Anyone who posts anything that revives a past discussion will have their post deleted and will receive a PM to indicate to them that they need to read existing material on that idea. If they have anything genuinely new to add, they may PM the moderator back with their “new” points and the moderator will decide if their argument is valid to post or not.
Notes
- The multiplayer Devs consider the factions to be finely balanced against each other (though they each play differently). If you want to suggest a way to "correct the imbalance" for a faction, please provide replays demonstrating the imbalance first.
- This sticky lists only the most frequently posted ideas; it could not practically fit all ideas posted. Please also search the forum for a couple of likely keywords before posting.
- For those new to Wesnoth, understanding the philosophy behind the game is a good start: http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/WesnothPhilosophy
- A more general reference is the Wesnoth FAQ: http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/FAQ
- We are aware that players always want:
- Better graphics and animations.
- New units (Note that the official factions are finely balanced so a new unit for an official faction will be a hard sell).
- More campaigns and multiplayer maps
- A smarter computer player
FREQUENTLY PROPOSED IDEAS: (summary)
General principles
Wesnoth deliberately maintains a simple User interface and style of play. Ideas that would alter the fundamental nature of Wesnoth just won't be accepted, no matter how good they are. Fundamental parts of Wesnoth's nature are:
Simplicity of interface and gameplay. In Wesnoth, each individual move is simple; the complexity arises from the interaction of unit types, terrain types and time of day.
An abstracted sense of scale. Wesnoth uses a simplified scale system where 1 thing (eg. 1 unit, 1 village, 1 type of terrain) takes up 1 hex.
Specific Ideas
There are also a few ideas that have been ruled against, and the reason why is included next to them. For greater detail, read the expanded list below, as the numbers correspond to make finding the expanded explanation easier. These include:
- Making Wesnoth less random or enabling a 'non-random' mode. (Reason: Developer preference).
- Units levelling up should not get full healing (Reason: Developer preference).
- Many units to have 4+ levels of advancement (Reason: Wesnoth is a strategy game, not an RPG; this would weight individual units too highly).
- Units that reach less than level 3 to have higher level advancements added (Reason: An uneven tree is more dynamic and interesting. Some unit lines are more balanced and interesting without an L3 (or even L2) unit).
- More, and more varied, magic items (Reason: Wesnoth is a strategy game, not an RPG; this would take focus off the combat and towards 'item hunts').
- Autonomous creatures that roam the map attacking units and can be killed for XP (Reason: Distracts from the main side-vs-side battle)
- Grant XP for healing/leadership or changing the balance of XP granted for fighting vs scoring the kill. (Reason: Game balance).
- Transferring gold or villages or units between allied players (Reason: decreases individual tactical responsibility).
- Basing a campaign or scenario on copyrighted material (Reason: It's illegal!)
- Limited reprisal attacks for defenders (Reason: complicates gameplay, developer preference).
- Abilities that boost defense for many units or above 70% (Reason: causes gameplay to bog down).
- Give traits to the Undead. (Reason: Undead are already balanced, they all have undead poison immunity and homogeneousness suits the faction's character)
- Add a scoring and rank system to online multiplayer (Reason: it changes the focus from fun to points-scoring, encourages cheating and would require supporting changes like user authentication)
- Stop the player from being able to cheat by save-reloading (Reason: It's not up to us to control how you choose to play the game. See related discussion)
- Castle should be more difficult for units to attack. (Reason: Game is not about the siege of fortifications but about skirmishes between units. The castles are not realistic, only notional.)
- Units should occupy multiple tiles. (Reason: In a game where a single tile is an entire village, this is not appropriate.)
- When units die, they should leave corpses behind in the hex. (Reason: This would require a great deal of graphics work for every unit currently in the game, as well as clutter up the screen unnecessarily.)
- This game should incorporate better graphics. (Reason: This game is based on volunteer work, so all art is graciously contributed for free.)
- Units should be able to stack. (Reason: This would make the game more complicated and distort the current rules.
- There should be more units in the game. (Reason: Adding units to balanced factions is no small matter, and so all such proposals must be well reasoned.)
