View Single Post
  #4  
Old October 16th, 2003, 10:16 PM

Wendigo Wendigo is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 289
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Wendigo is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Dom I Strategies which WON\'T work in Dom II

Quote:
Originally posted by apoger:
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.
Definitely wrong. I do not want to define how others play or enjoy the game. If they enjoy a different set of rules let them play their way via house rules. What I oppose is the hard-coding of something that goes against the very definition of the game. If you want allied victory you can have it via house rules, why do you need any coding to support something which doesn't fit with the world? Do you need an official clap in the back?

Quote:
>- 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.
So you want totally _free_ passage through enemy lands to replace gateway?. Colour me unconvinced.

Quote:
>- Exchange of commanders/mages/troops.

I never asked for this, and don't like the idea.
Sorry, it seems after a Google search that my recollection of this was inaccurate, you campaigned for Allied victory instead. My apologies.

Quote:
>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.
Because in the Dominions world in the end there canbe only one. You can cooperate up to a point, when your ally will become your enemy. While you can play differently if you feel like it or in a scenario it would make no sense for IW to code such possibility which would not fit the story of the world as defined in the colourful background. In your house games, you are king.

Quote:
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.
You can play diplomatically: You can forward gems, coin, slaves & items, and you can trade information & coordinate attacks. It sounds like quite a lot to me.

Quote:
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.
Why so? are you not capable of defending your point of view & what you like? do you expect me to do it for you in addition to defending mine?

I will tell you a secret: I will defend what I like & you can defend what you like, that way we can have...a debate. If we are to 'have a discussion about what players want' why do you label as selfish the opinions that disagree with yours?

Targeting the poster when you run out of arguments to target the post?
Reply With Quote