[st.patrik]

Originally posted by MStavros:
Dude we are talking about SP diplomacy. Wake up.

Since you all are not reading very carefully I'll trace the flow of this conversation for you:

Originally posted by MStavros:
Originally posted by licker:
but I do think that improvements to SP typically wind up as improvements to MP while the contrary is not nearly as true.
I agree.
MP diplomacy? Well it is not diplomacy, what we have now, it is only player interaction.

Claim: MP diplomacy is not diplomacy - just player interaction

Originally posted by st.patrik:
Originally posted by MStavros:
MP diplomacy? Well it is not diplomacy, what we have now, it is only player interaction.
lol - what do you think diplomacy is, if interaction between humans doesn't count?

Response: How does player interaction not qualify as diplomacy?

Originally posted by MStavros:
Dude we are talking about SP diplomacy. Wake up.

Demonstration of Misunderstanding

-----

I understand that what you want is SP diplo. What I was saying is that SP diplo doesn't come close to MP diplo with actual people . If you want diplo, why not just play MP? I refer you (once again) to my earlier post:

Originally posted by st.patrik:
I also agree that Illwinter should make a robust SP game, whatever they do in MP. But the thing that gets me is that some of the fanatically SP players are wanting Illwinter to add complex diplo with the AI, when if you just play MP you get way better diplo, because it's with an intelligent, sentient person. It just seems to me that if you want to interact with other nations diplomatically, MP is perfect for you! I just don't understand why people would be staunchly against MP, and yet vocal about adding diplo - which at best poorly mimics the MP experience. It makes no sense to me.

[ October 16, 2003, 17:56: Message edited by: st.patrik ]