Re: Bugs & AI
 

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.

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


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.


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

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

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.



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.


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.

Re: Bugs & AI
 

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.

Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

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.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

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.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

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.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

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.

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.

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.; .

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.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

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.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

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.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Hi guys ...
Maybe NT Jedi and I just enjoy this mental exercise, I hope it doesn't bother you too much.

NTJedi … You have an opinion:
“anytime you play any game outside of the game rules for your benefit it's cheating”
I disagree. I have another opinion:
“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.”
I believe I am playing the game within the gamecode because the game allows it and therefore it can not be cheating the game. As I’ve already stated I don’t believe I can cheat a machine – an inanimate object. (Illwinter is obviously aware that players have developed a save/reload workarounds and I’m not aware that they have discouraged them nor am I aware that players are in anyway breaching their EULA by doing the workaround.)
If however I was in multiplayer with other humans where the expectation was that there would be no hidden manipulation of the game and I did do hidden manipulation then I feel I would be cheating the players but the game is simply code that I’d figured out how to manipulate. The key difference is the effect of my actions on other beings not my actions with the machine.
If I choose to save and reload a game to improve my results that is what I’m doing I don't consider it cheating. I consider it trial and error testing to determine the best strategy without wasting massive amounts of time in replaying a game to a similar point. The game I am playing in single player mode exists solely for my purposes. Neither my computer nor the game's software is any form of life or being and until AI’s approach human complexity and start to develop and roughly “think” for themselves they have no rights to being-personhood. I can not cheat them. Once we feel/sense/believe they become beings then we can attempt to interact with them responsibly.
As for your opinion on what I think of mods, like the rest of this discussion you seem to think your opinion has some greater significance: it doesn’t to me. It is simply your opinion. I’ve been playing games since I bought my own Apple II+ in the early 80’s and I’ve been enjoying many companies’ mods including Illwinter’s Dom3 modding ability. Much like a book the author writes the gamecode but the user (as long as they don’t break the license) uses the game how they want to - enjoying it. I consider Mod friendly code simply a wise thing to do to allow creative players to get greater enjoyment out of the game. I think it gives some players further incentive to buy the game and therefore leads to greater game sales. It also creates a positive feedback loop including players’ creative feedback to the developers.

BTW I’ve never save/reloaded in Dom3 it’s too much bother. If I had not realized I could Mod the game to make my learning curve easier and more enjoyable to me I simply would not have bought the game. I play the game to enjoy exploring and learning how the game plays. I’ve found I like games with cheat codes and games that I can Mod. I know I am strengthening my position relative to the AI but it doesn’t bother me one bit. Games are created with AI difficulty settings precisely to allow players to choose how hard a learning curve they experience. I simply prefer to have the AI play consistently and increase my starting strength to decrease the learning curve and enjoy the learning process.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

It's not an opinion... you are changing decided future results for the benefit of winning. Providing yourself an unfair advantage during the game against any opponents human or computer AI is cheating. Just because the AI opponents cannot complain against cheating actions doesn't mean the cheating actions don't exist.

Heck based on your fantasy opinions it's impossible to cheat in a singleplayer game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif LOL


Manual saves can be done for any PC_game, how those save games are used determine whether it's cheating. Mods can be used within the game, but how those mods are used determine whether or not it's cheating.


You could also play darts and get a bullseye every single time by not throwing the darts and just pushing the dart into the bullseye. In your fantasy opinion world you would fall asleep at night believing you're one great dart player... when in reality you are only fooling yourself.

Just because you're playing against a machine doesn't mean it's not possible to cheat. Your opponents may be computer code yet they are still opponents. To make a game even more difficult for an already disadvantage AI opponent is just pathetic.

The save/reload option has been discussed for many years... and the reload option remains left out. If Illwinter felt it was necessary they would have included it.
I see another point you are missing... when someone is cheating whether it's against other human players or against AI opponents they are not only being UNFAIR to their opponents but they are also lying to themselves on the actual skills of their gameplay. Unfortunately many of these individuals continue to cheat because they cannot face losing.

Well if that's true then why don't you try my suggestion. For your next 10 games of each PC_game use the save/reload to change the future anytime you win a major battle. This way you can find the best strategy for making a recovery after major losses and/or important commanders/mages. I'm sure you've spent the last 25 years finding the fastest winning strategy... so it's time you find the best way to recover after major losses.
Hmmm... something tells me you couldn't stomach such a learning strategy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Your actions of using a save/reload to change an already decided future provides you a PERMANENT CONTINOUS UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.

If you were so true to the save/reload option for the purpose of strategic reasons then you would have been using the save/reload for the opposite method of improving your strategy after major losses. Unfortunately the save/reload you use during games is to provide you the constant victory or more importantly the way to avoid facing a loss.
I've been playing PC_games longer then you and surprised even at your age you would use the save/reload just to win games and then try and hide it by saying it's for strategic reasons. If it was for strategic reasons then you would be using the save/reload in the opposite manor I've described earlier.


Much like a book the reader can read the last ten pages or google the internet to discover the secret killer or answer to the riddles... but in your world this is just a strategic method to save time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

Yes, mods are a great tool... like any other tool they can be used to provide an unfair advantage if used incorrectly.

I actually do the opposite and using map edit commands make the computer opponents significantly stronger. Instead of fighting a tiger from the local zoo(default_game)... I'm fighting a prehistoric sabre tooth tiger.

Mods actually aren't needed even for the worst players. Simply play a very large map requiring 40% of the victory points, choose land nations for AI opponents(not ERMOR, Atlantis or Argatha), human plays a water nation, map has 40% water with no lakes and set AI difficulty on easy. No mods needed and a very easy game for the human player.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Hey now! That's just rude and unnecessary. "Cheating", that I'd call "learning to play the game" in this case, IS NOT EQUAL to not being able to lose.

