[In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
Moderator: Forum Moderators
[In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
Introduction
1 - A Bargain is Struck
2 - Closing the Gates
Alternative Win Objective -> Defeat all enemy leader(s)
Bad Dialogue
3 - Searching (for) the Runecrafter
4 - Gathering Materials
5 - Hills of the Shorbear Clan
6 - Towards the Caves
7 - Outriding the Outriders
8 - The Dragon
9 - Caverns of Flame
10 - Epilogue
Wall of Text's Epilogue
Last edited by Balroth on October 2nd, 2018, 1:38 pm, edited 7 times in total.
- Pentarctagon
- Project Manager
- Posts: 5539
- Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
- Location: Earth (occasionally)
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
I would nonetheless suggest posting feedback in the respective scenario threads for a campaign, otherwise a few months or more from now this thread will likely be buried and lost as opposed to what you took the time to post still being available with the rest of the scenario feedback in a single location.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
Well, I wouldn't "trash" anybody for being unexperienced, but I strongly guess, that this campaign on this difficulty level was just a little bit too much for you. (Rather than assuming that a long-time mainline campaign like this is somehow greatly unbalanced without anybody noticing.)
Campaign play in Wesnoth centers around your army improving. That means, later scenarios aren't neccessarily meant to be solved with minimum starting gold and unexperienced troops, otherwise they would be boring to those players who perform better, save money and improve their army. There is always a type of corridor regarding recalls and gold, where the campaign is going to be fun. If you grossly outperform this expectation, amass lots of gold and always have the best units at hand, later scenarios in a campaign turn to a cakewalk and aren't much fun. Then it's probably time to play a harder difficulty level. On the other hand, if you almost lose your whole army in a scenario, like you described happened in the "Hills of Shorbear Clan" scenario, it's probably because you played the scenario wrong, and/or you got there with an insufficient army in the first place. In this case, it's probably better to restart the campaign or at least go several scenarios back, where you think you might have entered the slippery slope. You didn't mention how many starting gold you had, or what level your troops were, but that your leader in your last screenshot is still level 2 is a strong hint for me, that the latter might be what was the case. That also explains, why you describe the Shorbear Clan leader as some kind of uber warrior. ("Effectively 100 hp", etc.)
Notice also, that the Sceptre of Fire campaign is described as "expert level", unlike the other campaigns you said you already managed to beat. This means, "challenging" in this campaign is not necessarily on the same skill level than "challenging" on an intermediate or beginner level campaign.
I don't agree with this. I mean, I played this campaign a while ago, but I don't think the scenario has changed much since. And when I played it, Alanin did not have to engage in a single fight. First thing is: Leave the first village aside and ride directly to the second, which is—surprise—9 hexes away from your starting point. Use the village people to form a ZoC line to prevent the Elves from reaching your hero, but try to use as good defensive terrain as possible. (Ctrl-V is your friend.) Of course, there may be cases, where the RNG totally screws you and the Elves succeed with every hit on your 60% defense spearman, but under normal circumstances this scenario ist quite manageable .7 - Outriding the Outriders
The main issue with this scenario is that it is really broken. Like, unlike the rest where strategy/planning is what determines the game, and RnG is just playing out, RnG is the main force here. You can do really good and still lose, many times. Any strategy you pick, RnG is the main enemy here, not anything else, which is super weird.
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
Even if I take the scenario parts and post them, a lot of my points will be lost. e.g. unclear scenario objectives, bizzare dialogue or my experience flow from one scenario to the next(see spiral from 5 onwards)Pentarctagon wrote:I would nonetheless suggest posting feedback in the respective scenario threads for a campaign, otherwise a few months or more from now this thread will likely be buried and lost as opposed to what you took the time to post still being available with the rest of the scenario feedback in a single location.
Leaving feedback on 6 - Towards the Caves being horrible, is unconstructive, when I decimated my army in scenario 5. It's inconsistent/bad feedback and not helpful because you will think 6 - Towards the Caves is super-hard in my point of view, while it is not. It's only confusing for everyone, hence this post to link everything together from my playthrough experience
First of all, thank you very much for the feedback, it more or less confirms some of my points on difficulty and my skill.otzenpunk wrote:Well, I wouldn't "trash" anybody for being unexperienced, but I strongly guess, that this campaign on this difficulty level was just a little bit too much for you. (Rather than assuming that a long-time mainline campaign like this is somehow greatly unbalanced without anybody noticing.)Balroth wrote:You may trash me for being newbie or bad, do so freely, but difficulty shouldn't sway so much(it goes back to what I was used to, after this scenario)
It felt frustrating so I just opened the debugger to see how the campaign resumes.
Campaign play in Wesnoth centers around your army improving. That means, later scenarios aren't neccessarily meant to be solved with minimum starting gold and unexperienced troops, otherwise they would be boring to those players who perform better, save money and improve their army. There is always a type of corridor regarding recalls and gold, where the campaign is going to be fun. If you grossly outperform this expectation, amass lots of gold and always have the best units at hand, later scenarios in a campaign turn to a cakewalk and aren't much fun. Then it's probably time to play a harder difficulty level. On the other hand, if you almost lose your whole army in a scenario, like you described happened in the "Hills of Shorbear Clan" scenario, it's probably because you played the scenario wrong, and/or you got there with an insufficient army in the first place. In this case, it's probably better to restart the campaign or at least go several scenarios back, where you think you might have entered the slippery slope. You didn't mention how many starting gold you had, or what level your troops were, but that your leader in your last screenshot is still level 2 is a strong hint for me, that the latter might be what was the case. That also explains, why you describe the Shorbear Clan leader as some kind of uber warrior. ("Effectively 100 hp", etc.)
I agree on the campaign play, and up to scenario 5 - Hills of the Shorbear Clan, I barely lost anyone (although on scenario 2 I lost some) and even on 4 - Gathering Materials I lost not a single unit, and levelled so many. In other words, 4 - Gathering Materials, was by far the easiest for me and I stomped through everything with ease (related to how the random map was laid out), and 5 was an really sharp difficulty curve.
