Making Wesnoth less frustrating
Moderator: Forum Moderators
I have an Internet connection for two days, I may as well use it. I don't like at all this idea of wounded units that may be recalled later. This just doesn't fix anything in my opinion: it is the wrong solution to the wrong issue.
The real problem is: the cost of recalling is too low. Hell, it is cheaper to recall an Archmage than to recruit a Mage! How can we expect a campaign to be balanced if that's the way it is?
Since you are speaking of dramatic changes, here is my suggestion. First, correct the recruit cost of higher level units, by using EP's scheme for example. Second, implement a variable recall cost based on the recruit cost of the units. Third, balance all the campaigns purely with minimum gold.
It solves several issue. First, to balance a campaign, you just have to change the minimum gold, you don't have to worry about the recall list. Second, losing a high-level unit is no more a problem for the next scenarios: instead of recalling your dead Archmage, just recruit two Mages for the same price, it is almost as efficient. Third, players won't be as attached to their units as they are now; if they want them, they pay.
What about the recall cost? I suggest to use 80% of the linear interpolation (with respect to XP) between the recruit cost of the unit and the smallest recruit cost among the leveled units. Why 80%? To account for the loyalty of the unit. Why a linear interpolation? So that it doesn't make sense to prevent a unit from leveling near the end of a scenario.
So now, what do we get with this mechanism? You can either recall your old Archmage for 43GP, or recruit two Mages for 42GP.
It will require rebalancing campaigns. But it's not like they are balanced right now. And it will make it a lot easier to balance the individual scenarios. I think my proposal makes a lot more sense than any "resurrection" scheme, and it is not more dramatic.
The real problem is: the cost of recalling is too low. Hell, it is cheaper to recall an Archmage than to recruit a Mage! How can we expect a campaign to be balanced if that's the way it is?
Since you are speaking of dramatic changes, here is my suggestion. First, correct the recruit cost of higher level units, by using EP's scheme for example. Second, implement a variable recall cost based on the recruit cost of the units. Third, balance all the campaigns purely with minimum gold.
It solves several issue. First, to balance a campaign, you just have to change the minimum gold, you don't have to worry about the recall list. Second, losing a high-level unit is no more a problem for the next scenarios: instead of recalling your dead Archmage, just recruit two Mages for the same price, it is almost as efficient. Third, players won't be as attached to their units as they are now; if they want them, they pay.
What about the recall cost? I suggest to use 80% of the linear interpolation (with respect to XP) between the recruit cost of the unit and the smallest recruit cost among the leveled units. Why 80%? To account for the loyalty of the unit. Why a linear interpolation? So that it doesn't make sense to prevent a unit from leveling near the end of a scenario.
So now, what do we get with this mechanism? You can either recall your old Archmage for 43GP, or recruit two Mages for 42GP.
It will require rebalancing campaigns. But it's not like they are balanced right now. And it will make it a lot easier to balance the individual scenarios. I think my proposal makes a lot more sense than any "resurrection" scheme, and it is not more dramatic.
Re: Making Wesnoth less frustrating
I agree with this to every last detail. That is I think resurrection is a bad idea, but that using variable recruit lists to make a given scenario easier on f ex EASY, is a good idea, but it should be used sparingly.Darth Fool wrote: Well, count me as one of the purists that thinks this is a bad idea. I think if a higher level unit is required to win a given scenario, that type of unit should be made available to be recruited (at least on easy). For example, if Mages of Light are a necessity to win a scenario, but a poor non-prophetic player has a bunch of silver mages that he has recruitable/resurrectable, it doesn't help him any. I have long appreciated the fact that in Wesnoth, war has consequences and sometimes units die. I really dislike the idea of softening the nature of Wesnoth, both for gameplay and feel reasons. I long for the days when Miyo would have stamped out this proposal with a simple "no."
EDIT:
And, as for silene's proposal to have a variable recall cost, it makes a lot more sense to me than resurrection.
