We Need More Artists!

[fmunoz]

Ohh, man this is going to be a large and sad post. Most of it are from past post, mail or IRC chats with Dave so I could be recalling them wrong.

1.-My plan was to draw a "tileable castle" not just a large image chopped. Just tons of smaller images that could be automagically assembled to form a large castle with anyform. Currently castles are also used to control how many units you/AI could recruit per turn.
2.-ok. but see 1.
3.-You could do multihexes tiles, but usually overlay items (ie.e temples, and such) are no used in MP
4.-You are right.
5.-In MP games, you are lucky if you manage to level one unit or 2. (humans are more vicious than AI) so adding new hight level creatures could unbalance the game.
6.-yes. Currently I was requested to do some kind of "magic rune in a stone floor" image to be used in a new level... you can do it if you want
7.-Nope. KISS applied (and clasic war tactic, to win a war you need... "money, money and yet more money")
8.- More than one hex range already talked. the program support it but is not used. MAybe for mod of the main game after 1.0 (Have you seen my space privates in pixelation?) Battle machines, same answer. Sorry (Dont talk about gunpowder or methinks'll bite you *grin*)
9.- There is no point 9 so I make one myself. You seems to be fixed in multiplayer game, but BfW was developed as a SP game. MP was only added in 0.5, trying to dont disrrupt the campaign. The game need focus, better to finish the game without adding too much new features than have a game cripple with featuritis.

Damm I fell like the bad of the movie.

[Dave]

Svetac,

Thank you for taking the time to offer some suggestions. We appreciate your feedback. I have answers to your suggestions below...

1. Can I make multyhexed castle as fmunoz proposed? I mean one castle as one picture? Something lik one hex in the middle for the keep and six hexes around the keep. Also I'm thinking of making these circular, not hexagonal in appearance, though they will remain true in size to the hexagonal grid. I'm thinking of this, because that way I can add more comsmetics and distinctivity to the castles, like towers at the edges and small houses somewhere in between, windows etc. What do you say?

Just make the castle as a picture, then split it up into tiles. That's the easiest way.

2. With the same technique descrived above I can design also outposts for each race.

Great

3. If multihexed objects are allowed, than I would suggest designing some mountains and woods that way. Good example will be the Heroes of Might & Magic editor where such multispace objects were used. Than I will draw several types of mountains that map designers can combine to get distinctive looking and eyecandy areas.

Yes, use the same technique of drawing a bigger image, and then breaking into tiles.

4. Forge idea - revisited: Let's go over this one more time, I wouldn't discard this idea so fast.

I don't think it's a bad idea. We may add it.

6. Beside the villages in the game, I think that the game needs more locations that can be visited by the player. It gives spice to the game.

Possibly, if it works into the storyline appropriately.

7. Have you planned of adding more resources to the game? Why?

Not really. Why not? The resource system is meant to be very very simple, to let the player focus on fighting, which is the main part of the game.

8. Can it be done so that archers can attack from one hex farther than now?

The game engine supports it, however I feel that it would make the game less fun. Maybe with a user-provided modification it could be done.

P.S. Oh, and since there are already Dwarven units, do you plan of making the dwarves playable race in MP? Please do so!

Maybe...if we get enough graphics for them

David

[methinks]

1. Can I make multyhexed castle as fmunoz proposed?

As said, castles are different sizes and shapes. Doing more than one tileable hexes would work.

2. With the same technique descrived above I can design also outposts for each race.

WOW.

3. If multihexed objects are allowed, than I would suggest designing some mountains and woods that way.

If I get it right: WOW!

4. Forge idea - revisited:

Though I would add modifications and HEAVY restrictions (maybe even leaving this option for multiplayer, though not neccessarily, a few scenarios could have one of those options).

5. Uber unit idea - revisited:

What is MP?
Those unit, not recruitable but availble as one-time pay (guy appears and tells you if you do sth. or just pay him or do an pay you may get a dragon. Worth this and this). As said, one-time event, not recruitable. This way it would not unbalance the game. Prolly.

6. Beside the villages in the game, I think that the game needs more locations that can be visited by the player. It gives spice to the game.

This is right, if someone had provided us with more exact ideas about it.

7. Have you planned of adding more resources to the game?

It will change this game drastically you would prolly need to have mines to control and so on. It would change game into Warcraft. It is fine as it is, battle and plot being main focus.

8. Can it be done so that archers can attack from one hex farther than now?

I second that I have once posted this idea. Though chance to hit should be smaller and damage halfed or 2/3. I think it could be implemented before 1.0

Also since there is gunpowder in the world of wesnoth, there can be introduced artilery engines.

REAPEAT THAT AGAIN and I will come over to you raging and in your last life moment you will see how Dwarvish beserker looks like!!! //calming down\\ now, just... forget about guns, pleeeeeeeaseeeee.

P.S. Oh, and since there are already Dwarven units, do you plan of making the dwarves playable race in MP? Please do so!

