Player controlled battles???

[Wendigo]

Originally posted by HJ:
Something like a Total War system, where you can autoresolve battles or choose to fight them out yourself, would be ideal - and please everyone.
[/QB]

Well I am afraid it wouldn't please me.

Note that Dom's is not an autoresolve battle system in the pure sense, you do not just get told you killed X & lost Y due to some obscure formula, you actually _do_ issue orders to your guys, it's just that you do it before the battle instead of during it.

To me, this is a much richer system than the autoresolve algorithms from other TBS games that I find simplistic & boring. In a sense, the battle engine is the part of the game I value the most (and have most fun with).

I don't play PBEM, so that doesn't influence what I like or don't like either. I'm just saying what would make the game even more enjoyable for me personally.
[/QB]

The arguments against this have been rehearsed before:
-It would make MP unviable with full control (or simplify it immensely with autoresolve)
-Battles with 50+ commanders & 500+ troops per size would be totally unplayable, even in SP.

The game would need a huge rewriting for this aproach to even be considered (starting with troops operating only in units & finishing by limiting a lot the nº of mages & spells they can use), and I do not think the end result would even improve on what we currently have.

And I never said anything about RTS. Actually, I was thinking about TBS tactical combat. Why do people immediately assume tactical combat has to be RTS as if they've never heard of or played HOMM or AOW, I don't know. I mentioned TW purely because it has the option to autoresolve or fight it out yourself. AOW2 has the same option, and I could've used it as an example as well. I didn't, well, my bad, I still wasn't thinking about RTS. In any case, since you'll be autoresolving battles anyway, I don't see why you would care either way.
[/QB]

Note that 2 of the above examples are games with 8 or less stacks/commanders/units per army, and the other one doesn't even have mages. The difference of magnitude for every single battle is huge.
And no, once again I wouldn't like autoresolve.

And this is the only forum I've seen where suggestions, regardless of how polite the tone is, are so vigorously shouted down by the people who play the game that it's becoming ridiculous. [/QB]

I guess we have a certain clash of cultures here:
-On one side we have enthusiastic newcomers to the game proposing changes left & right to things that actually work in their current estate.
-On the other we have the vet players from Dom I with ample experience in the game (2 years in my case), who feel a sense of 'deja vu' with many of these proposals (ie, they have been discussed already, maybe even many times in previous forums).

The first group doesn't understand why the brilliant (in their minds, at least) proposal gets rejected or disliked, the 2nd group doesn't understand how something so glaring obvious (to them) is not immediately seen by the revolutionary newcomers.

Stuff like control of battles or naval battles fall in this bag, they have been discussed before & the arguments against have not been rebuted yet.

Longer term a FAQ could alleviate this type of conflicts, so that newcomers could get pointed to the previous debate on the topic, for now we will have to do with what we have.

One way or the other, the tone could improve and I am myself guilty of having a too sharp tongue at times.

[HJ]

Originally posted by Wendigo:

Note that Dom's is not an autoresolve battle system in the pure sense, you do not just get told you killed X & lost Y due to some obscure formula, you actually _do_ issue orders to your guys, it's just that you do it before the battle instead of during it.

To me, this is a much richer system than the autoresolve algorithms from other TBS games that I find simplistic & boring. In a sense, the battle engine is the part of the game I value the most (and have most fun with).

Well, I stand corrected for the second time. I was thinking the "autoresolve" to stay just as it is now, what you have described in a greater detail.

The game would need a huge rewriting for this aproach to even be considered (starting with troops operating only in units & finishing by limiting a lot the nº of mages & spells they can use), and I do not think the end result would even improve on what we currently have.

*sigh*
You are the end-user - how can this be your argument, I fail to grasp. No comment...

-Battles with 50+ commanders & 500+ troops per size would be totally unplayable, even in SP.

Note that 2 of the above examples are games with 8 or less stacks/commanders/units per army, and the other one doesn't even have mages. The difference of magnitude for every single battle is huge.

And why assume that the system has to be *identical*? There are plenty of original concepts and execution solutions in Doms, why discard the possiblity of a system that is specifically suited for this game beforehand?

-On one side we have enthusiastic newcomers to the game proposing changes left & right to things that actually work in their current estate.
-On the other we have the vet players from Dom I with ample experience in the game (2 years in my case), who feel a sense of 'deja vu' with many of these proposals (ie, they have been discussed already, maybe even many times in previous forums).

The first group doesn't understand why the brilliant (in their minds, at least) proposal gets rejected or disliked, the 2nd group doesn't understand how something so glaring obvious (to them) is not immediately seen by the revolutionary newcomers.

Stuff like control of battles or naval battles fall in this bag, they have been discussed before & the arguments against have not been rebuted yet.

Longer term a FAQ could alleviate this type of conflicts, so that newcomers could get pointed to the previous debate on the topic, for now we will have to do with what we have.