-
- Retired Developer
- Posts: 2633
- Joined: March 22nd, 2004, 11:22 pm
- Location: An Earl's Roadstead
I like this proposal much better than resurection.silene wrote: So now, what do we get with this mechanism? You can either recall your old Archmage for 43GP, or recruit two Mages for 42GP.
It will require rebalancing campaigns. But it's not like they are balanced right now. And it will make it a lot easier to balance the individual scenarios. I think my proposal makes a lot more sense than any "resurrection" scheme, and it is not more dramatic.
-
- Retired Terrain Art Director
- Posts: 1113
- Joined: November 29th, 2003, 11:40 pm
- Location: Norway
Initially I though the resurrection idea sounded quite good (with some reservations), but after reading silene's post I must say his proposals sounds much better.Darth Fool wrote:I like this proposal much better than resurection.silene wrote: So now, what do we get with this mechanism? You can either recall your old Archmage for 43GP, or recruit two Mages for 42GP.
It will require rebalancing campaigns. But it's not like they are balanced right now. And it will make it a lot easier to balance the individual scenarios. I think my proposal makes a lot more sense than any "resurrection" scheme, and it is not more dramatic.
The initial gold proposal is all good.
I also do agree to silene's proposal. It would really be nice to have higher prices for "better" units. And another prob could be solved with this. ATM you can only enter the recall list (e.g. for deleting units you do not want to carry with you all the time) only when you got enough gold (>19). This is IMO bad, if i do not know the complete list to know if i should get me a lvl 1 unit or better wait some turns to recall a better one. I think this would be fixed with variable prices.
I think it is good to know, that the starting gold value is possible to be coded in, but it is not good, if it is not used at all. At least on easy it would make much sense. This should definatly be in for 1.0.
I think it is good to know, that the starting gold value is possible to be coded in, but it is not good, if it is not used at all. At least on easy it would make much sense. This should definatly be in for 1.0.
- Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
Totally against RIPLIB, it encourages exploiting any undercosted units in campaigns as well as in multiplayer, and is a huge change. When I have an Arch Mage in my army, I want my Arch Mage, not the potential to buy a temporary Arch Mage! And I don't want to level up my Red Mage if all it means is that I can buy an Arch Mage for more gold instead of a Red Mage for less!silene wrote:Second, implement a variable recall cost based on the recruit cost of the units.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
- wayfarer
- Art Contributor
- Posts: 933
- Joined: June 16th, 2005, 7:07 pm
- Location: Following the Steps of Goethe
- Contact:
Yes it would punish good players with many recallable units but newbies wouldn´t have these problem because they won´t have much. I dislike the idea with the increased recruitment cost. it´s part of the flavour that you´ve got a handpicked force that you use over and over.
This girl, this boy, They were part of the land. What happens to the places we used to tend?
She's a hard one to trust, And he's a roving ghost. Will you come back, will you come back, Or leave me alone?
-Ghost Fields
She's a hard one to trust, And he's a roving ghost. Will you come back, will you come back, Or leave me alone?
-Ghost Fields
I don't like the idea of making recalling more expensive, and especially not dependent on unit quality. That basically makes levelling up units of dubious value at all, since you can just spend your money on many more cheaper units.
I like the idea of balancing scenarios on easy level with minimum gold, and I think that that can go far enough, perhaps, to remove excessive difficulty, but not excessive frustration. There is a big difference between the two.
Playing a campaign, levelling units up as you go is fun. It's one of the core premises of the game, and it's self evident that many players find it lots of fun.
However, the problem is that many less experienced, less skilled, and more casual players find the game rules and the way the AI plays to crush much of this fun by making it very difficult for their upper-level units to survive very far.
As far as more experienced, more skilled players go, I think the game is fine now: they sign up for a tough challenge, and they get it. It's only the less skilled players we need to make an adjustment for.
Neither Silene's nor Darth Fool's suggestions accomplish this. Silene's solution simply makes higher-level units less attractive, and Darth Fool's solves the difficulty problem, but not the frustration problem.
