Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Discussion and development of scenarios and campaigns for the game.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
white_haired_uncle
Posts: 551
Joined: August 26th, 2018, 11:46 pm

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by white_haired_uncle » August 26th, 2018, 11:54 pm

BFW 1.14.0
RFTA 1.1.8

1) In Iron and Mud, I can access the prisoners areas, but I cannot return. It looks like you're setting up a tunnel that goes in both directions, but for me it's a one-way trip.

2) I just played Familiar Landscape, and I did not see a single sandstorm. Dumb luck, or ...

3) In the attacker_hits event for the spear, you test for second_unit.resistance.impact twice. I suspect one of those is supposed to be pierce.

User avatar
skeptical_troll
Posts: 423
Joined: August 31st, 2015, 11:06 pm

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by skeptical_troll » August 27th, 2018, 8:13 am

Hi, thanks for the bug report!
white_haired_uncle wrote:
August 26th, 2018, 11:54 pm
1) In Iron and Mud, I can access the prisoners areas, but I cannot return. It looks like you're setting up a tunnel that goes in both directions, but for me it's a one-way trip.
I'm not able to reproduce it on BfW 1.14.4 . Does this happen for all underground areas and with all units? Are you sure there aren't units blocking the exit? Notice also that they are automatically teleported only the first time you step on the trap doors, the next times you need to drag them manually. If these do not explain it I have no idea what it could be :hmm: Perhaps a save file/replay could be helpful.
white_haired_uncle wrote:
August 26th, 2018, 11:54 pm
2) I just played Familiar Landscape, and I did not see a single sandstorm. Dumb luck, or ...
You mean not even a single hex was under sandstorm?? It is supposed to happen in the east part. It's true that if you pass the mountains quickly, the sandstorms might not be well developed, but a few small ones should be there. At least it is working in my BfW version. Again, if you have a savefile/replay it may be helpful.
white_haired_uncle wrote:
August 26th, 2018, 11:54 pm
3) In the attacker_hits event for the spear, you test for second_unit.resistance.impact twice. I suspect one of those is supposed to be pierce.
Indeed, I missed that. Luckily that only affected the unit recoloring, not the actual resistance. Will be fixed in the next release.

white_haired_uncle
Posts: 551
Joined: August 26th, 2018, 11:46 pm

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by white_haired_uncle » August 27th, 2018, 9:54 pm

Mixed luck here. Most of the autosaves are gone. I found one from Iron is a perfect example, the only ones from Familiar are turn 10 or earlier.

I see now that Iron was user error. I expected to be teleported when I returned to the hex. Now I see that I have to click on a location outside the prison area to teleport. Maybe a in-game clue could be provided?

In Familiar, I did not notice a single sandstorm, FWIW. I actually forgot they were part of the scenario.

Thanks for taking the time to create this campaign. Looks like you put a lot of work into it, especially for how much we're paying you.
Attachments
RftA-Familiar Landscapes Turn 10.gz
(74.43 KiB) Downloaded 141 times
RftA-Iron and mud Turn 25.gz
(96.08 KiB) Downloaded 140 times
WARNING: I suck at BFW, I'm usually barely paying attention, and I often like to try stupid things just to see what happens. Then I cheat. Watching my replays is known to the State of California to cause permanent mental injury.

User avatar
skeptical_troll
Posts: 423
Joined: August 31st, 2015, 11:06 pm

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by skeptical_troll » August 28th, 2018, 8:16 pm

white_haired_uncle wrote:
August 27th, 2018, 9:54 pm
I see now that Iron was user error. I expected to be teleported when I returned to the hex. Now I see that I have to click on a location outside the prison area to teleport. Maybe a in-game clue could be provided?
Sure, I may add a note after the first teleportation happens, it cannot do any harm.
white_haired_uncle wrote:
August 27th, 2018, 9:54 pm
In Familiar, I did not notice a single sandstorm, FWIW. I actually forgot they were part of the scenario.
There are some in your save, so probably they remained small afterwards or just got consumed quicker than usual. It was probably just matter of luck, but in my experience sandstorms never affect that scenario too strongly, so I may experiment with the propagation probabilities a little bit more.

Thanks again for reporting!

denispir
Posts: 80
Joined: March 14th, 2013, 12:26 am

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by denispir » January 3rd, 2019, 12:06 pm

Hello, I really enjoy the beginning of this campaign, actually only the first 2 scenarios as of now; which I however find both unbalanced, although in opposite ways ;). I will double post to talk about either independantly. (I thought I had already posted that, but cannot find my post anymore, so probably I forgot to click "submit" before closing the tab, anyway my thoughts have evolved). I played on easy because there is no indication of intended audience, or I could not find any. I would evaluate myself as a half-skilled and somewhat experienced player (but shy rather than bold, reason for my choice).

