The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Discussion and development of scenarios and campaigns for the game.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
User avatar
WhiteWolf
Forum Regular
Posts: 599
Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 7:48 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WhiteWolf »

mattsc wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 4:00 am
WhiteWolf: So this is an interesting one ... What's happening is that your random placement of rabbit holes (dirt.png) sometimes places a hole on the map border. If that hole is then (randomly) chosen to spawn a new rabbit, no valid location to place a unit is found, which causes the error. So there are two dice roles that both have to come out a certain way before you get the error ...

We could consider this either a Micro AI bug or a scenario design issue (maybe it's both), but I think the MAIs should be robust against things like this, so I am going to fix it (exclude rabbit holes on the map border) in the Forest Animals MAI. In the meantime, there's a simple workaround for it. In your [random_placement] instructions in the prestart event, just add include_borders=no to the location filter.
Oh, so I see. Thanks for figuring this out :) I think the oversight is absolutely from my part and I've added the exclusion of borders, but indeed as you said, the MAI should probably be prepared to keep rogue coders in check :) Maybe also a warning to the log could be a good idea so that if someone else attempts to create rabbit holes on the border, they are still notified of the error.
WackoJacko wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 12:13 pm
Haha no problem. Lucky for me (or should i say unlucky for me ;) ) this happened multiple times throughout the scenario. I tried using the that Turn 9 save and it happened three times in a row so I thought it might have been a problem with the turn :lol: .
Yeah, because the first "dice roll", the placement of rabbit holes determined whether it will happen at all. In all my tests this didn't happen, but for you it rolled so :)
I've uploaded 1.3.2 to the add-ons server with the fix for this and the previous issues. If you are not too deep into the scenario already, and the warnings are annoying, then updating and reloading the scenario save should solve the issue :)
Changelog 1.3.2:
Author of the Underness Series, consisting of V parts: The Desolation of Karlag, The Blind Sentinel, The Stone of the North, The Invasion Of The Western Cavalry, Fingerbone of Destiny
Standalone works: The Ravagers - now for 1.14, with new bugs!

WackoJacko
Posts: 53
Joined: June 30th, 2019, 10:08 am

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WackoJacko »

Playing the last scenario in the dwarf campaign. I've come across the vigilant trait and it discusses "jamming" however there is no explanation what this is (and there is nothing in the Wesnoth Help book thing :) )

EDIT: I'm assuming it closes a portal? Or stops the unit from being sucked through a portal?

EDIT 2:
I'm confused as to the objectives in this scenario.
Spoiler:
figured it out
Last edited by WackoJacko on January 14th, 2020, 4:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
WhiteWolf
Forum Regular
Posts: 599
Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 7:48 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WhiteWolf »

WackoJacko wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 12:37 pm
Playing the last scenario in the dwarf campaign. I've come across the vigilant trait and it discusses "jamming" however there is no explanation what this is (and there is nothing in the Wesnoth Help book thing :) )

EDIT: I'm assuming it closes a portal? Or stops the unit from being sucked through a portal?
Jamming points are actually core Wesnoth quantities, but they are not used in mainline, and therefore are not present in the Help menu. This is similar to parry and accuracy which are also a core feature, but are not actually featured anywhere in the mainline content, and therefore there is not much help text on them.
Jamming points determine how much a unit blocks the vision of its opponents under fog. Here is an example from the referenced topic. A unit with possibly high jamming points obscures the vision of the drake. If I recall correctly, the distance of the effect is calculated in accordance with the movement cost on the terrain.
Image

I've found the vigilant trait to be a little lacking with only giving +1 vision, therefore it additionally helps you to decrease the vision of your enemies. It could be debated how useful this trait actually is. Jamming points are definitely not as useful as vision points, so they are the "extra" next to them.

figured it out
:)

