Survey Results!

[Hejnewar]

Origin data is in xlsx file with nicknames removed. You can also read there all the custom answers.

[Atreides]

Good number of responses 136. I noted that few questions got a majority (50%+) reply other than most of the campaigns not having been played recently and that the new art is nice. Which it is.

[DuncanDill]

Hmmm strange to have so many votes that definitely do not show what the community has been saying...

[Hejnewar]

Maybe because community is way bigger than forums? So here we see only community of forum users but not the entire game. Well that was the purpose of this survey anyway to show more complete outlook. Even in it you can see that only 11% of people learned about it from forums.

[Gothyoba]

Hmmm strange to have so many votes that definitely do not show what the community has been saying...

I think this might represent that a vocal minority is defining what we think the community is. This survey is probably more accurate imo.

[Mirion147]

I think these surveys are good. I'm not sure how I feel about these particular results, but I think having these periodically (if not a bit more specific) is a good idea.

[Dalas120]

Hmmm strange to have so many votes that definitely do not show what the community has been saying...

While I'm sure there have been at least a few alt-accounts, I feel the survey responses match the same broad pattern I've seen in other games. My impression is that a game's casual, less dedicated playerbase usually likes to see big new feature and exciting shake-up changes. In contrast, the more hardcore/veteran players (who're more likely to speak regularly on the github/forums/discord) are often traditional, preferring things to stay very stable and change slowly or not at all.

Moving forward, we'll likely need to balance the needs of both these players as best we can.

[KameRamen]

It appears that there were more responses than I had anticipated. I think that is really good. Minority opinions should not be ignored, but I understand that it is very difficult to adjust.

My only concern is that this sets a precedent for Google Forms surveys. I hear that some people are concerned about privacy, so I don't think this should be the standard. However, I think the results are positive. First of all, thanks.

[Anekron]

I'm glad that the survey took place and there is some interesting stuff in it, I especially like that we finally have some sort of campaign ranking, a rough overview of the popularity.

I also like that the results show that the (presumably more casual) players that aren't on forums / GH tend to be more optimistic about the prospect of potential changes, as I feel the recent proposals such as returning to 1.16 or even 1.14 balance are far too conservative and might hurt the game long term.

That being said, I think the two questions about parry / acc and complex abilities, respectively, should be taken with a good pinch of salt. Looking at the results, I'm not sure if the questions were understood in the way there were presumably meant.

A slight majority seems to be in favour of the new unexplored mechanics, but "I want to see more of them" might mean anything from "I want the engine to support more stuff like that" to "yes, I really want some Default Era lvl 1 units to have acc / parry". It can also mean anything between those two extremes.

I won't pretend I'm not heavily biased against accuracy (I think we should only keep it if we scrap marksman and replace it with acc bonus) and especially parry (which I don't think should have any place in Default Era at all).

To be fair, I think the same thing happened in the following question regarding the complex abilities, as some folks wanted to do stuff like HI being extra vulnerable against stuff like backstab or berserk. Here the proportion of people being in favour is even higher at nearly 6/10, while I think both I and Hejne are in agreement that such complicated, arbitrary abilities aren't the best way to go forward with buffing the HI.

By the same logic I've outlined above, I think this also can be read as "I want so see more complex abilities supported in engine" or "I want some wacky stuff for monsters and high level units" but it still might not be the best idea to interpret it as "I want many lvl 1 Default Era untis to have some very specific ability".

[Lord-Knightmare]

For one who is keen on assessing the quality of the current set of mainline campaigns, seeing "I haven't played it recently" being the key segment brings to question to whether "I have not played it recently because I know it's always gonna be disappointing" or "I have not played it recently because I just have not had time to do so, or didn't feel like it.". It can be expanded to both reasonings.
I preferred these have open-ended answers like how Ashmyr once did a survey on them. In the open-ended ones, you could tell what really needed improvements.

[ForestDragon]

Anekron already made this point, but one of the flaws with how the survey questions were structured are the questions about complex abilities/accuracy and parry in mainline. It does not specify whether it is new complex abilities/accuracy for NEW units, or adding them to existing ones, and that is a very, very important distinction. New abilities for new units is something that is much less controversial (like dunefolk getting diversion or whatnot), while new abilities/parry to existing (especially lvl1) units is more of a big deal

Besides that the fact that the "parry on lvl1" individual idea got more votes against them than in favor, looking a bit at the poll data, there were 12 instances of voters who voted in favor accuracy/parry as a mechanic but voting against the suggestions of adding those mechanics to HI and/or dune burner and/or soldier

[Hejnewar]

My only concern is that this sets a precedent for Google Forms surveys. I hear that some people are concerned about privacy, so I don't think this should be the standard. However, I think the results are positive. First of all, thanks.