About scenario 1 Unglorious Campaign:

On easy, seems to me too easy even for rather novice players: there is only one main ennemy on our way, all others including the NE one only cope with our ally. Thus just rush on the southern path (far from most ennemy sides) and cope with the few and spread out units who dare oppose us. I took a second castle-full of recruits intended for rear guard, plus blocking the north (NE ennemy), and/or XP; but could have done without: they just gained a few XP (could be a right strategy for higher difficulties). Finished in 13 turns, no death, not even a risk.

A few proposals, alternative or complementary:
  • Add a loyal unit (an initial unit, how is it called?), such as a bodyguard, to the main ennemy.
  • Have this ennemy camp defend a zone instead of rushing and spreading out.
  • Make the NE camp have only us (not our ally) as ennemy, or give them our leader as target, after a given turn (5?).
All this may require some deaths on our side, so appropriate hints would be welcome, but if done minimaly would only make it interesting and challenging without being to hard or annoying.

Also, I would add a second part to the scenario (and map), that would make up a better transition to the story follow-up in my view. Presently, the said transition seems forced to me, especially the hypocrisy (about our presence or not) and the request for trial.

There would be an change of objective: "resist (until the end)". The map would figure the entry zone of the cave system, think at UtBS, where we would defend from: there may be ancient, abandoned and partly crushed fortifications, due to the fact dwarves now live (and defend) deeper after harsh periods such some told in other campaigns. Interesting is that the earlier players reach the gates (the better they play, the stronger their side), the longer they have to resist: a kind of auto-balance... This part may also require a moderate loss. Also interesting storywise is that the survivors may now be bound stronger after such a harsh and tragic common experience (also, they are supposed military novices, you say), with string solidarity and all that, which would also deepen the ambiant atmosphere (think at UtBS again), I guess...

Now, dwarves would show up at end-of-scenario, and a dialog similar to the beginning of the present next scenario At the Border happen. Actually, I would happily get rid of the king's presence (except in words, to impress the elf leader) and of the scene with him: brings nothing in my view. Or, he could appear at the beginning of the now 3rd scenario Trial at Arms as a high authority requiring the trial, precisely (eg after what the dwarf witnesses have told him of our fighting ability).

Another advantage is that it would make a slighter bigger and more complex scenario, preparing for things to come (less contrast).

denispir
Posts: 80
Joined: March 14th, 2013, 12:26 am

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by denispir » January 3rd, 2019, 2:44 pm

About scenario 3 Trial at Arms:
(I think of it as scenario 2 and some other feedback seems to confuse as well)

This one seems to me (far) too hard and complex on easy difficulty, thus for more novice or unexperimented players. I played it "thrice". First replayed for too hard because I unadvertendly opended the gates to the goblin then the scorpions nests. Then replayed because I did not properly orientate my path (would probably have finished in more than 100 turns). On 3rd trial (with a split of my commando of now only l2-3 units) I finished in about 85 turns (but win never triggered, see below bug 2).

Ok, now I guess to know the scenario logic (tell me if I'm wrong). Thus we will find:
  • a few roaming units (goblins troll) mainly at the very start
  • some units without nest (bats, mud, rats)
  • some units coming from a nest (goblins, trolls, scorpions, spiders)
  • the spiders however are not in a closed cave, unlike other nests
Units providing from a nest seem to start and flow only when an event is triggered by our approach, which causes their leader to start and recruit, certainly. So, the right tactic, also because they are more powerful thus dangerous, is to trigger them only one after the other. Another aspect is to rightly plan our path to do so and avoid having to cross back the whole cave system to reach the last nest(s): what I did in 2nd traial, keeping the goblins and scorpions for the end, but I had to go back there from the troll cave.

Combining all that, I would see a tactical (or rather pathway) alternative:
  • Cleen up (read: exterminate all beings from) the big and complex open and central cave system, since otherwise they will never stop annoying us; then split our commando, one half (stronger unit) going to exterminate the trolls, the other to goblins and scorpions.
  • Right after killing the initial few beasts, without annoying the little troll leader, less so the spider, enter the goblin cave and from there the scorpions, then only cleen up the central area finishing by the spiders and finally open the troll cave.
The latter also seems better in terms of progression (our commando gets stronger indeed) but we have to keep the goblin gate for a while against the constant flow of pests, muds mainly but also rats and bats. I may replay doing so.

All this knowledge and tactic is in my view necessary to experience a pleasant playing, not annoying (also without constantly saveloading or restarting because of a single but deadly bad choice), and to have a chance to finish in reasonable time (if less than 100 turns counts as reasonable). But certainly you may agree that it is far too much and hard for an supposedly easy difficulty, and anyway we cannot know anything of all that without having tried and persisted and failed more than once... Now, compare with scenario 1, which I found both too easy and simple (and indeed never reloaded).