Someone already posted that he would like to make dwarven campaign, only taht he lacks a few units with their full upgrade path [/b]

[Dave]

8. Can it be done so that archers can attack from one hex farther than now?

I second that I have once posted this idea. Though chance to hit should be smaller and damage halfed or 2/3. I think it could be implemented before 1.0

It already has been implemented in the engine, and could easily be placed in 1.0. However I think it'd make the game less fun. At the moment one of the key aspects of the game is defending your units by ensuring that only a couple of enemies can attack any one unit.

If this were implemented, it'd be impossible to defend your units - any one unit could be attacked by 10+ units easily, even if well-defended. It'd make the game frustrating, as protecting advanced units wouldn't be possible - they'd get killed all the time.

David

[Svetac]

methinks calm down When I speak of siege-engines I meant of artilerry mainly, with or without gunpowder. So we may put the gunpowder aside, and speak of siege engines that don't use it as Balistaes and Catapults.

About the archers attacking from distance: I think there can be two things to balance this. First as methinks suggested they will have distance penalty, reduced damage from distance. Second, units can have chance of evading or blocking the attack. I'm aware that this can complicate the game, so your call.

About the Froges, I think that they should be used in MP(multiplayer) exclusively. It's not fun if you play whole the time with lvl1 units.

Dave, about the multixed objects - if I do them the way I envision them, it will not be easy to break them in separate hexes. One thing I may propose when it comes to castles, is that I make one multihexed castle as I proposed, and than work on smiliar one-hexed castle hexes so that map maker can add those to the castles if they need them larger. And I will make the keep also separate too. But if multihex objects are allowed, I would like to make some as I stated multihexed, so that they are not broken into smaller hexes.

Also when I speak of more bulidings that player can visit, I think also of Multiplayer, because that's the aspect of the game that makes the game last. But I will propose some ideas in future when I have them. The current one, the Forges and the Gladiator arena are in the hat, so if implemented I will do the graphics.

Okay, now enough playing, starting to draw

[fmunoz]

My opinion is that the game needs to be finished 1st.
No more new features, well maybe some of them, ie. new events, new skills, some new units to complete the advancement trees.
No mayor changes in gameplay the game is fun right now, dont try to fix it if itsnt broken.
I really hate the buildings in Heroes of M&M, next week, building tour to collect all the new resoruces and troops....arrgggg, where is the strategy there?
Adding new graphics is fine. Multiple tiled terrains is fine too. Maybe changing the way that terrain images behave (i.e if there is a tile with mountains and the northern tile has mountains too, change both to the 2 tile image of n-s mountains)
Skovaer I really dig you pixel work (you are way better than me), I really hate to be sa nay-sayer but the main reason that I contributed to the game is that there was simple but fun.

[miyo]

No for forge, no for indirect archery (reach more than adjacent hex), no for other kind of resources and no for uber units. Main points in Wesnoth should be fighting and the story. Multiplayer is nice add-on and it should stay that way until 1.0.

As already talked - after 1.0 has been released and it enters "fix the bugs" phase we can start working for Wesnoth 2.0 or start something totally different. Many games never reach 1.0 - because they keep adding things, adding things, adding things.

Keep It Simple - I think that is why so many people like Wesnoth.

- Miyo

[miyo]

fmunoz, you are not the only nay-sayer.

We like the game, it is simple, we still like the game... and then we want to make it more complex... and possibly take away the very reasons why we like the game... the simplicity.

- Miyo

[charlieg]

About the [Forges], I think that they should be used in MP(multiplayer) exclusively. It's not fun if you play whole the time with lvl1 units.

I think the trick there is to develop MP into a series of battles, not just the one. Then you'll be able to recall units etc.

[Kamahawk]

I think the trick there is to develop MP into a series of battles, not just the one. Then you'll be able to recall units etc.

Errr, but won't the previous winner have conciderable advantage?

[yawningdog]

Kamahawk: yes, we talked with Dave one day about this. I think some sort of ladder games would work well.

[Dave]

Kamahawk: yes, we talked with Dave one day about this. I think some sort of ladder games would work well.

If and when we have the interest for it.

At the moment, the servers are usually devoid of people. I don't think there is the interest to sustain ladder games.

David

[yawningdog]

Sorry, didn't want to imply that was a conclusion you shared with me, Dave, hehe. It's just a personal opinion, and since MP is not the main focus of the game, I agree that going that way now would not be a great idea.

That said, when more users play Wesnoth online I think it would be very very nice (though somewhat difficult to do right).

[Dave]

Sorry, didn't want to imply that was a conclusion you shared with me, Dave, hehe. It's just a personal opinion, and since MP is not the main focus of the game, I agree that going that way now would not be a great idea.

That said, when more users play Wesnoth online I think it would be very very nice (though somewhat difficult to do right).

Oh I do think it's a good idea...just that I don't think the multiplayer community is big enough at the moment to sustain it.

David

[Woodwizzle]

What about simply cutting down the XP requirements in multiplayer matches? Maybe to 50% or better yet a user definable value?