On 01/27/2012 11:57 AM, Noy wrote:
On 27-Jan-12, at 1:54 AM, Fabian Mueller wrote:
Okay, let's see how the current system works out in the practise.
I start a campaign at a difficult level that is challenging me.
The recruits of the first scenario are made out of sane decisions how
to win the scenario.
This is working well, if the player has understood the game mechanics
to a certain degree
(which is the case for me).
The following scenarios get harder and my gold is most likely in a
region where I can't go on with making sane
recall/recruit decisions any longer.
Instead of ending up with an army that suits the scenario most I end
up with an army that consists of the highest units
in my recall list for the reasons already discussed.
The more variety the campaign offers (and a well made one should) the
worse is the difference between what I need and
what I must go with.
At a certain point of the campaign the situation gets even worse.
All the units in my recall list have reached their maximum level.
Now the gameplay starts to become very ugly.
In order to not waste all the experience my units could gather during
a scenario I need to recall some first level units.
It's always hard to decide if I can afford another level 3+ veteran
being replaced with a new recruit.
Those few new recruits are fragile since the enemy is facing me with
high level units and they are rare.
Thus instead of having the option to sacrifice them when the
situation would otherwise lead to the loss of my veterans
they must be protected at all costs.
Nevertheless how successful the protection for them works, it's hard
to have them at the right place to go in for the kills.
So my moves aren't going to be the best ones tactic wise but
optimised to give the first level units the opportunity to finish the
enemy off.
I really hate such situations. It feels wrong to retread the maxed
out units because of experience management if the best action
(tactical wise)
to win the scenario would be to give the veteran the kill.
If done consequently the time limit of the scenario is reached or I
end up with too few gold which leads to the fact that most
of the experience still ends up with the veterans.
Frankly you've failed to convince me with this. The error in your
logic stems from the premise you outline right at the start. "I start
a campaign at a difficulty level that is challenging to me." Guess
what? That means you might actually lose (GASP!) The remedy for this?
Try again, or play at a lesser difficulty level. You said it yourself,
its supposed to be challenging, not a cake walk.
So you propose that I start a campaign in a difficult level which does
not challenge me?
One in which every scenario is a cakewalk and bores me?
Of course that will give me enough gold to recruit level one units as
cannon fodder or to level them and thus make things even more easy.
Sorry, but that does not sound like a good solution for me.
I personally believe and enjoy the fact that Wesnoth was a game that
treated players seriously. That didn't mean it was going to let the
player win every time. Rather you might lose, or not win well enough.
What you've described is a player that does not have the requisite
skill to beat the game at that level. Sounds harsh, well it is... I
can't recommend diluting the challenge of the game for a highly
skilled player because someone can't beat it at high difficulty level
and feels bad.
No, I have described a player who is already good enough to master the
difficult level and feels bored with a lesser one.
A player who can finish the campaign when playing in the awkward way I
described above which is just no fun.
One who isn't satisfied with scenarios in which the challenge is not to
win the scenario but to win it good enough to get enough gold even if
the extra gold isn't strictly needed to finish the campaign.
Also one who doesn't want to replay the scenario several times so he can
beat it in his sleep.
The problem is that a fitting difficult level enforces a gameplay style
that is a painful.
The current system is either boring at a not fitting difficult level or
painful at one that should challenge me more.
I find it disconcerting that your "solution" to what many consider
good game design is to completely alter the game recall dynamics,
break almost every campaign scenario made and add a massive burden
maintainers because they have to rebalance.
I do not want to enforce anything on campaign maintainers at all.
My proposal is an option for UMC designers and something I want to test
out in a single campaign that is maintained by myself, namely the Legend
of Wesmere.
I do not ask for more than the opportunity to deploy the proposed system
on that single mainline campaign.
In case of LoW this makes much sense because the campaign isn't balanced
very well and needs work at this field anyway.
Also I consider that the campaign with its mechanics and storyline would
fit to the different style.
Furthermore I actually doubt it would have any effect you think it
would. Campaign maintainers will just rebalance it in a way that makes
high difficulty, very challenging: low gold carryover or whatever.
Then people with lesser skill will again feel bad because they lost.
What then? Another system?
I am not talking about people with low skill, you introduced that
argument and I do not take it as valid.
My proposal is not aimed to make campaigns easier, it's aimed at making
the gameplay more fun.
If there is a problem with the game dynamics for beginners, then I
suggest there needs to be better scenario design, and maybe
implementing some of the suggestions made by other developers for
beginner players (ie end of scenario reinforcements.) However if
you'er on an advanced difficulty level and you can't beat it at that
level, tough luck. My suggestion is try again or decrease the
difficulty level.
I don't consider me a beginner nor is my proposal aimed at beginners only.
_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
