Mainline: Make plague work on villages

[Caphriel]

I disagree. Putting a percentage out there does not accurately represent the change in usefulness. In fact, I would pose a question to forumites: In scenarios where you have a normal range of Undead units to choose from, when do you choose to use Walking Corpses? Why?

Almost every multiplayer game involving the Undead. You seem to be mostly arguing from realism (setting aside the realism of zombies for the time being) in the context of campaigns. However, you're completely disregarding the effects this change would have on multiplayer balance. Having to move an extra unit onto a village to capture it after killing the defender can be a big deal when it means that unit can't attack anything, and being able to deny your opponent the ability to create a corpse from an almost-dead unit by putting it on a village is also important.

Also, reducing the WC's damage to compensate would significantly reduce its utility in providing the Undead some ability to fight back during the day.

[Insinuator]

Having to move an extra unit onto a village to capture it after killing the defender can be a big deal when it means that unit can't attack anything

Wrong. A unit capturing a village CAN attack any adjacent enemy unit on the same turn. As I mentioned earlier, a spawned WC can not. This is a big difference, particulary as villages and their immediate surroundings tend to act as focal points for conflict.

and being able to deny your opponent the ability to create a corpse from an almost-dead unit by putting it on a village is also important.

Maybe, but I'd argue that if you're purposefully sacrificing a unit just to exploit a game peculiarity, your tactics need work. At least in this situation.

Also, reducing the WC's damage to compensate would significantly reduce its utility in providing the Undead some ability to fight back during the day.

Um, how would it be any different between Night and Day? All Undead units fight worse during the day, including the WC as it is right now.

[monochromatic]

WCs have fearless.

[PeterPorty]

Also remember that sacrificing units is a key aspect of the game, and if you're not doing it at all; I'd suggest you watch some replays from top players.

[Thrawn]

and being able to deny your opponent the ability to create a corpse from an almost-dead unit by putting it on a village is also important.

Maybe, but I'd argue that if you're purposefully sacrificing a unit just to exploit a game peculiarity, your tactics need work. At least in this situation.

It is not a game "peculiarity." It's an intended feature of the game that if changed would greatly change how the faction is played. You have yet to address, besides a realism stance, why this should be changed.

Also, reducing the WC's damage to compensate would significantly reduce its utility in providing the Undead some ability to fight back during the day.

Um, how would it be any different between Night and Day? All Undead units fight worse during the day, including the WC as it is right now.

Walking Corpses have fearless, meaning they treat day like it's dawn/dusk.

[pauxlo]

There is another situation to consider:

Code: Select all

  ⟨  A  ⟩---
   ⟩---⟨ B
  ⟨  V  ⟩---
   ⟩---⟨ B
  ⟨  A  ⟩---

Suppose V is a village hold by side 1, and this side put two more units (of level 1 or higher) on the front line north and south of it (the fields marked by A). Side 2 can only attack from the east side, from the fields marked with B.

If 2 needs two units to kill the unit on the village, or if 2 has no units yet on these fields marked by B (and has no skirmishers), then 2 has no chance to capture the village this turn without killing one of the units north or south, too, because the zone-of control forbids moving through the fields marked by B. If 2 could simply zombify the unit at V, this would break the ZOC wall.

[beetlenaut]

The current balance was adjusted over years as the developers played thousands of games. It is based on a ton of data, not arguments in the forums. The only way you can get the walking corpse to change is if you create an era with your modified unit, and save the replays of many, many games to show that the modifications don't hurt the balance against any faction.

[Insinuator]

It is not a game "peculiarity." It's an intended feature of the game that if changed would greatly change how the faction is played. You have yet to address, besides a realism stance, why this should be changed.

I've made no arguments in favor of realism. This is not about "realism", it's about consistency. It is a peculiarity because it is inconsistent with the way all other traits are handled! What other way to define peculiar is there?

The current balance was adjusted over years as the developers played thousands of games. It is based on a ton of data, not arguments in the forums. The only way you can get the walking corpse to change is if you create an era with your modified unit, and save the replays of many, many games to show that the modifications don't hurt the balance against any faction.