On scenario 5, I didn't lose my whole army like that in an instant or throughout the scenario, I was slowly winning/killing enemy units but my units were mostly half hp and swapping the front lines often to keep the momentum (and lose no one). The whole massacre happened while (and after) I was trying to kill the dwarf leader when I forced my way inside the fortress because I misunderstood the objectives. Before that (turn 15?) I had lost only 3 units if I recall right. In your words, I played the scenario wrong, and you are correct, indeed!(mentioned more in below paragraph) I definitely didn't play optimally until that turn, but I didn't have any major difficulty or challenge aside of killing those 30% dwarfs over time (bless runemasters) Also, for the leader, giving emphasis on his stats, since I'm used to sniping/killing leaders in a singular/maximum 2 turns, and this is the first time it took 3 turns with heavy counter-attack damage, atop with that 30%, hence the emphasis on his hp+resistances. (especially when his army is punishing/killing heavily my snipe/reformation)
To emphasize/clear my point here, if I knew that I could simply kill the elf leader and dwarf leader, this would be almost as easy as scenario 3/4, and I wouldn't have such a spiral thereafter. Alternatively, if I knew I had to kill the enemy leader and stay inside that cave (my mistake of misunderstanding, but the scenario objective wasn't crystal clear so I'm definitely not alone on this) I wouldn't have ran to my caves and back to the enemy's (knowing the objectives, and seeing how I played, you would rightly call extremely stupid or trying to intentionally lose)
Quoting myself on what I wrote above:
Artificial difficulty, because the scenario was not badly balanced, but I misunderstood the objectives and proceeded to do something that was by far the worst strategy/plan for me, hence the (fake) difficulty curve. And I can already see people going like "how can you fail understanding 1 line" but I have spammed the "crystal clear objective" argument so many times now, and I don't want to write 2 more paragraphs on it (so many walls of text already~)While I was doing almost perfectly on Challenging Difficulty, it feels like the difficulty curve formed an sharp cliff, which is even worse when it is **artificial** - made of not giving explicit objectives/goals to the player.
But I'm definitely not alone, and thinking about it now, I should simply restart the scenario. But isn't it a waste of time to waste 10+ turns and reload, because of not explicitly phrasing the objective?
True indeed, but I had improved from that campaign, and I was breezing through this campaign, so the difficulty up to Scenario 5 (4 scenarios) was proper for me. And excluding " 7- Outriding the outriders", having not misunderstood the scenario objectives - especially when the "Defeat the enemy leaders" was hidden! - I'm certain I would breeze through every scenario, like I did even on the last 2 , where I had only 2 lvl 3 units aside of loyal units, instead of my Scenario 5 armyotzenpunk wrote: Notice also, that the Sceptre of Fire campaign is described as "expert level", unlike the other campaigns you said you already managed to beat. This means, "challenging" in this campaign is not necessarily on the same skill level than "challenging" on an intermediate or beginner level campaign.
Off-topic, Dead Water(Intermediate-Challenging) was harder than SoF(Expert-Challenging)(for me), so while I agree with the quote, it is not always the case
I mostly agree with you on this, but I want to explain something. The difficulty of this scenario is wildly different than the rest of the campaign. It's more of a puzzle (including RnG) where if you don't optimally (terrain) use ZoC, you are lost. Even if you breeze through the rest of the campaign, this is a complete different experience since this scenario focuses on a exclusive set of skill: ZoC and abusing A.I. , something that is not focused in the rest of the scenarios. It's manageable if you are good on these, and I have to admit, I suck at these. And I did really good up to here without them. Also, I did go to the second village every time, since it seemed to me at least, that the first village almost seals the defeat (can't confirm since I haven't replayed it without debugger, but if so, why is it there?)otzenpunk wrote:I don't agree with this. I mean, I played this campaign a while ago, but I don't think the scenario has changed much since. And when I played it, Alanin did not have to engage in a single fight. First thing is: Leave the first village aside and ride directly to the second, which is—surprise—9 hexes away from your starting point. Use the village people to form a ZoC line to prevent the Elves from reaching your hero, but try to use as good defensive terrain as possible. (Ctrl-V is your friend.) Of course, there may be cases, where the RNG totally screws you and the Elves succeed with every hit on your 60% defense spearman, but under normal circumstances this scenario ist quite manageable .Balroth wrote: 7 - Outriding the Outriders
The main issue with this scenario is that it is really broken. Like, unlike the rest where strategy/planning is what determines the game, and RnG is just playing out, RnG is the main force here. You can do really good and still lose, many times. Any strategy you pick, RnG is the main enemy here, not anything else, which is super weird.
So, my main point here: This scenario's difficulty and design is different from the rest, since the next 2 scenarios go back to "normal" difficulty and are accomplishable. Without debugger, I would simply be stuck there and drop campaign. (or cheat in an alternative way, by seeing walkthrough, which I did see after the debugger to see how it is properly completed)
Perhaps its a reason I blame the RnG, because I was frustrated at this scenario, trying to complete it with bad strategy, thinking its the scenario's RnG design that is broken, not my strategy. (well, at least now I know about the ctrl+V and optimal ZoC)
Up until scenario 5, my feedback is more or less accurate, as in, players of similar skills or understanding may more or less be in my position, but after it, having no armies for scenario 6, using debugger for 6+7, my feedback for 6/7 and onwards is just from my personal (and rare) experience, but it still holds merit, hence why no suggestion on 7 - Outriding the Outriders and 6's is more or less scenario objectives text oriented
Ultimately, it more or less proves my point that difficulty/skill played a huge role, even if I did breeze through, mostly because of the outriders scenario. After all, this is feedback from a "newbie" and may not be agreed fully (e.g. your argument on outriders where you are correct, but some of my points still stand)
Once again, thanks for the feedback, it was insightful to hear other players' experience through the same scenarios
(also makes me wish I had saved the replays )
-
- Inactive Developer
- Posts: 503
- Joined: April 24th, 2016, 4:18 pm
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
The best way to get changes looked at is to make them and put up a Github Pull Request for review and approval. As a PR you can include any number of changes, so you could handle all your points in one place.