When you finished the sidequest, I'd really like to hear your opinion on
  • the overall quality of the story
  • the balance and difficulty of the scenarios (was it adequate and in check with your selected difficulty)
  • the fun factor of the scenarios (were the objectives fun to complete or were they tedious or boring)
  • the flavor and quality of dialogues and characters, is their personality considerably done or do any of them feel a little empty or lacking character
I'm asking because this is the newest addition, finished just a few weeks ago, and it has not been playtested as much as the main story or the other sidequests, and I'm sure there's room for improvement :) Thanks!
Author of the Underness Series, consisting of V parts: The Desolation of Karlag, The Blind Sentinel, The Stone of the North, The Invasion Of The Western Cavalry, Fingerbone of Destiny
Standalone works: The Ravagers - now for 1.14, with new bugs!

WackoJacko
Posts: 53
Joined: June 30th, 2019, 10:08 am

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WackoJacko »

WhiteWolf wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 4:54 pm
When you finished the sidequest, I'd really like to hear your opinion on
  • the overall quality of the story
  • the balance and difficulty of the scenarios (was it adequate and in check with your selected difficulty)
  • the fun factor of the scenarios (were the objectives fun to complete or were they tedious or boring)
  • the flavor and quality of dialogues and characters, is their personality considerably done or do any of them feel a little empty or lacking character
I'm asking because this is the newest addition, finished just a few weeks ago, and it has not been playtested as much as the main story or the other sidequests, and I'm sure there's room for improvement :) Thanks!

1st scenario was enjoyable
Spoiler:
Will add my thoughts on Scenarios 2&3 tomorrow, with scenario 4 being dialogue only

5th scenario
Spoiler:
General
Spoiler:
Also:
*Censored events upstairs* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
WhiteWolf
Forum Regular
Posts: 599
Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 7:48 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WhiteWolf »

WackoJacko wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 5:27 pm
-I think that the value of the military upgrades were undersold. The added castle and moat were incredibly useful as it meant I was on 60-70% defence while the enemy only had 20%. I feel like the introduction only casually mentioned it as something that could be done but not something that was incredibly important/useful (which it was).
-The wildlife never attacked the elves, even when it was probably a smarter move (10HP elf mage vs 40HP dwarf scout). Not sure if this is intentional or not, if it is then fair enough.
OK, I could add another dialogue that stresses the importance of defensive structures :) Wildlife and elves are "allied", partly because they live in harmony :D and partly for gameplay mechanics so that the elves don't get bogged down on their way to the town.

Spoiler:
Lag could be an issue then :hmm: It could be because of the large map with lots of portals that mean a lot of paths for the AI to consider, but I'll see if I can optimize the code for better efficiency. I'll try clarifying the objectives :)
The frozen race has actually been designed to be overpowered so that it indeed feels like that dwarves are weaker and running is the only option.
Portals have 1 end on the Wesnothian end and 1 to 3 ends on the other side. Units can move between all the entrances, so there are portals between each other on the other side, that also function as to-and-from Wesnoth. However, no such shortcuts in Wesnoth, from there the portals only lead to the other side.
The algorithm for respawning portals includes a bit of randomness, but it gets more frequent as time passes, and around 7-10 turns it saturates and the portals respawn each side turn start. There is always a number of portals that stay where they are, so not all of them are relocated at once though. There is a bit of randomness in this as well. The point was to make the whole thing unpredictable and chaotic, I hope that succeeded then :D
(In one of my playtest the side 3 AI leader found a path to Wesnoth to take a castle, but the portals disappeared and became completely isolated. That was fun to watch :D )