And for how long and when has the WC been unable to Plague on villages? Where are the replays, the "data", that show me why that was decided?

On a more practical note, how would I create a unit that Plagues consistently? From the WML that I've written, I know how to give a unit Plague but I don't know how to change what Plague does.

⟨ A ⟩---
⟩---⟨ B
⟨ V ⟩---
⟩---⟨ B
⟨ A ⟩---

Suppose V is a village hold by side 1, and this side put two more units (of level 1 or higher) on the front line north and south of it (the fields marked by A). Side 2 can only attack from the east side, from the fields marked with B.

If 2 needs two units to kill the unit on the village, or if 2 has no units yet on these fields marked by B (and has no skirmishers), then 2 has no chance to capture the village this turn without killing one of the units north or south, too, because the zone-of control forbids moving through the fields marked by B. If 2 could simply zombify the unit at V, this would break the ZOC wall.

Finally, someone addressed the actual balance issue! I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring up the actual tactical impact this would have and not just fluff comments. I completely agree with your assessment. That is why there would need to be some tests to see how significant it is. I actually had an idea last night about changing how Plague works slightly in a more consistent fashion: Maybe Plague only works at night! This would minimally enhance the Undead's advantage at night and make them more vulnerable during the day.

[StDrake]

The description of plague provides notification of its nonfunctionability over villages, just track down which version of wesnoth does not have that part in that description. Consistency is kept with respect to the description.

And if you want plagueing villages - it's a matter of an event firing off when a unit is killed by a plague attack and creating a new unit inside this event. Might want to limit the event only to villages so you don't break where plague works normally. Of course there's still the issue with handling what variation to use, unless you want to go lazy and just stick to the default 'human' ones.
I'll restrain myself from spoiling your fun of learning WML by providing a ready code, unless of course you insist?

[Insinuator]

The description of plague provides notification of its nonfunctionability over villages, just track down which version of wesnoth does not have that part in that description.

I'm having a hard time tracking down older Windows binary versions of Wesnoth. I have a gap inbetween 0.9.4 and 0.4.5. In 0.4.5 I don't think Walking Corpses were even around and by 0.9.4, the Plague ability already didn't work on villages. I'm beginning to think it has always been designed this way. Does anyone know where I could find those other versions?

[beetlenaut]

I don't know if the WC's were ever able to plague on villages. I never said anything about how that particular decision was made, but I suspect it was designed in from the beginning because of how powerful it would be: switching a unit to your side (however weak) and stealing a village at the same time is a big move.

The data you demand might only be the win/loss records of the developers in charge of balance. Nobody is going to go out of their way to prove to you that they weighed their decision carefully--nor should they have to. It's up to you to provide data if you want to change something.

[Noy]

I recently ran across this in a campaign: When a unit is killed by a Walking Corpse/Soulless on a village, they do not get plagued, i.e. they do not get turned into a Walking Corpse(WC). I wrongly reported this as a bug until I found out that it is intentional.

To my understanding, the primary reason Plague doesn't work on villages is that it would free up an additional unit that would otherwise be used to capture that village. This is viewed as giving an unfair advantage to the Undead.

I disagree. Here's why:

1. Consistentcy. There are several special "active" traits: Slow, Poison, Charge, and Plague come to mind. Now, the first three follow consistent, sensible rules. Slow halves attack and movement, Poison knocks 8 HP off every turn until healed, Charge doubles damage. Ah, but you might say, these have exceptions! Undead units can't be poisoned, Charge only works on defense. True, but these exceptions make sense from a practical standpoint. Undead don't have bodily fluids to get poisoned, charging at someone only works when you're attacking. The exception for Plague, on the other hand, does not make sense from a practical standpoint. I see no reason why terrain would make a practical difference on whether a unit could be turned into a WC. The exception is made PURELY for balancing reasons. In my opinion, this is sloppy and obvious.

2. Significance. A Walking Corpse is a level 0 unit. It has no ZOC, only 2 melee attacks, very few hitpoints, and no resistances. It is a very weak unit. In most scenarios of a unit being used to take a village, it can still attack any unit nearby in addition. A plague derived WC can not. It is immobile upon being created on the village. Thus, the strategic value is limited, at best.

