[In-depth Feedback]The Hammer of Thursagan

General feedback and discussion of the game.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply

Would "12 - The Underlevels" (last scenario) being shorter, make it a better experience?

Yes, it drags on too much
2
50%
Maybe, but it's fine as it is
1
25%
No, it's length is what makes it great
1
25%
 
Total votes: 4

Balroth
Posts: 15
Joined: September 20th, 2018, 7:14 pm

[In-depth Feedback]The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Balroth » October 1st, 2018, 11:45 pm

Introduction
Hello!

Recently, I did an [In-depth] Feedback on Sceptre of Fire and since it had positive feedback, I decided, since it helps the developers, to do it again, to the next campaign I played:
"The Hammer of Thursagan."

I also linked it to the mainline campaign feedback, so this won't get lost. Unlike the link above, it won't be a wall of text (except final scenario)

I was conflicted if I should do something similar for this campaign, since it was really polished. But the final scenario made me at least express my thoughts. So, obviously not as constructive or a wall of text like SoF, but I hope it helps (also if you have read that, this is more subjective than SoF)

I will not be mentioning the scenarios I have no suggestions, and I also won't drop an "how much I enjoyed this scenario"/fun rating, on any of these, because its not constructive, but fully subjective. It is not a review. They are polished, so I have nothing constructive to offer on them.
Exception on all of these, for the final scenario.

Also, won't be mentioning dialogue and story, since they are very good. Dwarf-lich, using the runehammer powered by dwarf souls, masked dwarfs enslaving non-dwarfs for necromancy, and the fleshed-out dwarf culture. Good stuff. No more dwarfs in my next campaigns tho
This campaign is very polished, with the final scenario being the exception, so the feedback won't be near as good as Sceptre of Fire, its more subjective this time. However, this time, I did save/upload the replays! (also added an poll out of curiosity, to see if my opinion is relate-able to other players)
Spoiler:
A little background about myself as a player: I found this on steam some weeks ago, and played the following campaigns on the free time I had:
A tale of two brothers, An Orcish Incursion, The South Guard, Liberty, Dead Water (my fav of these), Sceptre of Fire, all on Challenging difficulty
Aside of these, I have played no add-ons or MP at all. This campaign was finished in 1.14.5 Challenging and I would consider myself a newbie (people finishing Dead Water final scenario on nightmare with ease... I'm definitely a newbie.)

To explain the [In-depth] Feedback. I will split the suggestions in 2 types.
Minor suggestions, where it is either a nitpick, or something minor or ignoreable/negligible, colored in teal
Major suggestions, where it is something I strongly recommend to improve the campaign experience, regardless how small of a suggestion, colored in Green
6 - High Pass


While you are proceeding to the end, units are supposed to be an obstacle to your journey, but instead of naturally appearing, they just spawn out of thin air, as if they are summons

Suggestion: Units spawning out of nowhere seems janky. Perhaps, spawn more, but start them on edges of map? Or relate them to griffon leader?

Griffon leader is... just there, I guess. Killing him does nothing, so it doesnt reward you for doing something slightly harder than normal.

Suggestion: Griffon leader death offers nothing, perhaps a small(50) gold bonus could work
9 - Forbidden Forest
The hardest scenario in the campaign. And I did use "back to Turn X" sometimes, but I eventually made it with no casualties.
On this scenario, I killed the southwest leader asap, which gave me a good position, but generally, marching forward was definitely tough. Without the white mage, I could be stuck on this scenario or lose most of my units of that scenario to achieve victory

However, I would like to mention the Staff (of Righteous Flame) you can optionally acquire in this level. I was confused, and didn't know what it did even until the very end of the campaign. And I did read the dialogue, which is easy to miss: "This staff gives a dying mage, a final strike that will destroy all nearby enemies."
After this scenario, I wasn't certain this was its effect(suicide bomber mage made me doubt I read correctly), especially since mage suddenly had steadfast ability so I was extremely baffled. And there was no way to see it (or is there?) so I couldn't confirm.

Suggestion: Somehow, UI or otherwise, make the description of the staff visible to the player.

