Voluntary Challenges Tracking
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Voluntary Challenges Tracking
Hi all,
I searched all over the forums and I couldn't find anyone who had suggested this even once (and am surprised), so I'll bring it up here and offer apologies if I missed it. I may yet submit a patch, but I'm both lazy and disorganized, so we'll see. And any suggestions as to how to make this idea better or more likely to be accepted (yes, I've read the sticky on that subject) are welcome.
Being a fan of both wesnoth and nethack, I thought tracking player conduct like nethack does would increase playability. Tracking voluntary challenges a player takes on would give some zest to old scenarios (multiple dimensions of difficulty, if you will) for those who have been wesnothing for a while. It might even be possible to find veterans in the easy difficulties again.
Possibilities include:
1) An option to have continue-only saves.
This could be a check box that defaults to normal behavior that appears on the campaign description when you are choosing the campaigns. No additional UI interaction would be needed for the normal player. If selected, no auto-saves would be loadable (but perhaps one for the current status is still recorded in case of crashes) and the save button would bring you back to the main menu. Upon loading your saved game, the save file would be deleted. Thus, if you die (or fail), you really die and have to restart the campaign. This makes some of the easy scenarios something of a challenge to those who are looking for one, and involves a whole different strategy. You have to really protect your leader, and whomever you want to keep (like those units who are about to level up but have 3 HP left you would have normally fought with). Losses are really felt, in a way that cannot be compared, and near deaths are huge reliefs.
This would not involve any campaign-wide stats tracking, but would involve a special type of save file (different name than -Auto-, like -Backup-) handling, some tweaks to the Save button controlling, some tweaks to the Load button controlling, disallowing -Backup- save files to be selected in the Load Game menu
2) Track Failures
By "failures" I mean anything that fails the scenario objectives. This is for people who are trying for a success-only run.
You would want to record failure on turn 4, even though the player then backed up to turn 3 and played on from there. Therefore, a campaign-wide (or scenario-wide) stats file would probably need to be kept, along with a unique id generated for a particular campaign run (so you can tell two different runs of HTTT apart, for instance). However such a file would come in handy for other stats listed below.
#1 is the enforcement of the tracking-only #2. I listed #1 first because I thought it might be easier to implement. Dunno.
3) Track loads
If you were interested in how much you (or if you're a dev, how much a given player) save-scummed, you might track how many loads they had for a given scenario/campaign. A continuing save/load would not count as a scum load, but the rest would. You could determine a continuing save/load by those which are the most recent AND which were loaded after the game was exited. The process of having to exit the game in the middle of a turn just to reload only one turn would be sufficient deterrent to not scum that special case, IMHO.
This would require a scenario- or campaign-wide stats file as in #2.
Of course #1 trumps this one too. #2 is a subset of #3, of course, but it would be nice to know how many scums were(n't) because of failure.
4) Total playing time (turns and real time)
This is for those people who want to try and blitz through. Real time could be measured from initial load start to quit-game or loading a different campaign run id.
Again, the scenario- or campaign-wide stats file as in #2 would be needed. A stats server could be useful to compare with other players.
5) Special recognition of zero losses, both in stats (or conduct?) window and on campaign completion.
6) Special recognition of EV deviance
Doing worse than EVs (expected values) should be recognized. Something like "You won even though the deck was stacked against you!" (idea only -- entirely different wording is welcome). Perhaps also some special coloring in the stats window. Dunno.
Also, not straying from a certain statistically expectable normal deviance of EV might be reported, even perhaps just by coloring the stats involved. For example, anything within the first standard deviation might be colored green. Anything more than three standard deviations might be red. Maybe a standard deviation is too far or hard to calculate (need a stats server?)
7) (slightly off topic) Differentiation between ALMA advances and regular advances in the stats
Total gold earned
9) With a stats server you could also do a pacifist challenge (not many kills).
Right now it would be nigh on impossible to do a least-earned or most-earned challenge. This could be tracked as the normal stats are tracked (I assume) in the save files. This could either be for a player to challenge herself, or for her to compare to other players (stats server).