One way or the other, the tone could improve and I am myself guilty of having a too sharp tongue at times.

First of all, you haven't actually discussed those things with the said newcomers. Fresh minds and perspective, when compared to jaded seen-it-all-and-gotten-used-to-it ones, can do wonders sometimes.

And second, I wasn't complaining about the tone (although both sides sometimes leave much to be desired). It's the atmosphere that I sometimes find preposterous. If you don't have anything to add to the suggestion, why bother posting just to say "no"? Have I said "no" to things I don't care about, went in those threads and said that it's a waste of devs' time? Live and let live, and let the devs sort them out at their own discretion.

[ October 24, 2003, 15:31: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Wendigo]

Originally posted by HJ:
Well, I stand corrected for the second time. I was thinking the "autoresolve" to stay just as it is now, what you have described in a greater detail.
[/QB]

Oh I see...so you are proposing to keep the current system + adding an even fuller control one...I still have doubts about the feasability of this, but at least it wouldn't worsen the game as a pure autoresolve would.

First of all, you haven't actually discussed those things with the said newcomers. Fresh minds and perspective, when compared to jaded seen-it-all-and-gotten-used-to-it ones, can do wonders sometimes.
[/QB]

Definitely, but unless the newcomer adds a new spin to the debate in his initial post he is going to be handed to the inquisition.

And second, I wasn't complaining about the tone (although both sides sometimes leave much to be desired). It's the atmosphere that I sometimes find preposterous. If you don't have anything to add to the suggestion, why bother posting just to say "no"?
[/QB]

I would say that the tone builds the atmosphere, but in regards to your 2nd question, IMO those that say 'no' often _do_ care & do not want to see changed something that works as it is, and besides: in a sense every new idea is competing with the others for the devs time, so players will rather have the devs invest their limitted time in the areas of the game the like the most (or find lacking the most) instead of others they are neutral about

[MythicalMino]

the reason that the "rewriting of code" is always brought up, is because that is just it, there would have to be a lot of re-writing of the code...and that would mean that the devs would have to do it...something that maybe perhaps they don't have the time to do, or the desire to do...kind of like the "why fix it, if it ain't broken?" deal...

It would be alot of work on the developers if they chose to add some of the things that has been suggested....

Now, as far as the "Revolutionizers" and the "Jaded Ones"....

The "Jaded Ones" have been through these arguements, duscussion, ect. They have talked about what it could add, what it could do, what it could be...Dominions I came out in what, 2001, 2 years ago...Sure, Dom2 is a new game, yet to be released...BUT, it is still built on Dominions I. The newcomers, or the Revolutionizers, are only (for the most part) bringing up topics that has been duscussed 1-2 or maybe even 3 years ago...which, was discussed in great detail at that time.

Keep proposing ideas and suggestions....but i think one of the issues is that when someone thinks he has come up with the grandest idea ever, chances are, it has been brought up before....That could also explain why the devs do not answer every post or question....They have been through it before elsewhere...

I hope I am not coming across as arrogant or anything, that is not my intentions with this post...

The fact of the matter is this:

The first game has been out for a couple of years. During those years (read through the google newsGroups, you will see what I am talking about here), but during those years, many many of these ideas and suggestions were brought up, discussed, debated. You should also note that when the devs seen an idea/suggestion that they liked, or that they thought would improve the game, they did add it....

[licker]

I am unclear as to why there would be any "rewriting" of code. Sure there would be new code written, but why would old code need to be rewritten?

It seems to me that if the devs were seriously interested in adding some control (not going into specifics) for battles they would likely approach it as an additional module to the existing game (think Breach for those that know Breach and what it wanted to be).

With a set up like that if a player (since this is limited to SP only, or hot seat I suppose) wanted to not use this module he would not use it (selected at start up, or at every battle ala AoW). I have given alot of thought to how combat could be made more user controlled, and I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't need to be, mostly because I see this as another way that people will just ***** about the AI, but also because it really wouldn't add that much to the game, and could likely detract from the game.

As always to each their own, the more that is discussed the more we will all learn (usually... )

Here's a final thought though, if it were possible for third parties to make the combat module (kinda like the combat simulator I suppose) then I think most everyone would be happy. I'm not sure if that's really possible though.

[st.patrik]

I guess the reason why I am a little skeptical of some of the suggestions that have been raised is because they strike me as fundamentally changing the good thing that is Dominions.

To my perspective you have to play the game quite a bit before you understand its peculiar charm - before you start appreciating the things that make it truly great. To be honest I find myself suspecting that a lot of new players come in and want to re-make Dominions in the image of other games that they liked.

The most extreme example of this would be the people who come in and say something like "ugh - the graphics are just horrible. you guys (IW) should remake the game with 3d models of all the units which move in lifelike ways". Of course anyone who would say that is simply missing the point: dominions isn't about incredible graphic fx, it's about having more than 1000 different units, etc.

