Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Yeah, if IW will decide to add a system we can argue than.
This is totally pointless now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
Anyways, a good SP diplo sys. will surely enchant the game, it will be a big ++ and not a --.
Simple.

[ October 16, 2003, 19:07: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Strange question. I mean, why does anybody play SP in the first place? Personal preference, to put it broadly, and differential appeal and aVersion between the two modes of play, along with dozens of other (individual) reasons. Why would that be a thing to wonder about?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well honestly (although I suspect that some people here are not particularly interested in honest dialogue) I think that people are drawn to SP for certain reasons, and to MP for certain reasons. I just happen to think that one of the main reasons people are drawn to MP is the desire to have diplomacy - by which I mean strategic relations between nations involving sharing of information, reading of intentions, negotiating alliances, laying down disinformation, judging if/when to break faith and attack, etc. Therefore it seems strange to me that people who seem to have this desire would want to play SP, especially since SP AI cannot replicate these things. I don't question people desiring to play SP at all . I myself more often than not play SP - I am not a die-hard MP fan. There are times when it's more fun to just sit down and play against a few computer opponents.

However, what is lacking in this experience is real diplomacy. And I think the logical action to take in response to this lack (insofar as it is felt) is to play with other people, who you will be able to dialogue with. I think an action that makes less sense is to campaign for an AI diplomacy element, which cannot even approach what real diplomacy is like.

If it were possible, it would be great because you could game at your convenience, without the hassle of waiting for other players. etc. However, AI technology just isn't there yet. - It cannot take the place of human opponents when it comes to diplomacy.

Anyone is free to disagree with this, though I would ask that you at least keep your disagreement civil. However, I do think if you actually read what I said that it makes some sense. And just to re-iterate: I am not against SP [in fact I even argued FOR limited AI diplomacy earlier in this thread] - it is what I play most of the time; my only point is that if you want diplomacy the natural place to find it is MP.

[ October 16, 2003, 19:11: Message edited by: st.patrik ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I would be seriously surprised and even slightly offended if you consider my Posts as the ones not in line with desire for honest dialogue. I assure you that there is no malice intended or involved behind any of them, not directed to you, and not to anyone else either, regardless of whether they are in this thread or other threads. But let's not talk abut that any more, and let's not do finger pointing; feel free to pm me if you think I personally was out of line.

You provided the reasons for SP diplomacy in your post quite well (although I snipped out the parts of it). For my own personal reasons, I don't play MP at all. Therefore, for me it's no compensation if you can do it that way. However, in my opinion it would enrich the gaming experience in the mode that I do play and enjoy playing, and hence I would like to see it implemented. I'm not thinking human level of reasoning, as this is not what I look for in my games, otherwise I would play MP probably, with the current state of the affairs. I'm thinking about enrichment of the gaming environment I peruse, and if you tell me to play MP, it's the same thing as if you're telling me to play some other game altogether. That's why I said that your question was a strange one, as later you yourself have provided reasoning for people opting for one mode or the other.

[ October 16, 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: HJ ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

I think the major problem here is that some of the lads think, that the diplo AI will be abused. Adding a diplo system cannot be a problem, the diplo AI is the problematic point here.
Well I dont know too much about scripting, but I am sure, that IW could make a decent diplo AI.
The new Civ3 AI is lot better than the old, and the normal AI there is worse than the old Doms I. AI.

I think that the majority would be happy with the SP diplo AI. It is up to IW, that what will they do.

If the diplo system won't be implented, than Saber's idea about the weapon/armor system should be added with an add-on pack or with a later patch.
Implenting either of these would bring the game to a new level. Imagine if we would have both of them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ October 16, 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Woah Nellie!

Why would people not play MP? Yeesh there are a bazillion reasons why, some people simply cannot play MP (no internet maybe? no friends interested for LAN or hot seat?) Some people don't have the time, or don't want to spend the time (time over a period of weeks or months) to play MP.

Look the MP experience (usually) is going to be superior to the SP experience for reasons beyond the ability to have some form of diplomacy, but that doesn't mean that every wants to, or indeed is able to, engage in MP.

I for one play almost entirely SP. I will try the odd PBEM, but that's about it, I don't have flexible enough time to be able to set aside 5+ hours for a LAN or internet match, so its really not much of a choice for me.

