Places where I think Wesnoth could improve. DRAFT

[JW]

I'm just going to focus on places where I think Wesnoth could improve, because there's plenty of time for praise later:

1) Randomness.
-you read it more often than you don't. The randomness isn't liked by most. It stays why? The people that don't like it leave and therefore don't contribute. The people that do like it are the ones who stay and vigorously defend it and are now entrenched. Also, it would require a lot of work to code (apparently).

2) Relative power of units that level.
-A unit can fight and barely stave off death to level. Now, not only will the slightest touch not kill him, but he can now fight multiple lower level targets with ease.

3) Upkeep system.
-This is mainly for campaigns, where recalling higher level units can be something you try to avoid, but it also applies to how the economy works in MP as well. 1 village becomes a major swing in any MP game.

A similar case could be made for xp.


I know these things will never change, and this will probably be locked before I get the chance to revise it for being FPI (at least in parts). I wonder though, if ideas are so frequently proposed, perhaps they have some merit?

I only post this now to remember to revise it later, and to maybe spark some reflection on the development decisions that have been made, and if different ones could have been better.

[AI]

As for #1: http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=21317

[Dave]

I'm just going to focus on places where I think Wesnoth could improve, because there's plenty of time for praise later:

1) Randomness.
-you read it more often than you don't. The randomness isn't liked by most. It stays why? The people that don't like it leave and therefore don't contribute. The people that do like it are the ones who stay and vigorously defend it and are now entrenched. Also, it would require a lot of work to code (apparently).

As I stated in my rationale thread, randomness is quite fundamental to Wesnoth's gameplay.

I have not seen any real evidence that the "randomness isn't liked by most".

I also haven't seen any random mod which people actually find to be lots of fun.

Also "it" taking a lot of work to code depends on what "it" is. Most mods would probably be easy to program.

2) Relative power of units that level.
-A unit can fight and barely stave off death to level. Now, not only will the slightest touch not kill him, but he can now fight multiple lower level targets with ease.

I don't see this as a problem. It's an intentional part of the game.

3) Upkeep system.
-This is mainly for campaigns, where recalling higher level units can be something you try to avoid, but it also applies to how the economy works in MP as well. 1 village becomes a major swing in any MP game.

I think that villages are currently of quite reasonable power in mp. It's often worth giving up a village for a while in exchange for some other advantage. But it's worth trying to capture villages and being willing to put a good deal of effort into it.

David

[appleide]

Village economy can be annoying in MP sometimes, especially when I play drakes.... I'd be having a 4-to-1 kill ratio against the other player (Loyalist maybe 2-1 or 3-1) 10 turns into the game and still be losing. An opponent once remarked: "Pyrrhic victory after Pyrrhic victory...".

That said, I love drakes though, even though I only ever won once using them. =D

Let me go grab that replay...

[Fosprey]

i love the fact that one village is very important, the game is pretty defensive and long as it is, in fact if something i would make it so that grabbing a village is more powerfull than now.

[JW]

i love the fact that one village is very important, the game is pretty defensive and long as it is, in fact if something i would make it so that grabbing a village is more powerfull than now.

I would argue it's so defensive BECAUSE villages are so important: losing one is damning (I don't consider the push-pull of the day-night to be a "loss". Only a true capture is a loss.)

[Trau]

My 2 cents.

1. The randomness is actually not that big of a deal. While it may be unfair in the context of duels between two units, the overall fact is that so many dice are thrown over the course of a game, there is usually not that big a difference overall.

2. The way I see it, levelling units is a perfect component when it comes to campaigns. However, in multiplayer, when a unit levels up, it represents a HUGE swing in the advantage of one side over another. It's like not only the potential to fully heal one of your units, but also to upgrade a unit to nearly double its power in the usual case, not to mention the benefits that certain units have of expanding their roles by levelling. While one could argue that both sides have the equal capacity to level up their units and gun for opposing units on the verge of levelling up, it hardly seems fair that the first person to have a level-up has such a huge advantage?

Personally, I dunno... it would on one hand be kinda boring to play with only level 1's all the time... but wouldn't a good quick fix be to allow the host of a game to set a maximum level cap to the game? And, while we're at it, allow the host to set what level units are recruitable (though I'm pretty sure there's already an era that lets you recruit level 2 units off the bat)

3. 1 village is supposed to be a major swing. Good strategy games discourage stalemates and sets hotspots for the most frantic fighting. My personal beef with the upkeep system is that it's a huge penalty to apparently low-costing units. Though costs for units seem to range from a 12 gold grunt to a 24 gold gryphon rider, it's actually misleading to say that one gryphon costs the same as two grunts because the cost of a grunt is 12 gold +1 for every turn he is on the board and the cost of a gryphon is 24 +1 for every turn he stays on the board. In other words, it means that even in the most extreme difference of level 1 unit costs, two of the cheapest units is more expensive after just a single turn than one of the most expensive.

This presents a serious problem where swarming tactics are not viable because having so many units tends to make your armies collapse your economy... which is okay, except that there are factions dedicated to the ability to swarm.

[TL]

2. The way I see it, levelling units is a perfect component when it comes to campaigns. However, in multiplayer, when a unit levels up, it represents a HUGE swing in the advantage of one side over another. It's like not only the potential to fully heal one of your units, but also to upgrade a unit to nearly double its power in the usual case, not to mention the benefits that certain units have of expanding their roles by levelling. While one could argue that both sides have the equal capacity to level up their units and gun for opposing units on the verge of levelling up, it hardly seems fair that the first person to have a level-up has such a huge advantage?

Look at your own response to point #3, though. Leveling up is one of the game's main stalemate-breakers. Oftentimes six turns of advance and retreat (a full day/night cycle's worth) leaves no noticeable change in the strategic outlook except the experience that is accumulated. It would be relatively easy to just go back and forth indefinitely even against a somewhat superior player if it wasn't for the fact that they're eventually going to start leveling on you.

Also, while advancements have the potential to swing a game, they can also potentially bite you in the rear as well. Generally a lot of the units that are easy to level up also have singularly crappy advancements and can potentially swing a match in the opposite direction--mostly by giving out larger chunks of XP that allow the enemy to level off you more easily, granted.

This presents a serious problem where swarming tactics are not viable because having so many units tends to make your armies collapse your economy... which is okay, except that there are factions dedicated to the ability to swarm.

...an ability which they have in spades, thanks to their level 0 units. And don't counter "but level 0s suck!", or I will stab you with a goblin spearman. Not with the spear, mind you. I will stab you with a goblin.

[Shammah]

Personally one change I would like to see considered for the Northerners, is to add Loyal to the available traits of their Lvl1's - maybe even replacing Intelligent.

I realise this will be unbalancing, but I think it would help emphasise the 'swarm' flavour of the race.

P.S. I'm not sure what I think of the recent changes to the assassin. One of the distinctive features of the Northerners was their lack of a magic-user - adding marksman to the assassin effectively removes that distinction. Still I haven't played the development version yet, so these are just my initial thoughts on hearing the news, not a criticism.

[Doc Paterson]

add Loyal to the available traits of their Lvl1's -

I realise this will be unbalancing, but

Nice necromancy by the way.

[JW]

Nice necromancy by the way.

Yar, indeed. Much better to post in one of the other suggestion threads I've stirred up lately.