Should invisibility be scrapped?

[Dave]

I am sorely tempted to remove abilities that rely on invisibility -- ambush and nightstalk from the game. There are a few reasons for this:

- invisibility greatly reduces the 'board-gameability' of Wesnoth
- the AI can't handle invisibility, and making it handle it would require fundamental changes to the AI
- invisibility is painful to maintain, and is a very fertile source of bugs; many features are harder to implement due to invisibility, and there have been over 10 bugs caused the invisibility, and will likely be more in the future.
- I don't think invisibility is really even all that fun.

Thoughts?

David

[turin]

If this is done, rangers/avengers and shadows/nightgaunts need a new ability. Preferrably one that helps rangers/avengers in forest, and helps shadows/nightgaunts at night.


But i don't have a problem with it if something sane is come up with for both of them...

[Elvish_Pillager]

What's next, stoning? Please? Stoning is about as bad as invisibility!

Yes, I think invisibility shuld be scrapped. Maybe shadows/rangers should get regeneration in those areas? Just an idea... I personally think there's nothing wrong with leaving them as it is, though.

[scott]

I like invisibility.

[Elvish_Pillager]

I like invisibility.

I don't. When I'm using it, it's an 'exploiting' type thing, which is generally to be avoided (Wesnoth tries to avoid them generally, anyway...) and when my enemies are using it, it's an 'annoying' type thing, which is ALWAYS to be avoided. Things one player likes at the expense of another, things that prevent undoing, things that cause bugs and problems, are things that shouldn't exist.

[Dragonking]

I like invisibility very much too, but if you must, if this cause so much problems - remove it. Regeneration - woses already have this so maybe incrase def in forest? Rangers can have regeneration in forest , but IMO with this and 70% def there they will be a little too strong. Shadows... maybe skirmish ability, but it can be too strong...

[Jetrel]

I like invisibility.

I like invisibility too...

[jp30]

I am sorely tempted to remove abilities that rely on invisibility -- ambush and nightstalk from the game.

Well, I'd be sorry to see it go. For one thing, my campaign "An Orcish Incursion" relies on the Elvish Ranger's ambush ability in one level. I think it's quite fun actually. With that campaign I even went out of my way to use only core wesnoth features that I thought would be pretty stable!

What about this: keep ambush in there for version 1.0, and consider removing it in favour of the other features you mention in a post-1.0 devel version.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Hey look, we're saying why Invisibility should be removed and giving reasons while a bunch of you are just saying "I like it" and not defending your position! And that's partly because there is no logical reason to like invisiblity! The same goes for Fog of War! Everyone I meet who likes it just says "no fog = no strategy" and then I explain why fog kills strategy, and they say something like "fine". That's because there is no strategy inherent in fog or in invisibility! In fact, one of the things that is most distinctive about Wesnoth is that you know everything that's going on, and you can make strategic decisions based on real knowledge and not make said decisions based on guesses. (Of course, you make 'guesses' all the time on what random numbers are going to be, but there you are actually informed of the probabilities and don't have to leave that to guessing too. Besides, the combat luck 'evens out' but it doesn't make sense for strategic luck to even out.) And lastly it kills undoing too! I like the undo feature because it lets me get away with not spending lots of extra time just making sure I don't misclick! Invisibility is even worse in this case because the click-to-attack feature doesn't let you undo from it! That ruins the original reason said feature was proposed!

[Dragonking]

I like fog because it is more real to see only what is in range of my units, and that allows me to group units in some place and do ambush. I like "ambush" ability because it is fun to let think enemy that you have only archer in forest where are 5 woses. I don't want a super-tactic-game, I want have fun.

[turin]

Do you also dislike shroud, then?

[aelius]

Would it be possible to have abilities filtered by terrain? You could replace ambush with "skirmisher on woods" and nightstalk with "skirmisher at night" or something like that.

I for one cast my vote for keeping the invisibilities, if possible. Fog, too, is useful, if only because it negates the advantage the second player to recruit gets in multiplayer. It also increases the value of fast scouting units, because they allow you to gather more information quickly.

- b.

[turin]

Would it be possible to have abilities filtered by terrain? You could replace ambush with "skirmisher on woods" and nightstalk with "skirmisher at night" or something like that.

I for one cast my vote for keeping the invisibilities, if possible. Fog, too, is useful, if only because it negates the advantage the second player to recruit gets in multiplayer. It also increases the value of fast scouting units, because they allow you to gather more information quickly.

- b.

I think we could ditch FoW, and just keep shroud. It doesn't have the one problem i have with shroud... you sometimes LOSE information you once had. Its OK for you never to have had info, but its bad when you have it, then lose it...

[Elvish_Pillager]

I like fog because it is more real to see only what is in range of my units

WINR

and that allows me to group units in some place and do ambush. I like "ambush" ability because it is fun to let think enemy that you have only archer in forest where are 5 woses.

Things one player likes at the expense of another ... are things that shouldn't exist.

Perhaps I should explain this more: There's absolutely no point ambushing AI with fog (they see through it) and when you're using it against another human, they are going to HATE it. Being ambushed is one of the MOST ANNOYING THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU. And ambushing is NOT the most fun. If you like ambushing, go play [insert some other game here].

Also, what I term 'exploiting' is one of the very major GOOD THINGS about Wesnoth: There is hardly any of it. And I don't mean things like exploiting the AI, tricking it and making use of its weaknesses; I mean things like exploiting the game rules to make your side more powerful. Ambushing is one way of doing this. Ambushing is not accounted for in the balance of the game, so using it makes the game unbalanced. Winning by luck OR by trickery is not a good way of winning; it's a problem if an unskilled player can beat a skilled player by luck, as fog allows.

The very fact that invisibility is not supported by the game rules and is full of holes in general, indicates that this is not the right game for invisibility.

Do you also dislike shroud, then?

Yes, but not nearly as much. Shroud is much more 'honest' than Fog; Exploring becomes useful, and exploring keeps you from being ambushed. It's very difficult to hide in shroud.

[sanna]

I am sorely tempted to remove abilities that rely on invisibility -- ambush and nightstalk from the game. There are a few reasons for this:

- invisibility greatly reduces the 'board-gameability' of Wesnoth
- the AI can't handle invisibility, and making it handle it would require fundamental changes to the AI
- invisibility is painful to maintain, and is a very fertile source of bugs; many features are harder to implement due to invisibility, and there have been over 10 bugs caused the invisibility, and will likely be more in the future.
- I don't think invisibility is really even all that fun.

Thoughts?

I have no problems what so ever with the removal of invisibility. I think the inability of the ai to deal with it is sufficient reason to justify the removal. And I agree, it does not contribute to fun.