-The pathway ALMA upgrades could use a slightly more useful description as opposed to Elite Warrior, more Ranger-Like, a Leader. I thought that the warrior would be more melee based with an option to learn new weapons (i.e a swordsman can now use a lance/spear) and maybe increased resistances, while I thought Ranger would be more ranged based with greater defences on terrains and maybe some relevant abilities (ambush, concealment, etc), finally I thought Leader would be "hero" based (adds leadership, protection, regeneration, steadfast, etc). I haven't chosen a leader pathway yet so if it is like that then apologies
I think Warrior summarizes well what happens there, all kind of attack and combat boost, Ranger might indeed be a little misleading. That branch focuses on movement, maneuverability, vision and denying these from enemy units. Could be called Skirmisher perhaps?
Officer focuses on teamwork with other allied units by different powers of leadership, and other adjactent-ally-statboosts and adjacent-enemy-penalties.
-The new "day/night" cycle was interesting and really cool ( ;) ) story-wise, however as my units were dwarves, and neutral, I didn't really concern myself with it.
Yeah, that annoyed me too while testing, that is why you are allowed to recruit outlaws once the lost dwarves on map 1 are saved. Actually that is their sole purpose - so that later you can recruit some non-neutral units.
Also:
*Censored events upstairs* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:mrgreen:
Author of the Underness Series, consisting of V parts: The Desolation of Karlag, The Blind Sentinel, The Stone of the North, The Invasion Of The Western Cavalry, Fingerbone of Destiny
Standalone works: The Ravagers - now for 1.14, with new bugs!

WackoJacko
Posts: 53
Joined: June 30th, 2019, 10:08 am

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WackoJacko »

WhiteWolf wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 10:11 pm
The frozen race has actually been designed to be overpowered so that it indeed feels like that dwarves are weaker and running is the only option.
They only seem overpowered when compared to the dwarves, the trolls managed to kill them easily enough (fire vs a cold race & strong impact attacks)
WhiteWolf wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 10:11 pm
Portals have 1 end on the Wesnothian end and 1 to 3 ends on the other side. Units can move between all the entrances, so there are portals between each other on the other side, that also function as to-and-from Wesnoth. However, no such shortcuts in Wesnoth, from there the portals only lead to the other side.
Sometimes I would place a unit on a portal and nothing would happen, it would just stay there (the other end wasn't blocked). I would normally use this tactic to prevent enemies from using the portal at the other end.
Spoiler:
WhiteWolf wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 10:11 pm
I think Warrior summarizes well what happens there, all kind of attack and combat boost, Ranger might indeed be a little misleading. That branch focuses on movement, maneuverability, vision and denying these from enemy units. Could be called Skirmisher perhaps?
Officer focuses on teamwork with other allied units by different powers of leadership, and other adjactent-ally-statboosts and adjacent-enemy-penalties.
I agree with Warrior and Officer. I think the change from Ranger to Skirmisher would be better. I had this problem with Dayton too. I chose the bowman path and chose the Ranger pathway because I thought "He's Ranger-like, the ranger pathway should help him immensely", however all it does is provide him with abilities that he already has :D
WhiteWolf wrote:
WackoJacko wrote: -The new "day/night" cycle was interesting and really cool ( ;) ) story-wise, however as my units were dwarves, and neutral, I didn't really concern myself with it.
Yeah, that annoyed me too while testing, that is why you are allowed to recruit outlaws once the lost dwarves on map 1 are saved. Actually that is their sole purpose - so that later you can recruit some non-neutral units.
Considering the dwarves aren't very good against the new enemy, I figured outlaws would be even worse, so I avoided them

User avatar
WhiteWolf
Forum Regular
Posts: 599
Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 7:48 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WhiteWolf »

WackoJacko wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 4:56 am
They only seem overpowered when compared to the dwarves, the trolls managed to kill them easily enough (fire vs a cold race & strong impact attacks)
WackoJacko wrote: Considering the dwarves aren't very good against the new enemy, I figured outlaws would be even worse, so I avoided them
They have the advantage of being quick (Footpads, Outlaws), which I found the dwarves also really need. But yes, their attack types don't match. But I don't really have other ideas about what to allow to recruit. Loyalist humans are boring (as in overused because you play with them everywhere, let's not use them here too), elves are out of the question beside dwarves, evil forces (orcs, undead etc) also don't really fall into place. Maybe a special dwarf unit that has better mobility and some decent attacks with fire and impact?
Sometimes I would place a unit on a portal and nothing would happen, it would just stay there (the other end wasn't blocked). I would normally use this tactic to prevent enemies from using the portal at the other end.
Spoiler:
Oh, the portals themselves work as tunnels. They don't suck units in, they have to be moved through by regular movement, and indeed if an enemy is blocking the other end, the unit can't pass there.