Now, a few side comments:

Spiders look exaggerately, in fact incredibly, overpowered. Now to mention the recruitment which made me have to fight 3 of them at the same time, fortunately I already had several level 2s plus 1-2 level 3s then, but I had to spend several turns of healing afterwards (only 1 death, but with quite a luck). They are not only funnily destructive in both ranges, they also have a movement of 6 on all terrains except fungus, including water... Very very counter-intuitive, no? They have their place indeed (I fought them more than once) but more in later scenarios and/or harder difficulty. Since it is a standard unit type, let us not change it; I would rather propose choosing another line of ennemies for this scenario, at least on difficulty easy. Since there are bats (levels 0 to 2), why not them? And maybe ghosts (levels 1 to 3) for difficulty medium? Those also have super movement, indeed, but easier and different challenges. And it is easy to balance with number or level of units (while even a single spider more or less may change everything).

I would introduce a dialog about extermination, starting from the statement that what dwarves call "cleaning" is exterminating all animate creatures down there... Beginning between the 2 "philosophers" (and this time the human may have the final word), but possibly with interventions of other units, firstly of Khafir himself. Interestingly storywise, this would be another factor of a future lust to escape ("I/we felt so bad about..."). May pop up after we have cleant up the central area or the first closed nest they "wipe out".

If I rightly understand your explanation about prolonged scenario turn limit, and if it has not changed (since I only read the first few pages of the thread), then you give more money/power to players who finish early and conversely handicap othesr. However, this is reserved logic, no? Players who finish late need your help, not a penalty!, while players who finish quickly can do well without help or even may deal with their resources limited for an interesting challenge at their skill level. What do you think? I am very aware that the whole logic of such games is thus reversed (the better players do, the more power the game logic provides them for later), full of "snowball effect" (positive feedback loops).

I would also support players who propose you to split this scenario in 2. Seems quite easy to slightly modify the map to have the southern half with spiders & trolls coming after. Would also be the opportunity of a witful story rebound and dialogue ("What, you think you have finished? ...")

Bug 1: In the goblin cave, next to the keep and villages, there is a chasm area of which actually some hexes are not chasm, but walkable paths from which they surprisingly attack us. Note: I found the same bug in the WML Guide campaign, second scenario. If I reason well, this means that there exists a terrain type which associated display image is wrong, looking like a chasm, just black; but the funny point is that the bug happens as far as I know only when such hexes actually are next to a real chasm.

Bug 2: I finished and won on 3rd trial: caves "cleant up", and Eridon the dwarf said so. But end-of-scenario never triggered. I guessed I may have to send back Khafir to the cave entry, the dwarf checkpoint, then the other loyals, but nothing worked. Stopped there. Will replay (see above) whenever or rather if ever I find enough eergy for such a monsterous thing (joke: who is the real monster?).

User avatar
skeptical_troll
Posts: 423
Joined: August 31st, 2015, 11:06 pm

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by skeptical_troll » January 7th, 2019, 9:44 pm

Hi Denispir, thanks for taking the time for writing such a detailed feedback, that's much appreciated. Suggestion about the 'easy' difficulty are particularly valuable for me. I know the feeling for 'medium' and 'hard' but, having played this game for quite some time, it's not so easy to put myself in my beginner shoes and remember what I found hard when I started. I remember rebalancing the first scenario some time ago because I felt it was too hard as a beginning and could discourage players, especially on 'easy', now you kind of convinced me that I overdid it and the actual problem is more the second scenario. Coming to your comments:
denispir wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 12:06 pm
Add a loyal unit (an initial unit, how is it called?), such as a bodyguard, to the main enemy.
Have this enemy camp defend a zone instead of rushing and spreading out.
Make the NE camp have only us (not our ally) as enemy, or give them our leader as target, after a given turn (5?).
On easy I give an extra loyal Harrier, which is probably too much together with the extra gold. I'll probably remove it and also reduce slightly bit the gold. I don't want to mess with the AI cause this would unbalance the other difficulty levels, which I consider reasonably balanced (and if anything, on the hard side).
denispir wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 12:06 pm
Also, I would add a second part to the scenario (and map), that would make up a better transition to the story follow-up in my view. Presently, the said transition seems forced to me, especially the hypocrisy (about our presence or not) and the request for trial.

There would be an change of objective: "resist (until the end)". The map would figure the entry zone of the cave system, think at UtBS, where we would defend from..

Now, dwarves would show up at end-of-scenario ... Actually, I would happily get rid of the king's presence (except in words, to impress the elf leader) and of the scene with him: brings nothing in my view.
This would be quite a major change in the scenario structure, requiring a rebalancing of the whole level and perhaps of the following ones (together with a lot of work overall). Although the scenario concept is nice, I feel it would drag the story too much with the elf-escaping business which is more of a prologue to the actual story. It's the beginning of the campaign and I prefer the events to flow a bit faster. More story elements would be required to explain the 'resist n turns' dynamic rather than escaping faster than elves in caves (which are famously terrible in moving underground as many mainline campaigns teach us).

I'd be interested to know however what you find contrived in the current event chain, and what exactly is hypocritical? The fact that the king is asking for a trial?

Perhaps the dialog with Othrondor is not the most memorable of the campaign, but is definitely necessary. If you'll progress farther, you'll realize that he's one of the most important characters, and the pact with him one of the key elements of the plot, so they both deserve a proper introduction, although their relevance might not be obvious at first.

