Do 1/3 of Wesnoth players really want a non-random mode?

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:

I want Battle for Wesnoth to have a non-random (deterministic) option -- all attacks always hit and do full damage (modified by terrain defense)

Yes
13
14%
No
55
61%
No, but I don't care if it gets added because I can ignore it
22
24%
 
Total votes: 90

scott
Posts: 5242
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: Alexandria, VA

Do 1/3 of Wesnoth players really want a non-random mode?

Post by scott » September 23rd, 2004, 2:16 pm

muxec wrote: If so ask those who really want determenism. Please do not close this thread.
Since muxec is coding this mod to Wesnoth and releasing it as another game, let's stop using the BFW forums for discussing it.

So if we get 1/3 who say yes, we can please move these threads to Game Development (a place to discuss other free games)

If we get less than 1/3, can we then close these threads?

brakett

Re: Do 1/3 of Wesnoth players really want a non-random mode?

Post by brakett » September 23rd, 2004, 3:17 pm

scott wrote:
muxec wrote: If so ask those who really want determenism. Please do not close this thread.
Since muxec is coding this mod to Wesnoth and releasing it as another game, let's stop using the BFW forums for discussing it.

So if we get 1/3 who say yes, we can please move these threads to Game Development (a place to discuss other free games)

If we get less than 1/3, can we then close these threads?

I dont get it. Why do so many people think that this would be so horrible? I would not hurt those who don't want it and its not like this is something thats flooding the forum.

User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Do 1/3 of Wesnoth players really want a non-random mode?

Post by Elvish_Pillager » September 23rd, 2004, 3:41 pm

brakett wrote:its not like this is something thats flooding the forum.
YES IT IS!!!
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.

User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Do 1/3 of Wesnoth players really want a non-random mode?

Post by turin » September 23rd, 2004, 4:17 pm

brakett wrote:its not like this is something thats flooding the forum.
Its not only flooding the forums (thanks to *cough* no one in particular :roll: ), it is also wasting dev's time that they probably would prefer to spend coding a useful feature, debugging, or not working on wesnoth at all...
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm

User avatar
Jetrel
Art Director
Posts: 7242
Joined: February 23rd, 2004, 3:36 am
Location: Midwest US

Post by Jetrel » September 23rd, 2004, 5:14 pm

I could go for a slightly "less random" option, but not a wholly deterministic mode.

A bit of the middle ground, leaning heavily in the "random" direction, would be quite nice.


I will note that many of my complaints have been stymied by additions to the game - for example, in HTTT, the player now has tanks, in the form of dwarves. Since the dwarves can now move at a decent speed in forest, they can at least keep up, with the faster elves and humans flanking.

It's fun.


Such tanks are not necessary in multi, since it doesn't matter if you lose high-level units, as it is only a single-level game.

muxec
Posts: 119
Joined: September 21st, 2004, 5:02 pm

Post by muxec » September 23rd, 2004, 7:51 pm

I did not say absolutely determenistic. I said there are several options and one of them is mean damage of all attack randomly divided between subattack and another one is mean damage +-1/3

Also do not forget that players who visit this forum are hardcore funs of this game as is and people who love this game less (maybe due to combat system) do not post here.

User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin » September 23rd, 2004, 7:56 pm

muxec wrote:I did not say absolutely determenistic. I said there are several options and one of them is mean damage of all attack randomly divided between subattack and another one is mean damage +-1/3
right... the poll isn't perfect. It will still give an idea, though. I think it says a lot that option 2) is leading by far.
muxec wrote:Also do not forget that players who visit this forum are hardcore funs of this game as is and people who love this game less (maybe due to combat system) do not post here.
Irrelevant.

yes, there are people who won't like the game. no, that is not a problem.

(remember... it has been said that for every user who gives feedback, there are 9 who don't. And... you don't know why the 9 don't. You can't make arguments based on why you think they don't.)
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm

Dacyn
Posts: 1855
Joined: May 1st, 2004, 9:34 am
Location: Texas

Re: Do 1/3 of Wesnoth players really want a non-random mode?

