Remove Curses and Horror Marks?

[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.

[NTJedi]

KermNelson said:
NTJedi … You have an opinion:
“anytime you play any game outside of the game rules for your benefit it's cheating”

It's not an opinion... you are changing decided future results for the benefit of winning. Providing yourself an unfair advantage during the game against any opponents human or computer AI is cheating. Just because the AI opponents cannot complain against cheating actions doesn't mean the cheating actions don't exist.

Heck based on your fantasy opinions it's impossible to cheat in a singleplayer game. LOL

KermNelson said:
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.”

Manual saves can be done for any PC_game, how those save games are used determine whether it's cheating. Mods can be used within the game, but how those mods are used determine whether or not it's cheating.

KermNelson said:
I believe I am playing the game within the gamecode because the game allows it and therefore it can not be cheating the game.

You could also play darts and get a bullseye every single time by not throwing the darts and just pushing the dart into the bullseye. In your fantasy opinion world you would fall asleep at night believing you're one great dart player... when in reality you are only fooling yourself.

KermNelson said:
As I’ve already stated I don’t believe I can cheat a machine – an inanimate object.

Just because you're playing against a machine doesn't mean it's not possible to cheat. Your opponents may be computer code yet they are still opponents. To make a game even more difficult for an already disadvantage AI opponent is just pathetic.

KermNelson said:
(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.)

The save/reload option has been discussed for many years... and the reload option remains left out. If Illwinter felt it was necessary they would have included it.

KermNelson said:
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.

I see another point you are missing... when someone is cheating whether it's against other human players or against AI opponents they are not only being UNFAIR to their opponents but they are also lying to themselves on the actual skills of their gameplay. Unfortunately many of these individuals continue to cheat because they cannot face losing.

KermNelson said:
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.

Well if that's true then why don't you try my suggestion. For your next 10 games of each PC_game use the save/reload to change the future anytime you win a major battle. This way you can find the best strategy for making a recovery after major losses and/or important commanders/mages. I'm sure you've spent the last 25 years finding the fastest winning strategy... so it's time you find the best way to recover after major losses.
Hmmm... something tells me you couldn't stomach such a learning strategy.

KermNelson said: 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.

Your actions of using a save/reload to change an already decided future provides you a PERMANENT CONTINOUS UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.

KermNelson said:
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.

If you were so true to the save/reload option for the purpose of strategic reasons then you would have been using the save/reload for the opposite method of improving your strategy after major losses. Unfortunately the save/reload you use during games is to provide you the constant victory or more importantly the way to avoid facing a loss.
I've been playing PC_games longer then you and surprised even at your age you would use the save/reload just to win games and then try and hide it by saying it's for strategic reasons. If it was for strategic reasons then you would be using the save/reload in the opposite manor I've described earlier.

KermNelson said:
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.

Much like a book the reader can read the last ten pages or google the internet to discover the secret killer or answer to the riddles... but in your world this is just a strategic method to save time.

KermNelson said:
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.

Yes, mods are a great tool... like any other tool they can be used to provide an unfair advantage if used incorrectly.

KermNelson said:
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.

I actually do the opposite and using map edit commands make the computer opponents significantly stronger. Instead of fighting a tiger from the local zoo(default_game)... I'm fighting a prehistoric sabre tooth tiger.

KermNelson said:
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.

Mods actually aren't needed even for the worst players. Simply play a very large map requiring 40% of the victory points, choose land nations for AI opponents(not ERMOR, Atlantis or Argatha), human plays a water nation, map has 40% water with no lakes and set AI difficulty on easy. No mods needed and a very easy game for the human player.

[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.