Partial objectives

[Chris NS]

I've noticed that (especially for people who are used to playing Heir to the Throne) often you think you've completed a scenario, only to discover that actually this objective only creates another object, which can be annoying if you only recruited the minimum number of units to complete the first objective. Any chance of building in a capability to WML to distinguish between scenario-winning objectives and other objectives (maybe "next step" insetad of "victory" and yellow text instead of green)?

Or is this a job for zookeeper to show how you can already do it?

[zookeeper]

I've noticed that (especially for people who are used to playing Heir to the Throne) often you think you've completed a scenario, only to discover that actually this objective only creates another object, which can be annoying if you only recruited the minimum number of units to complete the first objective. Any chance of building in a capability to WML to distinguish between scenario-winning objectives and other objectives (maybe "next step" insetad of "victory" and yellow text instead of green)?

Or is this a job for zookeeper to show how you can already do it?

Well, I think you can pretty much do that already just by creative use of the [objectives] tag. As you can see, you can change basically all of the text of the objectives dialog (so you can replace "Victory:" with "First objective:" or whatever), and you can also use linebreaks, colour lines as you wish, make lines smaller or bolded, etc. The colourings and text size modifiers are documented under [message] in the wiki, but they work also at least in the objective descriptions (not sure if they work in all the headers and such).

[Elestel]

I think it's not necessary. Really, in a campaign, you should be prepared for anything, since a thing getting off the water, to further objetives.

[zookeeper]

Just some example fanciness you could do. Both objectives are displayed to begin with, but the "first one" is displayed clearly as the one the player should or must do first. Then, when he completes the first one, the second one becomes "active" and the first one is marked as completed.

The WML for the first one:

Code: Select all

		[objectives]
			victory_string= _ "` "

			[objective]
				description= _ "*@Objective I:
  Seize a castle
<0,0,0>-
*<100,100,100>Objective II:
<100,100,100>  Defeat all remaining enemies"
				condition=win
			[/objective]

			defeat_string= _ "` "

			[objective]
				description= _ "*#Defeat condition:
  Death of Joe"
				condition=lose
			[/objective]
		[/objectives]

...and for the second one:

Code: Select all

		[objectives]
			victory_string= _ "` "

			[objective]
				description= _ "*<100,100,100>Objective I (completed):
<100,100,100>  Seize a castle
<0,0,0>-
*@Objective II:
  Defeat all remaining enemies"
				condition=win
			[/objective]

			defeat_string= _ "` "

			[objective]
				description= _ "*#Defeat condition:
  Death of Joe"
				condition=lose
			[/objective]
		[/objectives]

Just an example.

[zookeeper]

I think it's not necessary. Really, in a campaign, you should be prepared for anything, since a thing getting off the water, to further objetives.

I really, really disagree with this. You can't expect a player to prepare for everything in a scenario, since if he does, he won't be able to win the next scenario since he didn't level enough units and collect enough gold while he was preparing for everything in the previous one. The player must be able to win a scenario on the first try, otherwise the scenario/campaign is just badly designed, plain and simple.

EDIT: I assume you think you just played badly if you get 3 enemy lancers spawned next to your leader, which kill him, on a random turn in a scenario without prior warning? Really, it's about the same situation.

[Ken_Oh]

I agree completely with Zoo. Putting in "surprises" that just make you want to start the scenario over is rather poor design.

As it is, Wesnoth is a better strategy game than an adventure game.

[Zhukov]

I agree partially with Zoo. "Surprises" are fine so long as they aren't complete show-stoppers.

(So yes, three lancers spawning within range of our leader would be going overboard.)

[zookeeper]

I agree partially with Zoo. "Surprises" are fine so long as they aren't complete show-stoppers.

(So yes, three lancers spawning within range of our leader would be going overboard.)

Sure, there can be small surprises, but IMHO even these should be made very carefully. Need to spawn a few extra enemies when the player steps on some piece of land? Go ahead and spawn some, but spawn them at least one turn away, not next to or within immediate striking range of the poor trespassing unit (or give a warning, like "we should proceed to that area with extreme caution, there might be enemies waiting to ambush us", just like is done in "Crossroads" in HttT). Need to add a new objective in the middle of the scenario? Sure, add one, but make sure the player has been given some prior warning that he might need to be going a different way at some point. And in most cases, absolutely raise the turn limit (if there is one) using our fair WML capabilities when you add a completely new objective (unless there's a really, really good reason for not doing so).

And remember, you have to take the player's potential bad luck into account when for example spawning enemy units. If the player loses because a few pesky enemies spawned next to their leader, the scenario is the one to blame when the player doesn't simply have the units around to kill them, his leader misses all strikes and the enemies hit on all strikes, killing the leader. Normally, you could just say that the player should have been able to handle two nagas by managing risks (which is true, and when it fails due to incredibly bad luck the player can blame the game and not your scenario specifically), but in a case like the aforementioned you've already taken the possibility to manage risks away from the player, so losing due to bad luck is not his fault anymore in such a case.

[Glowing Fish]

Of course, it is up the campaign designer to make any objectives they wish! And to tell the truth about them, or lie about them! If you want to make your campaign have a scenario where, say, a random unit has to step on a random hex on turn 25, and that is the only way to win the scenario, then you can do that. And you can lie and say all you have to do is defeat enemy leaders!

But, if you do that, people might not like playing your campaign! Goodness knows I gnashed and cursed enough during Dwarven Doors!

[turin]

It is true, as zookeeper says, that you can already do this with some creative WML. But IMHO you shouldn't need creative WML for something like the [objectives] tag. So, it seems like a good idea to me to add a "partial victory", in addition to the "victory" and "defeat". I would certainly use it a lot...

[Chris NS]

Actually, I think I might be talked over by zookeeper's objective I / objective II idea. I'll have a think about this. Watch this space.

[zookeeper]

It is true, as zookeeper says, that you can already do this with some creative WML. But IMHO you shouldn't need creative WML for something like the [objectives] tag.

True, at least you shouldn't need to manually add spaces and linebreaks to get non-stupid looking padding around stuff etc.