Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

It's amazing to me that people discuss things like this paralysis stuff about this game. It shows you how nice it really is, as opposed to a certain soul-crushing sequel which killed my love of space conquering strat games for a good 6 months until I got Gal. Civ. You know, where you were finding yourself on the forums saying, "Why does this game suck so much when the prior one was so awesome and who is Quicksilver anyway and why do I have to use a fan-patch two months after the game is released to get any measure of fun out of it?"

Anyway . . . I do have an on-topic query.

2.08 has the Utgard thing, I know, so I try to get around that by creating a god for Jotunheim that isn't Utgard, playing the race I want and Jotunheim as if it were a two player game, and then abandoning the Jotunheim to the computer at turn one. My issue is, what difficulty will the AI be for such a race that is abandoned midstream?

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is completely correct

Units automatically being killed by the game is definitely a design flaw.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've always wondered that. However, a lot of the difficulty is decided by the race's design points... so turning a race into an AI cannot be truly any difficulty but "normal", though it will not necessarily be "normal" either.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is completely correct

Units automatically being killed by the game is definitely a design flaw. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Some units cannot move nor rout. I do not think it is a design flaw that the game kills units instead of hangs. Imagine two life draining beasties fighting forever over their collective life force. These can rout, but others can't (Sphinxes for example).

Edit: strange example, but is happened in CoE where there is no routing.

[ February 18, 2004, 22:09: Message edited by: Kristoffer O ]

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Having the game hang would be even a worse design flaw. But when a game automatically kills units on the battlefield because X amount of turns passed... that's wrong.
There is no explanation or reasoning for their death. {That's a design flaw}


Possible fixes:
units should be allowed to wake-up and properly flee from battle. (this will fix the issue for most units)
~OR~
instead of auto-kill... change it to auto-flee into friendly neighboring province. (this will fix the issue also)

[ February 18, 2004, 23:55: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

I personally wouldn't call it a design flaw as much as it was a limitation of the engine. You have commonly called things design flaws in the past which were ignorance. Whereas I don't think the solution at current accurately describes some sort of fantasy game which there is no way to describe it would or wouldn't happen logically, but I would hardly call it a "design flaw".

Just the concept that they changed the engine so that the game wouldn't crash when such a stalemate happens means they have thought about it, and this is the solution they have used.

I'm sure you'd get much more of a positive of a reaction from the Dev's if you didn't try to point out everything as a flaw instead of a limitation.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Whether what IW chose as the solution is a "flaw" depends on perspective, and it also depends on whether the very reasonable suggestion that's been made, namely that of auto-retreating into adjacent provinces, was considered by the devs at the time they decided to opt for auto-kill.

I do agree with you, though, that there are more tactful ways to approach the topic than what we've seen.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well as Kris said, what happens with the immobile units and how are they supposed to Flee? Does that mean that they have to code things specifically for immobiles? And what about if it's in a Castle? Why would the defender flee if he's holding his castle in a titanic struggle? And does he die if he has nowhere to flee to?

There are more ramifications than just blanket ones, which have to be considered and considered for coding.

I'm not saying that something couldn't, wouldn't shouldn't be implemented, but it's hardly cut and dry.

[ February 19, 2004, 01:12: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

Zen, as usual you raise valid points. This time in regards to immobile pretenders. Personally, I feel it's silly to just assume that an immobile defender is killed after 50 rounds when the pretender and the intrinsic castle defenses (ie: ballistae, etc) are still alive.

EDIT: The problem comes in that if mobile pretenders auto-retreat, and immobile ones don't (perhaps auto-winning), then game balance goes right out the arrow slit.

[ February 19, 2004, 01:23: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

Zen is spot on. The devs get to choose between the status quo, or opening a can of worms that will not leave the critics satisfied until every alleged "unrealistic" scenario is addressed.

If I were a developer in this position, I know which I'd choose. There are way more important issues to worry about.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

(humour)

Or you can just think that the Gods to whom the Wish spell is directed to are watching every battle as well as the development in whatever lands as "entertainment".

And they simply got bored after the 40-turn time limit and decided to will the combatants out of existence so as to relieve themselves of the boredom (additional "entertainment"). And to be impartial, they willed all sides into nothingness, so as not to favor anybody. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

(/humour)

-Gateway103

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

Was the "Automeele: molesting the dead" error fixed in this patch?
I guess there is actually two parts to this question:
1) Was the situation that caused this error fixed so that it will not occur with new, 2.08, games?
2) Or was the error fixed so that old, 2.06, games that got the error will no longer generate the error?
3) Yes, I cannot count http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif , the occurance of this error is low and is toward the bottom of the list?