I agree with Warrior and Officer. I think the change from Ranger to Skirmisher would be better. I had this problem with Dayton too. I chose the bowman path and chose the Ranger pathway because I thought "He's Ranger-like, the ranger pathway should help him immensely", however all it does is provide him with abilities that he already has :D
Renaming it to skirmisher then :)
Author of the Underness Series, consisting of V parts: The Desolation of Karlag, The Blind Sentinel, The Stone of the North, The Invasion Of The Western Cavalry, Fingerbone of Destiny
Standalone works: The Ravagers - now for 1.14, with new bugs!

WackoJacko
Posts: 53
Joined: June 30th, 2019, 10:08 am

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WackoJacko »

WhiteWolf wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 8:53 pm
WackoJacko wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 4:56 am
They only seem overpowered when compared to the dwarves, the trolls managed to kill them easily enough (fire vs a cold race & strong impact attacks)
WackoJacko wrote: Considering the dwarves aren't very good against the new enemy, I figured outlaws would be even worse, so I avoided them
They have the advantage of being quick (Footpads, Outlaws), which I found the dwarves also really need. But yes, their attack types don't match. But I don't really have other ideas about what to allow to recruit. Loyalist humans are boring (as in overused because you play with them everywhere, let's not use them here too), elves are out of the question beside dwarves, evil forces (orcs, undead etc) also don't really fall into place. Maybe a special dwarf unit that has better mobility and some decent attacks with fire and impact?
I don't think it's needed, as I mentioned in an earlier post, both enemy races seem to more melee focused so I just recruited/recalled a bunch of ranged units (thunder and brewer lines) which worked well to attack the enemy. I also made good use of the leadership and steadfast abilities while underground.
Oh, the portals themselves work as tunnels. They don't suck units in, they have to be moved through by regular movement, and indeed if an enemy is blocking the other end, the unit can't pass there.
Oh! I must have misread it wrong then :lol:. A few characters mentioned that the "tunnel" was unravelling and becoming more unstable, so I thought that this meant that a unit would get sucked through to the other side if they happened to be standing on a portal at the start of their turn.
So the mechanic is more like the teleport ability of the silver mage?

Some more typos :)
Red John side quest
Listenning —>listening

Baldor side quest
Recieve —> receive
Recieve with —> receive (remove with)

Baldor's Mother (sorry, can't remember her name, the love interest story) side quest
Happenning—>happening
Expolring—> exploring
With brains for a tankard of beer —> with a tankard of beer for brains The other way around implies he's drinking brains, or that the tankard tastes like brains :lol:
A mad a elf —> a mad elf
All targets to be brutalised are female —> All target that were brutalised were female talking about past events yet using future tense
Roadby—> roadside
S1: fear of spiders ability, description uses male pronoun when the character is female, consider changing to a neutral term such as "them" or "this unit"
skiny-->skinny
hybernated-->hibernated
it's taste-->its taste
is terribly daunting task --> is a terribly daunting task
smaller -->small
f.e. -->i.e. or possibly e.g. (although I guess both are latin and f.e. would be fine, assuming it means for example ;) )

EDIT:
The "Defend this location" ally instruction might need a bit more of an explanation. The player needs to have an allied unit on the position he wants the ally to defend, and they have to issue the instruction by selecting this unit, not any unit.

