Remove Curses and Horror Marks?

[jscott]

The tone of several posts, Endo, was hostile. It was very hostile in one case. That tone isn't necessary.

There are many reasons that casual and even serious stratey gamers will never play Dominions 3. I think that the game makes it needlessly hard on itself. Many serious strategy gamers will overlook the graphics and presentation (which are severely lacking). But to add on top of that the mandatory, annoying difficulty increases like permanent horror marking and curses and afflictions only puts more obstacles in front of players trying to learn this game. When you top it off with no in-game save, a feature present in EVERY GAME (did I mention that before?), its just needlessly absurd.

Dominions 3 could do itself a major favor by just removing some of the needless barriers to entry.

(And, yes, a lot of this is transferred frustration because I can't get anyone I know to try this game for more than a few turns and, you know what, they are right to be turned off of the game, even if once you get into it, it can be a rewarding experience).

With that, really, I'm done with this thread. I hope certain of you really enjoy thrashing the next new player to come along and ask for the game to be a little more accessible and user-friendly in the single player experience. That really helps grow the community.

[NTJedi]

jscott said:
I can rebut most of your points by simply saying that being a human player I have a massively unfair advantage over the AI opponents.

Human players do have a strong intellectual advantage over the AI opponents... this does not justify using a save/reload to cheat in the game!
You brag about being smarter yet still need a crutch when your pretender, prophet or important mage dies.

jscott said:
I'm not going to lose a 70 turn game because of a bug (which happen all the time and have permanent consequences), a flukish event (pretender being killed by her own archers while pursuing routed enemies), or some other silly event.

Using a save/reload because of a game bug is not cheating behavior and worthy of redoing ONLY actions related to the bug.
Using a save/reload because you had some bad luck and a poorly equipped pretender get shot and killed in the back by your own archers is cheating.
Using a save/reload because a "silly" event such as Bogus Independent Thugs arrive and kill your pretender or main army is also cheating.

To clarify... using a save/reload because of a game bug is acceptable and considered fair gaming, but using a save/reload because you had bad luck is cheating.

jscott said:
I've just purchased Dominions 3 and played only three games deeper than 50 turns (none to completion, because a 100% victory is just tedious),

Play the games using victory points... otherwise it will be very very time consuming to finish large maps.

jscott said:
and I've only been challenged by the AI very briefly and this was without any save or reloading.

Unfortunately Illwinter only have two developers and those developers have full time careers outside of making this game.

jscott said:
And only people with abo****ely unlimited free time can afford to play a Dominions 3 game to the end when you are clearly going to lose. I don't have unlimited free time and I doubt my friends and family care how I play in single player.

Playing a game even when you are losing allows you to learn strategies you otherwise would not have learned. The player who uses the save/reload "cheat" allowing himself to always win is not playing a game, but merely playing a storyline which will always have a happy ending. It's the same as playing video blackjack and giving yourself a winning hand anytime you place large bets... it's still cheating.

jscott said:
Again, your response is bizarre and its hard for me to believe you were completely serious.

Bizarre because you've always played your games with the always let me win option of save/reload. On the same note I see it bizarre why someone would play a game against a computer and cheat because he/she needs to always win.

jscott said:
I find it hard to believe that a game that completely neglects its AI to the extent that Doms3 does is attempting to make some broader point about single player gamers being too soft because of excessive saving and reloading. I think the lack of this feature is more a result of lack of emphasis than some kind of ideological purity, but I'm sure the developers appreciate their fans ascribing this level of sophistication to their motives and results.

Programming a computer AI is one of the most time consuming tasks which is why there are so many games with poor AI opponents. Considering this company only has two developers they did a great job with the AI.

[Agrajag]

jscott said:
As for it being hard to implement, if it just takes me 1 second to do it on my own, then it can't possibly be very difficult to implement.

That's just wrong.
Take a look at how "loading" is currently implemented - there is simply a directory full of games, and you can load whichever one you want. If you copy+paste+rename one of the current games, you will get two entries for it in the loading screen. What this suggests is that there is absolutely no distinction as far as the game goes between "games" and "saves". What you ask would require such a distinction, which might or might not be difficult, and either way it will complicate the interface (because it will need to make such a distinction.)

Anyway, I don't see what more do you need beyond the game autosaving all of your turns (which it can do for you if you use the autosaving script I gave you.), you don't even have to go through the hassle of ESC-> click SAVE-> enter save name-> click ENTER.

[KermNelson]

If Illwinter wants to limit its sales by making its game less appealing to many players - it�s their choice.

Gamers play for different reasons. Bartle�s MMO types barely touch the surface of player types but show clearly that gamers are not monolithic. Strategy gamers are also not uniform either.

Much of this recent discussion is about personal preferences and opinion.

But people buy games to enjoy them and if they don't enjoy playing the game in demo or that a friend has they will not buy it. A steep learning curve has killed sales on many games. Players who learned the game either in previous versions or by playing with similarly designed games may not notice the learning curve problem or because they don't mind it they may dismiss it. Other players especially new players may simply choose not to play and some may influence a lot of their friend�s choices.

I personally believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to cheat against my computer. It's a machine executing code not yet any sort of being. So a personal opinion to the contrary is noted only as one individual's opinion. Repeating this opinion is simply overlooked.

I feel from my experience noting player styles in the gaming market that when you make design choices that effect the learning curve you are accepting the fact that you will lose sales. I honestly feel Illwinter is aware of that but our discussions may also affect their perceptions.

Just because we as more computer and code aware players can do a savegame workaround doesn't mean that most players would not find this out of their comfort zone or too much hassle in a game they wish to play and enjoy.

I think jscott makes it clear Illwinter is losing sales by not including the savegame feature.

