2v2 conversation

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

User avatar
tekelili
Posts: 1038
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by tekelili » December 6th, 2011, 11:02 pm

Faello wrote: 2v2 is all about cooperation so I'm sorry if it dissapoints you tek, but I'm against nuking this strategy. It's both fun to play and watch.
.
It looks like you didnt read TBS about TGT clash games vs tentacles: He didnt get too much fun when his army was reduced to 3 units and his gold was negative and he knew he had no longer anything to do during game. That skilled use of this tactic leads to fun for players can be reducted to absurd imagining a 4v4 on Mokena Prairie. If both teams try to achieve best possible tactic and create 6 loyal armies, can you sincerely say those 6 players will get more fun of game that if this tactic were impossible?

I discovered this tactic just 1 month after start playing Wesnoth. Me and a friend were having problems to beat 2p-survival Dark Forecast, and I explained him I had an idea to improve our total number of units. We discovered soon was not very fun for player becomed loyal armie :whistle:
Loyal army chance is basicaly a threat for any team game. I played once Orocia 3p in local game controlling all sides, and trying to maximize income, one side ended game with more units than remaining 2 sides joined. I would much prefer a team survival designer, wouldnt have to think when building a scenario:"I am pushing players to a stupid game if villages are reacheables for everyone?"

After 3 years playing Wesnoth mostly in team games, I have achieved this tactic lot of times. I feel myself stupid if I dont try do best game possible, but everytime I used it, I thought: "I wonder when this hole in rules will be fixed, it is not really fun can exploit it".
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II

User avatar
Dunno
Posts: 773
Joined: January 17th, 2010, 4:06 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by Dunno » December 7th, 2011, 10:37 am

I'm not sure if I understood your point, but are you saying that loyal army is not fun for the player who sacrifices his army? It's like saying soccer/football is not fun for the goalkeeper because he stands in one spot for most of the match. During loyal army, usually both players discuss further movements, the only difference is only one of them does the clicking. Unless your 2v2 strategy is playing free for all and let's see what happens.

+4 income is a good compromise, I guess. I'd prefer to see some matches with this new rule first, before adding it to official TGT4 rules, though. It still sounds a bit experimental.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?

User avatar
alpha1
Posts: 198
Joined: February 29th, 2008, 12:57 am

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by alpha1 » December 7th, 2011, 8:09 pm

tekelili wrote: It looks like you didnt read TBS about TGT clash games vs tentacles: He didnt get too much fun when his army was reduced to 3 units and his gold was negative and he knew he had no longer anything to do during game.
A quote from my "unpublished" response to TBS:
alpha1 wrote:On the subjective level I can say, that when i played with MrHase, we actually talked much more when i had only few units: i planned moves for my side (= his units on my side were *my*), he for his own, since it's difficult for one person to develope elaborate strategies for both sides, and he then moved for both of us. So at that point our team work was the strongest and i enjoyed it the most. Same was true for MrHase.
This will be my last post concerning the "fun"-aspect of the "loyal army" strategy. I and some other people in this thread argued, that there are no compelling reasons to completly disable this strategy in 2vs2 balance-wise. Balance being a thing you can argue objectively about. Fun is subjective and it's pointless to argue about it.

Survivals, 3vs3 and 4vs4 may or may not have their own issues with "loyal army", but i think it's better to focus on 2vs2 in this thread, before it gets derailed into a detailed discussion of pros/cons of this strategy in other game types.
If you have any wishes or suggestions concerning the TGT or just want to drop me a message, pls pm me at: alpha1_pm
I won't be able to see any messages that are sent to alpha1.

User avatar
Faello
Posts: 441
Joined: June 7th, 2005, 9:01 am
Location: Holy Office

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by Faello » December 7th, 2011, 8:48 pm

tekelili wrote:It looks like you didnt read TBS about TGT clash games vs tentacles: He didnt get too much fun when his army was reduced to 3 units and his gold was negative and he knew he had no longer anything to do during game.
What you're discussing now is your team play, not the strategy itself. If one player has less units, then he should've more time for helping his team mate with planning moves & strategy. I don't see how being bored is connected with unified eco since attitude is a personal matter. Btw. If your team mate has only 3 units left it's hardly a unified eco strategy (unless they're all lvl3 :wink: )

Generally speaking, +1 to alphy

I'd really like to move discussion to the fog of war now, so I'll repeat what I wrote on the previous page:
myself wrote: btw. I'd like to discuss another idea which is fog of war. In my opinion fog of war should have more impact on the game because at this moment having high speed units is often enough and no scouting manouvers are necessary to gain intelligence on enemy army movement and positions.

