Is the game too hard?

[Michael]

It's entirely possible that I simply suck, but I've spent three days trying to beat the Elensefar scenario on easy, and after countless reloads, I finally beat the orc leader, but will still not achieve the scenario's goal, because I probably won't make it down to the necromancer before running out of turns. Right now, I'm fairly frustrated. It doesn't feel easy, and if I have to reload so often, this resembles gambling more than playing an actual strategy game.

As I said, it's possible that I am doing really poor at playing Wesnoth, but I feel that "easy" should be "easy", and not annoying to a degree where I shut down the game and start up Shadow Magic just to relax a couple of hours before bed.

There, I'm done whining! I've tried to attach my turn-24 save game, but the forum said "The Extension array is not allowed". I've uploaded it here instead. The White Mage is in this unfortunate position because it was my only way to slay the orc leader before he healed up health in the village.

[miyo]

http://wiki.wesnoth.org -> GettingStarted
http://wiki.wesnoth.org -> WesnothManual

- Miyo

[Michael]

I've read those. My point is that "easy" pretty much feels like "normal". Easy, in most games, usually just means that: you can win somewhat comfortably without having played the game daily for half a year, or without constant saving/reloading. You do not need to be an expert. I do like a good challenge, but my impression is that Wesnoth's easy mode is too advanced and starts on a level that is too high to be called easy.

On a side note, I actually did beat the scenario, during the last turn (the 28th). I did have to load a few times, since my only chance to win was to get both attacks of the knight in. Worked at the fifth try, but it doesn't really feel good, since it is essentially cheating. I think ten more turns would have made this scenario easier, but not a complete cakewalk. I guess what I'm trying to say is that most people who choose "easy" are beginners, and the game should take this into account.

Below is my replay (0.7.7), if someone would like to analyze it. With just one hundred gold, the Crossroads scenario promises to become frustrating too, judging by what I've read in the strategy section.

[Shundread]

Yes... I've been showing this game to friends and they're all complaining it is too complicated. Perhaps even less gold for AIs at easy would be nice?

[Sangel]

Easy is too hard. It's too hard on HttT, and it's even worse on the other campaigns. This is a fact.

Now, I'm quite happy with Wesnoth being challenging - challenging is a lot of fun. But I definitely feel we're selling our newer players short, particularly as the AI becomes better and better.

The solution: Do not add further AI improvements to the Easy AI. Reserve them for Medium and Hard. Also, remove the "check enemy unit" coding from the Easy AI, or at least make sure it's turned off for all scenarios on Easy.

After that, I suggest listening hard to the complaints of users about "Easy", and modifying levels appropriately. Terrain modifications are an option with the prestart code, along with the more usual gold and recruitment changes.


Wesnoth is a lot of fun played on Medium and Hard - but not everyone wants a real run for their money. Let's give the more casual players a chance to shine.

[Dave]

I agree that 'Easy' is probably too hard at the moment, but I don't think that 'dumbing down' the AI on easy level is the way to go.

I think that the solution is to change various scenario parameters more. This includes, but also goes beyond less gold for the AIs.

- give more turns for completing scenarios. This also increases player's money due to the bonus they get.
- maybe make it easier for the player to advance units by reducing the xp requirements on easy.
- terrain modifications to make maps easier.

David

[Darth Fool]

I agree that 'Easy' is probably too hard at the moment, but I don't think that 'dumbing down' the AI on easy level is the way to go.

I think that the solution is to change various scenario parameters more. This includes, but also goes beyond less gold for the AIs.

- give more turns for completing scenarios. This also increases player's money due to the bonus they get.
- maybe make it easier for the player to advance units by reducing the xp requirements on easy.
- terrain modifications to make maps easier.

David

I completely support the principle of listening to new users comments on the Easy level. Like the professor who thinks that all the test problems are "trivial," it is quite easy to get used to Wesnoth and think something is easy that new users find hard.

I mostly agree with Dave about not messing with the AI at different difficulty levels, although I think that tweaking some parameters on a scenario by scenario basis is reasonable. I also agree about increasing turn lengths and less gold for the AI. terrain modifications to the maps have the side benefit of adding a limited extra replayability.

I don't think that reducing xp requirements is the way to go. It always annoys me in games when the computer cheats by making its units do more damage then usual or leveling up with less XP than a human player is allowed to. Lowering XP requirements for humans is the same thing in reverse. Basically, I think game developers should set up the "laws" of their little universe and then operate within those laws. Changing XP required for the human player, and not his AI opponents seems, at least to me, too much like giving up on creating a balanced universe. We should concentrate on making easy, easier in other ways.

[Privan]

I played through Easy my first time and found it to be too easy. Granted I have to a long background in playing games similar (Shining Force, Final Fantasy Tactics, etc...) and other wargames, but still, it isn't too difficult to beat the enemy if you don't rush. The only map where I haven't seen a good defensive position between you and the enemy is the crossroads map, so that may be an exception. But if you simply build up a good balance of troops and defend a position where the first enemy wave of troops will hit you, the map is as good as yours.

Case in point, I'm playing the first mission of Heir to the Throne on easy (removed the time limit so I can actually kill all the generals and not go straight for the escape route). By building all elven fighters (cheaper so I can push more out) and massing them in one location within the forests south where the level two enemies pop up, I've actually stopped the tide. Because of the bonus elves gain in forests my puny level 1 elven fighters can hold off an even larger force of level 2 wolf riders.

