multiplayer vs single player

donkeychips · Post by **donkeychips** » December 23rd, 2003, 6:47 am

I've been thinking about this alot. and i've came to a conclusion that most people who play this only play it for single player.

Single player is more fun because you have a greater chance of lvling your guys and there is a story.

Although you can still have fun with multiplayer i believe multiplayer is very lacking in the whole dish.

sorry this isn't meant as an insult just wanted to say because i've been thinking of it lately.

Post by **fmunoz** » December 23rd, 2003, 10:30 am

The game was created as a single player game. Multiplayer was just an addon done in version 0.5 (or 0.5.1) so is spected that single player games are going to be more polished (and fun)
Some people really want to play mostly the campaign/s (i.e. me) but when I play MP i really like the basic strategy feeling (focus on control villages and pit the right unit vs the reight unit) instead of a race to get more hight leveled creatures (AoW.. HoMM)

Pushnell · Post by **Pushnell** » December 23rd, 2003, 4:48 pm

It's true that multiplayer can be 'less fun' because of the fact that units rarely level. I was thinking of maybe implementing an additional slider for how quickly units can gain experience. (It would be a modifier that starts as 1, experience is calculated as 'normal_experience * experience_modifier', and the slider would adjust the modifier from .5 to 1.5 in .25 increments. Of course, that range is open to discussion / gameplay testing.)

This could allow for a much more intense multiplayer game, where lvl1 units could level up after only 2-3 kills.

donkeychips · Post by **donkeychips** » December 23rd, 2003, 9:15 pm

Well wouldn't it be the first person to get a lvl 2 guy first win? Just attack with the lvl 2 and put him on a town so he heals.

Post by **Dave** » December 23rd, 2003, 10:18 pm

donkeychips wrote:Well wouldn't it be the first person to get a lvl 2 guy first win? Just attack with the lvl 2 and put him on a town so he heals.

Not necessarily. Second level units aren't everything. If you sacrifice too much for one, you will lose. I have won before against players who have obtained level 2 units, even though I didn't.

David

Svetac · Post by **Svetac** » December 24th, 2003, 1:40 am

I'm new when it comes to playing Wesnoth. I must say that the campaign is great and tons of fun, but as a player who wants to play with his friends, I prefer multiplayer.

After several games played I realised that it's really hard to lvl up units in MP games. That's why I suggested the Forge idea. A place on the map where you can train/upgrade your units for really high price. There are many options to balance properly this idea, so that it doesn't interfire with the basic concept of Wesnoth. The Forge can be place where you pay fixed price to get on level 2, it can be 150gp for a unit. Or it can be something as Arena, where you have to pay gold per exp points, something like training your troops - it will work this way: 1 exp point costs 5gp for example, and you buy as much exp points as you need/have money. As for advancing to level 3, this can cost up to 300-400gp per unit, or it can be restricted so you can't upgrade your units to level 3 at the forge. In the arena 1exp point beyond level 2 will cost 10 gp. There can be separate mage guild for advancing the mages, with high prices to pay. More mage guilds of different types are option, so ther can be Holy mage guild, or Fire mage guild. Depending on the guild, the mage will be upgraded to Holy or Fire one. One last note - maybe each unit can have different price for upgrading.

I think this ideas should be taken in consideration seriously for implementation in multiplayer. If the coding is not big problem, I'll do the graphics for these buildings. IMO this will give more content to the MP games, and provide more strategy. On the other hand, this upgrades will be really expensive and not easily affordable, so they can't be abused.

I'm really up for this idea, because after long playing one will get bored to play with only lvl1 creatures. Level 2 & 3 creatures are pure coolness, and it's really a shame not to have access to them in MP.

Also can the MP maps be more larger? This will be great for 4 player games.

Woodwizzle · Post by **Woodwizzle** » December 24th, 2003, 2:00 am

In another thread I proposed halving the XP requirements for new levels in multiplayer so that both sides would get a lot more level 2 units. Though it warrented mentioning here.

russ_allegro · Post by **russ_allegro** » December 26th, 2003, 10:47 pm

Woodwizzle wrote:In another thread I proposed halving the XP requirements for new levels in multiplayer so that both sides would get a lot more level 2 units. Though it warrented mentioning here.

How about this idea. The game gets created the host could setup how much experience points people could use. Then you can edit characters that are possible to recall. You can then distribute the experience points into your character however way you want before the game.

You might buff up two guys to super high levels, or have a bunch of guys of medium level. Everyone gets the same xp points to distrubte in the begaining for a list of recallable guys.

This would make multiplayer more interesting.

yawningdog · Post by **yawningdog** » December 27th, 2003, 1:05 am

russ_allegro: you could get the same by means of gold in a (IMO) more KISS way, and even without changing a line of code (well, almost

). The thing is that allowing players to recruit high level (2+) units is not well seen and collides with the basic design principles of the game.

If you want a powerful unit you should suffer for it, see it grow slowly battle after battle. That's where BFW gets it's appeal from (at least for me).

What I believe should be done in multiplayer (post 1.0) is the same we have in single player: persistent armies (on a per server basis). I want to build my army game after game, and match it against those of other players. Now that would put the f in fun.