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

Why so many complicated solutions for the -simple- stalemate problem ?
I don't even see why the game has to kill anyone in order to stop stalemates.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
Already battles are stopped on turn 50, the only needed change would be to consider that as a "retreat" for both sides (night falls, everyone tired...), with all spells effect "fastforwarded" to their end (so poison would kill, but paralyze would end)
This would give technically a defender victory, as the attacker wasn't able to beat him. That the 50 turns consisted entirely of arrow shooting or ineffective spell casting is not an issue ...

[ February 19, 2004, 13:20: Message edited by: PDF ]

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

Arryn,

I like your new picture under your name, by the way...very creative. I don't actually assert that current game mechanics are inconsistent with your "always on" approach to magical items' effects. Merely that a possible rationale for my new proposed mechanic of death for the helpless paralyzed individual would be that the item has ceased to function. There are plenty of situations in which an item needs tobe weilded in order to function. I would argue that a paralyzed individual is incapable of weilding items which must be weilded to function.

NT Jedi,

I do not conclude that the unit is unconscious. Merely that he can become helpless if he has no defenders. Many types of paralyzing poisons do not render one unconscious unless they stop movement of the diaphragm, which will result in death. To the contrary, the paralyzed victim is aware of everything around him or her, can still feel, see, taste, etc. but can't move a muscle.

I don't understand the sort of immobile paralysis in Dom 2 to be "paralyzed by fear."

Really...paralysis should be whatever the devs have in mind for it. And I don't mean to say that I wouldn't defer to them by any of my discussions in this forum. Currently, paralyzed at the end of a battle means death for attackers. I find this to be the outcome I would desire. And it seems also to be the outcome the devs intend, but of course I won't know that unless they actually speak on the issue.

It's good that we both agree on Velk's proposal.

Graeme Dice,

The sphinx is immobile and, if the attacker, will die anyway at the end of turn 50 by the time out period. Also, sphinxes may no longer be able to become attackers post-patch, which I think removed teleporting sphinx abuse.

I take your point that the physical structure doesn't suddenly fall apart. But in the situation you describe the creature is unable to attack and can be attacked repeatedly for a period of a month without opportunity for reprisal. It's vulnerable in a different way because it is incapable of fighting back. When it can cast spells, you have to see what effect those spells will have on the other army. Once it can no longer cast, there is no longer any need to see what happens to the opposing army, just what happens to the sphinx.

Are you sure paralyze has a less than 5% success rate with a decent MR? That did not seem to be folks' experience pre-patch. I know the system is changed post the 2.08 patch, but are you certain of this number?

Moodgiesanta,

You are exactly right...if the game weren't so amazing, we wouldn't be having this paralysis discussion.

Kristoffer O,
Velk in his original example required that the units not be immobile for the retreat rather than a rout to occur. Not that you will necessarily agree with him, but he probably envisions, as I do, that an attacking sphinx, if that still happens after 2.08, would die rather than retreat after turn 50.

Zen,

I agree with you that limitation would be a better word. And it may in fact be what was meant but poorly articulated by those starting the paralysis discussion here.

Arryn,

Defenders would never have to auto-retreat. Because if the battle isn't resolved after turn 50, the defenders auto-win. Which I don't think should be changed. In your proposed solution (which I don't completely support), the only change would be allowing certain attackers to retreat rather than be auto-killed at the end of turn 50. Defenders would not need to retreat because they have "won." I still don't think the paralyzed ones should get to retreat, but that would be for the devs to decide.

Chris Byler,

What will prevent these horrors from attacking the defenders? Or will both sides be destroyed?

PDF,
The game still probably has to kill immobiles in order to stop stalemates when the immobile pretender is attacking. I'm still not so sure I like the paralyzed guys getting to retreat. But that may be my own bias that something has to be able to effectively kill supercombatants.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

This is still going on? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Here's a new one for you...

Lets say that if a battle isn't finished by turn (whatever) that it is considered drawn, and that the forces will show up again *next turn* to battle again. All afflictions/conditions can be kept (or not) and all movement *out* of that province is disallowed, while movement in (consider it reinforcements) is allowed. That might be a pain to code, but as you can already have castle seiges (this is just a siege with forced combat...) some kind of code for two nations in the same province exists (of course what happens with more than 2 nations in the province... that's tricky...).