The next-best way is create GitHub Issues for each point. While it's entirely possible to create an Issue with a lot of points, it's unlikely such an issue would be acted upon. Brief, single-subject issues work best since they can be categorized, prioritized, and handled, separately.
Following that, adding your thoughts on each scenario to the existing topic for that scenario will eventually be reviewed by someone.
Creating an omnibus review like this one, however, will fairly quickly be lost. While some might remember it exists, few, if any, of us are likely to go searching through all the topics in all the forums to locate it again. You might get comments, but you're setting yourself up for feeling you've been ignored if you don't work with us.
The next-best way is create GitHub Issues for each point. While it's entirely possible to create an Issue with a lot of points, it's unlikely such an issue would be acted upon. Brief, single-subject issues work best since they can be categorized, prioritized, and handled, separately.
Following that, adding your thoughts on each scenario to the existing topic for that scenario will eventually be reviewed by someone.
Creating an omnibus review like this one, however, will fairly quickly be lost. While some might remember it exists, few, if any, of us are likely to go searching through all the topics in all the forums to locate it again. You might get comments, but you're setting yourself up for feeling you've been ignored if you don't work with us.
I forked real life and now I'm getting merge conflicts.
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
Well I had no idea how suggestions work, like, what is the process to get in-game and thanks for explaining me the process. I sadly don't have enough time to edit myself, hence this is in the hopes someone else will be interested, and I do get your points, there must be so many pull requests by now hahaTad_Carlucci wrote: ↑September 28th, 2018, 5:10 pm The best way to get changes looked at is to make them and put up a Github Pull Request for review and approval. As a PR you can include any number of changes, so you could handle all your points in one place.
The next-best way is create GitHub Issues for each point. While it's entirely possible to create an Issue with a lot of points, it's unlikely such an issue would be acted upon. Brief, single-subject issues work best since they can be categorized, prioritized, and handled, separately.
Following that, adding your thoughts on each scenario to the existing topic for that scenario will eventually be reviewed by someone.
Creating an omnibus review like this one, however, will fairly quickly be lost. While some might remember it exists, few, if any, of us are likely to go searching through all the topics in all the forums to locate it again. You might get comments, but you're setting yourself up for feeling you've been ignored if you don't work with us.
You are right on the omnibus review argument, and this may be lost over time, since there definitely isn't an abundance of developers, so perhaps in some months from now I will have plenty of free time to try and implement the above, or at least the dialogue and victory objective text, although I'm kinda sad that it will be in quite sometime from now, since this month I'm very busy (made the above post and played the campaign in all of the free time I had)
Even if its unrelated on the campaign feedback, thanks for filling me in on how features/changes are implemented
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
For what it's worth, I think the thread is fine; you've posted a link to the first scenario's feedback thread, so it's not like this can get magically lost in a few months.
Anyway, one point in particular sounded odd:
Anyway, one point in particular sounded odd:
I tried this myself, and even on challenging, I was able to consistently avoid Alanin being in mortal danger. And there are no outriders spawning when you kill them, either. It would be interesting to see a replay where it's the RNG that leads to defeat despite good play, because I couldn't reproduce that.Balroth wrote: ↑September 27th, 2018, 2:32 pmThe main issue with this scenario is that it is really broken. Like, unlike the rest where strategy/planning is what determines the game, and RnG is just playing out, RnG is the main force here. You can do really good and still lose, many times. Any strategy you pick, RnG is the main enemy here, not anything else, which is super weird. I mean, this game has some hardcore RnG but it is balanced by hardcore strategy/planning, but focusing mostly on RnG is just.... bad. The moment I (falsely?) realised this, I just opened the debugger once more.
Going from one village to the next? 1 tile away. Meaning your unit will die. 2 (out)riders attacking your unit means you will likely die and lose. Villages are more of a meatshield and movementshield (since they spawn 3 units) Thing is, there are 2 villages, that are 10 tiles away, when rider has 9 Movement Points. Aka vulnerable for 1 whole turn with no fodder, by 5+ riders. At some point I realised that instead of forming a wall over the main unit, I should use them as mere road-blocks. But still, RnG can destroy the same succesful strategy, but not as easily as using them merely as bodyshields. Most players won't notice that and will try and be puzzled (like me) why the village is 10 tiles away but unit moves only for 9. It didn't make me experiment, just save-scum (*cough open debugger after some tries cough*) since I thought that was the solution and I was doing something wrong I couldn't grasp, I literally hit a wall. (especially when killing outriders, more spawn with no explanation)
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
You are correct, it's more or less what otzenpunk above mentioned. To quote myselfzookeeper wrote:I tried this myself, and even on challenging, I was able to consistently avoid Alanin being in mortal danger. And there are no outriders spawning when you kill them, either. It would be interesting to see a replay where it's the RNG that leads to defeat despite good play, because I couldn't reproduce that.Balroth wrote:The main issue with this scenario is that it is really broken. Like, unlike the rest where strategy/planning is what determines the game, and RnG is just playing out, RnG is the main force here. You can do really good and still lose, many times. Any strategy you pick, RnG is the main enemy here, not anything else, which is super weird. I mean, this game has some hardcore RnG but it is balanced by hardcore strategy/planning, but focusing mostly on RnG is just.... bad. The moment I (falsely?) realised this, I just opened the debugger once more.