Suggestion: Change the description from:
"This staff gives a dying mage, a final strike that will destroy all nearby enemies." to
"When a mage wielding this staff dies, he kills all enemies adjacent to him. While the mage is alive, he gains the steadfast ability."
Crystal clear. Kill radius being abstract is bad (nearby enemies), since killing every unit except leaders wasn't far-fetched. After all, isn't this the same staff in Dead Water that when the mage dies, all units die?
Spoiler:
10 - The Siege of Kal'Kartha
The Siege of Kal'Kartha

Turn limit: 35
Starting the scenario, 3 (rich) orc leaders focus hard the dwarf leader that I have to protect, on the other side of the map.
I enjoyed the fact I proceed from the opposite side to break the siege, instead of joining the ally dwarf vertically

Thing is, you cannot "connect" with the ally dwarf leader, and units will die trying, and while both are possible, it is almost punishable.
The optimal play, is to just rush the leaders, since most of their units are focusing the dwarf ally.
In other words, the turn limit of 35 is weird. The scenario in my case, had turn limit of 11, as in, dwarf ally dies at turn 11. 35 is deceiving.
Perhaps in the past it had lower turn limit, but it was increased for an (fake) difficulty nerf? A wild guess, but the turn limit problem/difficulty isn't exactly the time, but the dwarf ally dying, since turn limit has no practical effect.

My point being, seeing the turn limit(35!) and the dwarf having a nice spot, the player objective will be to play the long game, secure villages, and level up the units. And suddenly, even turn 10 perhaps, he cannot affect the fact that the dwarf ally is overwhelmed and dies. The scenario more or less requires you to get into the conflict asap or even rush the leaders, but there is nothing suggesting that.

Dialogue is short and doesn't help in any way, so here is a suggestion to add just 1 dialogue/quote, to remedy the above, by some dwarf character in the party since there are only 3 lines in this scenario opening:

Suggestion:
"We should rush and cut down the orc leaders to relief the siege, we cannot know how long our dwarven kin will last!"(dialogue line in the beginning)

The above feedback on this scenario is from my 1 playthrough, so it may be simply a wrong strategy. However, to prove the "turn 11 limit", at least on my playthrough, I have uploaded the save on this (see pic and attached files below) Image
Move Angarthing(dwarf objective unit) back, somewhere safe, and just press end turn twice.

Also, I think that in this scenario, if you can somehow secure the dwarf ally, you can borderline-abuse leveling your units, since 35 turns is a lot, when it can/should be finished in 10~15.
12 - The Underlevels
What a scenario... Thinking I would finish the campaign in one day (11 scenarios)... This scenario alone, took me at least 3 hours, then I had to sleep. Ultimately, it must have taken like 5~6 hours? Can't tell for sure, but damn. This is a campaign on its own. 209 turns scenario? really? At least drop a warning, or a UI window, if such a scenario is to be played. This scenario is more or less why I am writing this whole post, since once again, the campaign is really polished, aside of this unexpected (final) scenario.

Subjective opinions below I will try not to spam this, but remember, its an opinion from some internet stranger (also a newbie) so don't flame if it's not similar to yours, please

Well, to go straight to the point, I really dislike this scenario as is. However, saying something along the lines "remake this scenario pl0x" or ignoring it (aka this post not happening) means that this scenario will be forever the same. But, it can be improved. (although, suggestions on this scenario wouldn't do much to help it, in my opinion, its fundamental design is broken) It's an opinion, so you can expect what I'm about to write below, but this is the worst scenario I have played in BfW, although, in its defense, I haven't played many ;)

But first of all let's make an Introduction to the scenario. Your dwarves and the Kal'Kartha's delve into the dwarf lich's catacombs to destroy all of his evil necromancy. An epic conclusion, with an perfect idea (also combat-wise, not a single undead fight so far so it makes it more different)

However, design-wise, it felt like playing a mega-dungeon, akin to some different tabletop wargame, such a different experience.
Different doesn't mean bad, but it was executed horribly, I would say.
Where both sides have endless waves to bring to the frontline, and grind. Ah the feeling of epicness... Slogging the dwarves one by one to the linear corridors.

Note: Wall of text below, mostly on my experiences/opinions. It could be written better, but its still organized.