Anyway, another suggestion to the percieved problem (which I personally don't see as a problem, but well I'm trying to be helpful http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">With a magic resist of 25, any given spell has about a 1% success rate with standard penetration. With high astral skill on the victim, the effective penetration will be reduced as well for all astral spells.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

licker,

I think that your proposal would favor supercombatants and would certainly be very kind to attacking sphinxes (if such still exist). Castle seiges aren't really forced battles...the attacking force can move away anytime it gets tire of the seige.

Graeme Dice,

If there's a less than 1% chance that you're going to fall victim to paralysis...why would you be too concerned if you to. It's still not as bad as the insta-death of soul slaw. And if the risk is that small...and you die...you exposed yourself to combat and got unlucky and died.

I heard somewhere that paralyze gets a bonus to penetration. At least that was what folks were saying when calling it the "SC killer" pre-patch 2.08. No idea whether that is still true or not since I haven't patched...too many stories of things going wrong.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

My upgrade on one copy failed because the Command_Line_Switches file was the wrong Version. It was ver2.00
Wont that cause a problem for people who buy the game now and try to upgrade to ver 2.08?

OK deleting the switches file will let it upgrade. But I get no new switches file. Looks like I will need to grab the docs off of my linux Version (which updates alot more files than the Win Version).

Hmmm I dont see anythinga bout a preexec switch.

[ February 19, 2004, 20:07: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The reason it has a penetration bonus is that it's astra 2, so an astral 4 mage gets a bonus of 1, while you need an astral 5 mage for bonus penetration with soul slay. The other reason it was too effective is that it hit the target twice for every cast. As for upgrading to 2.08, the only problems I see are those with the Utgard theme.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

Graeme Dice,

There have also been stories of crashes during hosting. I have no idea how common they are or whether they are related to operating system.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

>I don't know if any one has mentioned this yet,
>put on the OS X Version of Golden Era Arcos, if
>you try and look at the the priestess' stats
>the game quits without an error. Also the
>icarids (?) are mooses.

I dont have the OS X Version, but I was having the same problems in the windows Version (getting "sprnbr too high for this file" errors upon right clicking on certain units). I found out what was wrong - I had copied the old dominions directory (c:\games\dominions2) to a new directory (c:\games\dom2updated) so that I had both Versions for the two multiplayer games I'm in (one where the players wanted the game patched and one that wanted to wait for Jotunheim to be fixed). Originally I had two desktop shortcuts for dom2 that specified the ip address and port numbers in command line switches (so I dont have to type it in each time I play the two different games). What caused the error was that I went to the shortcut properties and changed "target" to the new "c:\games\dom2updated" directory but I forgot to change "start in" directory to the new directory. So the program must have been running the new executable but using the files in the old "c:\games\dominions2" directory. When I changed the "start in" directory to the correct one all problems disappeared.

[ February 19, 2004, 23:40: Message edited by: dire ]

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

Another nicely evil possibility for preventing stalemates without the forced, artificial feel of the current system: any battle over a certain length has an increasing chance of attracting the attention of Lammashtas, Horrors or other nasties, who will be glad to clean up the paralyzed or unconscious remnants. Both have armor piercing or negating attacks, IIRC, and can hit hard enough to overcome regeneration even on Gods (if the God is defenseless). The longer the battle drags on, the more unpleasant surprises are attracted to the battlefield... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I don't think there's anything that could survive being surrounded by Doom Horrors while unconscious.

This would still usually have the same *practical* result as the current system (all the paralyzed/unconscious units are eliminated), but would be less likely to offend certain players - at least there's some rationale for the deaths. And it would look cool. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Edit: You might still want a hardcoded time limit to make *sure* the game doesn't hang in the hosting - but move it back another 20 or so turns after the horror attacks start, so that it will be almost impossible for the time limit to actually be triggered. The theoretical possibility won't bother players nearly as much as having it actually happen.

[ February 19, 2004, 12:21: Message edited by: Chris Byler ]

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Bingo! The problem I had was basicly the same. I had renamed the .app dominions2.8 and had the old 2.6 Version in the same directory as "dominions2". I renamed the old one to dominionsold and renamed the new one as dominions2 and it worked no problems.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That was the most far-fetched and bizarre response I have seen. Considering that 95% of the province defense was killed in the battle... leaving only citizens/farmers...
the regenerating powers of the Tartarian Cyclops(size 6) would easily keep him alive from their sticks and stones. Most of the citizens/farmers would also be too afraid to approach him since he also carried 'cause fear +2' .
He had items which gave him his regeneration and other enhancements.


