Suggestions to improve Wesnoth if we had $500,000?
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Re: Suggestions to improve Wesnoth if we had $500,000?
Wow! Thank you to everyone who shared their thoughts (though I see that the discussion veered from the original intent of the post). It’s great to see many strong opinions about how to improve the game.
First, @demario and @Krogen, I recognize that actually getting any significant amount of money in a short-term time period is completely unrealistic. My intent in making this post was to see what long-term vision people had for Battle for Wesnoth. I personally believe it’s hard to know where the best place is to dedicate present efforts when the long-term goal is unclear. So yes, there are definitely better threads about what should actually be done with current volunteer efforts. I just wanted to see what people thought the potential future of Wesnoth could be (which, to me, might require some cash). [I also wondered whether the comments in How to save Wesnoth might be accurate, that perhaps Wesnoth is “functionally complete” and people weren’t interested in pushing the limits much further.]
With that said, here’s my summary related to spending $€ on Wesnoth. There were 36 votes in the poll, and since each person could vote up to 3 times, there were at least 12 voters. My guess is that it was actually somewhere between 15-20 people over a one-month period. (For reference, the game was downloaded at least 10K times in the same period, so <0.2% feedback.) Commissioning portraits and sprites got the most votes, which surprised me somewhat as in 2015+ [the poll is still open] it was lower-preference relative to improving coding and GUI elements (which I thought would be reflected in the ‘new engine’ option). A close second was improving add-ons enough to mainline them (later I share my thoughts on how that relates to the diversity question in Wesnoth). Advertising, a modern engine, and improving multiplayer experience were all similar in popularity. There were also some interesting suggestions from @shevegen, @demario and @revolting_peasant: A browser-based version of Wesnoth, paying for translations or new music, collaborations with design institutions, or investing in long-term revenue-generating streams, like improved donation infrastructure or merchandising. Lore-expanding campaigns (@demario and @Hejnewar) and faction and unit changes (@Mechanical, @TipTaupe, and @Krogen) I group in with the ‘improving add-ons and mainlining them’ suggestion, while @Mawmoocn’s suggestion to improve coding logic I would potentially group in with ‘modern game engine’ (or at least my initial ‘Feature Creation’ category).
So the “big ideas” I was looking for appear to cluster squarely in the ‘Content Creation’ category rather than ‘Marketing’ or ‘Feature Creation.’ Perhaps you fellow players will indulge me while I list what I see as the current (1.14) content constraints I’ve seen from my limited experience:
I mention the large variety of unit types and gameplay types as support for why I think marketing would be such a valuable tool: with how much has been accomplished just with volunteer contributors, I think drawing in more people (of which some percentage would naturally contribute) could truly produce more unexpected gems.
Finally, I’d like to contribute my thoughts on the diversity discussion. Wesnoth appears basically driven by individuals contributing whatever they imagine up, so I generally agree with the sentiment that people can make the content they want. The main consideration should be not attacking any real-life groups (e.g. similar to the forums, “if you are not sure whether or not your [campaign] might be considered offensive, err on the side of caution.”) When I read heated debates about what kind of content should be allowed, I think it may point to a related question, which is what content should be added to mainline. I know there have been many threads discussing how significant the mainline/UMC distinction is, but I think clearly there is some expectation that mainline content is more officially sanctioned than UMC content. So the question for me is not, “What content can developers make,” but “What requirements are there for any given UMC content to be added to mainline?” On that question, it seems to be rather unclear, which is problematic given that it was the second-most-preferred vote in my poll:
The most recent (2018) relevant thread I could find, about mainlining a drake campaign only gives the criteria that it relates to existing Irdya lore (i.e. the Great Continent).
A direct query about criteria for mainlining a couple months earlier in 2018 was answered that popularity, prose and code quality are important, but that ultimately there is no formal process.
A 2013 post adds that it’s important to have a dedicated maintainer for perpetuity, while a 2020 query is redirected to a 2007 set of criteria that is clearly marked outdated, with no updated reference.
