Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
ALX23
Posts: 26
Joined: October 10th, 2008, 2:54 pm

Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by ALX23 »

One thing that makes games less interesting and disbalancing :( (in my opinion)
is that "random" race is generally better than specified a race (mainly due to prior knowledge of enemy race)
For example: one player chose random and got drakes, the other chose drakes
in this case the first player will recruit more augurs and clashers, which are very effective against drakes and will bring superiority from the start,
unlike drake burners (that second player will most likely recruit) that are essential in fighting any other race,
but quite useless fighting drakes they will make the players who chose the race weaker from the very beginning.
There are many examples alike.
I think that this is a problem, and must be solved :!:

And all of these problems won't exist if either both players know or don't know races of others.

I can think on two solutions :eng:
1) :idea: Your choice of race (and leader) is hidden from other players (even to host).
Additionly this will make game a bit more fair since there are some hosts who decide their race in the end,
and some players believe it is unfair.
2) :idea: (Orthogonal to first one) Players should see races (at least initial) of others in the status table (even with fog on).

Definitely these two features must be optional and turned off for some scenarios or at host's will.
I think that in default it should be 1st turned on and 2nd turned off.

I hope to see them implemented in 1.8 :)

User avatar
Aethaeryn
Translator
Posts: 1553
Joined: September 15th, 2007, 10:21 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by Aethaeryn »

ALX23 wrote:I think that this is a problem, and must be solved :!:
And the developers don't think it's a problem, and have rejected these ideas before :!: (I specifically recall reading #1 but I won't bother to search for a link since you clearly did not.)
Aethaeryn (User Page)
Wiki Moderator (wiki)
Latin Translator [wiki=Latin Translation](wiki)[/wiki]
Maintainer of Thunderstone Era (wiki) and Aethaeryn's Maps [wiki=Aethaeryn's Maps](wiki)[/wiki]

Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1605
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by Soliton »

ALX23 wrote:For example: one player chose random and got drakes, the other chose drakes
in this case the first player will recruit more augurs and clashers, which are very effective against drakes and will bring superiority from the start,
unlike drake burners (that second player will most likely recruit) that are essential in fighting any other race,
but quite useless fighting drakes they will make the players who chose the race weaker from the very beginning.
Drake Burners are certainly not essential against most factions.

http://forum.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?p=390626#p390626
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott

User avatar
beetlenaut
Developer
Posts: 2401
Joined: December 8th, 2007, 3:21 am
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by beetlenaut »

Of course there is a disadvantage for being allowed to choose your favorite race. This is not a problem or an accident. It's your first strategic decision in a game.
Campaigns: Dead Water,
The Founding of Borstep,
Secrets of the Ancients,
and WML Guide

ALX23
Posts: 26
Joined: October 10th, 2008, 2:54 pm

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by ALX23 »

beetlenaut wrote:Of course there is a disadvantage for being allowed to choose your favorite race. This is not a problem or an accident. It's your first strategic decision in a game.
It is a kind of decision, but I do not want others to know my decision.
Since this is a feature you may simply turn it off if you want so.
Turuk wrote:Stop the player from being able to cheat by save-reloading (Reason: It's not up to us to control how you choose to play the game. See related discussion)
This statement (underlined) shows us that we should have this feature,
Because I believe this is how the game should be played. And others are not the ones to decide it.
I consider myself cheated when others know my race while I do not know theirs.
I also believe that I am not the only player who thinks so.
WikiWizzzz wrote:And the developers don't think it's a problem, and have rejected these ideas before
Since this is a feature (prestart to game), the only reason for not implementing it is being lazy (or having more important thing to do, or being unable to do it)

Caphriel
Posts: 994
Joined: April 21st, 2008, 4:10 pm

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by Caphriel »

Isn't this an FPI? If not, it should be...

ALX23, write and submit a patch for an option to hide faction and leader from other players in the game lobby. This has been discussed before. If you search, I'm sure you'll find it.

