I have many ideas for developing this game.

[AxalaraFlame]

1. The current multi-faction balance work is a mess. I think we could have at most three factions, however, add more various units to different factions.
2. We need to reestimate whether the current mainline campaigns are worthy to be a "mainline campaign". Since time is changed, and greater people have come to wesnoth, many UMCs are objectively far stronger than some of the current mainline campaigns. Mysuggestion is if a campaign is not perfect enough and deserves the title of "mainline campaign", we kick its ass and replace with better ones.

[Caphriel]

Unfortunately, the developers (that is, the people who do all the work) disagree with you, and probably most of the community does as well (if they didn't, they wouldn't be playing BfW, most likely.) Since BfW is open source, though, you are welcome to fork it and make all the changes you think would be improvements, then release it as a competing game and watch the players flock to your superior version (or not.)

Wesnoth might not be the game of your dreams, but it is the game the developers have built it into. It's unlikely that they are going to make drastic changes to a mature, stable project such as Wesnoth simply because you (or any other non-contributing community member) demands it.

Your ideas may be good, or they may not be. But if your vision for the future of Wesnoth does not match the vision of the people actually implementing changes, then your ideas will not be incorporated. The Wesnoth project is not a democracy, and the developers have no responsibility to the players (beyond what their own ethics and professional pride demand about releasing bug-free, non-harmful software.)

I'm sorry to be blunt, but please keep in mind that your taste in what would "improve" Wesnoth is subjective. What you consider an improvement, others would consider a terrible idea.

Finally, faction balance is actually pretty good (not perfect, but pretty darn good), and you should learn more about the game before commenting on it.

[AxalaraFlame]

Very agree with most of your points. Actually my faction suggestion it a paradoxical one too, for I am always trying to figure out a function so we can limitlessly involve in any kinds of units and factions--in a word, the more the metter.
I suggest three factions is just based on an undoubted truth: all RTS games which have endured time's tests proved that 3 is the most balanced way for multi-faction games. This conclusion does not have great difference in battle chess games, so I quoted it.

[Hulavuta]

I just have to first say that I agree 100% with what Caphriel said. I would really like to emphasize a few of his points though.

The balance of the game actually is very good currently, and removing races would really go against the design of Wesnoth which has been around for several years. You also don't give a very good reason why it should be changed (other than balance, which has been addressed) other than just jumping on the bandwagon and saying that other successful games have done it.

To elaborate on balance, you mentioned that RTS (real time strategies) proved that balance is best around 3 races, (take StarCraft and its sequel for example, as they're the only RTS I know that fall under this category) but balancing an RTS and a TBS have different factors. For example, the concept of time is different in an RTS and TBS, all build times are the same (1 turn) and getting new technology and upgrades is tied to experience points, making technology rush tactics and impossible to do without a certain amount of battling, and it makes it much easier for your opponent to stop such a rush by simply trying to kill your experienced units.

Balance design of Wesnoth shouldn't be taken from RTS only, as many RPG elements in the game make it very different.

On the subject of removing mainline campaigns that are sub-par, that is already going on. There was an excellent campaign that was mainline and was removed before 1.2, called "The Dark Hordes", because it did not meet the standards. Many of the mainline campaigns were once UMC and were good enough to be featured in the game. Under the Burning Suns and Dead Water are two examples.

There are other reasons why a campaign might not be included in mainline other than quality. For one, the campaign might not be canon or cannot be canon. A campaign where an undead drake runs around with an orc as a best friend and lives in space probably isn't going to fit in well. (Northern Rebirth kinda pushes the envelope on this one, but apparently not too bad) In other situations, the designer might not want to make the campaign mainline for personal reasons.

And also as Caphriel said, this is not a democracy. The developers are the law. How they want to design the game to be is the way it will have to be. Even past that, this game is free. The developers have no obligation to make it different for any one person, as they are not making money (minus the iPhone version). Because of this, they don't need to make the game marketable (although it is) and they don't need to change their game against their own desires to make it so.

This game has been around for quite a while, and most of the suggestions you are making are going to completely change the game that has been worked on for almost 10 years now.

[Crendgrim]

There are other reasons why a campaign might not be included in mainline other than quality. For one, the campaign might not be canon or cannot be canon. A campaign where an undead drake runs around with an orc as a best friend and lives in space probably isn't going to fit in well. (Northern Rebirth kinda pushes the envelope on this one, but apparently not too bad) In other situations, the designer might not want to make the campaign mainline for personal reasons.