Scenario 2
denispir wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 2:44 pm
All this knowledge and tactic is in my view necessary to experience a pleasant playing, not annoying (also without constantly saveloading or restarting because of a single but deadly bad choice), and to have a chance to finish in reasonable time (if less than 100 turns counts as reasonable). But certainly you may agree that it is far too much and hard for an supposedly easy difficulty, and anyway we cannot know anything of all that without having tried and persisted and failed more than once... Now, compare with scenario 1, which I found both too easy and simple (and indeed never reloaded).
This is a reasonable analysis, I am too concerned with the need of pre-knowledge. I tried to fix it in the past by dropping hints here and there, but you are probably right that a more drastic solution is needed, especially on 'easy'.
denispir wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 2:44 pm
Spiders look exaggerately, in fact incredibly, overpowered.
They are scary indeed, however they are also lonely, and some losses against them are fine. I also find that it adds variety to fight against a few strong units instead of the most common waves of weak/average units. I can get rid of one of them on 'easy' however, that should be more in line with the difficulty.

denispir wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 2:44 pm
I would introduce a dialog about extermination, starting from the statement that what dwarves call "cleaning" is exterminating all animate creatures down there... Interestingly storywise, this would be another factor of a future lust to escape ("I/we felt so bad about...")...
A similar dialog triggers when you first kill a spider, between Khafir and Arzeh, although is more about killing creatures being a dull thing rather than unethical. Arzeh might have an opinion about it, being an educated scholar, but I don't find realistic that soldiers in a medieval setting have problem in killing monsters of the depth (and if they do, I'm sure they'd change their mind in the next scenario :whistle: ). Certainly they don't enjoy it though.
denispir wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 2:44 pm
However, this is reserved logic, no? Players who finish late need your help, not a penalty!
This is an ubiquitous problem in Wesnoth,almost all campaigns follow this and I don't want to reverse it. The main reason of rewarding an early finish is that doing the opposite would just encourage the players to hang there as long as possible and play as slowly and conservatively as possible (milking more xp along the way). There is no easy way out, what I do sometimes is removing the carryover in scenarios where it makes sense to do so.
denispir wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 2:44 pm
I would also support players who propose you to split this scenario in 2. Seems quite easy to slightly modify the map to have the southern half with spiders & trolls coming after. Would also be the opportunity of a witful story rebound and dialogue ("What, you think you have finished? ...")
I think I will try to come up with a solution of this sort, even if it does not involve splitting the scenario in 2. Perhaps I shall prevent to open the gaps to early, or explicitly warn the players of the risk of triggering enemies, or choose a different triggering system.

denispir wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 2:44 pm
Bug 1: In the goblin cave, next to the keep and villages, there is a chasm area of which actually some hexes are not chasm, but walkable paths from which they surprisingly attack us...
There should be standard hanging bridges there (that is why it always happens next to a chasm), and I can't reproduce this bug. Do you see hanging bridges in the map editor? Perhaps some add-on you installed is causing this effect?
denispir wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 2:44 pm
Bug 2: I finished and won on 3rd trial: caves "cleant up", and Eridon the dwarf said so. But end-of-scenario never triggered. I guessed I may have to send back Khafir to the cave entry, the dwarf checkpoint, then the other loyals, but nothing worked. Stopped there. Will replay (see above) whenever or rather if ever I find enough eergy for such a monsterous thing (joke: who is the real monster?).
that's ... interesting. :hmm: :augh: it never occured to me. The only thing I can think about is the magic ring held by the goblin leader. If you defeat the enemies but haven't picked it up, Eridon will tell you to collect it before finishing. I thought this would be a very rare case (like, if the goblin leader is the last one left alive), but perhaps the bridge bug prevented you to pick it up, despite killing it? If you have a savefile of one of the last turns I can inspect it directly.

Thanks again for all the comments, even if I disagreed with some of them they all raised interesting points. Hope you'll find some day the motivation to go on despite the 'monstrosity' of scenario 3 :)

User avatar
IIIO_METAL
Posts: 154
Joined: January 18th, 2017, 5:03 pm
Location: japan

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by IIIO_METAL » January 8th, 2019, 5:36 am

skeptical_troll, good news! I found a solution to the problem that the title text was not translated. It's pretty easy!

Write '#335588' without using {TITLE_COLOR}.