Anyway, some diplo rules or settings would be nice, but I don't think the system has to become overly complicated. Simple things like trades (GalCiv and Civ3 do this pretty well) and NAPs could work well. NAPs would have to have the penalty that if you break one no one else will NAP you for a fixed time, if you break a second one, make that time longer, if you break a thrid... no one will ever NAP or trade with you. Simple things are best, non of this sharing provinces, granting rights of passage, esentially anything that would require the existing code to be modified to incorperate new rules.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

I think the major problem with diplo AI is that I don't know anything about AI coding and JK is bored by it (he made the AI so he should know). This doesn't mean that there will never be any diplomacy, but it means that if it will be made it will be so out of a sudden whim.

An outstanding AI might also see the day of light if one of you guys suddenly comes up with a simple yet brilliant system for a diplomatic AI that is unabusable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Meanwhile you will have to wait and hope.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I didn't mean that you in particular were not interested in honest dialogue - in fact reading over your Posts I notice that you have not made the kind of comments I was reacting against. So I apologise if I communicated otherwise, and thank you for your thoughtful response.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have some ideas, I will post about it.
Gotta run, no time now.
I am happy that you lads @ Illwinter are paying enough attention, and listening to our ideas and suggestions! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
I will be back tomorrow, I will post my detailed ideas than.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">bored? LOL? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

*shrug*

I normally don't play multi since I'm not inclined to take games that seriously, and thus veer strongly towards the silly side rather than being a serious, competitive player. I'm more of a "ooh, let's try this and see what happens" chap rather than one who'll carefully plan ahead, figuring out a focused strategy e.g. what to research, when to start summoning seasonal spirits, et al.

But for those that do play MP, beefing up the in-game messaging capabilities wouldn't be a bad idea. *shrug* And yes, it could be done out of the game, but not as conveniently. Eh.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I would not say *a lot more*. Check previous polls about the habits of players.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">From your poll Pocus:

I always play alone with AI only 44% (18)
I sometime play with a friend 24% (10)
I play most of the time in multi players 17% (7)
I nearly always play MP, and SP is just for testbeds&pratices 15% (6)

I sometime play with my friend means that they are playing single mostly, and sometimes multi, if I am correct.

Anyways if you compare:

I always play alone with AI only 44% (18) >>> I nearly always play MP, and SP is just for testbeds&pratices 15% (6)

And yes, I am a singleplayer 'fan' myself.

[ October 16, 2003, 12:06: Message edited by: Particle ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's not a fair comparison: it's a lot easier to set an SP game up, therefore most MPers also play a lot SP, while the reverse isn't true. You should include the following line

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">in your stats to get a correct assessment of the MP community.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's not a fair comparison: it's a lot easier to set an SP game up, therefore most MPers also play a lot SP, while the reverse isn't true. You should include the following line

Quote:

I play most of the time in multi players 17% (7)

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">in your stats to get a correct
assessment of the MP community.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Heh, that is still 26 [single] vs 13 [multi]! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Back to diplomacy now!
Check out this screenshot from from the upcoming, awesome game, Knights of Honor [I cant wait for this one btw, it will be an incredible strategy game, more info about KoH: http://www.knights-of-honor.net/ .]

The diplo screenie:

http://www.knights-of-honor.net/gfx/...r_koh_0038.jpg

We need a diplo model like this. Relationship with the AI, pacts etc.

[ October 16, 2003, 12:37: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's not a fair comparison: it's a lot easier to set an SP game up, therefore most MPers also play a lot SP, while the reverse isn't true. You should include the following line

Quote:

I play most of the time in multi players 17% (7)

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">in your stats to get a correct
assessment of the MP community.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Heh, that is still 26 [single] vs 13 [multi]! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Back to diplomacy now!
Check out this screenshot from from the upcoming, awesome game, Knights of Honor [I cant wait for this one btw, it will be an incredible strategy game, more info about KoH: http://www.knights-of-honor.net/ .]

The diplo screenie:

http://www.knights-of-honor.net/gfx/...r_koh_0038.jpg

We need a diplo model like this. Relationship with the AI, pacts etc.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">WOW THAT GAME LOOKS AMAZING! Hey, that diplomacy screenshot is cool, I love that relationship bar + the diplomatic options. Er where is the alliance button? There will be no alliance in that game?

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I would not say *a lot more*. Check previous polls about the habits of players.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">From your poll Pocus:

I always play alone with AI only 44% (18)
I sometime play with a friend 24% (10)
I play most of the time in multi players 17% (7)
I nearly always play MP, and SP is just for testbeds&pratices 15% (6)

I sometime play with my friend means that they are playing single mostly, and sometimes multi, if I am correct.

