How would you patch this game?

[Gandalf Parker]

I consider the thread topic insulting. Just my opinion.

Besides, nearly everything mentioned works just as well if you said "How would you MOD this game?". And MODding have already been put into the game at players request.

And while I think the most used and least used is worth looking at, I understand that the wonderful balance of this game is NOT from equalizing things. The extreme of that route would be Chess. The balance of this game is closer to the National Football League

[ June 17, 2004, 13:32: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Blitz]

Norfleet is also more correct than he sounds when he talks about game balance. Reading his post, he sounded a lot like Mark Rosewater in one of his columns about designing Magic: the Gathering; specifically, the one entitled, "Why do we make bad cards?" One of the main arguments that Mr. Rosewater puts forward is that recognizing what is good and what is not-so-good in a game is part of learning the game, and without less-than-optimal game parts, there's nothing to separate good players from bad players. There's also the fact that if you don't have bad cards, you can't have good cards. The article isn't totally applicable to Dominions, but in the main holds true.

With all due respect to Mark, who I met a few times back in the day... I'm not sure I completely believe his explanation. I've heard that question answered other ways from other people. Balance testing MP games is not easy. It's got to be even harder when you are a two-man company trying to deal with the expectations of gamers used to dealing with larger companies. Frankly I'm astounded that there aren't more glaring problems in this game. Obviously this is a testament to their skill... although I'm betting Dominions I had a LOT more problems.

The facts are that even with a large testing staff, certian imbalances are inevitably going to happen. We've seen this happen in every single Online game since the beginning of time. Monks in Everquest (sucked, then too powerful, then nerfed 10 times, etc)... Huntresses in Warcraft 3, anyone remember those? Every game played Online is going to be an evolving work. I have no doubt that in time most of the weaker pretender chassis will be improved. Unfortunately the nature of the beast is that overpowered, unbalancing problems have to be dealt with first. Fixing the Lord of the Gates is going to have to wait. Giving me a reason to play Golden Age as a MP race can wait. Hopefully these and other "bad" choices will be fixed in time.

However, I refuse to believe that Golden Age Arcoscephale is crappy to trick bad players into using it. This race was the first I latched onto with this game, and in time I came to realize that it pretty much stunk. Hopefully it's dealt with at some point, because I love the concept... but I find it very hard to believe that it was intentionaly made bad to reward players for not playing it

I consider the thread topic insulting. Just my opinion.

Besides, nearly everything mentioned works just as well if you said "How would you MOD this game?". And MODding have already ben put into the game at players request.

Reminds me of the PC folks in the media deciding what might offend certian people. I'm sure our devs have better things to worry about than how a thread is worded in their forums.

[ June 17, 2004, 13:30: Message edited by: Blitz ]

[Scott Hebert]

Originally posted by Blitz:
However, I refuse to believe that Golden Age Arcoscephale is crappy to trick bad players into using it. This race was the first I latched onto with this game, and in time I came to realize that it pretty much stunk. Hopefully it's dealt with at some point, because I love the concept... but I find it very hard to believe that it was intentionaly made bad to reward players for not playing it

Odd that you find Golden Era Arco so bad. I like playing them quite a bit. My only 'beef' with it is that you can't play Golem Cult with them.

Reminds me of the PC folks in the media deciding what might offend certian people. I'm sure our devs have better things to worry about than how a thread is worded in their forums.

That's a rather cavalier attitude you have towards the developers. Just remember about honey and vinegar and all that.

I'm certainly glad that certain people are not the ones who patch the game. And until such time as the people who are insulting put out a mod of their 'balance' to try see public reaction (as opposed to their own mind which always says they are right) you don't have a leg to stand on. For the others who would patch the game while still retaining their human courtesy, thank you for your input and I hope to see a mod of your own idea of "balance" whenever you complete it.

[ June 17, 2004, 13:46: Message edited by: Zen ]

[Esben Mose Hansen]

In the best Monty tradition, I would do four things:

1. Add item modding (perhaps just disabling, maybe change cost)
2. Add castle modding (ditto)
3. Enable mods on text servers
4. Tell people to mods instead of complaining.
5. Make a mod reducing the cost of light infantry to 1/10 of the current cost. Then get seriously beaten by the AI.

I would like to invite everyone to find at least 2 internal inconstencies in the above proposal

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by HotNifeThruButr:
and fix the LoF's graphics.

There's nothing wrong with his graphics.

- Make number of events dependant on the number of provinces you own

They already are.

[Wendigo]

My most wanted features were already added (or restored from DomI) into the game 2 patches ago:

-Consistency in battle reports between systems
-Speed replay
-Renaming

The above 3 IMO deserve much more apreciation that they got at the time: good ridance to a very nasty bug that was very confusing for new players in MP, a reduction in time wasted & great posibilities for personalization/RP that can also help reduce MM when assigning orders.

Most of the stuff I see in this forum lately that 'must (!) be fixed' seems to me pretty subjective, sometimes even simplistic or biased.