- The magic system should use mana/magic points. (Reason: Read the philosophy link above.)
- Players should be able to build buildings. (Reason: This game is not about the construction of buildings but the recruitment of units.)
- Wesnoth should have a resource system. (Reason: This is un-KISS.)
- Ranged weapons should actually be ranged. (Reason: This existed, but was removed as it did not enhance the game. Also, see HAPMA.)
- There should be more traits. (Reason: The current system is simple, and more traits will up the complexity factor as well as affect balance.)
- There should be ships in game. (Reason: These take away from the skirmish style feel of the game as they imply a much larger setting. While they will not be a regular unit, they are used in some scenarios.)
- There should be transportation units in game. (Reason: This would unnecessarily complicate the game and only be used to get around a unit’s slow movement or poor movement on certain terrain.)
- There should be a fear/morale system in game. (Reason: This would overcomplicate the game and is more suited to a “wargame” then a fantasy-strategy game.)
- There should be an ability that cancels out certain other abilities, such as poison or magic. (Result: This will lead to an arms races of sorts, which is not needed.)
- Units should be able to mount and dismount. (Reason: CABD with WML, and an unnecessary feature to add to mainline.)
- There should be some sort of ranking system for the MP server. (Reason: Many systems have been proposed, but the developers have discussed this idea and rejected it.)
- There should be some sort of rating system for the add-on server. (Reason: Proposed multiple times, it has been rejected because a subjective high rating does not make it a good add-on.)
- The thief (and related units) should have some sort of stealing ability. (Reason: Proposed before, it would unbalance the game due to the extra gold generation.)
A final warning: Options are bad (OAB)! They complicate things for both the Developers and the players. If an idea isn't appropriate for inclusion, odds are it's not appropriate to be an option either.
FREQUENTLY PROPOSED IDEAS: (more explanation)
- There should be a 'deterministic', 'non random' mode
Background: some people, apparently frustrated at losing their units in random battles, feel that there should be a non-random way of playing the game.
Result: the developers feel that randomness is a large part of the game, and that taking the randomness out of the game would be somewhat akin to taking the randomness out of most card games. Further explanation... - Units levelling up should not get full healing
Background: many people have suggested different formulae for allowing partial healing or no healing at all when a unit levels up.
Result: many developers agree with this, however many developers and users also disagree. I (David) prefer it the way it is. - Most units should have more than 3 levels of advancement
Background: lots of people think that the typical 3 levels of advancement for each unit is insufficient, and that most units should have 4, 5, or even more levels of advancement.
Result: The developers feel that 3 levels is enough. Avoiding the creation of 'super units' is high on the developer's priority list, and even if there were level 4+ units, the most powerful units wouldn't be more powerful than the current level 3 units. This would also drain art resources, as well as reduce the contrast between units -- too many units would seem like boring repetitions of other units.
It is thought that a better, more interesting way to do things would be to have more alternate paths of advancement within the 3 levels rather than have 4+ levels of advancement. - All units should have advancement lines that go to level 3.
Background: A number of users feel that having units that only go to level 2 is not right.
Result: The developers feel that an uneven tree is more dynamic and interesting. - There should be (more) special items for units to get that make them more powerful
Background: suggestions of various kind of special items (powerful bows, swords, etc) that make units more powerful. Various methods of acquisition have been suggested, including forging them at one's keep, finding them, or buying them at a shop
Result: although the Wesnoth engine supports a reasonably sophisticated system for items that make units more powerful, the developers feel that keeping these items few and far between is better than creating a 'collect the power-ups' game. - Autonomous creatures ("monsters", "creeps") that roam the map attacking units and can be killed for XP
Background: Many have suggested that Wesnoth should include support for autonomous "wandering monsters".
Result: "Wandering monsters" can be coded in WML and have been included in some campaigns. However, they will not be included as a core option because the Developers believe they distract from the side-vs-side combat that is Wesnoth's focus and significantly increase the chance of lucky victories or defeats. - Healing/leadership should give experience
Background: it is felt that leveling-up some units with healing or leadership abilities is too difficult, and they should get experience through user of their special ability.
