Remove Curses and Horror Marks?

[NTJedi]

KermNelson said:

I personally believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to cheat against my computer. It's a machine executing code not yet any sort of being. So a personal opinion to the contrary is noted only as one individual's opinion. Repeating this opinion is simply overlooked.

Wrong... the slot machines in vegas are also machines executing code, but with illegal actions/equipment it's also possible to cheat on those machines.
It's also possible to cheat playing a solo card game such as solitare... no computers involved. Cheating during a game does not require two individuals.

[KermNelson]

heh heh,

I never set a requirement for two individuals nor did I say anything about commercial for profit machines. I kept my comment to me and my own computer.
You are not addressing my comment but stating your opinion on different ones.

Your illustration of solitaire does point to a common usage of cheat as to not follow the 'rules of a game.' Being a common usage I would concede that it is a valid definition even if it is not in my dictionary. But this usage is not in my dictionary. My dictionary limits cheating to definitions that either state an 'other' or imply an 'other' being cheated. Computer games have code not rules. If not to follow code is cheating then all mods are cheating. If you argue that mods are allowed by game code and therefore not cheating, then since manual saves are allowed by game code they too are not cheating.

Your other example of Vegas slots ignores the obvious consequence of tampering with someone's business machine designed to make money. It's a machine but your distorting the argument by ignoring the obvious other individuals and economics involved with the operation of the machine.

[NTJedi]

KermNelson said:
heh heh,

I never set a requirement for two individuals nor did I say anything about commercial for profit machines. I kept my comment to me and my own computer.
You are not addressing my comment but stating your opinion on different ones.

My point was that anytime you play any game outside of the game rules for your benefit it's cheating. Using actions outside of the game to change an already decided future is cheating. If you choose to believe changing an already decided future FOR ONLY YOUR BENEFIT by using actions not within the game is not cheating then you are fooling yourself.
Poor computer opponents never had a even a one in a billion shot of winning if you're changing the future anytime you have bad luck.

KermNelson said:
Your illustration of solitaire does point to a common usage of cheat as to not follow the 'rules of a game.' Being a common usage I would concede that it is a valid definition even if it is not in my dictionary. But this usage is not in my dictionary. My dictionary limits cheating to definitions that either state an 'other' or imply an 'other' being cheated.

If you use the save/reload to change the future of a game for your benefit then it's cheating. Your opponents may be just code, but they never had a single chance against someone who changes an already decided future. It would be the same as playing video poker... realizing you lost a large bet and switching the card you received to win the bet... it's cheating.

KermNelson said:
Computer games have code not rules. If not to follow code is cheating then all mods are cheating. If you argue that mods are allowed by game code and therefore not cheating, then since manual saves are allowed by game code they too are not cheating.

Based on your response you're not understanding the purpose of mods. Mods are used to change game content... and thus can be used to make the game easier, equal or more difficult. If you are using mods to make the game easier for only you then it's cheating. The same is true if you are using the save/reload feature to make the game easier for ONLY you then it's cheating.
Don't worry... other individuals such as yourself cannot accept the idea of playing a game and losing thus resort to cheating via the save/reload or sometimes using 'cheat codes' which allows them to receive extra resources, items, etc.; .

KermNelson said:
Your other example of Vegas slots ignores the obvious consequence of tampering with someone's business machine designed to make money. It's a machine but your distorting the argument by ignoring the obvious other individuals and economics involved with the operation of the machine.

Same is true if you personally owned a vegas slot machine in your home. No real money being wagered, but if you are changing an already decided future from the game to win it's cheating.


Here's an idea... switch the current actions you do for the save/reload. During close major battles... if you win the battle use the save/reload option until you lose. This way you can understand how difficult and wrong it's been doing this to the less intelligent computer opponents. Yet then again maybe you wouldn't understand.

[Sombre]

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion. I don't give a rat's *** about saves and have never at any point in playing dom3 wished I was able to reload to a previous turn.

However I find the idea that more options is a bad thing to be very silly. It puts me in mind of bugtesters removing the cheatcodes from a single player game after the testing period because they don't want the players cheating. They actually spend time taking out 'content' and justifying why, purely to restrict players and cut down their options. Now I know this isn't the case with dom3, because they never put in a save system, but how anyone could argue against having more options like this is beyond me. I mean if it's a choice between that and some other upgrade to dominions, obviously I'd be going for the other upgrade, but I'd never stand against it on principle just because I wouldn't make use of it, or I want to restrict other players.

[Agrajag]

1) Any option added takes away time from adding other options. (Or at a "best" case scenario, takes time away form working on the next Illwinter game.)
2) Arguing against more options (generally) is very simple. To do that we have terms like feature creep and bloatware

[llamabeast]

I don't know why anyone bothers arguing. Copy down Agrajag's bat file. In two minutes you will have a save feature. Job done! Certainly less time than it takes to write on this thread.

If the instructions were not clear, I am certain Agrajag, I, or any of a number of other posters would be more than happy to clarify. It's simply a non-issue to my mind.