I am sure this has been brought up before, but I strongly believe this should be changed. Even if it proves to unbalance the Undead, I am sure there is an acceptable way to counteract it that makes practical sense. So, who's with me?

Hi there. Let me just say that I don't think you're completely wrong with your suggestions. They have some merit, but in the end I think we should stick with our current policy. Realism isn't really a good reason and there is the presence of compelling counter-arguments: villagers may kill corpses before they become Undead.

That leaves the balance reasoning. WCs are pretty balanced, but I don't think your change would give it that much of a cost advantage. However situationally, it could make a huge difference if you can ignore zoc and place a unit on a village and capture it. Its rare enough, but it is significant.

Its one of those things that could be changed but what's the point? The realism argument is a wash, it doesn't improve gameplay whatsoever and may act to its detriment. There are a hundreds of ideas out there like this and if we changed each whenever someone raised a new objection the gameplay would be different all the time. Thats why it won't be altered.

[Reepurr]

Oh yeah...

WCs are incredibly weak, right? Your average WC has 18hp.
You kill a guy on a village. It is immediately occupied by an 18hp pointless unit. Your enemy storms in, zaps the WC to death, and takes the village back.

Meh.

There will be many, many, many times when you would have preferred to capture a village with a unit like a Ghost or Skeleton - units which can actually occupy a village and take a hit. So you want a player to sacrifice their ability to capture a village and actually stand their ground on that village for consistency?

(Just adding to the reasons why this shouldn't happen.)

[Caphriel]

Having to move an extra unit onto a village to capture it after killing the defender can be a big deal when it means that unit can't attack anything

Wrong. A unit capturing a village CAN attack any adjacent enemy unit on the same turn. As I mentioned earlier, a spawned WC can not. This is a big difference, particulary as villages and their immediate surroundings tend to act as focal points for conflict.

If you reread what I said, you'll note that it was a conditional statement: Having to move an extra unit onto a village to capture being a big deal is conditional on that unit being unable to attack anything.

To the second point in your response: If the unit is going to die anyway, putting it on a village to delay the enemy capturing it and prevent it from being plagued is quite reasonable.

To the third: If you don't understand how the Fearless trait works and why the Fearless WC with plague is important to the generally slow Undead faction's ability to fight during their off time of day, I am not sure how to argue MP balance with you. The following would just make it worse:

I actually had an idea last night about changing how Plague works slightly in a more consistent fashion: Maybe Plague only works at night! This would minimally enhance the Undead's advantage at night and make them more vulnerable during the day.

Also, this:

I've made no arguments in favor of realism. This is not about "realism", it's about consistency.

True, but these exceptions make sense from a practical standpoint. Undead don't have bodily fluids to get poisoned, charging at someone only works when you're attacking.

And then you proceeded to reject all similar lore explanations for why plague has the exception it does

[Insinuator]

Its one of those things that could be changed but what's the point? The realism argument is a wash, it doesn't improve gameplay whatsoever and may act to its detriment.

The point is to have sensible gameplay. Anyone who played this game for the first time and spammed WCs at the opponent, gleefully Plaguing away, would be disappointed and confused when they find it not working when they get to a village. It DOES improve gameplay by making it more consistent and not annoying unsuspecting players. And why would it act to its detriment? At the very worst, as Reepur pointed out above, you would get a level 0 unit around ZofC. Remember, a skirmishing unit can do that too, and most of them are level one or above. Why are there no complaints about them?

And then you proceeded to reject all similar lore explanations for why plague has the exception it does

That was in response to someone else's realism argument. I believe that the current system is unrealistic, but that really isn't important, and I understand that. That's why it is not one of my main points. But putting forward a silly realism argument to counter a gameplay issue just bugs me.

There will be many, many, many times when you would have preferred to capture a village with a unit like a Ghost or Skeleton - units which can actually occupy a village and take a hit. So you want a player to sacrifice their ability to capture a village and actually stand their ground on that village for consistency?

You make my point for me. It is not a sacrifice at all. No one is forced to use a WC to Plague a unit on a village. As it works now, they are forced not to! Making Plague consistent gives the player more options, not limiting them as the current system does.