A scenario like this, is a good reminder why turn limits exist. And it's not only for the player to focus on objective, but also for the scenario designer to craft an scenario with an certain design&difficulty goal in mind. Having left it completely to the player, as is known in game design:
"When it is possible, the player will optimize the fun out of the game."
Personally, I was grinding the frontlines so slow (3 fronts) even with my lvl 3 units, that I decided to just use the 1000(!) gold I had amassed, to just recruit as many dwarf fighters and mages I could. If lvl3 units die, the frontlines' progress will be static forever. Time to throw fodder to the trash. (mixed with lvl 3 so it won't take so much time)

You may be thinking: "Ironic, you knew about the optimization that makes the experience worse, since this scenario is huge and is bad for big armies but u did recruit more units."
Well, I didn't mention that the scenario indirectly pushes you forward to create a undead swarm of dwarf fodder fighters to win, slowly but surely? So much gold. No turn limit, if you want victory, this is the safest way. So many villages. It is only natural I spend it to escape this slog of a scenario, without opening the debugger. 0 tactics, just frontline, trade some hits, then swap with an fresh unit - Repeat. Just imagine not having a mage here and using the villages (5 turns away, ~15 turns to go&heal&come back to frontline)
Ofc,the above applies if its level3 unit, otherwise, 0 tactics, just frontline, trade some hits, die, replace with a fresh unit - Repeat there are at least 20+ waiting in some tunnels behind ready to die in a trade

The turn limit, also means no difficulty. You have infinite gold, and so many chokepoints that the enemy will never advance with just a few fodder guarding 2 (fort!)tiles. After you get positive income, the difficulty becomes trivial, so its impossible to lose. Not positive income? If you won the gallery hall, you can just use suicide bomber tactics, since less dwarves = more gold income = more dwarfs to throw to the dwarf grinder/suicide bomb

The optimal game tactics, is to obviously form a battleline, and push forward. Thing is, 150+ turns, with the exact same strategy? I feel really dissapointed because I expected the final scenario to be really fun, and excluding the time factor, even the strategy/difficulty/tactics was boring. Even when I was bored of rotating my lvl 3 units on the frontline (dwarflords ftw), I just recruited around 30~40 dwarf fighters out of the blue with all the amassed gold, so instead of rotating/swapping, I just threw them to trade hits and die. And ironically, it worked. inb4 the protagonist was the undead lich all along

Look at the below picture and tell me, moving all of these units to the end isn't a supreme chore, while leeching the fun worse than the debugger
Image
Undead Invasion? Ditto.
Spoiler:
The idea of this scenario has potential, with the "dungeon crawler" part, and controlling big armies, navigating through a (corrupted) dwarf stronghold, but personally, it is very badly executed. This is subjective, so don't be offended if you like it, or have fond memories of it, I'm not writing this to spark any conflict, or to devalue the rest of my suggestions, but these suggestions are definitely linked with my enjoyment of this scenario, so I have to voice them. After all, I can see people liking it. The "epic scale" and the "mass recruiting" with exploring is unique indeed. So, it's my opinion, everything I say is subjective, not a fact. (Do look at the bullet points below)

While I despise this scenario and will probably take a break from wesnoth for sometime because this scenario was really unexpected, I have to mention something. Something mildly infuriating. Referring to the picture.
Image
The scenario gives you an "crossroads" option, becomes non-linear(obviously, pic is without fog of war). No suggestion/hint. Alright, I choose the south/downwards side/room. LOCKED ... After that, its obviously the other way. But, why offer 2 paths, if the level design is still linear? What does the "locked door" offer in the scenario? Backtracking on an already slow/huge map? What does it really offer to an already slow/boring scenario? It's definitely not the same as the final door which has 9999 enemies swarming on it. My point? I went down, then up, then right to get the key. Then like, what, 8 turns of nothing but moving, to go back to the locked door. And before anyone corrects me on "there is a tunnel that helps you go faster", its a negligible shortcut, it gives very few turn differences and I did use it, without it I would lose about 3+ more turns. Why is it really given a choice though, if you will be forced to go back and forth anyway? Why not go linear, as an experienced meta player would? (up, then down, instead of 50% chance of losing 10 turns?)
However, I do have to mention that the level design's optimal path here is to split forces and proceed, which is interesting, but the player has no way of knowing that. Not even a hint.