I play rogulikes, and although I used to savescum I decided it takes away the fun, and then noticed I learn faster when I HAVE to, to survive. I completed ADOM once, without savescumming. But I do cheat in games. I even cheat in Dominions - I have a mod that lets me cast Wish and Gift of Reason and any other spell I ever decide to test, as needed, at turn 1 for 1 gem. I do it to test things, such as how fire bless and weapon with multiple attacks work together.

I'm not sure if I said it already, but I agree with the poster - Illwinter's next game, and Stardock's not-MoM game, etc etc should have a save/load feature, unless they are like roguelikes, or like Dwarf Fortress. I don't know what your problem is, but could you at least be civil about it? [/mean]

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Dwarf Fortress now comes with autosave and autosavebackup, so you can have the game save every season change, and have the game save those saves, so you can go back in time if you want to. (it even organizes them nicely by year, season and region.)

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

But I don't use that feature. I said that it should have save feature unless it's like Dwarf Fortress, which is more about the adventure that is playing the game than the feeling of beating the system. I've never had trouble keeping my dwarves alive. I understand why someone attempting to build Orthanc or something would want a save feature, though. What with the exploding booze, melting cookery and such occupational hazards.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Testing strategies, spells, items, units, etc., is not cheating unless you finish the game and consider it a victory. Hence if you provide yourself with the wish spell and a powerful astral mage with gems at the start of a game then finish the game and consider your win a victory then it's cheating. My guess is you test your spells and then end the game without finishing.

I am being civil... and being honest. If the save/reload was a strategy method then those players would be using the save/reload to not only improve their strategies while winning, but also improve strategies while losing thus using the save/reload to provide the computer opponents with the advantage.
Having a save/reload will probably be included within Stardocks next game considering they have the time and staff. The save/reload will be a nice tool for game crashes, bugs, and testing... unfortunately some individuals will also use it for cheating by changing the future of game results.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Oh, I see.
Anyway, I use the saves only to prevent progress lost due to crashes :\ (I've had the power go out a couple of times while playing. Damned winter.)

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

To interact, to understand, to blather on! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

NT Jedi posted:
“It's not an opinion... you are changing decided future results for the benefit of winning. Providing yourself an unfair advantage during the game against any opponents human or computer AI is cheating.” (end NT Jedi post)

Yes it is your opinion. You’ve simply restated it. If I saved/replayed a turn I’d be changing the path of the game(as I’ve stated I don’t do this in Dom3 but I will freely admit I do it in many games with the savegame option.) I am providing myself with an advantage during the game in this case only against the AI. I don’t consider it “unfair” or “cheating” because I’m not playing a being. The game has no set of rules. The game only has code. Dom3 allows Mods and I use them as I wish. I use them according to the game’s code. The game’s code is the nearest thing it has to rules and I follow it.

On your generalization to whether I think it is impossible to cheat a singleplayer game, I’d prefer to see the specific game. As I’ve already said I use some game’s ‘cheat codes’ I could debate whether I really thought it was cheating but I am willing to accept some game author’s characterization of them as ‘cheats’.

Your speculation on my playing darts ignores that it is a parlor/pub game with well known rules and I would not be playing “according to the rules” which is a definition of fair. Therefore I would be not be playing fair. But as I’ve stated I play Dom3 by the code while Dom3 doesn’t have rules. So I am playing by the code which is literal computer (instruction) rules(?) in Dom3 and therefore I think I am playing fair not unfair.

NT Jedi posted:
“I see another point you are missing... when someone is cheating whether it's against other human players or against AI opponents they are not only being UNFAIR to their opponents but they are also lying to themselves on the actual skills of their gameplay. Unfortunately many of these individuals continue to cheat because they cannot face losing.”
(Restated “facing a loss” later): “Unfortunately the save/reload you use during games is to provide you the constant victory or more importantly the way to avoid facing a loss.”
(Restated “UNFAIR”): “provides you a PERMANENT CONTINOUS UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.”
(Restated “unfair”): “Yes, mods are a great tool... like any other tool they can be used to provide an unfair advantage if used incorrectly. “(end NT Jedi posts)

As I just explained above from a definition of FAIR from the dictionary I think I am playing fairly. I play by the game’s code which is the closest thing that the game has to ‘rules’. A definition of FAIR is ‘according to the rules.’ So I provide myself with a permanent/continuous advantage, but I don’t consider it ‘unfair’.

I also am quite aware that I am taking additional strengthening measures to make it easier for me to learn a game I am fairly new at and I’ve admitted here so I’m neither “lying to” myself or deceiving others on this board. I have no problem losing except that I don’t want to waste my time at learning the game. I have at no time denied that in other games that I did reload that I didn’t lose either a battle or that I was unfortunately effected some random event. The event happened – it existed. I simply choose (in some other game) where I do save and reload to replay those turns or event having learned from the experience how to do it better if possible or in the case of random events I’ve eliminated the random bad result. I’m not denying any of this, if I was we wouldn’t be having this discussion. (IF I was denying losing a battle, game, or replaying some negative random event, I’d simply have ignored your posts and never entered this entertaining discussion.)

