Why do people quit playing?

[Dave]

SumnerH: We have an overriding philosophy of putting the user in control. If a user finds it fun to be able to load their latest save over and over, who are we to disagree with them?

Personally I don't go around save-reloading all the time, but it's not something we actively present. We trust the user, not the computer, to make decisions about such things.

David

[SumnerH]

I'm not arguing for removing it (though I personally don't use in-scenario saves, feels too much like cheating), just commenting that comig from a turn-based gaming background I found it odd.

Well, I must say that the only one that get's hipotetically damaged by the action is the same person that save-loaded it. Tought, IMHO each person should be allowed to play like they want if by doing so they aren't hurting another user fun.

I agree, that's why I said I'm not arguing for removing. Just found it a bit odd.

Main reason, wesnoth games can turn very long, specially with a lot of players, and I want to be able to cut the game when I want to and return later and I prefer to not have other person waiting if for some reason I need to be AFK or need to shut down the cpu for the day.

Non-persistent saves a la Nethack allow this, but no reason to move that direction.

Still, one thing that usually maintains people busy on games is grinding/gambling (d2 as example in the search of the perfect weapon, etc.) wesnoth doesn't have that much replay value since most of the game is very linear.

Aka, the campaings usually goes the way a-b-c-d-e and sometimes if you are lucky you have a fork somewhere between scenarios. once you have played it, you already would know where are the enemies placed, objetives and all the talk/story, you could replay it in order to go to the other way and probably do so, but once you had done it, its finito.

Allowing more possibilities however moves more from the traditional TBS and enter in the realm of RPG/"choose your own adventure books"

Well, nethack sort of has a few common parts with a bunch of randomness. So there's room to write in a lot of plot, but there's also a huge amount of variance each time you play--most levels are random, and even many of the "fixed" ones have part of them defined ahead of time and part of them generated randomly. There are a number of different kinds of random levels too (random dungeons with rooms/corridors, random mines, random mazes). Within those there are some hard-coded different kinds of rooms (e.g. stores, army barracks, swamps, anthills, throne rooms, whatever).

On the "per-scenario" front, this would be sort of akin to having a defined keep area for both players, possibly some defined terrain in between, and then some constraint-driven randomly gen'd stuff (e.g. "there's a river in there somewhere", "it's a lot of forest with some hills over here", whatever).

On the campaign level, it'd be a fair bit harder to develop extra content and variants, and possibly throw random levels in.

I think it's a fairly interesting experiment that I might toy with, but overall I'm not sure how well it can be made to work. In Nethack, broad measures like whether you're in the open or a hallway are quite important. But in Wesnoth, the exact distribution of terrain types can be pretty critical. Also, barring some pretty severe terrain restrictions it's tough to have widely random foe types and keep the difficulty levels similar.

And unlike Nethack or X-Com, Wesnoth campaigns try _very_hard_ to have unique ongoing plot every level. In a more random campaign, that's tough.

[Wesnothphile]

Increased strategic freedom will help with campaigns and replay value, not just multiplayer matches.

the campaigns have too much "snowballing", and individual scenarios are too much shaped by the idiocy of the AI. others have commented already that answering the question of "how do i beat level 23" with "well back in level 5 you should have" is a sure sign of defective construction.

Aka, the campaings usually goes the way a-b-c-d-e and sometimes if you are lucky you have a fork somewhere between scenarios. once you have played it, you already would know where are the enemies placed, objetives and all the talk/story, you could replay it in order to go to the other way and probably do so, but once you had done it, its finito.

I believe these problems stem directly from the lack of strategic freedom. If there were a greater degree of strategic freedom, players wouldn't be locked into an "optimal" solution to a campaign.

Let's say you leveled up a bunch of Level 3 Iron Maulers with impact damage, when what you really need to get past a bunch of Drakes are lvl 3 first strike, pierce damage Halbardiers to force through the drakes guarding the pass. Under the current arrangement, you might have to go back 7 scenarios and replay the game.

But introduce a greater degree of strategic freedom, and you don't have to go back 7 scenarios and replay the game. Instead, you can use your Iron Maulers to attack the undead Skeletons guarding an alternate path to the destination Keep.

Or perhaps, you can use a bunch of fast Lvl 3 Cavaliers to race around both groups of enemies and reach the Fortress another way.

Each option gives you an entirely different way to beat the scenario, and changes the type of game you play. This increases replay value. Also, this gives greater weight to the player's strategic choices and their influence on the game, instead of locking the player into one strategic development path.

