Features for 0.8

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

Post by miyo »

I like the idea of village and fortification (castle) being on top of terrain. both could increase defense by 10% (keep+fortification allows recruit/recall while villages give healing and income).

- Miyo

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

Re: Confusing tables

Post by miyo »

Dave wrote:The ones in the Wiki at http://wesnoth.slack.it/?MoveTypeTables ?

If the latter, then I would suggest that these are a developer's reference rather than something that is supposed to be used by users. After all, users aren't even meant to know about movement types such as armoredfoot.
Moved entry from 'User information' to 'Developer information'

- Miyo

Christophe33
Posts: 826
Joined: January 21st, 2004, 1:10 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by Christophe33 »

miyo wrote:
Christophe33 wrote:Any taker for a diffferential % chance to hit between range and melee attack?
I think this breaks the KISS.

- Miyo
It breaks it only in two :) (two table instead of one) and only for the developper...For the player it will just says something like:
"sword 5-4 50%, bow 3-3 30%". It still stays very simple for the player, there is no calculation needed (no additionnal factor), just allows to consider separtely the effect of terrain for a range weapon and for a melee weapon. There is enough difference between the requirement for range fight (line of sight, cover) and melee (ease of movement to duck/parry enemy attack) to account for variation in % chance to hit between both weapon type. The terrain where a unit stand is the only factor used to determine the % chance of being hit (a lvl0 walking corpse has the same chance to hit an enemy than a lvl3 elfish champion would). So it has to be use to generate all the wanted variations to make the game interesting and avoid repetiveness. Having always the same chance to hit while using in theory very different weapons with very different properties makes the game a bit flat.
As an example you could give elf a 20% chance only to be hit by range weapon in forest againsta 40% chance to be hit in melee or an horseman would have 60 or 70% chance to be hit by range weapon on plain (no cover and easy to see) but only 40% chance in melee because off the defensive advantage provided by the horse and speed of movement.
Flying unit would also be easier to hit with range weapon in plain or other terrain with little cover but not so easy in mlee since they can fly out of range to avoid being hit. If you want I can make a list with the proposed difference such as to have somet materail to discuss upon instead of just rejecting the idea because it adds one single line to a table almost nobody ever look at.
Never tell a dwarf that he shortchanged you!

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

Post by miyo »

I do calculate, analyze situations and form tactics in my head. So adding complexity makes the game harder at least for me. I already quite often forget to take effect of resistances in account (except for skeleton, those are easy to remember: don't use piercing, use crushing).

And you can't undo so easily when there is FoW, so when you see the "combat analysis" you quite often can't anymore undo. You can still select not to attack, but one "attack slot" is lost as you can not move unit with more suitable attack on that hex.

- Miyo

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

Post by turin »

you would have to display two chances of hitting. how are you going to do that?
plus, i like it how it is, with no real difference between melee and ranged (i am sure that it would even be possible for me to make a new kind, unblockable, that you could not defend against). often i don't decide which to use until i get to the attack screen, and what if i am fighting a great melee unit that is hard to hit with ranged? what am i going to do?
don't add any more factors to the game. the strategy is hard as it is- more factors won't help the game, only hurt it.
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

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

Post by miyo »

turin wrote:you would have to display two chances of hitting. how are you going to do that?
In attack dialog every attack shows hit chances so that is not a problem.
turin wrote:don't add any more factors to the game. the strategy is hard as it is- more factors won't help the game, only hurt it.
I agree.

- Miyo

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

Post by turin »

what i mean is how are you going to show it before the person moves there? usually you can easily find out what chance of hitting your person has before he goes there, but if there are two different chances, how are you going to show it?
this is really an, i guess, technical question, but i still think it is is very important.
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

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

Post by miyo »

We already show defense value of highlighted unit on up-right corner (top panel). In this case we would just need to show two defense values: one for melee and one for ranged. So no technical (UI) problem here.

Still, I am against adding different defense values for melee and ranged. KISS.

- Miyo

Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

I think there is a more fundamental problem to castles than needing to increase defensive values in them. The problem is that few defenders have enough troops to fill up their entire castle. This means that the attacker can get into the castle easily enough, and get the same defensive bonuses as the defender.

I think that a change that could be made is to give an extra defensive bonus for units in a castle, when their side controls the keep.

This would make it genuinely difficult to attack castles, since as long as their leader is alive, defenders in the castle would be difficult to hit.

I don't think it'd be completely 'realistic', however I think it's the simplest way to represent the concept of castles being difficult to attack.

Any thoughts?

David

PS Heavy Infantry are already powerful enough in this game! :)
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming

Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

I've just realized that asking for all feature suggestions for 0.8 in a single thread was a really bad idea :)

If there's one thing that Wesnoth users seem to be able to produce an infinite amount of, it's feature requests :-p

Anyhow, could we please stop posting to this thread now, and start putting feature requests in new threads?

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming

Locked