Partial objectives

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Post Reply
User avatar
Chris NS
Posts: 475
Joined: May 6th, 2006, 3:22 pm
Location: Where the Queen lives

Partial objectives

Post by Chris NS »

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

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

User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Partial objectives

Post by zookeeper »

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

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

Elestel
Posts: 61
Joined: February 8th, 2006, 1:09 pm
Location: Valladolid, España

Post by Elestel »

I think it's not necessary. Really, in a campaign, you should be prepared for anything, since a thing getting off the water, to further objetives.
Ignacio Dadoverde Elestel
Nada es lo que parece, y lo que parece nada es...
Always there's more you can't see than you can...


Spanish translator of UTBS, TB, SPMPP

User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

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

The WML for the first one:

Code: Select all

		[objectives]
			victory_string= _ "` "

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

			defeat_string= _ "` "

			[objective]
				description= _ "*#Defeat condition:
  Death of Joe"
				condition=lose
			[/objective]
		[/objectives]
...and for the second one:

Code: Select all

		[objectives]
			victory_string= _ "` "

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

			defeat_string= _ "` "

			[objective]
				description= _ "*#Defeat condition:
  Death of Joe"
				condition=lose
			[/objective]
		[/objectives]
Just an example.
Attachments
fancy_objectives-2.png
fancy_objectives-2.png (43.92 KiB) Viewed 2099 times
fancy_objectives-1.png
fancy_objectives-1.png (43.56 KiB) Viewed 2099 times

User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

Elestel wrote:I think it's not necessary. Really, in a campaign, you should be prepared for anything, since a thing getting off the water, to further objetives.
I really, really disagree with this. You can't expect a player to prepare for everything in a scenario, since if he does, he won't be able to win the next scenario since he didn't level enough units and collect enough gold while he was preparing for everything in the previous one. The player must be able to win a scenario on the first try, otherwise the scenario/campaign is just badly designed, plain and simple.

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

User avatar
Ken_Oh
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2176
Joined: February 6th, 2006, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Post by Ken_Oh »

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

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

User avatar
Zhukov
Art Contributor
Posts: 1685
Joined: November 9th, 2005, 5:48 am
Location: Australia

Post by Zhukov »

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

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

User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

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

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

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

Glowing Fish
Posts: 855
Joined: October 3rd, 2004, 4:52 am
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by Glowing Fish »

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

But, if you do that, people might not like playing your campaign! Goodness knows I gnashed and cursed enough during Dwarven Doors!
Don't go to Glowing Fish for advice, he will say both yes and no.

User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

It is true, as zookeeper says, that you can already do this with some creative WML. But IMHO you shouldn't need creative WML for something like the [objectives] tag. So, it seems like a good idea to me to add a "partial victory", in addition to the "victory" and "defeat". I would certainly use it a lot...
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm

User avatar
Chris NS
Posts: 475
Joined: May 6th, 2006, 3:22 pm
Location: Where the Queen lives

Post by Chris NS »

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

User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

turin wrote:It is true, as zookeeper says, that you can already do this with some creative WML. But IMHO you shouldn't need creative WML for something like the [objectives] tag.
True, at least you shouldn't need to manually add spaces and linebreaks to get non-stupid looking padding around stuff etc. :roll:

Post Reply