The hypothetical campaign example I provided creates strategic freedom via conscious campaign redesign, and can be implemented in campaigns under the current Wesnoth design. But if we adopted increased strategic freedom on a more fundamental level (such as the Clasher/Skeleton Archer/Dark Adept example in my previous post), this redesign wouldn't be necessary, since there would be more than one way for the player to get through the Drakes w/o the requirement for pierce.

Allowing more possibilities however moves more from the traditional TBS and enter in the realm of RPG/"choose your own adventure books"

Although the mix of strategy to RPG elements is an important concern, I don't think increasing strategic freedom need automatically change a TBS into an RPG. Blizzard's Starcraft has some scenarios where there are alternate paths to victory. So this degree of strategic freedom does not change a strategy game into an RPG.

A good point was also made about the enormous replay value of a VERY graphically-challenged game like Nethack. And Nethack is an opensource game with an incredible amount of strategic freedom. You can eat a corpse, sacrifice it on an altar, or even wield it as a weapon (just make sure you don't go barehanded when you swing around the cockatrice you killed, if you want to turn your enemies and not yourself into stone).

And as always, I reserve the right to be absolutely wrong on everything

[Wintermute]

I alternate between thinking it's "unfair" and thinking it's a stunning testiment to what a great game Wesnoth is when people - MANY PEOPLE - compare it over, and over to X-Com, Civ (and SMAC), and perhaps most especially to Starcraft. Comments that compare the functionality, replayability, or balance of Wesnoth to a list of, quite arguably, the most popular, or well balanced, or "best" games of all time with the expectation that Wesnoth is even in the same category as these games is something that I both wholeheartedly agree with, and think is absolutely hilarious. Many posters drop these names like they are nothing, but we're talking about games that make list after list of the best games, period. Just an observation.

[Fosprey]

Because when you want to improve you must look up, to see what did the other to be on top. So yes, is common to compare to the best games.
But long story short, if i considered those games where better than wesnoth, just like that, i would go and play them instead. But wesnoth have advantages other games you name as the best don't have.
First of all, civilization maybe fun, and i didn't personally play it, but i have a friend that played it competitvly and he told me it sucks, so i just erased it of my list. And for what i saw, you spent a lot of time of your game without interaction, and i consider this very unintersting, since i play games to interact with another human, because that's the fun of it.

Xcom, well it was a game against the ai, i couldn't stand it pass a few levels.
Starcraft is a very good game, but the main skill in starcraft is not thinking, but having TREMENDOUS execution skills, if that's what you are looking for, it's a great game, but if you want thinking skills to be more important, as a lot of people expect from a strategy game, then the game is crap.
So i really don't see the magic of those game, i'm playing wesnoth because for what i'm looking for is the closest one. But not so much because wesnoth is close, but every other game is too far. But my point is wesnoth in itself is a great game.

[Kestenvarn]

I think Wesnothphile has made some pretty interesting posts here and I'm glad for his input.

[Noy]

STRATEGIC FREEDOM

On a tactical level, Wesnoth is one of the best strategy games I've seen (positioning, terrain, range/melee, etc.). But on a strategic level, it lacks the strategic freedom that many other strategy games have.

What do I mean by "strategic freedom"? Choice. Giving the player the choice of more than one path to victory, more than one equally viable path of strategic development.

As Chains has mentioned, in Starcraft, you can pursue several different strategies. Even in turn based strategy games, like Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, you have the option of pursuing a Momentum, Hybrid, or Builder path of strategic development, or psi vs. conventional weapons, or air vs. naval vs. ground, etc.

But, as evidenced by JW's How-to-play series, there's only really one optimal strategic path in each given faction vs. faction game. (e.g., Up against drakes? Get pierce.)

In Blizzard's Starcraft (a 2D sprite-based game that is still actively played ten years after release, along with professional televised tournaments and commentators in Korea), you can choose from multiple strategies, and each of those strategies have multiple counters. So your strategic freedom isn't limited to an "optimal" strategy. Each strategy does have varying degrees of danger/success, so the player needs to weigh the risks. (Note that this is separate from the RNG discussion; I'm talking about strategic risk, not tactical risk, though strategy and tactics do influence each other. But the RNG is mainly a tactical combat element.)