After I defeated the "rune-locked" keep, and was forced to go up, the interest on the scenario went from "seems interesting" to "Boring", mostly because of the movement. I think it was turn 30? After it reached the "battleline simulator", I was considering of opening the debugger, since there was no actual resistance (giant spiders were nice) and I had an limitless supply of dwarfs to pass over to the lich :whistle:
Ofc, on my "enjoyment", the rotation of sentinels/dwarflords with 1 healer behind for about 100 turns is related, but the movement, even before I more than tripled my army with dwarf fighters and mages, was so so slow. Both movement + combat strategy was extremely tedious. And while I dislike the design of this scenario, to absolute levels, I want to at least drop some suggestions, so it won't be that horrible, at least for me. (Please don't flame me, it is an opinion, perhaps an unpopular one)

Suggestion: Make a lot of places smaller. The tunnel to east lich? Shorter/faster, by 2 turns at least. Perhaps widen it 1 tile. The gate/lock part? Tweak it a lot, so it is purely linear (since the level design practically is already), and you also skip/remove a room and leader that way, and as a result, without losing anything vital, you have made it as impactful, but with about 15~20 turns less. After all, why does the map have to be so big?

Suggestion: Upon starting this scenario (or after the hall?), every unit you own is granted permanently +1 movement point, so this won't be such a slog. I'm pretty sure this will be a very positive change and with a simple tweak such as this, the fun/joy becomes greater/better, since you don't lose anything vital/of importance (the resistance in battlelines is already slow, but at least the movement won't!)
If it were to be excused in-dialogue, perhaps some unexpected runes activated upon entering that granted boons to the living? Or the hammer reacted to _magic_ and the souls of the dwarfs are making their living kin's navigation faster, so as to release them? In-dialogue explanation if this is to be implemented, has so many choices, the 2 above were made on the spot lel

Karag
Spoiler:
standing there while all his units are dying and he is slowly surrounded, doing nothing is really anti-climactic. Leading/charging with his draugr would be really good. It's kinda bizzare to see a dwarf-lich "being afk", to die (again :lol: )

Suggestion: Once you approach the draugr, they all become aggressive, including the leader. And give draugr ranged attacks, so they won't lose by the exact same (boring/predictable) strategy of previous enemies.

Was about to suggest "teleport tunnels" but I think they are implemented? not sure, can't find it in a walkthrough

Another thing, the A.I.'s flaws were showcased in this scenario, where it had to control many many units, and it had an abundance of them, yet, sometimes, it didn't attack with some of their units because the trade wasn't worth. But there were 50 units behind it to throw to the frontline grinder...

So, if I were to categorize the above flaws, more or less it would be like this, with Time being the main flaw.
  • The time it takes
  • The tactics
  • The difficulty
  • The flow
Let's go through each one of them in a slightly more coherent organization.
  • Many many units(5 leaders), means a lot of time is lost to end this conflict since this isnt the classic 5~20 unit skirmish. Fodder units means combat is meaningless as well.
  • Level design with the "crossroads" means that 50% of the players lose about 10+ turns in going back and forth.
  • HUGE map, meaning it takes a lot of time to traverse. It is possible to cut parts. 50+ units moving per turn is a nightmare.
  • Killing a unit doesnt really matter, because there are 50 behind it, ready to replace it. Mostly because of every unit being 100% fodder, it didn't feel like playing BfW but some kind of tabletop wargaming to me
  • Requires patience, not skill/strategy, since rotating units is the (only) strategy to be played. (another part of the "it doesn't feel like BfW")
  • Tight corridors, making combat slower, and movement as well. (moving big armies through a corridor makes you wish you were playing an elf campaign instead :doh: )
    The fact some players must have used mages to go to east-lich is extremely dreadful. Perhaps more than the place/location itself. Removing/shortening parts of the level may harm the (bad) level design, however, that +1 Movement Point suggestion above helps a lot here.
  • "Frontline simulator". Atop with the 30~50% to hit with most units, is.... an test of time. The enemy units felt more like terrain obstacles that were attracted to your frontline and needed to be removed to move forward.
  • Difficulty doesn't exist because of infinite gold. If you lose many dwarfs, you automatically get positive income, so you can just spawn them forever. No challenge at all after the first 10 turns.
  • No turn limit, means designer had no difficulty in mind (opinion, obviously can't confirm), and player is free to play however he wants. However, the scenario is horrible for that, because your infinite units, can barely move without losing half their movementpoints blocking each other.
  • Combined with the above 2, no sense of urgency/importance. Especially bad because it is the final scenario!!!
  • The horrible flow, since after turn 30, the scenario is more or less the same. (bless the spiders for mixing it up, otherwise I would go mad as a lich!)
    Like, the flow from one "room" to the next, is so monotonous it reaches alt-tab levels. Perhaps, use dialogue for every room to break it? Maybe, each new keep/room, Dulcatos explains each room's importance? ("Oh... Our ancestor halls... Here... this and this happened once...") Dialogue could improve the flow a lot, especially being final scenario, and being located in an very intriguing location.
    Personally, I was certain after turn 30, that "on the next march/push, I will definitely finally find the lich" feelsbadman.
    I just kept going (especially without debugger) because it was final scenario, and I just pushed through boredom to see the (anti-climactic) ending.
  • Related with the flow, since they go hand-by-hand. There was no dialogue, no fleshing out this incredible - almost mythical - location. The lich said something about a rite, but at that point, it sounded like something an sunday morning cartoon would say: the "generic evil oneliner" with no actual meaning in gameplay. So much potential. lost...
Scenarios like this, makes me wish there was a "swap units" button/function, instead of playing whac-a-mole with my 50+ unit formation.