Post by Dacyn » September 23rd, 2004, 9:40 pm

I want Battle for Wesnoth
But as it is not going to be in BfW regardless of the result of this poll, how is that a good poll question? I would ask
I would be interested in a mod of Wesnoth that
or something like that, but I don't see how the first question is relevant.
scott wrote:if we get 1/3 who say yes
Did you pull that number out of thin air? :)
I think the mod should be allowed in the Game Development forum unless some mods get annoyed. The number of supporters has nothing to do with it IMO. It is not like we did a poll to find out how many people were interested in SteelP's mod before allowing it on the forums.

silene
Posts: 1109
Joined: August 28th, 2004, 10:02 pm

Re: Do 1/3 of Wesnoth players really want a non-random mode?

Post by silene » September 23rd, 2004, 10:11 pm

Dacyn wrote:Did you pull that number out of thin air? :)
No he didn't. It's what muxec was asserting in his "Customization" thread.
muxec wrote:These ideas are frequently proposed, it means almost one third of players want them implemented.

muxec
Posts: 119
Joined: September 21st, 2004, 5:02 pm

Post by muxec » September 23rd, 2004, 10:53 pm

Did you pull that number out of thin air?
Yes. It's known as apriori aproximation

User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin » September 23rd, 2004, 10:56 pm

muxec wrote:
Did you pull that number out of thin air?
Yes. It's known as apriori aproximation
in other words completely meaningless...

(and, i suspect, innacurrate.)
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm

scott
Posts: 5242
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: Alexandria, VA

Post by scott » September 23rd, 2004, 11:12 pm

turin wrote: in other words completely meaningless...

(and, i suspect, innacurrate.)
We shall see.




I think mods are perfectly welcome in Game Development, regardless of results, but the suspense/curiousity was killing me.
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.

pg
Posts: 201
Joined: September 20th, 2004, 4:57 pm

Post by pg » September 24th, 2004, 12:43 am

I think it might be interesting to at least test out. It may even play better who knows? Personally I find single player somewhat frustrating because a run of bad luck means you have to start over sometimes due to how hard Wesnoth is. I love the challenge but it does feel cheap sometimes. In multiplayer I like the randomness because it makes things more interesting and doesn't feel cheap when playing vs humans.

miyo
Posts: 2201
Joined: August 19th, 2003, 4:28 pm
Location: Finland

Post by miyo » September 24th, 2004, 7:21 am

pg wrote:I think it might be interesting to at least test out.
I don't think we need to test every suggestion - we can just follow the vision. And simple testing does not really help... things need to be tested thoroughly and for a long period of time to get any real statistics... instead of loudest person saying how it is.
pg wrote:It may even play better who knows?
For some it will be, for others it will be not.

- Miyo

User avatar
Viliam
Translator
Posts: 1341
Joined: January 30th, 2004, 11:07 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
Contact:

Post by Viliam » September 24th, 2004, 9:13 am

Jetryl wrote:I could go for a slightly "less random" option, but not a wholly deterministic mode.
The "randomness" control in settings (if there will ever be any) does not have to be a checkbox. It could allow more or less randomness - one extreme would be the current rules, other extreme completely deterministic game, then some values between.

My problem with the modes is that it would change the difficulty of single players campaigns. In multiplayer - as long as all players agree on some value - I see no problem. (But I also do not see a problem with rules as they are now.)

In my opinion, randomness in game is good. With randomness, when you attack enemy unit, maybe you kill him, maybe not. Without randomness, you know that the possibility of killing enemy unit can be calculated. These calculations can be difficult. Imagine 10 your units and 7 enemy units close to each other, now how many combinations of attacks are there? And you want to use the best combination, don't you? If you do not calculate best combinations, and opponent does, it can be a big disadvantage. But calculating all possible 10 vs 7 unit attack orders, it too much, too boring. Without randomness, more (deeper) calculation means advantage, but removes fun. With randomness, too deep calculations become almost useless.

Post Reply