<span color='#335588' font='100.0'><b>Return from the Abyss</b></span>

Naturally, po also needs to be updated, but this should work out. It worked normally in the Japanese translation I made.
I do not know why macros caused the problem :whistle:
Creator of "Mountain Witch" & "Castle of evil spirit"

denispir
Posts: 80
Joined: March 14th, 2013, 12:26 am

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by denispir » January 8th, 2019, 1:27 pm

(for brevity, I removed parts on which I would mostly just reply "ok")
skeptical_troll wrote:
January 7th, 2019, 9:44 pm
denispir wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 12:06 pm
Add a loyal unit (an initial unit, how is it called?), such as a bodyguard, to the main enemy.
Have this enemy camp defend a zone instead of rushing and spreading out.
Make the NE camp have only us (not our ally) as enemy, or give them our leader as target, after a given turn (5?).
On easy I give an extra loyal Harrier, which is probably too much together with the extra gold. I'll probably remove it and also reduce slightly bit the gold. I don't want to mess with the AI cause this would unbalance the other difficulty levels, which I consider reasonably balanced (and if anything, on the hard side).
I would still add some bodyguard to the main ennemy, maybe even a pair of druid + sorceress (veeery annoying with the combination of healing+slow+magic, albeit "dealable" with strong melee as we have), with the status "guardian" (see wiki SingleUnitWML). Since the scenario is short, I may make and try the change myself, if ever your code is properly structured and commented ;) (haven't watched yet). Tell me.

About AI change, all right mainly for the issue of rebalancing higher difficulty levels.
(However, the target change for the NE ennemy may only happen on easy; or happen on other difficulties later, which makes a trivial balancing tool with turn number.)
skeptical_troll wrote: I'd be interested to know however what you find contrived in the current event chain, and what exactly is hypocritical? The fact that the king is asking for a trial?
Well, hypocrisy is their "diplomacy" language, mainly about our presence there or not (the story suggests the truth is well known). If dwarves did show up while we fight at cave entry, all this [censored] would be gone. l
skeptical_troll wrote:
denispir wrote: Scenario 2:
All this knowledge and tactic is in my view necessary to experience a pleasant playing, not annoying (also without constantly saveloading or restarting because of a single but deadly bad choice), and to have a chance to finish in reasonable time (if less than 100 turns counts as reasonable). But certainly you may agree that it is far too much and hard for an supposedly easy difficulty, and anyway we cannot know anything of all that without having tried and persisted and failed more than once... Now, compare with scenario 1, which I found both too easy and simple (and indeed never reloaded).
This is a reasonable analysis, I am too concerned with the need of pre-knowledge. I tried to fix it in the past by dropping hints here and there, but you are probably right that a more drastic solution is needed, especially on 'easy'.
Yes, but splitting it into 2 maps+scenarios would greatly help resolving those issues, even w/o other changes. If there were no spiders early on, while we already fight goblins+trolls+rats+muds+bats (!) all together in the central cave... Also, spiders (their triggering and/or unintuitive long range even across water!) prevent us to chose the better spots to fight other beasts. And no, spiders are not always alone, I have fought 2 together twice already, 1 coming from SE (behing troll keep), 1 from straight south (behind river). They both seem triggered by some map frontier (invisible for us indeed).