And since the player CANNOT pursue all strategies or paths of strategic development equally, he/she must pick and choose. This is a good thing, because then the game turns more on his strategic choices, and not on the tactical outcomes of the RNG.

Also, each strategy in Starcraft has multiple counters, so gameplay is more versatile and players aren't "locked" into a single optimal strategy to counter someone else. For instance, each race has two ways of detecting hidden/cloaked units, via a building or a unit. Flying mutalisks can be countered by ground-to-air or air-to-air or even spells, thus allowing the player to chose their strategic response (with the varying risks and advantage/disadvantages) of each response choice, instead of locking the player into one optimal strategic choice (e.g., pierce vs. drakes).

This multiple strategic option scenario sounds like it interferes with the KISS principle. But really, strategic freedom places the onus on the player rather than the RNG, giving the player interesting choices to make. And these choices are not just for the sake of choices, but each has varying degrees of risk/advantage/disadvantage. To comply with KISS, just having 2 possibilities instead of being locked into one would be sufficient.

An example of how this concept can work is with the Drake vs. undead, where the undead can use skeleton archer pierce or dark adept cold attack vs. a Drake Clasher, giving the undead player two equally viable counters, instead of restricting his strategic freedom to pierce vs. drake. But this example is the exception rather than the rule in Wesnoth. (See JW's How to Play series for the optimal strategic path you're locked into for any given faction vs. faction matchup).

Umm no offense, your analysis while long and detailed, is incorrect in multiple parts. First you start off with discussing the “strategic freedom of wesnoth.” While admittedly there is some limitation to the strategic options available to defeat an enemy the truth is somewhat more complex than you suggest. First while the default 1v1 and 2v2 maps (the most played maps) might seem to be constricting, but you are able to undercut an opponent economically by taking villages. Its not as blindly effective as rushing and killing opponents drones, but its comical to suggest that's a realistic strategy in most serious strategy games or in real life; I ask where are the drones in a strategy games like Steel Panthers or Panzer general? These are the type of games that are more representative of wesnoth’s genre than starcraft. I should note both of those games are award winning, and considered classic “true strategy” games. Yet, and this is the best part about Wesnoth, it is possible to add strategic or political elements; large FFAs that include a diplomacy, of which, Westeros matches are the finest example. Here politics, strategic, operational and some tactical strategy come together, in an exciting (if long winded) matches. Smaller FFA provide a variation of such matches.

However partway through your analysis you start conflating strategic “options” with tactical options. While I’m nitpicking terminology, it is also here where your argument really falls apart. You claim, “there's only really one optimal strategic path in each given faction vs. faction game.” That is a gross simplification, one that belies a fundamental lack of understanding of the game, and even a poor reading of JW’s strategy guide. There is no “one way” to beat a faction, and if anything wesnoth provides far greater tactical options than starcraft or many other games. Each faction has multiple counters, which have counters themselves, that require a careful balance by players in a match. If you just bought pierce against the drakes, saurians come into play due to their pierce resistance and high defence. Then the Loyalist strategy is to buy mages, which are vulnerable to drake attacks. Such dynamics exist for every factional match up. Moreover you aren’t limited to only buying a certain number of units or one strategy. Becephalaus (probably one of the finest players ever to play) proved conclusively that one did not even need mages as rebels to take on the Undead. Using Shamans and varying his mix of other units, he could regularly beat top line players. I would argue that unless one was not acutely aware of your unit choices vis a vis that of your opponents, its almost certain that you would lose a match.

Moreover your comparative argument that starcraft has a greater variety of strategies doesn’t really hold much water. First off starcraft doesn’t have the same variety of damage types (ostensibly only having three), though unit sizes does make a difference too. Frequently mass of units matter far more than actual damage. While there are different strategies to beat, mass of certain main units can overcome problems. Its not as if having stealth units require a major shift in some faction’s actions. I mean upgrading an overlord and spreading them across your base is your response as a zerg to stealth units. Wow... such depth. Yet Wesnoth has 6 factions in default, each match up requiring completely different tactics to beat. Due to damage susceptibilities, apportionment of certain units attacks matter far more than in Starcraft. Terrain matters far more in wesnoth, and isn’t as simplistic as placing a tank behind a cliff and watching it hit unit below it, as it is in starcraft. And there is nothing even remotely close to time of day in Starcraft; a fundamentally critical dynamic in Wesnoth. In wesnoth, one small decision can cost you a game; the loss of a unit, the taking of a strategic point, a bad recruit. Care must be taken at all points to ensure victory. You don’t have to have the same attention to detail in Starcraft. You can lose a couple of units, or just simply overwhelm an opponent at times to win. Its not the same. I should know all of this because before I started playing and developing wesnoth I played starcraft for 7 years and participated in over 10,000 matches. I’m telling you now from my personal and development perspective you have very little basis to make such a claim, and anybody remotely familiar with both genres would never make such a claim.