All in all, I’m glad 1.16 is adding a few things to mainline (Wings of Victory, World Conquest II), but I agree with other voters that it would be nice to get more of the already amazing UMC content to mainline so that more players could appreciate it. Some written guidelines for the process might be helpful. I personally think lore is not such a dealbreaker, as content could always be added with a disclaimer that it takes place in a different setting.
[It also seems that there’s a persistent problem with UMC content being fairly difficult to sort for quality, which is why I was interested in posting another thread about whether number of forum posts could help guide interested players. Add-on ratings have been proposed so many times, I think there’s got to be some system that could help.]
Thanks again to everyone for sharing your thoughts on this post!
First, @demario and @Krogen, I recognize that actually getting any significant amount of money in a short-term time period is completely unrealistic. My intent in making this post was to see what long-term vision people had for Battle for Wesnoth. I personally believe it’s hard to know where the best place is to dedicate present efforts when the long-term goal is unclear. So yes, there are definitely better threads about what should actually be done with current volunteer efforts. I just wanted to see what people thought the potential future of Wesnoth could be (which, to me, might require some cash). [I also wondered whether the comments in How to save Wesnoth might be accurate, that perhaps Wesnoth is “functionally complete” and people weren’t interested in pushing the limits much further.]
With that said, here’s my summary related to spending $€ on Wesnoth. There were 36 votes in the poll, and since each person could vote up to 3 times, there were at least 12 voters. My guess is that it was actually somewhere between 15-20 people over a one-month period. (For reference, the game was downloaded at least 10K times in the same period, so <0.2% feedback.) Commissioning portraits and sprites got the most votes, which surprised me somewhat as in 2015+ [the poll is still open] it was lower-preference relative to improving coding and GUI elements (which I thought would be reflected in the ‘new engine’ option). A close second was improving add-ons enough to mainline them (later I share my thoughts on how that relates to the diversity question in Wesnoth). Advertising, a modern engine, and improving multiplayer experience were all similar in popularity. There were also some interesting suggestions from @shevegen, @demario and @revolting_peasant: A browser-based version of Wesnoth, paying for translations or new music, collaborations with design institutions, or investing in long-term revenue-generating streams, like improved donation infrastructure or merchandising. Lore-expanding campaigns (@demario and @Hejnewar) and faction and unit changes (@Mechanical, @TipTaupe, and @Krogen) I group in with the ‘improving add-ons and mainlining them’ suggestion, while @Mawmoocn’s suggestion to improve coding logic I would potentially group in with ‘modern game engine’ (or at least my initial ‘Feature Creation’ category).
So the “big ideas” I was looking for appear to cluster squarely in the ‘Content Creation’ category rather than ‘Marketing’ or ‘Feature Creation.’ Perhaps you fellow players will indulge me while I list what I see as the current (1.14) content constraints I’ve seen from my limited experience:
Current content limits?
Finally, I’d like to contribute my thoughts on the diversity discussion. Wesnoth appears basically driven by individuals contributing whatever they imagine up, so I generally agree with the sentiment that people can make the content they want. The main consideration should be not attacking any real-life groups (e.g. similar to the forums, “if you are not sure whether or not your [campaign] might be considered offensive, err on the side of caution.”) When I read heated debates about what kind of content should be allowed, I think it may point to a related question, which is what content should be added to mainline. I know there have been many threads discussing how significant the mainline/UMC distinction is, but I think clearly there is some expectation that mainline content is more officially sanctioned than UMC content. So the question for me is not, “What content can developers make,” but “What requirements are there for any given UMC content to be added to mainline?” On that question, it seems to be rather unclear, which is problematic given that it was the second-most-preferred vote in my poll:
The most recent (2018) relevant thread I could find, about mainlining a drake campaign only gives the criteria that it relates to existing Irdya lore (i.e. the Great Continent).
A direct query about criteria for mainlining a couple months earlier in 2018 was answered that popularity, prose and code quality are important, but that ultimately there is no formal process.
A 2013 post adds that it’s important to have a dedicated maintainer for perpetuity, while a 2020 query is redirected to a 2007 set of criteria that is clearly marked outdated, with no updated reference.