What I would like to propose is to cut all units vision by 1 mvp for the tournament's purpose and see how it affects the game. I think it could make some aspects of the game more entertaining and valuable (like setting the traps). What do you think about it guys? How difficult would it be to code it? Is it worth trying in your opinion etc.
Discuss please :)
The yellow jester does not play
but gently pulls the strings
and smiles as the puppets dance
in the court of the Crimson King.

sidzej
Posts: 20
Joined: August 11th, 2008, 10:49 am

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by sidzej » December 8th, 2011, 9:12 am

Faello wrote:I'd really like to move discussion to the fog of war now
The idea sounds really interesting. It reminds me a lot Panzer General 2 when scouting was much less than movement. But if reducing the number of hexes one can see I would go a bit futher than 1 hex and made it 3, 4 or 5. This way most units will have like 1-2-3 area of sight and scouting units 4-5-6. Making more enemy zone hidden by a fog of war would really bring this game on a higher level of mind games with trying to fool the enemy by own moves while preparing invasion in other area of the map. Not mentioning crazy baits for ambushes or just fool-baits that looks like ambushes but are just stupid moves to distract the oponents. Number of new ideas at the strategy level and posibility of options for each team would be greatly increased, not mentioning of the need of having more scout units to see what enemy is up to and increasing the dificullty of defense. In my opinion this "improvement" would make games more dynamic and more interesting.

I think reducing for of war would be a good idea and I would love to play a game with that settings. But I also tihnk 1 hex is to less, it should be 3, 4 or 5 (don't know yet with would be best), personally I would go for 4, since most scauts have 8 base movement. 5 would effect in fast socuts really being a blessing with... may not be bad actually, but it also brings other problem that regular infantry units (mostly 5mp, would not see anything beyond it's own hex.

There is also one problem in tihs change but it's matter of mutual trust and players that are playing the game. Since fog of war is calculated on the client side some may cheat and see what they should not with would destroy the hole idea of crazy mind games and undercover strategy would be destroyed. There may be also problmes with disconections, since returning player would see enemies pieces between the joining game - taking side back period.

User avatar
Dunno
Posts: 773
Joined: January 17th, 2010, 4:06 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by Dunno » December 8th, 2011, 10:37 am

I'm afraid it would change the balance quite a bit. I'm mainly thinking about dwarves and drakes - the slowest faction and the fastest one. Moving dwarves without footpads and (expensive as hell!) gryphs will become impossible, while drakes won't have to really change anything unless they are using only clashers. And imagine a horseman sudden charge attack on a scouting footpad, this would be crazy. So I guess I can take a seat in conservative party of Wesnoth 2v2 Council. Faello and liberals, go home! :D
Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?

lesy
Posts: 23
Joined: January 31st, 2009, 6:20 pm

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by lesy » December 8th, 2011, 11:33 am

from my point of view (not a veteran 2v2 player or TGT participant, just occasional spectator) the competitive tournament games should be moving in the general direction of less fog (more information for the players) than more.

while i like the idea, i think it fits better in the experimental parts of the game. i can see how it can bring new fun or "cheese" strategies and i would love to playtest it myself. but for the pros, i think it would only skew the original recruit to more scouts, thus breaking the balance and making the games in fact less fun (dynamic).

User avatar
Faello
Posts: 441
Joined: June 7th, 2005, 9:01 am
Location: Holy Office

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by Faello » December 8th, 2011, 10:54 pm

More fog = more skill required for optimal movement of units.

I've proposed one hex of visibility less to see how it affects the game + allow to actually play with fog of war which is a "must have" for any serious wargame - taking more visibility would prolly affect the balance of the game, but at this point fog of war is just a small addition and has minimal influence on the game.

I'm the "trickster" kind of player, that likes to pull a rabbit out of the hat, so I'd like to actually have to deal with fog of war more often than it's possible now.

Less fog of war - that would affect the balance of the game too + would make high level 2v2 more boring and more chess like - less of the wargame more of the logic game = downgrade in playability imo.
The yellow jester does not play
but gently pulls the strings
and smiles as the puppets dance
in the court of the Crimson King.

User avatar
jb
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 493
Joined: February 17th, 2006, 6:26 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by jb » December 9th, 2011, 1:55 am

Faello

I really don't think (-1) vision would effect the game in the way you want. You are asking for the difference between a quick scout or a non-quick scout. This wouldn't setup the type of ambush situations you are describing.
My MP campaigns
Gobowars
The Altaz Mariners - with Bob the Mighty

User avatar
Faello
Posts: 441
Joined: June 7th, 2005, 9:01 am
Location: Holy Office

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by Faello » December 10th, 2011, 11:07 am

I think that would raise the number of tricky situations and basically the only way to check it is to actually implement it jb.

I won't try to code it because I don't have time to do that and I'm close to taking some long wesbreak but if anybody would like to pick up this idea and check it, it would be nice (altough perhaps it's better to discuss this matter before the TGT, rather than now when interest in it is kind of burned out).
The yellow jester does not play
but gently pulls the strings
and smiles as the puppets dance
in the court of the Crimson King.

