Presence of Ambush etc. in MP? Issues and ideas.

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

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Post Reply
Tondo
Posts: 22
Joined: February 28th, 2006, 3:33 pm
Contact:

One more thing

Post by Tondo »

Another thing is what you use ambush for... if you expect it to give you advantage by enemy's unit running unknowingly into ambusher and then the ambusher would fight with some advantage... well, the current system doesnt work like that.

I use the ambush ability to secretly move reinforcements into the "sore point" of the battlefield... and when the enemy thinks he is winning in that area, two elven rangers emerging out of a forrest can turn the balance.

Another thing is assasinating the leader when he keeps alone back from the battle, where ambush can be very useful... and so much fun :)
User avatar
Ranger M
Art Contributor
Posts: 1965
Joined: December 8th, 2005, 9:13 pm
Location: England

Re: Ambush

Post by Ranger M »

Tondo wrote:Also, I would like to see ambush ability extended to high mountains, too, as this in reality is a good terrain for ambushes.
It is already possible in WML to choose which terrain ambush is effective on, but would need a specific unit to get it for it to be used.

You cannot give this ability to the ranger line (for example) because they are supposed to have an advantage in forests, not mountains, such a thing would be unbalenced, and require all of the other factions (and elvish units) to be strenghtened, or the ranger weakened.
Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1680
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Post by Soliton »

I'm content with the ambush/hides ability the way it is now.
I do like the nightstalk ability even more as it is much better from a game balance perspective (with the default ToD cycle).

However if removing the ambush ability but keeping nightstalk would make the code significantly easier to maintain I can see it being removed.

I do not think that point B of Todos arguement is a problem. It makes very much sense to me that a unit with the ambush ability for a certain terrain is visible when it moves over different terrain.
The ambush/hide ability is available for any terrain now, so it's easy to make a unit that hides in the mountains.

As to the "undo cheat" argument, I think this thread has shown that there is no KISS solution to it. Ambush is rarely very useful in "standard games" it's more of an icing, a fun aspect of the unit, so I can live with that.
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott
User avatar
Noyga
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1790
Joined: September 26th, 2005, 5:56 pm
Location: France

Post by Noyga »

Soliton wrote:However if removing the ambush ability but keeping nightstalk would make the code significantly easier to maintain I can see it being removed.
Ambush and Nightstalk are in fact the same [hides] ability, the difference is only a different filter and a different text displayed. There is no ambush specific code.
User avatar
Cuyo Quiz
Posts: 1777
Joined: May 21st, 2005, 12:02 am
Location: South America

Post by Cuyo Quiz »

No hiding nor invisibility (okay, maybe parcial transparency to show that the units is in "ambush" state, of course, you may choose to make it invisible to force the enemy to search for it).

Another way to explain it... if the unit ends the turn out of ZoC (in proper terrain), it enters "ambush" state, in which can't be attacked. This state lasts until the end of the next turn, at which point is re-checked to see if it continues or not. I wonder if the state can be lost when the unit its in ZoC, making the ZoC'er lose all actions, so one actually has to use two units to hurt the ambusher.

Optionally, while in ambush state the unit may have no ZoC, although i don't know all the consequences of that.

Now you can rely on the ambusher to have the offensive/choose-the-time-of-combat AND not be attacked in the turn it gets ZoC'd by a unit.
Possible?. I just want to explore other kinds of advantage instead of "hiding".
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me :D
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8137
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

Soliton wrote:As to the "undo cheat" argument, I think this thread has shown that there is no KISS solution to it.
This thread has shown quite some support for the obvious, and very KISS, solution of get rid of hiding because it has tons of problems.
Soliton wrote:Ambush is rarely very useful in "standard games" it's more of an icing, a fun aspect of the unit, so I can live with that.
Well, that's why we shouldn't be paying huge code upkeep for it. :|

I've explored other possibilities, but they all lead to either "Exploiting isn't bad, stuff it EP I like ambush" or to "oh my gosh that's even more complicated".

