1.6 Feedback

General feedback and discussion of the game.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Locked
cmonyiman
Posts: 28
Joined: October 5th, 2008, 2:05 pm

1.6 Feedback

Post by cmonyiman »

All right, first of all it is not very democratic to lock (or delete) topics with negative feedbacks and only leave the ones with "oh this is awesome".

That having said, I've been playing since 1.2 and I have never seen a version so bad as this. When I look at 1.5 dev, even that is better than this.

-I don't know who had this clearly awesome idea of changing Isar's Cross, what I dont understand is how all the devs could have agreed with it. This map is now just ugly, not fun to play, and you've given an even bigger advantage to some factions (drakes, some factions (elves) can't defend well against side-attacks). Everyone knows it is slightly unbalanced in 1.4 but that is the point, it is fun to play and noone cares. It can be done in 15 min, is quick, and is good-looking. This new one is about 45min/game (because it's much harder to acquire a definite advantage quickly - that is the opposite of Isars Cross), and it is just ugly. Also, you balanced it for one aspect but created clearly more unbalance for another.

-Clash, well, the previous version was much more fun to play, and if I remember correctly, the basics of clash was that there was no lakes or water in middle area there. So this doesn't make sense either. More importantly, it is now 1221, and you've deleted the only map who had 1212 (and with that all the strategies of 1212 gameplay).

-Quick dwarvish leaders
I thought dwarves were slow because they had good resistances, 1mp on most terrain, and great power. It doesn't make sense, think about it : Dwarvish leaders are faster now than most 5mp leaders...I understand why you did it, but I don't get why you didn't put another trait to dwarvish leaders, like "weak", to balance it. It doesn't make sense to improve one field and just leave it at that. Dwarvish leaders are not overpowered now you think? What other leader has got 30% (weapon) and 20% resistances, good attack power, good defenses (60, 70%) and also 1mp on most terrain while having 5mp? You didn't take in consideration the whole principle of dwarf = slow but strong.

-Last time I remembered, loyalists had serious trouble v saurian spam. So what do you do? You downgrade the only unit who was great v a saurian spam. Now I don't think loyalists have any defensive unit v them. Even though fencer, hi, ... has good defenses, you can't put them on a village because of augurs.

-Goblins 6-3 5mp and no income... goblins & grunts can really be a pain to drakes & saurians, horses... I understand how northerners were being disadvantaged because their pierce wasn't good enough, but now it is either too much, or either too cheap.

-Bugs & performance
There are even more bugs than in the dev version. HOW is that possible?
For ex. look at the attachment (negative damage recieved)
Another thing is CPU.... this game takes too much of CPU's performance (it was 30% on 1.4, 50% on dev, and now 70%? What for?)
AI is also very slow to think when it has many units to command. On the same subject, I can't play 2 wesnoth v ai at the same time because the whole PC lags and it takes 5 min for each unit of the ai to move.
I check the tutorial...even the tutorial isn't fully translated in french in full version? On the contrary, the tutorial and the campaigns are half-english half-french and it is very annoying.
Also, it is the exact same than the tutorial of 1.4, why couldn't you just copy paste the translations for it? Why translate all over again?

The (only?) good point is the improvement in art design, animations and portraits. That is great.

I understand you've been working much for this version, but beside art, 1.6 is a very downgraded version of 1.4.
Attachments
lololll.jpg

User avatar
Turuk
Sithslayer
Posts: 5283
Joined: February 28th, 2007, 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by Turuk »

While others will respond to address your points, before this topic goes anywhere I want to raise a very important point.
cmonyiman wrote:All right, first of all it is not very democratic to lock (or delete) topics with negative feedbacks and only leave the ones with "oh this is awesome".
This is not a democracy.