User avatar
Sapient
Inactive Developer
Posts: 4453
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 7:41 am
Contact:

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by Sapient »

http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/User:Sapient... "Looks like your skills saved us again. Uh, well at least, they saved Soarin's apple pie."

ALX23
Posts: 26
Joined: October 10th, 2008, 2:54 pm

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by ALX23 »

Caphriel wrote: ALX23, write and submit a patch for an option to hide faction and leader from other players in the game lobby. This has been discussed before. If you search, I'm sure you'll find it.
I'd love to, but unfortunately I fall under category "unable to". I wouldn't be asking for help if I knew how :(
Sapient wrote: your search results:

viewtopic.php?p=365797#p365797
I have simply checked "frequently proposed ideas" and it wasn't there.
It seems that this simple idea was discussed previously, and perhaps several times.
Therefore, it even more states that it should be implemented as a feature.

If developers believe that this topic holds no purpose...
Is there a place where developers can see what is to be implemented but no one (or too few) currently works on it?
So I'd like to see it added there + adding link to it, from the idea forum so people won't propose these topics again unless they have something really new to add.

If there isn't such place then there should be,
because some ideas are discussed and need no further discussion and needed to be implemented,
but in order for implementation to happen somebody is to reminded of it.
And if it isn't discussed these topics will be somewhere far away forgotten, and most likely not implemented,
and some people will from time to time create topics alike.
If there will be such section "waiting for implementation," where developers can simply look for what is waiting to be added, it would solve this problem.

User avatar
Gambit
Loose Screw
Posts: 3266
Joined: August 13th, 2008, 3:00 pm
Location: Dynamica
Contact:

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by Gambit »

It's one thing to ask for a feature. But to demand it be added to some sort of queue to be handled by the next available representative is rediculous. Did you ever think that the reason it hasn't been done is because they don't want it to be done? Not saying that is true; just something to consider. And did you ever stop to ponder the implications of the fact that all the developers are volunteers? These implications include but are not limited to
1. They're under no obligation to do anything at all let alone your idea
2. They all have their own ideas on improving the game which they are dilligently working on
3. There are many other things to be done first including their ideas

Like I said its not so bad to ask for a feature. We all do that all the time. We either get a thumbs up or a thumbs down. But demanding isn't going to get you anything but dirty looks.


Also both of your solutions to this "problem" will fix certain scenarios but break others.
Not knowing your enemies race is just one more thing to be factored into your strategy. A problem that you either overcome or you don't. It was your choice to choose a faction. You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. if you choose not to decide you still have made choice.

User avatar
Aethaeryn
Translator
Posts: 1553
Joined: September 15th, 2007, 10:21 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by Aethaeryn »

ALX23 wrote:Since this is a feature (prestart to game), the only reason for not implementing it is being lazy (or having more important thing to do, or being unable to do it)
Contradiction. First you say that the only reason is that the developers are lazy, and then you list two other possible reasons. I'd say it's a combination of "having more important thing [sic] to do" and something you didn't mention:

None of the developers seem to mind the way it is and the only people who seem to be bothered by it are unable to submit patches. Their opinions trump the opinions of those who cannot code. It's a sad fact that if you can't persuade a developer and you can't become a developer, your idea will not get developed. Why? They're unpaid volunteers so they have no boss that can demand them to do something they don't want to do...

Also, they might veto it even if you tried to submit a patch for this because the behavior you want to correct is seen by many as a feature not a lack of feature. See what Soliton linked to for why.
ALX23 wrote:If developers believe that this topic holds no purpose...
Is there a place where developers can see what is to be implemented but no one (or too few) currently works on it? So I'd like to see it added there + adding link to it, from the idea forum so people won't propose these topics again unless they have something really new to add.
If the developers believe that this topic holds no purpose, they will either lock or ignore it. To continue the conversation by demanding the feature may make the former will happen rather than the latter...