NT Jedi said:
“why don't you try my suggestion. For your next 10 games of each PC_game use the save/reload to change the future anytime you win a major battle. This way you can find the best strategy for making a recovery after major losses and/or important commanders/mages. I'm sure you've spent the last 25 years finding the fastest winning strategy... so it's time you find the best way to recover after major losses.”
(Restated in:) “If you were so true to the save/reload option for the purpose of strategic reasons then you would have been using the save/reload for the opposite method of improving your strategy after major losses.” (end NT Jedi quotes)

I’ve repeatedly freely admitted I Mod to increase my position: “I simply prefer to have the AI play consistently and increase my starting strength to decrease the learning curve and enjoy the learning process.” And I elaborated that many game companies allow setting adjustment: “Games are created with AI difficulty settings precisely to allow players to choose how hard a learning curve they experience.” Illwinter does this in Dom3’s settings. So your suggestion that I increase my difficulty by intentionally losing battles ignores part of my stated goals: to decrease my learning curve. But in fact in a few games I’ve quite thoroughly learned I do restart battles to see how few troops I can win with. But this is rare and I’m usually getting quite bored with the game because I so thoroughly understand its mechanics. I tend to prefer to buy a new game and learn fresh experiences rather than waste my time on almost trivial refinement. Again as I have stated I play to explore a game: in MMORPGs it is my primary Bartle’s type. I’m an “explorer” not an “achiever” or a “killer”(I think this is a negative term Bartle’s uses for PvPers.) (I my second strongest Bartle’s type is to “socialize” because I enjoy folks and exploring/learning with them.)

NT Jedi posted:
“Mods actually aren't needed even for the worst players. Simply play a very large map requiring 40% of the victory points, choose land nations for AI opponents(not ERMOR, Atlantis or Argatha), human plays a water nation, map has 40% water with no lakes and set AI difficulty on easy. No mods needed and a very easy game for the human player.”

Actually this would be quite boring because it extremely limits my interaction with the AI opponents. I’m too weak on land and they are too weak in the sea. You have repeatedly indication directly or indirectly that I somehow am pursuing an easy victory and avoiding a loss. That’s why I’ve defined the other Bartle’s types: achiever and killer and made it clear I’m NOT either. I don’t mind winning but my enjoyment comes from exploration or in these posts from socializing with other people.

In MMORPGs I love to just travel overland to see the creative and artistic scenery – I explore … I also enjoy exploring how each game works. Much of the reason I wrote Mods to increase my starting advantage was to explore how to mod. I frequently spend more time writing Mods: reading, trialing, and tweaking the mod; than playing the game with the mod. In fact one thing I find very boring in playing is that I have to constantly re-input unit building (or item forging) instructions and constantly move units to the front. Maybe someone has a Mod to do this or I’ve simply overlooked Dom3 ability but I get so tired of repeated builds and moves.


However one thing is still perfectly clear to me – we have different opinions including even your continued insistence that your statements are somehow more than simply your opinion (in my opinion). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

If you guys keep quoting each other, you might very well achieve your secret goal of writing the most boring novel ever.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Here foodstamp, have a cake [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Cake.gif[/img]

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

you are all cheaters and that includes KO

yeah... that'll teach you...

PS KermNelson should go play another game
"In fact one thing I find very boring in playing is that I have to constantly re-input unit building (or item forging) instructions and constantly move units to the front." --> this is dominions 3 in a nutshell http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Just because you are not playing a being doesn't mean it's not possible to cheat. And since changing the future for only your benefit is not "unfair" then let your next 10 games provide the save/reload benefit to the AI opponents. It's not "unfair" in your opinion... so from now on use the save/reload only when the AI's lose major battles.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif LOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

You follow game code?? How would someone not follow game code?? The game's programming code cannot be changed.

Basically this all comes down to you believing it's impossible to cheat in singleplayer games. On this note... you might as well start your games with 10 wraith lords and 200 demon knights at your capital. Seriously it would save you time.


Changing an already decided future within a game is just as fair as changing an already decided future of a thrown dart. The little grand kids call this a "re-do", yet usually by highschool they've grown out of this weakness.

And if changing the future via the save/reload was a legit fair action in singleplayer games then why has this NEVER been documented as saying, "use the save/reload if your opponent has won a major battle"??

Well if you're playing fair then play a different type of playing fair. The next time you win a major battle, use the save/reload and change your actions.

Considering all the games you own, how many of these games do you plan on providing the AI opponents the exact same save/reload advantage??


Using the save/reload after losing a major battle is an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE because the AI opponents do not have the option to use the save/reload. If the developers of any game expected gamers to use the save/reload to change the future then for a more balanced game they would have provided a secret method for AI opponents on harder difficulty levels. The developers would have also written documentation advising to use the save/reload to change already decided game results.

Unfortunately by using such an advantage during games you never learn to deal with important major losses, you never learn strategic ways of rebuilding a crushed empire, you never develop strategic escape methods.

There's actually no reason to use mods for making the DOM_3 game easier. I provided a great example where without mods the player could learn the game without any danger of being killed for at least a hundred turns.

Here you don't understand what can be learned from losing major battles. You've always leaned on your experiences being from ways of improving your winning battles. Hence if you were ever faced in a scenario where you've lost major units/places you'd have little to zero experience on trying to stop a strong marching enemy.
You're not the first to hide from dealing with major losses and even losing. Anyone can play a game and give themselves advantages to win, yet only some can play a game they are losing all the way to the end.

This is improving your offensive strategies yet if you continue playing a game you are losing then you learn to improve your defensive strategies. I can tell you from my own personal experiences it takes courage to keep playing when you know you will be losing the game.

By using major constant advantages you're always on the winning edge... and as I've written earlier there's more to learn/experience within a game then just winning.

Actually having the AI opponents on easy and Independents set on strength 8 will allow most of the water nations plenty of time to get a strong holding on the land. Ask any members on the forum and they will provide other legit examples for an easy game without using mods.

Well if you cannot remember the last SP game where you were losing and played to the end then you have a history of avoiding loss and seeking easy victories. Review your gaming history.