[Finally, I wonder if muds ever stop spawning (once triggered if they have a trigger). If they don't stop, then maybe change that for players not to have hundreds of them to kill afterwards if they chose the route of goblins+scorpions.]
skeptical_troll wrote:
denispir wrote: Spiders look exaggerately, in fact incredibly, overpowered.
They are scary indeed, however they are also lonely, and some losses against them are fine. I also find that it adds variety to fight against a few strong units instead of the most common waves of weak/average units. I can get rid of one of them on 'easy' however, that should be more in line with the difficulty.
I understand, but they are not only scary indeed, they have overpowered attacks even compared to trolls. Ma, giant spiders are level 3 monsters... (Only yetis are stronger monsters, level 4; giant rats are level 0, giant scorpions level 1.) It's just too much for easy; reason why I suggested another "race" for easy or even medium: bats (level 0 1 2) or ghosts (level 1 2 3) with the "boss" only of highest level.
skeptical_troll wrote:
denispir wrote: I would introduce a dialog about extermination, starting from the statement that what dwarves call "cleaning" is exterminating all animate creatures down there... Interestingly storywise, this would be another factor of a future lust to escape ("I/we felt so bad about...")...
A similar dialog triggers when you first kill a spider, between Khafir and Arzeh, although is more about killing creatures being a dull thing rather than unethical. Arzeh might have an opinion about it, being an educated scholar, but I don't find realistic that soldiers in a medieval setting have problem in killing monsters of the depth (and if they do, I'm sure they'd change their mind in the next scenario :whistle: ). Certainly they don't enjoy it though.
Yes, you are right, I had missed or rather not really noted this bit of dialogue. But I guees a few words by Khafir would really fit well there, match the story (past present and future) and deepen his personality as well.
skeptical_troll wrote:
denispir wrote: I would also support players who propose you to split this scenario in 2. Seems quite easy to slightly modify the map to have the southern half with spiders & trolls coming after. Would also be the opportunity of a witful story rebound and dialogue ("What, you think you have finished? ...")
I think I will try to come up with a solution of this sort, even if it does not involve splitting the scenario in 2. Perhaps I shall prevent to open the gaps to early, or explicitly warn the players of the risk of triggering enemies, or choose a different triggering system.
At first sight, changing the scenario may well be more work and WML difficulty. And it would not lessen its oversize and complexity. I would do it, splitting it I mean, map changes + scenario adjustments, if (1) you agree for a try (2) "your code is properly structured and commented" ;). Tell me.
skeptical_troll wrote:
denispir wrote: Bug 1: In the goblin cave, next to the keep and villages, there is a chasm area of which actually some hexes are not chasm, but walkable paths from which they surprisingly attack us...
There should be standard hanging bridges there (that is why it always happens next to a chasm), and I can't reproduce this bug. Do you see hanging bridges in the map editor? Perhaps some add-on you installed is causing this effect?
I have no replay unfortunately. But things really were as I said, and (as said also) I found the same bug in another campaign (maybe try playing WML guide, and see the <partly false> chasm in the middle of the map). I will have a look in the map editor at "hanging bridges" over chasms. What variant of chasm did you use, which looks fully black?
PS: I tried in map editor with ordinary chasms and all bridges including hanging ones: all fine, no bug.
skeptical_troll wrote:
denispir wrote: Bug 2: I finished and won on 3rd trial: caves "cleant up", and Eridon the dwarf said so. But end-of-scenario never triggered. I guessed I may have to send back Khafir to the cave entry, the dwarf checkpoint, then the other loyals, but nothing worked. Stopped there. Will replay (see above) whenever or rather if ever I find enough eergy for such a monsterous thing (joke: who is the real monster?).
that's ... interesting. :hmm: :augh: it never occured to me. The only thing I can think about is the magic ring held by the goblin leader. If you defeat the enemies but haven't picked it up, Eridon will tell you to collect it before finishing. I thought this would be a very rare case (like, if the goblin leader is the last one left alive), but perhaps the bridge bug prevented you to pick it up, despite killing it? If you have a savefile of one of the last turns I can inspect it directly.
Yo! Must be the ring. Would have never come to my mind that we had to take it! (Is this condition stated in both the shown objectives and the window accessible by menu?) I forgot it because one unit had to stand on the keep to finish the goblin leader, and was not the right one for the ring, then had other more pressing objects of thought (the trolls)!
skeptical_troll wrote: Thanks again for all the comments, even if I disagreed with some of them they all raised interesting points. Hope you'll find some day the motivation to go on despite the 'monstrosity' of scenario 3 :)
Good that we do not all agree all the time (how else to progress, in any domain?).
Thank you again for your great work.

User avatar
IIIO_METAL
Posts: 154
Joined: January 18th, 2017, 5:03 pm
Location: japan

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by IIIO_METAL » January 10th, 2019, 11:46 am

A question was raised when I was asking for a translation check on the Discord's Japan channel. If the emperor exists, the kingdom is a mistake and the empire is the correct answer?
By the way, is there another question, is The Wolves' Last Path another story of the same background?
Creator of "Mountain Witch" & "Castle of evil spirit"

User avatar
skeptical_troll
Posts: 423
Joined: August 31st, 2015, 11:06 pm

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by skeptical_troll » January 10th, 2019, 11:51 pm

hi IIIO_METAL,
IIIO_METAL wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 5:36 am
I found a solution to the problem that the title text was not translated. It's pretty easy!

Write '#335588' without using {TITLE_COLOR}.
Ah, excellent! Perhaps I even tried it, but then forgot I also had to change the 'po' file, so iti obviously didn't work. A pity that the macro should go as it made things simpler, but it's great to have this solved. Thanks!
IIIO_METAL wrote:
January 10th, 2019, 11:46 am
A question was raised when I was asking for a translation check on the Discord's Japan channel. If the emperor exists, the kingdom is a mistake and the empire is the correct answer?
I'm not 100% confident that I used the two words consistently throughout the campaign, but in my mind Wesnoth has now expanded to an empire (so a group of nations/kingdoms under Wesnoth's dominance), but 'kingdom of Wesnoth' still refers to the core of the empire, which is basically Wesnoth within the borders of the mainline lore. It is also part of the characterization of the 'emperor,' who gives himself this title to highlight his success and to be seen as a conqueror. However, other people might just refer to Wesnoth as a kingdom sticking to its traditional name. Some historical parallel could be the 'United Kingdom' and the 'British Empire', although Queen Victoria had too much British understatement to be called 'empress' :roll: . Hope this clarifies it.
IIIO_METAL wrote:
January 10th, 2019, 11:46 am
By the way, is there another question, is The Wolves' Last Path another story of the same background?
Yes, The Wolves' Last Path is set about 10-15 years before RfTA and in the same 'Universe'. In particular, the guide used for Netheor's expedition, from which all scenario intros are taken, was written by Ahlir, Khafir's father, during his travels at a young age. Othrondor is also supposed to make a quick appearance in the 3rd chapter, whenever I'll manage to get back on it, and he is briefly mentioned by the dwarf mercenary in the tavern, if you talk to him.