Result: It is felt that allowing units to gain experience without risk would make leveling-up of such units inevitable. Further, one of the motivating examples of this is so that units such as shaman can have a hope to level up in multiplayer. It is pointed out that if the experience gains were high enough to allow shaman to level up in a single multiplayer game, then it would be trivial to gain the best type of healing unit in a campaign very quickly. - Transferring gold between allies in multiplayer
Background: some people have suggested that allies should be able to transfer gold to each other in multiplayer
Result: The developers feel that this would reduce the semantics of a team game to little more than players sharing control of a single side. Part of the strategy of a team game is to manage your gold resources and the position of your leaders. One player might have alot of gold, but can't use it, because their leader doesn't have access to a keep. This is simply part of the strategy to decide if it's worth giving up access to your castle for some time while you perhaps migrate your leader or use her to attack enemies. Allowing transfers of gold would disintegrate most of this strategy. - Basing a campaign or scenario on copyrighted material
Background: Many have suggested a campaign based on Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, or other copyrighted work
Result: While this sounds at first like it could be fun, this is also generally illegal, and we don't want to expose the project to attack because you couldn't be creative enough to come up with something original. We don't want anything of this nature hosted on the campaign server, forum, or wiki. We also would like to keep the forum free from discussion about how you plan on doing this. It may be possible to skirt legal issues through careful research and compliance with the laws involved, but this never happens in practice. - Limited reprisal attacks for defenders
Background: Users have suggested that defenders should not get their full attacks.
Result: This has been ruled against in favor of balance, as the units are currently balanced in a fashion that would not accommodate altering the attacks to favor the offensive player. - Ability that would boost a unit’s defense above 70%.
Background: Users feel that some units may have phenomenal defense based on level advancements or special abilities.
Result: This has been ruled against as it would bog down gameplay severely having units that are so hard to kill. - Give traits to Undead
Background: Users have pointed out that the Undead lack traits compared to other factions.
Result: The Undead are already balanced to accommodate this, and all have the unique ability of immunity to poison. - Add a scoring and rank system to MP
Background: Some users would like a way to rank players based on their skill in MP.
Result: This system would change the focus of MP from fun to points-scoring, as well as encouraging cheating, so it will not be implemented. - Do not allow save-loading.
Background: Some players feel that mid-scenario saves allow players to cheat in campaigns.
Result: It is not our responsibility to determine how you play the single player game. - Castles should be more difficult to attack
Background: this discussion has taken place on numerous occasions, with references to the difficulty to besiege a castle in the real world, how the game would be more interesting if castles were harder to attack, and so on and so forth. Many variations on the way to accomplish this have been discussed.
Result: the developers feel that the game is not about attacking castles, it's about RPG-party style skirmishes. 'Castles' in the game are a somewhat abstract notion, and one shouldn't dwell heavily on how 'realistic' it is if a castle is only moderately more defensible than other terrain. - Units that occupy multiple tiles
Background: this idea involves large monster-type units that can occupy multiple tiles in the game.
Result: the developers feel that while such units might be appropriate for games where battles take place on a smaller scale, in a game where an entire village is a single tile, it is not appropriate. Also, it would substantially complicate the game mechanics for little real benefit. Images that can extend into surrounding tiles are being considered. - Dead units should leave corpses behind when they die.
Background: Some users feel that this could offer a bit of realism to the game.
Result: This idea has been proposed several times over the years, and has been turned down for fact that it would clutter up the hexes, as well as the sheer amount of effort it would take to create art for all of the unit sprites - Better Graphics
Background: some people think the game should have better graphics.
Result: The game already has good graphics, especially considering it's a Free game. The developers feel that improving the games graphics even further, where possible, would be great. However the developers live in the real world and have limited resources. If resources to produce better graphics are acquired they will likely be used to produce such graphics. - Stacking Units
Background: suggestions to be able to place multiple units in a single hex
Result: The developers feel that this would make the game more complicated, and distort the game rules alot from what they are currently. - More Units
Background: Some people think the game should have more units (and often more advancement paths).