Going from one village to the next? 1 tile away. Meaning your unit will die. 2 (out)riders attacking your unit means you will likely die and lose. Villages are more of a meatshield and movementshield (since they spawn 3 units) Thing is, there are 2 villages, that are 10 tiles away, when rider has 9 Movement Points. Aka vulnerable for 1 whole turn with no fodder, by 5+ riders. At some point I realised that instead of forming a wall over the main unit, I should use them as mere road-blocks. But still, RnG can destroy the same succesful strategy, but not as easily as using them merely as bodyshields. Most players won't notice that and will try and be puzzled (like me) why the village is 10 tiles away but unit moves only for 9. It didn't make me experiment, just save-scum (*cough open debugger after some tries cough*) since I thought that was the solution and I was doing something wrong I couldn't grasp, I literally hit a wall. (especially when killing outriders, more spawn with no explanation)
My skill level (at least on ZoC and recognizing A.I. priority moves) is really bad, and I played horribly on that point. I insisted on the same strategy (more or less, move them like 1/2 tiles away so they cannot hit Alanin) not thinking there is a better one. In other words, the outriders "are pure RnG" point of mine, is completely invalid, indeed. But some of my points on that scenario still stand, like, I can beat every scenario except this, why is the difficulty so "different" than the rest?(not difficult, but it requires good ZoC understanding and ctrl+v that I never used, literally testing 1/2 skills exclusively and suddenly mandatory that aren't required anywhere else in the campaign, or you have to cheat(debugger/walkthrough) or just drop the campaign of frustration)Perhaps its a reason I blame the RnG, because I was frustrated at this scenario, trying to complete it with bad strategy, thinking its the scenario's RnG design that is broken, not my strategy. (well, at least now I know about the ctrl+V and optimal ZoC)
Not opening the debugger or seeing a walkthrough, I would be stuck there, and generally, the fun/enjoyment was ruined. Also, the scenario doesn't "hint" on the strategy to use and win, and that "1 tile away" village definitely made me certain that I was on good path and something on the game was wrong, not my strategy.
Also, on the outriders, when there are 3 and you kill one, 3 more spawn adjacently, it doesn't need debugger, but ofc its easier with that. (1.14.5 version)
Lastly, take a look into my reply to otzenpunk on the Outriders, but thinking about it now, do you think I should edit/fix the main post's "7 - Outriding the Outriders"? (so as the readers won't have to read this whole post and for the main post to be more organized, especially when an invalid point, devalues the rest)
Thanks for the feedback
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
Sure, it's definitely a scenario which requires the player to optimize their moves and to micromanage ZoC, and there's basically not much leeway in how you can play it; you can't wing it by gut feeling the way you can in most normal battle scenarios (on easier difficulties and/or easier campaigns, anyway) but have to make a few very precisely calculated moves, so it probably feels very different. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with puzzle scenarios like that, but it's true that regardless of difficulty level, they require a solid grasp of concepts like ZoC which not all newbies yet have.Balroth wrote: ↑September 30th, 2018, 12:58 pm You are correct, it's more or less what otzenpunk above mentioned. To quote myselfMy skill level (at least on ZoC and recognizing A.I. priority moves) is really bad, and I played horribly on that point. I insisted on the same strategy (more or less, move them like 1/2 tiles away so they cannot hit Alanin) not thinking there is a better one. In other words, the outriders "are pure RnG" point of mine, is completely invalid, indeed. But some of my points on that scenario still stand, like, I can beat every scenario except this, why is the difficulty so "different" than the rest?(not difficult, but it requires good ZoC understanding and ctrl+v that I never used, literally testing 1/2 skills exclusively and suddenly mandatory that aren't required anywhere else in the campaign, or you have to cheat(debugger/walkthrough) or just drop the campaign of frustration)Perhaps its a reason I blame the RnG, because I was frustrated at this scenario, trying to complete it with bad strategy, thinking its the scenario's RnG design that is broken, not my strategy. (well, at least now I know about the ctrl+V and optimal ZoC)
Not opening the debugger or seeing a walkthrough, I would be stuck there, and generally, the fun/enjoyment was ruined. Also, the scenario doesn't "hint" on the strategy to use and win, and that "1 tile away" village definitely made me certain that I was on good path and something on the game was wrong, not my strategy.
Still, fact is that you are playing a campaign that's designated as expert level (it's possible that the first 4 scenarios are too easy to warrant that label, though), so for me it's hard to see it as an unfair jump in difficulty if a late scenario requires the player to carefully utilize the basic ZoC/movement rules to their advantage to keep a hero unit safe from a handful of quick enemies. However, I do agree it wouldn't hurt to have clearer hints at what sort of strategy one needs to employ, because the scenario does require a mindset that most others don't. Any good ideas? What sort of hints do you think would have worked for you?
I'd be tempted to add in a note saying something to the effect of "it's possible to avoid the outriders ever reaching Alanin, if you plan your moves wisely" so that you could tell whether you're on the right track or not, but currently it's hard to say whether that statement would strictly be true or not (because of the not-100%-predictable AI, and the RNG). And maybe it could even be a too specific hint, almost a spoiler by which you could assess each and every turn whether your latest move was objectively right or wrong.
Oh, right, it was such a new addition that I had missed it.
If you feel like it detracts from the rest, sure, you can add a note or an extra spoiler tag or something.Balroth wrote: ↑September 30th, 2018, 12:58 pmLastly, take a look into my reply to otzenpunk on the Outriders, but thinking about it now, do you think I should edit/fix the main post's "7 - Outriding the Outriders"? (so as the readers won't have to read this whole post and for the main post to be more organized, especially when an invalid point, devalues the rest)
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
This is a new (but lets say not perfectly implemented) feature, that was added because of me killing all enemy outriders and wondering why I can't win that way.
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
You're welcome.
That's definitely what I would have done. Replaying 10 turns is imho way better than basically having to cheat myself through the upcoming scenarios because I don't have a competitive army any longer. In fact I regularly replay scenarios, when I've got the feeling I grossly underperformed, lost too much high-level, loyal or otherwise important units or wasted too much time (= money) to pass the upcoming scenarios.the scenario was not badly balanced, but I misunderstood the objectives and proceeded to do something that was by far the worst strategy/plan for me, hence the (fake) difficulty curve. And I can already see people going like "how can you fail understanding 1 line" but I have spammed the "crystal clear objective" argument so many times now, and I don't want to write 2 more paragraphs on it (so many walls of text already~)
But I'm definitely not alone, and thinking about it now, I should simply restart the scenario. But isn't it a waste of time to waste 10+ turns and reload, because of not explicitly phrasing the objective?