User avatar
skeptical_troll
Posts: 423
Joined: August 31st, 2015, 11:06 pm

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by skeptical_troll » January 11th, 2019, 12:27 am

Apologies for the double-posting, I thought in this case it was necessary to keep things tidy.
@denispir
denispir wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 1:27 pm
I would still add some bodyguard to the main ennemy, maybe even a pair of druid + sorceress (veeery annoying with the combination of healing+slow+magic, albeit "dealable" with strong melee as we have), with the status "guardian" (see wiki SingleUnitWML). Since the scenario is short, I may make and try the change myself, if ever your code is properly structured and commented (haven't watched yet). Tell me.
Experimenting is always good, what doesn't sit well with me is removing and adding difficulty at the easiest level. Why would I decrease gold to enemies but then give them a guardian, which is not there on 'normal' and 'hard'? If it's the only way to make the scenario both easy and interesting then fine, but I'd instinctively go for the simplest solution of decreasing gold differences compare to 'normal'. If you are keen to try it out however, I'm happy to hear what you find. The wml should be relatively simple for this scenario, there is nothing too fancy. Indenting is a bit messed up due to some change in the text editor I haven't really understood, but other than that shouldn't be too bad.
denispir wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 1:27 pm
Well, hypocrisy is their "diplomacy" language, mainly about our presence there or not (the story suggests the truth is well known). If dwarves did show up while we fight at cave entry, all this [censored] would be gone.
Ah, I see. The dwarf guard is indeed a bit acting as he didn't know they were approaching which feels a bit weird when the king reveals that he had sent spies to track them. When I wrote the dialog I felt that would be a natural way for a guard to behave and speak, but I can try to rephrase it to attenuate this contrast.
denispir wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 1:27 pm
Also, spiders (their triggering and/or unintuitive long range even across water!) prevent us to chose the better spots to fight other beasts. And no, spiders are not always alone, I have fought 2 together twice already, 1 coming from SE (behing troll keep), 1 from straight south (behind river). They both seem triggered by some map frontier (invisible for us indeed).
Spiders are actually implemented using the hunter micro ai. They roam randomly on their hunting ground, they aren't triggered by anything. Perhaps reducing the size of this hunting ground could be a way of making them less dangerous.
denispir wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 1:27 pm
Finally, I wonder if muds ever stop spawning (once triggered if they have a trigger). If they don't stop, then maybe change that for players not to have hundreds of them to kill afterwards if they chose the route of goblins+scorpions
Mud is recruited normally from the beginning by the Giant Spider in the east-most cave. They keep coming mainly because of the income and cheap cost/upkeep. I personally recruit a few burners which have an easy time holding them in the bottleneck and quickly level up in the process (it is also a good place to light a campfire).
denispir wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 1:27 pm
At first sight, changing the scenario may well be more work and WML difficulty. And it would not lessen its oversize and complexity. I would do it, splitting it I mean, map changes + scenario adjustments, if (1) you agree for a try (2) "your code is properly structured and commented" . Tell me.
This scenario is much more complex (> 1000 wml lines, although many are dialog), and it uses some macros I defined elsewhere so it could turn into quite a daunting task for you. I'd certainly avoid splitting the map, blocking some parts through terrain changes is probably better, otherwise all coordinates must change in the WML and that's too painful even to think of. :augh: I'm happy to play around in splitting the scenario with some sort of 'checkpoint' where the central chamber is conquered, if you have some detailed idea just write them here and I'll have a look, if they are feasible.
denispir wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 1:27 pm
I have no replay unfortunately. But things really were as I said, and (as said also) I found the same bug in another campaign (maybe try playing WML guide, and see the <partly false> chasm in the middle of the map). I will have a look in the map editor at "hanging bridges" over chasms. What variant of chasm did you use, which looks fully black?
PS: I tried in map editor with ordinary chasms and all bridges including hanging ones: all fine, no bug.
I tried out the WML guide and I see no problems: there is a standard chasm bridge (Qxu^Bs) on 15,9 and a planck bridge (Qxu^Bp\) on 14,7. In my map instead there are hanging bridges on earthy chasm Qxe^Bh, on various places around the goblins' nest. I can only presume that there is some preference you inadvertedly selected that cause this effect, or that you have an add-on installed with a conflicting terrain code which is active in campaigns. If you open the map of either scenarios with the editor do you see these bridges?
denispir wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 1:27 pm
Yo! Must be the ring. Would have never come to my mind that we had to take it! (Is this condition stated in both the shown objectives and the window accessible by menu?)
it's not shown in the objectives, this was a bit sloppy on my side. It's probably best to leave the player an option to finish the scenario or remain to pick the ring, in which case the objectives will be updated.

User avatar
IIIO_METAL
Posts: 154
Joined: January 18th, 2017, 5:03 pm
Location: japan

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by IIIO_METAL » January 11th, 2019, 5:46 am

Thank you for explaining the background of 'kingdom of Wesnoth'. I nearly completed the Japanese translation of "Return from the Abyss" with the cooperation of several discord users. They said that there would not be a terrible mistranslation. Currently I am checking for unnatural expression as Japanese.
Wait for updates of the "Return from the Abyss" and "The Wolves' Last Path" translation invalidations to be updated, then I will prepare both Japanese translation files.