EDIT 2:
FoV 4 is lacking an early finish bonus objective
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
EDIT 3:
Baldor side quest
trustworthyness--> trustworthiness
fourhundred --> four hundred
acursed-->accursed

EDIT 4:
Not all the Saurians transfer to my side, is this intended?
Screen Shot 2020-01-16 at 10.26.13 pm.png
EDIT 5:
I have a suggestion for Moggoth the Low, I know it makes sense story-wise for him to have no upgrades and all your reasoning makes sense. My suggestion is that perhaps he could receive a weak range attack (maybe 3-1 or 4-1) after 3 or 4 ALMAs so that he isn't quite so useless :lol: This could be explained by all the time he spends with the Ravagers, our heroes in particular, especially since with have an elvish maiden and if you choose the Longbow path for Dayton. Or maybe you could make it an ALMA for Dayton (perhaps in the leadership pathway)? Anyway, just a thought :)

User avatar
WhiteWolf
Forum Regular
Posts: 599
Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 7:48 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WhiteWolf »

WackoJacko wrote:
January 16th, 2020, 4:43 am
Oh! I must have misread it wrong then :lol:. A few characters mentioned that the "tunnel" was unravelling and becoming more unstable, so I thought that this meant that a unit would get sucked through to the other side if they happened to be standing on a portal at the start of their turn.
So the mechanic is more like the teleport ability of the silver mage?
Yes, exactly like the teleport ability. Randomly teleporting your units as in "randomly getting sucked in" would make sense, but I find it's on the verges between fun and very annoying, and I didn't risk it in the end.
Some more typos :)
Red John side quest
Listenning —>listening
I guess I'll just search and replace all its instances, I misspell that quite a lot :D
Baldor's Mother (sorry, can't remember her name, the love interest story) side quest
Lory is his wife actually :lol:
With brains for a tankard of beer —> with a tankard of beer for brains The other way around implies he's drinking brains, or that the tankard tastes like brains :lol:
Yeah, makes sense :D
f.e. -->i.e. or possibly e.g. (although I guess both are latin and f.e. would be fine, assuming it means for example ;) )
"i.e." is indeed nicer :)
The "Defend this location" ally instruction might need a bit more of an explanation. The player needs to have an allied unit on the position he wants the ally to defend, and they have to issue the instruction by selecting this unit, not any unit.
That's now it's supposed to work (and how it works here). You indeed need to click one of his units, because that is a requirement for the menu-item to show up, but you can select any unit. After you selected Defend location, right-click the location you want him to focus on, and select the now available "Defend this location" option. Selection is confirmed by a blue popup text.
This is explained by a popup white text (like the ones in the Wesnoth tutorial) after you select the "Defend location" objective, didn't that show up?
Note: If you try to do anything else between the two commands, then the selection is nullified. So it has to be started again (from selecting a unit, Defend location...)
FoV 4 is lacking an early finish bonus objective
Because it is Wesnoth default 80%. If it is not noted otherwise, it means the standard conditions are used.
Spoiler:
You can't actually save the town, he says he will shortly be back even stronger. We're assuming that already happened by the time you reach Vrahim.

Not all the Saurians transfer to my side, is this intended?
Intended. Town guards stay behind :)
I have a suggestion for Moggoth the Low, I know it makes sense story-wise for him to have no upgrades and all your reasoning makes sense. My suggestion is that perhaps he could receive a weak range attack (maybe 3-1 or 4-1) after 3 or 4 ALMAs so that he isn't quite so useless :lol: This could be explained by all the time he spends with the Ravagers, our heroes in particular, especially since with have an elvish maiden and if you choose the Longbow path for Dayton. Or maybe you could make it an ALMA for Dayton (perhaps in the leadership pathway)? Anyway, just a thought :)
Giving new attacks with AMLA's are not the way to go. Firstly because they need to be general that all units benefit from in some way. (For example, even in choosing Officer for a unit with existing leadership will upgrade him to 'advanced leadership' right away, nothing lost there), but new attacks are very situational.
Secondly, animations. Units that don't have ranged attacks in the first place usually won't have animations either, and allowing the player to equip all such units with ranged attacks will make all of these attacks look silly.
But I agree that there should be more use to Maggoth at the end of his arc, and maybe a weaker ranged attack is necessary. I'll think on it :)

