Player controlled battles???

[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 ]

[Gandalf Parker]

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 am not married to the devs to care where and what they spend their time on.

I will try not to read anything into YOUR comment but in general Im alittle afraid we might be seeing some of the pros and cons of going "professional". With Dom 1 we had the feeling of a garage business by friends of ours. With Dom 2 I think we are going to see more "if I pay this much for a game then....." arguments.

Also, dont necessarily take things as being snide. The fact that things have been discussed to death before IS a fact. One which it would be good to know. Especially with reference to googling for the old conversations. And the fact that there is a large contingent of players who loved Dom 1 shouldnt be a surprise so suggestions that turning Dom 2 into something else could almost (ALMOST) be considered trolling if not done delicately.

[ October 24, 2003, 19:34: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]