I think you misread the intention of the link being provided to in the post you're replying to and here's why:

If an idea shows up multiple times and it's not on the FPI list, it won't be implemented merely because it shows up a lot. Rather, it may be added to the FPI list if it comes up enough for being a frequently proposed (and rejected) idea. Feature requests are not popularity contests: if it's been rejected before, it will probably keep being rejected. Not being on the FPI list simply means it hasn't come up often enough, not that the developers haven't rejected it. In this case, arguing that it's shown up a lot will probably get it added to the FPI list rather than a to-do list.

EDIT: Instead of calling developers lazy, perhaps respond to some of the reasons against this proposal that are in the two links provided earlier? It seems that there are reasons for this idea, and it seems that it's not unanimous disapproval, but it also seems like you didn't do any research on past discussions. You assume that the idea was liked and the main issue is that no developer got around to it, but the idea was actually disputed.
Aethaeryn (User Page)
Wiki Moderator (wiki)
Latin Translator [wiki=Latin Translation](wiki)[/wiki]
Maintainer of Thunderstone Era (wiki) and Aethaeryn's Maps [wiki=Aethaeryn's Maps](wiki)[/wiki]

Caphriel
Posts: 994
Joined: April 21st, 2008, 4:10 pm

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by Caphriel »

I can't remember where, and I'm too busy to find the thread right now, but there was limited support for making "conceal faction choice" an option the game host can select when creating a game, but nobody ever actually did it, although one of the developers said it was possible.

User avatar
Gambit
Loose Screw
Posts: 3266
Joined: August 13th, 2008, 3:00 pm
Location: Dynamica
Contact:

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by Gambit »

An addon could be made to move faction selection inside of the scenario. Problem solved. CABD.

Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1605
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by Soliton »

ALX23 wrote:
Turuk wrote:Stop the player from being able to cheat by save-reloading (Reason: It's not up to us to control how you choose to play the game. See related discussion)
This statement (underlined) shows us that we should have this feature,
Because I believe this is how the game should be played. And others are not the ones to decide it.
The underlined reason is specific to artificial restrictions on existing features or really to save-loading. It obviously does not mean that we're going to implement any feature some user wants because he thinks that's how wesnoth should work. The ones doing the work decide what features get implemented and then the user can choose how he wants to use those features.
ALX23 wrote:It seems that this simple idea was discussed previously, and perhaps several times.
Therefore, it even more states that it should be implemented as a feature.
Another non-sequitur. Some controversial game mechanics/features get discussed all the time. In no way does that have any relevance on whether they will get implemented or not. On the other hand if someone actually does some work and implements a feature things look quite different even for controversial ideas.
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott

User avatar
Zachron
Posts: 416
Joined: July 24th, 2007, 5:12 pm
Location: North Central Texas
Contact:

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by Zachron »

Not on the argument of implementation, but on the main topic:

If I recall, which race one chooses is made visible to ALL players in just about every multiplayer strategy game out there.
ALX23 wrote:
beetlenaut wrote:Of course there is a disadvantage for being allowed to choose your favorite race. This is not a problem or an accident. It's your first strategic decision in a game.
It is a kind of decision, but I do not want others to know my decision.
Since this is a feature you may simply turn it off if you want so.
And one misses the point entirely. The decision itself is whether or not one wishes one's decision to be seen. To choose your faction without everyone seeing would make choosing a faction definitively wiser than clicking "Random." The advantage is you know what you are, but the trade-off is, so does everyone else. If you do randomize, you don't know who you are until you start, but you are also the first to know who you are. This is how it's done in EVERY strategy game I've ever seen, and this is how it's done in Wesnoth... this a rare case where WIN... is not applicable but OAB is.
Project Battlescar: An rpg engine of my own design.
http://battlescar.wikispaces.com/

User avatar
Limabean
Posts: 350
Joined: August 26th, 2008, 2:14 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Multiplayer: Balancing "random race" vs specified one

Post by Limabean »

ALX23: Random provides a reward to players who practice with every faction. You could chooses to specialize, playing only as drakes for example, and you would become very good with them. However, you would be denied the slight advantage random offers because you wouldn't know how to play any other factions.

It's is an incentive to learn the whole game, rather than just a part of it.
When a scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
-Arthur C. Clarke-

Locked