Post by **Dave** » December 27th, 2003, 1:31 am

yawningdog wrote: What I believe should be done in multiplayer (post 1.0) is the same we have in single player: persistent armies (on a per server basis). I want to build my army game after game, and match it against those of other players. Now that would put the f in fun.

The problem is, this would cause a HUGE learning curve, and make new players preyed upon by experienced ones.

Get a couple of second level units, then find a new player who has nothing, play against her, win convincingly getting more experience on the way. Rinse, repeat, and you will march along unstoppably.

The few who don't get frustrated will advance only by learning who to avoid playing.

It is a good idea though, it just has some obstacles to overcome. We would have to find a way to limit the power of a strong army. Any ideas?

David

Woodwizzle · Post by **Woodwizzle** » December 27th, 2003, 1:49 am

Having persistant multiplayer armies would be ideal for this kind of game. It would be very difficult to balance but not at all imposible. While I've never heard of anything like it in any other strategy games. There are many games where long-time characters are much more powerful than newbies. Take the diablo games for instance or basically any MMORPG. I think if we implement some of the balance issues of those sorts of games (treating armies like those games treat characters) that it would be possible to have this sort of multiplayer in a post 1.0 wesnoth game.

Here are some ideas to get the brainstorming started.

1. We need some sort of ranking system that shows just how powerful each player is. This would be synonymous with a player's level in other games. This information could be used in a number of ways to balance the game. Low level characters would be better informed of who there up against.

2. Since we're keeping track of things like whose in your army and how powerful your army is. It wouldn't be too far fetched to keep a tally of your wins and loses. This information could be used for ladders and competitions and it would help people gauge how good of a player they're up against.

3. To keep people from mopping up newbies, I would suggest making the XP gained from kills dynamically based on your "level" For instance people with powerful armies would gain only minimal XP from people with weak armies, and inversly people with weak armies who manage to take down a much more powerful player would gain much more XP than normal.

4. Grouping should be a feature. Newbies could group togethor to take down stronger players and then share the XP. This would be very useful because it allows newbies and veterans to play against each other with out all the normal consequnces. Otherwise vets would only play vets and newb would only play noobs. That would be problematic if you were a vet and the server was swamped with newbies! No one would want to fight you! so even if there were a number of players on the server, effectively for the vet there would be 0. Grouping would let the newbs gang up untill their forces were about equal to the vet and then they'd all get to play.

yawningdog · Post by **yawningdog** » December 27th, 2003, 2:01 am

Yes, I had thought about that problem. First, there should be some way to rank an army (or a player), so you know what you are up to before being completely overrun. Besides that, some things I think could work:

Global experience multipliers, depending on the relative ranks of each army, so you almost don't advance when slaughtering 4 fighters and 2 bowmen with 4 elvish champions and 3 paladins (and viceversa).

Another possibility is just relying on a fixed gold amount, equal to all sides, but then the cost of recalling your units should be proportional to their level. That way veteran armies would still get an advantage, but their gold cost would be equivalent to a freshly recruited army (and they will be outnumbered).

And another way of using gold, more similar to the way it works in single player: you have a persistent treasury which you use to recruit and recall units, and the gold you gain each battle depends on:
a) the number of turns you need to win your oponent/s.
b) the difference in ranks of your armies.
perhaps you could gain (part of) the gold from the vanquished player's treasury, hehe.

Another aproach (nice in itself): have multiplayer campaigns. When the campaign is over, the army goes away.

Anyway, what I wouldn't like is forcing a limit on the armies strength; that would feel frustrating, IMO.

yawningdog · Post by **yawningdog** » December 27th, 2003, 2:04 am

Woodwizzle, we wrote almost the same at the same time, hehe.

I really really like the idea of grouping, haven't thought of it but it would surely help newbies progress.

miyo · Post by **miyo** » December 28th, 2003, 11:31 am

If we are to support persistent troops:

* Game creator can choose if persistent troops are allowed in this game
* Persistent troops strenght/value should be shown (so they can be compared)
* After that it can be solved with alliances (two against one) and/or giving more gold to side with weaker troops.

Maybe when persistent troops are used game creation could automagically adjust starting gold for players?

- Miyo

arael · Post by **arael** » December 29th, 2003, 2:29 am

Allowing peristerant multiplayer armies is making single player from multiplayer. No ranking is needed. Good player is good player becouse he plays good, not becouse he have got experienced army. I know people get excited when they see their army advancing, but allowing peristerant armies is creating new type of game - "multi-single player" and maybe this isn't bad idea to create such mode. Anyway, multiplayer is multiplayer.

I think in real multiplayer only few things should be changed necessairly.
- support units (healing) should get some xp for doing their job; not too much but forcing player to think before he sacrofice such unit;
- mages should start doing something (shield or sth. like that) and getting xp for that or be more powerfull on start or their atacks should be realy ranged so they could shoot from second line being behind warriors or have ability to run after shot;
- advancing should be faster; experience_modifier slider is very good idea, but IMHO 1.5 max is too low and 2.5 should be max;
- races should be equalized, but this needs many gameplay test;