Maybe, but having looked back at my old replays, I found one, where I ran out of time, because I spent too much time chasing elves. I also think, this would contradict the story of the campaign. Why would you stay in the cave instead of just taking the tools and go back where you came from, when you just cleared the whole map? That would be my criticism to this scenario. There shouldn't be a possibility not to end up entrapped in the cave.To emphasize/clear my point here, if I knew that I could simply kill the elf leader and dwarf leader, this would be almost as easy as scenario 3/4, and I wouldn't have such a spiral thereafter.
Regarding your misunderstandig of the objectives, I can't really say much about it, because I understood it as intended. Maybe the problem ist, that it's called the "Shorbear caves" in plural form, when in fact it's just one single big cave. That would be the easiest solution imho as well, just change the objective to "have all heroes in the great Shorbear cave" or something like that.
Yes, it is. It is a different challenge, but I like it. Gives a little bit of variety to the campaign. But it's not totally unique in the Wesnoth universe either. "Hide and seek" in Liberty for example is kind of similar, isn't it?The difficulty of this [Outriding the Outriders] scenario is wildly different than the rest of the campaign. It's more of a puzzle (including RnG) where if you don't optimally (terrain) use ZoC, you are lost.
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
I agree with everything you said. And to be honest, I didn't expect such constructive feedback on my first forum postzookeeper wrote:Sure, it's definitely a scenario which requires the player to optimize their moves and to micromanage ZoC, and there's basically not much leeway in how you can play it; you can't wing it by gut feeling the way you can in most normal battle scenarios (on easier difficulties and/or easier campaigns, anyway) but have to make a few very precisely calculated moves, so it probably feels very different. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with puzzle scenarios like that, but it's true that regardless of difficulty level, they require a solid grasp of concepts like ZoC which not all newbies yet have.Balroth wrote: You are correct, it's more or less what otzenpunk above mentioned. To quote myselfMy skill level (at least on ZoC and recognizing A.I. priority moves) is really bad, and I played horribly on that point. I insisted on the same strategy (more or less, move them like 1/2 tiles away so they cannot hit Alanin) not thinking there is a better one. In other words, the outriders "are pure RnG" point of mine, is completely invalid, indeed. But some of my points on that scenario still stand, like, I can beat every scenario except this, why is the difficulty so "different" than the rest?(not difficult, but it requires good ZoC understanding and ctrl+v that I never used, literally testing 1/2 skills exclusively and suddenly mandatory that aren't required anywhere else in the campaign, or you have to cheat(debugger/walkthrough) or just drop the campaign of frustration)Perhaps its a reason I blame the RnG, because I was frustrated at this scenario, trying to complete it with bad strategy, thinking its the scenario's RnG design that is broken, not my strategy. (well, at least now I know about the ctrl+V and optimal ZoC)
Not opening the debugger or seeing a walkthrough, I would be stuck there, and generally, the fun/enjoyment was ruined. Also, the scenario doesn't "hint" on the strategy to use and win, and that "1 tile away" village definitely made me certain that I was on good path and something on the game was wrong, not my strategy.
Still, fact is that you are playing a campaign that's designated as expert level (it's possible that the first 4 scenarios are too easy to warrant that label, though), so for me it's hard to see it as an unfair jump in difficulty if a late scenario requires the player to carefully utilize the basic ZoC/movement rules to their advantage to keep a hero unit safe from a handful of quick enemies. However, I do agree it wouldn't hurt to have clearer hints at what sort of strategy one needs to employ, because the scenario does require a mindset that most others don't. Any good ideas? What sort of hints do you think would have worked for you?
I'd be tempted to add in a note saying something to the effect of "it's possible to avoid the outriders ever reaching Alanin, if you plan your moves wisely" so that you could tell whether you're on the right track or not, but currently it's hard to say whether that statement would strictly be true or not (because of the not-100%-predictable AI, and the RNG). And maybe it could even be a too specific hint, almost a spoiler by which you could assess each and every turn whether your latest move was objectively right or wrong.
On the hints/notes, I think what you said is on the right path. After all, I was stuck because I thought my strategy is correct.
I think this quote
solves the problem, since in a singular phrase, you make players think twice on their strategy. Subtle and short. It is a spoiler though, you are correct in that too. But here is the ultimate suggestion to that scenario. Instead of giving it out-of-game, or using it as meta-knowledge, it happens when you lose."it's possible to avoid the outriders ever reaching Alanin, if you plan your moves wisely"
After all, when Alanin dies, you get a cold defeat screen. Not even a quote of "Ugh, my message to the King...".
Suggestion: When Alanin dies, he says (dialogue):
"If... I planned more carefully... the outriders could never reach me..." *death sound effect*
Well, restarting the scenario after very bad plays, is more of an afterthought. Like, the damage is done (since misunderstood objectives), so it is obviously better to restart (even if I preferred not to, to save time) but this could not happen at all, at least for me if the objectives were more clearotzenpunk wrote:That's definitely what I would have done. Replaying 10 turns is imho way better than basically having to cheat myself through the upcoming scenarios because I don't have a competitive army any longer. In fact I regularly replay scenarios, when I've got the feeling I grossly underperformed, lost too much high-level, loyal or otherwise important units or wasted too much time (= money) to pass the upcoming scenarios.the scenario was not badly balanced, but I misunderstood the objectives and proceeded to do something that was by far the worst strategy/plan for me, hence the (fake) difficulty curve. And I can already see people going like "how can you fail understanding 1 line" but I have spammed the "crystal clear objective" argument so many times now, and I don't want to write 2 more paragraphs on it (so many walls of text already~)
But I'm definitely not alone, and thinking about it now, I should simply restart the scenario. But isn't it a waste of time to waste 10+ turns and reload, because of not explicitly phrasing the objective?