As to whether they are unnecessarily limiting their sales and so on - it is important to remember that they are a two man team who do things mainly as a hobby and have little interest in the resulting profit. Certainly that is hard for many to understand, but it seems to be true. So they're just not interested in such arguments. The fact that their hobby happens to produce something we all enjoy a great deal is very lucky I think.

Sombre: It is sometimes good to limit options because people, essentially, are not entirely in control of themselves. If I could pay someone to make sure I went swimming three times a week I might well do it. Similarly I appreciate having the option of saving taken away from me. I can imagine people having no sympathy with this - they must have more self-control than me.

Along the same lines I think one of the major reasons I enjoy MP so much more than SP is because even if I want to, I can't see the next turn quickly by ending my turn fast. This forces me to take my time, resulting in me enjoying the game a great deal more.

[KermNelson]

Hi guys ...
Maybe NT Jedi and I just enjoy this mental exercise, I hope it doesn't bother you too much.

NTJedi … You have an opinion:
“anytime you play any game outside of the game rules for your benefit it's cheating”
I disagree. I have another opinion:
“If you argue that mods are allowed by game code and therefore not cheating, then since manual saves are allowed by game code they too are not cheating.”
I believe I am playing the game within the gamecode because the game allows it and therefore it can not be cheating the game. As I’ve already stated I don’t believe I can cheat a machine – an inanimate object. (Illwinter is obviously aware that players have developed a save/reload workarounds and I’m not aware that they have discouraged them nor am I aware that players are in anyway breaching their EULA by doing the workaround.)
If however I was in multiplayer with other humans where the expectation was that there would be no hidden manipulation of the game and I did do hidden manipulation then I feel I would be cheating the players but the game is simply code that I’d figured out how to manipulate. The key difference is the effect of my actions on other beings not my actions with the machine.
If I choose to save and reload a game to improve my results that is what I’m doing I don't consider it cheating. I consider it trial and error testing to determine the best strategy without wasting massive amounts of time in replaying a game to a similar point. The game I am playing in single player mode exists solely for my purposes. Neither my computer nor the game's software is any form of life or being and until AI’s approach human complexity and start to develop and roughly “think” for themselves they have no rights to being-personhood. I can not cheat them. Once we feel/sense/believe they become beings then we can attempt to interact with them responsibly.
As for your opinion on what I think of mods, like the rest of this discussion you seem to think your opinion has some greater significance: it doesn’t to me. It is simply your opinion. I’ve been playing games since I bought my own Apple II+ in the early 80’s and I’ve been enjoying many companies’ mods including Illwinter’s Dom3 modding ability. Much like a book the author writes the gamecode but the user (as long as they don’t break the license) uses the game how they want to - enjoying it. I consider Mod friendly code simply a wise thing to do to allow creative players to get greater enjoyment out of the game. I think it gives some players further incentive to buy the game and therefore leads to greater game sales. It also creates a positive feedback loop including players’ creative feedback to the developers.

BTW I’ve never save/reloaded in Dom3 it’s too much bother. If I had not realized I could Mod the game to make my learning curve easier and more enjoyable to me I simply would not have bought the game. I play the game to enjoy exploring and learning how the game plays. I’ve found I like games with cheat codes and games that I can Mod. I know I am strengthening my position relative to the AI but it doesn’t bother me one bit. Games are created with AI difficulty settings precisely to allow players to choose how hard a learning curve they experience. I simply prefer to have the AI play consistently and increase my starting strength to decrease the learning curve and enjoy the learning process.

[Endoperez]

NTJedi said:
Don't worry... other individuals such as yourself cannot accept the idea of playing a game and losing thus resort to cheating via the save/reload or sometimes using 'cheat codes' which allows them to receive extra resources, items, etc.; .

Hey now! That's just rude and unnecessary. "Cheating", that I'd call "learning to play the game" in this case, IS NOT EQUAL to not being able to lose.

I play rogulikes, and although I used to savescum I decided it takes away the fun, and then noticed I learn faster when I HAVE to, to survive. I completed ADOM once, without savescumming. But I do cheat in games. I even cheat in Dominions - I have a mod that lets me cast Wish and Gift of Reason and any other spell I ever decide to test, as needed, at turn 1 for 1 gem. I do it to test things, such as how fire bless and weapon with multiple attacks work together.

I'm not sure if I said it already, but I agree with the poster - Illwinter's next game, and Stardock's not-MoM game, etc etc should have a save/load feature, unless they are like roguelikes, or like Dwarf Fortress. I don't know what your problem is, but could you at least be civil about it? [/mean]

[Agrajag]

Dwarf Fortress now comes with autosave and autosavebackup, so you can have the game save every season change, and have the game save those saves, so you can go back in time if you want to. (it even organizes them nicely by year, season and region.)

[Endoperez]

Agrajag said:
Dwarf Fortress now comes with autosave and autosavebackup, so you can have the game save every season change, and have the game save those saves, so you can go back in time if you want to. (it even organizes them nicely by year, season and region.)

But I don't use that feature. I said that it should have save feature unless it's like Dwarf Fortress, which is more about the adventure that is playing the game than the feeling of beating the system. I've never had trouble keeping my dwarves alive. I understand why someone attempting to build Orthanc or something would want a save feature, though. What with the exploding booze, melting cookery and such occupational hazards.