Bad Campaign Elements

[ahmannar]

I am quite interested in your opinion pauline (especially because it´s not common in this game). One could admit that surprises in a strategic game contribute to make it more diverse and enjoyable but, with the current system of wesnoth( RNG-based, chance to hit, resistances), it´s nothing more than a nuisance. Tomato surprises, in a way, are meaningless because you change the way you play a specific scenario after you know of it.
People can say that even after the effect of it they continue to play the level without reloading( which is not my case, somehow they always mess up my game when i don´t know one is coming). But this game has tremendous replay value, so the probability of replaying a level with tomato surprise is high and, by that time, you already know of it and will play in a way to defend yourself against it. In my opinion this translates in a huge waste of work because, let´s face it, the creator of the campaign just made something that won´t affect the game of anyone besides newcomers and will potentially frustate some of them.
The only way to defend such a feature would be if people say that they always play like they don´t know the effect of it on the scenario, but i fail to see the advantage in that other than being stuborn just for the sake of it.

EDIT: just in case i wasn´t clear, my problem with tomato surprises is with the ones that come with no form of warning and/or subtle hint at all.

[pauline]

ahmannar, I do, of course, agree: In a replay the effect of any surprise is gone.
So is the excitement about new units, maps, adventures ... direction and outcome of the whole story.
The player can enjoy meeting old friends or clunking the enemy over the head again.
Though the replay-value of a campaign is important to writers and the BfW development team,
I somehow got the (wrong ?) impression, most single players are rather appealed to the wide variety of choices and a new campaign
than to repeat "an old one". Even the necessity of save-loading or restarting a scenario seems to be an unreasonable demand.
The, surely, tremendous replay value might affect more the competition of online multi players,
(what I am not) and than known "surprises" are definitely only a nuisance.
For my own part, I love this "only for newcomer"-surprises … if only once.
You´re right: Most of the time the game is messed up, even loading a mid-scenario saved game might not help.
But I replay every campaign several times anyway … usually to discover missed events.
So, a "waste of work" is just one more reason to play through a campaign again.
And I admit the possibility that my uncommon opinion is merely a consequence of liking tomatoes.
pauline

[pyrophorus]

I think the boundary between plot twists and tomato surprises is rather vague and player dependant.
Of course, a sudden explosion in the middle of the map, killing everything radius 5 will change a replay strategy (avoid the area), but any unexpected event would too. A common event in campaign is the coming of new foes, at sufficient distance to let the player some time to adjust her/his strategy. Is this a tomato surprise ? Different players would have different opinions, I think.

Now, I agree mostly with Pauline: I welcome surprises in gameplay. A lot of fun is lost when everything is under control from the beginning.

Friendly,

[ahmannar]

I guess it depends on the surprises we are talking about when saying that something like that is enjoyable and, of course, it´s subjective.
For me a great example of this is UtBS, which kinda has both bad and good surprises: the second level of that campaign is full of surprises but, right from the beginning, we are alerted that this will be a difficult journey and the enemies that appear are in small number and far away from us, so enough warning and time of reaction is given to the players playing it.
On the exactly oposite side, you have the third scenario of the same campaign, where you fight 2 enemies with almost the same gold as you, in a time of day that is always favorable to them and unfavorable to you, where you must protect the villages you own and there´s a linear correlaction between the number of units you lose and the higher cost of them for the rest of the campaign. The scenario is already hard but, the moment you slain one leader, he ressurrects by possesing your loyal captain and brings more gold for recruits right at that moment. No warning at all is given that something like this might happen, nothing on the lore of wesnoth say that someone has the ability to possess a corpse by its own agenda and your surviving units are all around a castle full of fresh recruits that have more mobility and damage than them. If someone on the history of wesnoth has manage to complete this level at first try, with no save-reloading and no spoilers, i would be truly impressed.
As it can be seen, i have no problems with surprises on this game. I just don´t like having to reload to a starting turn because of a scenario with surprises that are way too big and, with a few exceptions, i don´t even do it. Wesnoth is already a complex and very long game and it doesn´t need those kind of gimmnicks to extend it even further.

