RFE: no trading

[NTJedi]

DrPraetorious said:
This has come up in multiplayer games - it would be nice if there were a toggle (and a corresponding flag) to disable sending gems, gold, etc. to other players - the concept being that this would reduce the tendency to form alliances.

This would be a useful feature for the multiplayer games... at least the ones I'm playing.

Gandalf Parker said:
The most dangerous part of alliances that I see is the non-aggression pacts. And I cant come up with a way to control that.

Only one solution would be to have all participants swear and give their word the game will have no trading or communication. Also the host would have to personally know the individuals to ensure they are trustworthy to the agreement. A toggling feature to disable sending gems, gold, messages, etc, would also help for this scenario.
Otherwise in a game of complete strangers its currently not possible. Diplomacy is a major part of the multiplayer gaming.

[HoneyBadger]

Therein lieth the rub, Twan. Humans are social creatures, and we tend to form alliances. These alliances take all sorts of forms, friendships, relationships, forums, etc.

The nations in Dom3 are fundamentally unsocial towards each other. If they weren't, then you could have a much more extensive trade-based economy and a diplomatic engine in the game-things that apparently are prevented from due to "the nature of the game"

Outlawing alliances would probably be the most powerful step that could be taken. I don't know how easily you could sniff out cheaters though-and monitoring everyone for cheating isn't really very fun, is it? and like Twan said, it's absurd to expect that particular "law" to be followed well by everyone.

[Gandalf Parker]

It could be controlled I believe thru a PbEM game using blind email addresses, and careful monitoring of the game log. Such as, if I started a game called Blind on my server and gave the Ermor access to an email account of "Blind Ermor" BE@dom3minions.com and gave Ulm access to "Blind Ulm" BU@dom3minions.com then Id be able to track most actions.
But it seems awfully intrusive.

Honestly though, Im also torn on the subject. Personally I love alliances. I wouldnt want to create a game that allows proof and bragging that my strategy can beat your strategy by cutting out trading, alliances, messages, random events, etc. Id rather create a game that has majorly boosted AIs and game situations, and then bill it as a game of alliances between the human players.

[HoneyBadger]

I think it would be really valuable to hear the Devs' personal feelings on the subject and what their vision of the game's background as relates to alliances and trading is.

As to the extent of trade, diplomacy, and possible alliances that goes on in a Dom3 "world", they're the only ones who can really give us anything close to "the facts of the matter".

Anything anyone else comes up with is just gut-feeling, speculation, and conjecture based on what we think the Devs kinda-sorta-maybe had in mind when they wrote "such and such. The Devs atleast can give us the "Canon".

[solo]

HoneyBadger said:
I think it would be really valuable to hear the Devs' personal feelings on the subject and what their vision of the game's background as relates to alliances and trading is.

I think the developers intended diplomacy to be a part of the MP game, since sending messages and trading gems, gold and magic items are possible.

I don't find myself using these options at all SP games against the AI, so am somewhat puzzled by players who have concluded that using diplomacy and trade in MP play is not thematic.

I don't believe that adding restrictions and limiting player choices is the way to improve the gameplay.

Players who prefer to play games without diplomacy and trade already have the option of playing duels, where they can pit their skills against those of another human opponent.

[Gandalf Parker]

Im not down on the strategy-vs-strategy games. They just arent my cup of tea so Im not motivated to try and figure out how to make them better.

But I have done SOME thinking on blind-man games. It has a draw to it. Personally I will defend the impressions of "Gandalf Parker", the virtual persona, more than my desire to win a game. Im a trusted ally and I want that to continue from game to game. But there are times when I wish I could join a game anonymously and play as an *******.

Maybe down the road when Ive figured out how to do better alliance games, I will put some time into putting up some blind-man games. And maybe even some enforcable no-alliance games.

[Agrajag]

Gandalf, just don't forget that the blind-man games will likely draw the attention of similar people (ie, those that feel like being *******s), so those games could get a little more "crazy" then you'd expect

[Archonsod]

HoneyBadger said:
Outlawing alliances would probably be the most powerful step that could be taken. I don't know how easily you could sniff out cheaters though-and monitoring everyone for cheating isn't really very fun, is it? and like Twan said, it's absurd to expect that particular "law" to be followed well by everyone.

If someone is going to cheat, there's not a thing you can do to stop them. As Gandalf said, even removing the entire diplomacy/trade system from the game won't prevent someone determined to trade. Even if you blocked that aspect of Dominions, there's nothing to stop them communicating via their personal email address or any number of methods with which they could co-operate.
I don't see the need of a toggle for that reason. If you agree beforehand there's to be no alliances and someone decides to cheat then turning off diplomacy won't prevent it, merely move it to less obvious methods.
I also don't think it should be removed from the game entirely. It should be up to me whether my God is willing to use other pretenders to achieve his goal or not

[TwoBits]

Remember, the Nazis and Soviets were "allies" (or at least had a non-aggression pact) once upon a time. They carved up Poland together, and even traded things like oil and weapons (= gems and magic items).

Just goes to show that even so-called "natural enemies" can make temporary bargains.

[DrPraetorious]

I think, in fact, that it is healthy and natural for people to gang up on weaker or stronger opponents. As the Hitler-Stalin example illustrates, this is the sort of thing different religions, even if they completely hate one another by dogma, would do for their own self interest.

The problem I have, so far, is with non-agression pacts. Players of dom3 have read too much game theory, or are too honest, or whatever, and are TOO TRUSTWORTHY.

As yet, I have never had the terms of a NAP betrayed - I've had wars after a NAP expired, but even those are rare. I feel kinda silly complaining about this, but the fact that everyone keeps their word makes non-agression pacts too attractive.

Maybe I just haven't played MP with a diverse enough crowd - but in ferion, for example (www.ferion.com), people trech (or bend the words of a non-binding treaty) all the time. Of course, ferion has built in, game mechanical, binding treaties - so these agreements are between alliances (i.e. alliance 1 and 2 agree to attack alliance 3 until it is dead, but alliance 2 attacks alliance 1 slightly before alliance 3 is finished off.)

To this end, I think game mechanical support for alliances, NAP etc. might almost be preferable, as players might then feel free to trech on non-binding gentleman's agreements etc. But this opens up an entire diplomatic can of worms that might ruin the (highly attractive) simplicity of dom3 politics, so I think it's probably more trouble than it's worth (coding difficulty aside.)

Anyhoo - if you have a gentleman's agreement to not communicate out of game, and if all in-game messages are suspended, that ought to be sufficient. You'll still get an occasional pre-arranged cheater, but approaching your neighbor and offering a NAP (if it is forbidden to do so) is probably enough of a risk that people wouldn't do it.