The Battle for Wesnoth Forums

Your problem is so reoccurring and old for Wesnoth, it got some solutions. Refer to my signature to get multiplayer solution. In the future maybe there will be also campaign patch.
I would like everyone aware of my solution to inform about it in such threads. Thank you in advance.

Chains, I cannot help you with binary for ubuntu. I hope in the future there will be more compilations for various platforms. At the moment you might try using windows emulator http://www.winehq.org/download/ . I realize it is a half-measure - but at the moment - the only way to avoid compilation. T...

I consider the filter of open games a valuable improvement. I know it is implemented in 1.7.3 as I used it for my mod. What I suggest though is filter for lobby messages, that AFAIK is not implemented, at least not till 1.7.3 tag: I did not notice however if there is a feature request for filtering...

I really think that the problem is with maintaining of the code and more importantly balancing of factions for all possible settings. As I hope we all know weapon specials (apparent ones: slow and poison) are prone to imbalance if they are sure to hit. IMHO that is a far bigger problem that atm is ...

I consider the filter of open games a valuable improvement. I did not notice however if there is a feature request for filtering lobby messages. Also option for clearing the messages history in lobby would not be a bad idea.

@Noy: I am not going to discuss anything you write, so waste no time. Consider why your post tells more about you than about me.
@Those who read Noy's posts - please check the sources and base your own opinion on that.

No, there is no rule that says every feature must be given a chance. However by implementing the feature you've made a big step in the right direction. I do not consider feature request a feature. 'Do it for me' was never my approach (the thing is I find implementing more fun than bugging). But in ...

However, after reading Soliton's post I see now that that portion of it alters the damage as well (don't know how I missed that before). Perhaps the expected battle result calculation will still be difficult, but I still think separating the two ideas makes a patch more acceptable. Thoughts? Everyt...

And here you have given a very good reason why we aren't going to just implement anyone's luck system into the game. If we do, that'll immediately fragment our multiplayer server based on different people using different luck options, and for anyone new to the game this is just going to be confusin...

Dave, dig into my mod, try it - and consider if your concept is needed IF the mod functionality would be merged into mainline ... You have PM.

@Soliton: nothing more is needed. Well, I'd say that is the worst way to reduce randomness by introducing another random factor. But I guess that'd be irrational. Well, I put it like this: if "normalize damage"is set to > 1, the result damage is the average of n "trial" hits, wh...

@Soliton: nothing more is needed.

Are there any plans to update the expected battle results? I took a brief look at the attack_prediction code but I'd have to study it a heck of a lot more before I knew how difficult the update would be. The round__ kludge you put in there is a bit ugly. You could either use floor(x+0.5) since the ...

@Sauron: Perhaps just making the mod for the stable version would be more efficient, as you may have 3 free days everytime it updates, and the 1.Stable.x versions keep all the same engine. I do not intend my work as mod - and never did. What I want is patch to source. The code I wrote is good enoug...

Well, thank you Yogibear for explaining what the mod is about. I would like to add that beside the split damage option the mod also allows bernoulli-smoothing - one can set the output damage to be an effect of 1 roll or average of more rolls - up to 99 per one strike. Of course to make special attac...