All in all, I’m glad 1.16 is adding a few things to mainline (Wings of Victory, World Conquest II), but I agree with other voters that it would be nice to get more of the already amazing UMC content to mainline so that more players could appreciate it. Some written guidelines for the process might be helpful. I personally think lore is not such a dealbreaker, as content could always be added with a disclaimer that it takes place in a different setting.
[It also seems that there’s a persistent problem with UMC content being fairly difficult to sort for quality, which is why I was interested in posting another thread about whether number of forum posts could help guide interested players. Add-on ratings have been proposed so many times, I think there’s got to be some system that could help.]
Thanks again to everyone for sharing your thoughts on this post!
Thank you to everyone who has worked on this game!
- Aldarisvet
- Translator
- Posts: 836
- Joined: February 23rd, 2015, 2:39 pm
- Location: Moscow, Russia
Re: Suggestions to improve Wesnoth if we had $500,000?
I really wonder why you writing all this, stencil. This will lead to nowhere, as always.
There was an interesting project by, ehhh, forgot her name, to add a new campaign 'A rise of Asheviere', which was supposed to fill the gap in Wesnoth lore, yet it was not supported. After that hard to expect big changes in mainline in the foreseeable future.
There was an interesting project by, ehhh, forgot her name, to add a new campaign 'A rise of Asheviere', which was supposed to fill the gap in Wesnoth lore, yet it was not supported. After that hard to expect big changes in mainline in the foreseeable future.
facebook.com/wesnothian/ - everyday something new about Wesnoth
My campaign:A Whim of Fate, also see it's prequel Zombies:Introduction
Art thread:Mostly frankenstains
My campaign:A Whim of Fate, also see it's prequel Zombies:Introduction
Art thread:Mostly frankenstains
Re: Suggestions to improve Wesnoth if we had $500,000?
Gotta say I appreciate the work you put into sharing your thoughts stencil.
Re: Suggestions to improve Wesnoth if we had $500,000?
Aldarisvet wrote:
> After that hard to expect big changes in mainline in the foreseeable future.
I think that is fine for the mainline. The mainline kind of serves as purpose to
introduce people to wesnoth, aka real newbies and what not. It may be fine
to extend it (I want Grog, more Grog adventures! Was that even the name of
the troll ... ) but I think by and large the existing campaigns there already
are quite fine.
Perhaps it may be interesting to, at the end of the basic campaigns to offer
extensions with some new things that are not necessarily mainline. A simple
thing could be for a new follow-up campaign where the main actors have
some unique traits to choose. Sort of like aiming for "newbies but those
who already played the game for some time". Sort of like "you finished
the basic campaigns, now the add-ons are 'unlocked'". I don't mean this
as a financial lure, but simply as means to guide newcomers to explore
different ideas, and see how these work. (The abilities for heroes is just
one example; you could add more special units too, for instance.)
> After that hard to expect big changes in mainline in the foreseeable future.
I think that is fine for the mainline. The mainline kind of serves as purpose to
introduce people to wesnoth, aka real newbies and what not. It may be fine
to extend it (I want Grog, more Grog adventures! Was that even the name of
the troll ... ) but I think by and large the existing campaigns there already
are quite fine.
Perhaps it may be interesting to, at the end of the basic campaigns to offer
extensions with some new things that are not necessarily mainline. A simple
thing could be for a new follow-up campaign where the main actors have
some unique traits to choose. Sort of like aiming for "newbies but those
who already played the game for some time". Sort of like "you finished
the basic campaigns, now the add-ons are 'unlocked'". I don't mean this
as a financial lure, but simply as means to guide newcomers to explore
different ideas, and see how these work. (The abilities for heroes is just
one example; you could add more special units too, for instance.)
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: November 29th, 2020, 4:39 pm
Re: Suggestions to improve Wesnoth if we had $500,000?
More soundtracks and a jukebox for picking which soundtracks to shuffle through.
Make plan mode less laggy for teammates.
A graphical user interface for the : menu.
Host Wesnoth events in gamer clan communities, to introduce more people to the game. When I joined my favourite map was a mini 6p FFA, but I dunno what it was called.
Upload Kira1's mind into the source code, to improve the AI.
Make plan mode less laggy for teammates.