Result: Units are being worked on, although the developers do try to somewhat carefully vet units that are added to the game. The game has well over one hundred types of units, so it cannot be considered to only have a few units. People are welcome to submit ideas for specific types of new units. Ideas that have graphics are more likely to succeed. Adding units to balanced factions is no small matter, and so all such proposals must be well reasoned. - Magic spell system with mana/magic points etc
Background: there have been numerous proposals of magic spells, either global or per unit, involving magic points/mana, etc.
Result: the developers direct attention to the Wesnoth Philosophy page which outlines why Wesnoth's system for magic is different. We are fairly happy with our magic system. - Sides should be able to build buildings
Background: it should be possible to build various buildings on the battlefield
Result: the developers feel that the game is not about building things (other than your army). Furthermore, it is felt that although every other strategy game seems to be moving toward having a 'building' component, there is no reason why we should follow. - There should be different/more types of resources and types of buildings that provide them
Background: people suggest different types of resources (e.g. lumber) and buildings that provide them (e.g. lumbermill, gold mine which gives lots of gold, towns, healing fountains)
Result: the idea of Wesnoth is not to be about resources. The resource system is intentionally as simple as possible. Some special buildings like healing fountains could be placed by a scenario designer at their discretion. - Ranged weapons should be able to reach across multiple hexes
Background: Suggestions that units such as archers (or perhaps catapults) should be able to fire their weapons across multiple tiles
Result: Although the game engine used to support this, the developers do not feel it enhanced the game, since among other things, it would be very difficult to protect units from dying. - There should be more traits
Result: Most traits that have been suggested sound contrived, overly-powerful, lacking in variety, confusing, or awkward. The current traits are all fairly simple, and the developers agree that only simple traits should be added. Suggestions for new traits are welcome, but it is noted that unless they are very simple, they are unlikely to make it. - There should be ships used in Wesnoth.
Background: Some users feel that factions should have ships are part of their recruit list.
Result: The developers feel that this takes away from the small skirmish feel of Wesnoth as it implies battle on a larger level, as well as adding complication to the game balance. - There should be transportation units in the game that can carry other units
Background: There have been various proposals of units that can carry other units.
Result: The developers feel that this would unnecessarily complicate the game, and its interface, and has little point other than to circumvent a unit's slow movement or poor movement on particular terrain. - There should be a fear/morale system in the game
Background: there have been a number of different suggestions for a fear/morale system in the game. The implementation suggestions have been varied, but generally include the concept of units becoming 'afraid' based on various heuristics that calculate how much danger they're in. 'Afraid' units would be made to make certain movements, or have restrictions on what movements they can make
Result: After lengthy discussion, it has been decided that this would over-complicate the game, and frustrate players. It is felt that this kind of idea is more suited to a 'wargame' than a simplified fantasy-strategy game which aims for simplicity and fun. - There should be an ability that cancels out Poison/Magic/Drain/etc.
Result: The developers feel that this would lead to an 'arms race' where eg. "Immunity to Poison" would result in the creation of "Super Poison that even effects the Immune", "Immunity to even Super-Poison" etc. resulting in 'levels' of abilities. The developers feel that this would add an unwanted complexity to the game. - Cavalry units should be able to dismount when their horse dies
Background: Some players feel that units should be able to mount and dismount riding animals.
Result: Can already be done as an event with WML, but will not be added as a core feature. - The multiplayer server should have a ranking system.
Background: Some players feel that this would let them track their wins/losses, experience gained, and other long-term statistics to determine their skill.
Result: The developers feel that this would add competitive and anti-social behavior to the server, which currently fosters a friendly community. - The add-on server should have a ranking system.
Background: Some players feel that this would enable them to quickly identify which add-ons are the best so that they do not have to waste time with add-ons they consider sub-par.
Result: The developers feel that this would be unfair as the system would be entirely subjective because people have different tastes and so the idea will not be implemented. - The thief and other units should have a stealing ability
Background: Some players feel that this ability fits with the unit types, and would be a way for a player to make greater use of them by stealing gold from villages
Result: The developers feel that this ability would unbalance the game as it would allow players that possess these units to generate extra gold, often when their opponents may not