I only want to name one other situation: The campaign makes use of some special things. For example, a RPG campaign can be a great UMC, but it doesn't really fit into "standard" Wesnoth gameplay; so it very probably won't get mainlined. Another example would be To Lands Unknown: That campaign uses those nice, big background images; and it uses very special terrain behavior. As this also isn't standard Wesnoth, its chances to be mainlined are pretty low as well. Again, it's a great UMC, but has not many chances of being mainlined.

[Iris]

Discuss development of or ideas for other Free games here, as well as other games in general.

Since this topic is too broad for the Ideas forum, I’ve moved it to Users’ instead.

[AxalaraFlame]

I agree. I found it foolish now, since varity is one of wesnoth's most attractive point. Let us abandon the "three factions" design and talk about some stuff about how to futher balance this game. We don't have a standard of a balance map terrian setting, nor a suppression level of units against units in multi-faction war.

[BladeL]

Ah, neophyte syndrom.

I've been playing Wesnoth for several years from time to time. This game is incredibly deep although looks simple on the surface. You have to understand that any change may cause drastic cascade changes that you can't see at the moment. Same for campaigns. Many of them may seem bland for a moment, but they are part of the game's lore and can be quite challenging on higher difficulty.

Let's take Descent into Darkness. Some may say that campaign lacks branching, there's unfinished business like hero's sister, some important events are only described in the text, even battles, many find ending unsatisfying. But you can't just ask to remove the campaign just because it's not so cool as other ones, this game grows and gains content, not vice versa. You want to help? Find author and ask permission to make campaign better. Make it better. Or anything. At the very least you can make remake as an add-on. This is a game you can make better yourself not just by comments and advices "do it like in XXX", but by real work.

[Elvish_Conquerer]

There are hundred's of threads such a this one, and almost all of them come from a lack of experience. Many people feel that the Undead and the Drakes are overpowered. Or that there's not enough diversity within a faction. Players need to really play the game for a while before attempting to completely understand it. If you read the players changelog (or even better the complete changelog), you'll see the thousand's of changes that have been made to conquer balancing issues. Especially when the game was first developed, units had their stats moved around, but now we've come to a point where most experienced players agree that the game is balanced and stable. You can also find examples of development in the older parts of the forums, and in discussions of new campaigns. If you're really keen on changing parts of the game, I suggest you try to help people who are struggling with creating their own UMC that they want to be radically different. You can also find much better arguments than mine in all of the other topics like this one that I mentioned previously.

[AxalaraFlame]

I've been playing Wesnoth for several years from time to time. This game is incredibly deep although looks simple on the surface. You have to understand that any change may cause drastic cascade changes that you can't see at the moment. Same for campaigns. Many of them may seem bland for a moment, but they are part of the game's lore and can be quite challenging on higher difficulty.

I concur. I have realized that for a long time. It is possible to involve limitless ammounts of units into default era; however, introduce any one more will require even greater mass calculations and reestimations on each oringinal unit, so it becomes harder and harder.

Let's take Descent into Darkness. Some may say that campaign lacks branching, there's unfinished business like hero's sister, some important events are only described in the text, even battles, many find ending unsatisfying. But you can't just ask to remove the campaign just because it's not so cool as other ones, this game grows and gains content, not vice versa. You want to help? Find author and ask permission to make campaign better. Make it better. Or anything. At the very least you can make remake as an add-on. This is a game you can make better yourself not just by comments and advices "do it like in XXX", but by real work.

DiD deserves to be a mainline campaign. I didn't mention we shall kick it, did I?

[Elvish_Hunter]

DiD deserves to be a mainline campaign.

Descent into Darkness already is a mainline campaign.

[Hulavuta]

DiD deserves to be a mainline campaign.

Descent into Darkness already is a mainline campaign.

He meant that it deserves to stay.

He was saying that some campaigns should be removed for quality, and another person said that campaigns shouldn't be removed just because they are "bad", using DiD as an example. Then, AF said that he didn't include DiD with the campaigns that should be removed in the first place.

[BladeL]

I concur. I have realized that for a long time. It is possible to involve limitless ammounts of units into default era; however, introduce any one more will require even greater mass calculations and reestimations on each oringinal unit, so it becomes harder and harder.

DiD deserves to be a mainline campaign. I didn't mention we shall kick it, did I?

That's exactly why "core" Wesnoth hardly changes last couple of years except of small balancing. Adding a single unit to any faction will need careful recalculation of everything. So it is left for add-ons, and by using them you agree to get imbalance accompanied by new ideas.

I used DiD as example cause I've just reviseted it and read forum discussion about it.

[Dugi]

Maybe this is not the right place to ask it, but what is the reason why IftU was not taken into mainline? It is not to much weirder than UtBS, and it is very good.

[pauxlo]

One reason (I'm not sure if it is the only one) for IftU not being mainlined is that its author didn't want it to be.