The Black Sword
Posts: 373
Joined: October 13th, 2008, 4:35 pm

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by The Black Sword » December 11th, 2011, 1:15 pm

A bit late response here but here goes.
I don't know why exactly I find it more fun to click the units myself, its a bit like asking me why I enjoy kicking a sphere around a patch of grass, but I've been thinking of an example to illustrate my point:

Suppose I made an era which effects all the current 1v1 maps. It just adds an extra stoned leader to each side and the game is played out exactly the way it currently is, ie. the game ends when the unstoned leader is killed. The only difference is that the players with the stoned leader can advise their team-mates. Do you think such an era could become popular? I don't see why anyone would want to play this era over regular 2v2. So why then is it acceptable that a 2v2 game could be turned into such a situation? I can accept that "loyal army" is an effective strategy, adds a bit more strategical depth and is going to be used. However claiming that the situation above, resulting from that strategy is just as fun(or even more) than normal 2v2, I can't understand how you can make that claim.

Regarding jb's idea of 4g base income, well you can probably guess I don't think it goes far enough :wink: . 6g is probably the min level for me. Still, if there isn't an appetite for a bigger change(and despite a lot of talking after the TGT, me, tek and jb seem to be the only people arguing for it) then its better than nothing.

Finally, about the fog, the idea is more about wesnoth in general than 2v2. The current system works that you can see everyone you could possibly fight this turn. This seems a very intuitive rule to me, and its a rule I've seen in a few other games, that you can only charge enemies you can see at the start of the turn. I'd agree with jb that a 1 hex change wouldn't make much of a difference. However when you get to 2 hexes, a dwarf can only see 3 hexes while an elf archer can see 5. It becomes punitive on the low mp units very quickly. I think it would be a fun era I would enjoy playing but I don't see it as a TGT specific change.

User avatar
tekelili
Posts: 1038
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by tekelili » October 30th, 2013, 7:37 pm

I pointed years ago that maps with 1-2-2-1 turn order create a different team TOD for team 1. When team 1 has a cleary defined TOD to attack and and retreat this means a terrible disadventage. I made an add on to solve this by becoming player 4 to player 1 and skiping his 1st turn. In TGT4 semifinals, 1st game Ners vs RNG I have to suffer this again on Loris, so if is there any interest in analyze this issue, that game serves as prove.

As side note, after almost 2 years out of Wesnoth and playing mostly League of Legends, I was positive impressed by LoL developers philosophy of "We watch top players games to decide how improve game". However, Wesnoth savefiles from replay server are often corrupted (I remember this problem being active like forever since I play Wesnoth), wich leads me to think this files are not downloaded for developers. If we add this to problem that replay files are not compatible with new versions of BfW, I really see impossible even stack proves along time to analyze gameplay issues. I know LoL developers earn money for their work and Wesnoth developers do it for free. All work done in Wesnoth is done just because people "enjoy" doing it. I respect this, but I dont enjoy it.
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II

User avatar
Rigor
Posts: 941
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 1:40 am

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by Rigor » October 31st, 2013, 5:04 pm

wise words, tek.

also pointed out a long time ago was this idea here:

"Instead of a potential 6g swing, a village steal is reduced to a 4g swing. The power of economic dominance is reduced, while the value of kills and xp collection is increased. Still, upkeep from villages remains as useful as ever. Perhaps more useful even, especially as players trying the "free army" strategy end up wasting base income on upkeeping units."

looks like try this = death sentence :lol2:
there are also known flaws for the 2v2 maps which are not possible to change since years because its not good, but good enough and mostly nobody complains about it. having trying to balance stuff myself, i saw how hard it is to come by the proove it argument. even after doing exactly that and explaining why your idea works, it is just too exhausting(?) to push yourself the last meters. ...Ruins of Terra Dwelve is quite untested, but it points in a direction that I like and I feel it fills a hole in current 2v2 maps styles....

gnaahh...

Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3984
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by Velensk » October 31st, 2013, 6:26 pm

Just a few words on getting anything done in Wesnoth. It takes a lot of work. There are a few things that can be done piecemeal over time by one person, such as art. But there are a lot of things which require a great deal of testing by expert players and which are honestly too much work to be done by one person or even one group of the right size, these things include eras and maps.

Rigor comments on how Ruins of Terra Dwelve is undertested. Despite the fact that I've spent easily fifty and quite probably more than a hundred hours testing that map I agree completely. Even if I could have spent more of that time playing with veterans (and often it's impossible to find 3 other veterans willing to test with you) a hundred hours wouldn't be enough to test it completely enough.