A graphical user interface for the : menu.
Host Wesnoth events in gamer clan communities, to introduce more people to the game. When I joined my favourite map was a mini 6p FFA, but I dunno what it was called.
Upload Kira1's mind into the source code, to improve the AI.
Re: Suggestions to improve Wesnoth if we had $500,000?
Sounds like an extremely overpowered AI.TheLastVegan wrote: ↑October 16th, 2021, 5:00 pm Upload Kira1's mind into the source code, to improve the AI.
"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of the sheep." - Tywin Lannister
- Tom_Of_Wesnoth
- Posts: 208
- Joined: January 14th, 2015, 4:03 pm
- Location: Wesnoth 2020 and Wesnoth 2007
Re: Suggestions to improve Wesnoth if we had $500,000?
Too late for the poll, but here’s my thoughts on what I personally would prioritise if I became a millionaire and ‘bought Wesnoth’.
1. Commission artists to ensure that every mainline unit has a base sprite, full set of animations, and portrait. This would include replacing older artworks that don’t fully fit with the current art style.
2. Commission developers to overhaul the mainline campaign offering. Develop a new tutorial campaign, polish all existing campaigns up to the standards of the very best, and redesign the campaign menu - grouping campaigns with linked stories together, for example.
3. Commission developers to redesign the multiplayer experience. Add player rankings of some sort to make it easier to match up with good opponents, add some asymmetric game modes like ‘capture the flag’ or ‘castle defence,’ and so on.
4. If any funds remain, look at north-facing sprites, new music tracks, new story art, and so on.
1. Commission artists to ensure that every mainline unit has a base sprite, full set of animations, and portrait. This would include replacing older artworks that don’t fully fit with the current art style.
2. Commission developers to overhaul the mainline campaign offering. Develop a new tutorial campaign, polish all existing campaigns up to the standards of the very best, and redesign the campaign menu - grouping campaigns with linked stories together, for example.
3. Commission developers to redesign the multiplayer experience. Add player rankings of some sort to make it easier to match up with good opponents, add some asymmetric game modes like ‘capture the flag’ or ‘castle defence,’ and so on.
4. If any funds remain, look at north-facing sprites, new music tracks, new story art, and so on.
If presented with the opportunity, I would take great pleasure in becoming a world ruler.
Re: Suggestions to improve Wesnoth if we had $500,000?
After having recently read Iris' blog, I have come to the conclusion that some of that
money needs to go into improving/finishing old campaigns as well.
Tom_Of_Wesnoth wrote:
> 1. Commission artists to ensure that every mainline unit has a base sprite, full set of animations, and portrait.
That's a good point. I guess it may help to see which sprites actually ar emissing. And which portrait. I know
that many add-ons have placeholders but I don't fully remember which mainline had missing aspects there.
Been a while since I last played the main campaigns though ...
> Add player rankings of some sort to make it easier to match up with good opponents
This can perhaps be changed easily, e. g. offer something like yearly ranking chars or something like
that. And give those who win nifty symbols for use on the webforum.
(I know of an online game that uses special symbols to indicate "progression", e. g. how many times
in a browser game armageddon seal was broken and how many Hall of Fame spots that player
was getting.)
money needs to go into improving/finishing old campaigns as well.
Tom_Of_Wesnoth wrote:
> 1. Commission artists to ensure that every mainline unit has a base sprite, full set of animations, and portrait.
That's a good point. I guess it may help to see which sprites actually ar emissing. And which portrait. I know
that many add-ons have placeholders but I don't fully remember which mainline had missing aspects there.
Been a while since I last played the main campaigns though ...
> Add player rankings of some sort to make it easier to match up with good opponents
This can perhaps be changed easily, e. g. offer something like yearly ranking chars or something like
that. And give those who win nifty symbols for use on the webforum.
(I know of an online game that uses special symbols to indicate "progression", e. g. how many times
in a browser game armageddon seal was broken and how many Hall of Fame spots that player
was getting.)
-
- Posts: 67
- Joined: November 17th, 2023, 7:33 pm
most important is:
1 100% honesty
2 1000% ethical ppl
2 1000% ethical ppl