[NTJedi]

KermNelson said:

I personally believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to cheat against my computer. It's a machine executing code not yet any sort of being. So a personal opinion to the contrary is noted only as one individual's opinion. Repeating this opinion is simply overlooked.

Wrong... the slot machines in vegas are also machines executing code, but with illegal actions/equipment it's also possible to cheat on those machines.
It's also possible to cheat playing a solo card game such as solitare... no computers involved. Cheating during a game does not require two individuals.

[KermNelson]

heh heh,

I never set a requirement for two individuals nor did I say anything about commercial for profit machines. I kept my comment to me and my own computer.
You are not addressing my comment but stating your opinion on different ones.

Your illustration of solitaire does point to a common usage of cheat as to not follow the 'rules of a game.' Being a common usage I would concede that it is a valid definition even if it is not in my dictionary. But this usage is not in my dictionary. My dictionary limits cheating to definitions that either state an 'other' or imply an 'other' being cheated. Computer games have code not rules. If not to follow code is cheating then all mods are cheating. If you argue that mods are allowed by game code and therefore not cheating, then since manual saves are allowed by game code they too are not cheating.

Your other example of Vegas slots ignores the obvious consequence of tampering with someone's business machine designed to make money. It's a machine but your distorting the argument by ignoring the obvious other individuals and economics involved with the operation of the machine.

[NTJedi]

KermNelson said:
heh heh,

I never set a requirement for two individuals nor did I say anything about commercial for profit machines. I kept my comment to me and my own computer.
You are not addressing my comment but stating your opinion on different ones.

My point was that anytime you play any game outside of the game rules for your benefit it's cheating. Using actions outside of the game to change an already decided future is cheating. If you choose to believe changing an already decided future FOR ONLY YOUR BENEFIT by using actions not within the game is not cheating then you are fooling yourself.
Poor computer opponents never had a even a one in a billion shot of winning if you're changing the future anytime you have bad luck.

KermNelson said:
Your illustration of solitaire does point to a common usage of cheat as to not follow the 'rules of a game.' Being a common usage I would concede that it is a valid definition even if it is not in my dictionary. But this usage is not in my dictionary. My dictionary limits cheating to definitions that either state an 'other' or imply an 'other' being cheated.

If you use the save/reload to change the future of a game for your benefit then it's cheating. Your opponents may be just code, but they never had a single chance against someone who changes an already decided future. It would be the same as playing video poker... realizing you lost a large bet and switching the card you received to win the bet... it's cheating.

KermNelson said:
Computer games have code not rules. If not to follow code is cheating then all mods are cheating. If you argue that mods are allowed by game code and therefore not cheating, then since manual saves are allowed by game code they too are not cheating.

Based on your response you're not understanding the purpose of mods. Mods are used to change game content... and thus can be used to make the game easier, equal or more difficult. If you are using mods to make the game easier for only you then it's cheating. The same is true if you are using the save/reload feature to make the game easier for ONLY you then it's cheating.
Don't worry... other individuals such as yourself cannot accept the idea of playing a game and losing thus resort to cheating via the save/reload or sometimes using 'cheat codes' which allows them to receive extra resources, items, etc.; .

KermNelson said:
Your other example of Vegas slots ignores the obvious consequence of tampering with someone's business machine designed to make money. It's a machine but your distorting the argument by ignoring the obvious other individuals and economics involved with the operation of the machine.

Same is true if you personally owned a vegas slot machine in your home. No real money being wagered, but if you are changing an already decided future from the game to win it's cheating.


Here's an idea... switch the current actions you do for the save/reload. During close major battles... if you win the battle use the save/reload option until you lose. This way you can understand how difficult and wrong it's been doing this to the less intelligent computer opponents. Yet then again maybe you wouldn't understand.

[Sombre]

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion. I don't give a rat's *** about saves and have never at any point in playing dom3 wished I was able to reload to a previous turn.

However I find the idea that more options is a bad thing to be very silly. It puts me in mind of bugtesters removing the cheatcodes from a single player game after the testing period because they don't want the players cheating. They actually spend time taking out 'content' and justifying why, purely to restrict players and cut down their options. Now I know this isn't the case with dom3, because they never put in a save system, but how anyone could argue against having more options like this is beyond me. I mean if it's a choice between that and some other upgrade to dominions, obviously I'd be going for the other upgrade, but I'd never stand against it on principle just because I wouldn't make use of it, or I want to restrict other players.

[Agrajag]

1) Any option added takes away time from adding other options. (Or at a "best" case scenario, takes time away form working on the next Illwinter game.)
2) Arguing against more options (generally) is very simple. To do that we have terms like feature creep and bloatware

[llamabeast]

I don't know why anyone bothers arguing. Copy down Agrajag's bat file. In two minutes you will have a save feature. Job done! Certainly less time than it takes to write on this thread.

If the instructions were not clear, I am certain Agrajag, I, or any of a number of other posters would be more than happy to clarify. It's simply a non-issue to my mind.

As to whether they are unnecessarily limiting their sales and so on - it is important to remember that they are a two man team who do things mainly as a hobby and have little interest in the resulting profit. Certainly that is hard for many to understand, but it seems to be true. So they're just not interested in such arguments. The fact that their hobby happens to produce something we all enjoy a great deal is very lucky I think.

Sombre: It is sometimes good to limit options because people, essentially, are not entirely in control of themselves. If I could pay someone to make sure I went swimming three times a week I might well do it. Similarly I appreciate having the option of saving taken away from me. I can imagine people having no sympathy with this - they must have more self-control than me.

Along the same lines I think one of the major reasons I enjoy MP so much more than SP is because even if I want to, I can't see the next turn quickly by ending my turn fast. This forces me to take my time, resulting in me enjoying the game a great deal more.