Yes, you believe it's not possible to cheat in an SP game which I've never heard or read until your posts. I suggest gathering an opinion from other individuals from your other games by asking:
"If I use the save/reload to change an already decided future within a singleplayer game to provide myself an advantage over AI opponents is it cheating?"

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Talk about missing the point.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

I just hope you don't see this forum as an unfriendly place after all this KermNelson! This sure is one crazy discussion.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

It's funny how MMORPeger abord games.

It reminds me hundreds of threads by WoW fans asking for no corpse retrieval on Vanguard forums.

Finally the Vanguard death system was made cooler than first planned, a decision disgusting most hardcore old-EQ fans.

But their reaction on the forums gave Vanguard the image of an hardcore game, so the WoW generation avoided it too.

And Vanguard was one of the biggest failures in MMO history.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

KermNelson has been on these forums even longer than me... and few can say this, I'm sure he knows our community.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Hi guys … Hey Llamabeast: I may not post often but I’ve been around since at least 2002. I first bought Shrapnel – Breakaway’s Austerlitz: Napoleon’s Greatest Victory and I bought Shrapnel - Malfador Machination’s SE IV as well. So I’ve seen a lot of board posts here as well as in beta boards for EQ, AC, and SWGs. So Foodstamp & Twan: I’m used to long quoting posts from us beta testers debating where the game should go; I hope you’ll keep indulging us. Aezeal – it’s enjoyment versus boredom and enjoyment is still winning and I’m still optimizing where I can. (Might someone have made something like a batch file mod to re-enter standard builds at the capital at least?)


On to at least one more clarification … http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

NT Jedi posted:
1)“And if changing the future via the save/reload was a legit fair action in single player games then why has this NEVER been documented as saying, "use the save/reload if your opponent has won a major battle"??”
2) “Considering all the games you own, how many of these games do you plan on providing the AI opponents the exact same save/reload advantage??”
3)“Using the save/reload after losing a major battle is an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE because the AI opponents do not have the option to use the save/reload. If the developers of any game expected gamers to use the save/reload to change the future then for a more balanced game they would have provided a secret method for AI opponents on harder difficulty levels. The developers would have also written documentation advising to use the save/reload to change already decided game results.” (end NT Jedi posts).


Hmm NT Jedi you seem to be saying everything a player can do the AI should be able to do: that to be “fair” we should have the same game capabilities. Unfortunately since the AI can’t think like a human player game builders rarely if ever make the player and AI equal. In fact usually there are several strong pluses for the AI so it’s strategic and tactical blunders don’t cause it to lose immediately. So the player and AI aren’t fairly balanced or ‘empowered’ to begin with. The developer also knows the strengths and weaknesses of their game rules and units so they can code an extreme familiarity with the game that the novice player doesn’t possess. Therefore since obviously the game is not designed with ‘identical’ abilities on each side it would be ‘unfair’ by design if you insist on equal/identical abilities for player and AI.

As for documentation: the save/reload is a known feature. Many players are quite aware of its use. It is rare for developers to document all possible uses of all their features. In fact one of Illwinter’s strengths is that they have that beautiful 300 page manual that many modern games don’t bother with. I still remember fondly the early Civilization and MOO manuals with lots of hints and advice. I don’t know if some developers haven’t mentioned using the save/reload feature and if I go by memory I think I can remember reading some mentioning its use. You certainly haven’t proven none have done it and I’m not going to reread a few dozen manuals and pdfs I’ve got around my computer to cite them.

On to talk about losing and defense:

NT Jedi posted:
1)”Unfortunately by using such an advantage during games you never learn to deal with important major losses, you never learn strategic ways of rebuilding a crushed empire, you never develop strategic escape methods.”

2)”Here you don't understand what can be learned from losing major battles. You've always leaned on your experiences being from ways of improving your winning battles. Hence if you were ever faced in a scenario where you've lost major units/places you'd have little to zero experience on trying to stop a strong marching enemy.
You're not the first to hide from dealing with major losses and even losing. Anyone can play a game and give themselves advantages to win, yet only some can play a game they are losing all the way to the end.”

3)”if you continue playing a game you are losing then you learn to improve your defensive strategies. I can tell you from my own personal experiences it takes courage to keep playing when you know you will be losing the game.”

4)”Well if you cannot remember the last SP game where you were losing and played to the end then you have a history of avoiding loss and seeking easy victories. Review your gaming history.” (end NT Jedi posts)

While I’ve clearly stated I reduce the steepness of my learning curve and that I give myself a strong starting advantage, I’ve never said I didn’t play losing games or in tough defensive positions. I’ve lost lots of battles and fought in many tough defensive positions in games. MMORPGs as multiplayer and online games constantly strive to prevent cheating – while I certainly optimize my strategy and tactics for my personal enjoyment, I’ve never even tried to ‘cheat’ (do something that the online company: Microsoft (Turbine) or Sony would consider cheating.) I did have some very powerful tools and characters when I was part of a special test team for Turbine in AC but we were expected to optimize our time and accomplish certain goals in testing new patches (on a test server). I played other games on Microsoft’s multiplayer system including: Birth of the Federation (BotF – Star Trek) where I played games at least until I thought them hopeless versus the caliber of player I was playing and then I politely resigned and congratulated my opponents. Finally as long ago as the early 70’s I played chess both in high school and at a local chess club receiving a rating just over 1800. That included losing but it also included playing versus players that I resigned to before the end because I knew and respected their quality of play. It also included a few amazing comebacks when I felt the player could still be beat. I do the same in playing versus the AI in single player gaming.

