What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!

[Mortifer]

Yeah, if IW will decide to add a system we can argue than.
This is totally pointless now.
Anyways, a good SP diplo sys. will surely enchant the game, it will be a big ++ and not a --.
Simple.

[ October 16, 2003, 19:07: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by HJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by st.patrik:

I understand that what you want is SP diplo. What I was saying is that SP diplo doesn't come close to MP diplo with actual people . If you want diplo, why not just play MP?

Strange question. I mean, why does anybody play SP in the first place? Personal preference, to put it broadly, and differential appeal and aVersion between the two modes of play, along with dozens of other (individual) reasons. Why would that be a thing to wonder about?

---

Well honestly (although I suspect that some people here are not particularly interested in honest dialogue) I think that people are drawn to SP for certain reasons, and to MP for certain reasons. I just happen to think that one of the main reasons people are drawn to MP is the desire to have diplomacy - by which I mean strategic relations between nations involving sharing of information, reading of intentions, negotiating alliances, laying down disinformation, judging if/when to break faith and attack, etc. Therefore it seems strange to me that people who seem to have this desire would want to play SP, especially since SP AI cannot replicate these things. I don't question people desiring to play SP at all . I myself more often than not play SP - I am not a die-hard MP fan. There are times when it's more fun to just sit down and play against a few computer opponents.

However, what is lacking in this experience is real diplomacy. And I think the logical action to take in response to this lack (insofar as it is felt) is to play with other people, who you will be able to dialogue with. I think an action that makes less sense is to campaign for an AI diplomacy element, which cannot even approach what real diplomacy is like.

If it were possible, it would be great because you could game at your convenience, without the hassle of waiting for other players. etc. However, AI technology just isn't there yet. - It cannot take the place of human opponents when it comes to diplomacy.

Anyone is free to disagree with this, though I would ask that you at least keep your disagreement civil. However, I do think if you actually read what I said that it makes some sense. And just to re-iterate: I am not against SP [in fact I even argued FOR limited AI diplomacy earlier in this thread] - it is what I play most of the time; my only point is that if you want diplomacy the natural place to find it is MP.

[ October 16, 2003, 19:11: Message edited by: st.patrik ]

[HJ]

Originally posted by st.patrik:
Well honestly (although I suspect that some people here are not particularly interested in honest dialogue) I think that people are drawn to SP for certain reasons, and to MP for certain reasons.

Anyone is free to disagree with this, though I would ask that you at least keep your disagreement civil. However, I do think if you actually read what I said that it makes some sense. And just to re-iterate: I am not against SP [in fact I even argued FOR limited AI diplomacy earlier in this thread] - it is what I play most of the time; my only point is that if you want diplomacy the natural place to find it is MP.

I would be seriously surprised and even slightly offended if you consider my Posts as the ones not in line with desire for honest dialogue. I assure you that there is no malice intended or involved behind any of them, not directed to you, and not to anyone else either, regardless of whether they are in this thread or other threads. But let's not talk abut that any more, and let's not do finger pointing; feel free to pm me if you think I personally was out of line.

You provided the reasons for SP diplomacy in your post quite well (although I snipped out the parts of it). For my own personal reasons, I don't play MP at all. Therefore, for me it's no compensation if you can do it that way. However, in my opinion it would enrich the gaming experience in the mode that I do play and enjoy playing, and hence I would like to see it implemented. I'm not thinking human level of reasoning, as this is not what I look for in my games, otherwise I would play MP probably, with the current state of the affairs. I'm thinking about enrichment of the gaming environment I peruse, and if you tell me to play MP, it's the same thing as if you're telling me to play some other game altogether. That's why I said that your question was a strange one, as later you yourself have provided reasoning for people opting for one mode or the other.

