vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+ ?

kasnavada · #1 March 29th, 2008, 06:27 AM

The game currently doesn't support 3 way fights. The battle system would have to change so it can support it.

Ideas : instead of having two sides, you would have the first two 'first' sides fighting each other and having the third one coming from the side. Or, to keep a closer "layout" compared to what exists now, from the back of one of the nations involved (the 3rd attacker could chooses which one ? as a bonus ?

). Or something else.

Rathar · #2 March 29th, 2008, 08:06 AM

My apologies, I trust you will understand what I mean when I say that my impulsive original statement did not include such words as weenie but rather worse terms for the male genitalia.

Anyways..

It has seemed to me that this idea in general and the topic that there are certain "way messed up bugs if you take advantage of them" has been dominating the airwaves recently.

Personally, I think that as long as you spell out the 'Rules' ala Velusion(Really simplistic, common sense structure imho) style then anything goes. Use common sense.

If someone uses a "known" bug then say "uh, thats a known bug. Would you like to reconsider? Due to x,y and z?"

We aren't using Napoleonic law folks.. At least most of us!? Be less quick to judge your neighbors. Give people the benefit of the doubt. If they lie, you get the karma!

At any rate!..

I think that VOTD should peak at actual "in game" souls I.E. those which have been slain during the "normal" game phase. This increase due to slaying the dead is BS!" "Total BS!" he said.

triqui · #3 March 29th, 2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Rathar said:
My apologies, I trust you will understand what I mean when I say that my impulsive original statement did not include such words as weenie but rather worse terms for the male genitalia.

I, myself, didnt find it an insult. I understood it as it was, so no problem from me there.

Agrajag · #4 March 29th, 2008, 08:34 AM

Quote:

kasnavada said:
The battle system would have to change so it can support it.

So basically, completely redesigning and implementing one of the most basic parts of the game?
This (well, all of your change, really) will not happen in a patch. Dom4 is not anywhere in sight (ie it isn't even planned to be released sometimes eventually in the uncertain future).
So why bother with it?
I can understand that it's fun to fantasize, but you have to realize and understand that this is just a fantasy.

kasnavada · #5 March 29th, 2008, 09:22 AM

I've been saying that it won't happen since the start. Check post #592492 : "It could require (a lot of) work from the devs". My next posts also say it :
(autoquote)
"That is ONE solution among many that make it work. It could require too much changes to game mechanics. I propose it anyway, who knows, maybe it'll be there for dominions 4."
"I hope that this time I won't get stupids answers like "you change the game" or "it's not going to be this way because it requires too much work", because it's off-topic."

I don't have the vanity to decide whether the adjustements would really require too much work, however. I've never seen or modified the dominions 3 code, after all.

If you say "it won't happen because the workload could be too much", I would just have said yes, and left the matter pass as I intended. If someone says "it doesn't work because the workload is too important", it's simply wrong. A solution can work even if it is not put in place, even if another one is better. For example, you can cross an ocean with a plane, a boat, a bridge, or a tunnel. The tunnel and bridge will probably never be put into place because it would take too much ressources, but the tunnel and bridge solution still works regarless.

I didn't answer again and again because I want this solution to be in the game. I answered because the arguments that were put to silence it were wrong.

Agrajag · #6 March 29th, 2008, 09:32 AM

I'm not saying you said something that is incorrect, but are you sure that multiplayer-daydreaming about Dom4 is really on topic in a thread about VotD?

kasnavada · #7 March 29th, 2008, 09:43 AM

Yes, it belongs here, since it does solve what others and I see as the "problem" in VotD as a side effect. The time limit problem.

I agree that it's not enough to monopolise the discussion for pages though. I didn't intend to have to explain how it worked for pages, but had to because someone didn't get the difference between "it won't happen" and "it doesn't work".

[img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif[/img]

Some people here are not natives (myself included). Using the right words for the right meaning avoids pointless misunderstandings, especially on a forum.

Agrajag · #8 March 29th, 2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

kasnavada said:
Yes, it belongs here, since it does solve what others and I see as the "problem" in VotD as a side effect. The time limit problem.

Then I will disagree, will then state that perhaps this is better suited to a thread like "Dom4 wishlist" and conclude by leaving the issue before this thread becomes too much of a meta-thread

kasnavada · #9 March 29th, 2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Then I will disagree, will then state that perhaps this is better suited to a thread like "Dom4 wishlist" and conclude by leaving the issue before this thread becomes too much of a meta-thread

Well, somewhere above, someone said that this issue about VotD was discovered and debated during dominions 2, so... putting a wish that could possibly be granted only for dominions 4 didn't seem strange to me.

Sorry all for monopolising the thread for so long about a side issue, now that I got answers from other people, I've nothing to add. Whoever reads will have enough information to make it's own decision.