I simply already know when I start a new game that I want an advantage. Also after learning some games thoroughly I want to do some mindless exploration for fun sometimes and will start in a position that is probably impossible to lose. I play in my style for my enjoyment. In competition with other players I never cheat and the existence and style of the other’s mind provides fascinating exploration of the game that I thoroughly enjoy even while losing.

(aside 1)
NT Jedi posted:
“Changing an already decided future within a game is just as fair as changing an already decided future of a thrown dart. The little grand kids call this a "re-do", yet usually by high school they've grown out of this weakness. “

The game is not a simple linear experience to me. If the game allows save/reload I make use of it. In a non-tournament game of chess I would frequently allow an opponent to change their move if it was a significant blunder that threatened the “challenge” of the game. In fact there is a common practice where a player would say ‘en guard’ if the opponent was exposing their queen to being taken. This in effect allows them to review their play sometimes even allowing a player to change their move. I would politely allow this ‘re-do’ and it made the game more interesting rather than simply ending it for the other player by his blunder.

It’s also interesting that you impugn the idea of a ‘re-do.’ As a senior US Army Captain I went to Fort Leavenworth for a staff school called CAS3 (cubed), the school picked up the nickname “Re-Do” U because the US Army felt it was more important to have us senior captains redo our finished work so we could learn and perfect our skills.

(aside 2)
NT Jedi posted:
“You follow game code?? How would someone not follow game code?? The game's programming code cannot be changed.”

It depends on how you define ‘game code’. As early as the gold boxed series of AD&D games, certainly in Civ and MOO, I hexedited games. In the gold boxed games I examined the games files including the exe and find out which hexcodes were used for the various AD&D items. The writers literally input items in the order they were in the hardback AD&D books and so you could guess from known hexcode what other items’ hexcodes were. Experience points were also in hexcode so find your current exp pts in hex and change it to what you wanted. I found this exploration of the hexcode added fun and enjoyment to the gold box games I’d already beat. Also Paradox games like the EU series and Hearts of Iron series had savegame files in English that you could easily modify to change all sorts of conditions (these games also have cheat codes well documented in their game manuals.) Some players also did very elaborate mods including the “CORE” mods for Hearts of Iron. Hexcode is a form of code … was I following game code when I edited these games? Or was I changing the games code? Is editing a savegame OK while changing other gamefiles not OK? In Medieval Total War there were building and unit files that if changed effected all gameplay even new games – is changing them following game code? I read someone else’s public work on these files in modding a game and have done this too.

I still am reading what I consider your opinions, NT Jedi. I beginning to wonder if you’re the one in denial. But at least for now I find this exploration interesting.

Thanks all for your patience! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Aha, I had assumed you were new, KermNelson. Apologies. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

No problem ... Llamabeast

... details ... I boo boo'd badly ...

I've just checked EU/HOI manuals and arrggh! They don't show the cheatcodes. That's what I get for relying on memory. I got this sudden fact checking panic attack and I was wrong - no listed cheat codes even if they are in the gamecode.

However since I was boring myself with manuals:
pg 47 of Rome Total War manual:

"Load Game and Save Game allow you to save your position and reload it later (or even undo some terrible calamity by stepping back to an earlier game date, not that you'd ever cheat like this, oh no)."

While clearing labeling this tactic as a 'cheat' the humorous response (sarcasm) obviously indicates the manual's expectation of use for exactly this purpose.

On usable codes to change your stats in Neverwinter Nights manual (pg 171): gives a table of "Common Commands"

Some are: ModAge # or SetAge #, also a series ModSTR # thru ModCHA #, and SetSTR # thru SetCHA #, GiveXP #, GiveLevel #.

This is the D&D system so this allows the player to quite effectively change (cheat?) his character stats and level. There are other useful commands. My point being that some games do release in their manual cheatcodes and/or modcodes that can be used to radically change gamebalance.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Very very few PC_games are balanced between all players when the game starts, the closest games would be chess and checkers. Each PC_game has many random variables providing some opponents with stronger starting positions. Every game has either in-game options, windows_OS options or outside hacks which can provide changes during the game. When these changes alter an existing future for one opponent then the game's natural history has ended. In the case of DOM_3 using the save/reload to change an already decided future for an important battle(s) the game's natural history has ended... it's no longer a game where each opponent is battling for godhood because it's clear one opponent is controlling the future.
The same would be true if you had your own personal slot machine where no real money was being used and changed the results when losing a major bet.

As mentioned earlier, very few PC_games are balanced between all players at the start of a game. However there is a major difference between having a strong advantage and controlling the future! For any game the individual controlling the future will win(if he chooses) and thus the game is now within a controlled environment of the individual controlling the future.
EVERY GAME involves a risk of losing, thus if you remove the risk of losing by changing/controlling the future it's no longer a game and just a controlled environment.

Of course save/reload is a known feature... hence if your computer crashes while playing the reload option prevents losing hours and hours of time. Unfortunately it's just as easy to use this great tool for cheating and thus allowing a player to control the future. The developers/publishers don't have time to list the hundreds or thousands of different ways it's possible to cheat within todays complex games.


As mentioned earlier, there's no need to use mods for providing yourself an advantage for the learning curve. If you place a topic on the main forum asking for an easy game without mods, you'll receive at least 5 good responses. Based on the past history you've mentioned I'm surprised you would even remotely consider providing yourself such a massive unbalanced advantage such as controlling the future via the save/reload for any game... unless you don't consider that current game a test of your skills and you are purposely controlling the environment for preparation of some other existing game or future game.