Anyways if you compare:

I always play alone with AI only 44% (18) >>> I nearly always play MP, and SP is just for testbeds&pratices 15% (6)

And yes, I am a singleplayer 'fan' myself.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">if I count right, 32% (rounded to a third) play mostly MP then. So what are the MP fans asking : they are asking for features which serve the SP fans too : diplomacy (works for the AI too), less micromanagement (I suppose you would enjoy this in SP too, nobody like to handle 100 mages with a bad interface), and game balance (same thing here, even if you play with yourself, I suppose you want the game to be balanced).

So no need to oppose MP players versus SP players, we converge toward having a better game.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmmmmm this looks good. That game will be decent. What is the release date of it?

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Sorry, double post.

[ October 16, 2003, 12:57: Message edited by: -Storm- ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Ok here is my idea:

We need a relationship bar. That way we will be able to see the relations with the other nations. Also there should be a a huge table with all relations. IE. between AI A and AI F, or between AI B and AI G, etc.

Basic options should be:

Send gold
Send magic gems
Transfer / Give unit(s)
Transfer / Give province(s)

Basic hostile options

Demand gold
Demand magic gems
Demand provinces

Diplomatic options

Right of Passage / Passage Agreement
Trade Embargo
Non Agression Pact
Alliance (against)
Total Alliance

All actions will raise / lower the relationship between the nations. Basic Options will raise the relationship, any hostile actions & basic hostile options will lower it.

Hostile actions what will lower the relationship:

-Sending spies

-Attacking a nation whose relations with the 'target' is good. [No alliance or any diplo relations between them, just good relationship!]IE. You want good relations with AI A. The relations between AI A and AI B is very good. You are attacking AI B.
Your relations with AI A will be decreased, greatly.

-Casting any hostile spells. This should work like the above one, IE. You want good relations with AI A. The relations between AI A and AI B is very good. You are casting some hostile spells against AI B.
Your relations with AI A will be decreased.

-Attacking a nation should lower the relations to -100. Also lets say that you attacked AI A.
There was an alliance between AI A, AI B and AI C.
Your relations should be -100 with AI A, AI B and AI C after the attack.

The relationship bar is quite simple, the max is 100, the min is -100. 100 is the best, -100 is the worst.

Now about the abuse. If you are sending lot of gold/giving away units etc, will increase your relations for sure. If you call that abusing, than we wont have a good diplo AI in any games EVER
Just think what happened in history. The various empires always used this way to improve their relations with other Kingdoms/Empires. This is supposed to work like this.

[ October 17, 2003, 13:21: Message edited by: Aristoteles ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

I wasn't entirely serious, but if you want to try to think up a diplomatic AI I don't mind.

As I said we need a simple yet brilliant system. You give suggestions on options and diplomatic actions that lower or increases the relations. These can be added later, when there is a system that works.

Instead try to figure out how relationships are measured, how they change, when the AI makes war, how to react to stronger/weaker players, how to measure other players stance against each other (is it better to gang up on one player?), does the AI have a long memory (and what does it remember) or does it only have a current relationship measure (very abusable) etc.


We will never implement giving troops away.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Theres alot of programming in that previous suggestion. Before we see anything close to that maybe we could suggest some simpler fixes we might actualy see soon. The best would be simple additions to re-action formulas which might already be in the game. Stuff with no menu.

Im with others that the diplomacy which existed in MP games was plenty. In fact, almost too much. We had to develop ways of doing games to make diplomacy harder to use. And yes I was A-#1 hacker who used the Dom 1 diplomatic options ALOT!

Anyway, one of the places where the solo game falls far short of the MP game is in the area of diplomacy. Maybe the "formula experts" (we had some of those in the newsgroup discussions) could come up with ways to add a simple variable or two to the logic.

Dom 1 seemed to have some logic to its decisions of whether or not to attack you. There is a formula in there somewhere and aparently a variable which kept track of whether or not you were an enemy. Do gifts give pluses the way attacking them gives minuses? Can they?

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Hey, that is a nice diplo system, Aristoteles! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">IMHO, it should work like this:
All nations should start with a "natural relation system."
This means that some nations will dislike eachother from start, some of them won't.