Aside of that, I do get what you are saying on replaying the scenarios, and that playstyle depends from player to player, but it seems like I'm also about to go that route instead of opening debugger for sure
Well, BfW campaigns/scenarios have completely linear conclusions, regardless of objectives. Example, in scenario "2 - Closing the Gates", you can defeat the elfs outside, and instantly win. It doesn't mean that you beat the elf invasion. In-story if you had to somehow interpret it, there are more on the way, and you safely closed the gates. This happens in pretty much every scenario with alternative objective I have played, since its always expected to win by default objective. In Dead Water (spoilers) there is an undead invasion where you have to escape in 2nd scenario (see pic above in the section of alternative win objectives), and the undead forces are the exact same you fight on the last scenario. However, you can beat them, all 3 enemy leaders with underleveled units (since its start of campaign). You don't magically win the campaign (although it would be funny). But its more of a gameplay mechanic, since in-story, you still lose and escape, to fight them in last scenario. Kinda like old JRPGs where you win the boss in the game, and lose in the cutsceneotzenpunk wrote: Maybe, but having looked back at my old replays, I found one, where I ran out of time, because I spent too much time chasing elves. I also think, this would contradict the story of the campaign. Why would you stay in the cave instead of just taking the tools and go back where you came from, when you just cleared the whole map? That would be my criticism to this scenario. There shouldn't be a possibility not to end up entrapped in the cave.
Regarding your misunderstandig of the objectives, I can't really say much about it, because I understood it as intended. Maybe the problem ist, that it's called the "Shorbear caves" in plural form, when in fact it's just one single big cave. That would be the easiest solution imho as well, just change the objective to "have all heroes in the great Shorbear cave" or something like that.
Even if you kill the elves&dwarfs, related to the next scenario's, far more arrive, then you go back to the caves, nothing changes, just the gameplay becomes better cuz of alternative win objective. It is in-game after all. Just a text change is needed in the win objectives.
My point being, that this mechanic is already implemented, but hidden from the player, for no reason. It doesn't affect the story whatsoever. Also, the elves on that scenario were within range of my units, and the 3 griffons could snipe the enemy leader within 2 turns, hence the "I could win far easier"
Didn't think of that! The objective "have all heroes in the great Shorbear Cave" is far better (and simpler) than mine!otzenpunk wrote: Regarding your misunderstanding of the objectives, I can't really say much about it, because I understood it as intended. Maybe the problem ist, that it's called the "Shorbear caves" in plural form, when in fact it's just one single big cave. That would be the easiest solution imho as well, just change the objective to "have all heroes in the great Shorbear cave" or something like that.
I don't know if I am misunderstood, but I am not against puzzle scenarios or different challenges. Although, I have specified on that aboveotzenpunk wrote:Yes, it is. It is a different challenge, but I like it. Gives a little bit of variety to the campaign. But it's not totally unique in the Wesnoth universe either. "Hide and seek" in Liberty for example is kind of similar, isn't it?The difficulty of this [Outriding the Outriders] scenario is wildly different than the rest of the campaign. It's more of a puzzle (including RnG) where if you don't optimally (terrain) use ZoC, you are lost.
"5 - Hide and Seek" in Liberty, is similar only in being a puzzle scenario. I didn't have to know about optimal ZoC or ctrl+V to predict A.I. movement, just occasionally avoid line of sight and kill/attack when I failed to do so. A nice scenario for being different but also challenging without requiring mandatory skills
I would say that the first scenario, "1 - The Raid" is very similar, yes, but its far easier. I am confident that now, knowing about ctrl+v and optimal ZoC I could do it optimally, and its funny because to win that scenario, I just restarted the scenario until I won (dat RnG)
And the best part - it was at the start of the campaign, so it was a good "test" for if the difficulty is proper (I didn't proceed to continue it, until I finished one more campaign because I was certain I would fail) unlike Outriding the Outriders, where I was 2 scenarios away from the end to get an approximation of the highest difficulty.
But yeah, mentioning an other campaign is kinda off-topic, apologies
Will do then, along with the suggestions abovezookeeper wrote:If you feel like it detracts from the rest, sure, you can add a note or an extra spoiler tag or something.Balroth wrote:Lastly, take a look into my reply to otzenpunk on the Outriders, but thinking about it now, do you think I should edit/fix the main post's "7 - Outriding the Outriders"? (so as the readers won't have to read this whole post and for the main post to be more organized, especially when an invalid point, devalues the rest)
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
Thinking about it now, it's hard to kill the outriders.Konrad2 wrote:This is a new (but lets say not perfectly implemented) feature, that was added because of me killing all enemy outriders and wondering why I can't win that way.Balroth wrote: Also, on the outriders, when there are 3 and you kill one, 3 more spawn adjacently, it doesn't need debugger, but ofc its easier with that. (1.14.5 version)
Like, you must survive for a few turns to slowly invest in that strategy, which means that to do it, you have optimal ZoC knowledge, which is the requirement for winning. Killing them is more of an "optional" victory, for the very few (pro) players that will turn back Alanin to attack the (weakened/few) outriders or for the players that place the units perfectly for optimal trades. To kill them, you must still run away and ZoC until 1~2 die from trading with your units, while you are at least at 5th+ village, so the scenario plays exactly the same, design-wise.
