Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)

[Sir_Dr_D]

Edi, I agree what you wrote in your last post. Do you have a handy list of major bugs, that cause the game to behave in ways unintended by the devs. Then in the games that I admin i can simply provide a link to it, and say not to take advantange of any of the bugs in the list. Every game admin should do the same, but of course it is up to them.

I want to play games of Dominions, which involves troops. summons, magic, and forging, to out strat your opponent. I do not want to play games of, "take advantage of the current implementation of the dominion program".

- If that move and patrol bug was allowed to be used, people could simple make certain that all their castles are three spaces apart.Then by using the right commander they can move all their troops that distance regardless of the units stats. This would make map move stats, and the various survival skills almost obsolete.
-If the item spamming was allowed, it would have the potential of destroying the item forging part of the game, which for me is the funnest part.
-If the Mists Of Deception was allowed to be used it would make most of the other spells obsolete, and make only a small set of tactics viable in the game.

Strategies like Arcane Nexus, and clamming are game unbalancing (to a lesser extent), but they are also clearly in the dominion rules. Those three items that I mentioned earlier are clearly against the dominion rules. I would like a handy list of these game breaking bugs, so that i can reference them in the games that I admin. Its up to other admins if they want to do the same thing or not, but it is my opinion that most admins should.

[DonCorazon]

Foodstamp, for my part in this discussion, I see your point re: role-playing.

If you have played Neverwinter Nights or similar games, people sometimes use the term as the opposite of min/maxing when they make characters. So you have the people who come up with awesome min/maxed characters that might not make sense from a "role-playing point of view" like the Paladin / Sorceress. Less powerful characters like the traditional Halfling Thief or quirky ones like the Gnome Barbarian are considered "role-playing" characters. In that case, it doesn't even refer to how well you act out the part of your character but more about trying to make characters that you think are fun without regard to having a maxed out character.


Anyway, that was how I used the term in this thread (e.g. role playing as the opposite of min/max), but I agree its not accurate as the term should just refer to people who get into acting out the role of the faction they are playing. Role-playing is a separate issue and people can certainly role-play while they min/max with a MoD combo.

I am not sure what the best term is for non-min/maxing but I guess its like pornography - you just know it when you see it.

[Foodstamp]

DonCorazon,

No biggy. I see the term thrown around quite a bit to explain why people won't use certain features, bugs etc. That is why I pushed the conversation a bit. I think it is interesting that people identify the game style as roleplaying.

Personally I would term it "casual play". By casual play I mean the player plays the game his way. If things do not jive with his way of playing, he is not engaged enough with the game to play outside his playstyle, which means he will quit, or choose to play with people who are willing to play by his rules.

Basically a mindset where the player says "I know this can be countered, but through a lot of tedious work on my part, and I am not in this game for tedious work."

Oftentimes roleplayers fit into the "casual player" mode as well, and I think that is why sometimes people consider them synonymous.

For instance, in an MMORPG I play, when our group ran with 3 priests, we were near invincible. The average group consisted of 2 priests normally. We would get /tells telling us that we were lame because we had three priests in our group, and that it was boring fighting us because they could not do enough damage to get through all the heals. There was nothing in the game to stop us from having 3 priests in our group, but rather than countering an unorthodox group make up, they chose to quit, because the time/thinking investment was beyond what they were willing to commit to.

Fixing bugs is one thing. But in the past I have seen this go beyond fixing bugs. As people get more vocal, some of the more unique aspects of some of the games I have played have been brought in line with what is the norm for the rest of the game, to make the vocal players happy.

There was a pet class in DAOC called an "Animist". Originally the class could summon as many pets as it's mana bar allowed. I used to play one of these characters and I would die more often than I would kill. This class had stationary pets that could only damage an enemy if they were within a certain close range. Animists would hide their pets behind walls so when enemies came through openings, the pets would damage them. The damage was weak, and if the player ran back out the hole in the wall, they would live. But more often than not, the player would freak out and run around in circles and die. Seemed like good strategy to me. But to people who felt beguiled by such tactics, it was cheap and lame. Over the years they were able to persuade the developers to cap the number of pets the player could have, until finally that character went from having as many as he could muster, to 15, and now finally 5. The thing that made the class unique was taken away because people complained enough. Not people in the know, but people who had just started playing, or refused to change their charge forward playstyle.

[triqui]

Foodstamp said:
I apologize if it seemed like baiting. But I wanted to make a point that "roleplayer" is not a synonym for someone who does not min/max.

I apologize if i didnt make it clear, since english is not my first language (as you would had supposed from my grammar and spelling ). But i agree that roleplaying, and playing to win (or playing with house rules), have nothing in common.

You can roleplay, and play to win. And it is also perfectly possible refusing any kind of roleplaying, and play horribly bad.

Maybe "min-maxers" is not a correct expression for what i was trying to explain. A min-maxer might be, for example, someone that makes a triple bless with mictlan and use the controlled dominion expansion to minimize the bad scales. That is min-maxing (minimizing the disventages, and maximizing the adventage), and i have exactly ZERO problems with that.