EDIT: Oh, you meant that this should be a very special AMLA for another hero, like Dayton (I prefer Milla, Dayton wouldn't have spare to to train that little idiot, but Milla is nice, I'm sure she'd help him). "Training Maggoth", I like that :D OK, I'll make something like this available :)
Author of the Underness Series, consisting of V parts: The Desolation of Karlag, The Blind Sentinel, The Stone of the North, The Invasion Of The Western Cavalry, Fingerbone of Destiny
Standalone works: The Ravagers - now for 1.14, with new bugs!

WackoJacko
Posts: 53
Joined: June 30th, 2019, 10:08 am

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WackoJacko »

WhiteWolf wrote:
January 16th, 2020, 4:25 pm
WackoJacko wrote:
January 16th, 2020, 4:43 am
Oh! I must have misread it wrong then :lol:. A few characters mentioned that the "tunnel" was unravelling and becoming more unstable, so I thought that this meant that a unit would get sucked through to the other side if they happened to be standing on a portal at the start of their turn.
So the mechanic is more like the teleport ability of the silver mage?
Yes, exactly like the teleport ability. Randomly teleporting your units as in "randomly getting sucked in" would make sense, but I find it's on the verges between fun and very annoying, and I didn't risk it in the end.
I just assumed it was random and so did my best to ignore them :lol:
Baldor's Mother (sorry, can't remember her name, the love interest story) side quest
Lory is his wife actually :lol:
well this is embarrassing :oops: her portrait needs to change then, its much too old :lol:
The "Defend this location" ally instruction might need a bit more of an explanation. The player needs to have an allied unit on the position he wants the ally to defend, and they have to issue the instruction by selecting this unit, not any unit.
That's now it's supposed to work (and how it works here). You indeed need to click one of his units, because that is a requirement for the menu-item to show up, but you can select any unit. After you selected Defend location, right-click the location you want him to focus on, and select the now available "Defend this location" option. Selection is confirmed by a blue popup text.
This is explained by a popup white text (like the ones in the Wesnoth tutorial) after you select the "Defend location" objective, didn't that show up?
Note: If you try to do anything else between the two commands, then the selection is nullified. So it has to be started again (from selecting a unit, Defend location...)
You can't choose any location though, you can only choose a location that the ally already has a unit on. And you need to choose that specific unit to be able to defend that location
FoV 4 is lacking an early finish bonus objective
Because it is Wesnoth default 80%. If it is not noted otherwise, it means the standard conditions are used.
I just mean that it should be explicitly stated, I didn't know it was an option, so i wasted a few turns just waiting until I decided to try and kill him :D
I have a suggestion for Moggoth the Low, I know it makes sense story-wise for him to have no upgrades and all your reasoning makes sense. My suggestion is that perhaps he could receive a weak range attack (maybe 3-1 or 4-1) after 3 or 4 ALMAs so that he isn't quite so useless :lol: This could be explained by all the time he spends with the Ravagers, our heroes in particular, especially since with have an elvish maiden and if you choose the Longbow path for Dayton. Or maybe you could make it an ALMA for Dayton (perhaps in the leadership pathway)? Anyway, just a thought :)
Giving new attacks with AMLA's are not the way to go. Firstly because they need to be general that all units benefit from in some way. (For example, even in choosing Officer for a unit with existing leadership will upgrade him to 'advanced leadership' right away, nothing lost there), but new attacks are very situational.
Secondly, animations. Units that don't have ranged attacks in the first place usually won't have animations either, and allowing the player to equip all such units with ranged attacks will make all of these attacks look silly.
But I agree that there should be more use to Maggoth at the end of his arc, and maybe a weaker ranged attack is necessary. I'll think on it :)

