Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

Ok, dunno if there's a bug or it is just me unable to understand a basic thing :confused:

I'm currently in my first MP game. We've decided to use ingame message for all or at least the most of the communications, for the sake of roleplaying.

My problem is, when I write an ingame message and it goes longer than the initial size of the writing box or window, I dunno what is supposed to happen but the new words just don't appear, the box doesn't resize, neither I found a way to scroll the window down. The new words "are" there anyway, while hidden, because I have to cancel the same amount of letters I typed to return to the "visible" words.

I think I've tried everything, so I'm either missing something trivial or experiencing a strange bug.

Thanks in advance to whoever has the good will to help the poor guy here :sick:

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

The ingame message system is very limited, its working as it should. If your writing a long message, once you run out of room, just start another new message and continue from there. Its annoying but the only way. You can send upto 20 messages, so should be able to say everything you want to say.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

Pro-Tip: "NAP 3 turns y/n?" takes less than half a line. :D

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

I'd actually have liked more if there was a scrolling bar to the side. :(

Thanks to both but I just won't use Ich's tip, I like giving my messages some flavour ;)

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

Entering into a NAP for 3 turns would be a waste IMO. If a nation is not willing to enter into a full Alliance, who needs em.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

Maybe you need 3 turns to forge an item - summon/recruit some units - place your armies to bash them better :D

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

I wouldn't ever agree to a NAP for that exact reason. Either you have got my back or your an enemy. A full Alliance is the only thing I'd ever get involved with.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

It's not a NAP for three turns. It's a NAP for an indefinite period of time, which must be ended three turns before any hostile actions take place. You can find several discussions on the forum on this topic.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

I'll try to be clearer. I'm only interested in Allies. NAPsters need not apply.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

i find the idea of NAPs pretty useless, someone can break at any time regardless of the agreement, if you're full fledged allies then you know you're ally won't attack you and will help you because they gain from you helping them, NAPs the only one who gains is the guy who stabs the other in the back first when they need help the most.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

Are we playing the same game? How are you two relying on "allies" in a game where only one person can win? In all my MP games I only *very* rarely come across someone willing to fully ally with me. It just doesnt make any sense in the context of the game designed for a single winner.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

I'm still new at MP but people have said that alliances can in fact win games. Granted thier isn't one winner. But I think if you look closely at alot of the MP games,they just get called when a person or persons are well out in front.

If people want to have NAP's with people, all the power to them.
I'm just not the type of person to become involved with casual "maybe I'll stab you in the back, maybe I won't relationships" So I prefer to treat everybody as an enemy unless they are cooperating with me.

You said that alliances were rare but even that indicates that at least one person was willing to be your ally.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

NAP 3s are a normal part of the game. You enter into one when you first encounter a neighbor, unless you are totally brutal. They can later be extended to longer NAPs, or even to a full-fledged alliance. Or, you can stab them in the back quickly if they appear weak.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

There is absolutely room in dom3 for alliances. Games are almost always called before that "You have won" message comes up, so the fact it can only come up for one person is irrelevant.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

Yes, but if an alliance is allowed to win then that isn't really fair. They're playing to a different, and much easier, victory condition than everyone else. It also removes the tension of "when are we going to have to turn on each other?" which I think adds an interesting element to Dom3 games.

In any games I organise, at least (which recently has been none), alliance victories are certainly not allowed. Unfortunately this is difficult to implement in practice, because once the alliance is doing really well, generally people can't be bothered to then fight amongst themselves. Xietor and I won as an alliance in Alpaca, which makes me a hypocrite.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

You can't really tell people allied victory is not allowed. They'll still ally if they want to and then give up the game once they've won. Whether they are declared victor or not is clearly far less important than the fun of the game.

I would personally pay more attention to the way people play than whether they win or not. If they always join an alliance and do well because they don't actually have to deal with serious odds, it's not that impressive. They're also likely to be allied against.

When we start up Warhammerama because there are only 4 nations it makes sense to just say to people 'hey this is a free-for-all', try and win. But if two people want to ally and play that way I'm not going to complain. I'll try and ally against them if it will help me do well though.

Actually I think I'll make a thread for Warhammerama so we can discuss any special rules etc.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

Yeah, well you're right that you can't practically tell people they can't form permanent alliances. I still think it should be emphasised though that the idea is there is one winner and only one. It's something KO has mentioned as being part of his idea of the game, and more importantly I think it's good for the gameplay.

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

Skirmisher,
Just be aware that refusing a NAP is often assumed to be a declaration of war. Expect to be attacked by most of your neighbors early on if you hold out for full alliances or nothing, as it will be assumed you don't want the NAP because it will keep you from attacking.

A NAP is really just a declaration that you're not at war and will give formal notice before you start one. It gives you a temporarily secure border so you can concentrate on more pressing enemies. And can be the foundation for better relations later as players see how the early wars shake out. I would guess that even most alliances are born out of the need to beat a common enemy, and are thus temporary rather than an intent for a joint victory.


Most players

Re: Ingame messages- totally n00bish question
 

I understand where your all coming from, after all most of you have been playing awhile. Just playing a MP game I fully expect to be attacked all the time so that's not really an issue. Will I feel differently in a couple years about it? Maybe. Some have indicated that Alliances where not intended to win, but posts here indicate that it does happen.