" at chess by punching out your opponent and then declairing "that's check mate, M*****F*****!", and you don't mind dealing with the consequences, that's your choice) but, this game functions based on principles which vary from pretty much any other game.

Usually, in an MP game, you will have many sides. You'll form alliances and fight against dangerous, aggressive, or weak enemies until all that remains are two sides opposed. "Role-playing" can never entirely preclude the possibility of alliances, because of unpredictability and chaos-theory (not to mention the ability to wear people down by sheer annoyance-factor).

In such cases of fundamentally natural enemies, the question will inevitably come up in one form or another, "well what if this were an alternate universe?"

All sides will function within the same universe, though, alternate or not, and this will be a matter-of-course with pretty much any game you'd care to name.

In Dominions, each nation basically is living in and coming from it's own alternate universe, and the spread of Dominion represents the spreading influence of that universe.

What do you do when each side represents an entirely different point of view on the nature of reality, an entirely different reality, for that matter?

I don't know. It's not like playing Starcraft, though.

[Twan]

I find absurd to try to forbid alliances in any game with more than 2 players (or trade if there is something to trade).

Humans are social by nature.

[Archonsod]

Why not just agree not to have alliances in the game, and threaten to devour the soul of anyone found cheating?

[NTJedi]

DrPraetorious said:
This has come up in multiplayer games - it would be nice if there were a toggle (and a corresponding flag) to disable sending gems, gold, etc. to other players - the concept being that this would reduce the tendency to form alliances.

This would be a useful feature for the multiplayer games... at least the ones I'm playing.

Gandalf Parker said:
The most dangerous part of alliances that I see is the non-aggression pacts. And I cant come up with a way to control that.

Only one solution would be to have all participants swear and give their word the game will have no trading or communication. Also the host would have to personally know the individuals to ensure they are trustworthy to the agreement. A toggling feature to disable sending gems, gold, messages, etc, would also help for this scenario.
Otherwise in a game of complete strangers its currently not possible. Diplomacy is a major part of the multiplayer gaming.

[HoneyBadger]

Therein lieth the rub, Twan. Humans are social creatures, and we tend to form alliances. These alliances take all sorts of forms, friendships, relationships, forums, etc.

The nations in Dom3 are fundamentally unsocial towards each other. If they weren't, then you could have a much more extensive trade-based economy and a diplomatic engine in the game-things that apparently are prevented from due to "the nature of the game"

Outlawing alliances would probably be the most powerful step that could be taken. I don't know how easily you could sniff out cheaters though-and monitoring everyone for cheating isn't really very fun, is it? and like Twan said, it's absurd to expect that particular "law" to be followed well by everyone.

[Gandalf Parker]

It could be controlled I believe thru a PbEM game using blind email addresses, and careful monitoring of the game log. Such as, if I started a game called Blind on my server and gave the Ermor access to an email account of "Blind Ermor" [email protected] and gave Ulm access to "Blind Ulm" [email protected] then Id be able to track most actions.
But it seems awfully intrusive.

Honestly though, Im also torn on the subject. Personally I love alliances. I wouldnt want to create a game that allows proof and bragging that my strategy can beat your strategy by cutting out trading, alliances, messages, random events, etc. Id rather create a game that has majorly boosted AIs and game situations, and then bill it as a game of alliances between the human players.

[HoneyBadger]

I think it would be really valuable to hear the Devs' personal feelings on the subject and what their vision of the game's background as relates to alliances and trading is.

As to the extent of trade, diplomacy, and possible alliances that goes on in a Dom3 "world", they're the only ones who can really give us anything close to "the facts of the matter".

Anything anyone else comes up with is just gut-feeling, speculation, and conjecture based on what we think the Devs kinda-sorta-maybe had in mind when they wrote "such and such. The Devs atleast can give us the "Canon".

[solo]

HoneyBadger said:
I think it would be really valuable to hear the Devs' personal feelings on the subject and what their vision of the game's background as relates to alliances and trading is.

I think the developers intended diplomacy to be a part of the MP game, since sending messages and trading gems, gold and magic items are possible.

I don't find myself using these options at all SP games against the AI, so am somewhat puzzled by players who have concluded that using diplomacy and trade in MP play is not thematic.

I don't believe that adding restrictions and limiting player choices is the way to improve the gameplay.

Players who prefer to play games without diplomacy and trade already have the option of playing duels, where they can pit their skills against those of another human opponent.