Currently, equally expert players know exactly what type of moves to expect from each other. But if there was more than one optimal strategy, this would no longer be the case. There would be a greater degree of strategic (not tactical RNG outcome) uncertainty, and add intrigue to the game.

Spying/scouting/intelligence would play a greater role, since you would need to figure out what strategic path of development the other side is doing, instead of knowing what to expect the way you do now. And this allows for the possibility of more misdirections.

Wesnoth does have one mind game element in the form of hidden units (e.g., wose in forests) at the moment. But these still tend to be low level tactical, rather than high level strategic elements.

Again, your points here are superficial and do not indicate a deeper understanding of the game. If you can find one expert player to support they know what moves to expect from another. Honestly? for writing over 600 words, its the most blatantly ignorant statement I've ever heard. I’m going to bold the next point because its important; the idea that there are can be two equal players is a complete fallacy, perpetuated by observers who do not have a deep grasp of the game's dynamics. There is no such thing, because top players have multiple tactical and operational strategies for each faction. They have personalities, and general behaviors which they articulate through their play. Confronted with the same situation, top players will often react completely differently, which may equally be the best response. Questions like, will ping try to take the mountain, or the village? Will DK test his luck for one more turn, or take his kills and prepare for the coming dusk? Will Hotmustid expose his leader in the forest for an attack an HI, or play it safe and send a archer. These are typical, critical questions we face every game, almost every turn, that we can never fully predict, only develop possible responses to. Likewise if you think misdirection is not a part of wesnoth, then you need to play games a lot more. I can think of one player on here who excels at baiting opponents or playing feints to support allies. Its far more complex, than you suggest.

[sam_waz_here]

Training
There are too many strategic choices that are not explained to the beginning player. A beginner can't learn feints, ploys and other advanced strategies fresh off the training level or even after completing every campaign in the game. So when the player who has defeated the computer a hundred times goes onto multiplayer and is annihiliated they will be discouraged. Either the new player loses many matches or watches them they won't learn how to play proficiently. Add to that the fog and shroud cuts off their ability to see their enemy's strategies and emulate them because all they will know is the end result.

Frankly it will take alot of determination for a casual player to go beyond a passing interest in this game. It doesn't help that your average player is getting more shall we say casual and is expecting instant gratification. If you disagree then look at the average length and difficulty in next gen games.

[SumnerH]

Training
There are too many strategic choices that are not explained to the beginning player...Frankly it will take alot of determination for a casual player to go beyond a passing interest in this game. It doesn't help that your average player is getting more shall we say casual and is expecting instant gratification. If you disagree then look at the average length and difficulty in next gen games.

This is why people don't start playing seriously, not why they don't stick around.

Nethack (which doesn't seem to have a retention problem) has a much higher learning curve--a lot of the general public are under the impression that ascending is some rare, once-in-a-lifetime "all the starts aligned" lucky phenomenam, and many people play for literally over a decade before ascending. Top players win the vast majority of their games and win with combinations like "I'm going to ascend without using any weapons, without eating anything, as an illiterate atheist, without using any wishes".

[shevegen]

What are your own thoughts on the subject? How do you figure it?

Finally a thread i like!

I am not sure where to start... I think I start with the good:


- Wesnoth is probably the best developed (as in biggest) game in the open source community. That is amazing.
- Wesnoth as game has a very simple concept and is thus quick to learn but also not easy to master, because there are many strategic elements in it. Which is good because people try it again, or play longer to "master it"
- It has a very active community and the forum is also frequent
- The art ingame is finally very very nice
- What amazed me most is that Wesnoth even seems to spawn off new games (that thing with hills and stuff... a bit 3dish... i dont know if it is still developed)
- You can create your own scenarios campaigns
- There are MANY campaigns to pick from.

Ok before I start with the bad stuff let me focus FOR ME what is the most important stuff right now:
the campaigns. I applaude people that create such great campaigns. My favourite one is still the desert elf story. It was SO COOL and refreshing to use rather powerful units

I hope that wesnoth continues to be improved, exactly that the campaigns are updated and maintained gives the game a huge incentive to play it again after some time passed.


