.com.unity Forums - Forthcoming patch notes

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Dominions 3: The Awakening (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=138)

- - Forthcoming patch notes (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=39770)

I think there is a big skill to just withdrawing from discussions once they become tiresome http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

The way of the internet is that you will rarely persuade anyone to change their mind, so sooner or later you just have to agree to differ.

Personally, I think it would be good if the turn limit was 75 or 100 turns. I guess we'll see what takes the devs' fancy.

Quote:

Tifone said:
I exit that discussion. It's like trying to explain why a soccer match must be won within 90 minutes. Like Baalz said, this is the rule of the game, play keeping it in mind.

Game Rules is one thing as these are clearly defined within a manual and when reviewed will logically make sense.
As mentioned earlier these are not 'game rules' these are game limitations causing painful and unjust results. These current game limitations exist to prevent battles from going on forever, however these limitations should be improved to provide a more realistic fantasy and more justified battle results.

Quote:

Tifone said:
No, let's change it! As the shoes are becoming better, players can run for 180 minutes, this will keep the game alive for years, not its flavour. If your team doesn't have anybody in attack, but everybody in defence, the match should not finish until you have done all the goals you need to win.

You are comparing game rules with game limitations... these are completely seperate. Even KO explained the 50_turn battlefield limitation is to prevent turn processing from lasting forever. A game rule of 50_battlefield turns would be if the game manual spoke of some all powerful third entity(God_of_War?) which destroyed all things on a battlefield beyond 50 turns.

Quote:

Tifone said:
You can't lose a mindless SC because of the turn limit. You can even let him with just a 1dmg attack only, firepower is a useless addition. Just keep him with high regen and defense, he must fight for possibly 200 turns in just one month, if nobody is able to kill him he should never stop working - even if being mindless gives him only the disadvantage of being unable to route and plenty of advantages.

Golems already survive over one thousand game years... there's no logical reason which justifies a game mechanic killing them when more realistic game mechanics can exist.
To better understand this scenario... let's say(hypothetically) mages could only cast 5 spells during battles because the game engine couldn't handle any more spells. This wouldn't be a game rule... this would be another unrealistic game limitation. Luckily this is not the case.

Quote:

Tifone said:
Next thing to change: the Rituals. That's "illogic" a mage casting one ritual in one month, not a rule of the game, that's a "boundary"! Mages should cast as many ritual as the pc, becoming always more powerful, lets you do before imploding.

A casting ritual can realistically take a month since many variables go into casting a ritual. A more complex game would allow different time variables for rituals where one ritual may take 12 game turns yet another ritual might be able to be casted 12 times within 1 game turn. This would be more suitable for let's say DOM_5.

Quote:

Tifone said:
Sorry, I just became tired of this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif It just doesn't seem me this big problem, but for many is so, and still can't understand why, it makes perfect logic into the game mechanics.

It's not a big problem, but it's a very painful problem when it does occur since the result is unjust and illogical. I hope Illwinter has a chance to improve upon this game limitation.

Quote:

llamabeast said:
I think there is a big skill to just withdrawing from discussions once they become tiresome http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

The way of the internet is that you will rarely persuade anyone to change their mind, so sooner or later you just have to agree to differ.

I know, but hey, that is you the one convincing people that several means about 7 and many about 12, llama http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

An optional battlefield turn game setting would be the most pleasing for everyone.

You're just too lazy to make a better strategic decision in placing golems... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif ok, ok, I'm joking I swear http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Peace NTJedi. Everybody has his own ideas. Let's just wait and see what the devs prefer. Can we just go on now? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Quote:

Baalz said:
Meh, this is such a non-issue.

Mindless units and leaders have a weakness that they can't retreat, so you need to deploy them with that in mind and avoid armies that they can't damage fast enough. I'm ok with that, that's a strategic decision when deploying golems. I'll also get screwed if a non-fire resistant SC stumbles upon a bunch of summer lions. It's just a weakness to keep in mind.

50 turns is plenty for most battles. One of the considerations for SC builds *should* be outputting enough damage, not just regenerating fast enough. If you're using a frost brand and your opponent spams you with undead - well you just got outmaneuvered.

I think it's kind of silly to complain that the turn limit isn't realistically modeling warfare. Come on guys, we're playing a game. Flying units teleport around the battlefield and can be attacked by melee, you die if you run away from an assassin, and its impossible to command your mages *not* to cast a specific spell. You plan your strategies around the boundaries of the game, it seems rather silly to carry on at length about reinforcements and how long the fights last. This is a turn based game, combat lasts 50 turns. Plan your strategies accordingly.

I don't agree its a non-issue, I don't think its a big issue but I would like to see the turn limit raised a bit. Frankly I don't understand the adamant objection, why would someone object to having this as a setting. If you don't like it, set it to 50 and be done with it and allow the players that like to raise it to do so.

I do agree with all the rest but I find the reasoning incomplete. Yes, I also find it silly to look for realism as justification for wanting a change to rules esp. going to nitpicks such as analyzing how many minutes are represented by a battle turn. And yes, I also agree that a player should accept and adjust to the game rules. However, and this is where I think the reasoning to be incomplete, players are entitled to have their own minds on what rules they like and what not. And also, game rules can and do change according to what the audience likes (see NBA for example).

So it all boils down to what players like. I personally would like to see the turn limit raised to 100 (as default) and hopefully be made adjustable (so that anyone who is particularly fond of the 50 turn limit can set it).

IW are probably reading this thread. No comment from them could mean they're not decided which probably means this is not going to happen. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of players find the turn limit annoying and limiting for the rare epic army vs. army battles and the SC vs huge armies battles.

KO will surely read that threat, he cannot miss something with that name. The other thing is if he will dig through 6 pages of discussion.

And the most important thing that will decide if it gets changed is how hard it will be. If it's just a simple thing then we have big chances of getting it. If it's complicated we can add it to Dom4 wishlist.

Well if it did get imcreased I would DEFINETLY want it adjustable. The hosting times are long enough for me now. Those of you playing on maps of a couple of hundred provinces and 4-8 players could live with an enforced increase much better than I can with 1500 provinces and 20+ nations. Keep in mind that even the independents have combats.

I still suspect that very few of the AI's battles would run past 50 turns anyway. Maybe some of the very largest armies.
Even with large forces, you only tend to get the really long battles when both sides are buffed to the point of not being able to hurt each other easily, or when you've got SCs that are invulnerable to what the other side is dishing out, but can't kill fast enough. And the AI is not very good at either combining battlefield buffs or building SCs.

Yes, but how many battles last more than 30 turns anyway, or 40 or 50?

I can speculate that the frequency of such battles is (probably close to an inverse right hand side of a parabola) going down towards 0 as number of turns increase. I'm not sure the change will have a big impact on turn processing time.