Tipping the scales to your advantage via mods or map edit commands is a smaller type of cheating depending on how much tipping was done. Controlling the future via save/relaod is a major type of cheating. Another sign using save/reload to change the future is cheating is because even 80,000 years from today no AI opponents will control an already decided future within a game.
Example:
The_Game:Dominions_505 ____Released: May19th___Year_82,008
Turn_45
Battle Results: You've killed the AI pretender and it's prophet after a 42_turn battle... wait it's changing the future upon next turn they will be alive again and your pretender and army will be dead. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



I do testing for a mod I'm developing, another type of game exploration. Playing for fun is why the gaming industry has exceeded the movie industry. Exploring and testing can be fun exercises. To start a game an actually consider the game a test of your skills means playing without controlling the future.

It's hard for many to continue playing even in MP games, I frequently have read and seen players just toss in the towel after losing a major battle. As a result the games need substitutes or the nation is turned into an AI. Personally I've always fought to the bitter end during games unless someone was cheating or I was provided an unfair major disadvantage.

Yes reloading to perfect skills can be important and fun, controlled environments are typically used for learning and perfecting skills.
If you edited game code to make the game easier then it's a type of cheating depending on how much you've tipped the game into your advantage. Editing any existing game to provide yourself an advantage is cheating... the greater the advantage the greater the cheating. Editing a game to workaround a bug or improve game performance/quality is not cheating since the risk of losing has not been tampered.

Cheat codes exist because developers use them for testing the game, the cheat codes remain for two reasons. First it would take time to remove them which can be spent improving the game elsewhere. Second hardcore cheaters will hack into the game or find a friend to hack the game and develop the cheats.

Even the developers from Rome Total War state using the save/reload to undo a decided future is cheating... as I've been saying from the beginning. Their comment is sarcasm because they know SOME gamers will cheat, it's inevitable... but it's still cheating.

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

It would be really cool if someone designed an AI that can recognize a mistake it made some time after making it, and then you get a popup "AI Player 4 noticed that it made a serious mistake 14:12 minutes ago, will you allow him to load a previous savegame? [Yes/No]"

EDIT - there aren't 62 seconds in a minute http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
 

Hi all … once more into the fray! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

It seems that with the fast pace of modern changes words keep expanding their possible meanings giving us more to have opinions on and individual interpretations. This discussion has covered a few words some might even say a boring booklet. We’ve focused a bit on cheat, fair, rules, and game code. Things keep moving along so now I’ll give my take on game and opponent.

A definition of game from a dictionary: any form of play or way of playing; amusement; recreation; sport; frolic; play.

The noun usage definition of opponent: a person who opposes; person against one in a fight, game, debate, argument, etc.; adversary.

Admittedly I’m going to what some have already called “boring” detail but since I enjoy playing a bit like a bulldog in posts like this I beg others indulgence while I enjoy this mental exercise. (You don’t have to read these posts after all.) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I’m also perfectly willing to admit we can expand the meaning of words, I guess I’m trying once more to elaborate where I’m coming from. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

NT Jedi posted:

1)” Every game has either in-game options, windows_OS options or outside hacks which can provide changes during the game. When these changes alter an existing future for one opponent then the game's natural history has ended. In the case of DOM_3 using the save/reload to change an already decided future for an important battle(s) the game's natural history has ended... it's no longer a game where each opponent is battling for godhood because it's clear one opponent is controlling the future.”

2)” However there is a major difference between having a strong advantage and controlling the future! For any game the individual controlling the future will win(if he chooses) and thus the game is now within a controlled environment of the individual controlling the future.
EVERY GAME involves a risk of losing, thus if you remove the risk of losing by changing/controlling the future it's no longer a game and just a controlled environment.” (end NT Jedi posts)

NT Jedi in your opinion a game seems to require risk and therefore an uncontrolled future. Above I’ve cited the first definition of game from my dictionary. The definition seems to focus on play not risk or the need for some unknown future. While I might tend to agree that computer games are mostly simulation which might be called a “controlled environment” I still think even in the games which I so outrageously unbalance things that I doubt I will lose a skirmish that I’m still playing a game.

You also seem to think that only your opinion of the ‘natural history’ of the game exists. I think the game has whatever history I play it to including any codes, mods, or save/reloads I choose to incorporate. You simply do not define what is ‘natural’ in all of gaming: you have your perspective – your opinion.

(You also use the term opponent when speaking of gameplay vs. AI. I wouldn’t have historically considered the AI an opponent as in a ‘person’ but I will acknowledge it is probably a common usage and more modern dictionaries may broaden the definition to include artificial or automated opposition.)


NT Jedi posted:

1)”… I'm surprised you would even remotely consider providing yourself such a massive unbalanced advantage such as controlling the future via the save/reload for any game... unless you don't consider that current game a test of your skills and you are purposely controlling the environment for preparation of some other existing game or future game.”

2)” To start a game an actually consider the game a test of your skills means playing without controlling the future.”


I don’t always consider the game a test of my skills of combat. I have already mentioned my primary focus is exploring in all games not achieving (goal & success orientation) or killing (PvE or PvP). So I may as I’ve noted run through a game by literally running over the game’s combats while paying attention to other events.

As to the level that a game is a “test of my skills” that is precisely what I am controlling to some extent. Even when I start a new game with a low learning curve I’m still learning so the game is still testing my skills and improving them. That was part of the reason I brought up my experience in CAS3 (cubed): we were allowed to re-do so we could reach an acceptable skill level through practice. You yourself acknowledged this:

(NT Jedi posted: ) ” Yes reloading to perfect skills can be important and fun, controlled environments are typically used for learning and perfecting skills.”

In order to learn and perfect skills they must be tested. I simply choose how my skills are tested. I don’t have to start games over and over to learn mid and late game lessons. If I wanted to improve my mid or end game in chess I could efficiently and effectively start games from saves or from books that had got to the mid or end game stage. And just as I would study optional moves at any point in a chess game, I can save and reload to play through my options and learn better strategies more efficiently. As I’ve stated repeatedly I play the game the way I want. And I don’t consider the save/reload cheating.