I like Arzeh and Eridon, so I would like to see these two campaigns ... No, do not mind now. Given the amount of text that will be needed for their conversation, it feels like torture for both the author and the player. :P
Creator of "Mountain Witch" & "Castle of evil spirit"

denispir
Posts: 80
Joined: March 14th, 2013, 12:26 am

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by denispir » January 11th, 2019, 3:49 pm

At first sight, changing the scenario may well be more work and WML difficulty. And it would not lessen its oversize and complexity. I would do it, splitting it I mean, map changes + scenario adjustments, if (1) you agree for a try (2) "your code is properly structured and commented" . Tell me.
This scenario is much more complex (> 1000 wml lines, although many are dialog), and it uses some macros I defined elsewhere so it could turn into quite a daunting task for you. I'd certainly avoid splitting the map, blocking some parts through terrain changes is probably better, otherwise all coordinates must change in the WML and that's too painful even to think of. :augh: I'm happy to play around in splitting the scenario with some sort of 'checkpoint' where the central chamber is conquered, if you have some detailed idea just write them here and I'll have a look, if they are feasible.
Yes, maybe keeping the full map for both scenarios is much simpler; also, depending on how the story implicitely introduces the playing challenge, it may not be troubling, instead interesting.

About ideas, I had some for 2 maps which can apply as well for a single one tailored in 2 parts. Between the 2 map areas, I would have the eastern side leading to the spider keep mostly blocked by cave wall, with a passage openable by miners. I would let a central widely open area south of the river, with possibly another, third ennemy (ghost in my view) which would trigger only in this second scenario (possible the whole side doesn't even exist before). Finally, the trolls remain in their big closed cave as before.
I have no replay unfortunately. But things really were as I said, and (as said also) I found the same bug in another campaign (maybe try playing WML guide, and see the <partly false> chasm in the middle of the map). I will have a look in the map editor at "hanging bridges" over chasms. What variant of chasm did you use, which looks fully black?

PS: I tried in map editor with ordinary chasms and all bridges including hanging ones: all fine, no bug.
I tried out the WML guide and I see no problems: there is a standard chasm bridge (Qxu^Bs) on 15,9 and a planck bridge (Qxu^Bp\) on 14,7. In my map instead there are hanging bridges on earthy chasm Qxe^Bh, on various places around the goblins' nest. I can only presume that there is some preference you inadvertedly selected that cause this effect, or that you have an add-on installed with a conflicting terrain code which is active in campaigns. If you open the map of either scenarios with the editor do you see these bridges?
I tried both your map and the one from WML Guide in the map editer and in both I can see the bridges! The bug thus only happens at "playtime". Certainly as you suggest the source of the bug should be that some addon I installed overrides the standard Wesnoth terrain defs, but for this I guess it should have installed its variants in the standard Wesnoth directories (under Linux, /usr/share/games/wesnoth/1.14), not the user data folder (and I don't know whether it's even possible...) This since IIUC the game engine first searches standard defs for everything (unlike the usual software logic where custom/local/specific thingies can override standard ones). [To be clearer using an example: If I'm right, a custom variant of unit type Elvish Shaman under the same id would never show up in gameeplay.]
Yo! Must be the ring. Would have never come to my mind that we had to take it! (Is this condition stated in both the shown objectives and the window accessible by menu?)
it's not shown in the objectives, this was a bit sloppy on my side. It's probably best to leave the player an option to finish the scenario or remain to pick the ring, in which case the objectives will be updated.
Not a big annoyance, though. I would suggest:
  • Either there is a true reason, storywise, for the Dunefolk company (and the player behind) to strive for the ring, and then this story reason should be suggested before and made clear afterwards.
  • Or, let the player decide... I forgot to take it first for reasons told above, and after an order of magnitude of 100 turns of play had no motivation left to retraverse the whole caves (from the main troll kepp) just to give a cave-swiftness artifact to my healer!
PS: Tell us whenever you have a new version ready. I for one want to replay it to restart the campaign.

User avatar
sergey
Posts: 394
Joined: January 9th, 2015, 9:25 pm

Re: Return from the Abyss [SP campaign for 1.12/1.14]

Post by sergey » January 21st, 2019, 7:13 pm

Hi, skeptical_troll.
I am developing a campaign and I took a "Dwarvish Torchbearer" unit from "Return from the Abyss" (once again, one of my favourite campaigns, very very enjoyable).

I combined dwarvish portrait (https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/blob ... hter-2.png) + pillager's torch (https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/blob ... llager.png) = darwish torchbearer's portrait. You may use it for your campaign if you want.
dwarvish_torch_bearer.png
dwarvish_torch_bearer.png (190.61 KiB) Viewed 1284 times
Author of SP scenario Dragon Fight and SP campaign Captured by a Nightmare

Post Reply