[pauline]

This "thirst"-problem in UtBS part 2 ?
The fact of desert-experts going out on a traverse of the wilderness without taking enough water along is already a tomato, isn´t it ?
About the replacement of the loyal captain in part 3:
My notes on this campaign are superficial, but the 2 enemies apparently "told the fools they will be back".
So there might have been a hint.

Anyway, is your [great example of this] a surprise you think acceptable or unnecessary ?
I don´t think you mean the difference of a "reasonable" and a "tomato"-surprise depends
on a warning at the beginning of a scenario ?

Actually, it´s not the surprise itself that most players don´t like.
It´s reloading or not what determines the "quality" of a surprise, right ?
Now, I´m not sure if BfW´s reload-option is merely a help for beginners
or a actually a tool to deal with the unexpected …
an option that slightly differs a phantasy game from real life.
I do understand, though, that ferocious, professional combatants hate a dishonorable save-loading
and those who prefer to run through a campaign in 2 hours, as well.
Wesnoth might not NEED [those kind of gimmicks ] due to its complexity and extremely wide range of campaigns
but I, personally, consider them a very interesting part.
(When I feel occasionally overcharged by dealing with an unexpected event,
I play something simple for a while or walk my dog.
For me a better solution to get rid of frustration than the loss of surprises in BfW … of whatever kind ).

pauline

[ahmannar]

Even if i don´t share the same opinion as you pauline( and pyrophorus), i can see why save-reloading is something seen in a casual way to many people, something not be taken in a serious note and, if it makes for a better experience, no reason why they shouldn´t. Each person has his/her own way of having fun with BfW and that´s the beauty of the game(anyway, to answer your doubt, the save-reload is not considered a tool to play the game, it´s just something to help people in need).
As a only long time player of campaigns( having played almost every one made since version 1.4) i have taken them more seriously over time, which means few to no reloads except at the start of scenarios. I do this because, in a strategy game against bots, one can only play that long using the save-reloading option without just being tired of the time spent playing the same levels consecutively and using a "invulnerable like superman mode"(school/university takes its tool also) and trust me, the amount of unplesant surprises in user-made campaings since that time is impressive.
For my opinion and, i think in the opinion of part of BfW community(hope i am not inventing something xD), a tomato surprise is basically one where the rise of difficulty is so huge that you are almost always forced to save-reload to be able to pass it with that new knowledge(this is why i put the 3 scenario of UtBS in this one) where, with a reasonable one, you can do it by playing well with no need of reloads.
Personally i don´t know the amount of time you(pauline) have given to the campaigns of this game, but nowadays i see them more as a nuisance than something fun. A few years ago i also liked them, but i can only do it so many times until thinking "oh great, time to replay this all over again".

[pauline]

ahmannar, I´m well aware who I´m talking to and thank you for the time to "squabble" with a far less experienced player
on a subject that the majority is emphatic about, sharing your point of view. I respect this, I can´t change it ...
but once in a while I´m in the mood to point out that not everyone has a dislike for "huge, save-reload depending" events.
Meanwhile I´ve checked the manual myself ... seems I'm already losing it :
"A good BfW player never needs to save during a scenario. However, most beginners tend to do so rather often.
Long ago, Wesnoth only allowed saving the game at the end of a scenario.
Mid-scenario saving was added as a convenience to use if you had to continue the game another day, or to protect against crashes."
Right. So much for reloading ... Well, in some more years my enthusiasm for "unpleasant surprises" might have cooled of, too.
For now: On an average, a "session" on any campaign takes me at least 2 weeks, playing 3–4 hours per day (more often not).
Then I try again (much less mid-scenario-saving ), and might do so a third time after reading the walkthrough. Further replays for fun.
My goal is not "to look for the perfect game where I never lose a unit " but to explore all the possibilities of a campaign and … well, to become a better player. So, spending quite some time on each one might explain better, why a so called tomato surprise doesn´t bother me on the whole.
Thanks for your opinion, and good luck with more de-tomatofied UMCs !
pauline