EDIT: Oh, you meant that this should be a very special AMLA for another hero, like Dayton (I prefer Milla, Dayton wouldn't have spare to to train that little idiot, but Milla is nice, I'm sure she'd help him). "Training Maggoth", I like that :D OK, I'll make something like this available :)
Oh, can't you give specific units specific ALMA paths? I've noticed it in other campaigns so I thought it was possible. Counterpoint: If it is possible but requires too much effort/coding then don't worry about it, was just a thought ;)
If you were going the specific route, then you could still have the same options; ALMA 1, 2 & 3 = +3HP, +%XP and ALMA 4 could be 4-1 ranged attack (I was thinking one of those one-shot crossbows you could slip up a sleeve that are very common in fantasy/assassin novels) before going back to your +HP ALMAs.
Otherwise perhaps making it an ALMA for another hero (obviously a range-based one) sounds like a good idea too

EDIT:
The Ladry side quest seems available now, however the icon is still black

EDIT 2:
Error during Whess
Screen Shot 2020-01-17 at 12.47.04 pm.png
EDIT 3:
140XP for a level 2 Herbalist to level up? :o

User avatar
WhiteWolf
Forum Regular
Posts: 599
Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 7:48 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WhiteWolf »

WackoJacko wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 2:00 am
well this is embarrassing :oops: her portrait needs to change then, its much too old :lol:
Maybe :D
You can't choose any location though, you can only choose a location that the ally already has a unit on. And you need to choose that specific unit to be able to defend that location
Noooo... :hmm: It should work like this: :eng:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQYXPmamyaQ
I just mean that it should be explicitly stated, I didn't know it was an option, so i wasted a few turns just waiting until I decided to try and kill him :D
It's actually strange though that Wesnoth says nothing if default settings are used, so I might put the notice in.
Oh, can't you give specific units specific ALMA paths? I've noticed it in other campaigns so I thought it was possible. Counterpoint: If it is possible but requires too much effort/coding then don't worry about it, was just a thought ;)
If you were going the specific route, then you could still have the same options; ALMA 1, 2 & 3 = +3HP, +%XP and ALMA 4 could be 4-1 ranged attack (I was thinking one of those one-shot crossbows you could slip up a sleeve that are very common in fantasy/assassin novels) before going back to your +HP ALMAs.
Otherwise perhaps making it an ALMA for another hero (obviously a range-based one) sounds like a good idea too
You can give special AMLA's to specific units, I misunderstood when I first read the paragraph. For the next version I gave Milla 2 AMLA's as Officer branch upgrades (so it requires Officer level 1): train Maggoth with a bow, and train Maggoth in skirmishing. That actually fits his character as he is rather short and with training could actually become a fast, sneaky unit. In this way he might even be useful at some point :D
The Ladry side quest seems available now, however the icon is still black
How is that? What happens if you move there?

Error during Whess
Screen Shot 2020-01-17 at 12.47.04 pm.png
That's a sad known issue. It can happen when units are harmed by weather, but we couldn't figure out why it happens, I think the conclusion was that it's some unknown bug in Wesnoth itself, so it's on the fixlist for now. Luckily it doesn't happen very frequently, say 1-2x per 10 Whess games (with weather happening, so the actual probability is lower).
140XP for a level 2 Herbalist to level up? :o
Silver Mages are expensive :)
Author of the Underness Series, consisting of V parts: The Desolation of Karlag, The Blind Sentinel, The Stone of the North, The Invasion Of The Western Cavalry, Fingerbone of Destiny
Standalone works: The Ravagers - now for 1.14, with new bugs!

mattsc
Posts: 1147
Joined: October 13th, 2010, 6:14 pm
Location: Hidden on the hex behind Fred

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by mattsc »

WhiteWolf wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 8:13 am
Error during Whess
Screen Shot 2020-01-17 at 12.47.04 pm.png
That's a sad known issue. It can happen when units are harmed by weather, but we couldn't figure out why it happens, I think the conclusion was that it's some unknown bug in Wesnoth itself, so it's on the fixlist for now. Luckily it doesn't happen very frequently, say 1-2x per 10 Whess games (with weather happening, so the actual probability is lower).
If you have a save from which one can reproduce this, I could have a look. No promises that I'll be able to figure it out, but I can give it a shot at least.