A nitpick, is that since this scenario is so long, I was kinda "numb" on hearing the same playlist (i feel sad for this, because the soundtrack is really good) and I had to alt-tab to put some intense music to break the monotony.

In the end, I just feel really sad. The scenario obviously has mountains of effort into it, but even with the above suggestions, it's not salvageable. As in, the core design itself is flawed. However, the above suggestions should help making it playable by more players. In the end, scenarios like this, makes me wish I had more time to contribute to this project, so as to implement some of the stuff above.

Finally, if this scenario's goal is to experience in meticulous detail the feelings of navigating an dwarvish stronghold, it definitely succeeded.
Epilogue
Epilogue was meh. "Congrats, you killed some bad guy, now you take control of the Kal'Kartha, here is some messenger from some old scenario"
I get the ending, but it is feeling really generic/lackluster, especially after a 200!! turn campaign scenario. Perhaps, comparing it to the epilogue of Sceptre of Fire and Dead Water is something I should avoid. If I were to suggest something to make it a little better? 1 or 2 lines mentioning the Hammer of Thursagan, since when the story is about to end, having finally found it, the hammer is 100% ignored.


If I were to judge the campaign without the last scenario, it was enjoyable, but not much. But with the last scenario..... A really sad way to end an adequate campaign. After all, this whole post was made because of the last scenario. And it's not nearly as constructive as Sceptre of Fire. Kinda makes me question if it's worth writing an campaign-wide feedback if only one scenario is "to be criticized"

Kinda horrified that while editting this, I see that a lot of people gave it a fun 10/10 and hence, may think this post/its points are bad, but even from them, I'm looking forward to them if they agree/disagree on somethings above, or want to discuss any of the points above. But it seems like on the points/feedback above, I'm not alone, but at least, detailing it in this format will be more helpful/insightful :mrgreen:
Attachments
THoT replays.zip
(430.8 KiB) Downloaded 9 times
THoT-The Siege of Kal Kartha Turn 11.gz
The save file to confirm the siege "true turn limit"
(56.98 KiB) Downloaded 9 times
Last edited by Balroth on October 3rd, 2018, 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

josteph
Developer
Posts: 100
Joined: August 19th, 2017, 6:58 pm

Re: [In-depth Feedback]The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by josteph » October 2nd, 2018, 2:04 am

Thanks for all the good suggestions! I just want to point out that S12 is being reworked at viewtopic.php?f=8&t=48200 (https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/pull/3126 ).

Balroth
Posts: 15
Joined: September 20th, 2018, 7:14 pm

Re: [In-depth Feedback]The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Balroth » October 2nd, 2018, 1:10 pm

Wow! Great news!

I'm so glad that this is already on the works :mrgreen:

Even if the above feedback is on improving the current scenario, hence the suggestions/analysis are more or less rendered useless, I'm so very happy it is recognized that it is ultimately unsalvageable even if improved, and hence, an entire remake will be made to make it a proper final scenario

When I find a little more free time in these days, I will definitely play through it to provide feedback!

Cheers! ^_^

josteph
Developer
Posts: 100
Joined: August 19th, 2017, 6:58 pm

Re: [In-depth Feedback]The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by josteph » October 2nd, 2018, 10:28 pm

I'm glad to hear that; playtesting is a great help!

About your other feedback:

S6: i agree that the "spawn" mechanic is odd. It's nice to have a change from the usual AI rush pattern, but units spawning without explanation or any rule gives the player nothing to work with or plan for. Maybe that's intended?