So when I hear someone suggesting player-controlled battles it makes me think that person hasn't fully appreciated the joy of the way it is right now.

[Gandalf Parker]

As far as "need recoding" being an "non-user" argument, it only takes a small amount of programming experience in ANY language to have a decent opinion on this. I have done some programming on both pbem and real-time (Online) games. To me the addition of active controls is on par with if someone said why not make it a first person shooter. OK maybe not that extreme but even adding the interface for controlling the units would be a project. The only half-way method I can picture that wouldnt be extensive coding would be something where you watch the battle but can stop it at any time (or make it run in short spurts) and when paused you can change the instructions on units based on the same set of instructions that you have now.

On the one hand we have threads where people are complaining that the devs arent doing enough with this excellent pbem game, and here is a suggestion to change it into another type of game. Im sorry, this would be neat but Id still rather see one of the few good PBEM games continue on that path rather than spread out to cover another.

[Pocus]

"When it aint broked dont fix it" is perfect for me. I would prefer the devs putting their time in small but convenients/new features (searchbox? hu!), and not hundred of hours for a tac combat module, but thats my personal opinion.

[HJ]

Whoa, a whole lot of anti-critique critiques.... Which can be summed up as "Shuddup, especially if you haven't been here as long as we have, and you're not a buddy of the devs". This is the kind of atmosphere I was refering to as it feels very inflexible and somewhat hostile.

I'm going to address a few issues, and then rest my case.

I am not married to the devs to care where and what they spend their time on. I think they are all mature and intelligent individuals that can judge this for themselves. If someone would address me this way about my work, I'd feel a bit insulted as far as my maturity and intelligence are concerned.

If the issues have been discussed before, fine. I don't have any illusions that people who are against them now weren't against them before as well. Maybe those that advocated the changes before got alienated by this approach, as I am incrasingly starting to feel as well now, so there are nowhere to be found? And this would also imply that nobody can contribute anything further to the discussions, and the people doing that now are simply not intelligent enough to contribute something new which couldn't have been conceived previously by the "wise ones". Again, very unfriendly.

As far as "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". Well, we are talking about a new game here, and not a patch to an existing one. Sure it's based on the Doms I, but the emphasis is on "based". Not all things are the same, and there is room for additions and changes. Who knows, maybe for possible Doms III if not for this incarnation. And the view itself whether something is "broken" or not is subjective, as are all views. It doesn't have to be broken per se for someone to be able to envision something that would be more enjoyable for some.

Lastly, for the "fitting the game into existing templates" argument. Well, you are guilty of exactly the same thing - fitting all future incarnations of Doms into Doms I framework. Sure there is evolution, but that evolution can take different approaches, an I don't see why it shouldn't encompass more of them than simply improving on the existing formula. I'm not saying that you shouldn't get what you want (and that good things shouldn't be retained), but you are saying exactly that - nope, don't implement what others want, even though it doesn't hurt our goodies. To say that there are other games to play if you want those different things would be the same as me telling you "Well, if you liked the concept of Doms I so much, then go and play Doms I, and let's give Doms II a new life". And furthermore, I'm not trying to fit it into existing frameworks: I'm thinking what I would like to see in this particular game within its particular setup. But even if I would be doing something like that, I guess I could also come up with the argument: "It has been proved successful in so many other titles; hence if the concept ain't broken, don't fix it".

The hositilty and resistance to critiques (and I don't mean rude comments, but tactful suggestions) here is very puzzling, and I never had the (mis)fortune to experience it on this level before, despite being a member of many other forums .I have already said this, and I'm going to restate it: Live and let live. I'm not trying to bring down your desires and wishes, so why do you constantly do that to other people is beyond me. It certainly isn't helpful to the growth of the community and the game, the things you deem so dear to your heart.

[ October 24, 2003, 19:17: Message edited by: HJ ]

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by HJ:
Whoa, a whole lot of anti-critique critiques.... Which can be summed up as "Shuddup, especially if you haven't been here as long as we have, and you're not a buddy of the devs". This is the kind of atmosphere I was refering to as it feels very inflexible and somewhat hostile.

That is completely NOT what I was trying to get across.

Discussion is a good thing - a forum like this has the potential to be (and I would argue is) a hotbed of new ideas and innovative suggestions. My point (which you did not respond to) was that some people come in here wanting to re-create dominions as their favourite other game, without first appreciating Dominions for what it is. This is an inherently misguided thing to do, for obvious reasons I think.

Accordingly it is my (humble) opinion that the suggestion to make battles player-controllable is coming from a perspective which has not realised the good thing which it would replace (and therefore destroy). Ergo something I would not want implemented.

Note that none of this implies that it is bad to bring up suggestions, or that they are not welcome, or whatever else. All I would say is that newer converts to Dom I should try to get a feel for why the game is so good, and make suggestions which fit with that rather than cut against it. I don't think this ought to offend anyone - it's a reasonable suggestion.