Bad Ideas in 1.3?

[AI]

Yeah, 1.3 is much more clear than 1.2, but the first time I saw it I thought it looked _futuristic_, not exactly the goal for a fantasy game

of course, futuristic can be translated to mean "really slick"

[Viliam]

In my opinion, the commercial feel has two parts; one good and one bad.

The good part is that things look finished and understandable -- it is easy and pleasant to use them. For example the map scrolling is better than jumping, because it is obvious what happened, even when player sees it for the first time. (If scrolling is too slow, probably the solution could be like this: scrolling speed should not be linear, but it should gradually increase and decrease, so 4× longer distance would only take 2× more time to scroll to. For very long distances it could be acceleration + jump + slowing, so the player would see in which direction the screen jumped.)

The bad part is that new things are added only to "look nice", without contributing to the real value. For example standing animations -- they do not contribute to strategical aspect of game, neither they make user interface easier. Their only functionality is to artificially attract your eyes. (Commerce brings the fight for customer's attention to high levels where it becomes unpleasant. This is why we hate advertisings and spams, and why they are producing it.) You would make standing animations in commercial game only to make people look at it even if nothing interesting happens there; because the more they look the more they buy.

[torangan]

Standing animations are intended to make the screen less boring if you have to wait a long time in MP.

BTW this whole discussion is rather useless as 1.3 is already in feature freeze.

[Alink]

The bad part is that new things are added only to "look nice", without contributing to the real value. For example standing animations -- they do not contribute to strategical aspect of game, neither they make user interface easier.

Actually, standing animations have already a tiny strategic value:
a unit play it only if no enemy is around. If it was possible to stay ambushed near an enemy, this could even be used to detect hidden units.

I am not specialist in animation filter, but i think it's already possible to use different standing animations to show more info about the current status of the unit (hidden, slowed, poisoned, under leadership, near death or leveling, on good/bad terrain defense, under good/bad ToD, still having a green orb etc...)
Of course, it needs probably too much art, but maybe some generic sprite modifications can be used (add blood on wounded units, make poisoned units shaking or coughing...)

So, I think it's the kind of WML power having potential to be used both for eye-candy and gameplay ideas (like ellipses, team flags, illuminate-halo, etc...)

[megane]

Actually, standing animations have already a tiny strategic value:
a unit play it only if no enemy is around. If it was possible to stay ambushed near an enemy, this could even be used to detect hidden units.

...except that, well, it isn't possible to stay hidden near an enemy...

Also, IIRC, units still play idle anims when adjacent to enemies; if the filter was set up so that they did not, and you could hide next to an enemy, then yes.

[Federalist marshal]

IMO idle animations are a bit more suited to RTS games. Each sprite represents a unit. The sprite represents the appearance and position of the unit, not what the unit is doing. But in RTS what you see is what you get.
I don't think idle animations should be removed completely, though. I think too much work has been put into them for that.

[vicza]

I think, the worst idea in 1.3 was renaming holy attack to arcane and then giving this arcane attack to undead. In 1.2 and previous versions, it was quite clear: there was a holy attack, perform it could only those connected with priesthood in some way (white mages, paladins, merman priestess), and UD most suffered from it. Now it's something abstract: anyone can perform it (white mages, elvish sorceress, dark mages, even ghosts), a lot of people vulnerable (elfes, trolls, wooses...; but UD, to the contrary, are less vulnerable now). Later on, white mages' attack (already weakened by changing UD resistance) was yet more decreased by changing to 9-3. I'd say, 1.3 is pro-UD version.


Besides, the end-of-scenario dialog was changed. In 1.2, they asked you whether do you want to delete autosaves. Now they either being deleted automatically (but they can be still needed sometimes), or not deleted at all (and you must do it manually). What was bad in traditional windows with buttons?
And these translucent windows... What for? Is that Windows Vista, or Battle for Wesnoth? I know only one real reason for a window to be translucent: when it's some kind of notification. For example, you do some work, and then your e-mail client pops up a message, that you have new mail. You can switch to it, or you can just ignore it and continue your work. But here, you have to read and react on these windows anyway, why translucency, then?


(Though, I must admit, there are some useful interface improvements in 1.3.x. The clock in the status line, an "attack arrow", changing units' HP-bar during fight (it was in 1.0, but in 1.2 got lost somehow), just finished scenario not switched to the next automatically... So I'm now using 1.3.7 with units' attacks and resistances changed back to 1.2 )

[anakayub]

Changing holy to arcane totally fixed Ud vs Ud without affecting balance of other matchups; I don't see why it was bad in any way. Afterall, the game is about faction vs faction, and thus I don't feel any particular unit sentiments.