----
I realize that many people already track things like this for themselves, but it's easier, and more rewarding, to have the game recognize and track these for you. Having these things reported on could give a veteran gamer some ideas of voluntary challenges to take on. A final report of your conduct at the end of a campaign could be a reward (You had NO losses!!!). And if there were a final report of your stats and conduct that one could submit, that could not only be feedback and reputation-earningness to the player, but also be additional feedback to the devs in order to balance scenarios. Perhaps even a stats server could be put in place...
To sum up, aside from the stats-tracking suggestions above, the voluntary challenges (the main point of this post -- facilitating these) I identified were:
No (or few) scums
No (or few) failures
No (or few) losses
Fast time (turns and/or real time)
EV normal (special for EV nasty)
Gold earned -- much or little
Pacifist
Not all of these are of equal difficulty to implement, and parts of them can be implemented and then upgraded. Even if most of them were undesirable or unfeasible to the devs, even one can be taken on. Very little could give significant benefit.
Anywho.... so what do you think?
-- Erich
I searched all over the forums and I couldn't find anyone who had suggested this even once (and am surprised), so I'll bring it up here and offer apologies if I missed it. I may yet submit a patch, but I'm both lazy and disorganized, so we'll see. And any suggestions as to how to make this idea better or more likely to be accepted (yes, I've read the sticky on that subject) are welcome.
Being a fan of both wesnoth and nethack, I thought tracking player conduct like nethack does would increase playability. Tracking voluntary challenges a player takes on would give some zest to old scenarios (multiple dimensions of difficulty, if you will) for those who have been wesnothing for a while. It might even be possible to find veterans in the easy difficulties again.
Possibilities include:
1) An option to have continue-only saves.
This could be a check box that defaults to normal behavior that appears on the campaign description when you are choosing the campaigns. No additional UI interaction would be needed for the normal player. If selected, no auto-saves would be loadable (but perhaps one for the current status is still recorded in case of crashes) and the save button would bring you back to the main menu. Upon loading your saved game, the save file would be deleted. Thus, if you die (or fail), you really die and have to restart the campaign. This makes some of the easy scenarios something of a challenge to those who are looking for one, and involves a whole different strategy. You have to really protect your leader, and whomever you want to keep (like those units who are about to level up but have 3 HP left you would have normally fought with). Losses are really felt, in a way that cannot be compared, and near deaths are huge reliefs.
This would not involve any campaign-wide stats tracking, but would involve a special type of save file (different name than -Auto-, like -Backup-) handling, some tweaks to the Save button controlling, some tweaks to the Load button controlling, disallowing -Backup- save files to be selected in the Load Game menu
2) Track Failures
By "failures" I mean anything that fails the scenario objectives. This is for people who are trying for a success-only run.
You would want to record failure on turn 4, even though the player then backed up to turn 3 and played on from there. Therefore, a campaign-wide (or scenario-wide) stats file would probably need to be kept, along with a unique id generated for a particular campaign run (so you can tell two different runs of HTTT apart, for instance). However such a file would come in handy for other stats listed below.
#1 is the enforcement of the tracking-only #2. I listed #1 first because I thought it might be easier to implement. Dunno.
3) Track loads
If you were interested in how much you (or if you're a dev, how much a given player) save-scummed, you might track how many loads they had for a given scenario/campaign. A continuing save/load would not count as a scum load, but the rest would. You could determine a continuing save/load by those which are the most recent AND which were loaded after the game was exited. The process of having to exit the game in the middle of a turn just to reload only one turn would be sufficient deterrent to not scum that special case, IMHO.
This would require a scenario- or campaign-wide stats file as in #2.
Of course #1 trumps this one too. #2 is a subset of #3, of course, but it would be nice to know how many scums were(n't) because of failure.
4) Total playing time (turns and real time)
This is for those people who want to try and blitz through. Real time could be measured from initial load start to quit-game or loading a different campaign run id.
Again, the scenario- or campaign-wide stats file as in #2 would be needed. A stats server could be useful to compare with other players.
5) Special recognition of zero losses, both in stats (or conduct?) window and on campaign completion.
6) Special recognition of EV deviance
Doing worse than EVs (expected values) should be recognized. Something like "You won even though the deck was stacked against you!" (idea only -- entirely different wording is welcome). Perhaps also some special coloring in the stats window. Dunno.