Ok now comes the bad stuff. Feel free to disagree with me, I think I start with the most annoying ones first:

- A few developers on the forum here. Maybe I am wrong, and please do not misunderstand this that I am saying a few developers here are ... well, have a "conflicting personality".
But sometimes I get the impression that a few devs are either hostile to suggestions, users, or downright arrogant. Maybe the written text is to blame. I dont get this "feeling" with every developer though, just sometimes, so maybe it is just my perception, or some people who choose to write in a certain writing style *shrug*
It is never good to interpret too much in written text anyway.

But still ... I think a developer should only speak for himself. I often saw posts where a developer stated "we", and in fact it was a majority opinion, but then there _were_ a few developers with another opinion... so I think it is only fair to refer to your own opinion, and not speak for other people. This would be unfair in a discussion in my humble opinion. Ok before this becomes a flame, let me state that I do feel this only *sometimes*. Like 1 out of 10 times I visit here so it is really rather rare actually.

I also dont want to single out anyone (it would be of no use anyway), and I think I can understand that sometimes that a developer becomes hostile (because he is angry) or IS downright arrogant (well... maybe he is arrogant because he just has a bad attitude creating a game *shrug*), but whatever the cause, I think any developer should adhere to a BASIC set of standards, EVEN if a user makes him angry.

When someone suggests a new idea and a developer disagrees with him, that is fine, but there should be an explanation, even if it is just short. I read "wont be implemented for obvious reasons" and no - i have no idea what these obvious reasons were. (Ok damn I revealed now which post _I_ thought was rather arrogant...)
How should one know why an idea is bad per se without explanation? It is fine if ideas get rejected but it is downright FRUSTRATING to get something like a one liner, have it presented as a "all developers think that way" and that's it, end of story.
That kills discussion, that kills motivation to bring in feedback - at least for me. I think ideas and opinions should be more free. If it is a "bad" idea, it wont be implemented anyway so why would there be a need to be or appear hostile. Developers already have a much higher influence of what gets into the game so it seems rather pointless to debate for what one thinks would be good. I am fine that developers get a higher say in things, after all they invest their time and knowledge etc..
But it can be frustrating to see all ideas one brings into discussion, become rejected and dismissed quickly.

Which leads me to the next IMHO bad point I want to bring:

- The "keep it simple, stupid" approach. Now, I think keeping it simple has advantages. That is no problem.
But I think not everything *needs* to be simple. I often would like to see certain features but these can be
rejected because they are too complex in a way. I can understand several reasons to keep a game simple,
but I can also point out at games that are both simple AND complex. I dont think the KISS rule should become
a religion. I'd rather see new things tested, even if they are complex, and if these new things turn out to be bad, throw them away again. But if they are cool, despite being complex, it would be nice to keep them.
Anyway, the KISS philosophy is basically why I am not really suggesting anything new. Its much easier to
encourage other people with their ideas and help promote them (if i think they are nice) than suggest something on my own which would be rejected in 95% of the case anyway.
In a way it would be nice to see the game be a little bit more flexible, as in optional non-default ways to choose from, but this is not up to me to decide or influence anyway, since its a developer's decision. I just state that I personally think this is not very good.

One last point, and I know many will disagree, so I will make it only one line:
WML sucks

Enough said about the bad parts.

And hopefully you believe me if i say that despite these mentioned cons, I think wesnoth is a very good game.

[Noy]

But still ... I think a developer should only speak for himself. I often saw posts where a developer stated "we", and in fact it was a majority opinion, but then there _were_ a few developers with another opinion... so I think it is only fair to refer to your own opinion, and not speak for other people. This would be unfair in a discussion in my humble opinion. Ok before this becomes a flame, let me state that I do feel this only *sometimes*. Like 1 out of 10 times I visit here so it is really rather rare actually.

Actually no, its not like that. Most developers on here are responsible for issue areas, and can speak authoritatively about it without the need of going to ask another developer. If they have authority to modify core aspects of the game, then they should have the authority to tell you why it should remain. For the majority of the forum posts that I lock, I can pretty well state there would be no disagreement. For the very small minority of posts that might be contentious, I'll speak to the other developers and get their opinion before locking it. I'm usually surprised that most people agree its a non-starter, and agree that it should be locked. Moreover Devs have the ability to unlock other devs threads at any time. However, how many threads do you see unlocked because another developer thinks its a good idea? Not many, I think its probably less than five over the last three years.