There are a few other solutions which I think can be alternatives to reduce frustration:
- we could use AI flags more to make the AI less aggressive about ganging up on vulnerable units on the easier levels.
- we could reduce xp requirements on easier levels.
Of course, the other alternative is to do what we've done so far: decide that we don't really want to cater Wesnoth toward casual/inexperienced gamers.
David
I like the idea of balancing scenarios on easy level with minimum gold, and I think that that can go far enough, perhaps, to remove excessive difficulty, but not excessive frustration. There is a big difference between the two.
Playing a campaign, levelling units up as you go is fun. It's one of the core premises of the game, and it's self evident that many players find it lots of fun.
However, the problem is that many less experienced, less skilled, and more casual players find the game rules and the way the AI plays to crush much of this fun by making it very difficult for their upper-level units to survive very far.
As far as more experienced, more skilled players go, I think the game is fine now: they sign up for a tough challenge, and they get it. It's only the less skilled players we need to make an adjustment for.
Neither Silene's nor Darth Fool's suggestions accomplish this. Silene's solution simply makes higher-level units less attractive, and Darth Fool's solves the difficulty problem, but not the frustration problem.
There are a few other solutions which I think can be alternatives to reduce frustration:
- we could use AI flags more to make the AI less aggressive about ganging up on vulnerable units on the easier levels.
- we could reduce xp requirements on easier levels.
Of course, the other alternative is to do what we've done so far: decide that we don't really want to cater Wesnoth toward casual/inexperienced gamers.
David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
"
- we could use AI flags more to make the AI less aggressive about ganging up on vulnerable units on the easier levels.
- we could reduce xp requirements on easier levels. " -Dave
(sorry, I seem to have forgotten how to quote properly)
That is exactly what should be done. Purists do not suffer, as they play on hard anyway; average players can have quick, easy games when they want them; newbies can beat the Isle of Anduin on their first try (this took me approx. 5 tries on Medium until I 'got' Wesnoth, but that was over a year ago )
Also, no campaigns seem to use the sample_ai. This annoys me quite a bit, because while it might be dumb it can really help newbies get past 'hard' spots a bit more easily. Perhaps complaints about HttT will stop once there is a really-easy mode (possibly not titled that way) which only uses the sample_ai, both for allies and opponents. After a while, players will realize it's too easy that way and learn to play on harder modes.
- we could use AI flags more to make the AI less aggressive about ganging up on vulnerable units on the easier levels.
- we could reduce xp requirements on easier levels. " -Dave
(sorry, I seem to have forgotten how to quote properly)
That is exactly what should be done. Purists do not suffer, as they play on hard anyway; average players can have quick, easy games when they want them; newbies can beat the Isle of Anduin on their first try (this took me approx. 5 tries on Medium until I 'got' Wesnoth, but that was over a year ago )
Also, no campaigns seem to use the sample_ai. This annoys me quite a bit, because while it might be dumb it can really help newbies get past 'hard' spots a bit more easily. Perhaps complaints about HttT will stop once there is a really-easy mode (possibly not titled that way) which only uses the sample_ai, both for allies and opponents. After a while, players will realize it's too easy that way and learn to play on harder modes.
2B |! 2B = 3F
- Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
I'd prefer a "stupid ai" not sample_ai, because sample_ai attacks in locations based on absolute map coordinates.ryn wrote:Also, no campaigns seem to use the sample_ai. This annoys me quite a bit,
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
- Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
In other words, it prefers to attack locations that are to the upper left. I don't remember exactly how...ryn wrote:Too much wizardage for me there. "Attacks in locations based on absolute map coordinates"? what's the problem with that? how else could you attack? I must be missing something
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
The sample AI is just that: a sample, to show people how to write an AI, and to demonstrate Wesnoth's 'pluggable' AI framework.ryn wrote:"
Also, no campaigns seem to use the sample_ai.
It's not really designed to be used in production, plus it doesn't really work properly at all with things like ambush.
David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming