A more experimental fork of Wesnoth?

[Cuyo Quiz]

IIRC, the Swarm ability was designed with this in mind. And there was also an idea for a fork in which all units would have Swarm.

Go figure.

[Darth Fool]

IIRC, the Swarm ability was designed with this in mind. And there was also an idea for a fork in which all units would have Swarm.

Go figure.

You do not recall correctly. Swarm was meant to represent the decay in attacks when the unit represents a bunch of seperate entites (be it tentacles or individual ratlings) that attack individually and can be disabled individually.

[irrevenant]

<stuff deleted that was only pertinent to the thread this split from>

I sometimes think this would be a good time for Wesnoth to fork. One branch could continue to be the good old Wesnoth that we've come to know and love (only constantly improving) while the other could try out some of the ideas like this one that Wesnoth is too stable to entertain.

P.S. This post was originally posted before Cuyo Quiz's just above and is what he is replying to.

P.P.S. I definitely recall a discussion regarding using "Swarm" on all units to represent weakening from damage. The idea predictably received a 'won't happen in mainline' response but the possibility of using that approach for a user-made era was raised, IIRC.

[turin]

Bring on PrefNoth!

I think a better idea would be to make a new game - the main difference between this game and Wesnoth would be that this game has multi-hex attacks. A lot of the art could be reused, but the engine would have to be almost completely rewritten. That new game could be a place to try out a bunch of new stuff, like units getting worse as they take damage.

[Dave]

I think a better idea would be to make a new game

I agree. An 'experimental' version wouldn't work because the 'experiment' would be unlikely to result in any consensus as to how well it works.

Rather, decide on a completely new set of game rules, and try to make a new game around them, but reusing Wesnoth's graphical resources and graphics engine.

David

[Pic]

At some point a new game would have to be considered, wesnoth would eventually get to the point where people are -looking- for things to do rather then having something to do. Such a biased mind set may not be good for the game as a whole.

Not that is going to happen right now of course. Just my two cents.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have two words.

Ogre battle.

.....

.....

As in the game 'Ogre battle'....not...a battle involving ogres

(Ruined his two words)

[torangan]

I guess you're not getting the idea of Free Software yet? Wesnoth is Free, nobody can or would try to stop you or anyone else from making a radically different fork. AFAIK there is spacenoth which is using the engine for a rather different game. Don't know wheter it's still active though.
But that one was even better then a fork - they choose to make the Wesnoth engine even more versatile instead of forking. Therefore WML now has capabilities which are mostly unused like defining new attack ranges besides melee/ranged. Of course, for most of the features never intended for the classical game people found some usage in special scenarios. That's how progress is done.

[irrevenant]

Just to clarify, this is the idea that has its genesis all the way back in this thread.

What I am proposing is "Wesnoth II" (aka "Wesnoth: The Next Generation" ) ; a new game which, while it has its roots in Wesnoth, is free to change gameplay rules, units and factions (and introduce new ones) because it's not obligated to maintain the current balance. Think "Warcraft II" vs "Warcraft III" (though with no intent to go RTS). And yes, there would be some changes to the engine.

"Experiment" was probably a bad name; the intent was that there'd be freedom to rethink the fundamentals.

I do get the idea of Free Software: I wasn't seeking permission, I was seeking interest. Of course anyone is free to take the Wesnoth code and run with it, but doing so without ensuring community support would end poorly (see Eric S Raymond's Homesteading
the Noosphere for an analysis of some of the cultural aspects involved in forking Open Source projects).

Also, since I don't have the coding skills, if I'd like to see such a thing happen, I'm pretty much limited to convincing someone with the skills that it's a good idea. (I will perhaps give it a bash myself in the future, but this would be a huge learning experience. Though it'd certainly improve my skills, the odds would be strongly against the project itself being a success).

P.S. I'm not sure how Spacenoth is going these days either.