NT Jedi posted:

1)” Cheat codes exist because developers use them for testing the game, the cheat codes remain for two reasons. First it would take time to remove them which can be spent improving the game elsewhere. Second hardcore cheaters will hack into the game or find a friend to hack the game and develop the cheats.”

2)” Even the developers from Rome Total War state using the save/reload to undo a decided future is cheating... as I've been saying from the beginning. Their comment is sarcasm because they know SOME gamers will cheat, it's inevitable... but it's still cheating.”

(On cheat codes)
First you speculate on why developers leave cheat codes in game. You have not surveyed them so you simply don’t know why any more than I do.
I’ve seen a few games in which singleplayer allows cheat codes but multiplayer doesn’t, if they bother to take them out of multiplayer why not singleplayer? Maybe they know some players like and use them so they accept those player’s style choices to encourage them to buy their games so they leave them in.


(On the term: cheat)
I guess one of the primary reasons I respond so negatively to the characterization of cheating is that in human games of competition and in most of life’s activities cheating is immoral, unethical, and illegal. Any secondary modern definition of cheating such as using codes, save/reloads, or other game vs. AI activities is so trivial in comparison that I personally don’t think of it as cheating. (I see nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal in using cheat codes or in saving/reloading games.)

Here are two more examples to add to my Rome Total War in which I thought the books flippant use of the term “cheat “ placed the humorous trivial meaning in proper context.

From Star Wars: Rebellion game manual, page 76: (TIP) “Save a game before you engage in a risky strategy if you are afraid of losing all your hard work. You can always reload the game and start from the earlier saved point if things don’t go your way.”

From Final Fantasy VII players manual, page 42: (General Tips) “Save often – you never know what lies around the next turn.”

These quotes at least in my opinion leave no doubt since they don’t call it cheating and that the game developer was encouraging this behavior as normal and prudent.
Finally you ignored the Neverwinter Night’s example in which the game allows the player and dungeon master to change characters through “Common Commands” not calling them cheats. Most PnP RPGs determined what was cheating in the eyes of the DM/GM and it varied radically. Obviously Neverwinter Night’s follows this tradition in not prejudging the use of these “Common Commands.”

Thanks for all your time ... even you not too bored readers. I love someone stretching my imagination.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: Bugs & AI
 

Wow, I didn't expect to see any new replies to this thread.. that was an interesting read.

I never did buy the game, by the way. I did want to 'check in on' it though to see if anything had changed.. I guess the community is still too divided between the unrelentingly-hardcore camp and the hardcore-but-not-insistant camp for things to swing in the latter's favor. As far as save games go, yes, that would be nice, but for me the barrier remains the curses/horror marks/insanity/any other permanent afflictions. If there were a Remove Curse/Banishment/Restoration spell or effect to remove these or just a simple toggle that switches all that crap off I'd fork over $50 right now.

I don't suppose anything has changed in the few months since anyone last posted in this thread? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Bugs & AI
 

No, not really. We got three new nations in a patch.


I wonder how many of us who did get into Dominions played roguelikes before playing Dominions. That would give the player the kind of mentality needed to enjoy Dominions.

Re: Bugs & AI
 

Actually, I do play roguelikes (Well, just Nethack, Slashem and Dwarf Fortress.) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

But even Nethack has Explore & Wizard Mode! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Bugs & AI
 

I just came across this thread..

The argument regarding whether save/reload is cheating or not I’ll sidestep – personally I think it would be convenient, especially for a new player, but its not a big deal once past that point. I’d agree it is a barrier to entry, it was frustrating at the beginning when I managed to self-destruct every few turns one way or another

One very interesting thing about all of this is that the devs really don’t seem to care about selling a lot of copies. This is bad in some ways, but overall good so I’m happy 

The bad – there really is a lot that could be done from an interface point of view to make this game better; save games, repeat forging, waypoints, automated troop movements, etc etc. Especially for single player where one just seems to flip through the turns, a lot of the game is a tedium. I am sure that between all that, the complexity and the graphics, a lot of players get turned away from the game and sales are lost. The complete lack of attention to SP doesn’t help there either, but I can see what a massive job that would be, and really it would take a lot to make Dominions really good purely as a SP experience.

The good – devs with a primarily commercial aim in mind tend to dumb down games too much for the gamer that really wants to be involved. Having just started playing multiplayer I can see why people regard it as totally different. With such a range of options from people and unpredictable behaviour, you never just go through the motions, you have to consider everything carefully and react quickly. The tedium vanishes because everything must be considered. Dominions isn’t forgiving – I’m sure I’ll be 4 weeks into my first MP game when one action Ididn’t know was possible will destroy me. That’s great!

A few years ago I played an MMPOGD called Faith for a couple of years, a team based strategy game that operated in real time. In a lot of ways that game really rocked, it had massive potential and a core of very involved, passionate players that spent a lot of time on it – much like Dominions. The major difference is the devs’ attitudes. In dominions they focus on making the game better for the existing player base, and focus on what is important for them – balance and new content. Stress the balance here! In Faith the emphasis quickly moved to keeping new players, which meant neglecting balance and dumbing down the lethality of combat. They also kept creating new content and fluffy roleplay stuff before they had their core mechanics sorted properly, which compounded initial problems rather than improving the game.

I would love some of the nice to haves sorted out, especially AI improvements, but all in all I’m just grateful to have a game where development targets improving the experience for existing players. Transparent development, a simple and understandable (even explained in manual!) game mechanic with complexity out of the vast number of races/units/spells/items and their combinations. Its all good 

And should our Swedish friends ever want to take it to the next level where it will appeal to a wider base (though it will always remain a niche game), I’m sure they will have plenty of support here to get those things sorted.