My point being, why isn't this an alternative win condition? Outriders are really really hard to kill, but possible, and they are many. Outriding the Outriders by killing them should be an viable strategy, it only makes sense. After all, it's not like you can cheese them, since if you can kill them, you can definitely outrun them. It's an interesting alternative win condition, since it rewards you with time if you are good, and ofc, to plan differently if you wish to, and ofc, more satisfaction for beating the scenario "the hard way"
Spoiler:
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
I'd say, this would spoil too much. I mean, Alanin already says "My only hope is to convince the peasants to stop the elves from passing through their land, so I can get ahead of them." I'd think, this is advice enough. Otherwise you could right have the units from the villages say on which hexes they are to be placed best.zookeeper wrote: I'd be tempted to add in a note saying something to the effect of "it's possible to avoid the outriders ever reaching Alanin, if you plan your moves wisely" so that you could tell whether you're on the right track or not, but currently it's hard to say whether that statement would strictly be true or not (because of the not-100%-predictable AI, and the RNG). And maybe it could even be a too specific hint, almost a spoiler by which you could assess each and every turn whether your latest move was objectively right or wrong.
Sure, but imho it's different in this scenario. In "Closing the gates", you can of course say, that more elves are coming, and so you have to close the gates anyway. But in "Hills of Shorbear Clan", your starting cave is the exit of a cave system, where you came to this scenario. And if you beat all the elves, and probably have got enough time left to get back to where you started, you could just steal the tools and take the same way back you went before. You wouldn't get entrapped in the Shorbear Cave and didn't have to flee to this tunnel which leads to the volcano. That's what I mean, there's a hole in the story. Instead there should probably appear an elvish army as soon as you manage to kill Glonoin, so you're forced to stay in the cave as intended. Don't see a problem with that.Balroth wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 8:11 pmWell, BfW campaigns/scenarios have completely linear conclusions, regardless of objectives. Example, in scenario "2 - Closing the Gates", you can defeat the elfs outside, and instantly win. It doesn't mean that you beat the elf invasion. In-story if you had to somehow interpret it, there are more on the way, and you safely closed the gates. This happens in pretty much every scenario with alternative objective I have played, since its always expected to win by default objective.otzenpunk wrote: Maybe, but having looked back at my old replays, I found one, where I ran out of time, because I spent too much time chasing elves. I also think, this would contradict the story of the campaign. Why would you stay in the cave instead of just taking the tools and go back where you came from, when you just cleared the whole map? That would be my criticism to this scenario. There shouldn't be a possibility not to end up entrapped in the cave.
Of course it's easier, because it's the first scenario of a campaign on a lower difficulty level.I would say that the first scenario, "1 - The Raid" is very similar, yes, but its far easier. I am confident that now, knowing about ctrl+v and optimal ZoC I could do it optimally, and its funny because to win that scenario, I just restarted the scenario until I won (dat RnG)
Ctrl-V is btw not some kind of hidden secret. It has it's own menu entry in the Action menu and is documented in the help system under Gameplay->Movement. So I think, it's perfectly resonable for a campaign designer to expect players to know about this on expert level. And additionally Ctrl-V isn't really necessary at all, because it's just a convenient summary of hovering over all your opponent's units looking where they could reach next turn.
Actually it's not that hard. At least it wasn't, before this respawning thing was added. In my replay, the spearmen and bowmen from the villages just killed all the 6 outriders in 10 turns, while losing 8 units themselves, without Alanin having to do a single strike. The RNG was quite a lot in my favor, though, about +6%/-12%.Thinking about it now, it's hard to kill the outriders.
Re: [In-depth Feedback] Sceptre Of Fire
That (currently implemented) advice is not enough, as evident by my walkthrough (to the point I thought my strategy works and RnG is to blame)otzenpunk wrote:I'd say, this would spoil too much. I mean, Alanin already says "My only hope is to convince the peasants to stop the elves from passing through their land, so I can get ahead of them." I'd think, this is advice enough. Otherwise you could right have the units from the villages say on which hexes they are to be placed best.zookeeper wrote: I'd be tempted to add in a note saying something to the effect of "it's possible to avoid the outriders ever reaching Alanin, if you plan your moves wisely" so that you could tell whether you're on the right track or not, but currently it's hard to say whether that statement would strictly be true or not (because of the not-100%-predictable AI, and the RNG). And maybe it could even be a too specific hint, almost a spoiler by which you could assess each and every turn whether your latest move was objectively right or wrong.
And I'm definitely not the only one that was stuck in that scenario, and there could be many reasons for that.
What zookeeper suggested is spoiler-ish, but its on the right track, so, do take a look below (also above in this post)
===================
===================Balroth wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 8:11 pmI agree with everything you said. And to be honest, I didn't expect such constructive feedback on my first forum postzookeeper wrote:Sure, it's definitely a scenario which requires the player to optimize their moves and to micromanage ZoC, and there's basically not much leeway in how you can play it; you can't wing it by gut feeling the way you can in most normal battle scenarios (on easier difficulties and/or easier campaigns, anyway) but have to make a few very precisely calculated moves, so it probably feels very different. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with puzzle scenarios like that, but it's true that regardless of difficulty level, they require a solid grasp of concepts like ZoC which not all newbies yet have.Balroth wrote: You are correct, it's more or less what otzenpunk above mentioned. To quote myselfMy skill level (at least on ZoC and recognizing A.I. priority moves) is really bad, and I played horribly on that point. I insisted on the same strategy (more or less, move them like 1/2 tiles away so they cannot hit Alanin) not thinking there is a better one. In other words, the outriders "are pure RnG" point of mine, is completely invalid, indeed. But some of my points on that scenario still stand, like, I can beat every scenario except this, why is the difficulty so "different" than the rest?(not difficult, but it requires good ZoC understanding and ctrl+v that I never used, literally testing 1/2 skills exclusively and suddenly mandatory that aren't required anywhere else in the campaign, or you have to cheat(debugger/walkthrough) or just drop the campaign of frustration)Perhaps its a reason I blame the RnG, because I was frustrated at this scenario, trying to complete it with bad strategy, thinking its the scenario's RnG design that is broken, not my strategy. (well, at least now I know about the ctrl+V and optimal ZoC)
Not opening the debugger or seeing a walkthrough, I would be stuck there, and generally, the fun/enjoyment was ruined. Also, the scenario doesn't "hint" on the strategy to use and win, and that "1 tile away" village definitely made me certain that I was on good path and something on the game was wrong, not my strategy.