Maybe, but nothing except nicknames was gathered by us and I think when it comes to alts everywhere else including forus there would be more of them.

A slight majority seems to be in favour of the new unexplored mechanics, but "I want to see more of them" might mean anything from "I want the engine to support more stuff like that" to "yes, I really want some Default Era lvl 1 units to have acc / parry". It can also mean anything between those two extremes.

I think this is somewhat wrong approach because you are looking at it from modder perspective and not player perspective. And also you are somewhat ignoring the contents of the question which clearly states "mainline" not default since default has its answers in balance section, there is no need to double dip. At the same time UtBS with lots of crazy abilities and using AOE attacks and parry / accuracy also did really well in the survey.

At the same time I did expect pushback againt any result people didnt like and not taking it at face value (and at the same time expect me to take any people like at face value - you can only do one). However its not like I cant just ask people participating about that on reddit or YT or even discord. Thats pretty simple honestly. We can also see their reactions there (however i was late with posting and forums got them first).

I wont lie, this is pretty bad survey for me, but I do take it as it is and dont try to cope with results it is how it is, I have some positives and I focus on them.

[Anekron]

I think this is somewhat wrong approach because you are looking at it from modder perspective and not player perspective. And also you are somewhat ignoring the contents of the question which clearly states "mainline" not default since default has its answers in balance section, there is no need to double dip. At the same time UtBS with lots of crazy abilities and using AOE attacks and parry / accuracy also did really well in the survey.

There is a difference. Mainline might mean campaign specific abilities, while default clearly refers to the standard roster of units. I agree that UtBS seems to be doing fine, but that's an expert campaign and what's permissible in an expert campaign might not be in other cases. My main point is that "I want to see more of them" is kinda vague and will mean different things to different people.

At the same time I did expect pushback againt any result people didnt like and not taking it at face value (and at the same time expect me to take any people like at face value - you can only do one). However its not like I cant just ask people participating about that on reddit or YT or even discord. Thats pretty simple honestly. We can also see their reactions there (however i was late with posting and forums got them first).

I always argued that you should not give in to the popular demand and that arguments, not pressure should lead to balance adjustments. I'm also willing to change my mind, as I recently did after our discussion about acc, magical and marksman. I've realised magical and acc can coexist and now only feel uncomfortable having both marksman and acc in the default era at the same time.

I don't think some people taking the survey understand the consequences of adding either parry or more complicated ability into the game (I've played your 1.20 proposed changes locally). I suspect you would disagree with me on parry, but agree with me about complex abilities.

I wont lie, this is pretty bad survey for me, but I do take it as it is and dont try to cope with results it is how it is, I have some positives and I focus on them.

I don't think it's that bad for you. Your UtBS changes seem to generally be well received and it also shows people are more open to changes that forums / GH would indicate (which is something I welcome as well).

[Hejnewar]

I agree that UtBS seems to be doing fine, but that's an expert campaign and what's permissible in an expert campaign might not be in other cases.

I will just note that complexity to this point wasnt something that bothered people with UtBS much at all and I know for sure that not only experts played this campaign. And there is for example ability that grants parry / accuracy for each strike that hit and verse which is probably most complex ability in mainlnie.

I always argued that you should not give in to the popular demand and that arguments, not pressure should lead to balance adjustments.

Well. Yeah not worth it.

I don't think some people taking the survey understand the consequences of adding either parry or more complicated ability into the game (I've played your 1.20 proposed changes locally). I suspect you would disagree with me on parry, but agree with me about complex abilities.

I actually would agree on both, if it isnt communicated more clearly than it currently is because for me thats most important and right now in game explanation isnt good enough. If it is (and imo it should be) them I would disagree.

I don't think it's that bad for you. Your UtBS changes seem to generally be well received and it also shows people are more open to changes that forums / GH would indicate (which is something I welcome as well).

Very much depends how you look at it and what you consider important.

[Gothyoba]

Personally I really like this survey. I think there should be more such surveys for Wesnoth (maybe one for every major release). Development should not necessarily follow the resulta of the survey exactly, but it’s good to have a more accurate idea of what the community really wants. An idea for any following surveys of this kind would be to allow the respondent to give more open-ended answers to certain questions, like the related to campaigns. I think this would allow them to explain their opinions better. For example, I rates TSG as excelling, but that doesn’t mean I dissaprove of it being revised. I also think a campaign can be very good for other reasons, but still be in need of inprovements (like HttT).