[Viliam]

I think a new incompatible version could be good. Backward compatibility is too limiting -- it prevents adding new idea which would fundamentally change the balance of existing things. Of course also the new game will have to be limited -- it must have some basic vision, and the proposals fundamentally incompatible with it will be rejected. It should not have "feature creep", it should just choose a different set of core features.

Here are a few ideas I think could be nice:
- Multi-hex attacks.
- 3D (isometric) terrain which is a part of strategy... each vertical hex above (below) your opponent increases (decreases) the ranged attack range by 1. So it is advantage to stay on the mountain.
- Different system of advancing units. Instead of selecting from 2 predefined unit types, player would on each level receive one "advancement point" and could "buy" some improvement for unit (more HPs, more movement, new ability).
- More items. Each unit could hold max 3 items (heroes max 6); unit can give items to adjacent unit, can gain an item from killed opponent. Some items could have limited use.
- Magic system with mana points and spells. Maybe also non-magical skills like road building, wall construction, etc.

There could be similar factions, and possibly the same world, but completely different campaigns. (For the player, it should be a new game... not the old game with some different options.)

I would help with translating, maybe writing scenarios, but not with coding...

[Phoenyx]

Wesnoth, as it heads into 1.2, it getting to a pretty stable and balenced position. It seems like some people are very resistance to anything that might change that status quo in the least. (As seen by "OMG that would completely destroy the game" comments.)

A lot of ideas that come up, while not good for the stable Version 1, would bring a lot of new and interesting gameplay. (Examples: The multi-hex spells/animations/unit size, abilites effected by time of day, sub-commanders.) Many items are seen as negative only because they are different and would change Wesnoth gameplay.

As MP balence would need to be re-adjusted as well, the fraction choices could be re-visitied and reconsidered. (Mermaid Initiate? Separate factions for Dwarves and Bandits with new units to fill up the spaces?)

I would like to see this as a chance to rebuild the engine and continue to expand on the WML structure. If done well, the mainline could be ported over and still run as they currently do, but the engine would be able to handle so much more. I think it would allow new and interesting maps and campaigns that way. I don't think seperating this into two games is as long-term viable of a solution as looking forward to Wesnoth 2.0 with an engine upgrade and a lot more options.

[turin]

The problem with that is, you are wrong when saying that the engine could handle "so much more". The engine is already much slower than it was in previous versions because of new features added to WML. And some new features, like multi-hex attacks, and incompatible with current features, like one-click move-and-attacks. Combining every possible feature in one engine will, inevitably, lead to a badly written and slow-running engine. That's why we need to make a new, related project, Wesnoth II or somesuch, not change the focus of the current one. To implement all of these "cool new features" we would have to really change the engine, and we would probably be better off just writing a new one.

Also, the group of people who would be interested in this new game, Wesnoth II, would not be the same group of people interested in reaching Wesnoth 2.0. (I, for one, would probably play Wesnoth II but would put no effort into developing it.) I would really hate to see more effort put into "cool new features" (which would make Wesnoth a different game) than were put into making Wesnoth the game as it currently is better.

Basically, we shouldn't try to make one game, or game engine, that covers every gaming possibility. We should make several different games that together can cover everything, and cover them all well.

Also, I'd like to know why you think starting a project for a new game is a less viable long-term solution.

[Phoenyx]

The problem with that is, you are wrong when saying that the engine could handle "so much more". The engine is already much slower than it was in previous versions because of new features added to WML.

Sorry, I shouldn't type and run to a meeting. I meant to say that a new, "version 2" engine could be built with options in mind. I'm not suggesting that every idea is greenlit, mearly hoping that the idea of the campaign server can be grown to a more generic "plug-in server". Not only allow people to make their own eras or campaigns, but also allow them to customize the gameplay choices in their campaigns.

To implement all of these "cool new features" we would have to really change the engine, and we would probably be better off just writing a new one.

This is exactally what I am saying. As you said, the engine is /already/ slower because of the increase in features in the WML. What does the future hold for this, v1 line? How many new features will it be able to handle? I submit that we will never see much in the way of "improvements" in the current base because: "it will slow the engine down", "it will unbalance the current MP factions" or even "I don't like it because this is the way we want to play the game."

To be honest, these are all fine reasons. Wesnoth is very stong where it stands at this present point.

In my coding projects, I've found that you can only build on one base for so long until it starts to show it's age. I am attempting to suggest that as more things are added to the Wesnoth core, it may start showing more signs of age. (The current slowness is one of the early ones, I fear.)

Why do I feel that a rebuilt engine with mutiple cores is better then two seperate games? I am concerned that if Wesnoth and Wesnoth II split into two seperate, yet very similar games. The player base will become fractured, and the developers will become adverserial (even more so then they currently are). As time goes on, they drift farther away as two totally seperate entities. At one point, one will be favored more then the other until one of them dies out.

Yes, I know for many of the status-quo folk, that may not such a bad idea. Like the remove the randomness fork, some may hope to just force the other group and ideas away and leave the community in peace. But what happens if it is the "new" one that picks up the players and developers and leaves the "old and stale" one behind?

I have seen far too many forked projects die.

My suggestion would be to rebuild the engine. It should be adaptable enough to load and run either ruleset. Features, and it's related code, is modularized and loaded via WML. This way, if there are features built by the v2 team that v1 developers decide would be in line with their philosophy to incorporate, the engine can include it with some WML entries. Also, any improvements to the campaign server/loader and perhaps even AI can be used for both versions as well. Don't forget that both versions will attempt to draw from the same art base, we want them to continued to be closely tied to one another.

Yes, my suggestion is more work, but I still belive that laying a better groundwork will benefit both projects in the long run.

[/quote]

[irrevenant]

Firstly, I agree with you that Wesnoth is not the place to implement these sorts of changes; it should definitely occur in a fork which would be aimed at being a different (but related) game.

The problem with that is, you are wrong when saying that the engine could handle "so much more". The engine is already much slower than it was in previous versions because of new features added to WML.

This is a technical problem, but presumably one that can be worked around; there are many games more sophisticated than Wesnoth that operate at faster speeds. Perhaps using some form of bytecode would help?

Also, the group of people who would be interested in this new game, Wesnoth II, would not be the same group of people interested in reaching Wesnoth 2.0. (I, for one, would probably play Wesnoth II but would put no effort into developing it.)

Why is that? I was rather expecting there'd be significant overlap of people between the two projects.

[turin]

Significant overlap, but not the same.

Now, let's get what I was proposing clear... I wasn't saying that the people developing Wesnoth II should have nothign to do with the devs of Wesnoth 2.0; I think a good relationship would be a good thing. But I think there should be these two, separate projects, perhaps done by much the same people. I'm not really qualified to debate the technical side of it, though.

[Dave]

To make any of this happen, what we basically need is this: someone who has the appropriate skills, and has a vision of some game that could reuse much of Wesnoth's resources to take their idea and run with it -- sit down for a weekend or two, [1] and modify Wesnoth's engine to support the key features of their new game.

Then release that engine as a working prototype of their idea. Preferably they would make their changes pretty sound so that the prototype can be a basis to build from.

If their changes do indeed result in a new, fun game they will surely get numerous contributors wanting to help them with the project.

Until someone puts the effort in to do this though, nothing will ever come of these ideas to make some new version of Wesnoth, and imho, talking about it is fairly futile.

Also, IMHO, a successful project based on the Wesnoth engine will take the game engine in a bold, new direction. A smattering of new features like multi-hex attacks etc will just look boring and like a weird 'variant' of Wesnoth. A new game should be a fresh and interesting change....for instance, it might add a slew of new RPG features. Or it might be targetted specifically to multiplayer gaming. Or it might add some more 'builder' elements. Or it might completely change the combat rules.

And, I will maintain, that if anyone tries to build enhancements to Wesnoth based on giving the user alot of options, they will find their project a dismal failure. Options are bad. Options should be avoided.

David

[1] And yes, for a good developer, it should only take a weekend or two to implement a basic initial version that showcases their key ideas.