[ October 16, 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Mortifer]

I think the major problem here is that some of the lads think, that the diplo AI will be abused. Adding a diplo system cannot be a problem, the diplo AI is the problematic point here.
Well I dont know too much about scripting, but I am sure, that IW could make a decent diplo AI.
The new Civ3 AI is lot better than the old, and the normal AI there is worse than the old Doms I. AI.

I think that the majority would be happy with the SP diplo AI. It is up to IW, that what will they do.

If the diplo system won't be implented, than Saber's idea about the weapon/armor system should be added with an add-on pack or with a later patch.
Implenting either of these would bring the game to a new level. Imagine if we would have both of them.

[ October 16, 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

[licker]

Woah Nellie!

Why would people not play MP? Yeesh there are a bazillion reasons why, some people simply cannot play MP (no internet maybe? no friends interested for LAN or hot seat?) Some people don't have the time, or don't want to spend the time (time over a period of weeks or months) to play MP.

Look the MP experience (usually) is going to be superior to the SP experience for reasons beyond the ability to have some form of diplomacy, but that doesn't mean that every wants to, or indeed is able to, engage in MP.

I for one play almost entirely SP. I will try the odd PBEM, but that's about it, I don't have flexible enough time to be able to set aside 5+ hours for a LAN or internet match, so its really not much of a choice for me.

Anyway, some diplo rules or settings would be nice, but I don't think the system has to become overly complicated. Simple things like trades (GalCiv and Civ3 do this pretty well) and NAPs could work well. NAPs would have to have the penalty that if you break one no one else will NAP you for a fixed time, if you break a second one, make that time longer, if you break a thrid... no one will ever NAP or trade with you. Simple things are best, non of this sharing provinces, granting rights of passage, esentially anything that would require the existing code to be modified to incorperate new rules.

[Kristoffer O]

I think the major problem with diplo AI is that I don't know anything about AI coding and JK is bored by it (he made the AI so he should know). This doesn't mean that there will never be any diplomacy, but it means that if it will be made it will be so out of a sudden whim.

An outstanding AI might also see the day of light if one of you guys suddenly comes up with a simple yet brilliant system for a diplomatic AI that is unabusable.

Meanwhile you will have to wait and hope.

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by HJ:
I would be seriously surprised and even slightly offended if you consider my Posts as the ones not in line with desire for honest dialogue. I assure you that there is no malice intended or involved behind any of them, not directed to you, and not to anyone else either, regardless of whether they are in this thread or other threads. But let's not talk abut that any more, and let's not do finger pointing; feel free to pm me if you think I personally was out of line.

I didn't mean that you in particular were not interested in honest dialogue - in fact reading over your Posts I notice that you have not made the kind of comments I was reacting against. So I apologise if I communicated otherwise, and thank you for your thoughtful response.

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
I think the major problem with diplo AI is that I don't know anything about AI coding and JK is bored by it (he made the AI so he should know). This doesn't mean that there will never be any diplomacy, but it means that if it will be made it will be so out of a sudden whim.

An outstanding AI might also see the day of light if one of you guys suddenly comes up with a simple yet brilliant system for a diplomatic AI that is unabusable.

Meanwhile you will have to wait and hope.

I have some ideas, I will post about it.
Gotta run, no time now.
I am happy that you lads @ Illwinter are paying enough attention, and listening to our ideas and suggestions!
I will be back tomorrow, I will post my detailed ideas than.

[DominionsFan]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
I think the major problem with diplo AI is that I don't know anything about AI coding and JK is bored by it (he made the AI so he should know).

bored? LOL?

[Taqwus]

*shrug*

I normally don't play multi since I'm not inclined to take games that seriously, and thus veer strongly towards the silly side rather than being a serious, competitive player. I'm more of a "ooh, let's try this and see what happens" chap rather than one who'll carefully plan ahead, figuring out a focused strategy e.g. what to research, when to start summoning seasonal spirits, et al.

But for those that do play MP, beefing up the in-game messaging capabilities wouldn't be a bad idea. *shrug* And yes, it could be done out of the game, but not as conveniently. Eh.