[turin]

Besides, the end-of-scenario dialog was changed. In 1.2, they asked you whether do you want to delete autosaves. Now they either being deleted automatically (but they can be still needed sometimes), or not deleted at all (and you must do it manually). What was bad in traditional windows with buttons?

On this, I agree with you. The new method is clunky and really rather irritating to use. I thought the implementation was nonsense when it was introduced, but I was willing to give it a try - I've now decided, yes, the implementation was nonsense.

[turin's rant]

What specifically is wrong with it? Essentially, the idea that you're going to have a general preference on the matter (of keeping/deleting autosaves), rather than decide on a case-by-case basis, is flawed.

I've found myself with the "delete autosaves" option off, and continuously have to go through the saves list and manually delete the accumulated autosaves - but I don't dare turn "delete autosaves" off because often when I win a scenario I don't want the autosaves to be deleted, and while under the old system I could make this decision when it prompted me - "do you want to delete autosaves? yes/no" - I now would have to realize that this particular time I didn't want to delete them and when linger mode began go into preferences, turn that option off, then end the scenario - and then I would have to remember to put the option back how it was. I know from experience, too, that often I would forget to make the change, and thus get all my autosaves deleted for a scenario where I really didn't want the autosaves deleted.

This is one of the few "features" implemented in Wesnoth... well, ever that I actually consider a regression. It would be really nice for it to be improved - even putting it back the way it was would be better, really. Having to click 'ok' on two dialogues at the end of the scenario is really not that bad, and I would gladly pay that price to have the above situation resolved.

[/turins rant]

[esr]

Turin, if you think the current logic is bad I can only conclude that you've forgotten how damned irritating the old UI with two different end-of-scenario modal popups and checkboxes was...

If you want to change your delete-aurtosaves preference on a case-by-case basis, well, that's part of what linge mode is for. You get to examine and possibly toggle the option before you hit End Scenario.

[turin]

Turin, if you think the current logic is bad I can only conclude that you've forgotten how damned irritating the old UI with two different end-of-scenario modal popups and checkboxes was...

I never found it all that "damn irritating". A tiny bit annoying, perhaps, but it's not that hard to click "OK" twice. I never complained about it before the change was made and never had any desire to do so. And given the opportunity I would gladly return to that system rather than the current one.

If you want to change your delete-aurtosaves preference on a case-by-case basis, well, that's part of what linge mode is for. You get to examine and possibly toggle the option before you hit End Scenario.

You can't "examine the option", because the option is not presented to you - you have to consciously remember that there is this option that you have the ability to change by manually entering the Preferences menu. It means the user has more to remember, not less - and if they don't remember, they'll feel like shooting themselves later when they find all their autosaves gone. That's not an improvement from being prompted about it.

[JW]

Um, why not just have a checkbox on the continue screen that asks: "delete saves?" which defauts to yes? You only have to click one button, but you still have the option.

[turin]

Um, why not just have a checkbox on the continue screen that asks: "delete saves?" which defauts to yes? You only have to click one button, but you still have the option.

I'd be happy with that - you could have it in the side-panel, which is currently empty in linger-mode when you don't have a unit selected. You could also have the "save replay" option there too, and any other options relevant to linger mode.

You could actually still have the global option to save/delete autosaves, so long as you also have a case-by-case override - a checkbox that showed in linger mode in the side-panel when not selecting a unit that only effected that particular linger mode.... that actually sounds like a good solution. (Just to clarify - I wasn't denying that the 1.2 situation could have been improved on, only that the 1.3 implementation was that improvement.)

[nataS]

Ok first, the bat. The idle animation is annoying. On my computer the bat is flapping 3.5 times a second. The idle animations altogether are distracting and flow bad with the game play. I would love an option/control to stop them.

Though the new animation is very cool I must agree with the flapping part.

[The Hidden Hippogriff]

Ok first, the bat. The idle animation is annoying. On my computer the bat is flapping 3.5 times a second. The idle animations altogether are distracting and flow bad with the game play. I would love an option/control to stop them.

Though the new animation is very cool I must agree with the flapping part.

Its nice to have it there but on my new comp it is so fast.
I am way too easily distracted by things li-- OMFG a kitten!