Re: Bugs & AI
 

Wow! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif I am one of those who truly loves Dominions as a SP experience. Set indie defense at 9 and adjust AI. It is true that the learning curve is steep initially, but the manual that comes with the game as well as this forum are both excellent guides. This game never seems to get boring. I still discover new tactics / strategies long after the initial learning curve. There seems to be no end to new content through patches, maps, and mods. The patches also continue to tweak the game to operational perfection.

I Agree, but as you can tell that would no longer be necessary for me.

In chess programs, you could take moves back all day and still not beat the AI. Each time you would find a new way to lose. You would improve some by continuing in this brute force manner, but progress would be slow and limited. If instead you read material on the game, and then applied it, you would improve much faster. The same is true for dominions. Read some of the guides in this forum, look at the battles and pause them to see how battlefield set-up dominion/pretender choices effect them.

I remember Nethack (throwing rings in a sink ect.) and Slashem. I deleted them off my computer and replaced them with Angband (Moria type) and its derivative Tome. This was because of my content preference.

For someone who wants to use an SC solely to win the game, these afflictions can be a strategy buster. There are however threads in this forum that address this very issue with a Prince of Death example. Some people even play with an imprisoned pretender. If curses/horror marks/insanity/and other permanent afflictions are game busters, then make sure your opponent gets plenty of them.

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

So. Looks like I'm back again. Well.

My position hasn't changed. Obviously the game still has Curses and Horror Marks et al. So I suppose I want to know if modding has improved to the point where modifying/adding spells is possible. Or if a mod already exists that accomplishes what I desire: No incurable states of condition.

Failing that I would like to know the full extent to which I can personally modify the game. For example, rather than just removing a type of site entirely, changing its properties. Or replacing by removing one and adding another.

Though one thing I didn't see addressed was insanity. How would you go about removing that from the game, assuming there is no way to create a spell effect to accomplish it? And while I'm at it, are there any OTHER such nuisances that I just don't know about yet?

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

All this can be accomplished... you simply remove each unit, spell, nation, weapon/item which causes the curses, horror_marks, and insanity. Start with a simple mod removing the biggest pains and as you discover the other units, spells, and weapon/items then you can add them into the mod. At least that's what I did for the AI Opponent Balance mod which took quite a long time for the first version and the next version is being worked on. Any SP gamer looking to balance the scales of fairness would like the mod.

There's no super cure potion/spell for the game. You should try the original base game of Dominions_3... that's where the horrors were massively out of control.

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

er, who says you don't have game saves, anyway?

theres a mod that saves the game everytime you run it. And even if you can't find it - write a little batch file to do the same thing..

No big deal.

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

The sites that cause horrormarks and curses can be overwritten, but then you lose the other properties they may have. Site modding does not allow assigning horrormark or curse giving properties or many other things, so overwriting is the only way.

Otherwise, you're in for a lot of modding to remove or modify all the spells that can give horrormarks or curses. Those things are not moddable out of items either. Horrormarks are reduced somewhat every time a unit dies, but that's not much comfort most of the time.

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

Well if possible I'd like to do as little removing as possible. Total removal is kind of the last drastic step. Removing certain properties or abilities is one thing, removing an entire nation is another!

Is it impossible to make a "super" cure? (Something that specifically removes one condition caused by a 1st level spell isn't exactly world shaking magic in my opinion.) I thought I saw some spell-related guide..

I'm confused. Can you not create a similar site with the same effects sans the Curse/Horror Marks, remove the original, and use the new in its stead? Is not possible to add new sites?

I assumed I would have to do this anyway? :confused: I mean if you remove 1 of 10 different ways to obtain a Curse, there are still 9 left, no?

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

There's no modding which can make it possible to create a super cure. So a super cure is currently impossible.

Impossible curses, insanity, and horror marks are one way streets. No cures are possible.

Correct you'd have to create a mod which gradually removes every method of having a curse, horror mark, insanity or the few other permanent harms which are one way.

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

I'm not speaking of cures here. I'm referring to changing site properties.

Can I get some names? :p

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

shattered soul. a special flavor of insanity that is used to balance super strong tartarian and Hinnom.

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

As mentioned earlier by Edi... you would have to remove the sites. No way to change properties we don't have access to change.

Shattered Soul which all Tartarians carry... added due to game balance. Cursed Luck... don't remember exactly, but it should be within Edi's database.
Also two blood spells and a few weapons which can banish your unit, commander, SC, OR pretender to the inferno. Causing him to remain gone anywhere from 2 turns to never coming back. There's also a small bug where any unit which is lucky enough to return from the inferno will always return to only one specific province on the map... this should be random, but from my experience it's fixed.

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

To clarify, it IS possible to mod magic sites, but it is not possible to change those specific attributes of sites, so you have to remove the site altogether if you want to get rid of the effect.

You will also have to remove horrors, lightless lanterns, stone spheres, etc from the game to remove all possible horror marks. Most horror marking effects you should be able to find in the spells and items portions of your manual.

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

Curses, Horror Marks, and the kill counter can't be removed. On the plus side, neither can experience, heroic abilities and prophet status, for example, and there actually are ways to turn back the clock and rejuvenate a unit.

Re: Remove Curses and Horror Marks?
 

It is possible to remove horrormarking and cursing from a site, but to do that you need to overwrite the site by assigning it five attributes such as gem generation, scale increases, recruitable monsters, homecommanders or something. #homecom and #homemon probably work best because then nobody can recruit those units, so a Vale of Infinite Horror would do nothing but produce the unrest.

The other stuff is more difficult if not impossible.