Forbidden Forest (it's S9, not S8): I agree that saying "adjacent" is better than "nearby". As to the rest of your change, I think it would be good if the player was prompted "Should this mage pick up the staff?", as done for the storm trident in HttT. Currently the staff is picked up by the first mage that enters the altar, and if that's the behaviour the message can easily use the mage's name. Would you like to send a pull request for this? The message is at https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/blob ... os.cfg#L72

S10: This scenario is a bit funny, really, since the three AI leaders leave themselves unprotected in their keeps. Maybe they should be made smarter? For example, they could attack both the eastern and western dwarves or leave their keeps rather than wait there to be picked off. The 35 turn limit makes for a huge amount of carryover gold.

Another thing about this campaign is how effective thunderers are in it. In S4 (Troll Bridge) and S6 (High Pass) there is _one_ unit with ranged attacks between them. This hurts replay value, a player who knows this can just spam thunderers and win with little resistance.

Balroth
Posts: 15
Joined: September 20th, 2018, 7:14 pm

Re: [In-depth Feedback]The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Balroth » October 3rd, 2018, 3:19 pm

josteph wrote: S6: i agree that the "spawn" mechanic is odd. It's nice to have a change from the usual AI rush pattern, but units spawning without explanation or any rule gives the player nothing to work with or plan for. Maybe that's intended?
I'm neutral on it, and I had no problem killing the enemies the same turn they spawned, and I do like the "random" nature of it. Hence the suggestion is minor, more of a nitpick because these enemies everywhere else, don't spawn out of nowhere
josteph wrote: Forbidden Forest (it's S9, not S8)
Editted, thanks for the correction
josteph wrote: As to the rest of your change, I think it would be good if the player was prompted "Should this mage pick up the staff?", as done for the storm trident in HttT. Currently the staff is picked up by the first mage that enters the altar, and if that's the behaviour the message can easily use the mage's name.
This feedback of yours reminds me of the fact that the feedback depends on the playthrough, since I had only 1 mage, and to me, I didn't seem to even notice this (since pretty much everywhere else, you are asked if you want to pick it up)
What you suggested is valid though, for armies with more than 1 mage
josteph wrote: Would you like to send a pull request for this? The message is at https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/blob ... os.cfg#L72
It feels kinda embarassing being a programmer for 2 years now, and still not using github, so I don't know about how to use version control with it, or other important stuff like pull requests. I plan to look into github when I have a little more time to implement/fork suggestions like the ones in SoF so as to contribute to this wonderful game :mrgreen:
josteph wrote: S10: This scenario is a bit funny, really, since the three AI leaders leave themselves unprotected in their keeps. Maybe they should be made smarter? For example, they could attack both the eastern and western dwarves or leave their keeps rather than wait there to be picked off. The 35 turn limit makes for a huge amount of carryover gold.
Wow. Had no idea that's the reason of 35 turn limits. Interesting, although still deceiving.
Knowing that is the true reason of 35 turns, perhaps get the turn limit up to 15~17, then by WML, when you finish the scenario, give enough "early finish" gold with same formula, so as the balance stays the same? After all, the long turn limit implies/suggests that this will be a long siege scenario

Also yes, A.I. leaders can be sniped so easy in this, but the player will usually go for the long game. With the dialogue fix (and perhaps the turn limit suggestion above?) it should be proper and have no issues. I mean, the "smarter A.I."/split up, will mean balancing issues and a lot more effort
josteph wrote: Another thing about this campaign is how effective thunderers are in it. In S4 (Troll Bridge) and S6 (High Pass) there is _one_ unit with ranged attacks between them. This hurts replay value, a player who knows this can just spam thunderers and win with little resistance.
Well, I found out about this too late, but its definitely interesting. While it means that the overall balancing is flawed because it doesn't "help" all the unit types, I would say it increases the replay value, because by spamming the thunderers you experience the campaign a lot differently, meta-gaming has its ups and downs :lol: (although, personally I don't see me replaying any campaign)


On the feedback on the new "12 - The Underlevels", I have no idea when, but I want to have a full day to play + provide valid feedback, mostly because I am borderline traumatised by the last time I played that horrible scenario xD

josteph
Developer
Posts: 100
Joined: August 19th, 2017, 6:58 pm

Re: [In-depth Feedback]The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by josteph » October 3rd, 2018, 5:20 pm

About github, for small text changes like this you can use the web interface. Sign up to github, open the link I gave, click the pencil icon, make your changes and click through to create a pull request. This way is good enough for small changes but for larger ones you'll want to use a proper git client.