However, in my book, there is a big step between that, and sneaking out of a besieged castle with non-sneaking troops thanks to "the current implementation of the game". Let's call this second thing different, like "munchkin". It's using something that is not *suppossed* to be there, to gain an adventage. I think Mist of Deception is in the same book: It is not supposed to do what it does (like Battle enchantments do), so I wont use it becouse i consider it an abuse, and i would join games that forbid it.

With Vengeance of the Dead, my initial gripe was exactly the same: I thought it was not working as it was supposed to work, so i thought it was an abuse. However, the Devs have just said it DOES work exactly what it is supposed to do. So there is no bug, and therefore, there is no exploit. It might be an over the average spell. But so is Thunderstrike (in a different level). Using "good" spells, or spells that have a strong effect for it cost /research is not abusing. Its being clever. Everybody use the better spells in their arsenal, and i do not find that abusive at all. Also, i dont "cry noob" becouse my SC died. Several of them die, that's not the issue.

To put it in perspective from another game, there was, time ago, a stage in Counterstrike, Manor. In that stage, there was a special position, where there was a glitch in the program. There, you did not see any wall, just players. Using a very strong rifle (what would pierce the wall) you could kill anyone in the house. THAT is what i mean with "munchkin". Using camping, or other tactics, might be more or less "fun", but are legal. But there is a qualitative jump between placing yourself in a place with a good point of view to the house's windows, while in cover (that's tactic, and maybe min-maxing tactic depending where you place yourself), and using a *glitch* in the map to shoot through invisible walls.

[Cerlin]

The second part of foodstamps post has special meaning for me...What i am seeing here is making me afraid of too much "nerfing" (an mmo term especially.)

I also played Dark Age of Camelot back in the day, and the reason I stopped playing the game is because people who did not want to think to counter good tactics would go on the forums, and whine until the developers changed the game to their liking. I really hope that does not happen here. After watching that happen in DAOC i totally understand Foodstamps reaction and I would say I have a similar one. People, please do not just whine about a tactic you dont like. Of course hacking the game files, or using glichy mapmovie isnt intended. But things like spells you personally dont like, that is just preference, it doesnt mean the game should change.

I would also like to say that I do not consider myself a great player at this game, I am mediocre at best. But i am one of the masochistic players who enjoys playing for the experience and losing and discovering new things. Hell I was playing on Sloth as LA C'tis and managed to lose to Tien Chi in less that 7 turns! That was a hell of an experience.

In conclusion, I want to say I love this game because of all the options, units, and counters. and I especially enjoy the forums because you all are for the most part interesting, mature, and intelligent people from all over the world. So let us please keep it civil on both sides (it seems to be getting back there.) And for the dev's please consider the whining just that, and fix the problems you feel are best.

[Sombre]

Rebalancing and nerfing does NOT automatically equate to less variety or in any way ruin the gameplaying experience. Often the people saying they're worried about this happening are just trying to protect the way they play, doing exactly what they accuse others of by whining to try and get things their way.

Let's say random indy light infantry were an amazing unit. Basically better than any national recruitable, better than any other indy, widely available. So everyone's using them because they're great. All is fair. But effectively people who want to try and use varied strategies, make the most of different units and so on are being punished since it's always better to build these light infantry. So it is suggested they are overpowered and should be nerfed into line with the other units. I guarantee there would be a few people up in arms about how the game was in danger of being nerfed into oblivion and how X random online game was ruined by nerfs and people complaining and how nothing needed to be done because hey, everyone can build them, so they're fair.

I just don't get it. Is it that hard to understand that good balancing /increases/ variety? Ever heard of Rock Paper Scissors Mentok? It's like Rock Paper Scissors, but with the added variety of Mentok, which beats the other three and ties with itself. See where I'm going with this?

Honestly the only reason I can see for their behaviour is that they really like using the overpowered unit/tactic/spell/whatever being discussed, particularly if their opponent isn't using it and is trying to make use of the outclassed other options.

[Cerlin]

Oh trust me, as for me I am very conventional in this game. I have problems using traditional strategy and winning with it. But I find it part of the fun. Dont get me wrong, I really think several things here need to be fixed or not used, like MoD. I am just saying that I can understand why people are afraid of it getting out of control. But at the same time im sure some people defend MoD because they love to use it (or others.)

[Foodstamp]

Sombre,

Balance rarely leads to more variety when the items in question are unconventional to begin with. More often, it is easier to bring those elements inline with the rest of the game. In the end you end up with scissors, rocks and paper as you suggest, leaving out fire, dynamite, water balloon, the attacking jesus and a toothless grin. Ultimately, it becomes a choice of left handed or right handed scissors, blue construction paper or college rule, sandstone or granite. They are different, but they are still rocks, scissors and paper, so there is no depth beyond learning the initial strategy, and there is limited replay value.

[triqui]

Cerlin said:Of course hacking the game files, or using glichy mapmovie isnt intended. But things like spells you personally dont like, that is just preference, it doesnt mean the game should change.

what about using glitchy spells? I mean, spells that the developers have said they do not work as intended?

[Sir_Dr_D]

Foodstamp. Have you looked at the CB mod? What in that mod does that. In my opinion in brings in the fire, dynamate, water baloon, attacking Jesus, and the toothless grin, by doing things like boosting the unused summons, giving the unused pretenders cool powers,and making unused magical items more interesting.

What you are talking about is balanace being done badly. But if it is done well, it adds depth to the game, and not take it away.