And if maps are bad, eras are worse. Between Era of Myths and Era of Four Moons, I know I've spent a few hundred hours testing/balancing and that's not counting other pet projects I've worked on (my own and other peoples). I will say that I believe that the base set for Era of Four Moons is one of the most balanced eras of it's type in existence but it still needs a ton of work.

In order for projects like this to make progress and keep going they will tend to need two things; first many good players who are willing to help and second for there to be people to support and appreciate the project. That was one advantage Era of Myths had over Era of Four Moons. When I took over Era of Myths, it'd been kicking around for awhile and a lot of people used it. I was able to drum up more support when I created Count Kromire and it seemed to me as though a lot of people were using Era of Myths and wanted a more balanced version of it to use in their games. Also, because it was more known and used, I could find veteran players who were consistently willing to help me test it, I even managed to get a tournament organized. I felt like the things I was doing helped others and not just myself thus making it worth the effort. By contrast, although I feel Era of Four Moons is a superior project and has gotten me nothing but positive reviews from those who've talked to me about it (which Era of Myths definitely did not) I also had a harder time feeling like I wasn't just working on it by myself and for myself. I wanted very much to balance it properly but I remember how before I left I was getting sick of trying to convince people to test it with me (which led to me not being very picky who I tested with, which led to a lot of low quality testing). It seemed to me like I shouldn't have to try so hard if what I had really was as good as it seemed to me. It's also harder to work on single player content as well when it doesn't seem to get out. I can make campaigns for myself but the truth is that I've played enough campaigns that there's not really much that I want to see in a campaign anymore. I still like making them but it's other people appreciating it that make it worth the incredible amount of effort it takes.

I would really like to get back into everything, especially Era of Four Moons however it seems to me like the community has lost a ton of energy. There seem to be fewer people on all servers and a ton of the veterans are either gone or on break. It feels like I'd have a hard time getting other people to participate. On the other hand, if nobody does anything then that kills the energy and makes it even harder to participate or find people to participate. But this kind of thing is the reason why before I left, I tried my best to help out everyone with whatever their project was, whether it be Bob_the_Mighty's latest coding extravaganza (I can't really help with the coding but I can test and appreciate it) or somebodys faction they're working on like the halflings or the nightmares. I know however, that no matter how hard I work many things still won't go anywhere unless others chip in (I'm definitely still willing to try though).

Now as for getting things into mainline Wesnoth: I can see why people find that frustrating and it is hard but it is possible. I've done it. And how many of the mainline maps are usermade? But like anything it takes a lot of effort both from those with administrative authority and from the community. Analyzing a ton of replays is a lot of work (another thing I did before I left to help flourish growth). If you're doing it to try to figure out how a map needs to be tweaked that's honestly a lot more work than any one person with the power to change the mainline maps can do. What he would need would be a group of people with sufficient expertise in the game to help him and he would need to be willing to A:Put time and effort into it (there are so many projects/changes that exist in potential that even being willing to consider proposals is a lot of work) and B: Trust the expertise of those suggesting the change. It may well be that the difficulties involved in this are the reason why the energy has been draining over the past couple years. That said, there's nothing that says it has to remain this way.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."

User avatar
Rigor
Posts: 941
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 1:40 am

Re: 2v2 conversation

Post by Rigor » October 31st, 2013, 9:13 pm

now you caught my attention with that era of four moons.

but first some words about your thoughts: as an active creator of content that you are it is very helpful to see things how you do, and adding your experience with challenges. I noticed several recurring themes that appear to be resurfacing generically in all such situations, the most important being that its more helpful if you are your own boss in smaller projects, and dont give away too much authority in bigger things. its similar how i feel the devs handle the situation. of course they dont want to crash the game by allowing too many unripe actions, but its obvious to anyone involved that its going rather down than up currently, whatever the reasons. as we saw, this expert group approach is not without difficulties, and can have the same negative effects as when there are just a few people working on rather obscure projects with low visibility factor. i for my part am happy to learn such invaluable and global mechanistics by game rather by falling on the nose in the job or real life.

and getting back to the era you described: i used to handle the ladder announcements for some years and directed the community as best as i could to events that would eventually lead to game changes or faction, map or other kinds of testing, for instance playing with a theme or the like. i pretty much enjoyed the small megaphone i held in my hands and saw how very useful even this mini subpopulation of the ordinary wesnoth player had on the whole. maps got introduced or removed, mappacks with eras were introduced and random pickers for more fairness introduced for a better gaming experience. tournaments were announced and people recruited with a "huge" observation range (at least for wesnoth), so more feedback could be directed to the players themselves which terminally caught the attention of the game devs. not always, but sometimes, and that was often worth it. other times it led to nothing, of course, but the small sometimes count in the end because you get this feeling that it matters what every small handle does.

and with these words i would like to say thanks for the good work, everyone.

Post Reply