Choosing a Ruleset (possible solution to contrv ideas)

[Observer1]

Again, I hope this hasn't been totally suggested before (sorry again if it has).

Perhaps Wesnoth should allow for choosing a "ruleset" when you start a campaign (or start a MP map, etc.). It would be similar to the existing option toggles on choosing to play "Age of Heroes" or Classic etc. or adjusting the economic value of villages.

The present set of rules could be called "Standard" or "Classic".
Another set of rules could be called "RPGNoth" etc.

Players could also custom choose which specific rules (make it like a checkoff screen). Scenario designers could "suggest" this campaign be played with a certain set of rules (Scenario designed for "classic" play).

The rulesets could have toggles like this:

Y/N Allow "Hero" trait for leaders
Y/N Allow "Ressurection" at _______ gold (user def)
Y/N Allow xxxx (trait, race, funky rule, etc.)


It could also allow for more advanced toggles like:

XP System:
A Standard
B "Flatter" (2,3,4... 4,6,8, etc.)
C etc. (whatever other systems players think is best)

Recall Cost:
A standard (20 gp)
B __________ cost (user def)

Unit Cost:
A standard
B standard x ______ % (user def)

Recruitment: (essentially age of heroes toggle)
A Level 1 units
B Level 1-2 units
C Level 1-3 units

Economy: (essentially village slide bar)
A Standard
B Standard + villages = ______ gold

Starting Gold:
A Standard (campaign or map defined)
B User input __________ gold

Enemy Bonus/Penalty (difficulty adjuster vs computer):
A Standard
B Enemy Production (+/- ____ % economy bonus/penalty)
C Enemy Strength (+/- ____ % combat bonus/penalty)

etc. etc.

(if you were really crazy, maybe allow for a unit tweaking option from this window even. i.e. shift X unit strength, etc. )


(this list of options and toggles is not exhaustive at all. I just can't think of what else I've seen in the forums.)

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

I just think this might be a way of helping Wesnoth developers appease a lot of gamers, as well as playtest other ideas. The focus of the design team could continue on the "Standard" rules. Meanwhile, Wesnoth could also accomodate and incorporate a lot of other people (I keep hearing about RPGNoth) who could play their own version of the game. "RPGNoth" wouldn't have to be another game -- it could just be a certain set of the above toggles.

[aelius]

Scenario designers could "suggest" this campaign be played with a certain set of rules (Scenario designed for "classic" play).

Have you tried balancing a scenario, much less a campaign? It's not easy now, and it's going to be hell on Earth if users can pick differing rulesets. Right now you have to balance for three possible variations (easy, normal, hard).

Let's say that you have eight options. Now you have to balance for 3 times 2 to the 8th possible variations: 768 of them.

Do you really want to try and balance a campaign for that sort of unpredictability?

"RPGNoth" wouldn't have to be another game -- it could just be a certain set of the above toggles.

Get forking. Much better than trying to implement a bazillion optional rules.

- b.

[ILikeProgramming]

I would be extremely surprised if somebody took the time to do this.

[scott]

Dave has already explained about the complexity increase in maintaining code that includes a lot of options. I would also say get forking.

[Dave]

The fundamental problem is that configuration options are bad. Be it at runtime or at compile. Ideally there is one configuration which works everywhere. Every new configuration increases complexity. Not linearly but instead exponentially. Each option might influence every other option. This is a disaster not only for users, but also the developers. It means exponential growth of testing. Which of course won't happen and therefore the code is basically untested. For developers this means that often only one or two configurations are really tested. Any us of another configuration is probably doomed to failure in any non-trivial project.

(From http://www.livejournal.com/users/udrepper/7326.html)

[allefant]

I would be extremely surprised if somebody took the time to do this.

Well, I started on a patch to allow resurrection of units just a few minutes ago It will make that for 100 gold + unit cost (so e.g. 118 for an Elvish Archer, or 200 for a Grand Knight), you can resurrect any of your fallen units (just like recall otherwise).

Of course, that's very different from the proposed rulesets idea - it's just one single rule I'm implementing for myself so I personally enjoy the game more - I just have the advantage of knowing enough C++ to do it.

That is, this is the only addition I made so far, to gamestatus.hpp:

Code: Select all

std::vector<unit> fallen_units; /** < units the player may resurrect */

So, with that speed, it probably will take me until next weekend to code it all

[Edit:]
Actually, already done I simply copied the recall dialog, replacing available_units with fallen_units, and then when you die, add the diing unit to the list.

So far, the fallen_units list isn't saved - so when you reload, the resurrection list is empty again. I think I'll also make it so I can save.. wonder what's the best way for that.

[Edit2:]
Whee, full saving and reloading. Was much easier than I though, it all was already there for saving the recall list, just had to copy a few lines

[Observer1]

Thanks for the comments.

#1 In terms of potentially leading to exponential testing problems -- I agree and understand.

#2 In terms of balancing a campaign -- I don't agree. The scenario designer just says that the scenario is designed for "Classic Ruleset". That's all. It's up to the player if they want to play that way. The options are there for players who want to modify their own game.

The idea is to give everyone the most options. If a scenario designer likes a certain ruleset or wants to create a scenario with one different option, then they just say -- designed for "X ruleset" or "classic + X modification".

The options let designers makes the scenario they want. The options also let players play the game they want.


Nevertheless, I agree with comment #1. It would add a lot of complexity.
I just think that would do a lot to add to the long-term appeal of Wesnoth.

[aelius]

The idea is to give everyone the most options. If a scenario designer likes a certain ruleset or wants to create a scenario with one different option, then they just say -- designed for "X ruleset" or "classic + X modification".

More options are not necessarily good. When users switch to some bizarre ruleset and then complain that my campaign does not play properly, whom will they blame? The author of the campaign. More work for them to do supporting things, for essentially no benefit (to the designer).

I believe that something like what Dave proposes in this thread:

http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4140

is a much better idea (and one I'd wholeheartedly support). It adds replayability for the player and options for the campaign designer.

- b.

[scott]

Well, as a fork it might not be too bad to have an alternate ruleset (but not a large number). I agree about campaigns: you could have deterministic-only campaigns, etc. The RPG rules might not be too bad to balance, and a heroic hero mode may not have any effect at all (since it allows bad players to keep their heroes safe like good players already do). You just need to keep it separate to prevent it from taking down the main line of development should things go screwy.