The forums were created for the development of the game, not for the users. Negative feedback is listened to when it is offered in a constructive manner, but yes, most of those topics end up locked because they involve users only interested in bashing the game or offering feedback in a hostile manner.
Mainline Maintainer: AOI, DM, NR, TB and THoT.
UMC Maintainer: Forward They Cried, A Few Logs, A Few More Logs, Start of the War, and Battle Against Time

User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by JW »

cmonyiman wrote:-I don't know who had this clearly awesome idea of changing Isar's Cross, what I dont understand is how all the devs could have agreed with it.
I think the old one should have been left in as well; it was the most popular map.
-Clash
It's going back to 1212. I am wondering why Clash changed as well since IMO it was the most balanced map (although quite boring and waterless).
-Quick dwarvish leaders
I think other leadders should have been buffed in ways as well...but well....
loyalists had serious trouble v saurian spam. So what do you do? You downgrade the only unit who was great v a saurian spam.
I'm not sure what you're referencing here.
-Goblins 6-3 5mp and no income...
I haven't done the math, but they do get 1 negative trait now...but the averages may have gone up, not sure.
-Bugs & performance
I'm confused by this as well, but I believe there were several changes that are being worked on to correct this ATM.
The (only?) good point is the improvement in art design, animations and portraits. That is great.
That is a gigantic improvement though. The new portraits combined with the dialogue system are truly impressive.


I'm a little disappointed with some of the setbacks of 1.6, but I'm sure they will be fixed in due time. The progress that has been made will be permanent though (art will either stay or get even better!), so I think it's overall an improvement. I just can't wait for 1.7! :)

User avatar
chaoticwanderer
Posts: 109
Joined: August 25th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by chaoticwanderer »

cmonyiman wrote:
-I don't know who had this clearly awesome idea of changing Isar's Cross, what I dont understand is how all the devs could have agreed with it. This map is now just ugly, not fun to play, and you've given an even bigger advantage to some factions (drakes, some factions (elves) can't defend well against side-attacks). Everyone knows it is slightly unbalanced in 1.4 but that is the point, it is fun to play and noone cares. It can be done in 15 min, is quick, and is good-looking. This new one is about 45min/game (because it's much harder to acquire a definite advantage quickly - that is the opposite of Isars Cross), and it is just ugly. Also, you balanced it for one aspect but created clearly more unbalance for another.

-Goblins 6-3 5mp and no income... goblins & grunts can really be a pain to drakes & saurians, horses... I understand how northerners were being disadvantaged because their pierce wasn't good enough, but now it is either too much, or either too cheap.
First off, did you realize that Isar's was originally unbalanced against the drakes? (Because their mobility is made useless)
Making the map wider was not a bad idea. And second, you know you can download the original Isar's Cross from add-ons, right?

As for goblins, with their original 4-3 pierce, their attack wasn't strong enough to recieve bonuses for 10% pierce weakness. And keep in mind, they only get one trait now, (all of which are detrimental) and their cost has gone up one.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with the Loyalists and Saurian spam.
The RNG helps those who help themselves.

User avatar
ivanovic
Lord of Translations
Posts: 1147
Joined: September 28th, 2004, 10:10 pm
Location: Germany

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by ivanovic »

cmonyiman wrote: I check the tutorial...even the tutorial isn't fully translated in french in full version? On the contrary, the tutorial and the campaigns are half-english half-french and it is very annoying.
Also, it is the exact same than the tutorial of 1.4, why couldn't you just copy paste the translations for it? Why translate all over again?
It was not possible because there *were* changes. The french team really needs some helping hands because translations and keeping them up to date are a *lot* work to handle. So if you really want to help, help translate the game to french. Just send a mail to the french maintainer asking where your help is needed most and I am sure he will reply in no time with lots of stuff that has to be tackled. You can find his contact info on the translations page in the wiki.

cmonyiman
Posts: 28
Joined: October 5th, 2008, 2:05 pm

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by cmonyiman »

chaoticwanderer wrote: First off, did you realize that Isar's was originally unbalanced against the drakes? (Because their mobility is made useless)
Making the map wider was not a bad idea. And second, you know you can download the original Isar's Cross from add-ons, right?
Yes, I heard that much, but with the desert on sides, it is quite clear I think that drakes have an advantage. Also, you missed the points I made.
As for goblins, with their original 4-3 pierce, their attack wasn't strong enough to recieve bonuses for 10% pierce weakness. And keep in mind, they only get one trait now, (all of which are detrimental) and their cost has gone up one.
Well there were strong goblins in 1.4, which recieved the bonus hit. And still archers had pierce as well... I'm not sure who will recruit several archers now when facing drakes or horses.