When the game auto-kills a unit just because X amount of turns passed... that's just wrong.


The fix we need is to remove the auto-kill and replace it with auto-flee. OR
Change/Adjust Paralyzation OR
Change the Last turns of battle so units can wake up and properly flee. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">maybe the local thief snitched his regen item then a wandering herd of carnivorous cows came and chewed him up?

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In any event, considerations of "realism" (whatever that means in a fantasy game) take a back seat to more pragmatic concerns, like ensuring that the hosting terminates.

The auto-die code is in there to ensure that no combat can get "stuck" for reasons involving Paralyze or other reasons not foreseen, and I for one don't particularly care whether or not it can be rationalized in game terms. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">lol I like that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

BTW realism has little to do with reality it's just a term describing a logical cause and effect system not a the same as reality system http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

oh, and it could easily end in a TIE with all attackers not dead at the end of combat routing... I would think that would be a preferred method. auto-kill is never a good thing to do just because you wanted to set an arbitrary limit to the number of combat rounds.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I completely agree... and allowing all units to auto-retreat at turn 51 shouldn't be that difficult to change. Simply change the auto-kill into auto-retreat.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

I still like the auto-kill of paralyzed creatures if they're still paralyzed at the end of combat. But I concede that I may be biased against supercombatants. And paralyze-autokill is one of the few simple counters to the SC strategy.

I think I'm going to start a poll to let folks say what they think should happen to paralyzed creatures at turn 50.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

Auto-retreat can also mean auto-death depending on what happened in neighboring provinces and how the attackers got there.
It would make a certain degree of sense to have a more detailed pursuit model comparing mobility, ranged firepower et al -- for instance, cases where one or both sides have flight available -- but the presence of magic really, really complicates things e.g. does a unit with intrinsic flight such as an Elemental Queen of Air have an advantage over a unit that could fly just because a handy air mage can cast Flight on it?

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

I believe a poll would do nothing, as the debate has degenerated. Maybe you should put up a poll on what you'd rather have the Dev's work on and let them make the categories.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

Zen,

That's a good idea. Because we only have two overworked devs, and they can't do everything at once.

I did start the poll anyway. My main reason for that was that only a few of the folks on the board have participated in the discussion. The participants obviously aren't going to come to an agreement, but if there is widespread agreement in the community that what presently happens is functionally acceptable in the case of paralyzed units...then it doesn't really matter what a few folks say...whether I am on the majority or minority side of the argument.

You are right that the debate has degenerated. There don't appear to be new ideas or justifications on either side.

Your what should the devs work on next poll is really something the devs would have to start in order for them to make the categories.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Im not completely sure but in this case we might be talking about ONE overworked Dev. Johan K seems to be most of the programming. Kristoffer O seems to do most of the artwork and designing things like new nations and units. Johan O is a brother and helps out alot (such as playing goalee here blocking player shots at the devs). There is porbably some overlap but certain things we want look like they end up in one lap or the other.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

I would be in favor of an auto retreat, however I don't see why both sides have to retreat. The explaination given to satisfy those who want such an explaination so as not to ruin their immersion is simple. The attackers see they are not winning, or that victory is not possible, being far from friendly lands and supplies it makes sense they would retreat home to rethink/plan a new invasion. The defence being in its home land has no need to retreat, they stay put.

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

That would make sense to me, and I think matches most games also. If it looks like there will not be a win in X rounds then it is usually the attacker which pulls back.

There is also a scripting ability for "5 actions then retreat" which should remain a useful function. An automatic end of combat should always be a less desireable choice than a scripted retreat (which I usually think of as "if the battle goes this long then pull back" type of comand)

[ February 26, 2004, 13:53: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Of course, it also happens when the attackers are winning, but the defenders (or at least one defender) have happened to hold out for 50 turns. In that case only a stupid attacker would retreat home to plan a new invasion rather than forcing the attack, as that would give the defender time to regroup. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: patch 2.08 is out
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Im not completely sure but in this case we might be talking about ONE overworked Dev. Johan K seems to be most of the programming. Kristoffer O seems to do most of the artwork and designing things like new nations and units. Johan O is a brother and helps out alot (such as playing goalee here blocking player shots at the devs). There is porbably some overlap but certain things we want look like they end up in one lap or the other. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thats basically true, any major coding related changes have to be made by JK. The kinds of changes people most often ask for are the kind of changes that usually ends up at JK's desk, and that no one else of us is capable of doing anything about.