Grating diplomacy

[Guv’ner]

This is a diplomacy niggle that I bring to note only because it is such a common message to see.

When you ask for a treaty and it is rejected the AI opponent always gives the following reply

#REJTREATY
#xs 440
#caption $CAPTION7
“My friendship cannot be bought, my good $TITLE1, it must be earned.”

I find the above script.txt diplomacy message a little bit annoying as it seems to imply you offered something even when, on the prior screen, you choose the option:

“Why, my goodwill and friendship, $TITLE0 $NAME1.”

Do you think that something along the lines of the following would be better?:

“To earn my friendship it will take more then that my good $TITLE1.”

[Lord Avalon]

But you did offer something:  both goodwill and friendship, surely worth more than any amount of paltry energy credits or tech.

[Guv’ner]

I should have added hugs and kisses

[Yitzi]

It does make more sense, but would probably require a code change, and isn't a high enough priority for that likely to happen soon unless you can do it.

[Guv’ner]

It's just a change to script.txt (not the hugs and kisses bit). If it were to be part of even an unofficial update though, I think it needs popular acclamation as it were.

[Yitzi]

It's just a change to script.txt (not the hugs and kisses bit).

Yeah, if you're ok with changing it for everything, rather than just when you offered goodwill and friendship.

[Guv’ner]

That was the point of my thread. Is there a problem at all (or is it my poor performing anxiety), and if there is, is that a suitably ambiguous response to all offers.

[ete]

I have found that line quite out of place/jarring. If we're doing more subjective changes, I'd maybe agree with changing it (though “It will take more then that to earn my friendship, my good $TITLE1.” seems to flow better imo). But, I'm not sure about how far to go with this, and for every other option selected previously it works fine.

[Guv’ner]

It does flow better. It would be stretching a point too far to regard it as bugged text. It’s certainly a change I’ll make to my own files but even I can’t justify adding it to an update.

[Mako]

If a change makes sense, and if this community is going to publish an unofficial patch anyhow, I would vote for changing it.

If you think as the AC2.info forum as the "unofficial custodians" of the SMAC legacy, we are very much allowed to do this aesthetic changes in our own unofficial patches.

I say that small things like this should be changed without too much debate. We are already showing respect to the original product by buying it, playing it, and modifying it after 14 years.

I would encourage everyone working in this to feel free to change these kind of things without asking, and only revert it if the members of the community ask for it.

IMHO :-)

[Guv’ner]

I like flagging ideas like this as due to the accumulated game play experience on the boards, people may be able to spot unintended consequences that I’ve missed.

I don’t think there’s any problem with tweaking the sense or logic in parts of the game as long as there is consensus on the changes. Text file changes are obviously easy to make.

[Mako]

Hi,

I agree with you Guv'ner. My comment was more on the line of: "let's not be shy on modyifing four our own purposes a 14-year old game" rather than not having a healthy community discussion.

Keep on the good work!

[Guv’ner]

Your view prevails Mako, into the update it goes.

[Kilkakon]

The text line you mentioned also appears when one says "You need but name your price" when they ask what they get in exchange for a treaty.

[Guv’ner]

The text line you mentioned also appears when one says "You need but name your price" when they ask what they get in exchange for a treaty.

It is slightly more apposite for that particular offer but I think the rewording still works for that

The diplomacy is simplified in the final release and there are other offers and possible rounds that are in the script and could possibly be implemented by one of the three exe modders.