I also dont want to single out anyone (it would be of no use anyway), and I think I can understand that sometimes that a developer becomes hostile (because he is angry) or IS downright arrogant (well... maybe he is arrogant because he just has a bad attitude creating a game *shrug*), but whatever the cause, I think any developer should adhere to a BASIC set of standards, EVEN if a user makes him angry.

When someone suggests a new idea and a developer disagrees with him, that is fine, but there should be an explanation, even if it is just short. I read "wont be implemented for obvious reasons" and no - i have no idea what these obvious reasons were. (Ok damn I revealed now which post _I_ thought was rather arrogant...)
How should one know why an idea is bad per se without explanation? It is fine if ideas get rejected but it is downright FRUSTRATING to get something like a one liner, have it presented as a "all developers think that way" and that's it, end of story.
That kills discussion, that kills motivation to bring in feedback - at least for me. I think ideas and opinions should be more free. If it is a "bad" idea, it wont be implemented anyway so why would there be a need to be or appear hostile. Developers already have a much higher influence of what gets into the game so it seems rather pointless to debate for what one thinks would be good. I am fine that developers get a higher say in things, after all they invest their time and knowledge etc..
But it can be frustrating to see all ideas one brings into discussion, become rejected and dismissed quickly.

Actually any question that is answered by a "no" is because the poster likely has done nothing to research the topic. My time, and the time of other developers is valuable. I'm not going to waste it explaining over and over again basic points that a poster should have should have researched before hand. If poster expects a developer to add something (something that could take several hours if not days to implement), I think it is pretty basic to ask them to do some basic research into the subject, like search the forum, talk to a developer on IRC, read the wiki or help files. However thats not what occurs. People come on here and blithely tell us what to do, without doing any basic research. Thats not being helpful at all, its actually in some way, a little bit rude. I wouldn't have a problem if someone asked me on the forum why something is like something, and not this way. Instead we constantly see posts saying "X isn't good, We should have Y" on the same topic. Its exasperating for alot of developers who are on the forum... and it leads many just to ignore it completely. For valid questions, or well thought out ideas (whether positively received, or negatively) I think you'll find developers quite helpful and respectful. However the vast majority of suggestions do not fall under this category.

One last point, and I know many will disagree, so I will make it only one line:
WML sucks

No offense, after talking about how you want developers to be more respectful, you go and say something like this? That is about the height of hypocrisy. Thats not even an opinion, its an unqualified statement aimed at disrespect. Seriously, give your head a shake if after making a comment like that you think developers should "take you seriously" or give you any shred of respect.

[Dovolente]

There have been some interesting data collected about preferences towards different aspects of an online RPG game. Wesnoth isn't really a RPG, but many of the same aspects--achievement, competition, exploration, socializing--can be found somewhere here. I think that's one reason the game has the appeal that it does.

As for me, I enjoy the competition and achievement aspects enough to ignore the elements I'm not as keen on (degree of rng influence, generic fantasy elements). As others have said, though, one can't expect too much from one particular game from one particular game genre. It's just a game.

[sam_waz_here]

Perhaps if you treat the player more like a dog and reward them for doing tasks they will stick around longer. E.g player kills boss with their hero, player builds a minimal amount of units, player captures all villages, player kills 100 enemy units, player wins scenarior without losing a unit, player jumps through hoop. They won't be bonus conditions like we currently have but a small bonus like 20 exp to a unit for doing something they wouldn't normally do. Similar to how gamerpoints work on xbox live only without the bragging and general noobishnes.

[Draximus Prime]

Ok, I admit I did not read through this entire post, but I may later. Just skimming the forums right now and this title caught my intention.

I personally think that the reason that a lot of people leave Wesnoth is because they can't take the RNG. People naturally remember the bad more then the good, so they remember losing their level 3 unit to a level 1 right before the last scenario in a campaign, but not their level 1 surviving against 2-3 level 3s and then leveling later that scenario.

Also, multiplayer campaigns(i noticed this is on the roadmap) would be a great feature that would keep more people in the game.

[Wintermute]

Also, multiplayer campaigns(i noticed this is on the roadmap) would be a great feature that would keep more people in the game.

Seek and ye shall find. Note that this and others are in various states of playability. But good people are working on multiplayer campaigns. Or make your own!