By the way and FYI, I decided not to add a warning for having rabbit holes on the map border to the Forest Animals MAI fix. There are legitimate reasons why somebody might want to put an item on the border (e.g. for aesthetic reasons) and it would be annoying to have to deal with warnings all the time then. And while it would be possible to work around that, it seems like unnecessary effort. On the other hand, it should be pretty obvious that a rabbit hole on the map border cannot spawn a unit. Anyway, this is one of those cases where either way has its advantages and disadvantages.

User avatar
WhiteWolf
Forum Regular
Posts: 599
Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 7:48 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WhiteWolf »

Writing from phone, please excuse my brevity.
mattsc wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 2:45 pm
If you have a save from which one can reproduce this, I could have a look. No promises that I'll be able to figure it out, but I can give it a shot at least.
If you decide to look into it, heres the topic where it was discussed, with a save file:
https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=49966
But part of the problem was that it can't be reproduced reliably.
By the way and FYI, I decided not to add a warning for having rabbit holes on the map border to the Forest Animals MAI fix. There are legitimate reasons why somebody might want to put an item on the border (e.g. for aesthetic reasons) and it would be annoying to have to deal with warnings all the time then. And while it would be possible to work around that, it seems like unnecessary effort. On the other hand, it should be pretty obvious that a rabbit hole on the map border cannot spawn a unit. Anyway, this is one of those cases where either way has its advantages and disadvantages.
You're right, it's a matter of choice and maybe not adding it is indeed the better idea. Thanks :)
Author of the Underness Series, consisting of V parts: The Desolation of Karlag, The Blind Sentinel, The Stone of the North, The Invasion Of The Western Cavalry, Fingerbone of Destiny
Standalone works: The Ravagers - now for 1.14, with new bugs!

WackoJacko
Posts: 53
Joined: June 30th, 2019, 10:08 am

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by WackoJacko »

WhiteWolf wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 8:13 am
WackoJacko wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 2:00 am
You can't choose any location though, you can only choose a location that the ally already has a unit on. And you need to choose that specific unit to be able to defend that location
Noooo... :hmm: It should work like this: :eng:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQYXPmamyaQ
If you check your video, you told your ally to defend position 19,7 however when you checked your instructions it said it was defending 22,14 which was the unit you clicked on originally (the archer standing on their own). Which is exactly what I said in my earlier message ;)
The Ladry side quest seems available now, however the icon is still black
How is that? What happens if you move there?
Something about an open scenario side quest is mentioned. "confronting an evil that lurks within ourselves" is mentioned too. When I decline to do it, a "gallows and a poor boy" is mentioned.

One of my witches in S10 (she drank the potion) gets repoisoned if I reload a turn

mattsc
Posts: 1147
Joined: October 13th, 2010, 6:14 pm
Location: Hidden on the hex behind Fred

Re: The Ravagers 1.3 - SP campaign for Wesnoth 1.14 [Feedback and development]

Post by mattsc »

WhiteWolf wrote:
January 17th, 2020, 3:01 pm
If you decide to look into it, heres the topic where it was discussed, with a save file:
https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=49966
But part of the problem was that it can't be reproduced reliably.
Yeah ... I let it play through the AI turn >10 times and never got the error. The problem is that there's a lot of randomness involved there (which card is drawn etc. and different outcomes of AI moves), so it's going to be hard to reproduce this. I'll have another look later if I see something either in the harm_unit code or in your add-on that looks "suspicious", but so far I didn't find anything. (It's pretty clear what the error message means, but I didn't see anything so far that looks like it would cause this to happen.)

Post Reply