Still, fact is that you are playing a campaign that's designated as expert level (it's possible that the first 4 scenarios are too easy to warrant that label, though), so for me it's hard to see it as an unfair jump in difficulty if a late scenario requires the player to carefully utilize the basic ZoC/movement rules to their advantage to keep a hero unit safe from a handful of quick enemies. However, I do agree it wouldn't hurt to have clearer hints at what sort of strategy one needs to employ, because the scenario does require a mindset that most others don't. Any good ideas? What sort of hints do you think would have worked for you?
I'd be tempted to add in a note saying something to the effect of "it's possible to avoid the outriders ever reaching Alanin, if you plan your moves wisely" so that you could tell whether you're on the right track or not, but currently it's hard to say whether that statement would strictly be true or not (because of the not-100%-predictable AI, and the RNG). And maybe it could even be a too specific hint, almost a spoiler by which you could assess each and every turn whether your latest move was objectively right or wrong.
On the hints/notes, I think what you said is on the right path. After all, I was stuck because I thought my strategy is correct.
I think this quotesolves the problem, since in a singular phrase, you make players think twice on their strategy. Subtle and short. It is a spoiler though, you are correct in that too. But here is the ultimate suggestion to that scenario. Instead of giving it out-of-game, or using it as meta-knowledge, it happens when you lose."it's possible to avoid the outriders ever reaching Alanin, if you plan your moves wisely"
After all, when Alanin dies, you get a cold defeat screen. Not even a quote of "Ugh, my message to the King...".
Suggestion: When Alanin dies, he says (dialogue):
"If... I planned more carefully... the outriders could never reach me..." *death sound effect*
I think you misunderstood my points. This is already implemented. Defeats and alternative victories always feel not "natural" anyway (usually cold screen with no dialogue lel). If you beat the elves and dwarf leader, its automatically an victory in the scenario. Excusing it is a detail, but if you would like to do so, in dialogue/cutscene elf army arrives and all dwarfs run to the cave, works. Alternatively, you suggested something better:otzenpunk wrote:Sure, but imho it's different in this scenario. In "Closing the gates", you can of course say, that more elves are coming, and so you have to close the gates anyway. But in "Hills of Shorbear Clan", your starting cave is the exit of a cave system, where you came to this scenario. And if you beat all the elves, and probably have got enough time left to get back to where you started, you could just steal the tools and take the same way back you went before. You wouldn't get entrapped in the Shorbear Cave and didn't have to flee to this tunnel which leads to the volcano. That's what I mean, there's a hole in the story.Balroth wrote:Well, BfW campaigns/scenarios have completely linear conclusions, regardless of objectives. Example, in scenario "2 - Closing the Gates", you can defeat the elfs outside, and instantly win. It doesn't mean that you beat the elf invasion. In-story if you had to somehow interpret it, there are more on the way, and you safely closed the gates. This happens in pretty much every scenario with alternative objective I have played, since its always expected to win by default objective.otzenpunk wrote: Maybe, but having looked back at my old replays, I found one, where I ran out of time, because I spent too much time chasing elves. I also think, this would contradict the story of the campaign. Why would you stay in the cave instead of just taking the tools and go back where you came from, when you just cleared the whole map? That would be my criticism to this scenario. There shouldn't be a possibility not to end up entrapped in the cave.
I really really like this suggestion, and its the one that feels more natural. But it's a lot of effort and my main issue isn't to "make the story make sense", but to have more clear objectives for the player. Of course, if this was possible/made, it would be even betterotzenpunk wrote: Instead there should probably appear an elvish army as soon as you manage to kill Glonoin, so you're forced to stay in the cave as intended. Don't see a problem with that.
After all, the alternative win condition is really nice, because instead of killing dwarf leader + dwarfs in the cave, aka wipe out every dwarf, you have to "snipe" 2 enemy leaders, which is a great benefit in making the scenario more unique (it also sucks that you don't know about the alternative win condition, because it is hidden) and you can choose your own strategy to follow, usually depending on your army composition
I would like to one day make an off-topic post about no mention/teaching of Ctrl+V and other features, or the add-ons being not even explained/suggested, but its really off-topic and I don't have much experience to talk about them yetotzenpunk wrote: Ctrl-V is btw not some kind of hidden secret. It has it's own menu entry in the Action menu and is documented in the help system under Gameplay->Movement. So I think, it's perfectly resonable for a campaign designer to expect players to know about this on expert level. And additionally Ctrl-V isn't really necessary at all, because it's just a convenient summary of hovering over all your opponent's units looking where they could reach next turn.
However, I never found out about Ctrl+V until mentioned here. Damn, I didn't know about Back to Turn X, until I watched the playthrough of this campaign I also may have opened the action menu twice, and I guess a lot of newbies must have similar knowledge to that. I had opened it once or twice, but nothing is really explained how it works in detail so I didn't bother. Just today I figured out planning mode, and its still kinda confusing to use, because once you deactivate it, you are kinda stuck so idk
I do agree that Ctrl+V isn't necessary at all, since ZoC alone can win the Outriders, but ofc, it helps in making it far easier/better instead of watching every unit's range
My point with killing outriders, is that if Alanin has survived for over 3~4 turns (he can die by simply 2 outriders) you have essentially won the scenario since you know what to do/how to win. Killing them, happens one-by-one, on the meatshieldvillage units by trading hits. Killing all the outriders in 7+ turns, also means you could easily escape as well by default objective, so why not have it as an actual alternative objective, instead of respawning to prevent/supress alternative strategies?otzenpunk wrote:Actually it's not that hard. At least it wasn't, before this respawning thing was added. In my replay, the spearmen and bowmen from the villages just killed all the 6 outriders in 10 turns, while losing 8 units themselves, without Alanin having to do a single strike. The RNG was quite a lot in my favor, though, about +6%/-12%.Balroth wrote: Thinking about it now, it's hard to kill the outriders.