About 35 turns, I didn't say that carryover gold was the reason for the turn limit. Just that if the turn limit is reduced then the carryover gold will be affected, so maybe the starting gold of the next scenario should be increased to compensate, for example. (I'm not an expert on balancing)

About replay value, I wonder if the campaign can be won by playing only with thunderers (+ loyals). Or for that matter, only Drake Burners. (I like replaying campaigns with a different faction than intended. HttT plays entirely differently with dwarves)

Balroth
Posts: 15
Joined: September 20th, 2018, 7:14 pm

Re: [In-depth Feedback]The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Balroth » October 3rd, 2018, 11:21 pm

josteph wrote: About 35 turns, I didn't say that carryover gold was the reason for the turn limit. Just that if the turn limit is reduced then the carryover gold will be affected, so maybe the starting gold of the next scenario should be increased to compensate, for example. (I'm not an expert on balancing)
Oops, I misunderstood thinking it was the main reason. Well, the suggestion to reduce the turn limit "smartly" still applies :mrgreen:
josteph wrote: About replay value, I wonder if the campaign can be won by playing only with thunderers (+ loyals). Or for that matter, only Drake Burners. (I like replaying campaigns with a different faction than intended. HttT plays entirely differently with dwarves)
Interesting idea, since with meta knowledge, you can experience pretty much a lot of scenarios differently. Someone will definitely try it out in the future, but it should be possible to do so without much challenge
josteph wrote: About github, for small text changes like this you can use the web interface. Sign up to github, open the link I gave, click the pencil icon, make your changes and click through to create a pull request. This way is good enough for small changes but for larger ones you'll want to use a proper git client.
Pming you for details since I don't want to post 2~3 times on technical topics :roll: However, thanks for helping me! <3

User avatar
beetlenaut
Developer
Posts: 2225
Joined: December 8th, 2007, 3:21 am
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: [In-depth Feedback]The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by beetlenaut » October 8th, 2018, 3:55 am

Some (strange) people like long dungeon crawls like the underlevels, and it's not necessarily a bad scenario, it just doesn't fit this campaign at all. (It was written by a different author, in fact.) If a better ending scenario is made, the original underlevels could be brought back as a single-scenario campaign--like Forward They Cried. There was talk of making a pack of single scenarios campaigns once, but there weren't enough of them. This dungeon crawl would help the cause.
Campaigns: Dead Water
The Founding of Borstep
Secrets of the Ancients

Balroth
Posts: 15
Joined: September 20th, 2018, 7:14 pm

Re: [In-depth Feedback]The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Balroth » October 15th, 2018, 8:23 pm

beetlenaut wrote: Some (strange) people like long dungeon crawls like the underlevels, and it's not necessarily a bad scenario, it just doesn't fit this campaign at all. (It was written by a different author, in fact.)
I totally agree. Also, the different author = different scenario "feel", makes sense now :lol: An unexpected fun fact for sure, thanks for sharing it
beetlenaut wrote: If a better ending scenario is made, the original underlevels could be brought back as a single-scenario campaign--like Forward They Cried. There was talk of making a pack of single scenarios campaigns once, but there weren't enough of them. This dungeon crawl would help the cause.
Having the final scenario be a campaign of its own is definitely interesting. After all, it could easily work like that, and it would instantly cater to the fans of this type of scenario, which currently is horrible because it does injustice to both the "long dungeon crawler" fans and haters, catering fully to no one, since this scenario is at the end of a campaign, unrelated to such a gameplay style. I would perhaps try out single-scenario campaigns, they can be unique for sure. This, and (add-on campaign) ooze-mini campaign final scenario really fit this "pack"/category, but I got so much more to play/learn.

I will play Forward They Cried when I have plenty of time (I tried it after my first 3 campaigns and utterly failed) but I really lack time lately
When I do find time, I will play through and drop feedback on the new Underlevels scenario linked above. After all, it's still kinda hard to grasp that this scenario is the ending/climax of an official campaign.

Aside of the above, thanks for the feedback :mrgreen: (also, that feel when a campaign-wide feedback is 99% the final scenario)

Post Reply