Re: Speeding up battles
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Does that mean that its getting fixed? That would be radical, because I really do like the game. Watching battles is part of the fun, but many you just want to skim to see if anything major happened, while you might want to watch a battle involving your Pretender in every detail. It's just too annoying for me to deal with, when the same feature was already in Dom 1.

Heres to hoping.. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If they are professional developers they will of course fix it. Arent they pros? Any huge flaws like this should of course be adressed.

Re: Speeding up battles
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Depends on how "pro" is defined. If it's defined as someone who has successfully made a product for commercial sale, then yes. If it's defined as someone who makes their livelihood from programming, then no. The devs at IW do the programming in their spare time. They each work other day jobs that have nothing to do with IW and gaming.

Re: Speeding up battles
 

That actually explains a lot... There are many small imperfections, that has puzzled me as to why they haven´t been fixed.

But the overall product is so awesome and addictive its strange they havent been headhunted to a bigger company.

Re: Speeding up battles
 

Not everything is also considered a 'flaw' in the game, especially by developers. There is also the time to fix vs actual time able to try ratio.

If the qualifier of a pro is to pander to customers, there are certainly alot of unprofessional people out there making a ton of money from people who buy their product.

[ March 03, 2004, 04:29: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Speeding up battles
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then don't sell the product at a pro's price. I would not buy a full price car, discover that they forgot to put in blinkers, and say, "Hey, this company is different, they only make cars in their spare time, so it's okay."

I'll cut a little slack here because the developers seem to be decent people who are trying to help, but I'm getting sick of the "it's not their full time job" argument. I paid more for this game than I do for most others; I can trade somewhat crappy graphics and interface for a better game (which I believe is the case), but some things, like being able to watch a core event of the game in a reasonable period of time without tearing out hair should be non-negotiable.

Re: Speeding up battles
 

Thats a minor flaw for such a comment about price. Well ok it seems to be major for a few but they know what they can do about it. Ive paid as much for games with much more damaging flaws than that.

As to the battle speeds....
Try changing the graphics setting to lower-res, try turning off other programs you have running, try zooming in on the battles (use pageUp and pageDown along with the arrow keys), turn off the background with the w key.

Mostly I find that having fewer different types of archers on the field makes the biggest difference.

As to the price, Illwinter didnt set the price. Shrapnel did. All Illwinter had to do with it was going to a publisher instead of offering it at their web site and that was in response to us. The Users of Dominions 1. If you want to compare the price to publisher things like advertising or packaging or Online orders then be my guest.

Re: Speeding up battles
 

I guess you missed the fact that, despite it's flaws, which aren't major (unlike what many of those so-called "pro" games you are probably thinking of have), Dominions II has garnered at least 3 "best game" awards from major magazines. The game is worth every penny of its price, and then some, given how many hours of play it provides. If the game wasn't as deep and rich as it is, then it wouldn't be worth the price. But it is deep and rich, which is why I presume you bought it.

I find that the people who complain the most about the speed of things are those that are "attention-challenged", as are many RTS and FPS players. Most of these sorts of players have almost no patience, and little appreciation for things that aren't glitzy and that are "too complex", like most turn-based games.

The price of Dominions II is based on the value of what the game gives you, not how "fancy" its graphics or UI are. There is also the economic concept of the "economies of scale". Bigger companies with more people and money to throw at a project can afford to make the fancy UIs and such, and sell the game at the same price as a game like Dom because they will make things up in volume.

Finally, Dom is a niche product. Niche products, of any sort, including cars, cost more than average products.

Re: Speeding up battles
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You need to read what people are posting; you are dropping into fanboy defense mode and generating scripted responses to non-existent arguments no matter what was actually posted.

For example, my post had nothing to do with RTS versus turn based. I've been playing turn based games since the Apple II days. I have concentration. However, not wanting to wait 10 seconds everytime a flight of arrows launches in a large battle is not the same as not getting the value of turn based gaming. You are making a straw-man argument (I guess you are a click-kiddy and not intellectual enough, go back to playing Command and Conquer) instead of responding.

I admitted what you said. The battle speed issue, however, is not a minor graphics issue or UI issue; it is a flaw. Things like not being able to tell an Ulm blackplate from the corresponding regular unit without burning out your eyes squinting at the screen are also flaws, although lesser in my view.

[ March 03, 2004, 14:30: Message edited by: Sly Frog ]

Re: Speeding up battles
 

The speed of the battles hasn't bothered me at all yet. It could be that I am still learning the game and haven't had any large battles yet, but for now I find myself pausing the action many times during each battle to see how it is unfolding. The archer/crossbow fire is probably the worst part of it, but I do enjoy watching and seeing if any of them make their mark and it allows me to see where they are targetting and observe part of the strategy of my opponent.

Once the battles become tedious and the outcome obvious, I will probably just look at the summary screen of losses and not even play the replay. At least there is this option that is available in the game. Also, and I know this doesn't solve the problem, but can't you immediately interrupt/quit a review of a battle if you don't want to see the rest of it? This would allow you to watch the beginning strategy and initial clash and then abort once you are satisfied with the results.

Personally, I have been looking for a slower game and one that forces me to think more to have success. I would gladly have more detail in the replays vs. more speed. I suppose once my knowledge improves, the battles may seem slow, but it is a minor problem for me anyway overall.

Re: Speeding up battles
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Only since then? You're a youngster. I've been playing them since before the invention of the IC chip. Strategy games pre-date computers. But this is an irrelevant tangent you brought up just to try to impress me. Nice try, but not good enough.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Battle size doesn't make the arrows fly slower on my machine. And they take about 5-6 seconds. I've timed them. Perhaps you need better hardware. Whining about a few seconds per turn, without considering the complexity of the calculations that are being done for each of those arrows, is not being fair to the programmers. I guess if you were a programmer (as I am) you'd have a better appreciation for this. The only legitimate complaint is not having an option to turn the missile animations off, and that might not improve the speed as much as you might want.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've never played C&C. I dislike RTS, and C&C is the worst of that ilk. And I'd be a bit careful about who you call a "kiddy" or "not intellectual". I can assure you that you'd lose on both counts. Not that I care. But you seem to feel the need to act superior to those that hold differing views. Which is a childish attitude, especially ironic given your comments about "kiddies".

For someone who's new to the forum, you're certainly making a nice impression. Good job!