Also, not straying from a certain statistically expectable normal deviance of EV might be reported, even perhaps just by coloring the stats involved. For example, anything within the first standard deviation might be colored green. Anything more than three standard deviations might be red. Maybe a standard deviation is too far or hard to calculate (need a stats server?)
7) (slightly off topic) Differentiation between ALMA advances and regular advances in the stats
Total gold earned9) With a stats server you could also do a pacifist challenge (not many kills).
Right now it would be nigh on impossible to do a least-earned or most-earned challenge. This could be tracked as the normal stats are tracked (I assume) in the save files. This could either be for a player to challenge herself, or for her to compare to other players (stats server).
----
I realize that many people already track things like this for themselves, but it's easier, and more rewarding, to have the game recognize and track these for you. Having these things reported on could give a veteran gamer some ideas of voluntary challenges to take on. A final report of your conduct at the end of a campaign could be a reward (You had NO losses!!!). And if there were a final report of your stats and conduct that one could submit, that could not only be feedback and reputation-earningness to the player, but also be additional feedback to the devs in order to balance scenarios. Perhaps even a stats server could be put in place...
To sum up, aside from the stats-tracking suggestions above, the voluntary challenges (the main point of this post -- facilitating these) I identified were:
No (or few) scums
No (or few) failures
No (or few) losses
Fast time (turns and/or real time)
EV normal (special for EV nasty)
Gold earned -- much or little
Pacifist
Not all of these are of equal difficulty to implement, and parts of them can be implemented and then upgraded. Even if most of them were undesirable or unfeasible to the devs, even one can be taken on. Very little could give significant benefit.
Anywho.... so what do you think?
-- Erich
Weeksy,
Actually I was just coming on to mention something about that. I recently did a HTTT run with just shamans.
AFAIK, that is already being tracked. It's just that rewarding feedback isn't being given for it. You have to dig for it in the stats dialog.
Villam,
Didn't know that. Thanks for the tip.
I wouldn't consider that enough, though. Some of the point to my post is to make it obvious that the player is doing something good. Give rewarding feedback. Don't make me dig for it. Tell me I did a good job at the end of my game. That sort of thing.
Actually I was just coming on to mention something about that. I recently did a HTTT run with just shamans.
AFAIK, that is already being tracked. It's just that rewarding feedback isn't being given for it. You have to dig for it in the stats dialog.
Villam,
Didn't know that. Thanks for the tip.
I wouldn't consider that enough, though. Some of the point to my post is to make it obvious that the player is doing something good. Give rewarding feedback. Don't make me dig for it. Tell me I did a good job at the end of my game. That sort of thing.
Thinking about it a bit more...
I guess one major feedback I would want to see is a menu option Conduct that would open up a dialog and look something like this:
You have not failed!
You have scummed 5 times.
You only recruited one type of unit!
You had 10 losses.
You've done this well even though your luck was poor!
You earned 5,630 gold from villages.
You have spent 178 turns in 6 hours 47 minutes.
A nice summary of how I did that I can review at any time, and that gets displayed upon campaign finishment.
It's very nethack-like, I know, but I like that about nethack. One might say that that's what the stats window is for, but I'm not sure I agree. The stats window is for telling me what happened. I want something that tells me what I've done, which is a little different info to track, and has a different flavour. It's hard for me to get the same sense of accomplishment as I do with nethack conduct as off of the current stats window.
Other feedback methods included coloring of stuff that already exists, sending stuff to the stats server (I forgot we have one already), and enforcing voluntary challenges.
I guess one major feedback I would want to see is a menu option Conduct that would open up a dialog and look something like this:
You have not failed!
You have scummed 5 times.
You only recruited one type of unit!
You had 10 losses.
You've done this well even though your luck was poor!
You earned 5,630 gold from villages.
You have spent 178 turns in 6 hours 47 minutes.
A nice summary of how I did that I can review at any time, and that gets displayed upon campaign finishment.
It's very nethack-like, I know, but I like that about nethack. One might say that that's what the stats window is for, but I'm not sure I agree. The stats window is for telling me what happened. I want something that tells me what I've done, which is a little different info to track, and has a different flavour. It's hard for me to get the same sense of accomplishment as I do with nethack conduct as off of the current stats window.
Other feedback methods included coloring of stuff that already exists, sending stuff to the stats server (I forgot we have one already), and enforcing voluntary challenges.