I'm still open to new ideas, but I feel we've reached a dead horse here.
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.
Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1680
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Post by Soliton »

Elvish Pillager wrote:
Soliton wrote:As to the "undo cheat" argument, I think this thread has shown that there is no KISS solution to it.
This thread has shown quite some support for the obvious, and very KISS, solution of get rid of hiding because it has tons of problems.
Obviously I meant besides removal. If you think that a vote on it will help go ahead. I actually don't think that most people wil vote for a removal.
Elvish Pillager wrote:
Soliton wrote:Ambush is rarely very useful in "standard games" it's more of an icing, a fun aspect of the unit, so I can live with that.
Well, that's why we shouldn't be paying huge code upkeep for it. :|
As Noyga has pointed out there is no additional upkeep for ambush if we stay with nightstalk. (hint: if you want to be taken seriously don't exaggerate on topics you have no clue about)
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott
User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

Soliton wrote:As Noyga has pointed out there is no additional upkeep for ambush if we stay with nightstalk. (hint: if you want to be taken seriously don't exaggerate on topics you have no clue about)
Well, clearly EP's proposal encompasses Nightstalk as well. And, from what the coders have said, keeping both of them IS a big drain on the code.
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
Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1680
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Post by Soliton »

turin wrote:
Soliton wrote:As Noyga has pointed out there is no additional upkeep for ambush if we stay with nightstalk. (hint: if you want to be taken seriously don't exaggerate on topics you have no clue about)
Well, clearly EP's proposal encompasses Nightstalk as well. And, from what the coders have said, keeping both of them IS a big drain on the code.
I must have missed that clear mentioning then.
However it doesn't change the fact that I'm strongly against removing nightstalk.
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8137
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

Nightstalk is very different from Ambush, true, in practical use.

However, often it's just plain not used, since most people seem to favor the Wraith over the Shadow. I think maybe the Shadow needs major changes. :|
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.
deonjo
Posts: 95
Joined: February 14th, 2006, 2:18 am

Post by deonjo »

how about the idea of eliminating the idea of taking back a move completly? I know that seems to be a controversial suggestion, but I don't see why a unit sould be allowed to go someplace, be taken back, then directed someplace else. I mean, sure you can do it agianst the AI, just like in chess, but there is also a rule in chess when competeing against other in a tournament, that if you even touch the piece, you have to move it. It should also apply to a strategy intensive game like wesnoth. once you make a move, you shouldn't be able to take it back.

I believe that would solve A LOT of problems. now pelet my suggestion with crticism :P
Chris Byler
Posts: 99
Joined: April 14th, 2005, 2:32 pm
Location: Blacksburg, VA, USA

Post by Chris Byler »

The other reason Nightstalk isn't used much IMO is that when you have a shadow, which is chaotic, at night, normally you want it to be fighting something while it has +25% damage on its brutally strong backstab (IIRC, it's 8-3 base, doubled to 16 for backstab, night makes that go up to 20-3...) Nightstalk only triggers if it hangs around at night *not* fighting, which is normally a waste.

Eliminating undo (maybe only in MP; as far as I know hiders don't appear as enemies in campaigns to any significant degree) is indeed a possibility, but it's one that a lot of people seem reluctant to take. As I stated before, I'd rather give up hiding (both existing kinds and the new kinds that are possible in 1.1.1) than give up undo, since that seems to be the choice.
Tippsey
Posts: 226
Joined: May 19th, 2005, 4:41 am

Post by Tippsey »

Hmm get rid of undo. Now that I could live with. After all if we make a mistake we have only ourselves to blame. It would stop some of the key problems with ambushing. Also it would stop the no fog clan from crying so darn much about fog. Hmm heck it might even make people anlyze their moves more, comign up with things that are more foolproof. Not a bad idea deonjo. I could never see it happening but not bad.
May the drakes bloody kill you all.
Deathblower
Posts: 146
Joined: February 14th, 2006, 11:22 pm
Location: England

Post by Deathblower »

I can see your reasoning behind it, but to me undo is vital! I'm a clumsy person and no matter how much care I take I often end up sending a unit to the wrong place by accident. Without undo, this would often mean having to restart the scenario because Haldric is now up for slaughter by a gang of revenants and a demilich.

Please don't get rid of undo. I'm sure I'm not the only one who hopes it stays.

DB
Just a short dude with a lot of time . . .
User avatar
irrevenant
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3692
Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
Location: I'm all around you.

Post by irrevenant »

Deathblower wrote:Please don't get rid of undo. I'm sure I'm not the only one who hopes it stays.
No, I agree with you 100%. IMO, if anything there should be more undo, not less. I don't like this idea that everyday players should have their functionality crippled in order to prevent cheaters. It feels like handing victory to the few bad apples.
Post Reply