[apoger]

>No surprise here, we have held opposing views on this topic before in the newsgroup.

Yes, however my view is that both types of players should be able to get what they want. You seem to want to limit everyone to your style of play.

>- Right of passage.
>To which I answered same as here: it would only make gangfests easier.

Since gateway has been crippled in Dom II, I think that offering some method to cross non-enemy territory is apporpriate.

>- Exchange of commanders/mages/troops.

I never asked for this, and don't like the idea.

>In any conflict involving multiple nations, diplomacy is critical to success. It's an essential facet of strategy and has every reason to be modeled into a wargame. Particularly one as complex as Dominions.

>This is a false analogy with RL.

While real life and games are certainly different, this is a multi-nation game of conflict. I honestly don't see how anyone can argue that dippy and cooperation aren't compatible with such a theme.

Again, I'm not saying that YOU must play dipplomatically, nor that dipplomacy should be forced on anyone. What I'm saying is that it's a very important facet to many players and as such should be included as an option for those that want it.

>I do not oppose cooperative gameplay per se, but the limits of it must definitely be stated beforehand when the game is launched (looks like we at least agree on this), otherwise it only results in fustration as players develop different expectatives of what is, or not, allowed in a game that requires a heavy time investment.

I agree whole-heartedly.
Don't you think having the dippy functionality inside the game would help define such limits? I submit that the lack of structured dippy is precisely what leads to the issue you just brought up!

>And I definitely do not see any need to increase the power of what is already the most powerful MP weapon with further coding favoring its use (or abuse), for me this would detract from the game, by making it duller and less challenging

You don't like dippy. Got it.
Don't use it. Stick to games where all players agree to the same. Why force this view on others?

>I would rather have the devs spend their time in stuff that improved my enjoyment

That pretty much says it all.
What about *my* enjoyment? Or the enjoyment of *other* players? The whole idea here is to have a discussion about what many players want. If there is a good deal of support for dippy (as seems the case) then why should IW program for your enjoyment at the expense of others? I don't mean to be rude, but this comes across as a rather selfish point of view.

This is obviously someting that many players care about passionately. As such I see no reason why IW shouldn't implement options for everyone, so we can all play the game we want.