Example: Pangea will dislike Ermor from the start, the relationship between them should start with -20. [0 is normal]
It is up to the devs, to set up these starting relations.

I think Aristoteles already mentioned that how these relations should change, positive actions will raise, negative actions will lower the relations between the nations.
The AI must have a long memory. This will prevent the abusing.
Example: You attacked the AI, but you've made a peace later on. The AI basically won't trust you anymore. You will have to send lot more things/per turn to keep up the good relations with him, than normally from that point. -> You cannot abuse the 'alliance/war' than.

Same goes for provinces.
Example: You are giving away a province to the AI. Your relations will improve. There must be some options like you cannot attack that province for at least 10 turns. Meanwhile you are making an alliance against someone with the AI. If you broke this alliance later on, the relationship should be -80. If you broke the alliance by conquering the province, what you gave to the AI, the relationship should be -100.
Also if you broke an alliance like that, it should have a global effect. -10 relationship with all nations, and -30 with your allies.

In fact all of your actions should have global effects. Like attacking an AI, whos part of an alliance will force you to war with the whole alliance.
If you are attacking an AI nation, whos got good relations with other AIs, your relations with all of them should decrease by a given amount of relation points.
That way you will be forced to make smart moves, also you cannot abuse the AI.

Restrictions / global effects will prevent the diplo AI abusing.

[ October 17, 2003, 15:05: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i would like that to be implemented. No need for an interface, you can still hide the current relationship level of each AI against a player. But if we can maintain the AI at peace (or revert to peace if at war) by giving gifts, then at least you would have an embryonic diplo system in SP (and in MP too where a big Ai play the role of the bad guy).

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

One of the biggest problems with creating diplomacy AI is giving the AI time to think, and a memory. Luckily this being mainly a PBEM game, we have some room to do with but Im not sure how much of that "twirling block" the Dom players would put up with. I suppose if diplomacy had a game switch for having it skip that part of the "thinking" process then we would have some more room to play.

Lets see, simple memory would be a variable for each race. Simple storage would be a range of some variable of 8 such as 8, 16, 64, or 256. Lets say 256. OK obviously the extremes would be something like 1is jihad, total concentration toward destruction and sending everything to that border. 255 would be total friendship, we are as one nation what is mine is yours. At 100 a nation is attackable. At 200 a nation is giftable.

For killing my pretender -200
for killing my prophet -100
for killing my commander -10
for taking a province -20
for dominion overlap -20? maybe a formula?

For giving me a magic item (questionable use there) +20
for giving me gold (cant go wrong here) 10+donation/10? max 100? cant make it too easy to buy a 256 rating
for giving me gems 10+donation/10? max 100?

Army size near me -army-size/50?
every province neighboring me with only defence +20

Now comes the tricky part. As one example, to give troop movement memory means remembering things.
for suddenly increasing army size on my border -50
for decreasing the army size on my border +20
but this means they must remember the army sizes from Last turn. The AI can do specific +/- based on what it sees. I dont think it actually "sees" troop movement. The change is only visible if it "remembers" what was there before. That means it must be stored in a file? I dont think that would be good for the game and probably not a fast add either.

[ October 17, 2003, 15:13: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok but what, if you are moving your army to a border province, to attack another AI? You will loose -50 relation points, and you didnt wanted to do anything bad against that AI.

I like this -256 - 256 system.
I think by giving gold, the max relationship what could be reached must be max. 100.
With giving items it should be 150.
With giving provinces, it should be 200.
You can make an alliance after 201.
After 200, only good actions will raise the "relation points". Example: attacking a disliked nation by that AI, casting destructive spells on common oppoments. etc.

I think it must be hard to gain enough points for an alliance. Also there must be a huge penalty, if you break the alliance. Maybe breaking an alliance should set you back to -200 relation points/+ various global effects.

[ October 17, 2003, 15:28: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Unless you can think of a way to easily formula that, Im afraid the answer would have to fall to "thats realistic". If another nations starts building up a huge army on my border, even if he says its for another reason SHOULDNT I get nervous anyway? Its not like that hasnt happened in the real world. Maybe, it could be lesser minus IF we are allies. It might be you coming to help me. But even then, to avoid abuse, I wouldnt make the AI totally trusting about large armies.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nope it would have to be just 1-256, or technically 0-255. The explanation why isnt worth going into here. It has something to do with computers only having two modes of counting efficient. Fingers or thumbs. One or the other but not both.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ouch. Now we are back in the memory thing. To track all those over time we would need more variables. Shall we have 8 variables with a 256 range for each of the (16?) races? Can we get along with one of the lesser scales if we do it as multiple variables? can we come up with 8 scales of 16?

