Two ideas for less "gamey" more "epic" f

Observer1 · Post by **Observer1** » June 2nd, 2005, 12:11 pm

I'm probably going to violate one of the guidelines, but I just thought I'd throw it out. Again, if I do violate one, I sincerely apologize in advance.

One thing I was thinking about was the "feel" of a campaign (these are NOT suggestions for multiplayer). I thought these changes might give the campaign a more "epic", rather than "gamey" feel.

-----------

1) Economics: Make troops very expensive to buy, and cheap to recall

For single-player campaigns, change RECALL cost to 1. Raise the costs to buy a new troop 3x (or 4x, or 5x, whatever balances the game out).

Why: I think this gives the game more of a "epic" feel in the sense that troops you acquire, actually come with you every map. Of course, it is harder to get new troops, and when troops die -- it really makes a big big difference. You won't recall him on the next map.

Do you know what I am trying to get at? As it stands, you recall or hire new troops, and it doesn't seem like a campaign per se. You often kick off cheap troops from your roster list, because you'd rather hire a new 12 gp orc, than recall a level 1 orc with a few xp for 20 gold. It makes total strategic sense, but it doesn't feel "epic" -- like Bob the Orc is really part of the team. Contrast that with the feeling that Bob's been there from the start. Or that Bob died.

The extreme cost of recruitment and the cost of "support" stops rosters from growing to ridiculous levels. For most maps, you can only buy a few "new" troops to add to your roster which feels more "epic". Also for "difficult" maps, you may see your roster shrink a lot. Which gives the feeling that your merry warband is really on the retreat or hurting ("Our army lost half its strength at the massive battle at Bobland.")

-----------

2) Experience Points: More points for effort, less points for killing
(I'm sure I'm not the first to bring this up, so potential apology.)

My suggestion is to increase the XP given for just attacking and defending perhaps by 1 XP down the line. So attacking a level 1 enemy will give you 2 xp, a level 2 enemy 3 xp, etc.

Likewise, I think less XP should be handed out for killing an enemy. Maybe give 4 XP for killing a level 1, 6 XP for killing a level 2, 8 XP for level 3, etc.

This also smooths out the level difference (2,3,4 and 4,6,8 -- rather than multiples, 8, 16...).

From an "epic" perspective, who deserves more XP? The guy who took four rounds of combat damage? Or the guy who made the final tap?

More important, I think this makes battles less "gamey" -- where you have big units soften up other big units, and then let yeoman-bob make the stab for 1 HP to gain 16 XP. This type of XP Farming guides a lot of the tactical gameplay I think -- which is the negative aspect of this XP system. You spend time thinking about what order to attack so which guy can rack up the XP lottery. My personal opinion is that the game tactics should not be so heavily weighted towards XP management. I also think this would help (but definitely not fix) the problem with healers getting XP. This will give them more points for just trying, rather than sticking a fork in a guy that's already done.

------------

I really really like the game, and I hope some of these suggestions are helpful.

scott · Post by **scott** » June 2nd, 2005, 3:22 pm

I don't think the ideas are bad in themselves, because they do change the flavor to something people might like better. However, I know that the current flavor has been specifically chosen over a more RPG-type system so I don't think the main game will change in that direction.

You could make "RPGnoth" with some minor code tweaks and basically maintain that branch by reapplying those tweaks with each new BFW revision. Also add the hero attribute that people wanted to make their heroes harder to kill.

Assasin · Post by **Assasin** » June 2nd, 2005, 5:09 pm

That reminds me, I tried adding a trait to Wesnoth. I went to the trait.cfg file and typed this:

Code: Select all

#define TRAIT_SKILLED
	[trait]
	#textdomain wesnoth
	id=skilled
	name= _ "skilled"
		[effect]
		apply_to=attack
		range=short
		increase_damage=1
		[/effect]
		[effect]
		apply_to=attack
		range=long
		increase_damage=1
		[/effect]
		[effect]
		apply_to=attack
		range=short
		increase_number=1
		[/effect]
		[effect]
		apply_to=attack
		range=long
		increase_number=1
		[/effect]
	[/trait]
#enddef

Is there another file i need to modify to make this work, or did I forget something?

allefant · Post by **allefant** » June 2nd, 2005, 5:36 pm

You could make "RPGnoth" with some minor code tweaks and basically maintain that branch by reapplying those tweaks with each new BFW revision. Also add the hero attribute that people wanted to make their heroes harder to kill.

RPGnoth also could have resurrection, it would make me switch to it

Tomsik · Post by **Tomsik** » June 2nd, 2005, 6:16 pm

assasin: with skilled thunderer have 19-2, its bad idea

Assasin · Post by **Assasin** » June 2nd, 2005, 6:35 pm

yes, I know it is over powering, but I am doing more as a test to see if I did it right. i don't think I did cause no one got the trait.

scott · Post by **scott** » June 2nd, 2005, 8:30 pm

Add 1 attack and 1 damage? It is basically an upgrade from L1-L2. It's the new superloyal!

MadMax · Post by **MadMax** » June 2nd, 2005, 8:42 pm

in game.cfg, you need to modify this:

Code: Select all

	#traits that are common to all races and units
	{TRAIT_STRONG}
	{TRAIT_QUICK}
	{TRAIT_INTELLIGENT}
	{TRAIT_RESILIENT}

Casual User · Post by **Casual User** » June 3rd, 2005, 1:09 am

Good afternoon.

About idea 1, I don't find it interesting. See, Bob the orc isn't part of the team. He's an expendable orcish footman. If he gets good, you'll keep him on. Otherwise, he's just some orcish nobody you've given a sword... By comparison, a mage at 20gp or a horseman at 23gp is a low-time champion, and in the second case, a nobleman. He'll stay with you because he's an adventurer. Bob the orc is just some orc you hire. I like the system as it is. It also makes you ask if you want to recall or hire, more strategy, better...

About idea 2, I agree with you. I won't propose it officially because it's one of Wesnoth's sacred cows, but since we're talking about a mod:"I think the idea of keeping the last stab for low-level units is non-sensical." Yes, it adds strategy, but it doesn't add any depth. On the contrary, moving away your high-level units fom a 1hp ennemy for a low-level unit to get the stab seems false and breaks tension. Even as a test of manhood, it feels false: tougher guys wound someone for a test of manhood? I think any fight, whether deadly or not, should yield for each unit a number of xp equal to the ennemy's level, period. Of course, xp requirements would be scaled down.

Everything said above is "off the record" as we're only talking about a mod or personal opinion.

Pythagoras · Post by **Pythagoras** » June 3rd, 2005, 1:19 pm

On #2

There are parts in HttT with Konrad/Delfador combo where I think its pretty common to level Konrad by letting Delfador cripple a unit and allow Konrad to kill it. It seems that this may be an intentional designed in thing.

Assasin · Post by **Assasin** » June 3rd, 2005, 8:48 pm

MadMax wrote:in game.cfg, you need to modify this:
Code: Select all
	#traits that are common to all races and units
	{TRAIT_STRONG}
	{TRAIT_QUICK}
	{TRAIT_INTELLIGENT}
	{TRAIT_RESILIENT}

Thanks man!

Is this the right phrase to use to increase the number of attacks?

[effect]
apply_to=attack
range=short
increase_number=1
[/effect]

scott · Post by **scott** » June 3rd, 2005, 11:08 pm

no

It's increase_attacks=1 not increase_number

http://wesnoth.slack.it/?EffectWML