I might consider helping out a bit for the translations..

I was talking about the blade of bowman when speaking about loyalist defense v saurian spam. It was a perfect unit v them and usually a good idea to put on a village to defend, as it had good retaliation. But still, I heard many complaints that it was unbalanced in 1.4 and saurian spam usually won.

svek
Posts: 33
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 5:36 pm

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by svek »

chaoticwanderer wrote:
cmonyiman wrote:
-I don't know who had this clearly awesome idea of changing Isar's Cross, what I dont understand is how all the devs could have agreed with it. This map is now just ugly, not fun to play, and you've given an even bigger advantage to some factions (drakes, some factions (elves) can't defend well against side-attacks). Everyone knows it is slightly unbalanced in 1.4 but that is the point, it is fun to play and noone cares. It can be done in 15 min, is quick, and is good-looking. This new one is about 45min/game (because it's much harder to acquire a definite advantage quickly - that is the opposite of Isars Cross), and it is just ugly. Also, you balanced it for one aspect but created clearly more unbalance for another.

-Goblins 6-3 5mp and no income... goblins & grunts can really be a pain to drakes & saurians, horses... I understand how northerners were being disadvantaged because their pierce wasn't good enough, but now it is either too much, or either too cheap.
First off, did you realize that Isar's was originally unbalanced against the drakes? (Because their mobility is made useless)
Making the map wider was not a bad idea. And second, you know you can download the original Isar's Cross from add-ons, right?

As for goblins, with their original 4-3 pierce, their attack wasn't strong enough to recieve bonuses for 10% pierce weakness. And keep in mind, they only get one trait now, (all of which are detrimental) and their cost has gone up one.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with the Loyalists and Saurian spam.
It would be nice if people got what actually changed about the goblins...
Melee increased to 5-3 (base) from 4-3 (base), base xp went up with 20%, resilient was removed from the pool of possible traits and price increased to 9.
It's possible they're now too cheap, but I hardly ever used them before and think buffing them was a good idea.
(But I'm not sure I like the idea with negatraits. It's a cute idea but confusing in practice.)

I haven't really played enough of the new isar to comment on it... But from what I've gathered it seems like it's changed from a "Isar, the almost seperate game" in the direction of some sort of "Wesnoth on a very small map". It's possible the issues it suffers from being so small become worse when it tries to be more like normal wesnoth, but time will tell.

But 15 min games? I doubt any player who's beatable in that time on the old one should take more than 20 mins to beat on the new one...

And I disagree with drakes being terribly bad on the old map... Weakest faction? Probably, but still playable and pretty fun.


Making your text so small that it cannot be read properly is incredibly irritating for other users to try to figure out. Please do not do it. Fixed.

Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1605
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by Soliton »

cmonyiman wrote:That having said, I've been playing since 1.2 and I have never seen a version so bad as this. When I look at 1.5 dev, even that is better than this.
It appears you are quite passionate about wesnoth and its development. Maybe you should consider getting involved? :wink:
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott

5dPZ
Posts: 198
Joined: July 11th, 2006, 7:20 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by 5dPZ »

I agree with some points you made about 1.6 (Isar, Clash, quick dwarf leader, bugs etc), but hey, this is NOT the final version that we will stuck for rest of our life, right? Old maps can be accessed through add-ons, and these bugs will be handled and patched within days. Just relax a bit and bug reporting + constructive comments are always helpful.

Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by Noy »

cmonyiman wrote: -Quick dwarvish leaders
I thought dwarves were slow because they had good resistances, 1mp on most terrain, and great power. It doesn't make sense, think about it : Dwarvish leaders are faster now than most 5mp leaders...I understand why you did it, but I don't get why you didn't put another trait to dwarvish leaders, like "weak", to balance it. It doesn't make sense to improve one field and just leave it at that. Dwarvish leaders are not overpowered now you think? What other leader has got 30% (weapon) and 20% resistances, good attack power, good defenses (60, 70%) and also 1mp on most terrain while having 5mp? You didn't take in consideration the whole principle of dwarf = slow but strong.
Uh yeah, we did take that into consideration. We also noted that dwarvish leaders were basically useless in maps larger than 25 or so hexes because it took too long for them to traverse the map to battle. Thats precisely where most default maps sit. Quick comes with decrease in HP which helps to balance out its addition. It may be increased a bit, but unlikely because after quite a few test games its not apparent that the unit is unbalanced. Then again given your desire for the retention of isars, I wonder if the reason why it seems overpowered is that you're playing more on maps that the default era isn't balanced for.
cmonyiman wrote:-Last time I remembered, loyalists had serious trouble v saurian spam. So what do you do? You downgrade the only unit who was great v a saurian spam. Now I don't think loyalists have any defensive unit v them. Even though fencer, hi, ... has good defenses, you can't put them on a village because of augurs.
Uh, your memory is incorrect about saurian spam, unless you're talking about 0.8.6 or something. And you completely ignore the fact there are other good counters vs saurians on the loyalist side like the cavalry and the fencer, which got a cold resistance buff in the last version.
cmonyiman wrote:-Goblins 6-3 5mp and no income... goblins & grunts can really be a pain to drakes & saurians, horses... I understand how northerners were being disadvantaged because their pierce wasn't good enough, but now it is either too much, or either too cheap.
[/quote]

Is this even feedback? Could it be "just right"?

And here is a little piece of advice next time you want to give your "opinion;" think hard about it, and provide some sort of evidence other than your simplistic views. You might receive a less rough reply.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.

Don Hewitt.

cmonyiman
Posts: 28
Joined: October 5th, 2008, 2:05 pm

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by cmonyiman »

To make things clear:
-I wrote it to be simplistic because I don't want to write 50 pages about it (but I'd figured you'd get the idea, as most of those who replied got it). Moreover, my post was simplistic? No, no. Yours was simplistic.
-Loyalists did have trouble against saurian spam on 1.4
- -5%hp does not balance out Dwarvish Leaders
- 5mp leaders are often used in normal maps
-I would recieve a rough reply from you however well I would write.

Next time you want to give your "opinion", think hard not to write in your harsh language, please. Though I don't know if I have ever seen you write otherwise.

Also as I don't want to follow your road down to a neverending discussion, I request it to be locked.
Last edited by cmonyiman on March 30th, 2009, 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
alpha1
Posts: 198
Joined: February 29th, 2008, 12:57 am

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by alpha1 »

ok my 2 cents before the thread is closed.
i agree with svek and cmony on the isar issue: the old isar was something special, a game in a game so to say, new isar is just yet another 2vs2 map. And tbh looking at how it was changed, im not sure why anyone would play it instead of playing other 2vs2 which are imho much more fun.

ps. drakes were one of the strongest factions on isar... unless you decided to attack UD at night or loylists at day, you just needed cover from your partner sometimes, but it was a matter of skills and teamwork, not balance.
If you have any wishes or suggestions concerning the TGT or just want to drop me a message, pls pm me at: alpha1_pm
I won't be able to see any messages that are sent to alpha1.

Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Re: 1.6 Feedback

Post by Noy »

cmonyiman wrote:I request this to be locked as I don't want to continue discussing this on several pages.

To make things clear:
-I wrote it to be simplistic because I don't want to write 50 pages about it (but I'd figured you'd get the idea, as most of those who replied got it)

-I would recieve a rough reply from you however well I would write.
So basically you don't want to put the effort to back up your claims and you expect us to take you seriously?

If you made a detailed analysis with evidence, we're usually reasonable and consider your arguments for its merits. Instead you come here citing a litany of problems with shallow analysis and no evidence. I'm not going to do the intellectual work for every complaint I get and neither should I or any other developer. So that puts the onus on the complainant to make a strong case. You've done nothing of the sort here, instead making insinuations that we're the ones at fault and not your unwillingness to actually write an effective proposal.

Locked.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.

Don Hewitt.

Locked