For this discussion its going to be really hard to consider the things that the game can "see" in a single turn file vs storing information to make better judgements. Even though storing and thinking are obviously good things to have the AI do, it can move the whole project into the Category of major rewrite. We might need to split this conversation into 2 threads. One for really simple do-it-soon things. And one for the this-would-be-better but major-project-later things.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

I just posted some examples of course, they are not written in stone. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I agree that simple things must be implented firstly, but the diplo AI is very important. It must be scripted first of all, and later on the diplo options.
We posted some ideas about the diplo AI/prevent AI abusing.
Just post more ideas, the devs are waiting for them.

[ October 17, 2003, 16:12: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, when compared to the duration it takes the AI to do the turn in other TBSs, I would say waiting time is way below average in Doms I, so this probably shouldn't be a concern.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Unfortunately for all its fans the twirling cube marble no longer livens up the screens during the turn generation. Now you will instead recive helpfull tips and pointers to steer you into the right direction.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Well, there are many ways to prevent the player to abuse the AI.
The best way is the 'global reactions'. When you sign an alliance, just to abuse the AI, and get his help to weaken an oppoment, and you are cancelling that alliance later on with a hostile move (attack on the AI, attacking another ally of the AI etc. etc.), your global reputation must decrease by a lot. I think it won't be worth to risk this abuse, if all nations will be mad at you for it.

What other abuse you know about? I have no idea about other ways to abuse the AI.

I love Gandalf's idea. If you are moving a huge army to a border province, your relations with the border nations must decrease.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

No twirling marble cube? Oh no! Maybe I should just cancel my preorder now...turn after turn only the twirling marble cube helped me maintain my sanity. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I did rather like it actually...as soon as I started playing dominions I became addicted to twirling marble cubes.
I guess I'll have to trust the turn generate will still be sufficiently interesting anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
But that was an awsome cube.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I sympathize with your pain, I miss it terribly myself. There is talk here about creating a cube simulator, so that you would not have to go cold turkey. If I were to decide I would combine the twirling cube with the turn tips, printing tips on the six sides of the cube, thus making an exciting game within the game where you could recieve useful nuggets of information during turn generation by trying to decipher the tips written on its sides. I understand that these games within the games are all the rage know, so I think the spinning cube game would be an excellent addition and significantly increase dom 2 market potentional.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

I always used to trace the edges of the marble cube with my cursor while waiting for the next turn to load. I'm truly disappointed that it was taken away.
In my opinion, you should have added a small changing dominions trivia to the loading screen.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

What about posting your ideas about diplomacy, instead of talking about some cubes? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

I think the cube should be the diplo interface.

"Cubie cubie on my screen,
which ai is really Mean?"

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Uhm, I posted about this too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Great idea! Perhaps players could have a choice of paying setup points to get tips on their twirling cube or not. It could come in levels of usefulness, and with an option to have the clues in English or in glyphs which must be deciphered (costs fewer points). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, that is a briliant idea!

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, that is a briliant idea!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">FFS, stop infecting this thread with idiotism please.
Can't we stick to the topic?
Go and post in Saber Cherry's heroic abilities thread, if you want to say things like this.
You are breaking the line of good ideas. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Now back to the topic.
I think these mentioned ideas are very good. If things like these will be added, the AI won't be abusable. Of course this won't be easy to script, but it will be worth of it, I am totally sure about it.
I say, that the best way to prevent the player to abuse the AI, if those special "AI abuse situations" will be sorted out, and if any abuse situation will happen, the player must be punished by somehow.
That idea about the global reactions is a very nice example.

[ October 17, 2003, 19:41: Message edited by: -Storm- ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Hi, I am new here. I plan to buy Dominions 2, but I am not sure about it yet.

Dominions 2. costs more than Max Payne 2. This is sorta ridicolous.

I am also shocked that Dominions 2. won't have diplomacy. I don't know why. All decent strategy games must have diplomacy, regardless that it is a pure wargame or a full scaled strategy game.
However, reading some developer replies, that they were bored by scripting....well maybe no wonder than.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmm do I see a large area for user contributions?

