wut can u wish for with wish?

Agrajag · #1 July 10th, 2005, 06:41 PM

May I ask what is the point?
I mean, if someone doesn't want to know those things, he can just (gasp) not try to find them out.
And if someone wants to know those things, what's the harm in him knowing?
Its not like hours of testing can't give him the answer.

Gandalf Parker · #2 July 11th, 2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Agrajag said:
May I ask what is the point?
I mean, if someone doesn't want to know those things, he can just (gasp) not try to find them out.

Since the players are human (well most of us are) that concept doesnt work. And even if they can avoid the temptation, they will convince themselves that their enemies did not so.. obviously I must have all of the cheat codes also and practice them. Just in case. (its kindof a game/virtual version of the old "cold war" concept). Wow, deep thinking. Too early. Headache starting.

Quote:

And if someone wants to know those things, what's the harm in him knowing?
Its not like hours of testing can't give him the answer.

Again, nothing stops anything. It can only be as hard as possible for as long as possible for as many as possible. Otherwise our society would fall apart.
Ouch OUCH theres that headache again

Gandalf Parker

Chazar · #3 July 11th, 2005, 12:51 PM

Thas the problem with wish & co and multiplayer:

Either waste hours by
a) analysing binaries
b) reading huge forums on the web
c) stupid hotseat games against oneself
or
d) live with the unknown while knowing that your enemies will know.

Knowledge is victory, victory is life, err, or something like that...

...I think that DomIII should come with a switch which disables all these surprise thingys like "wish" for multiplayer. I think this would make threads like this one here obsolete and thus help to preserve the fun of exploration for those who enjoy singleplayer-mode.

Gandalf Parker · #4 July 12th, 2005, 10:12 AM

The desire to make Dom2 more "strategy" pops up in many ways. Desires to disable features, or make maps more fair and balanced, or take the extra random dice out of many of the rolls, balance the playing pieces between the races, take out the random events. Mostly from the multiplayer tournament folks who want winning the game to be based purely on the players skill and no luck rolls.

On the other hand, there are people who would like all of the above to be increased. Mostly from the solo players. (myself included)

It was suggested that it would be nice to have a switch that could set all of the randoms to a level from 0-9 but they are scattered thru the whole game so apparently it went to the wishlist for Dom3. I have no idea if it will be part of Dom3 or not.

Gandalf Parker

Evil Dave · #5 July 13th, 2005, 11:44 PM

I'd be in favor of switches like that as well.

I'm a bit surprised people object to 2d6OE. It seems to simulate "the fortunes of war" w/o going overboard. Do you happen to know why people wanna reduce its effects? I can think of some, but they're not good.

Gandalf Parker · #6 July 14th, 2005, 10:21 AM

In a strategy game you are always having to scale things between extremes. And no matter what choice is made, some will complain. Hmmm ok, not just games, thats true of everything. But in this case the extremists at one end of the scale consider a strategy wargame to be best when it has no balance-affecting surprises. They want the "winner" to be decided purely by who has the best plans and strategy. They think alot before the game and they dont like their battle plans knocked out by a random. The extreme example of such a game would be Chess. Perfectly fair map, perfectly matched units, no randoms, no surprises.

The other extreme likes a game which has a ton of randoms. They love it when one of the "opponents" in a game is "chaos". Even if if has a map generator which is so EXTREMELY crazy that you have to throw out 4 or 5 maps to get one that you MIGHT be able to win. For them its the joy of tactics and making best use of whats thrown to you.

Of course MOST players are not at one end or the other of the scale. They are somewhere along it. But we see the push/pull in this forum often. Efforts to "balance" pieces when it would destroy the rock-paper-scissors at national level. Or efforts for more favorable random events where it could shift the positions on the scoreboard, especially with fast games on a small map.

As a "chaos" person myself I have created some game scenarios which can be found at my site www.dom2minions.com which you wont see mentioned much. They arent good to recommend unless someone (A) prefers solo play or (B) is bored with the game having tried all of the combinations

Gandalf Parker

Evil Dave · #7 July 14th, 2005, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
But in this case the extremists at one end of the scale consider a strategy wargame to be best when it has no balance-affecting surprises. They want the "winner" to be decided purely by who has the best plans and strategy. They think alot before the game and they dont like their battle plans knocked out by a random. The extreme example of such a game would be Chess. Perfectly fair map, perfectly matched units, no randoms, no surprises.

I can see this, but perhaps not for Dominions. For example, I'd think the game balance would have to be looked at very closely before replacing 2d6OE with 2d6. As it is, if a unit has 10 more armor + natural protection than his expected opponent has strength + base weapon damage, he's very likely to escape unscathed (barring AP weapons, etc). But that's very different than knowing it's a sure thing.

I think Dominions may be too complex to ensure that toning down the randomness doesn't result in "ultimate weapons".

But that's why I'd like switches -- if somebody else wants to play that way, great, so long as I don't have to.