Just don't advance people, let the enemy come to you, crush his initial wave, heal up when he's out of mass troops and only sends one or two your way, then take your troops and kill the general. Because if you can hold off the first 10-15 troops, another 1 or 2 a turn will mean nothing.

Dave, I think the reducing the xp option is probably the best. Not only does it make things a bit easier, but it gives people who play on easy a chance to see the end game troops faster, more incentive to play because I couldn't stand the Knights even when I got a Paladin, but my first taste of a GrandKnight and I'm hooked for life. It's just another little bonus added on with that option.

[Privan]

I've read those. My point is that "easy" pretty much feels like "normal". Easy, in most games, usually just means that: you can win somewhat comfortably without having played the game daily for half a year, or without constant saving/reloading. You do not need to be an expert. I do like a good challenge, but my impression is that Wesnoth's easy mode is too advanced and starts on a level that is too high to be called easy.

On a side note, I actually did beat the scenario, during the last turn (the 28th). I did have to load a few times, since my only chance to win was to get both attacks of the knight in. Worked at the fifth try, but it doesn't really feel good, since it is essentially cheating. I think ten more turns would have made this scenario easier, but not a complete cakewalk. I guess what I'm trying to say is that most people who choose "easy" are beginners, and the game should take this into account.

Below is my replay (0.7.7), if someone would like to analyze it. With just one hundred gold, the Crossroads scenario promises to become frustrating too, judging by what I've read in the strategy section.

#1: You moved too fast and you split your troops. Sacrifice the villiages to stay in the top center forest, or wait by the two right towns for the healing while the enemy comes to you.

#2: You recruited WAY too much. If you keep your troops together you should only need half what you had out there.

[Dave]

I completely support the principle of listening to new users comments on the Easy level.

Yes. Before version 1.0 is released, I plan to have a 'review' of each and every scenario in Heir to the Throne, where users can give comments on the enjoyability, playability, and difficulty of each scenario.

I mostly agree with Dave about not messing with the AI at different difficulty levels, although I think that tweaking some parameters on a scenario by scenario basis is reasonable.

I concur. For instance the AI already specifically targets the player on 'hard' level in 'The Elves Besieged'. I don't think we should have a blanket 'turn off this AI feature' on easy level though.

Among other things, AI changes are some of the hardest to quantify.

We may make it that especially on scenarios with orcs and undead, the AI on easy level uses the 'dumb ever forward marching hordes' approach.

Also an AI that seems harder to one player might be easier for another. In my view, an AI that always charges toward me mindlessly is one of the easiest. I can deal with the threat, and get some experience. To an inexperienced player, such an AI might be more difficult to face, due to its level of aggression.

I don't think that reducing xp requirements is the way to go. It always annoys me in games when the computer cheats by making its units do more damage then usual or leveling up with less XP than a human player is allowed to. Lowering XP requirements for humans is the same thing in reverse. Basically, I think game developers should set up the "laws" of their little universe and then operate within those laws. Changing XP required for the human player, and not his AI opponents seems, at least to me, too much like giving up on creating a balanced universe. We should concentrate on making easy, easier in other ways.

Ahhh I forgot to mention something about this. XP requirements would be reduced for the player and for the AI. If you think about it though, this will benefit the player much more than it will the AI.

I do think that modifying combat stats of units would be a bad idea though.

David

[Neoriceisgood]

Not sure if I'd like the "reduce xp" one since in the end you already have so many leveled units to recall (if you try to keep them alive at the least) people will only get more pissed about them not being able to level anymore; and we get the "more levels!" thing all over again

[Dave]

Not sure if I'd like the "reduce xp" one since in the end you already have so many leveled units to recall (if you try to keep them alive at the least) people will only get more pissed about them not being able to level anymore; and we get the "more levels!" thing all over again

People like this should be playing on a harder difficulty level.

David

[turin]

Not sure if I'd like the "reduce xp" one since in the end you already have so many leveled units to recall (if you try to keep them alive at the least) people will only get more pissed about them not being able to level anymore; and we get the "more levels!" thing all over again

People like this should be playing on a harder difficulty level.

David

should be, but often aren't. just because you want them to doesn't mean they will.

and, just because you say they should switch diff. lvls doesn't mean they won't keep posting the same suggestions because 'the game is too boring', or whatever.

[Dave]

People like this should be playing on a harder difficulty level.

David

should be, but often aren't. just because you want them to doesn't mean they will.

and, just because you say they should switch diff. lvls doesn't mean they won't keep posting the same suggestions because 'the game is too boring', or whatever.

I know and agree. However we are discussing how to make Wesnoth a better game, not how to minimize the number of forum complaints that we don't like.

Making a change because we are afraid of complaints, when we think the change is bad for the game, is a very bad idea. I don't care that much about complaints. We can deal with them. Let's do what's best for the game, and what's best for users in genuine need, rather than worrying about what complaints we might get from users who like playing every game on easy.

However perhaps a solution is to create a new 'very easy' difficulty level with less experience requirements. This would make it clearer to players, and reduce complaints at the same time.

David

[ebo]

I really enjoy the Wesnoth, but when I first started playing, I played the first 4 or 5 scenarios 3 or 4 times before going all the way to test of the clans on HttT. Would it help if we had more tutorial scenarios, and maybe even have the tutorial scenarios go right into the HttT Campaign. Another Idea I had was to do the reduced xp requirements for the tutorial, but give the user a message saying that xp requirements were reduced to make it easier.