There goes my dom sig?
-- Do not curse the time it takes for a turn to process in Dominions. It keeps us from losing so many players to starvation or exploded bladders.
(this game is WAY too addictive)

[ October 17, 2003, 20:02: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Dominions became the target of my hacking attitude early on. While others pursued each other up thru the chains of good-better-best strategys I took the discarded items and experimented to try and find a use for them. Early on in Dom you could only send things to human players. I was one of the people who pushed to have it changed. Ive usedit ever since with the poor AIs.

I sent gas-bladder sticks and cursing daggers and exploding amulets to nations that had too powerful commanders. I sent food cauldrons and herald lances to nations there were next to ermor. I sent air gems to caelum and nature gems to man when I played nations not susceptable to "call of the xxxx" attacks so that they would pester others. I basically supported whatever races with whatever items I felt my race would have no problem with when I finally had to confront them.

These arent necessarily abuses but if it becomes an automatically good thing to do then it would need fixed.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Some items should flagged as 'can be traded', that way this abuse is no more.
Or just do not allow to trade items like exploding amulets.

I think that seeking the aid of the AI to attack another nation is ok. That is how it is supposed to work.
Just take a look at the medieval/dark ages. This happened a lot.

[ October 17, 2003, 21:14: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That could grow to an extreme database. And probably just lead to more creative acts. Alot of the items would be variable also. What is a good thing for abyssia could be a bad thing for caelum.

In my earlier scales I made an item trade to be a minor-good thing while gold or gems was worth more. To be entirely safe, trading items might be worth nothing or not even allowed. Maybe take it back to only allowing for human players or having AI's automatically destroy any item they are traded.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Plus, whether or not an item would be useful is situation-dependent. For instance, if Man's making heavy use of longbowmen, then he probably does not want to field a Staff of Storms. Bone armor, or others with harmful area effects, can be useful... but not on a commander who's constantly surrounded by friendlies. Robes of Missile Protection are weak, weak armor if you're not going to be using archers...

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Yeah, that is true. Hrm maybe trading items shouldn't be allowed at all?
Or just limit it? Let's say only 'common'** items should be traded, like a flaming sword, etc.

**Items what won't cause any trouble 'abusing wise'.

[ October 17, 2003, 22:00: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think that would be more trouble than its worth. I dont mean to seem bragging or anything but I can almost gaurantee you that if your list infludes a couple of dozen items I will find one that I can abuse.

Just for an example.... there are some armor items that would be great for pangaea but sending them to ulm would cause ulm to downgrade his commanders. Some swords also.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Yeah, I think that trading items is a bad idea.
Sending gold, gems, or transferring provinces is enough.
Those cannot be abused. + The devs won't have to mess around with 2000 items. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think that would be more trouble than its worth. I dont mean to seem bragging or anything but I can almost gaurantee you that if your list infludes a couple of dozen items I will find one that I can abuse.

Just for an example.... there are some armor items that would be great for pangaea but sending them to ulm would cause ulm to downgrade his commanders. Some swords also.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perhaps there could be a nation-specific list of abusable and non-abusable items? RoLK might be abusable with Marignon, but C'tis and Ermor are a diffrent story. And do we count items that are potent(Robe of the Magi, Lifelong Protection), but Horror Mark or Curse the wearer abusable items?

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah, I agree.
Well if the devs will have time, they should sort out the items, and perhaps trading items should be allowed than.

Re: What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!
 

Ok so my diplo system idea is good than. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I don't know too much about diplo AI, but there must be some way to prevent the abusing.
Those global effects via diplo abusing sounds very cool. When the AI will detect that you are trying to double cross him with a fake alliance, and there will be big penalties for it, no one will abuse the diplo AI than. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I have another idea, maybe there should be a minimum time limit for alliances. Like for 10 turns you cannot cancel the alliance, and for additional 10 you cannot attack your former ally.

The AI must have a long memory, IE it must remember all major things, like alliances, wars, global spells, aggression, etc.

Items. Well the trading items is a very good part of the game, but you can abuse it. If it will be allowed to trade items, that must affect diplomacy.
All items must be categorized. Also only the "usable by everyone" items should be allowed to trade. Than we wont have a situation that the item is good good for "XY" but it is not good for "VZ". If you are giving away a good item, the relations will improve, if you are giving away a bad item, the relation points will decrease.
There is a more simple way, only allow "good, usable by everyone" items to trade.

[ October 18, 2003, 11:30: Message edited by: Aristoteles ]