Hi all.
>> - Do we want to add several new factions to mainline? > > Yes. BUT - not into the default era. I think we should strive for two or three non-interacting, balanced eras. For example, you could have the default era, representing the peoples of the Great Continent during the time of Wesnoth. You could then also have a Northlands era, with frost elves, frost orcs, frost dwarves, sidhe elves, chaos guys, etc. And also an era representing the Old Continent - the Imperial Era, with some minor changes - with lavinians, marauders, arendians, kedari, etc. My reasons for this are, I don't want to ruin the balancework done on the Default era. Also, I think that having too many factions in an era is a bad idea - 7 seems about right, perhaps on the high side. 4-5 would be much easier to balance. But more content is a good thing. I want to see more factions in Wesnoth. This seems like a good way to do it. (It should also be noted that I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with putting in factions with unfinished art - but it is perhaps a better idea to leave them as user-made factions for now.) >> - Do we allow for temporary (large) regressions in unit balance in devel? > > I'm not sure why it would be necessary. I think that such a regression would have to be considered in regards to what advantages we take from it. >> - Do we want major restructuring of the damage types, abilities, etc? > > Major restructuring of abilities - yes. What we have now is incomplete (there is a LOT of interesting stuff we just can't do right now) and flawed (the recent discussion of ambush on the forums proves this, I think). Major restructuring of damage types - I don't view it as necessary, and it seems like a lot of work. MINOR restructuring of damage types - yes. For example, I fully support splitting cold into cold and shadow. And perhaps renaming some of the damage types. >> Furthermore I think we should discuss what kind of "Fantasy world" we >> are aiming for, and in that regard which principles still stand (like >> the "No opposites!" with regard to damage types and the like). >> Internal consistency is important here. > > I don't see any reason to have a rule like "No opposites!" with regard to damage types. However, that seems like more of a gameplay than a fantasy world issue to me. In regards to the fantasy world, I think that we should keep most of our current principles. These are some of the beliefs I think we should have, listed from least controversial to those I think many will disagree with. - Diversity is good and interesting. We shouldn't not add content just because it will mess up balance or art - if those are true, we should find a way to make them not true (for example, the idea of adding new factions into a new era, not the current one). - Magic is limited. No Harry Potter universes, please! - No religion/god(s). Period. I am apparently in a minority when I say that this disqualifies UTBS from acceptance, but I think it does. (My main problem with UTBS isn't the fact that they reference a goddess, Eloh, constantly, but rather the turn of events at the end that seems to me to preclude any possibility that Eloh doesn't in fact exist, and that another god by necessity exists. This necessitates a polytheistic universe for Wesnoth, which I don't want at all.) - Gameplay trumps game universe, but game universe trumps art (including campaigns, music, and visual art). This means, in essence, that even though adding a faction may benefit gameplay, and thus it must be added, if the faction art clashes with the game universe, it must be changed. - turin _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
